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.
And that is the entire damn point. First, they fail to achieve the 'safety net' you are talking about anyway considering that SS does NOT pay out enough to live decently. Second, the program removes SIGNIFICANT wealth from your possession thereby limiting your ability to build a REAL asset.It should be privatized and people be able to invest their money in a limited fashion. SS does not even give someone enough to live on let alone create real wealth for the one that is paying for it. There are many benefits a privatized system would have not the least of which is the possibility of passing that asset down to your children should you not utilize all of it.
It isn't intended to create wealth or provide something to pass onto one's children. It is intended to allow you to live when you can no longer work. It is intended to keep a roof over your head and food in your belly and that is it. If you want more, then you need to prepare for retirement. SS doesn't remove responsibility to plan for your future, it just creates a safety net so you don't end up in living in a cardboard box eating out of garbage cans.
YOU pay for it - you should expect an asset WORTH what you pay?
And the actual truth of what SS was supposed to be - a system you paid into for life and received NOTHING in return because you would likely be dead.There's nothing surprising about it at all, SS is paygo and has been since inception.
Congress sells its IOUs all the time. If I'm not mistaken, its every Tuesday. Holy Lord you can't seriously be this stupid.
You don't know what the hell you are talking about
When you buy a savings bond for your kid, you get an IOU from the government. When you put cash in a money market account, in most cases you're getting an IOU from the government. When you invest in municipal bonds, you get IOU's from the government.
Okay, all you liberal bunch of dumb asses go ahead tell us how the government is going to pay back the $2 trillion dollars of OUR money they borrowed and spent from the SS trust fund?
Why would they have to pay it all back at once?
HELLO earth to idiots, they don't have the money now to pay the SS benefits and don't have the money to pay back the $2 trillion dollars so now they are trying to screw over the people who were forced to pay into this scheme. They are proposing reduced benefits and in some cases denying benefits, means testing, and increasing the retirement age to a ridiculous age hoping people will just die before they can collect a dime of the benefits they paid for.
No. The original retirement age for social security was 65. That was in 1935 when the average life expectancy was 61. Life expectancy is now 79 and the retirement age for people retiring now is 66. Retirement age went up 1 year and people are living an extra 18 years. How are they being screwed?
THAT is what SS was intended to be in the beginning.
How are they getting screwed? They are getting screwed because they have been FORCED into purchasing an annuity for all intents and purposes that guaranteed them a specific benefit. A benefit that the government is now telling them they are arbitrarily going to recant on.
It is like telling my neighbor that I will pay him 100 bucks a month after he retires if only he gives me 10 dollars a month now and then backing out on my obligation 20 years later after I collected all that money.
It doesn't work that way. The consequences of people being kicked in the teeth by life, either by mistakes or plain bad luck, are unacceptable in a civilized society. We don't let people starve to teach them a lesson.
Jeb Bush: Next president should privatize Social Security
You don't know what the hell you are talking about
Okay, all you liberal bunch of dumb asses go ahead tell us how the government is going to pay back the $2 trillion dollars of OUR money they borrowed and spent from the SS trust fund?
Why would they have to pay it all back at once?
HELLO earth to idiots, they don't have the money now to pay the SS benefits and don't have the money to pay back the $2 trillion dollars so now they are trying to screw over the people who were forced to pay into this scheme. They are proposing reduced benefits and in some cases denying benefits, means testing, and increasing the retirement age to a ridiculous age hoping people will just die before they can collect a dime of the benefits they paid for.
No. The original retirement age for social security was 65. That was in 1935 when the average life expectancy was 61. Life expectancy is now 79 and the retirement age for people retiring now is 66. Retirement age went up 1 year and people are living an extra 18 years. How are they being screwed?
(face palm) you act like that's new information, hence the damn SS tax increase to cover this for fucks sake only congress spent the damn extra contributions we paid to cover this, they used it as a slush fund for spending on a bunch of crap completely unrelated to SS. Gaawwwddd getting through to some of you knuckleheads is painful.
It's not new information. It's just information which shows what you said is utter garbage. I'll leave you to your little fantasy world.
Yep how dare he suggest such thing everyone knows nobody manages money better that the government.
Jesus christ, what is wrong with this nut?
Jeb Bush Next president should privatize Social Security"
WASHINGTON – Jeb Bush thinks the next president will need to privatize Social Security, he said at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Tuesday – acknowledging that his brother attempted to do so and failed. It’s a position sure to be attacked by both Republicans and Democrats.
Bush has previously said he would support raising the retirement age to get Social Security benefits, a common position among Republicans. And he backed a partial privatization that House Republicans have proposed that would allow people to choose private accounts.
The future of Social Security has become one of the most hotly contested issues in national politics, and both parties have accused the other of threatening its survival. Republicans argue that Democrats’ refusal to change the program will lead to its bankruptcy. Democrats sayprivatization would kill the program and leave elderly Americans at the mercy of the stock market. Plus, any discussion of changing the system often creates fear in older Americans beyond or nearing the age of retirement, who also tend to vote in the greatest numbers.
Republicans have split on the answer to fix the program, which could begin to pay out more than it takes in as more baby boomers retire and younger generations aren’t able to pay enough into the system to keep it going. Understanding the fear privatization proposals create, some Republicans have argued that the retirement age should be increased or means-testing established instead. Many Democrats advocate raising the ceiling for the tax that funds it.
"
The one good thing is, he will never get elected now..
Chilean Model of Social Security FreedomWorks
• It generated surpluses without raising taxes, inflation, or interest rates
• Old-age pensions are 40-50 percent higher than the public pension system
• Disability and survivor pensions are 70-100 percent higher than the public pension system
• Significant decreases in the payroll tax have contributed to an unemployment rate below 5%
• Savings rates have sky rocketed and have deepened investment
• Growth rates have more than doubled in the past 10 years
It's commonsense economics that socialist will never understand!
Jeb Bush: Next president should privatize Social Security
And when that bank goes belly up, like many did in 2008, then we have grandma and grandpa living in cardboard boxes under the overpass eating tins of cat food and trash they dug out of the bins?
It's commonsense economics that socialist will never understand!
Nonsense...The Chilean model is basically a 401K plan......and speaking of "socialism," the Chilean government demands that workers kick in 10% of their salary toward the [basically] government's plan.....
The problem is that Chile has many...if not most....very low-wages' workers and 10% of very little is....well, VERY LITTLE and, ultimately, the Chilean government will have to kick in a hefty amount or risk having retirees starving.
Of course I'm stating PRECISLEY that......There would be NO need for me to have a savings account at my local bank IF I was "guaranteed" a much better return through the stock market.
Does the stock market guarantee my much better return?
YES....or NO ????
I don't buy a lot of individual fundsNo, you don't. You're full of shit.Oh my God. That is one of the stupidest investment strategies I have ever heard. You'd be one of those dead broke idiots at 65 I was talking about.
another idiot who doesn't understand a simple example.
All I was trying to illustrate was that you don't have to pay someone to invest for you there are thousands of resources available and looking at the portfolios of successful investors is merely one of them
My God, you are clueless.
DIY investing. "Thousands of resources available". Holy shit, the frauds would just loooooooove the millions of rubes like you!
I do just fine thank you very much
I bet he really does copy WB's portfolio.
No, you don't. You're full of shit.Oh my God. That is one of the stupidest investment strategies I have ever heard. You'd be one of those dead broke idiots at 65 I was talking about.Why do you have to pay someone to invest for you when you can do it yourself.
Shit you can look up Warren Buffet's portfolio and copy it if you want just get an E trade account and pay a small fee for each trade
another idiot who doesn't understand a simple example.
All I was trying to illustrate was that you don't have to pay someone to invest for you there are thousands of resources available and looking at the portfolios of successful investors is merely one of them
My God, you are clueless.
DIY investing. "Thousands of resources available". Holy shit, the frauds would just loooooooove the millions of rubes like you!
I do just fine thank you very much
Oh my God. That is one of the stupidest investment strategies I have ever heard. You'd be one of those dead broke idiots at 65 I was talking about.Why do you have to pay someone to invest for you when you can do it yourself.I'm sorry, but anyone who peruses this board for ten minutes realizes there are A LOT of rubes in this world. And those rubes are ripe for the plucking by financial frauds who will strip them and leave them naked in the street.
And then those millions upon million upon millions of bankrupt rubes will demand the government support them when they turn 65 and have no nest egg.
I'm sure Wall Street loooooooooves the idea of more money falling into their hands. Love, love, love it.
Shit you can look up Warren Buffet's portfolio and copy it if you want just get an E trade account and pay a small fee for each trade
another idiot who doesn't understand a simple example.
All I was trying to illustrate was that you don't have to pay someone to invest for you there are thousands of resources available and looking at the portfolios of successful investors is merely one of them
Looking at the porfolios of successful investors is about as moronic as you can get. Its the worst example of survivorship bias in the investing world ("survivorship bias" - you might not find that term in your DIY investing books, you should look it up though)
I've been dollar cost averaging since I was 18 and could buy investments.
So you're only putting aside the same monthly amount in savings that you were when you were 18 ?
As it is today I own my own business and we invest about 30% of our gross income every year
Uhh, I hate to break it to you, but that's not dollar cost averaging dude.
I don't need to dollar cost average any more idiot.
Then why did you say "I've been dollar cost averaging since I was 18" ?
When I was working for other people I did save a set amount of money every month. When I got a raise I added it to the savings.
That's not dollar cost averaging, either.
When I got those third paychecks is a month I saved those, I saved every dime of my tax returns as well.
Also, not dollar cost averaging.
But its definitely not called dollar cost averaging.It's called discipline.
Investing the same amount every month is dollar cost averaging moron
Yeah, but that's not what you were doing.
"When I got a raise I added it to the savings." - You
"When I got those third paychecks is a month I saved those, I saved every dime of my tax returns as well." - You
Those amounts are not the same every month - hence - not dollar cost averaging - by your own definition.
Dollar cost averaging is only useful as a short term strategy. If you were to, say, come into $12,000 cash all of a sudden, you might invest $1000 a month in the market for a year instead of dropping the 12k all at once.
As a long term strategy, as you have just illustrated - it is not practical to maintain. Workers tend to have more money to invest when stock prices are high and less when they are low - reality is the opposite of dollar cost averaging.
It's commonsense economics that socialist will never understand!
Nonsense...The Chilean model is basically a 401K plan......and speaking of "socialism," the Chilean government demands that workers kick in 10% of their salary toward the [basically] government's plan.....
The problem is that Chile has many...if not most....very low-wages' workers and 10% of very little is....well, VERY LITTLE and, ultimately, the Chilean government will have to kick in a hefty amount or risk having retirees starving.
The amount you get back from Social Security is also based on your income, so low income people will getting less back from it than higher income people.
But considering the government has been stealing our Social Security money to pay for all of their other endeavors there isn't going to be anything left to give back to contributors anyhow after the parasitic Baby Boomers bleed it dry. That's why I don't figure Social Security into my retirement plan.
Jesus christ, what is wrong with this nut?
Jeb Bush Next president should privatize Social Security"
WASHINGTON – Jeb Bush thinks the next president will need to privatize Social Security, he said at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Tuesday – acknowledging that his brother attempted to do so and failed. It’s a position sure to be attacked by both Republicans and Democrats.
Bush has previously said he would support raising the retirement age to get Social Security benefits, a common position among Republicans. And he backed a partial privatization that House Republicans have proposed that would allow people to choose private accounts.
The future of Social Security has become one of the most hotly contested issues in national politics, and both parties have accused the other of threatening its survival. Republicans argue that Democrats’ refusal to change the program will lead to its bankruptcy. Democrats sayprivatization would kill the program and leave elderly Americans at the mercy of the stock market. Plus, any discussion of changing the system often creates fear in older Americans beyond or nearing the age of retirement, who also tend to vote in the greatest numbers.
Republicans have split on the answer to fix the program, which could begin to pay out more than it takes in as more baby boomers retire and younger generations aren’t able to pay enough into the system to keep it going. Understanding the fear privatization proposals create, some Republicans have argued that the retirement age should be increased or means-testing established instead. Many Democrats advocate raising the ceiling for the tax that funds it.
"
The one good thing is, he will never get elected now..
Maybe the fact that he is 1000% right! The US MUST follow the Chilean model. It has nearly single handedly made Chile a 1st world nation. The model requires each employee to invest 10-20% of their income into the private social security system. At retirement age it goes into an annuity. In the meantime the money is invested and grows. The money is invested in Chile and the earnings go back to the individual. The money Americans currently pay to social security isn't invested and there is no growth. In fact we lose 15-75% (depending on the income bracket) of the money we put in to the system. In Chile they see a 7-10% growth.
These are the positive effects:
Chilean Model of Social Security FreedomWorks
• It generated surpluses without raising taxes, inflation, or interest rates
• Old-age pensions are 40-50 percent higher than the public pension system
• Disability and survivor pensions are 70-100 percent higher than the public pension system
• Significant decreases in the payroll tax have contributed to an unemployment rate below 5%
• Savings rates have sky rocketed and have deepened investment
• Growth rates have more than doubled in the past 10 years
It's commonsense economics that socialist will never understand!
I love your lack of proper grammar. He just 'lose' the election that is one and a half years away? Do tell.He just lose the election right out of the gate. something's shouldn't be privatized...
SSI is one of them...
