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

[Toddsterpatriot]

Calls it a Ponzi scheme and then insults others' intelligence. Go figure.

Still HCmyths are, imo, illuminating. The dislike of soc sec has nothing to do with solvency, because its been pointed out time and again that either a modest tax increase of $15 mo, or even better removing the cap on higher earners, would bring in enough revenue to pay all retirees at current rates until the time when the Boomers are dead, and they system would be fully funded even at today's tax rates. Rather, the dislike of soc sec is simply that under its scheme there will not be losers. It's that simple. Full privatization might make some make more, and some would lose all or most. That's the desired result of those who dislike soc sec.

either a modest tax increase of $15 mo, or even better removing the cap on higher earners, would bring in enough revenue to pay all retirees at current rates until the time when the Boomers are dead, and they system would be fully funded even at today's tax rates.

You have a link for these claims?

Rather, the dislike of soc sec is simply that under its scheme there will not be losers.

That's not true at all.
My projected return on Social Security will be much, much less than the same amount invested in the market.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Calls it a Ponzi scheme and then insults others' intelligence. Go figure.

Still HCmyths are, imo, illuminating. The dislike of soc sec has nothing to do with solvency, because its been pointed out time and again that either a modest tax increase of $15 mo, or even better removing the cap on higher earners, would bring in enough revenue to pay all retirees at current rates until the time when the Boomers are dead, and they system would be fully funded even at today's tax rates. Rather, the dislike of soc sec is simply that under its scheme there will not be losers. It's that simple. Full privatization might make some make more, and some would lose all or most. That's the desired result of those who dislike soc sec.

either a modest tax increase of $15 mo, or even better removing the cap on higher earners, would bring in enough revenue to pay all retirees at current rates until the time when the Boomers are dead, and they system would be fully funded even at today's tax rates.

You have a link for these claims?

Rather, the dislike of soc sec is simply that under its scheme there will not be losers.

That's not true at all.
My projected return on Social Security will be much, much less than the same amount invested in the market.

Past events disprove and even make your claim laughable. I'm sure Bernie Madoff's investors would not agree, or the thousands (?), likely more, who delayed their retirement (and some still are working) do to the Great Recession (2007 - 2009).

Face the fact, those who hate SS are those who work in the financial services industry and employers, as well as normal joes and joans who are easily brainwashed. That government is best which govern with equitableness.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Calls it a Ponzi scheme and then insults others' intelligence. Go figure.

Still HCmyths are, imo, illuminating. The dislike of soc sec has nothing to do with solvency, because its been pointed out time and again that either a modest tax increase of $15 mo, or even better removing the cap on higher earners, would bring in enough revenue to pay all retirees at current rates until the time when the Boomers are dead, and they system would be fully funded even at today's tax rates. Rather, the dislike of soc sec is simply that under its scheme there will not be losers. It's that simple. Full privatization might make some make more, and some would lose all or most. That's the desired result of those who dislike soc sec.

either a modest tax increase of $15 mo, or even better removing the cap on higher earners, would bring in enough revenue to pay all retirees at current rates until the time when the Boomers are dead, and they system would be fully funded even at today's tax rates.

You have a link for these claims?

Rather, the dislike of soc sec is simply that under its scheme there will not be losers.

That's not true at all.
My projected return on Social Security will be much, much less than the same amount invested in the market.

Past events disprove and even make your claim laughable. I'm sure Bernie Madoff's investors would not agree, or the thousands (?), likely more, who delayed their retirement (and some still are working) do to the Great Recession (2007 - 2009).

Face the fact, those who hate SS are those who work in the financial services industry and employers, as well as normal joes and joans who are easily brainwashed. That government is best which govern with equitableness.

Past events disprove and even make your claim laughable.

Math makes my claim the truth.

Face the fact, those who hate SS are those who work in the financial services industry

They are more likely to understand the power of long term investing.

 

[bendog]

"Face the fact, those who hate SS are those who work in the financial services industry"

That should give us pause

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Face the fact, those who hate SS are those who work in the financial services industry"

That should give us pause

It won't to the non pragmatic, true believers and brainwashed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Calls it a Ponzi scheme and then insults others' intelligence. Go figure.

Still HCmyths are, imo, illuminating. The dislike of soc sec has nothing to do with solvency, because its been pointed out time and again that either a modest tax increase of $15 mo, or even better removing the cap on higher earners, would bring in enough revenue to pay all retirees at current rates until the time when the Boomers are dead, and they system would be fully funded even at today's tax rates. Rather, the dislike of soc sec is simply that under its scheme there will not be losers. It's that simple. Full privatization might make some make more, and some would lose all or most. That's the desired result of those who dislike soc sec.

either a modest tax increase of $15 mo, or even better removing the cap on higher earners, would bring in enough revenue to pay all retirees at current rates until the time when the Boomers are dead, and they system would be fully funded even at today's tax rates.

You have a link for these claims?

Rather, the dislike of soc sec is simply that under its scheme there will not be losers.

That's not true at all.
My projected return on Social Security will be much, much less than the same amount invested in the market.

Past events disprove and even make your claim laughable. I'm sure Bernie Madoff's investors would not agree, or the thousands (?), likely more, who delayed their retirement (and some still are working) do to the Great Recession (2007 - 2009).

Face the fact, those who hate SS are those who work in the financial services industry and employers, as well as normal joes and joans who are easily brainwashed. That government is best which govern with equitableness.

Past events disprove and even make your claim laughable.

Math makes my claim the truth. Simple math; which not always stands the test of nonfeasance and malfeasance

Face the fact, those who hate SS are those who work in the financial services industry

They are more likely to understand the power of long term investing.

They are in a position to enrich themselves with other peoples money. And, insider trading makes nonfeasance and misfeasance both easy and profitable for the agent not the client.

Your side always complains about malfeasance, of which I'm convinced is more difficult to pull off and hide than nonfeasance and misfeasance.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Past events disprove and even make your claim laughable. I'm sure Bernie Madoff's investors would not agree, or the thousands (?), likely more, who delayed their retirement (and some still are working) do to the Great Recession (2007 - 2009).

Face the fact, those who hate SS are those who work in the financial services industry and employers, as well as normal joes and joans who are easily brainwashed. That government is best which govern with equitableness.

Past events disprove and even make your claim laughable.

Math makes my claim the truth. Simple math; which not always stands the test of nonfeasance and malfeasance

Face the fact, those who hate SS are those who work in the financial services industry

They are more likely to understand the power of long term investing.

They are in a position to enrich themselves with other peoples money. And, insider trading makes nonfeasance and misfeasance both easy and profitable for the agent not the client.

Your side always complains about malfeasance, of which I'm convinced is more difficult to pull off and hide than nonfeasance and misfeasance.

They are in a position to enrich themselves with other peoples money.

I agree, those politicians can't be trusted with our money.

And, insider trading makes nonfeasance and misfeasance both easy and profitable for the agent not the client.

And still market returns are better than Social Security.

 

[bendog]

The unfortunate thing of the debate is the blatant dishonesty of "there's no risk in the stock market." The entire purpose of the stock market it to bet on which companies make and lose money. Of course there's risk even if you discount the fraud and dishonesty of those who work in financials. Investing, even honest investing, is all about assessing when assuming risk is a good idea. Good decisions are rewarded; bad decisions are punished.

It would be true to argue that market indexes would not involve risk .... assuming they were broad enough, but there's a practical limitation on how broad they could be. Even arguing the Dow market index would be without risk because over time it has shown it should be worth more in ten years than it is today, is dishonest. If you bet your kit on the British Empire, you'd have lost. There's no guarantee in America. Still, it would be honest to say that if we found a way to transition to a pay as you go system, even partially, people would have minimal risk if all the tax money went into a fund that was then invested in a broad base of market indexes. Basically, an annuity. You put in x dollars for x years, you are 'guaranteed' x dollars per year for life beginning at a certain age.

But, because the basic issue is some people do not want any sense of mandated/shared risk to minimize individual risk, nothing short of simply getting rid of any govt mandated/sponsored retirement insurance will never satisfy them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Past events disprove and even make your claim laughable. I'm sure Bernie Madoff's investors would not agree, or the thousands (?), likely more, who delayed their retirement (and some still are working) do to the Great Recession (2007 - 2009).

Face the fact, those who hate SS are those who work in the financial services industry and employers, as well as normal joes and joans who are easily brainwashed. That government is best which govern with equitableness.

Past events disprove and even make your claim laughable.

Math makes my claim the truth. Simple math; which not always stands the test of nonfeasance and malfeasance

Face the fact, those who hate SS are those who work in the financial services industry

They are more likely to understand the power of long term investing.

They are in a position to enrich themselves with other peoples money. And, insider trading makes nonfeasance and misfeasance both easy and profitable for the agent not the client.

Your side always complains about malfeasance, of which I'm convinced is more difficult to pull off and hide than nonfeasance and misfeasance.

They are in a position to enrich themselves with other peoples money.

I agree, those politicians can't be trusted with our money.

And, insider trading makes nonfeasance and misfeasance both easy and profitable for the agent not the client.

And still market returns are better than Social Security.

Now Todd has defaulted to dishonesty. What is dishonest he asks? The simple fact is we are not discussing the Stock Market, per se; the discussion is on how real people fare in real life investment activities under the guidance of financial advisers.

The adviser always advises the investor that past performance does not mean future growth is assured, then goes on to praise the products being sold. Many products are those the adviser has not personally purchased, and snake oil salesmen and women proliferate the financial services industries which include: bankers, real estate and insurance agents and brokers. Payola is not restricted to the music industry.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Past events disprove and even make your claim laughable. I'm sure Bernie Madoff's investors would not agree, or the thousands (?), likely more, who delayed their retirement (and some still are working) do to the Great Recession (2007 - 2009).

Face the fact, those who hate SS are those who work in the financial services industry and employers, as well as normal joes and joans who are easily brainwashed. That government is best which govern with equitableness.

Past events disprove and even make your claim laughable.

Math makes my claim the truth. Simple math; which not always stands the test of nonfeasance and malfeasance

Face the fact, those who hate SS are those who work in the financial services industry

They are more likely to understand the power of long term investing.

They are in a position to enrich themselves with other peoples money. And, insider trading makes nonfeasance and misfeasance both easy and profitable for the agent not the client.

Your side always complains about malfeasance, of which I'm convinced is more difficult to pull off and hide than nonfeasance and misfeasance.

They are in a position to enrich themselves with other peoples money.

I agree, those politicians can't be trusted with our money.

And, insider trading makes nonfeasance and misfeasance both easy and profitable for the agent not the client.

And still market returns are better than Social Security.

SEC Enforcement Actions Insider Trading Cases

Read the first paragraph in the link above, and then comport the behavior of those noted in the list of actions with any fraud perpetrated by government employees with the Social Security funds.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

My projected return on Social Security will be much, much less than the same amount invested in the market.

Unfortunately more current generations, presumably including yours, are so far removed from the reason for implementing the Social Security program in 1935 it is obscure to them. That reason was the Great Depression, which my own parents suffered through, and the hundreds of thousands of seniors who starved and/or froze to death because they simply could not afford the most basic elements of survival -- food and shelter.

Hopefully there never will be another economic collapse of that magnitude. Because if there is those who confidently rely on funds invested in the stock market, regardless of investment category, are in for a rude awakening. And like others whom I personally have heard from the value of Social Security will become crystal clear.

Participation in the Social Security program doesn't mean one is constrained from investing in the Market. The thing is very few ordinary individuals have any functional knowledge of investing, nor do they have any interest in it, and I am one of those people. My father always advised us to invest in nothing but U.S. Savings Bonds, which we did.

The bottom line is we aren't wealthy but we've always been comfortable. And at this stage of my life I can say I'm quite content with no debts and I want for nothing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Past events disprove and even make your claim laughable. I'm sure Bernie Madoff's investors would not agree, or the thousands (?), likely more, who delayed their retirement (and some still are working) do to the Great Recession (2007 - 2009).

Face the fact, those who hate SS are those who work in the financial services industry and employers, as well as normal joes and joans who are easily brainwashed. That government is best which govern with equitableness.

Past events disprove and even make your claim laughable.

Math makes my claim the truth. Simple math; which not always stands the test of nonfeasance and malfeasance

Face the fact, those who hate SS are those who work in the financial services industry

They are more likely to understand the power of long term investing.

They are in a position to enrich themselves with other peoples money. And, insider trading makes nonfeasance and misfeasance both easy and profitable for the agent not the client.

Your side always complains about malfeasance, of which I'm convinced is more difficult to pull off and hide than nonfeasance and misfeasance.

They are in a position to enrich themselves with other peoples money.

I agree, those politicians can't be trusted with our money.

And, insider trading makes nonfeasance and misfeasance both easy and profitable for the agent not the client.

And still market returns are better than Social Security.

Now Todd has defaulted to dishonesty. What is dishonest he asks? The simple fact is we are not discussing the Stock Market, per se; the discussion is on how real people fare in real life investment activities under the guidance of financial advisers.

The adviser always advises the investor that past performance does not mean future growth is assured, then goes on to praise the products being sold. Many products are those the adviser has not personally purchased, and snake oil salesmen and women proliferate the financial services industries which include: bankers, real estate and insurance agents and brokers. Payola is not restricted to the music industry.

My original post is still true........My projected return on Social Security will be much, much less than the same amount invested in the market.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Past events disprove and even make your claim laughable. I'm sure Bernie Madoff's investors would not agree, or the thousands (?), likely more, who delayed their retirement (and some still are working) do to the Great Recession (2007 - 2009).

Face the fact, those who hate SS are those who work in the financial services industry and employers, as well as normal joes and joans who are easily brainwashed. That government is best which govern with equitableness.

Past events disprove and even make your claim laughable.

Math makes my claim the truth. Simple math; which not always stands the test of nonfeasance and malfeasance

Face the fact, those who hate SS are those who work in the financial services industry

They are more likely to understand the power of long term investing.

They are in a position to enrich themselves with other peoples money. And, insider trading makes nonfeasance and misfeasance both easy and profitable for the agent not the client.

Your side always complains about malfeasance, of which I'm convinced is more difficult to pull off and hide than nonfeasance and misfeasance.

They are in a position to enrich themselves with other peoples money.

I agree, those politicians can't be trusted with our money.

And, insider trading makes nonfeasance and misfeasance both easy and profitable for the agent not the client.

And still market returns are better than Social Security.

SEC Enforcement Actions Insider Trading Cases

Read the first paragraph in the link above, and then comport the behavior of those noted in the list of actions with any fraud perpetrated by government employees with the Social Security funds.

OMG! That's awful. My projected return on Social Security will still be much, much less than the same amount invested in the market.

then comport the behavior of those noted in the list of actions with any fraud perpetrated by government employees with the Social Security funds

You're the one whining about fraud.
Mother Teresa could be in charge of Social Security, that wouldn't make me feel better about the crappy, below par returns I'll receive.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[...]

My projected return on Social Security will be much, much less than the same amount invested in the market.

Unfortunately more current generations, presumably including yours, are so far removed from the reason for implementing the Social Security program in 1935 it is obscure to them. That reason was the Great Depression, which my own parents suffered through, and the hundreds of thousands of seniors who starved and/or froze to death because they simply could not afford the most basic elements of survival -- food and shelter.

Hopefully there never will be another economic collapse of that magnitude. Because if there is those who confidently rely on funds invested in the stock market, regardless of investment category, are in for a rude awakening. And like others whom I personally have heard from the value of Social Security will become crystal clear.

Participation in the Social Security program doesn't mean one is constrained from investing in the Market. The thing is very few ordinary individuals have any functional knowledge of investing, nor do they have any interest in it, and I am one of those people. My father always advised us to invest in nothing but U.S. Savings Bonds, which we did.

The bottom line is we aren't wealthy but we've always been comfortable. And at this stage of my life I can say I'm quite content with no debts and I want for nothing.

Unfortunately more current generations, presumably including yours, are so far removed from the reason for implementing the Social Security program in 1935 it is obscure to them.

I agree. We also have better tools, better information, many things are better.
One thing that isn't better is the promises, and bath math, of our politicians.

Hopefully there never will be another economic collapse of that magnitude.

Some have claimed that 2008 was of that magnitude.

Participation in the Social Security program doesn't mean one is constrained from investing in the Market.

Obviously. It is more difficult, if not impossible for many, after the government has taken 12.4% of your lifetime earnings.

 

[bendog]

Todd, how would you feel about simply having some/all soc sec taxes being automatically placed in one large fund of diversified index funds, and on retirement each "investor" getting a defined benefit from that fund? Or must it all be individually privatized accounts to satisfy you?

 

[Flopper]

Calls it a Ponzi scheme and then insults others' intelligence. Go figure.

Still HCmyths are, imo, illuminating. The dislike of soc sec has nothing to do with solvency, because its been pointed out time and again that either a modest tax increase of $15 mo, or even better removing the cap on higher earners, would bring in enough revenue to pay all retirees at current rates until the time when the Boomers are dead, and they system would be fully funded even at today's tax rates. Rather, the dislike of soc sec is simply that under its scheme there will not be losers. It's that simple. Full privatization might make some make more, and some would lose all or most. That's the desired result of those who dislike soc sec.

either a modest tax increase of $15 mo, or even better removing the cap on higher earners, would bring in enough revenue to pay all retirees at current rates until the time when the Boomers are dead, and they system would be fully funded even at today's tax rates.

You have a link for these claims?

Rather, the dislike of soc sec is simply that under its scheme there will not be losers.

That's not true at all.
My projected return on Social Security will be much, much less than the same amount invested in the market.

With Social Security, return is sacrificed for reduced risk. You can count on it being there when you retire or if you become disable. This is why we call it a safety net. Pension plans are fast disappearing. Most people have tax sheltered retirement plans heavily invested in the market. If your health turns bad and you decide to retire next year, your 401K or IRA could be worth half what it is today as was the case with many Americans in 2009. Although a 1930's type depression may be unlikely, it is certainly possible.

The smart thing to do is to manage risk/return of your investments and reduce your vulnerability to market volatility as you age. However, most people are not very good at retirement planning. One third of Americans have less than a $1,000 saved for retirement. 60% of American workers have less $25,000.

The average worker will change jobs about 15 times during their career. So what happens to retirement plans when people change jobs. The smart thing to do is maintain them or carry them over to the new employer. Many workers cash plans in when they change jobs, have family emergencies, or send the kids off to college. During the last recession 42% of the people who changed jobs either withdrew funds or cashed in their retirement.

Americans need a safety net so no matter what happens in their working life or the economy, there will at least be something there for the time when they can not work. If you eliminated social security for new workers today and allowed them to invest the money, in 30 years you'll have a huge welfare program supporting those that did save for retirement.
401 k breaches undermining retirement security for millions - The Washington Post

 

[healthmyths]

ONLY idiots would have their 401Ks invested in the market when they near retirement!
The whole point of investing in the equities markets when YOUNG was to take advantage of appreciation due to higher risks...but with youth on the side could be recovered. THEN when the person gets close to 60 years still working though SHOULD never had a large amount in risk equities.
That is pure stupidity!
Those neighbors in the "market" at their age were dumb!

Gee, you think they picked their investments all by themselves, or do you think that 'experts' told them what to do for a fee, and they paid dearly for listening to self appointed experts (like you). SS is good, those who oppose it are the jerks who tell others what to invest in - for a fee - but put their own money in something else - using inside information they don't share with their clients.

EXPERTS would have told them to put MOST of their money in treasuries, bonds,etc. and NOT into the market.
But more importantly F...king common sense should dictate that!
They deserve to lose their money if they can't figure out that their nest egg would be at risk in the stock market at their AGE!
This is so stupid. Again total idiots would not assess the risk!
It is NOT self appointed experts but plain common sense! You don't when you are close to counting on that nest egg leave it at risk!
THAT simple!

Sure they would; experts are never corrupt and always ethical (sarcasm alert).

Yea and those "poor" misinformed low intelligent 401K losers.. were total dependents on the state to watch over them?
They couldn't make a decision about eating rat poisoning versus food? They didn't have driver's licenses that required them to make
decisions?
Come on! How totally stupid to believe common sense was totally lacking in these 401K losers!
OH wait...of course they had no common sense! They were losers!
Sorry. I have no pity for people that couldn't figure out that at age 60 their accumulated assets should be in the equities market!
Call them "greedy"...or call them dumb.. but one thing you can't say about them is they had any common sense...i.e. you don't put your
nest egg in equities when you are close to retirement!

You're an asshole as well as a phony. Your entire self righteous know-it-all attitude was barely tolerable, until you start attacking peoples' intelligence - people you don't know whose life experience are unique to them alone - that makes your posts not only hateful but foolish.

I am NOT against SS! I am against the phony premise that the majority of americans are too stupid to choose where THEIR money should go!
I am against the idiocy that the retirement age of 65 is still in place when that was the life span in the 30s which is why it was used!
Today the life span is 80!
I am for all people under AGE 55 to choose whether they can tell SS where to put their money be it into bank savings accounts or
high risk equities... it should be the person decision.
I am for the retirement age to be raised for ALL people under age 55 to age 69!
Given these three changes:
1) You can under age 55 keep the current method of SS
2) Or under age 55 choose to direct where the deduction will be put and based on HISTORY a person age 25 working 45 years
will put in over $300,000. Over 45 years putting initially into growth equities that historically appreciated at 7% a year by the time
the 25 is 50 they've accumulated nearly $1 million. At this point smart and most Americans put MOST of this secured investments
and the least in risk equities.
By the time then they are 69 their "nest egg" has grown to over $1 million. Putting most in an annuity paying them for life and
the rest for health/mad money they will also have something for their family.
3) Increase retirement to age 69.

But far from thinking as YOU do that most Americans are stupid, I trust most Americans to have more common sense then you for sure!
Most people know that the closer they are to retirement the more secure their nest egg should be... all but idiots like you think they
would leave their 401Ks in high risk equities at their time of approaching retirement!

 

[Kosh]

Past events disprove and even make your claim laughable. I'm sure Bernie Madoff's investors would not agree, or the thousands (?), likely more, who delayed their retirement (and some still are working) do to the Great Recession (2007 - 2009).

Face the fact, those who hate SS are those who work in the financial services industry and employers, as well as normal joes and joans who are easily brainwashed. That government is best which govern with equitableness.

Past events disprove and even make your claim laughable.

Math makes my claim the truth. Simple math; which not always stands the test of nonfeasance and malfeasance

Face the fact, those who hate SS are those who work in the financial services industry

They are more likely to understand the power of long term investing.

They are in a position to enrich themselves with other peoples money. And, insider trading makes nonfeasance and misfeasance both easy and profitable for the agent not the client.

Your side always complains about malfeasance, of which I'm convinced is more difficult to pull off and hide than nonfeasance and misfeasance.

They are in a position to enrich themselves with other peoples money.

I agree, those politicians can't be trusted with our money.

And, insider trading makes nonfeasance and misfeasance both easy and profitable for the agent not the client.

And still market returns are better than Social Security.

SEC Enforcement Actions Insider Trading Cases

Read the first paragraph in the link above, and then comport the behavior of those noted in the list of actions with any fraud perpetrated by government employees with the Social Security funds.

Insider trading? Yet you still defend Pelosi, Reid and Obama.

Can you be any more far left and more hypocritical?

 

[Jarlaxle]

I will collect NOTHING from that Ponzi scheme. I have been paying into it for years, will pay into it until the day I die, and will get NOTHING for it.

It is not my fault that your neighbors are idiots!

Your comment suggests you are ailing from some terminal illness which you are certain will end your life before age 65. Is this true? If so, how old are you now? And if this is true you have my sincere sympathy.

By 65, I will be in a wheelchair, an advanced state of senility, or (most likely) both. I plan to eat a shotgun on my 60th birthday, on the off chance I make it that far.

But why does this unfortunate circumstance prompt you to denounce Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme -- which it assuredly is not?

Actually, it is...the only difference is the ones running it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, how would you feel about simply having some/all soc sec taxes being automatically placed in one large fund of diversified index funds, and on retirement each "investor" getting a defined benefit from that fund? Or must it all be individually privatized accounts to satisfy you?

How would the defined benefit be related to lifetime contributions?
What happens to the balance when the retiree dies?