Beating Social Security

[Skull Pilot]

Tell me how many of you have actually figured out how much money you would have if you had invested the 15% of your life time income instead of it being confiscated by the fucking government?

I have and if I had had control of it I would be retired already

The payroll tax isn't 15%.

Excuse me but you are forgetting about the employer contribution

What's the matter you forget about the other times I've informed you of this?

The employer contribution is not YOUR contribution. If you end SS you end the obligation of your employer to kick pay that tax.

Think before you post.

Sorry but employer contribution ARE yours and therefore must be counted

NO, they are only 'yours' because the payroll tax is part of the Social Security law. End SS and that tax ends. You keep your 6% or whatever, but that's it.

Once again I have always said in these discussions that the payroll tax and the employer contributions should not end but that the money should be left in the hands of the individual

why can't you seem to understand the concept?

 

[NYcarbineer]

PC never, ever supports her allegations that she makes up.

After a week...I am still waiting for her to show how she would "beat" social security

There are least three given in the thread.

Stop lying.

I have given multiple examples of how anyone could beat SS so anyone who wants to see them can just use the search function

They can't beat it at the same level of risk.

 

[Skull Pilot]

PC never, ever supports her allegations that she makes up.

After a week...I am still waiting for her to show how she would "beat" social security

There are least three given in the thread.

Stop lying.

I have given multiple examples of how anyone could beat SS so anyone who wants to see them can just use the search function

They can't beat it at the same level of risk.

of course they can there are other bond vehicles that pay out far more than US treasury bills but then again why would anyone settle for that when historically a 7 or 8% return is very doable

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC never, ever supports her allegations that she makes up.

After a week...I am still waiting for her to show how she would "beat" social security

There are least three given in the thread.

Stop lying.

I have given multiple examples of how anyone could beat SS so anyone who wants to see them can just use the search function

Wingy's posts are simply attempts at obfuscation.
Just look at the avi he uses.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The payroll tax isn't 15%.

Excuse me but you are forgetting about the employer contribution

What's the matter you forget about the other times I've informed you of this?

The employer contribution is not YOUR contribution. If you end SS you end the obligation of your employer to kick pay that tax.

Think before you post.

Sorry but employer contribution ARE yours and therefore must be counted

NO, they are only 'yours' because the payroll tax is part of the Social Security law. End SS and that tax ends. You keep your 6% or whatever, but that's it.

Once again I have always said in these discussions that the payroll tax and the employer contributions should not end but that the money should be left in the hands of the individual

why can't you seem to understand the concept?

This is what US household debt looks like:

You really think all Americans can be trusted to provide themselves a safety net of retirement savings/insurance if left to their own devices?

 

[NYcarbineer]

PC never, ever supports her allegations that she makes up.

After a week...I am still waiting for her to show how she would "beat" social security

There are least three given in the thread.

Stop lying.

I have given multiple examples of how anyone could beat SS so anyone who wants to see them can just use the search function

They can't beat it at the same level of risk.

of course they can there are other bond vehicles that pay out far more than US treasury bills but then again why would anyone settle for that when historically a 7 or 8% return is very doable

What bonds are considered as safe as US treasuries and pay a higher return?

Name ANY investment currently paying 7% considered as safe as a US treasury.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Excuse me but you are forgetting about the employer contribution

What's the matter you forget about the other times I've informed you of this?

The employer contribution is not YOUR contribution. If you end SS you end the obligation of your employer to kick pay that tax.

Think before you post.

Sorry but employer contribution ARE yours and therefore must be counted

NO, they are only 'yours' because the payroll tax is part of the Social Security law. End SS and that tax ends. You keep your 6% or whatever, but that's it.

Once again I have always said in these discussions that the payroll tax and the employer contributions should not end but that the money should be left in the hands of the individual

why can't you seem to understand the concept?

This is what US household debt looks like:

You really think all Americans can be trusted to provide themselves a safety net of retirement savings/insurance if left to their own devices?

Once again I have always said to make the savings mandatory

If all you want is the shittuy return that SS gives you then choose to put 1oo% of your money in T bills.

But why should those of us who can make better choices than you be forced to settle for those same shitty returns

 

[Skull Pilot]

After a week...I am still waiting for her to show how she would "beat" social security

There are least three given in the thread.

Stop lying.

I have given multiple examples of how anyone could beat SS so anyone who wants to see them can just use the search function

They can't beat it at the same level of risk.

of course they can there are other bond vehicles that pay out far more than US treasury bills but then again why would anyone settle for that when historically a 7 or 8% return is very doable

What bonds are considered as safe as US treasuries and pay a higher return?

Name ANY investment currently paying 7% considered as safe as a US treasury.

Look it up yourself

And if you knew anything about investing you would now that a long term strategy to acheive a 7% return is historically one of the most conservative and safe portfolios you'll ever see

 

[Skull Pilot]

After a week...I am still waiting for her to show how she would "beat" social security

There are least three given in the thread.

Stop lying.

I have given multiple examples of how anyone could beat SS so anyone who wants to see them can just use the search function

They can't beat it at the same level of risk.

of course they can there are other bond vehicles that pay out far more than US treasury bills but then again why would anyone settle for that when historically a 7 or 8% return is very doable

What bonds are considered as safe as US treasuries and pay a higher return?

Name ANY investment currently paying 7% considered as safe as a US treasury.

WOw maybe you should let the fuck nuts in government handle your money

No retirement strategy is based on a single investment

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are least three given in the thread.

Stop lying.

I have given multiple examples of how anyone could beat SS so anyone who wants to see them can just use the search function

They can't beat it at the same level of risk.

of course they can there are other bond vehicles that pay out far more than US treasury bills but then again why would anyone settle for that when historically a 7 or 8% return is very doable

What bonds are considered as safe as US treasuries and pay a higher return?

Name ANY investment currently paying 7% considered as safe as a US treasury.

WOw maybe you should let the fuck nuts in government handle your money

No retirement strategy is based on a single investment

I'll repeat the questions:

What bonds are considered as safe as US treasuries and pay a higher return?

Name ANY investment currently paying 7% considered as safe as a US treasury.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Tell me how many of you have actually figured out how much money you would have if you had invested the 15% of your life time income instead of it being confiscated by the fucking government?

I have and if I had had control of it I would be retired already

This misconception is the problem. No one has had 15% of their income taken for a lifetime. These tax rates have only existed for 25 years. You are not haven't 15% of life time income taken. It is 15% of wages up to a cap.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are least three given in the thread.

Stop lying.

I have given multiple examples of how anyone could beat SS so anyone who wants to see them can just use the search function

They can't beat it at the same level of risk.

of course they can there are other bond vehicles that pay out far more than US treasury bills but then again why would anyone settle for that when historically a 7 or 8% return is very doable

What bonds are considered as safe as US treasuries and pay a higher return?

Name ANY investment currently paying 7% considered as safe as a US treasury.

Look it up yourself

lol, IOW........

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tell me how many of you have actually figured out how much money you would have if you had invested the 15% of your life time income instead of it being confiscated by the fucking government?

I have and if I had had control of it I would be retired already

This misconception is the problem. No one has had 15% of their income taken for a lifetime. These tax rates have only existed for 25 years. You are not haven't 15% of life time income taken. It is 15% of wages up to a cap.

Great point that I never thought of dang it.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Anyone who had control of the 15% of their life time income confiscated by the government for SS would be much better off and I daresay would have something left to leave their families when they die

SS is nothing but guaranteed government dependence

The people will become dependent no matter what. Not everyone has the skill or knowledge to invest and prepare for their retirement. The options seem to be forced payment into a program. Taxes Social Security is the system we have chosen. The other option would be forced investment into private firms and entities. Can't imagine forcing folks to pay into a private investment firm. Who pays when the firm invest in a looser or the market just tanks when it is time for some particular folks to retire?
The problem is not that the numbers and concept of your idea are incorrect, rather it is that over a lifetime or working, most people have periods of not really being able to afford to put a percentage of their earnings into a savings program. They will not do without things they deem necessities and priorities but will instead make excuses to skip the investment of their funds in favor or those other things. Whether it be the purchase of a chicken for a Sunday dinner or a few extra dollars for a car payment, the funds are not being invested the way they should be. It may be a weakness and people should be responsible for themselves, but it is what it is. In the end, we would end up with folks who didn't invest the way they should have and becoming persons who without assistance end up living on the sidewalks in boxes or homeless shelters, dependent on charity or the state to feed them and care for their needs. Just straight out welfare.
In one way, SS can be viewed as a scheme to force citizens to pay taxes to at least contribute to the funds that might be used to support them when they go on "welfare" if welfare is the way you choose to describe Social Security.

Social Security is not savings. There is virtually nothing saved. Social Security is conceptual insurance which redistributes income from workers to retirees. Comparing insurance and investment is like comparing Michael Phelps and Uriah Bolt - provide that the insurance is well run. So you are suggesting that they can't afford to put money into a system of savings, but they can put the same funds into a program that saves nothing. That is a false premise.

You can view SS as anything. Structurally it isn't remotely close to welfare. The suggestion that it is says you are not familiar with the mechanics and cashflows of the system.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

#2 is not profound it is a trite cliché which compares appropriated expenses with a financial system of defined inputs and outputs. It demonstrates the lack of thought about the system which is at the root of its long-term problems.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Tell me how many of you have actually figured out how much money you would have if you had invested the 15% of your life time income instead of it being confiscated by the fucking government?

I have and if I had had control of it I would be retired already

The payroll tax isn't 15%.

Excuse me but you are forgetting about the employer contribution

What's the matter you forget about the other times I've informed you of this?

I have done the computation with actual contributions based on the SSA statement to me. I used actual S&P mutual funds to track performance with dividends reinvested rather than theoretical what-if numbers. I started work in 1983 at the start of the greatest bull market in world history. At 67, when I retire, I would theoretically have had about $800,000. Of course that assumes that I do not work a day after the age of 50. Everybody is different.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Yes, the Supreme COurt has a very long historn of using the Constitution as toilet paper.

waaa.

Got a better idea for determining the constitutionality of laws?

Absolutely!

Use the Constitution.

Reagan saved Social Security when he could have let it go bankrupt.

Are you using a different Constitution than Reagan's?

And this is why brain-dead ideologues are called 'Lock-Step Liberals.'

Learn this from the first Republican President:

"Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong."
Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (October 16, 1854),

So Reagan was wrong on one of the most important domestic socio-economic issues of our times.

Let's hear you say that.

"Reagan should have let Social Security go bankrupt."

lol, see how extreme the RWnuts have gotten in this country?

Reagan said blah, blah, blah. What Ronald Reagan actually did is a different matter. The 1983 Social Security reform was little more than an agreement in DC that non-voters would pick-up the tab. The highest tax increases and largest benefit cuts fell on people who were 11 and younger at the time.

If you are interested this article will give you some details. :
Social Security deal of 1983 was a punt

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The point of the thread is that there are other systems and variations that work better.

Shed your Liberal biases, and admit it.

Bullshit! The premise clearly stated at the bottom of the damn C&P crap in the OP was:

"....this thread will show that, once again....
...the Right is right."

There was no mention of alternative solutions! You're just stirring up more shit with more of your routine LIES and distortions!

And you know what I said I'd do when you LIED!

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Tell me how many of you have actually figured out how much money you would have if you had invested the 15% of your life time income instead of it being confiscated by the fucking government?

I have and if I had had control of it I would be retired already

The payroll tax isn't 15%.

Excuse me but you are forgetting about the employer contribution

What's the matter you forget about the other times I've informed you of this?

The employer contribution is not YOUR contribution. If you end SS you end the obligation of your employer to pay that tax.

Think before you post.

It is generally accepted economic theory - and acknowledged by CBO and SSA - that the employer portion of payroll taxes is a pass-through to the employee in the form of lower wages. As you said, research before you post.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Social Security works.
Ask Social Security receipients if they want it privatized

Anyone who wants a personal savings account is free to open one tax free. many employers will also provide matching funds

The point of the thread is that there are other systems and variations that work better.

Shed your Liberal biases, and admit it.

I haven't seen your solution so humor me. The one thing that I will say up front is that most of the solutions that I hear - which work better - are based on the idea that SS is magically fixed. People point to Chile for example. Chile didn't have legacy costs the size of their GDP. Chile's system covers something like 2/3rds of the work force instead of 95% of the population. Chile's system started in 1982 - magically at the exact same time as the largest bull market in world history. I would love to hear of a system that works better, but it has to be better in the US rather than on the moon.