There is NO RISK in privatizing SS and investing in stock market!!!

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. I'm arguing the opposite. Over very long periods of time, it hasn't mattered where you bought. At the top before the market crash to the end of 70s was the worst 50 year period for stocks - at least since 1870 - and they still generated strong returns.

Until the merry go round stops. Think wall street today is valued correctly?

How did it work out in Chile? Does privatizing it cost MUCH more to administer?

Until the merry go round stops.

That's the nice thing about a political merry go round, you can always hike taxes on current workers. LOL!

Called pay go...

Called screw the newer workers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're right, a private account with a higher return that kept more seniors out of poverty would be a terrible idea.

Worked so well when the conservatives privatized SS in Chile right? lol

And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security. For example:

• A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.

• A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.

• And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.

What the Alternate Plan has demonstrated over 30 years is that personal retirement accounts work, with many retirees making more than twice what they would have made under Social Security. And that model could work for the roughly 25 percent of public employees—about 6 million people—who are part of state and local government retirement plans. It could also serve as a model for reforming Social Security.

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered - Forbes

That's interesting, and so is Canada's. But, I don't think that's actual "privatization" as the OP hyperbolizes. Rather, these retirement systems work more like state workers' plans, and under the original SS act, states had the option to carve out govt workers from Soc Sec. Essentially, it's a defined contribution plan. The danger of those is seen in today's public employees plans and the failure to fully fund them with payments from state legislatures and levies on pay of workers. I'm not knee jerk against the concept, but politicians tend to promise more then they'll tax for.

The employer contribution is made every pay period, so no unfunded mandate to bankrupt future taxpayers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security. For example:

• A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.

• A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.

• And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.

What the Alternate Plan has demonstrated over 30 years is that personal retirement accounts work, with many retirees making more than twice what they would have made under Social Security. And that model could work for the roughly 25 percent of public employees—about 6 million people—who are part of state and local government retirement plans. It could also serve as a model for reforming Social Security.

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered - Forbes

NOT Galveston again

Privatized Social Security System Cited By GOP Candidates Works For The Rich, But Is ‘Very Bad’ For Everyone Else


For the highest-earning workers in the Gulf Coast county, the personal accounts have yielded nearly double what they might have collected under Social Security. But according to independent studies, the results have been less favorable to those on the lower end of the income spectrum.

In 1999, the Social Security Administration and the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) separately examined the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity: The lower one’s income and the longer one lived after retirement, the less advantage there was to participating in the program compared with Social Security. Also, Social Security payments increased with inflation, while payments under the Galveston plan did not.

“If you’re single, if you’re well off and you die within 10 years [of retirement], maybe you’ve done better,” said Eric Kingson, a professor of social work at Syracuse University and a vocal critic of the Galveston alternative. “For most people, it’s somewhere between ‘very bad’ and ‘not very good.’ ”



“Low-income working persons do not receive anything approaching the kind of protection they receive under Social Security”



Privatized Social Security System Cited By GOP Candidates Works For The Rich But Is Very Bad For Everyone Else ThinkProgress




The General Accounting Office and the Social Security Administration conducted the most current comparative studies of the Alternate Plan and Social Security in 1999. The G.A.O. report noted “fundamental differences in the purpose and structure of the two approaches.”

...Even Mr. Holbrook has outlived his Alternate Plan benefits. When he retired 15 years ago, he decided to receive $1,500 to $2,000 from his Alternate Plan account every month for 10 years. Now, his Alternate Plan account is empty.

Fortunately, Mr. Holbrook has other savings and, ultimately, $1,300 a month in Social Security benefits from his 27 years of contributions before his county dropped out of the program.

“It was a mistake to only take it for 10 years,” he said. “It should be over a lifetime, like Social Security.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...curity-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all

Even Mr. Holbrook has outlived his Alternate Plan benefits. When he retired 15 years ago (in 1996), he decided to receive $1,500 to $2,000 from his Alternate Plan account every month for 10 years. Now, his Alternate Plan account is empty.
Fortunately, Mr. Holbrook has other savings and, ultimately, $1,300 a month in Social Security benefits from his 27 years of contributions before his county dropped out of the program.

If the county dropped out of SS in 1981, he only contributed from 1981-1996.
16 years and he got $180,000 - $240,000 in benefits.
What would those 16 years of extra SS contributions given him?
I'll give you a hint, a hell of a lot less than $180,000-$240,000.

 

[Toro]

So you are arguing timing matters.

No. I'm arguing the opposite. Over very long periods of time, it hasn't mattered where you bought. At the top before the market crash to the end of 70s was the worst 50 year period for stocks - at least since 1870 - and they still generated strong returns.

If SS is supposed to last forever, then it doesn't matter when you buy stocks.

I don't know about Chile but the privatization of Canada has worked out fabulously.

heres what you don't get ... this happens more then once with stocks ... in 2001 and in 2006 when the marked took a dive.. for the corporation to save it self from financial reuin they filed bankruptsy causing all stock owners to lose everything they had ... for you to imply through time they all turn around this is true right after they dump all their responsibilities to stock owners... you have no Idea what you are saying or implying

SS would buy the stocks in the entire market. The entire stock market didn't go bankrupt.

 

[bendog]

You're right, a private account with a higher return that kept more seniors out of poverty would be a terrible idea.

Worked so well when the conservatives privatized SS in Chile right? lol

And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security. For example:

• A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.

• A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.

• And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.

What the Alternate Plan has demonstrated over 30 years is that personal retirement accounts work, with many retirees making more than twice what they would have made under Social Security. And that model could work for the roughly 25 percent of public employees—about 6 million people—who are part of state and local government retirement plans. It could also serve as a model for reforming Social Security.

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered - Forbes

That's interesting, and so is Canada's. But, I don't think that's actual "privatization" as the OP hyperbolizes. Rather, these retirement systems work more like state workers' plans, and under the original SS act, states had the option to carve out govt workers from Soc Sec. Essentially, it's a defined contribution plan. The danger of those is seen in today's public employees plans and the failure to fully fund them with payments from state legislatures and levies on pay of workers. I'm not knee jerk against the concept, but politicians tend to promise more then they'll tax for.

The employer contribution is made every pay period, so no unfunded mandate to bankrupt future taxpayers.

Well, there's always a danger. Anticipated returns are not always correctly anticipated. Had the credit implosion not been halted by the Fed dragging other central banks along to recapitalize markets, we'd be discussing these systems as catastrophes. And, state govts pay in every pay day, as do workers, but there are still unfunded mandates. I think Canada's system is structurally removed from pols having much ability to set rates or benefits.

But, again, BASICALLY, these systems function similarly to annuities. Nothing absolutely wrong with that. As I recall, back in the election of 2000, when we had a surplus and before we cut taxes, there was bipartisan discussion about moving to a pay as you go system. But, there was still the problem of financing the bridge from where we were to where we wanted to go.

And that's not a criticism of how Soc Sec was set up initially. It was not thought of as a retirement system for the vast majority. Nor is it a criticism of alternatives.

 

[SteadyMercury]

are you just plain stupid or naturally stupid .... I side on the side that you're naturally stupid

Says the dumbshit who lost 90% of his life savings when the stock market dropped 50%, and tries to blame everyone else.

You're a strong case for requiring they teach kids the fundamentals of personal finance.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're right, a private account with a higher return that kept more seniors out of poverty would be a terrible idea.

Worked so well when the conservatives privatized SS in Chile right? lol

And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security. For example:

• A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.

• A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.

• And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.

What the Alternate Plan has demonstrated over 30 years is that personal retirement accounts work, with many retirees making more than twice what they would have made under Social Security. And that model could work for the roughly 25 percent of public employees—about 6 million people—who are part of state and local government retirement plans. It could also serve as a model for reforming Social Security.

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered - Forbes

That's interesting, and so is Canada's. But, I don't think that's actual "privatization" as the OP hyperbolizes. Rather, these retirement systems work more like state workers' plans, and under the original SS act, states had the option to carve out govt workers from Soc Sec. Essentially, it's a defined contribution plan. The danger of those is seen in today's public employees plans and the failure to fully fund them with payments from state legislatures and levies on pay of workers. I'm not knee jerk against the concept, but politicians tend to promise more then they'll tax for.

The employer contribution is made every pay period, so no unfunded mandate to bankrupt future taxpayers.

Well, there's always a danger. Anticipated returns are not always correctly anticipated. Had the credit implosion not been halted by the Fed dragging other central banks along to recapitalize markets, we'd be discussing these systems as catastrophes. And, state govts pay in every pay day, as do workers, but there are still unfunded mandates. I think Canada's system is structurally removed from pols having much ability to set rates or benefits.

But, again, BASICALLY, these systems function similarly to annuities. Nothing absolutely wrong with that. As I recall, back in the election of 2000, when we had a surplus and before we cut taxes, there was bipartisan discussion about moving to a pay as you go system. But, there was still the problem of financing the bridge from where we were to where we wanted to go.

And that's not a criticism of how Soc Sec was set up initially. It was not thought of as a retirement system for the vast majority. Nor is it a criticism of alternatives.

Had the credit implosion not been halted by the Fed dragging other central banks along to recapitalize markets, we'd be discussing these systems as catastrophes.

In that case, the Social Security system would also be discussed as a similar catastrophe.

And, state govts pay in every pay day, as do workers, but there are still unfunded mandates.

State and local governments have been known to go long periods of time without funding their defined benefit pensions.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Dude...time to give up. Campy is covering his ears and hollering, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!" like a 5-year-old.

No, that is what some of you guys who promote privatization do. It comes from frustration that you get when you realize that while there is no argument that if the funds invested in SS were instead invested in traditional investments the traditionally invested funds would do much better, but the add on of including the insurance, or if you prefer, survivor benefits and disability benefits that would have to be paid for in a privatization plan kill the privatization concept. The cost amounts to somewhere in the neighbor of a $150 per month in the early year and increases with age. It quickly reaches $200 per month and the future premium increases are somewhat unpredictable and controlled by the providers, insurance companies. And these estimates are for plans that very well may not even come close to the benefits currently provided by SS.
So how do the comparative charts and numbers look when you handicap the private investment side by deducting the funds available for investment by a couple of hundred dollars per month. You do not get a return on those funds unless you die or become disabled. They completely vanish at the end of a specific date. If you have not died or become disabled the funds are simply gone.

Do you care to back that up with some actual examples of premiums?

Because if at age 22 one got life and disability insurance the premiums would not rise over time.

Face it private insurance is much much better than government insurance and even if one deducted the premiums a privately owned account would vastly outperform SS

All the companies have online instant calculators. I used a 32 year old earning $40,000 per yer in several different states. At an estimate 15% of income invested each month the investment figure is $500 per month. That means the funds available for investment will be 20% to 25% less with the privatized plan when the insurance plans are deducted. You say face it, a privately owned investment portfolio given a 20 to 25 percent disadvantage can outperform SS. I am not convinced you can do that. Vastly outperform? I hear the claim but I don't see how those claims really make sense.

Why use 32?

You start paying into SS as soon as you start working so in reality using 22 is more accurate if we are talking about getting rid of SS in favor of private retirement and DI

I did a quote for DI for a 22 year old making 40K a year and the most expensive premium was only 52 a month. There were other plans with lower premiums. And at that low of a premium you wouldn't have to dip into what you are investing for retirement now would you?

 

[bendog]

You're right, a private account with a higher return that kept more seniors out of poverty would be a terrible idea.

Worked so well when the conservatives privatized SS in Chile right? lol

And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security. For example:

• A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.

• A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.

• And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.

What the Alternate Plan has demonstrated over 30 years is that personal retirement accounts work, with many retirees making more than twice what they would have made under Social Security. And that model could work for the roughly 25 percent of public employees—about 6 million people—who are part of state and local government retirement plans. It could also serve as a model for reforming Social Security.

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered - Forbes

That's interesting, and so is Canada's. But, I don't think that's actual "privatization" as the OP hyperbolizes. Rather, these retirement systems work more like state workers' plans, and under the original SS act, states had the option to carve out govt workers from Soc Sec. Essentially, it's a defined contribution plan. The danger of those is seen in today's public employees plans and the failure to fully fund them with payments from state legislatures and levies on pay of workers. I'm not knee jerk against the concept, but politicians tend to promise more then they'll tax for.

The employer contribution is made every pay period, so no unfunded mandate to bankrupt future taxpayers.

Well, there's always a danger. Anticipated returns are not always correctly anticipated. Had the credit implosion not been halted by the Fed dragging other central banks along to recapitalize markets, we'd be discussing these systems as catastrophes. And, state govts pay in every pay day, as do workers, but there are still unfunded mandates. I think Canada's system is structurally removed from pols having much ability to set rates or benefits.

But, again, BASICALLY, these systems function similarly to annuities. Nothing absolutely wrong with that. As I recall, back in the election of 2000, when we had a surplus and before we cut taxes, there was bipartisan discussion about moving to a pay as you go system. But, there was still the problem of financing the bridge from where we were to where we wanted to go.

And that's not a criticism of how Soc Sec was set up initially. It was not thought of as a retirement system for the vast majority. Nor is it a criticism of alternatives.

Had the credit implosion not been halted by the Fed dragging other central banks along to recapitalize markets, we'd be discussing these systems as catastrophes.

In that case, the Social Security system would also be discussed as a similar catastrophe.

And, state govts pay in every pay day, as do workers, but there are still unfunded mandates.

State and local governments have been known to go long periods of time without funding their defined benefit pensions.

No, social security can be funded with "fiat" dollars. That is the bottom line with any system funded with a tax, be it a general or special tax, and privately invested funds.

And, unless there is an explicit prohibition, and means to enforce the prohibition, on underfunding any retirement system, there's the danger.

But, again, assuming there's a way to financially bridge from where we are to something like Canada's system, I'm not arguing against it ... as a general concept. I'm not arguing about apple pie, either: it's good, but I don't have any right now. (-:

 

[Toro]

That's interesting, and so is Canada's. But, I don't think that's actual "privatization" as the OP hyperbolizes. Rather, these retirement systems work more like state workers' plans, and under the original SS act, states had the option to carve out govt workers from Soc Sec. Essentially, it's a defined contribution plan. The danger of those is seen in today's public employees plans and the failure to fully fund them with payments from state legislatures and levies on pay of workers. I'm not knee jerk against the concept, but politicians tend to promise more then they'll tax for.

I am arguing that SS should be run like a defined contribution plan.

And yes, the biggest risk is that it wouldn't be fully funded. But OTOH, contributions would be less because returns would be higher.

 

[Skull Pilot]

All right since none of you sheep will actually post numbers because we all know people like you don't really like to do the math here you go

Let's assume a couple things to simplify.

Our person enters the work force at 22 and makes 40K a year. He never gets a raise.
He saves 450 a month and uses 50 a month to pay for a DI policy that will pay him more and for a longer time than SS DI will.

He gets an average return of 8% over his 45 year working life.

When he retires at 67 he will have 2.39 million dollars. Now that money will provide a 5000 a month income invested at a 5% return in a 25% tax bracket for 30 years. SS provides an average 1200 a month

Now if he's married add his wife's retirement account to that one and what do you think their retirement income would be?

If he dropped dead of a heart attack at 50 and had no life insurance at all his family would get over half a million dollars that was in his account. Better than the SS death benefit.

If both parents die before their money is gone then their kids get it.

 

[bendog]

That's interesting, and so is Canada's. But, I don't think that's actual "privatization" as the OP hyperbolizes. Rather, these retirement systems work more like state workers' plans, and under the original SS act, states had the option to carve out govt workers from Soc Sec. Essentially, it's a defined contribution plan. The danger of those is seen in today's public employees plans and the failure to fully fund them with payments from state legislatures and levies on pay of workers. I'm not knee jerk against the concept, but politicians tend to promise more then they'll tax for.

I am arguing that SS should be run like a defined contribution plan.

And yes, the biggest risk is that it wouldn't be fully funded. But OTOH, contributions would be less because returns would be higher.

I understand. And, I'm not saying its a terrible idea, assuming there's a financial way to get there and assuming there are structural prohibitions on underfunding it.

And to be honest, there would be ways to ameliorate the risk of some financial collapse. For example, the New Deal would go into a failed bank, and all the current shareholders would take a 100% loss, the govt would recapitalize the bank, and then sell it to new private investors .... and the govt actually made a profit doing so. Even assuming credit Armageddon, it would be conceptually possible for the fed govt to just "buy" the depressed portfolio of the retirement system for "fiat" dollars, and then later resell the stock to private investors to get the money back. That's basically what we did under BushI with the savings and loans debacle. That didn't make a profit, but it didn't lose that much either.

BUT, just to be clear, that if we went this direction, we'd also be forced into forcing individuals to buy into life and disability insurance when they were still young enough to get cheaply into the market. And the opponents of Obamacare had a lot of problems with this.

 

[Toro]

I understand. And, I'm not saying its a terrible idea, assuming there's a financial way to get there and assuming there are structural prohibitions on underfunding it.

And to be honest, there would be ways to ameliorate the risk of some financial collapse. For example, the New Deal would go into a failed bank, and all the current shareholders would take a 100% loss, the govt would recapitalize the bank, and then sell it to new private investors .... and the govt actually made a profit doing so. Even assuming credit Armageddon, it would be conceptually possible for the fed govt to just "buy" the depressed portfolio of the retirement system for "fiat" dollars, and then later resell the stock to private investors to get the money back. That's basically what we did under BushI with the savings and loans debacle. That didn't make a profit, but it didn't lose that much either.

BUT, just to be clear, that if we went this direction, we'd also be forced into forcing individuals to buy into life and disability insurance when they were still young enough to get cheaply into the market. And the opponents of Obamacare had a lot of problems with this.

The biggest risk in this would be to not make it independent enough. Whether or not American politicians have the wherewithal and good sense to do what's right rather than in their craven self-interest may be a bridge too far. I also think the transition might be difficult.

I don't worry too much about people paying into it. They're already paying into SS. I would guess that it would allow for a bit of a payroll tax cut given that not as much would need to be transferred to the trust.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All right since none of you sheep will actually post numbers because we all know people like you don't really like to do the math here you go

Let's assume a couple things to simplify.

Our person enters the work force at 22 and makes 40K a year. He never gets a raise.
He saves 450 a month and uses 50 a month to pay for a DI policy that will pay him more and for a longer time than SS DI will.

He gets an average return of 8% over his 45 year working life.

When he retires at 67 he will have 2.39 million dollars. Now that money will provide a 5000 a month income invested at a 5% return in a 25% tax bracket for 30 years. SS provides an average 1200 a month

Now if he's married add his wife's retirement account to that one and what do you think their retirement income would be?

If he dropped dead of a heart attack at 50 and had no life insurance at all his family would get over half a million dollars that was in his account. Better than the SS death benefit.

If both parents die before their money is gone then their kids get it.

2.39 million dollars. Now that money will provide a 5000 a month income invested at a 5% return in a 25% tax bracket for 30 years.

$2.39 million at 5% will give him $10,000 a month, less $2500 a month in taxes, forever!

 

[Dad2three]

If Congress voted to privatize Social Security, Mr. Gornto and Mr. Holbrook said they would recommend using a banking model similar to the Alternate Plan, but with one important caveat:

They would suggest removing the option to withdraw funds in a lump sum.
“Most people can’t handle a sizable lump sum when they retire, and they end up spending it on a new house and new cars and everything else,” Mr. Holbrook said.
The lump-sum option is one of the biggest problems in the Alternate Plan, Mr. Kingson said, because “people end up unprotected.” If retirees do not choose the lifetime annuity, they could outlive their benefits and end up wards of the state.

“It was a mistake to only take it for 10 years,” he said. “It should be over a lifetime, like Social Security.”

HE DECIDED THAT!!! THAT was HIS CHOICE!!!
AND MR. HOLBROOK Also said:
“It shouldn’t be a pay-as-you-go system, where children and grandchildren are paying for your Social Security,” said Ray Holbrook, a former Galveston County judge who led the charge to opt out of Social Security during his 28-year tenure. “That’s why it’s bankrupt, and that’s why Rick Perry says it’s a Ponzi scheme, which I agree with.”

ONE Story! ONE anecdote... Tell me why ONE story one anecdote should affect the majority?

"ONE Story! ONE anecdote... Tell me why ONE story one anecdote should affect the majority?"


ONCE MORE


If you’re single, if you’re well off and you die within 10 years [of retirement], maybe you’ve done better,” said Eric Kingson, a professor of social work at Syracuse University and a vocal critic of the Galveston alternative. “For most people, it’s somewhere between ‘very bad’ and ‘not very good.’ ”



“Low-income working persons do not receive anything approaching the kind of protection they receive under Social Security”

 

[Dad2three]

The merry go round never stops. That's the point. From 1929 to 1932, the stock market fell 90%. Yet, from the end of 1929, through The Great Depression, World War II, the war in Korea, the war in Vietnam, Watergate, stagflation, the Kuwait war, the collapse of the tech bubble, 9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global financial crisis, stocks have returned 8.7% a year.

Yep, but MANY LONG periods of time they had HORRIBLE returns and you want to put money in the Banksters hands who cost anywhere from 250% more to 1500% to administer it.

Again, in almost EVERY case privatization of the retirement funds have NEVER lived up to the promises made, in ANY nation. Weird right?

 

[Dad2three]

A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.

A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.

I know you're a liberal and bad at math, but $1826 is much larger than $1007.
$3600 is much larger than $1540.

Weird



Privatized Social Security System Cited By GOP Candidates Works For The Rich, But Is ‘Very Bad’ For Everyone Else

. But according to independent studies, the results have been less favorable to those on the lower end of the income spectrum.

 

[Dad2three]

See... you guys are so f..king stupid!
I'm going to yell to get your attention!!!
THERE IS NO WAY TO INVEST IN THE DJIA!!!! It is an AVERAGE!
YOU can invest in the stocks that make up the DJIA... BUT the DJIA is the average of select stocks
prices at the end of the trading day. And over the 112 years of the DJIA the stocks that make up the
DJIA (and the stocks have changed over the years) have had an average growth over 112 years of
7.2% over the 112 years.
BUT THERE IS NO way to invest in the "DJIA"!!!

Yeah, I know that about DJIA, So why bring up the avg returns? lol


ONE policy conservatives have EVER been correct about since the US Founding? Just one?

Seems their premises NEVER work as promised. Look to Chile's privatization for a good example!

 

[Dad2three]

Your highly politically biased article doesn't seem to realize that the Canada Pension Plan is already privatized.

CPPIB Canada Pension Plan Investment Board

SO YOU DO HAVE READING COMPREHENSION ISSUES. I'M NOT SURPRISED


The plan is administered by Human Resources and Social Development Canada on behalf of employees in all provinces and territories except Quebec, which operates an equivalent plan, the Quebec Pension Plan. Changes to the CPP require the approval of at least 2/3 of Canadian provinces representing at least 2/3 of the country's population. In addition, under section 94A of the Canadian Constitution, pensions are a provincial responsibility, so any province may establish a plan anytime. The CPP is funded on a "steady-state" basis, with its current contribution rate set so that it will remain constant for the next 75 years, by accumulating a reserve fund sufficient to stabilize the asset/expenditure and funding ratios over time. Such a system is a hybrid between a fully funded one and a "pay-as-you-go" plan

THAT'S GOV'T, NOT PRIVATE


The Liberal government of Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson in 1965 first established the Canadian Pension Plan. Contribution rates were first set at 1.8% of an employee's gross income per year with a maximum contribution limit. By the mid-1990s though this low contribution rate was not sufficient to keep up with Canada’s aging population. As a result the total CPP contribution rates for both employee and employer together were raised to an annual rate of 9.9 per cent by 2003.



At its inception, the prescribed CPP contribution rate was 1.8% of an employee's gross income up to an annual maximum. Over time, the contribution rate was increased slowly. However, by the 1990s, it was concluded that the "pay-as-you-go" structure would lead to excessively high contribution rates within 20 years or so, due to Canada's changing demographics, increased life expectancy of Canadians, a changing economy, benefit improvements and increased usage of disability benefits (all as referenced in the Chief Actuary's study of April 2007, noted above). The same study reports that the reserve fund was expected to run out by 2015. This impending pension crisis sparked an extensive review by the federal and provincial governments in 1996. As a part of the major review process, the federal government actively conducted consultations with the Canadian public to solicit suggestions, recommendations, and proposals on how the CPP could be restructured to achieve sustainability once again. As a direct result of this public consultation process and internal review of the CPP, the following key changes were proposed and jointly approved by the Federal and provincial governments in 1997:

• Increase total CPP annual contribution rates (employer/employee combined) from 6% of pensionable earnings in 1997 to 9.9% by 2003.
• Continuously seek out ways to reduce CPP administration and operating costs.
• Move towards a hybrid structure to take advantage of investment earnings on accumulated assets. Instead of a "pay-as-you-go" structure, the CPP is expected to be 20% funded by 2014, such funding ratio to constantly increase thereafter towards 30% by 2075 (that is, the CPP Reserve Fund will equal 30% of the "liabilities" - or accrued pension obligations).

In March 2013, average monthly benefits for new retirement pension (taken at age 65) was $596.66 and the maximum amount was $1,012,50.


Hell, they are living the dream right? lol

Canada Pension Plan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

Called screw the newer workers.

Yeah, better to give tax cuts for 'job creators' so they can off shore US jobs right?