Get rid of Social Security now?

[thereisnospoon]

And what happens when the stock market crashes and old people don't have enough money to put food into their mouths you flippn' moron?

Have you read anything I've written you fucking idiot?

When one gets closer to retirement one takes his holdings out of equities and protects them in conservative vehicles that are insulated from drastic market fluctuations.

It's basic investing strategy that even a moron can understand. Well maybe except for you

So if the stock market wipes out my retirement savings before I get to that point, then what? Starve?

You have no idea what Social Security is for, do you?
Please tell me you do not believe SS is a benefit on which one will be able to live...

 

[thereisnospoon]

I didn't say they did. I said if you make it much past median you've beaten the odds and will get more out than you put in.

You really are one of the biggest idiots on here. Your inability to comprehend simple English sentences is quite exceptional.

Yet you think that median life expectancy is the sole measure of whether you;ll get more out than you put in. It's not.

With any life annuity there is an age that if you beat, you will get out more than you put in. That is quite simply a mathematical fact.

No..The annuity should expire. This would save billions for the living to collect. AND would help keep the SS system from becoming insolvent

 

[thereisnospoon]

And what happens when the stock market crashes and old people don't have enough money to put food into their mouths you flippn' moron?

Have you read anything I've written you fucking idiot?

When one gets closer to retirement one takes his holdings out of equities and protects them in conservative vehicles that are insulated from drastic market fluctuations.

It's basic investing strategy that even a moron can understand. Well maybe except for you

So if the stock market wipes out my retirement savings before I get to that point, then what? Starve?

Genius....the guy just explained to you that CANNOT HAPPEN....
Stop being a stick in the mud and THINK, man..Think!

 

[zeke]

Have you read anything I've written you fucking idiot?

When one gets closer to retirement one takes his holdings out of equities and protects them in conservative vehicles that are insulated from drastic market fluctuations.

It's basic investing strategy that even a moron can understand. Well maybe except for you

So if the stock market wipes out my retirement savings before I get to that point, then what? Starve?

You have no idea what Social Security is for, do you?
Please tell me you do not believe SS is a benefit on which one will be able to live...[/QUOTE]


You think people are not living (subsisting is better than hunger and living in the homeless shelter) soley on Social Security right now? Really?

 

[thereisnospoon]

So if the stock market wipes out my retirement savings before I get to that point, then what? Starve?

In no 45 year period has anyone lost everything in the stock market.

45 years? I thought you said I was supposed to move it to bonds as I neared retirement. I'm supposed to keep my money in the stock market 45 years? 18+45 = 63 - and then move it to bonds. When exactly are people supposed to retire by your reckoning?


What happens when I invest in the stock market for 45 years, as you say, and it turns out instead of getting the PAST returns that you continue to rely on for your analysis, I get the ACTUAL FUTURE returns, and those future returns turn out not to be enough to live on?

And if you're afraid of the stock market then don't invest your money. You can put it in a coffee can and bury it the back yard.

OK.


I still want you to answer my question regardless. When the stock market fails and millions lose the ability to have sufficient funds to eat on after they are too old to work, what then?

What happens if?....What happens if?..
THis was explained to you.
If you cannot accept the facts, there is no help for you.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And I don't know how many times I have to tell you this but the money would be treated similar to SS where it would not be available until a certain age so people couldn't just buy shit with it.

So you think the average American is have enough financial savvy to pick stocks but not enough financial savvy to know not to cash out their retirement before retirement.


yeah - that makes a lot of sense.

Though I guess since "buy and hold" and pretending you can predict the future behavior of a stock market based on selective past performance data is what you would consider a sophisticated investment strategy, I shouldn't be surprised at the apparent contradiction.

There are income funds and mutual funds. These are safe steady growth investments which millions of people invest with their 401k's, IRA's and Keough accounts.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So if the stock market wipes out my retirement savings before I get to that point, then what? Starve?

In no 45 year period has anyone lost everything in the stock market.

45 years? I thought you said I was supposed to move it to bonds as I neared retirement. I'm supposed to keep my money in the stock market 45 years? 18+45 = 63 - and then move it to bonds. When exactly are people supposed to retire by your reckoning?

I never mentioned bonds specifically. And one can but mutual funds that are not equity based. Bond funds are sold via the stock market didn't you know that?

What happens when I invest in the stock market for 45 years, as you say, and it turns out instead of getting the PAST returns that you continue to rely on for your analysis, I get the ACTUAL FUTURE returns, and those future returns turn out not to be enough to live on?

Hey if you want a guarantee then buy your annuities and get a guaranteed 3% or so while the insurance company who sold it to you earns 2 or 3 times that on your money

And if you're afraid of the stock market then don't invest your money. You can put it in a coffee can and bury it the back yard.

OK.


I still want you to answer my question regardless. When the stock market fails and millions lose the ability to have sufficient funds to eat on after they are too old to work, what then?

[/QUOTE]

So you know that the stock market will fail do you?

And as I said you don't have to put your money in the stock market.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Have you read anything I've written you fucking idiot?

When one gets closer to retirement one takes his holdings out of equities and protects them in conservative vehicles that are insulated from drastic market fluctuations.

It's basic investing strategy that even a moron can understand. Well maybe except for you

So if the stock market wipes out my retirement savings before I get to that point, then what? Starve?

You have no idea what Social Security is for, do you?
Please tell me you do not believe SS is a benefit on which one will be able to live...

The average benefit for a retired worker is presently $1230 a month. I survived on that amount when I was in college and if I had to, I could do it again.

Social Security is not meant to be the sole source of one's retirement funds, but its enough to keep most people from having to beg for food in the streets if it winds up so.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

In no 45 year period has anyone lost everything in the stock market.

45 years? I thought you said I was supposed to move it to bonds as I neared retirement. I'm supposed to keep my money in the stock market 45 years? 18+45 = 63 - and then move it to bonds. When exactly are people supposed to retire by your reckoning?


What happens when I invest in the stock market for 45 years, as you say, and it turns out instead of getting the PAST returns that you continue to rely on for your analysis, I get the ACTUAL FUTURE returns, and those future returns turn out not to be enough to live on?

And if you're afraid of the stock market then don't invest your money. You can put it in a coffee can and bury it the back yard.

OK.


I still want you to answer my question regardless. When the stock market fails and millions lose the ability to have sufficient funds to eat on after they are too old to work, what then?

What happens if?....What happens if?..
THis was explained to you.
If you cannot accept the facts, there is no help for you.

The only "explanation" I've gotten is that in the PAST it would not have happened.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And I don't know how many times I have to tell you this but the money would be treated similar to SS where it would not be available until a certain age so people couldn't just buy shit with it.

So you think the average American is have enough financial savvy to pick stocks but not enough financial savvy to know not to cash out their retirement before retirement.


yeah - that makes a lot of sense.

Though I guess since "buy and hold" and pretending you can predict the future behavior of a stock market based on selective past performance data is what you would consider a sophisticated investment strategy, I shouldn't be surprised at the apparent contradiction.

There are income funds and mutual funds. These are safe steady growth investments which millions of people invest with their 401k's, IRA's and Keough accounts.

And they all have disclaimers stating past performance is no indicator of future results - a disclaimer Skull and you have utterly ignored in your analysis.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It would not be double because the employer would still contribute.

If we're talking about a voluntary investment program, why would one's employer match each contribution? Maybe a rare and exceptionally benevolent employer might (I think there might be one or two in the U.S. who are so inclined) but the only reason employers match the FICA contribution is Government says they must.

Where did I ever say it would be voluntary?

I have been talking about the 15% the government confiscates for SS and nothing else.

The saving can be legally compelled as it is now. The only difference is that each person would actually own his account rather than the government throwing the money into a slush fund.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

In no 45 year period has anyone lost everything in the stock market.

45 years? I thought you said I was supposed to move it to bonds as I neared retirement. I'm supposed to keep my money in the stock market 45 years? 18+45 = 63 - and then move it to bonds. When exactly are people supposed to retire by your reckoning?

I never mentioned bonds specifically. And one can but mutual funds that are not equity based. Bond funds are sold via the stock market didn't you know that?



Hey if you want a guarantee then buy your annuities and get a guaranteed 3% or so while the insurance company who sold it to you earns 2 or 3 times that on your money

And if you're afraid of the stock market then don't invest your money. You can put it in a coffee can and bury it the back yard.

OK.


I still want you to answer my question regardless. When the stock market fails and millions lose the ability to have sufficient funds to eat on after they are too old to work, what then?

So you know that the stock market will fail do you?

Unlike yourself, I don't presume anything about future stock market results.

And as I said you don't have to put your money in the stock market.

Your analysis of how your idea is better than SS is based entirely on past stock market performance.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So you think the average American is have enough financial savvy to pick stocks but not enough financial savvy to know not to cash out their retirement before retirement.


yeah - that makes a lot of sense.

Though I guess since "buy and hold" and pretending you can predict the future behavior of a stock market based on selective past performance data is what you would consider a sophisticated investment strategy, I shouldn't be surprised at the apparent contradiction.

There are income funds and mutual funds. These are safe steady growth investments which millions of people invest with their 401k's, IRA's and Keough accounts.

And they all have disclaimers stating past performance is no indicator of future results - a disclaimer Skull and you have utterly ignored in your analysis.

Like I said before if you're afraid of the market then put your money in a coffee can and bury it in the yard.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It would not be double because the employer would still contribute.

If we're talking about a voluntary investment program, why would one's employer match each contribution? Maybe a rare and exceptionally benevolent employer might (I think there might be one or two in the U.S. who are so inclined) but the only reason employers match the FICA contribution is Government says they must.

Where did I ever say it would be voluntary?

I have been talking about the 15% the government confiscates for SS and nothing else.

The saving can be legally compelled as it is now. The only difference is that each person would actually own his account rather than the government throwing the money into a slush fund.

You forgot another difference - the fact that if you divert SS revenues into private accounts, there will no longer be any funding to make payments to current SS beneficiaries. BUt hey, fuck them, right?

 

[thereisnospoon]

So if the stock market wipes out my retirement savings before I get to that point, then what? Starve?

You have no idea what Social Security is for, do you?
Please tell me you do not believe SS is a benefit on which one will be able to live...[/QUOTE]


You think people are not living (subsisting is better than hunger and living in the homeless shelter) soley on Social Security right now? Really?

There are people who have made that incredibly short sighted mistake.
My parents told me a long time ago to not even think of Social Security as a retirement plan...They are very wise people.
And please, don't give me "well you must be rich" nonsense. I'm not.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There are income funds and mutual funds. These are safe steady growth investments which millions of people invest with their 401k's, IRA's and Keough accounts.

And they all have disclaimers stating past performance is no indicator of future results - a disclaimer Skull and you have utterly ignored in your analysis.

Like I said before if you're afraid of the market then put your money in a coffee can and bury it in the yard.

So your investment strategy is simple then. You can either blindly throw money at market investments based entirely on the presumption that the past performance of the exceptionally well performing U.S. market during the latter half of the 20th century will continue forever - OR - you can bury it in the back yard.


Got it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You have no idea what Social Security is for, do you?
Please tell me you do not believe SS is a benefit on which one will be able to live...[/QUOTE]


You think people are not living (subsisting is better than hunger and living in the homeless shelter) soley on Social Security right now? Really?

There are people who have made that incredibly short sighted mistake.
My parents told me a long time ago to not even think of Social Security as a retirement plan...They are very wise people.
And please, don't give me "well you must be rich" nonsense. I'm not.

Yeah - they made the "mistake" of being poor.


Or maybe they made the mistake of listening to an investment advisor with the acumen of Skull Pilot.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If we're talking about a voluntary investment program, why would one's employer match each contribution? Maybe a rare and exceptionally benevolent employer might (I think there might be one or two in the U.S. who are so inclined) but the only reason employers match the FICA contribution is Government says they must.

Where did I ever say it would be voluntary?

I have been talking about the 15% the government confiscates for SS and nothing else.

The saving can be legally compelled as it is now. The only difference is that each person would actually own his account rather than the government throwing the money into a slush fund.

You forgot another difference - the fact that if you divert SS revenues into private accounts, there will no longer be any funding to make payments to current SS beneficiaries. BUt hey, fuck them, right?

Then it is up to the federal government to return the money it stole from the SS fund.
No, genius. The new program would have to be phased in.
You people are so fearful of change. And you call us "conservatives".

 

[thereisnospoon]

There are people who have made that incredibly short sighted mistake.
My parents told me a long time ago to not even think of Social Security as a retirement plan...They are very wise people.
And please, don't give me "well you must be rich" nonsense. I'm not.

Yeah - they made the "mistake" of being poor.


Or maybe they made the mistake of listening to an investment advisor with the acumen of Skull Pilot.

Unbelievable. Poor has nothing to do with it. Besides, those who had low earnings throughout their work careers would not be helped by SS anyway. Sheesh.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Where did I ever say it would be voluntary?

I have been talking about the 15% the government confiscates for SS and nothing else.

The saving can be legally compelled as it is now. The only difference is that each person would actually own his account rather than the government throwing the money into a slush fund.

You forgot another difference - the fact that if you divert SS revenues into private accounts, there will no longer be any funding to make payments to current SS beneficiaries. BUt hey, fuck them, right?

Then it is up to the federal government to return the money it stole from the SS fund.
No, genius. The new program would have to be phased in.
You people are so fearful of change. And you call us "conservatives".

How do you "phase it in" without taking any money from current beneficiaries? If next year 5% of SS revenues become diverted into private accounts - we'll need to find exactly that amount of money, from some other source, to keep paying current retirees. If next year 1% of SS revenues become diverted into private accounts - we'll need to find exactly that amount of money, from some other source, to keep paying current retirees. What is that source? Magic? You can't alter the fact that if you change from paygo to fully funded there is a funding gap, "phasing it in" merely spreads that gap over time - it still has to be paid for.