Jeb Bush: Next president should privatize Social Security

[OohPooPahDoo]

11

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.

Ahh, so if you just "understand" investment - you can actually predict the future. Is that some sort of Power Marketing New Brain scam?

All you have is focusing on short term disaster without ever looking at long term benefits of actually investing.

Most ordinary folks don't have the luxury of ignoring short term disasters.

Never mind.

I'm actually answering your points directly, you just don't have any counter-arguments.

You are obviously too happy with your complete ignorance and idiocy to even bother understanding what anyone else states.

I'd love to hear what I am ignorant about.

We bow to your significant knowledge on this subject and ignore the vast sea of facts and history that shows you are utterly incorrect.

I'm not the one who claims to be able to predict market returns 40 years into the future based on 3 sample points.

The real world examples must be fake and the investment vehicles and their history are fabrications because it is obvious that your one liners and idiotic questions already answered that you are far beyond such a pithy thing like reality.

You don't have a real world example of someone investing $1 in 2015 and it turning into anything at all in 2055, do you?

 

[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.

So your income is linked to the stock market?

The stock market reflects the health of the overall economy, thus I am more likely to get raises in good times and less likely in bad times and more likely to lose my job in good times.

Mine isn't and never was.

That's because you're special, remember? We've established this. Your income isn't subject to economic forces. Everyone elses is though, the rest of us mortals are part of the actual economy.

When the tech bubble burst I didn't get a cut in pay

I didn't get a cut in pay when the last financial meltdown happened

Did you?

Nope, but millions of Americans did. And those are the ones we're talking about. Not special people like you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you think the stock market can do better than US securities, then have Congress change the SS law to mandate that X percentage of the Trust Fund be invested in the market. No need to 'privatize'.

 

[Toro]

I'm not in favour of turning Social Security into a 401k style of program. Most people are poor at managing their own finances. Most people should have professionals do it for them.

But Social Security is an awful system. It should be reconfigured to a professional pension plan such as the Canada Pension Plan.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Do you not understand the concept of grandfathering?

People already collecting will not benefit from having their money in a private account as they are already in the withdrawal phase

You said the 49 year old would get his payroll tax payments for 30 years back in a lump sum. With no interest?

And where will the money come from to pay SS benefits for everyone 50 and over, many who will collect for 20 years or more?

lol

The 49 year old is not in the withdrawal phase now is he? And you do realize that the interest on T bills has been about 1,something for most of the last 15 years and in the last 7 has been less than 1%

WOW what a fucking awesome return

And if there really is 2 trillion in the trust fund as you say why can't the government use that?

Interest Rates on Social Security Investments

The SS would use the Trust Fund if SS is privatized. They would cash in those treasuries, and every nickel of that has to come from general fund revenues,

just like any treasury bond or bill is paid off when it matures or is redeemed. That is the point.

Treasury Bills Constant Maturity Index Rate Yield Bonds Notes US 10 5 1 Year Rates

So now you're telling me that SS is paid from the general fund not the so called trust fund that only exists as an accounting entry.

Isn't that what I've been saying all along?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Yes the stock market fluctuates so what?

When has it never come back?

The Nikkei average still hasn't come back from its peak in late 1989. But I forget, you only do statistics with winners. The U.S. stock market is and special, like you.

Worst case scenario if your portfolio takes a hit right before you retire you put off retirement for a bit

Yeah, a bit, like until after you're dead.

But if you follow the strategy of reducing your exposure to equities as you near retirement you'll be able to weather any market turbulence

Really? That's all it takes, huh?

So if you convert your stocks into bank deposits - interest rates won't go down, right?
If you convert your stocks into corporate debt - corporations won't go bankrupt, right?
If you convert your stocks into government debt - well, you wouldn't do that, because government debt is worthless.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Then tell me why do I make out the check for payroll taxes to the US treasury and not the Social Security Administration?

Let's ask a certified public accountant:

Borenstein: Various payroll taxes are withheld from an employee’s wages. The rates for Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes in 2011 are 4.2 percent and 1.45 percent, respectively. These taxes are used to pay for the federal programs: They are credited to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and the employee is credited with having paid into both.

Where Do Payroll Taxes Go CPA Michael Borenstein Breaks Em Down QuickBooks

You might want to check your numbers

FICA consists of a 6.2% tax for SS and a 1.45% tax for Medicare

And you said the trust only has T bills in it so I guess the government takes the money the buys T bills from itself and then "credits" the trust fund huh?

That link is from 2011 when the payroll tax cut was in effect. You're flailing now.

So why would you use that instead of the correct number?

At least i use accurate numbers

The link was from 2011. The facts about where he says the money goes are the same today as they were then. Stop being a shit.

The money goes into the general fund all SS is paid via the general fund.

The so called trust fund is nothing but an accounting entry.

If I did that with my money I'd be arrested for cooking the books

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

A lotto ticket is also an asset. Its worth $1 in my state.

Or do you think that those stocks do not actually represent anything?

They represent nothing more than the rights to a cash flow which is not known with certainty beforehand - thus - the same as gambling. The only real difference is the commissions and taxes are much higher on gambling.

Don't get me wrong - for professional investors, investing is more like blackjack than the slots. If you have a LOT of skill, you can gain a TINY edge, and if you work that edge enough, you can make a living off of it. But its still gambling.

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.

Most gamblers don't invest all their chips in one hand of blackjack or on one slot machine pull, either. What's your point?

So you don't understand long term investing either.

What a surprise

I understand it well enough to know there are millions of Americans like you blindly buying stock for long term investment without understanding much of anything about the underlying corporate entities or the even economy in general . The small minority of investors, mostly professionals, that spend incredulous amounts of time and energy digesting all of the markets informational inputs, are able to make a living off the millions of sheeple blindly buying stocks. When and if the shit hits the fan - even most of those investors will be put out of business, but the minority that remain and that profit off the disaster will be the ones who know well how unpredictable the market is and how blind most of its followers are.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Yes the stock market fluctuates so what?

When has it never come back?

The Nikkei average still hasn't come back from its peak in late 1989. But I forget, you only do statistics with winners. The U.S. stock market is and special, like you.

Worst case scenario if your portfolio takes a hit right before you retire you put off retirement for a bit

Yeah, a bit, like until after you're dead.

But if you follow the strategy of reducing your exposure to equities as you near retirement you'll be able to weather any market turbulence

Really? That's all it takes, huh?

So if you convert your stocks into bank deposits - interest rates won't go down, right?
If you convert your stocks into corporate debt - corporations won't go bankrupt, right?
If you convert your stocks into government debt - well, you wouldn't do that, because government debt is worthless.

So just the Nikkei?

How about NASDAQ

You don't covert stocks to bank deposits.

You either sell them and cash out or sell them to buy another investment.

And how does buying a bond (debt) bankrupt a company?

Besides in a retirement account the point is to preserve capital as you near the age when you will need it then invest so as to get a stable ROR (optimally somewhere around 5%) while making withdrawals

 

[Toro]

If you think the stock market can do better than US securities, then have Congress change the SS law to mandate that X percentage of the Trust Fund be invested in the market. No need to 'privatize'.

You are basically correct with one caveat. SS should be carved out of the government with an independent, professional board and governance structure, where the venal, corrupt politicians can't get their slimy hands on it.

Over the past century, stocks have outperformed government bonds by 4% to 5%. 5% compounded over 100 years is 13,000%. During that time, all sorts of companies have collapsed and gone belly up. That's a lot of money to be leaving on the table because people are worried about another Enron or pets.com.

Government bonds are almost certainly one of the absolute worst investments to make right here. Stocks will go down a whole lot at times, but they'll outperform government bonds by a wide margin over the next 100 years.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

So your income is linked to the stock market?

The stock market reflects the health of the overall economy, thus I am more likely to get raises in good times and less likely in bad times and more likely to lose my job in good times.

Mine isn't and never was.

That's because you're special, remember? We've established this. Your income isn't subject to economic forces. Everyone elses is though, the rest of us mortals are part of the actual economy.

When the tech bubble burst I didn't get a cut in pay

I didn't get a cut in pay when the last financial meltdown happened

Did you?

Nope, but millions of Americans did. And those are the ones we're talking about. Not special people like you.

And the paid less into SS when their pay went down right? but still it was 15% of their income wasn't it?

So why couldn't that 15% still have gone into an investment portfolio?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

A lotto ticket is also an asset. Its worth $1 in my state.

Or do you think that those stocks do not actually represent anything?

They represent nothing more than the rights to a cash flow which is not known with certainty beforehand - thus - the same as gambling. The only real difference is the commissions and taxes are much higher on gambling.

Don't get me wrong - for professional investors, investing is more like blackjack than the slots. If you have a LOT of skill, you can gain a TINY edge, and if you work that edge enough, you can make a living off of it. But its still gambling.

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.

Most gamblers don't invest all their chips in one hand of blackjack or on one slot machine pull, either. What's your point?

So you don't understand long term investing either.

What a surprise

I understand it well enough to know there are millions of Americans like you blindly buying stock for long term investment without understanding much of anything about the underlying corporate entities or the even economy in general - and you appear to be one of them. The small minority of investors, mostly professionals, that spend incredulous amounts of time and energy digesting all of the markets informational inputs, are able to make a living off the millions of sheeple blindly buying stocks. When and if the shit hits the fan - even most of those investors will be put out of business, but the minority that remain and that profit off the disaster will be the ones who know well how unpredictable the market it and how blind most of its followers are.

I told you I don't buy a lot of individual stocks

I tend to concentrate on sectors of the economy and prefer ETFs

And if I'm making such poor decisions then why do I have funds that are consistently returning 9-13% over the past 15 years?

 

[Toro]

I understand it well enough to know there are millions of Americans like you blindly buying stock for long term investment without understanding much of anything about the underlying corporate entities or the even economy in general - and you appear to be one of them. The small minority of investors, mostly professionals, that spend incredulous amounts of time and energy digesting all of the markets informational inputs, are able to make a living off the millions of sheeple blindly buying stocks. When and if the shit hits the fan - even most of those investors will be put out of business, but the minority that remain and that profit off the disaster will be the ones who know well how unpredictable the market it and how blind most of its followers are.

I'm one of those professional investors who spends an extraordinary amount of time and energy on the market. I've worked managing large pools of pension capital and helping small individuals with their retirement savings.

Most people are better off having at least part of their savings in the stock market. And the younger you are, the more you should have in stocks.
Of course, its not an either/or choice. People should have a diversified portfolio of stocks, bonds, real estate, even gold.

Unless America collapses in a deflationary spiral, any long-lived entity such as social security would be far better off investing in stocks than government bonds. Unless you think America is going to become Japan 2.0, there has never been a worse time to invest in government bonds than right now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Do you not understand the concept of grandfathering?

People already collecting will not benefit from having their money in a private account as they are already in the withdrawal phase

You said the 49 year old would get his payroll tax payments for 30 years back in a lump sum. With no interest?

And where will the money come from to pay SS benefits for everyone 50 and over, many who will collect for 20 years or more?

lol

The 49 year old is not in the withdrawal phase now is he? And you do realize that the interest on T bills has been about 1,something for most of the last 15 years and in the last 7 has been less than 1%

WOW what a fucking awesome return

And if there really is 2 trillion in the trust fund as you say why can't the government use that?

Interest Rates on Social Security Investments

The SS would use the Trust Fund if SS is privatized. They would cash in those treasuries, and every nickel of that has to come from general fund revenues,

just like any treasury bond or bill is paid off when it matures or is redeemed. That is the point.

Treasury Bills Constant Maturity Index Rate Yield Bonds Notes US 10 5 1 Year Rates

So now you're telling me that SS is paid from the general fund not the so called trust fund that only exists as an accounting entry.

Isn't that what I've been saying all along?

No, it's paid from the Trust Fund which invests its money in US securities. It's not an 'accounting entry' because the Trust Fund earns interest.

A Vanguard Money Market Fund:

Vanguard - Vanguard Federal Money Market Fund

96% invested in US securities. If you own this money market fund, you effectively own an IOU from the Federal Govt.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I understand it well enough to know there are millions of Americans like you blindly buying stock for long term investment without understanding much of anything about the underlying corporate entities or the even economy in general - and you appear to be one of them. The small minority of investors, mostly professionals, that spend incredulous amounts of time and energy digesting all of the markets informational inputs, are able to make a living off the millions of sheeple blindly buying stocks. When and if the shit hits the fan - even most of those investors will be put out of business, but the minority that remain and that profit off the disaster will be the ones who know well how unpredictable the market it and how blind most of its followers are.

I'm one of those professional investors who spends an extraordinary amount of time and energy on the market. I've worked managing large pools of pension capital and helping small individuals with their retirement savings.

Most people are better off having at least part of their savings in the stock market. And the younger you are, the more you should have in stocks.
Of course, its not an either/or choice. People should have a diversified portfolio of stocks, bonds, real estate, even gold.

Unless America collapses in a deflationary spiral, any long-lived entity such as social security would be far better off investing in stocks than government bonds. Unless you think America is going to become Japan 2.0, there has never been a worse time to invest in government bonds than right now.

SS is not supposed to be your only 'investment'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Gamblers are not purchasing an asset. Investers are.

A lotto ticket is also an asset. Its worth $1 in my state.

Or do you think that those stocks do not actually represent anything?

They represent nothing more than the rights to a cash flow which is not known with certainty beforehand - thus - the same as gambling. The only real difference is the commissions and taxes are much higher on gambling.

Don't get me wrong - for professional investors, investing is more like blackjack than the slots. If you have a LOT of skill, you can gain a TINY edge, and if you work that edge enough, you can make a living off of it. But its still gambling.

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.

Most gamblers don't invest all their chips in one hand of blackjack or on one slot machine pull, either. What's your point?

So you don't understand long term investing either.

What a surprise

I understand it well enough to know there are millions of Americans like you blindly buying stock for long term investment without understanding much of anything about the underlying corporate entities or the even economy in general - and you appear to be one of them. The small minority of investors, mostly professionals, that spend incredulous amounts of time and energy digesting all of the markets informational inputs, are able to make a living off the millions of sheeple blindly buying stocks. When and if the shit hits the fan - even most of those investors will be put out of business, but the minority that remain and that profit off the disaster will be the ones who know well how unpredictable the market it and how blind most of its followers are.

I told you I don't buy a lot of individual stocks

I tend to concentrate on sectors of the economy and prefer ETFs

And if I'm making such poor decisions then why do I have funds that are consistently returning 9-13% over the past 15 years?

Well not every American can be a genius like you, lol.

btw, you're actually making the case that people can and should invest IN ADDITION to their SS,
and can do so successfully.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Reagan ended the opt out option in 1983.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Jesus christ, what is wrong with this nut?

"
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.
"

Jeb Bush Next president should privatize Social Security
The one good thing is, he will never get elected now..

If a candidate said that it means they understand they're not going to win anyway. But something needs to be done or SS will be bankrupt in just a few more years.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Do you not understand the concept of grandfathering?

People already collecting will not benefit from having their money in a private account as they are already in the withdrawal phase

You said the 49 year old would get his payroll tax payments for 30 years back in a lump sum. With no interest?

And where will the money come from to pay SS benefits for everyone 50 and over, many who will collect for 20 years or more?

lol

The 49 year old is not in the withdrawal phase now is he? And you do realize that the interest on T bills has been about 1,something for most of the last 15 years and in the last 7 has been less than 1%

WOW what a fucking awesome return

And if there really is 2 trillion in the trust fund as you say why can't the government use that?

Interest Rates on Social Security Investments

The SS would use the Trust Fund if SS is privatized. They would cash in those treasuries, and every nickel of that has to come from general fund revenues,

just like any treasury bond or bill is paid off when it matures or is redeemed. That is the point.

Treasury Bills Constant Maturity Index Rate Yield Bonds Notes US 10 5 1 Year Rates

So now you're telling me that SS is paid from the general fund not the so called trust fund that only exists as an accounting entry.

Isn't that what I've been saying all along?

No, it's paid from the Trust Fund which invests its money in US securities. It's not an 'accounting entry' because the Trust Fund earns interest.

A Vanguard Money Market Fund:

Vanguard - Vanguard Federal Money Market Fund

96% invested in US securities. If you own this money market fund, you effectively own an IOU from the Federal Govt.

So the united states treasuy "invests" in itself?

IOW it's nothing but an accounting entry and therefore meaningless

Like I said if I used my employee's 401 K money to "invest" in my business and then paid any retirees from the money being contributed by current employees I'd be arrested. You wouldn't stand for it at your job but it's OK if the fucking government does it?

But I can't do that and do you know why?

Because my employees own their own accounts.

 

[Toro]

SS is not supposed to be your only 'investment'.

No, it's not.

But that doesn't mean SS should be earning extraordinarily low returns either.

Japan is shifting its pensions into stocks specifically because returns on government bonds are too low, threatening the long-term viability of their retirement system.

Japanese Pension Funds Announce Portfolio Shift - WSJ