Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The disability part of SS is the worst around. I have a private policy that is infinitely better and costs less.
Does it cover your children?
If I could save the 15% of my money that the government steals from me to run its off the books slush fund, I'd be retired already and collecting 10 times more a month than the max SS benefit.
And how would that relieve the U.S. economy of the burden of your retirement?
Does ANYONE understand the question?
I have responded to all of them. None have answered the question
How so? Can you be specific and support with evidence, or is this just a gut feewing?
Your question is inherently flawed thus no answer will suffice or are you not capable of understanding that?
How is it inherently flawed?
Why are you against the individual accumulating $400,000 or more???
Because that would mean individual people would be taking care of themselves and the left only has political power as long as people are dependent on them instead.
So how would you have done it in a manner which does not place the burden on the U.S. economy?
Your question is inherently flawed thus no answer will suffice or are you not capable of understanding that?
How is it inherently flawed?
Oh, c'mon are you really that thick?
What I don't get is how the U.S. economy would not still be responsible for producing the goods and services you need in retirement.Because that would mean individual people would be taking care of themselves and the left only has political power as long as people are dependent on them instead.
So how would you have done it in a manner which does not place the burden on the U.S. economy?
What don't you get?
One that covers you children?If i was able to keep the 15% of my income that is confiscated for SS I could buy a better disability policy
AND have much more to live on than the max SS benefit.
There would be no, zero, zip, strain on the government to fund my retirement.
What I don't get is how the U.S. economy would not still be responsible for producing the goods and services you need in retirement.So how would you have done it in a manner which does not place the burden on the U.S. economy?
What don't you get?
One that covers you children?
AND have much more to live on than the max SS benefit.
Who would produce the goods and services that you need?
There would be no, zero, zip, strain on the government to fund my retirement.
The question was related to the burden on the U.S. economy as whole.
What I don't get is how the U.S. economy would not still be responsible for producing the goods and services you need in retirement.What don't you get?
One that covers you children?
Who would produce the goods and services that you need?
There would be no, zero, zip, strain on the government to fund my retirement.
The question was related to the burden on the U.S. economy as whole.
One does not burden the economy by purchasing goods and services.
What I don't get is how the U.S. economy would not still be responsible for producing the goods and services you need in retirement.
One that covers you children?
Who would produce the goods and services that you need?
The question was related to the burden on the U.S. economy as whole.
One does not burden the economy by purchasing goods and services.
Since you'll be in retirement and not be producing anything yourself, who will be producing the goods and services you need?
How is it inherently flawed?
Oh, c'mon are you really that thick?
How is the question inherently flawed?
Can you not explain your thoughts to others or not?
The Social Security fearmongers constantly bemoan the fact that the investment of excess FICA revenue in obligations of the United States Treasury means the burden of making up the projected shortfalls in FICA will fall on the taxpayer, and hence, the U.S. economy. That is of course - true.
I have to ask - what other domestic investment vehicle could have prevented the burden from falling on the U.S. economy?
If the Trust Funds had been invested in U.S.corporate debt, then it would be U.S. corporations that have to make up the shortfall - thus the burden still falls on the U.S. economy.
If the Trust Funds had been invested in U.S. stocks, the shortfall would be made up for with dividends from U.S.companies and with sale of stock positions to mostly U.S. citizens - thus the burden again, falls on the U.S. economy to make up the shortfall.
If the Trust Funds had been invested in insurance contracts with U.S. insurers -still the burden falls on the U.S. economy.
The alternative would be to invest in assets with large foreign exposure - like commodities, foreign stock and debt, etc. - but then when the Trust Fund runs in the black, its taking U.S. tax revenues and sending them OUT of the country - investing them in foreign nations instead of the U.S. economy - thus STILL the burden falls on the U.S. economy!
So how would you have done it in a manner which does not place the burden on the U.S. economy? BE SPECIFIC
Can anyone actually read, understand, and answer my question? What could the Trust Fund have been invested in that would not have placed the burden on the U.S. economy?
One does not burden the economy by purchasing goods and services.
Since you'll be in retirement and not be producing anything yourself, who will be producing the goods and services you need?
Who gives a shit?
The mere fact that I and other purchase something does not burden the economy. It rather helps the economy because those entering the market will have opportunities to produce what others are buying.
DUH
Are you not capable of understanding simple English? If I don't have to give my money to the government and am instead able to invest it on my own the government has NO economic burden to support me.
I suggest you take some business classes and a few economics classes on your way to your physics degree.
It doesn't matter if the funds had been invested in T-Bills, corporate stocks and bonds, Real Estate or even derivatives. The issue is not the investment but rather the usage of the receipts for other purposes that has caused Social Security to be a burden on the economy.
Immie
Since you'll be in retirement and not be producing anything yourself, who will be producing the goods and services you need?
Who gives a shit?
The mere fact that I and other purchase something does not burden the economy. It rather helps the economy because those entering the market will have opportunities to produce what others are buying.
DUH
How does it help the economy when the economy has to produce more goods and services for those who do not themselves produce good and services?
Mess with Social Security and your Political Aspirations are Over. Everyone knows this but Redneck Perry!
One of the best scenarios is to have more people buying goods and services than are producing those goods and services. Then you will have surplus profits that can be used to expand other markets for other goods and services.
It doesn't matter if the funds had been invested in T-Bills, corporate stocks and bonds, Real Estate or even derivatives. The issue is not the investment but rather the usage of the receipts for other purposes that has caused Social Security to be a burden on the economy.
Immie
What purposes should the excess receipts have been used for?
Mess with Social Security and your Political Aspirations are Over. Everyone knows this but Redneck Perry!
Because you sheep have bought the lie hook line and sinker that government taking your money to give it back to you later is a good thing.
