Jeb Bush: Next president should privatize Social Security

[NYcarbineer]

The beauty of it is that you pay your tax and that's it, and then one day you wake up old lol, spend a short time filling out some forms, and voila, you start getting checks.

And are guaranteed to have less than you would have if you saved that money yourself.

AWESOME

Geez, so I guess fixing your car so it runs another 50,000 miles is a dumb idea?

When fixing that car costs more than buying a new or newer car yes it is a bad idea

It's more expensive to privatize SS.

No it costs nothing to privatize SS as each person will own his own account and there will be no government necessary

You have millions of Americans on SS now and millions who have paid in for years.

The annual revenue from payroll taxes is being used to pay current recipients and thus maintain the invested Trust Fund, which yields 100 billion in interest annually.

Privatization means the payroll tax no longer goes to recipients or the Trust Fund, it stays with the individual.

That means SS has to use up the Trust Fund, in other words, call in its notes at the expense of the general fund, aka you the taxpayer.

There is no trust fund and SS is paid out of the general fund.

You grandfather in everyone over a certain age and give everyone the option of going private

There's where you show your ignorance because there is a Trust Fund.

 

[NYcarbineer]

More liberal demagoguery. Bush is talking about privatizing SS for people who are under a certain age--like 50 or 55. If you already have SS, this would not affect you. If you are over 50 or 55, you could choose to stay in SS or opt out and get a reduced benefit. If you're under the age cutoff, then you would have the opportunity to take your SS tax money and invest it as you saw fit.

Are liberals not aware that most private companies have changed from defined-benefit plans to 401Ks? That is basically all the government would be doing by changing from SS to 401Ks and IRAs.

What happens to all the payroll tax the 49 year old made, possibly for 30 years?

You mean the payroll taxes that were taken from him don't you?

The payroll taxes he paid into SS.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It is a tax imposed on you by your countrymen who have decided it is every ones duty to contribute to a level of support for old people. Unless and until you accept it for what it is and not what you have been brainwashed into believing is a personal pension plan or retirement portfolio you will simply wallow in you misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what SS is. The government gives you opportunities for retirement investments you can control. SS is not one of them.

15% of my lifetime income is a pretty steep fucking price. And the potential return lost on that money is even steeper

And just because the 95% of you who are sheep is no reason for me to be satisfied with the theft of what could be millions of dollars from my net worth

You keep repeating that 15% of your money false statement. The SS you pay are taxes. The half that the employer pays is a tax also. If relieved of paying that tax to the federal government, why would your employer decide to give it to you?
You keep blowing off points that make privatizing look unworkable and unacceptable. Disability insurance, no big deal. Life insurance, same, no big deal. Exaggerated contributions, lets stay in fantasy land and move on. Finally it boils down to you complaining that your taxes are higher than you want them to be. That is your bottom line. You don't like paying the SS tax. Welcome to the "we want lower taxes" club. Your complaint about spending funds on elderly people is no more valid than someone else's complaint about spending money on defense projects or farm subsidies.
Privatizing is nothing more than a scheme to enrich investment firms and insurance companies. Both of them are big time campaign donors.

If companies are forced to put matching funds into employees private accounts they'll start rolling back their own fund matching in other private accounts.

They are already forced to match the FICA contributions so what's your point?

They don't have to match 401k contributions.

This has nothing to do with 401

You said that if an employer was forced to match the employee in a privatized version of SS that they would reduce their matches elsewhere.

Why would they when they are already forced to match FICA taxes and it doesn't matter what account that match goes to.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And are guaranteed to have less than you would have if you saved that money yourself.

AWESOME

When fixing that car costs more than buying a new or newer car yes it is a bad idea

It's more expensive to privatize SS.

No it costs nothing to privatize SS as each person will own his own account and there will be no government necessary

You have millions of Americans on SS now and millions who have paid in for years.

The annual revenue from payroll taxes is being used to pay current recipients and thus maintain the invested Trust Fund, which yields 100 billion in interest annually.

Privatization means the payroll tax no longer goes to recipients or the Trust Fund, it stays with the individual.

That means SS has to use up the Trust Fund, in other words, call in its notes at the expense of the general fund, aka you the taxpayer.

There is no trust fund and SS is paid out of the general fund.

You grandfather in everyone over a certain age and give everyone the option of going private

There's where you show your ignorance because there is a Trust Fund.

Yeah with ZERO dollars in it. So there really isn't one

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't tell anyone how to invest so why the fuck should you and the government take 15% of my income and then give me some piddly monthly check?

That choice literally will cost me millions of dollars in lost opportunity

It is a tax imposed on you by your countrymen who have decided it is every ones duty to contribute to a level of support for old people. Unless and until you accept it for what it is and not what you have been brainwashed into believing is a personal pension plan or retirement portfolio you will simply wallow in you misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what SS is. The government gives you opportunities for retirement investments you can control. SS is not one of them.

15% of my lifetime income is a pretty steep fucking price. And the potential return lost on that money is even steeper

And just because the 95% of you who are sheep is no reason for me to be satisfied with the theft of what could be millions of dollars from my net worth

You keep repeating that 15% of your money false statement. The SS you pay are taxes. The half that the employer pays is a tax also. If relieved of paying that tax to the federal government, why would your employer decide to give it to you?
You keep blowing off points that make privatizing look unworkable and unacceptable. Disability insurance, no big deal. Life insurance, same, no big deal. Exaggerated contributions, lets stay in fantasy land and move on. Finally it boils down to you complaining that your taxes are higher than you want them to be. That is your bottom line. You don't like paying the SS tax. Welcome to the "we want lower taxes" club. Your complaint about spending funds on elderly people is no more valid than someone else's complaint about spending money on defense projects or farm subsidies.
Privatizing is nothing more than a scheme to enrich investment firms and insurance companies. Both of them are big time campaign donors.

Your employer is already forced to give it to you so what does it matter to the employer if he gives it to the government or to you?

You are already forced to give your contribution to the government so what's the difference if you are forced to save it in an account where you can exercise choice where the money goes?

The funds your employer pays in taxes does not go into some personal fund that you keep spouting off about. It doesn't exist. It is a tax. What you are suggesting is that the government force your employer to give tax funds like cash directly to and for your financial benefit. What other system does the government have that forces employers to give you money instead of paying taxes. Interesting concept.

So you admit there is no SS trust fund?

And you're the one saying that SS IS for my benefit aren't you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

More liberal demagoguery. Bush is talking about privatizing SS for people who are under a certain age--like 50 or 55. If you already have SS, this would not affect you. If you are over 50 or 55, you could choose to stay in SS or opt out and get a reduced benefit. If you're under the age cutoff, then you would have the opportunity to take your SS tax money and invest it as you saw fit.

Are liberals not aware that most private companies have changed from defined-benefit plans to 401Ks? That is basically all the government would be doing by changing from SS to 401Ks and IRAs.

What happens to all the payroll tax the 49 year old made, possibly for 30 years?

You mean the payroll taxes that were taken from him don't you?

The payroll taxes he paid into SS.

The ones taken from him.

If he opts out he should get it all back in a lump sum as well as his employer's match to invest as he chooses

 

[nat4900]

Two final questions (had enough of right wing dimwits):

1. Prior to 1935 there was NO social security but...as we well know...there was a stock market......where individuals could do all (or most) the nifty things that thick-Skull is flaunting.................So, what the fuck happened?

2. Given the "independent" mindset of thick-Skull wanting to abolish the mandate of the Feds with SS....would he/she/it be willing to forgo (by lifetime endorsement) ANY safety nets established by the Feds.....such as FDIC, UE, Workers Comp, etc.?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I don't fear responsibility. Quite the opposite. I fear irresponsibility. In this context, I fear the irresponsibility of the dollar averaged moron Warren Buffet wanna be investors.

Why ar you so fearful? Do you need a psychiatrist?

I've read history.

Really which history?

The history of the stock market than has had positive returns in any 40 year period of its existence?

There are only three independent 40 year periods over the history of reliable stock indices in the U.S. Are you claiming you can do statistics with only three sample points?

Then look at 20 year periods.

20 years means you've got 6 independent sample points. Wow. Not much of a sample buddy, can't do much statistics with that.

Over it's existence the market has returned about 10%

Shit even if you got 7% over your working career that money taken for SS would still amount to over a million dollars in your retirement fund

You are only looking at the U.S. stock market. The U.S. stock market isn't special, its subject to the same economic forces any stock market is. Its performance over the past 100 years or so is exceptional compared to the rest of the world - it is a statistical outlier.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I don't tell anyone how to invest so why the fuck should you and the government take 15% of my income and then give me some piddly monthly check?

That choice literally will cost me millions of dollars in lost opportunity

It is a tax imposed on you by your countrymen who have decided it is every ones duty to contribute to a level of support for old people. Unless and until you accept it for what it is and not what you have been brainwashed into believing is a personal pension plan or retirement portfolio you will simply wallow in you misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what SS is. The government gives you opportunities for retirement investments you can control. SS is not one of them.

15% of my lifetime income is a pretty steep fucking price. And the potential return lost on that money is even steeper

And just because the 95% of you who are sheep is no reason for me to be satisfied with the theft of what could be millions of dollars from my net worth

You keep repeating that 15% of your money false statement. The SS you pay are taxes. The half that the employer pays is a tax also. If relieved of paying that tax to the federal government, why would your employer decide to give it to you?
You keep blowing off points that make privatizing look unworkable and unacceptable. Disability insurance, no big deal. Life insurance, same, no big deal. Exaggerated contributions, lets stay in fantasy land and move on. Finally it boils down to you complaining that your taxes are higher than you want them to be. That is your bottom line. You don't like paying the SS tax. Welcome to the "we want lower taxes" club. Your complaint about spending funds on elderly people is no more valid than someone else's complaint about spending money on defense projects or farm subsidies.
Privatizing is nothing more than a scheme to enrich investment firms and insurance companies. Both of them are big time campaign donors.

Your employer is already forced to give it to you so what does it matter to the employer if he gives it to the government or to you?

You are already forced to give your contribution to the government so what's the difference if you are forced to save it in an account where you can exercise choice where the money goes?

The funds your employer pays in taxes does not go into some personal fund that you keep spouting off about. It doesn't exist. It is a tax. What you are suggesting is that the government force your employer to give tax funds like cash directly to and for your financial benefit. What other system does the government have that forces employers to give you money instead of paying taxes. Interesting concept.

As much as it pains my to say it, Skill Pilot is right on this one.

SS is a part of your overall compensation. If you are self employed you pay both halves. Regardless of who pays it, the payment of the tax is what entitles you to the benefits. If you ever have a job that is converted from contractor to employee without changing the pay (I have), your "pre-tax" paycheck will be smaller, but you will only owe half the SS tax as before, so the after-tax amount is the same.

It matter notta to your employer whether he pays 7.5% SS tax for you or whether he pays it to you as cash. Its just a business expense to him either way, the money is fungible. The only difference is that the 7.5% he pays doesn't count towards satisfying minimum wage requirements, so if they moved that share from employer to employee it would be an effective cut in the minimum wage.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Two final questions (had enough of right wing dimwits):

1. Prior to 1935 there was NO social security but...as we well know...there was a stock market......where individuals could do all (or most) the nifty things that thick-Skull is flaunting.................So, what the fuck happened?

2. Given the "independent" mindset of thick-Skull wanting to abolish the mandate of the Feds with SS....would he/she/it be willing to forgo (by lifetime endorsement) ANY safety nets established by the Feds.....such as FDIC, UE, Workers Comp, etc.?

What happened was, with rare exception, everyone all fucked up at the same time and bought stock at inflated prices - and - MORE IMPORTANTLY - people's incomes went down when the stocks were priced the best. Skull Pilot believes he is special - he believes his income is not subject to forces of the general economy - and he also believes the U.S. stock market is special and not subject to the same forces as the rest of the world's stock markets (OR - he hasn't bothered to evaluate the performance of the rest of the world's markets).

The dollar-average investing myth is perhaps the biggest investing lie ever told. It requires the investor exist in a vacuum, with his own income not subject to the same economic forces as the rest of the economy. Without that vacuum, the average investor's income would ten to go DOWN when stocks were priced the LOWEST - and would go UP when stocks are priced the HIGHEST - thus making the dollar averaged investing goal not possible over the long term for the typical retirement investor.

 

[Contumacious]

He just lose the election right out of the gate. something's shouldn't be privatized...

SSI is one of them...

No a Jeb Bush supporter but he is right on that one:


How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered

 

[NYcarbineer]

More liberal demagoguery. Bush is talking about privatizing SS for people who are under a certain age--like 50 or 55. If you already have SS, this would not affect you. If you are over 50 or 55, you could choose to stay in SS or opt out and get a reduced benefit. If you're under the age cutoff, then you would have the opportunity to take your SS tax money and invest it as you saw fit.

Are liberals not aware that most private companies have changed from defined-benefit plans to 401Ks? That is basically all the government would be doing by changing from SS to 401Ks and IRAs.

What happens to all the payroll tax the 49 year old made, possibly for 30 years?

You mean the payroll taxes that were taken from him don't you?

The payroll taxes he paid into SS.

The ones taken from him.

If he opts out he should get it all back in a lump sum as well as his employer's match to invest as he chooses

Okay, which further proves that the general fund will have to come up with trillions to pay off current recipients.

Oh, btw, you're going to force this guy OUT of the SS system he's been paying into for 30 years, without any return on the money he's been paying in for 30 years?

You are a fucking imbecile.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's more expensive to privatize SS.

No it costs nothing to privatize SS as each person will own his own account and there will be no government necessary

You have millions of Americans on SS now and millions who have paid in for years.

The annual revenue from payroll taxes is being used to pay current recipients and thus maintain the invested Trust Fund, which yields 100 billion in interest annually.

Privatization means the payroll tax no longer goes to recipients or the Trust Fund, it stays with the individual.

That means SS has to use up the Trust Fund, in other words, call in its notes at the expense of the general fund, aka you the taxpayer.

There is no trust fund and SS is paid out of the general fund.

You grandfather in everyone over a certain age and give everyone the option of going private

There's where you show your ignorance because there is a Trust Fund.

Yeah with ZERO dollars in it. So there really isn't one

There are 2 trillion dollars worth of US treasury securities in the Trust Fund. Are you too stupid to know their value?

 

[regent]

My old grandpappy worked all his life, and finally retired with his nest egg in the town bank. He went to the bank one day to draw out his monthly stipend and the bank was closed, never to reopen, his money gone-forever.

 

[FA_Q2]

.

You were the one who noted a 70% loss of wealth in 2008 and 2009. The folks depending on investment returns saw a loss of returns until their investments gained back the losses. Are you saying that the retired folks who lost 70% of their wealth continued to collect their investment returns as if the recession and dive never happened?

Who is saying retired people need to keep their retirement savings in the stock market? You really dont get this do you?

Because the sheep don't understand the concept of choice.

They are all so afraid of the stock market they don't realize they could save their money in other places

My response was to blather about the wonderful return of investments in the stock market. The DOW was specifically mentioned, hence, the limited return on the 30 best or most popular stocks.
When other, safer investments are made the returns are reduced, invalidating much of the argument about the wonderful world of investing. Sure, savvy investors go for the higher risk bigger return investments when young and earning and transfer to safer investments with age and as retirement comes closer. The problem is that the average person does not have the knowledge and savvy to be a competent investor and needs to trust in an investment broker.
More significantly, than investment skills and trusting a broker or "expert", the people who need SS the most are the ones who will measure the return on how long and how much they collect when they retire. The length of life after the retirement age will be the determining factor, not data sheets and charts. You live 20 years after retirement instead of 10 and you collect double the amount. SS goes on until you die. People trust the government more than they trust the investment broker, investment banks and Wall Street. And as someone previously stated, if SS defaults you can be certain the guys holding your private investments will already have defaulted, gone broke, absconded and your investments will be gone.

SS is guaranteed to default – they are going to change the benefits or the tax collections to meet future requirements.

That is a default on the original agreement.

No it isn't. Everyone has understood since the start and for the last 80 years adjustments and changes would and have taken place to grow and adapt to changing times.

Of course - not paying the bill you have promised to pay over the many years that you were forcing people to pay you is certainly not defaulting.

What was I thinking....

 

[FA_Q2]

People on retirement pensions, investment returns, Social Security, etc., live on their month to month checks. They can not afford to take large cuts during recessions and slow downs and wait years for things to get better. A person dependent on stock market returns can not tell the electric company, landlord, bank or whoever to wait about three of four years until the market rebounds.
The gamble is that if a recession hits anytime during you retirement, and you depend on a stock portfolio for income, you may have absolutely no income and be forced to sell your holdings at great losses just to survive. When the market rebounds you will have a shrunken portfolio and hence, a reduced retirement income.

What a steaming pile.

Leftism is truly based on ignorance and bigotry. People who retire move money into various sources. Money market, bond, secured equities. Your bullshit myth about retirees having all their funds in stock for Solyndra is a complete fabrication.

The VAST majority of people investing in IRA and 401K use brokerage funds which diversify by nature. for an 18 year old - the most unstable, fly by night stock is vastly more secure than Social Security. IF the USA exists in 50 years, Social Security sure won't.

Enron was a better investment than Social Security? pets.com? lol

Enron and Google better investments than SSN? Absolutely. Of course you only want to focus solely on companies that went out of business in the most extreme manner while ignoring anything else.

And since such an investment ‘strategy’ is simply not going to be the case you have nothing at all.

So you are saying just don't invest in companies that will fail. Brilliant strategy. Can I borrow your time machine?

None required. If you understood anything about investment, you would not need one. All you have is focusing on short term disaster without ever looking at long term benefits of actually investing.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sigh, again with the gambling reference that shows you are utterly ignorant of what investing is.

Investing is not gambling by any measure whatsoever.

Go have another drink and blame your stupidity on the booze.

The idiocy on this thread is massive.

Just because you have no idea what investing involves (and that it has nothing in common with gambling) does not make it reality. Only an idiot thinks that purchasing an asset is 'gambling.' A poor idiot.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

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.

YOU pay for it - you should expect an asset WORTH what you pay?

That is the entire point but I think you missed it. The system is not designed for you to live decently - whatever you mean by that. It is designed so you can live. If you want to live decently, you need to supplement social security. A safety net, to extend the metaphor, is intended to keep you from hitting the ground. Not to keep you on the high wire.

Your point is really bad.

Essentially it boils down to the idea that a ‘safety net’ that barely provides squat and you admit does not provide even a basic amount of comfort is preferable over wealth creation and developing a real asset.

That is insane.

The fallback that your side seems to go to continually is what happens when they lose it all and that is a sky falling asinine statement. Any privatization system should include safeguards to prevent this. We are not talking about investing your entire egg into typewriters. There are MANY investment opportunities that are very secure over the long term. You WILL lose money in the short term but will gain it in the long.

Add to that the benefit of allowing people to see real advantages and growth in their own fund and they will be FAR more likely to invest on their own as well.

In the current system your money goes down a dark hole (and you don’t even see half of it) for a ‘benefit’ that keeps you in poverty when you realize it.

No one is stopping you from wealth creation. You can put as much money as you like into creating wealth.

Sigh.

Do you like to idiotically deflect like this often?

 

[FA_Q2]

This is, of course, a lie.
I prefer choice, and once the choices.are made. expect others to take responsibility for their choices.
You know, like a responsible adult.

Successful investment has very little to do with anyone's choices....

Right, Successful investors are just lucky.

Sarcasm aside, YES, they are just as "lucky" as the professional GAMBLER who plays the odds...sometimes it works and most of the time it does not.....NO casino ever went broke from "succesful" gamblers.

Sigh, again with the gambling reference that shows you are utterly ignorant of what investing is.

Investing is not gambling by any measure whatsoever.

Other than the more favorable tax treatment for investing, explain how it is different.

Gamblers are not purchasing an asset. Investers are.

Or do you think that those stocks do not actually represent anything? You also do not invest in a single company or over very short terms for retirement investments. The only arguments that your side seem to have hinge on investing without a vehicle or any structure. A concept that should not and will not exist within a privatized SS system.

 

[FA_Q2]

Social Security makes you responsible for yourself. You'd prefer irresponsibility.

This is, of course, a lie.
I prefer choice, and once the choices.are made. expect others to take responsibility for their choices.
You know, like a responsible adult.

Successful investment has very little to do with anyone's choices, especially when it involves people who are not professional investors.

Time in the market beats timing the market for average investors.
The first mutual fund I invested in at 18 has averaged an 11% return. That fund is still in my portfolio and will be for a long time.

You don't seem to understand a buy and hold strategy.

No it isn't. Everyone has understood since the start and for the last 80 years adjustments and changes would and have taken place to grow and adapt to changing times.

What changes have been made in the last 20 years to account for people living longer and insure the solvency of the fund?

Reagan and the Democrats made the changes in 1983 that amounted to roughly a 50 year fix. All SS needs now is another 50 year fix.

Kick the can again

Geez, so I guess fixing your car so it runs another 50,000 miles is a dumb idea?

When fixing that car costs more than buying a new or newer car yes it is a bad idea

It seems that they cannot understand such a simple concept. I don't know why I am still bothering.