Even with Volatile Stock Market, Personal Retirement Accounts Are Better, Safer than Social Security

[initforme]

Well then it should be the duty of financial advisors to help people invest for a mere fee of $5. Then have more people invest and see how it goes. Problem is one cannot trust financial advisors cuz they are out to make a buck and don't care about their clients. To heck with them. If investing is so good then people should be given the proper knowledge to invest while the investors don't make a large fee. Nobody can possibly disagree with this. Top that off with ost people don't make enough to save anyway as the rich pricks get all the breaks whether they earned their money or not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The liberal turds all claim Social Security is safer. Well, they're all wrong:

Even with a Volatile Stock Market Personal Retirement Accounts Are Better and Safer than Social Security International Liberty

Early last year, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity released this video, narrated by yours truly, making the case that the United States and other nations should shift from a tax-and-transfer entitlement scheme to a system of personal retirement accounts.

Some left wingers criticized the idea, saying the big drop in the stock market in 2008-2009 is proof that personal retirement accounts are too risky.

You won’t be surprised to learn, though, that they are wrong. It is true that retirement income fluctuates with a system of personal accounts, but that simply means that it is difficult to predict how much more income one would enjoy when compared to being stuck with Social Security.

Here is the key section from a just-released paper authored by my Cato colleague, Mike Tanner.

Despite recent declines in the stock market, a worker who had invested privately over the past 40 years would have still earned an average yearly return of 6.85 percent investing in the S&P 500, 3.46 percent from corporate bonds, and 2.44 percent from government bonds. If workers who retired in 2011 had been allowed to invest the employee half of the Social Security payroll tax over their working lifetime, they would retire with more income than if they relied on Social Security. Indeed, even in the worst-case scenario—a low-wage worker who invested entirely in bonds—the benefits from private investment would equal those from traditional Social Security.​

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How many SS recipients have lost money on their entitlement?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since the OP wants NO government at all, how would you feel about putting your retirement money with some financial institution that under the OP's anarchy would have no legal obligation whatsoever to give any of it back, and no legal liability if it didn't?

 

[bripat9643]

The liberal turds all claim Social Security is safer. Well, they're all wrong:

Even with a Volatile Stock Market Personal Retirement Accounts Are Better and Safer than Social Security International Liberty

Early last year, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity released this video, narrated by yours truly, making the case that the United States and other nations should shift from a tax-and-transfer entitlement scheme to a system of personal retirement accounts.

Some left wingers criticized the idea, saying the big drop in the stock market in 2008-2009 is proof that personal retirement accounts are too risky.

You won’t be surprised to learn, though, that they are wrong. It is true that retirement income fluctuates with a system of personal accounts, but that simply means that it is difficult to predict how much more income one would enjoy when compared to being stuck with Social Security.

Here is the key section from a just-released paper authored by my Cato colleague, Mike Tanner.

Despite recent declines in the stock market, a worker who had invested privately over the past 40 years would have still earned an average yearly return of 6.85 percent investing in the S&P 500, 3.46 percent from corporate bonds, and 2.44 percent from government bonds. If workers who retired in 2011 had been allowed to invest the employee half of the Social Security payroll tax over their working lifetime, they would retire with more income than if they relied on Social Security. Indeed, even in the worst-case scenario—a low-wage worker who invested entirely in bonds—the benefits from private investment would equal those from traditional Social Security.​

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How many SS recipients have lost money on their entitlement?

Plenty. The government has reduced the benefit it originally promised them. For example, previous SS benefits were non taxable. Clinton changed that and now people pay taxes on them.

 

[bripat9643]

Since the OP wants NO government at all, how would you feel about putting your retirement money with some financial institution that under the OP's anarchy would have no legal obligation whatsoever to give any of it back, and no legal liability if it didn't?

No one is proposing such a system, nimrod.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since the OP wants NO government at all, how would you feel about putting your retirement money with some financial institution that under the OP's anarchy would have no legal obligation whatsoever to give any of it back, and no legal liability if it didn't?

No one is proposing such a system, nimrod.

Ah, so you admit we need government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The liberal turds all claim Social Security is safer. Well, they're all wrong:

Even with a Volatile Stock Market Personal Retirement Accounts Are Better and Safer than Social Security International Liberty

Early last year, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity released this video, narrated by yours truly, making the case that the United States and other nations should shift from a tax-and-transfer entitlement scheme to a system of personal retirement accounts.

Some left wingers criticized the idea, saying the big drop in the stock market in 2008-2009 is proof that personal retirement accounts are too risky.

You won’t be surprised to learn, though, that they are wrong. It is true that retirement income fluctuates with a system of personal accounts, but that simply means that it is difficult to predict how much more income one would enjoy when compared to being stuck with Social Security.

Here is the key section from a just-released paper authored by my Cato colleague, Mike Tanner.

Despite recent declines in the stock market, a worker who had invested privately over the past 40 years would have still earned an average yearly return of 6.85 percent investing in the S&P 500, 3.46 percent from corporate bonds, and 2.44 percent from government bonds. If workers who retired in 2011 had been allowed to invest the employee half of the Social Security payroll tax over their working lifetime, they would retire with more income than if they relied on Social Security. Indeed, even in the worst-case scenario—a low-wage worker who invested entirely in bonds—the benefits from private investment would equal those from traditional Social Security.​

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How many SS recipients have lost money on their entitlement?

Plenty. The government has reduced the benefit it originally promised them. For example, previous SS benefits were non taxable. Clinton changed that and now people pay taxes on them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The liberal turds all claim Social Security is safer. Well, they're all wrong:

Even with a Volatile Stock Market Personal Retirement Accounts Are Better and Safer than Social Security International Liberty

Early last year, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity released this video, narrated by yours truly, making the case that the United States and other nations should shift from a tax-and-transfer entitlement scheme to a system of personal retirement accounts.

Some left wingers criticized the idea, saying the big drop in the stock market in 2008-2009 is proof that personal retirement accounts are too risky.

You won’t be surprised to learn, though, that they are wrong. It is true that retirement income fluctuates with a system of personal accounts, but that simply means that it is difficult to predict how much more income one would enjoy when compared to being stuck with Social Security.

Here is the key section from a just-released paper authored by my Cato colleague, Mike Tanner.

Despite recent declines in the stock market, a worker who had invested privately over the past 40 years would have still earned an average yearly return of 6.85 percent investing in the S&P 500, 3.46 percent from corporate bonds, and 2.44 percent from government bonds. If workers who retired in 2011 had been allowed to invest the employee half of the Social Security payroll tax over their working lifetime, they would retire with more income than if they relied on Social Security. Indeed, even in the worst-case scenario—a low-wage worker who invested entirely in bonds—the benefits from private investment would equal those from traditional Social Security.​

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How many SS recipients have lost money on their entitlement?

Plenty. The government has reduced the benefit it originally promised them. For example, previous SS benefits were non taxable. Clinton changed that and now people pay taxes on them.

Social Security doesn't make that sort of promise.

 

[Judicial review]

Money in banks, the market, which means retirement accounts are all subject to high risk right now. Our market isn't just volatile it's 1 bad news away from a huge sell off in a country where that kind of bad news can come from so many bad directions.

Put your money in bonds and securities and commodities, which are much safer.

 

[Brain357]

Whoa yah, I think I'll let that blogger take care of my savings. Not.

The Cato institute is not a blogger. Furthermore, with an IRA you take care your savings yourself.

Cato institute is a crazy right wing group. I've typically found their findings to be ridiculously wrong.

 

[Brain357]

The lying government has spent every last dime of my Social Security contributions on other crap even the extra money they forced me to pay into the system, and I'm supposed to believe the stock market is riskier?

Social Security is a Pay As You Go system, not a Savings Account. You were OPM for others and when you retire you will be living on OPM. Your money never was.

Yes being a pay as you go system there will always be money as long as people are working.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Money in banks, the market, which means retirement accounts are all subject to high risk right now. Our market isn't just volatile it's 1 bad news away from a huge sell off in a country where that kind of bad news can come from so many bad directions.

Put your money in bonds and securities and commodities, which are much safer.

The Social Security Trust Fund is invested in US treasury securities, the safest investment.

 

[zeke]

The Social Security Trust Fund is invested in US treasury securities, the safest investment.

WHAT???? Are you sure? The right wingers on here say it is in Obama and his Muslim buddies mattresses.
I am sure Obama gave most of the Social Security trust fund to Iran. True story. I saw it on FOX. LMAO.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Social Security Trust Fund is invested in US treasury securities, the safest investment.

WHAT???? Are you sure? The right wingers on here say it is in Obama and his Muslim buddies mattresses.
I am sure Obama gave most of the Social Security trust fund to Iran. True story. I saw it on FOX. LMAO.

In the world of politics there is no task more daunting than to convince a rightwinger to abandon a myth he's in love with.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The Social Security Trust Fund is invested in US treasury securities, the safest investment.

WHAT???? Are you sure? The right wingers on here say it is in Obama and his Muslim buddies mattresses.
I am sure Obama gave most of the Social Security trust fund to Iran. True story. I saw it on FOX. LMAO.

In the world of politics there is no task more daunting than to convince a rightwinger to abandon a myth he's in love with.

Wrong. Interesting watching both of you contort.

Both of y'alls hero said otherwise:

Here’s how President Barack Obama answered CBS’s Scott Pelley’s question about whether he could guarantee that Social Security checks would go out on August 3, the day after the government is supposed to reach its debt limit: “I cannot guarantee that those checks [he included veterans and the disabled, in addition to Social Security] go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”

What Happened to the 2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund - Forbes

 

[bripat9643]

Since the OP wants NO government at all, how would you feel about putting your retirement money with some financial institution that under the OP's anarchy would have no legal obligation whatsoever to give any of it back, and no legal liability if it didn't?

No one is proposing such a system, nimrod.

Ah, so you admit we need government.

Where did I admit that? Your theory that we have to have Social Security or the other shitty system you proposed is bogus, of course.

 

[bripat9643]

Whoa yah, I think I'll let that blogger take care of my savings. Not.

The Cato institute is not a blogger. Furthermore, with an IRA you take care your savings yourself.

Cato institute is a crazy right wing group. I've typically found their findings to be ridiculously wrong.

ROFL! Thanks for unmasking yourself as the wackiest kind of commie nutburger.

 

[bripat9643]

The liberal turds all claim Social Security is safer. Well, they're all wrong:

Even with a Volatile Stock Market Personal Retirement Accounts Are Better and Safer than Social Security International Liberty

Early last year, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity released this video, narrated by yours truly, making the case that the United States and other nations should shift from a tax-and-transfer entitlement scheme to a system of personal retirement accounts.

Some left wingers criticized the idea, saying the big drop in the stock market in 2008-2009 is proof that personal retirement accounts are too risky.

You won’t be surprised to learn, though, that they are wrong. It is true that retirement income fluctuates with a system of personal accounts, but that simply means that it is difficult to predict how much more income one would enjoy when compared to being stuck with Social Security.

Here is the key section from a just-released paper authored by my Cato colleague, Mike Tanner.

Despite recent declines in the stock market, a worker who had invested privately over the past 40 years would have still earned an average yearly return of 6.85 percent investing in the S&P 500, 3.46 percent from corporate bonds, and 2.44 percent from government bonds. If workers who retired in 2011 had been allowed to invest the employee half of the Social Security payroll tax over their working lifetime, they would retire with more income than if they relied on Social Security. Indeed, even in the worst-case scenario—a low-wage worker who invested entirely in bonds—the benefits from private investment would equal those from traditional Social Security.​

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How many SS recipients have lost money on their entitlement?

Plenty. The government has reduced the benefit it originally promised them. For example, previous SS benefits were non taxable. Clinton changed that and now people pay taxes on them.

Social Security doesn't make that sort of promise.

The proponents of Social Security made all sorts of promises when they were trying to get it passed. Of course, there is no legal requirement for government to make good on anything it promises.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The liberal turds all claim Social Security is safer. Well, they're all wrong:

Even with a Volatile Stock Market Personal Retirement Accounts Are Better and Safer than Social Security International Liberty

Early last year, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity released this video, narrated by yours truly, making the case that the United States and other nations should shift from a tax-and-transfer entitlement scheme to a system of personal retirement accounts.

Some left wingers criticized the idea, saying the big drop in the stock market in 2008-2009 is proof that personal retirement accounts are too risky.

You won’t be surprised to learn, though, that they are wrong. It is true that retirement income fluctuates with a system of personal accounts, but that simply means that it is difficult to predict how much more income one would enjoy when compared to being stuck with Social Security.

Here is the key section from a just-released paper authored by my Cato colleague, Mike Tanner.

Despite recent declines in the stock market, a worker who had invested privately over the past 40 years would have still earned an average yearly return of 6.85 percent investing in the S&P 500, 3.46 percent from corporate bonds, and 2.44 percent from government bonds. If workers who retired in 2011 had been allowed to invest the employee half of the Social Security payroll tax over their working lifetime, they would retire with more income than if they relied on Social Security. Indeed, even in the worst-case scenario—a low-wage worker who invested entirely in bonds—the benefits from private investment would equal those from traditional Social Security.​

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How many SS recipients have lost money on their entitlement?

Plenty. The government has reduced the benefit it originally promised them. For example, previous SS benefits were non taxable. Clinton changed that and now people pay taxes on them.

Social Security doesn't make that sort of promise.

The proponents of Social Security made all sorts of promises when they were trying to get it passed. Of course, there is no legal requirement for government to make good on anything it promises.

Fine, then show us the promise that benefits would never be modified.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since the OP wants NO government at all, how would you feel about putting your retirement money with some financial institution that under the OP's anarchy would have no legal obligation whatsoever to give any of it back, and no legal liability if it didn't?

No one is proposing such a system, nimrod.

Ah, so you admit we need government.

Where did I admit that? Your theory that we have to have Social Security or the other shitty system you proposed is bogus, of course.

You just said no one is proposing a system without Government, which means you admit we need government.