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

[Luddly Neddite]

Foisting a huge Ponzi scheme on them isn't "protecting" them.

oddball

There's no risk in letting me keep my money in my pocket to start with.

And others who are critical of SS and/or the stock market - what do you invest in? What is your retirement plan?

Why is it that none of them ever answer that simple question?

 

[billyerock1991]

How many times have we heard so many times by extremely ignorant people including I just heard Robert Gibbs of Obama campaign "privatizing SS and investing in risky stock market"!
and From Obama:
".. including privatization, which essentially is going to put people’s retirement at the whim of the stock market.."

BUT is there a risk? The following article describes in more detail and the essence of the whole question really revolves around do Democrats think Americans are idiots?
The Democrats evidently don't think Americans approaching retirement would evidently be as stupid as Obama/Gibbs and others that make that statement!
MOST Americans approaching retirement age WOULD NOT be in the "risky stock market"!
BECAUSE privatization means the individual has the choice of where the SS payments will be put.
ALL financial advisers and most intelligent people know that from age 25 to 45 the investments would be in the "risky equity market" MOST likely! Doesn't have to be! Depends on the individual.
THEN most advisers and intelligent people would be at 45 moving accumulations from 25 into more secure assets with less in "risky stock market".
AND the point is as the worker approaches 65 MOST if not ALL is in the exact same investments that SS is in.. i.e. Treasuries!

So does this mean Democrats/Obama/et.al. that complain about the "risky stock market" are IDIOTS? YES because evidently they don't know how financial planning works... grow while young as grow older move to more secure! It is that simple but these idiots don't seem to realize it!

As the following article shows a worker at 25 starting salary of $42,569 ( College graduates of 2012: More jobs, bigger paychecks - Apr. 3, 2012)
From age 25 to age 65 salary 20% every 10 years.
Starting age 25 with putting $5,862 per year 10 years at historical appreciation rate of New York Stock Exchange of 6.5%
Age 35 salary $51,083 putting $7,034 per year 10 years at 6.5%
and so forth until age 65 when salary is $73,559 and over time rate of return decreased as moving more from equity to interest generating.
Total Accumulation at age 65 which is then totally in secured NON RISKY stock market.. $941,417

Private Investment Is More Risky than Social Security? | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

here's what I know about retirement with the stock market ... in 2001 I watch my account go from 980,000 dollars for my retirement go to 89,000 dollars so for you to say S.S will do fine in the market, your fucking nuts ... I will fight tooth and nail to stop any republican putting my S.S in the market period ...

 

[SteadyMercury]

here's what I know about retirement with the stock market ... in 2001 I watch my account go from 980,000 dollars for my retirement go to 89,000 dollars

How did this happen?

The S&P 500 dropped by what about half, how did your account drop by 90%? Even if you were 100% in NASDAQ you wouldn't have lost that much.

Sounds like what you need to learn about is how risk relates to diversification across asset classes.

 

[SteadyMercury]

the stock market has and always will be a crooked house of card

I wouldn't invest it in the market as it's been proven to be corrupt and has stolen the majority of the money.

So you've got strong opinions on the stock market, but don't invest in it and thus really don't know much about it.

if it were such a good deal, why would the government force you to invest in it as they do with 401k and etc...? doesn't that bother anybody about the freedom not to play the markets?

Apparently you are confused about a lot of things.
1. Stock market isn't a "good deal" it just is what it is, an opportunity with both risk and reward.
2. Government doesn't force you to invest in a 401k
3. A 401k isn't the stock market or any particular asset class, it is a tax deferred savings vehicle
4. You have freedom not to play the markets

You are making a strong case for the people advocating mandatory fundamentals of personal finance in high school and college degree programs.

 

[haissem123]

if a person is basically a parasite living off of other through so called wise investments, they get the hell that's coming because the deserve it. no different from the pharoahs of long ago feeding on the suffering and work of others cause they thought they were smart

 

[haissem123]

nobody deserves not to work for a living and creating wealth isn't work, even if you think it is

 

[healthmyths]

How many times have we heard so many times by extremely ignorant people including I just heard Robert Gibbs of Obama campaign "privatizing SS and investing in risky stock market"!
and From Obama:
".. including privatization, which essentially is going to put people’s retirement at the whim of the stock market.."

BUT is there a risk? The following article describes in more detail and the essence of the whole question really revolves around do Democrats think Americans are idiots?
The Democrats evidently don't think Americans approaching retirement would evidently be as stupid as Obama/Gibbs and others that make that statement!
MOST Americans approaching retirement age WOULD NOT be in the "risky stock market"!
BECAUSE privatization means the individual has the choice of where the SS payments will be put.
ALL financial advisers and most intelligent people know that from age 25 to 45 the investments would be in the "risky equity market" MOST likely! Doesn't have to be! Depends on the individual.
THEN most advisers and intelligent people would be at 45 moving accumulations from 25 into more secure assets with less in "risky stock market".
AND the point is as the worker approaches 65 MOST if not ALL is in the exact same investments that SS is in.. i.e. Treasuries!

So does this mean Democrats/Obama/et.al. that complain about the "risky stock market" are IDIOTS? YES because evidently they don't know how financial planning works... grow while young as grow older move to more secure! It is that simple but these idiots don't seem to realize it!

As the following article shows a worker at 25 starting salary of $42,569 ( College graduates of 2012: More jobs, bigger paychecks - Apr. 3, 2012)
From age 25 to age 65 salary 20% every 10 years.
Starting age 25 with putting $5,862 per year 10 years at historical appreciation rate of New York Stock Exchange of 6.5%
Age 35 salary $51,083 putting $7,034 per year 10 years at 6.5%
and so forth until age 65 when salary is $73,559 and over time rate of return decreased as moving more from equity to interest generating.
Total Accumulation at age 65 which is then totally in secured NON RISKY stock market.. $941,417

Private Investment Is More Risky than Social Security? | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

here's what I know about retirement with the stock market ... in 2001 I watch my account go from 980,000 dollars for my retirement go to 89,000 dollars so for you to say S.S will do fine in the market, your fucking nuts ... I will fight tooth and nail to stop any republican putting my S.S in the market period ...

Some questions..
1) how OLD were you in 2001?
I'm assuming you were close to 55 years old. AND NOT ONE smart investor puts ALL his $980,000
in to the stock market with less 10 years from retirement! YOU were f...king nuts then!
2) Did you lose 90% of the $980,000 in one day? If you did boy are you a dumb f...k for having ALL of
it in one stock! Because NOT ONE stock lost 90% of value in one day!
3) Did YOU have control of the $980,000 or did YOU have some management firm?
4) And Obviously YOU would NOT be qualified to do what the majority of smart people would do..i.e..
diversify!
FACTS for you...
The largest single day decline of the DJIA was on 09/29/2008 10365.45 declined -777.68 or -6.98%
2nd largest decline 10/15/2008 8577.91 -733.08 -7.87%
Biggest One-Day Gains, Losses - Markets Data Center - WSJ.com

So please tell me HOW in the f...k can you so screw up your portfolio to lose 90% of your value in ONE DAY unless it was in ONE stupid stock you f...king idiot!!!

Finally you f..king idiot... YOU are obviously TOO old to be eligible for the GOP plan which would ONLY
be available for anyone UNDER age 55 you dummy!
PLUS those UNDER 55 would HAVE THE CHOICE you dummy! If a person under 55 was so f...king dumb to have ALL their portfolio as YOU WERE in ONE stock up to age 55 then THEY would be totally stupid and NOT choose the plan! Idiots like you and them would NOT be able to put into ONE stock like dummies like you obviously did!

 

[haissem123]

if the whole point of ssi is to save the weak elderly that we all hope to be some day, and the market is dog eat dog no matter what anybody says, then how can they work together toward totally different goals? stop your bullocks and admit you just want to rob your elderly parents and grandparents you smartass kids.

 

[bripat9643]

here's what I know about retirement with the stock market ... in 2001 I watch my account go from 980,000 dollars for my retirement go to 89,000 dollars

How did this happen?

The S&P 500 dropped by what about half, how did your account drop by 90%? Even if you were 100% in NASDAQ you wouldn't have lost that much.

Sounds like what you need to learn about is how risk relates to diversification across asset classes.

He also needs to learn about something called a "stop-loss." Apparently we are all to be held hostage to the SS Ponzi scheme because retards like Billy are too stupid to manage their own lives.

 

[haissem123]

you people think you are oh so smart. lol. that's funny. you are smart enough to play texas holdem with the very very short stack every time. pump and dump is name of the big boys game and they take turns winning so you think they aren't working together. lol. your pride is your ignorance. truly you are not as smart as you all think you are. you think you are winning? lol. funny. you are funny silly people.

 

[haissem123]

we are learning stop loss. stop investing in dark pool dervivative schemes and schams. you've all learned nothing from history.

 

[bendog]

The right could at least be honest. It isn't about rate of return, because if it was there'd be no discussion, or denying, that in terms of survivor insurance (which is a version of life insurance or an annuity), disability insurance for workers who leave the workforce early because of illness or injury, and the actual retirement benefit, Social Security IS NOT A BAD DEAL AT ALL.

Rather, the ayn rand crew who just don't see govt having any role in doing something to make sure people who were working, but no longer are, are getting some cash to spend.

 

[healthmyths]

The right could at least be honest. It isn't about rate of return, because if it was there'd be no discussion, or denying, that in terms of survivor insurance (which is a version of life insurance or an annuity), disability insurance for workers who leave the workforce early because of illness or injury, and the actual retirement benefit, Social Security IS NOT A BAD DEAL AT ALL.

Rather, the ayn rand crew who just don't see govt having any role in doing something to make sure people who were working, but no longer are, are getting some cash to spend.

I'm sorry but IT IS about "rate of return"!
Even at a modest 1% over 40 years a 25 year old putting the SS payments of his and his employer into a FDIC insured savings account would accumulate over $400,000! All the individual would have to do is tell the privatized SS where to put it.
But no very very ignorant people seem to think FDIC, stock market etc. ALL the same thing.
AGAIN.. over and over I have to point out that the whole process is matched with the age of the worker.
Ages 25 to 45 means puttting $$ into most likely that really risky gambling stock market..(that over 60 years averaged 9% growth down years which aren't many and up years which are MORE).
Then age 46 to 65 split between lower risk investments for smaller amount of accumulation and higher secure investment (Geez US treasure bills that SS buys..hmmmm???) for larger amount.
By time 65 nearly $1 million accumulated... now mostly in highly secured investments.."risky treasure bills"!!
Then at 65 person contracts with insurance company that bets the person will live shorter person says longer and with $500,000 earning 2% a year worker gets $24,000 a year..
Take $300,000 in secured investments for emergencies,etc. medical bills,etc.
Remaining $200,000 at rate of $10,000/year for 20 years means total available income $43,000.
Nearly double what SS will pay out..
AND the neat part!!!
Possibly he can leave an estate nest egg to help his offspring!
All done with the same amount that would be paid into SS and that SS would pay out
at $20,000 a year.
SO tell me who really is a f...king fool here!!!

 

[MikeK]

here's what I know about retirement with the stock market ... in 2001 I watch my account go from 980,000 dollars for my retirement go to 89,000 dollars

How did this happen?

The S&P 500 dropped by what about half, how did your account drop by 90%? Even if you were 100% in NASDAQ you wouldn't have lost that much.

Sounds like what you need to learn about is how risk relates to diversification across asset classes.

I've been using computers since 1981 but I am utterly helpless when something out of the ordinary takes place. My granddaughter's seventeen year-old boyfriend is a natural-born geek who seems to have a spiritual connection with the mysteries that make computers work and who finds it rather incredulous that I have trouble understanding things that seem second-nature to him.

The same situation exists where the stock market and the field of investments is concerned. Some people have a natural ability to deal with the intricacies of this world of numbers and cryptic designations, others find it comparable to chewing on straw.

The average person doesn't want to deal with this numbers game, nor do they trust it. They have no impetus to gamble. They want only to put a piece of their weekly paycheck in some safe place and get on with their lives. In my example the safe places were U.S. Savings Bonds and Social Security. And I have no regrets.

 

[SteadyMercury]

The same situation exists where the stock market and the field of investments is concerned. Some people have a natural ability to deal with the intricacies of this world of numbers and cryptic designations, others find it comparable to chewing on straw.

Nope.

These days simple retirement date mutual funds are ubiquitous and expense ratios in the mutual fund industry have never been lower. Low cost no-brainer investing has never been easier, and it doesn't take much reading to get past that lowest form to learn to roll your own simple stock/bond mutual fund portfolio tailored to your desired asset allocation with cheapo broad index mutual funds.

If you are comfortable with a social security check and the return you get on govt bonds that is great, more power to you and that is part of the reason for the programs. However you staying in your comfort zone doesn't mean it takes complex math, deep study or financial black magic to invest in anything outside of that.

 

[OnePercenter]

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Yeah, right. I know I would be posting on this two-bit forum if I had $220 million!

And yet you can't disprove any of my posts.

 

[OnePercenter]

He's the forum Walter Mitty, he specializes in being a pretend business executive.

Walter Mitty was a fictional character. I'm very real.

 

[OnePercenter]

No one suggested forcing you to invest in anything. The original proposal was to ALLOW people to invest a portion of their SS contribution into the market. Can you imagine the ROI if this had been made a law? The market has almost tripled since 2008.

If a person were ALLOWED to invest their entire retirement in the market prior to 2008 (say $100k) how would they be sitting today?

 

[OnePercenter]

I have no problem with letting people manage their own retirement money. However, the default option should be a defined contribution fund managed by professionals.

How many of those lost all or most in 1998 and 2008?

 

[OnePercenter]

You are saying what an anarcho-commie would say, accusing a legitimate defense of Americans to be somehow un-American, some how 'commie.'

'Commie' is the battle cry of the paranoid.