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.
Just wait until inflation really kicks in? I wonder who they will blame then?Explain the safe investment.
IS IT THAT FUCKING HARD?
AND ONE OF THE FAVORITES.
Come on lucy speak up!!!
I said a relatively safe investment. That means a low risk investment.
Low risk? Yes printing money out of thin air lowers risk. Sure low risk.
As long as we can borrow money your investment is safe with us.
Should I snap to and salute?
Explain the safe investment.
IS IT THAT FUCKING HARD?
AND ONE OF THE FAVORITES.
Come on lucy speak up!!!
I said a relatively safe investment. That means a low risk investment.
Low risk? Yes printing money out of thin air lowers risk. Sure low risk.
As long as we can borrow money your investment is safe with us.
Should I snap to and salute?
So Cain's 9 9 9 plan collects 9% in federal income tax, but then he wants an SS system that puts 10% into Social Security?
So his Social Security plan takes 100%, and then some, of all the federal income tax he plans to collect, to fund it?
lol
They already do that for social security! This is prefaced dollars going to retirement 10 fold different. But I'm glad to know ur against Obamacare!
Cain opposition to Obamacare goes well beyond the mandate the mandate is just away to kill it.
SS does not go to private companies; it can only go into treasuries.
Conservatives who think the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional want me to hand over 10% of my wages to a private company, to buy private investment products, and I'll pay a fee for it to boot.
And THAT is not unconstitutional, if you think Obamacare is unconstitutional??????
First, you already give up 15% in the payroll taxes (which also includes other things other than SS), so you argument on 10% makes no sense and stinks of partisanship!
Social security is a MUST! It can't go away like the Ron Paul supporters want. HOWEVER, some big change is needed. It already takes up 21% of the budget and it's still well into the red.
Chile has the best system in the world. They corrected from financial breakdown by going this route in the 80s and now they are the first 1st world country in Latin America.
Liberals always tell us to learn from other countries like the ones in Europe! Well maybe we should learn from other countries, starting with Chile!!!
Also your deflection on Obamacare being unconstitutional is a red herring. Anything can be made constitutional with a constitutional amendment!
I said a relatively safe investment. That means a low risk investment.
Low risk? Yes printing money out of thin air lowers risk. Sure low risk.
As long as we can borrow money your investment is safe with us.
Should I snap to and salute?
The OP calls it a low risk investment. I merely referred to it. Why don't you go babble at him for awhile?
Low risk? Yes printing money out of thin air lowers risk. Sure low risk.
As long as we can borrow money your investment is safe with us.
Should I snap to and salute?
The OP calls it a low risk investment. I merely referred to it. Why don't you go babble at him for awhile?
could you back pedal a bit faster?
Thanks
Waterthe Tree opines:
force the population to give 10% of there money to wall street to force a false boost in stock prices so the executives can rip us all off agian.
Bingo!
Bingo, lol you fools don't even know where the mark is. First, through payroll taxes you already contribute a ton to forced retirement. Second, the boom was created by the CLINTON administration and Gingrich lead regulations. Gramm-Leach Bliley that got rid of the Glass-Steagell Act (If this one move was not done by Clinton then AIG wouldn't have been able to do what they did) and the Community Reinvestment Act that FORCED banks to lend. Not to mention the Clinton Adm allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to create an artificial secondary market for mortgages. But I digress. Third, the current SS system guarantees a negative return, but the Chilean way has been reaping the Chileans a 12% return.
Lastly, where do you think the money a company gets from selling stocks goes to? A socialist fool like you would say to line executive's pockets. Nothing could be further from the truth. I work for a large company that went from private to public. What did the do with the money they raised: (1) Created a new sales team call the verticals - added close to 100 sales people in the US right their, (2) Hired 30 scientist for our decisioning software products, (3) Hired 15 more product managers for new products to hit the market, (4) Purchased other a few other companies to enhance our products, (5) Entered Brazil, Argentina, Russia and India! Having SS invest in America would actually help the economy not hurt it!
So you pay what, now? About 6% of your pay in the payroll tax, which goes to SS?
So you already have that 4% difference to invest as you wish, and much of that can be tax exempted, or deferred, via an IRA or the like.
Btw, I don't you get 12% a year in relatively safe investments over the long term, as is claimed in the OP. That's a wildly optimistic number.
So you pay what, now? About 6% of your pay in the payroll tax, which goes to SS?
So you already have that 4% difference to invest as you wish, and much of that can be tax exempted, or deferred, via an IRA or the like.
Btw, I don't you get 12% a year in relatively safe investments over the long term, as is claimed in the OP. That's a wildly optimistic number.
Social Security Taxes are 12% paid by you which is matched by your employer. Medicare is the other 3%, also matched by your employer for a total FICA tax of 15% paid by you which is matched by your employer.
Social Security is not cheap, especially when compared to other retirement plans and disability insurance is the reason. We need to figure out a way to insure folks against true disabilities without making a successful DIB claim an early retirement jack-pot.
Becoming disabled should be a bad thing.
So you pay what, now? About 6% of your pay in the payroll tax, which goes to SS?
So you already have that 4% difference to invest as you wish, and much of that can be tax exempted, or deferred, via an IRA or the like.
Btw, I don't you get 12% a year in relatively safe investments over the long term, as is claimed in the OP. That's a wildly optimistic number.
Social Security Taxes are 12% paid by you which is matched by your employer. Medicare is the other 3%, also matched by your employer for a total FICA tax of 15% paid by you which is matched by your employer.
Social Security is not cheap, especially when compared to other retirement plans and disability insurance is the reason. We need to figure out a way to insure folks against true disabilities without making a successful DIB claim an early retirement jack-pot.
Becoming disabled should be a bad thing.
Edit: Rates wrong - see below.
So you pay what, now? About 6% of your pay in the payroll tax, which goes to SS?
So you already have that 4% difference to invest as you wish, and much of that can be tax exempted, or deferred, via an IRA or the like.
Btw, I don't you get 12% a year in relatively safe investments over the long term, as is claimed in the OP. That's a wildly optimistic number.
Social Security Taxes are 12% paid by you which is matched by your employer. Medicare is the other 3%, also matched by your employer for a total FICA tax of 15% paid by you which is matched by your employer.
Social Security is not cheap, especially when compared to other retirement plans and disability insurance is the reason. We need to figure out a way to insure folks against true disabilities without making a successful DIB claim an early retirement jack-pot.
Becoming disabled should be a bad thing.
This does not take into account state taxes at all.
You guys got me thinking. Doesn't happen often, but this particular time it was a good thing. I stand corrected. Contribution rates are:
The 2011 tax rate is 4.2 percent for employees, 6.2 percent for employers, and 10.4 percent for self-employed people. These rates apply to earnings up to the maximum taxable amount ($106,800 in 2011).
The Social Security contribution rate for 2011
Waterthe Tree opines:
Bingo!
Bingo, lol you fools don't even know where the mark is. First, through payroll taxes you already contribute a ton to forced retirement. Second, the boom was created by the CLINTON administration and Gingrich lead regulations. Gramm-Leach Bliley that got rid of the Glass-Steagell Act (If this one move was not done by Clinton then AIG wouldn't have been able to do what they did) and the Community Reinvestment Act that FORCED banks to lend. Not to mention the Clinton Adm allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to create an artificial secondary market for mortgages. But I digress. Third, the current SS system guarantees a negative return, but the Chilean way has been reaping the Chileans a 12% return.
Lastly, where do you think the money a company gets from selling stocks goes to? A socialist fool like you would say to line executive's pockets. Nothing could be further from the truth. I work for a large company that went from private to public. What did the do with the money they raised: (1) Created a new sales team call the verticals - added close to 100 sales people in the US right their, (2) Hired 30 scientist for our decisioning software products, (3) Hired 15 more product managers for new products to hit the market, (4) Purchased other a few other companies to enhance our products, (5) Entered Brazil, Argentina, Russia and India! Having SS invest in America would actually help the economy not hurt it!
Yea you do digress. You call us fools but you dont even know your history.
All that regulation you blame clinton for was started under bush sr. He didnt have time to finish it so clinton finished it. While it is true that it had enough republican support he didnt have any choice but to go along with it I still consider clinton a coward for not going on tv and warning the population of what would come about by this.
Ron Paul did though.
Anyway, my point is that your nothing more then a partisan shill. I say only a fool cannot see that there is difference between both parties.
Bingo, lol you fools don't even know where the mark is. First, through payroll taxes you already contribute a ton to forced retirement. Second, the boom was created by the CLINTON administration and Gingrich lead regulations. Gramm-Leach Bliley that got rid of the Glass-Steagell Act (If this one move was not done by Clinton then AIG wouldn't have been able to do what they did) and the Community Reinvestment Act that FORCED banks to lend. Not to mention the Clinton Adm allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to create an artificial secondary market for mortgages. But I digress. Third, the current SS system guarantees a negative return, but the Chilean way has been reaping the Chileans a 12% return.
Lastly, where do you think the money a company gets from selling stocks goes to? A socialist fool like you would say to line executive's pockets. Nothing could be further from the truth. I work for a large company that went from private to public. What did the do with the money they raised: (1) Created a new sales team call the verticals - added close to 100 sales people in the US right their, (2) Hired 30 scientist for our decisioning software products, (3) Hired 15 more product managers for new products to hit the market, (4) Purchased other a few other companies to enhance our products, (5) Entered Brazil, Argentina, Russia and India! Having SS invest in America would actually help the economy not hurt it!
Yea you do digress. You call us fools but you dont even know your history.
All that regulation you blame clinton for was started under bush sr. He didnt have time to finish it so clinton finished it. While it is true that it had enough republican support he didnt have any choice but to go along with it I still consider clinton a coward for not going on tv and warning the population of what would come about by this.
Ron Paul did though.
Anyway, my point is that your nothing more then a partisan shill. I say only a fool cannot see that there is difference between both parties.
GLB, which have to deal with on a daily basis was signed into being during Clinton's second term. The real probably with GLB is that it ended the FDR great law the Glass-Steagell Act, this law prohibited commercials, investment banks (brokers) and insurance companies from being under the same company or umbrella. They saw the conflict of interest and it was signed into law during Clinton's 2ND term.
CRA was CREATED during the Carter Error years, Reagan put it to a hult, then Dodds, Frank and Clinton revived it and forced it down the banks throats!
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created in the 30s with a much different purpose. They started to gain power with Bush I, but it was Clinton that allowed them power over an artifical secondary market!
I think you need to get your facts right. I bet you will say NAFTA first came into being under Bush I, but it was Clinton and Gore arguing for it and signing it into law!
So Cain wants the US to go down the Chilean way?
He does realize that the "Chilean way" included a brutal dictator that made thousands of his own people disappear, harboured (on the behalf of the US) nazi war criminals and totally destroyed the country economically. The inequality is horrible in Chile and poverty is high. This is thanks to Cain's hero Pinochet and his right wing fascist government.
The administrative costs of these private "social security" companies is 15%+ of the contributions and has been much higher.
On top of that the contributions of 50% at least of the people are not enough to get the minimum guaranteed out of the system when they do retire, so in the end the government has to make up the difference. This in turn means that people have far less to live off... and it is very much dependent on the stock market, which as we all know is not doing so good. In Chile, retiring means poverty for many people...
Chile's privatised social security system is failing and has been failing for over a decade.
Chile is the only country in Latin America can is a 1st world nation (Brazil is close). Chile was the FIRST country to create a social security system, therefore, they were the first to see it go bankrupt. Back in 1981 they had a genius idea and it not only saved their system, but actually created 10x more money for retirees at retirement. IT'S THE BEST SYSTEM IN THE WORLD!!! So much so countries around the world have been lining up to copy it!!!
My man Herman Cain is one of those people that KNOWS America must do this also! Liberals are slandering him for his, but they have NO IDEA what it is!
Attached is a PDF on the Chilean Social Security System - the best in the world! See the Liberal tribunes assessment of it! Cain knocks another one out of the park, along with his 9-9-9 plan.
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v59n3/v59n3p45.pdf
Countries Line Up To Copy Chile's Pension System - Chicago Tribune
Since 1980, Chile has run the world's most-successful private pension system. And now just about everyone wants to copy it.
Visitors from Russia, China, Thailand and Spain file through the pension fund chief's office in ever-growing throngs these days, picking up stacks of literature in English and Spanish. His staff publishes a pension system newsletter that now has 500 subscribers in the United States alone. Peru, Ecuador and a host of other nations are already converts.
"Chile's better known for its pension funds these days than its wines," he says, smiling.
Why Chile's model is so popular isn't hard to understand. In the late 1970s, this country of 14 million faced the same kind of problem now bedeviling the United States and other countries: a social security system rapidly approaching insolvency.
Chile's then-military government reacted with a novel approach recommended by its University of Chicago-trained economic advisers: It privatized the system.
Workers, instead of paying a social security tax to the government, began paying 10 percent of their salary into an individual retirement account, managed by one of a handful of government-approved private investment firms.
Older workers, who had not had the opportunity to build up adequate private accounts, continued to get checks from the government. But in time, those transition payments will be phased out.
The program has been an enormous success. Chile's private savings rate has ballooned to 30 percent, on par with Asian countries, as workers have socked away more than $27 billion. Most workers can now expect to retire after 35 years at 85 percent of their salary--and that's if they receive only fairly low returns of 4 percent annually in real terms. Actual real returns have topped 12 percent, Bustamante said.
Those kind of numbers have attracted the attention of the United States, which is facing the rapidly looming breakdown of its own Social Security system.
By around 2012, Social Security, now stuck with only 1.5 workers per retiree, down from 8 per retiree decades ago, will begin to pay out more money than it takes in, according to the Washington-based Cato Institute, a libertarian research group.
At that point, the country will face some "rather ugly choices," as Ted Carpenter, Cato's vice president, puts it. Those will be to either drastically cut benefits or dramatically raise Social Security taxes on workers.
Particularly hard-hit will be workers now in their mid-40s and younger, who without any change to the current system may spend a lifetime paying into it without getting much in the way of benefits back, Carpenter said.
If it allowed workers to begin paying into their own private retirement funds, the United States, like Chile, would have to find some way to continue paying out Social Security benefits to current recipients for a few decades without any money coming into the system.
That could be especially difficult for a country like the United States with a large budget deficit and a Social Security "fund" filled with IOUs rather than cash, said Andras Uthoff, a Santiago-based monetary expert with the United Nations.
But if the money can be found, the switch offers a host of long-term benefits beyond simply avoiding an eventual collapse of the current system, Uthoff said.
First, the changeover would make the whole process of retirement saving clearer in the United States, by allowing workers to keep and invest their own money rather than pay it into a system that promises them they will one day get it back.
Right now, the U.S. retirement system functions "in a black box," Uthoff said. "Money comes in, money goes out and it's not clear what goes on in the middle." The new model removes the government from the equation, ensuring it cannot borrow retirement funds to mask government debt.
Under the Chilean system, workers get statements every few months showing exactly how much money they have saved and can expect to receive at retirement, a "more transparent process," Uthoff said. They also choose how and where to invest their money--within a limited range of low-risk investments--rather than trusting the government to make the best decision on their behalf...
So you pay what, now? About 6% of your pay in the payroll tax, which goes to SS?
So you already have that 4% difference to invest as you wish, and much of that can be tax exempted, or deferred, via an IRA or the like.
Btw, I don't you get 12% a year in relatively safe investments over the long term, as is claimed in the OP. That's a wildly optimistic number.
Social Security Taxes are 12% paid by you which is matched by your employer. Medicare is the other 3%, also matched by your employer for a total FICA tax of 15% paid by you which is matched by your employer.
Social Security is not cheap, especially when compared to other retirement plans and disability insurance is the reason. We need to figure out a way to insure folks against true disabilities without making a successful DIB claim an early retirement jack-pot.
Becoming disabled should be a bad thing.
Edit: Rates wrong - see below.
No. SS is split between you and your employer. You currently pay 4.2%.
Edit: I posted this before i saw your edit.
First, the changeover would make the whole process of retirement saving clearer in the United States, by allowing workers to keep and invest their own money rather than pay it into a system that promises them they will one day get it back.
Doesnt this really mean ending social security and then leaving people with no option but to invest in the stock/debt market. Which is really just a corrupt ponzi scheme? Would probably serve as a boost to stocks, untill the next greedy asshole steals all the money.
I say if we cant fix social security then just end government in the retirement business. Why is our government even in this debate. Let the people choose the best way for them to take care of themselves.
If we just reserved social security for the most needy we could cut the tax payments in half and still operate at a surplus. But no, even well to do people think they are entitled to the nanny state.
