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

The magic number is 72. The rate of return divided into 72, gives the number of years required for an investment to double. At a 4% annual rate of return, your capital will double in 18 years. At 6%, it will double in 12 years. At 8%, it will double in 9 years.

The average annual return on the S&P 500, over the last 50 years is 10%. That is, if you invest and leave it invested, so that you smooth out the better years and the bad years.

So, figure a 9% annual rate of return, and your investment doubles every 8 years. "The most powerful force in the universe is compound interest." Albert Einstein.
 
Yes there is. There is lots of risk.
Not to you.

Butt out of my wallet, do-gooder.

Prior to social security, 50% of our elderly lived below the poverty line. Not a world I'd like to live in. And if you don't want to be part of society I'm sure there is a randian paradise for you to live in.

That's a meaningless statistic because prior to Social Security the majority of the elderly lived with their children. You see, in the old days people took care of their parents in their old age.

We were also in the middle of a huge depression, so more people in every age bracket were below the poverty line. When unemployment is 24%, that means at least that many working age adults are living below the poverty line, probably a lot more.

In short, your statistic is a liberal factoid that doesn't mean anything in isolation, if it's even true.
 
There's no risk in keeping SS the way it is, while adjusting it over time to keep it solvent and sustainable.

"Adjusting it" means making our grandchildren work like galley slaves all their lives so a bunch of greedy geezers an play golf in Florida.
 
Would the management fees be considered a tax by the right?

You still gonna tax me with an SS tax and then force me to invest it in private enterprise?
Sounds like forcing mer to buy insurance.

As opposed to SS where the government takes 13% of your money and then immediately pisses it all away.
 
That's a meaningless statistic because prior to Social Security the majority of the elderly lived with their children. You see, in the old days people took care of their parents in their old age.

We were also in the middle of a huge depression, so more people in every age bracket were below the poverty line. When unemployment is 24%, that means at least that many working age adults are living below the poverty line, probably a lot more.

In short, your statistic is a liberal factoid that doesn't mean anything in isolation, if it's even true.

And the 'huge depression' was caused by? Spring forward to Republican economic policy 1988 and 2008.
 
That's a meaningless statistic because prior to Social Security the majority of the elderly lived with their children. You see, in the old days people took care of their parents in their old age.

We were also in the middle of a huge depression, so more people in every age bracket were below the poverty line. When unemployment is 24%, that means at least that many working age adults are living below the poverty line, probably a lot more.

In short, your statistic is a liberal factoid that doesn't mean anything in isolation, if it's even true.

And the 'huge depression' was caused by? Spring forward to Republican economic policy 1988 and 2008.

It was caused by the Federal Reserve, a Democrat creation. The sub-prime mortgage debacle is also a Democrat creation.
 
Yes there is. There is lots of risk.
My IRA and 401K Plan are tied to the market...And I bet a lot of other people are in the market as well.
That's good enough for the IRA why not SS?.I wish I had some control of it.I don't trust I will get much
of it when I retire.
 
My parents suffered through the Great Depression and were it not for FDR's WPA program they would have been living on the street. So the advice I frequently heard was to get an education, find a good civil service job with a good pension, avoid debt, and invest in nothing but U.S. Savings Bonds (called War Bonds during WW-II).

I closely followed that advice and have no regrets. If instead I'd invested on Wall Street there is a good chance I'd be in trouble today.
 
That's a meaningless statistic because prior to Social Security the majority of the elderly lived with their children. You see, in the old days people took care of their parents in their old age.

We were also in the middle of a huge depression, so more people in every age bracket were below the poverty line. When unemployment is 24%, that means at least that many working age adults are living below the poverty line, probably a lot more.

In short, your statistic is a liberal factoid that doesn't mean anything in isolation, if it's even true.

And the 'huge depression' was caused by? Spring forward to Republican economic policy 1988 and 2008.

It was caused by the Federal Reserve, a Democrat creation. The sub-prime mortgage debacle is also a Democrat creation.

Investor greed. The BushCo not policing.
 
That's a meaningless statistic because prior to Social Security the majority of the elderly lived with their children. You see, in the old days people took care of their parents in their old age.

We were also in the middle of a huge depression, so more people in every age bracket were below the poverty line. When unemployment is 24%, that means at least that many working age adults are living below the poverty line, probably a lot more.

In short, your statistic is a liberal factoid that doesn't mean anything in isolation, if it's even true.

And the 'huge depression' was caused by? Spring forward to Republican economic policy 1988 and 2008.

It was caused by the Federal Reserve, a Democrat creation. The sub-prime mortgage debacle is also a Democrat creation.

Investor greed. The BushCo not policing.

What made investors any greedier in 2008 than they were in 1998?
 

Forum List

Back
Top