Jeb Bush: Next president should privatize Social Security

[Skull Pilot]

Wrong. The payroll tax revenues buy the bonds. The bonds collect interest. The trust fund is the investment portfolio of the SSA.

Government collects income tax and puts it in the general fund. Government collects payroll taxes and put them in the general fund. Government sends checks out of the general fund to retirees. Government sends checks out to everyone else they fund.

Explain where in that something is saved and interest is paid

No they do not .

"The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Social Security History

Yet, they do. Social Security goes into the general fund and payments go out of the general fund, there is no trust fund.

So seriously, when politicians lied to you, you didn't see it coming? LOL, wow

You're wrong. As usual.

LOL. Yeah.

OK, grasshopper. Where are actual social security assets? Where is the money?

The so called SS trust fund is an accounting manifestation and exists only as a journal entry.

If any of us did this with our money we'd be arrested in a hot minute

 

[Toro]

Government collects income tax and puts it in the general fund. Government collects payroll taxes and put them in the general fund. Government sends checks out of the general fund to retirees. Government sends checks out to everyone else they fund.

Explain where in that something is saved and interest is paid

Social Security works like a government bond fund. The trusts are debited and credited based on cash flows in and out of the trusts plus interest. The only difference is that the government does not issue securities for the liabilities. Rather, the liabilities are a book entry on the government's balance sheet rather than as securities on the government's balance sheet.

It works like a government bond fund except that the bonds are from and to itself, which aren't assets. Government spends the money as fast as it comes in. It's like any other tax

They are assets of the trusts, and ultimately to people who pay into Social Security.

It's no different than a government bond fund. If you buy, say, a PIMCO government bond fund, the government takes all the money issued from the government bonds and spends it. That's what the government does with SS taxes. If you buy a PIMCO government bond fund, you own a claim on the US government. Same as SS. You own a claim on the US government.

The difference is that rather than issue Treasury bonds, the government credits the accounts as if they were Treasury bonds, but calls them "Non-transferable liabilities," meaning they can't be bought and and sold in the secondary market. But both are liabilities of the US government.

 

[Toro]

The so called SS trust fund is an accounting manifestation and exists only as a journal entry.

Most stocks and bonds issued by almost all governments and corporations are merely journal entries today. Very few actual securities are issued. Instead, most are held as digital entries at custodial banks, and not usually in your own name even if you own the security.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

[qiupte

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?[/QUOTE]

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?

Because you've sold all the ones that performed not as well.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

I never said people shouldn't invest in the stock market.

All I have said is that people who invest in the stock market with no other information other than assumption it will continue to act like it has over the past 100 years - are stupid.

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.

So you're a professional investor - and you're telling me government bonds are a better bet than social security. Do you have any idea who guarantees social security? Here's a hint - its the same people that guarantee the bonds and the U.S. dollar.

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.

That's not even possible! This is America! Our economy is special, its not subject to the same economic forces as Japan and all those other countries.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

You definitely should.

In fact, the existence of social security means Americans can be free to invest knowing that if their investments all fail - they will at least have social security.

I have my IRA invested in 60% U.S. stocks 40% government bonds.Unlike SkullIdiot, I'm not fooling myself. I know the 60% I have in stocks is subject to severe risk and may fail completely. I know that my lack of total knowledge of all the underlying companies puts me at a disadvantage compared to professionals like Touro who have the time to keep track of all that crap. All of my stock investments may fail. If that happens, I've got my bonds, my social security, my state pension, equity in my home, and the fact that my profession involves work I can do well into old age, to back me up.

 

[Contumacious]

Th

That has nothing to do with the so called SS trust fund now does it?

And it's not the investing it's the crooked accounting.

The USA buys it's own bonds with tax dollars and then buys them back with US tax dollars but they never really are bought back because all the FICA taxes go into the general fund it's circular accounting at its best

B

Wrong. The payroll tax revenues buy the bonds. The bonds collect interest. The trust fund is the investment portfolio of the SSA.

Government collects income tax and puts it in the general fund. Government collects payroll taxes and put them in the general fund. Government sends checks out of the general fund to retirees. Government sends checks out to everyone else they fund.

Explain where in that something is saved and interest is paid

No they do not .

"The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Social Security History

Thee amount of mental retardation and or gullibility and this website is fucking unbelievable.



.

Yes, and you, kaz, and skull finish win, place, and show.

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?




Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other.


Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit."


.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrill...-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/

 

[BluesLegend]

those assholes in congress used OUR money as a damn slush fund and spent it all

Did you think that Bush's wars were cheap and no one needed to pay for the trillions wasted?

What I think is that you are a deflecting liberal troll of low intelligence.

 

[Toro]

All I have said is that people who invest in the stock market with no other information other than assumption it will continue to act like it has over the past 100 years - are stupid.

As long as the economy grows, stocks almost certainly will outperform over the next 100 years compared to government bonds. About the only scenarios where stocks would underperform is in a deflationary spiral or if America reverts to communism.

The reasons are twofold. First, on a risk-adjusted basis, government bonds are more overvalued than stocks. Second, stocks represent ownership of the stock of wealth in the country. As the economy grows, the stock of wealth will also grow. The differential between government bond yields and the earnings of American corporations are not wide enough for Treasuries to outperform over 100 years.

So you're a professional investor - and you're telling me government bonds are a better bet than social security. Do you have any idea who guarantees social security? Here's a hint - its the same people that guarantee the bonds and the U.S. dollar.

I never said that government bonds are a better bet than social security, though that is probably true. The reason is because the government can change the terms of social security easier than they can for Treasuries. If the government changed the terms of social security, the markets would probably go up. If the government changed the terms of Treasury bonds, i.e. a default, it would risk a cataclysmic depression.

 

[Toro]

BTW, the risk of any saving scheme - a pension fund, SS or whatever - is NOT just that whatever you invest in will go down. It is that the liabilities that have been promised won't be paid. That means that the contributions made by savers has not been enough or the return has not been high enough to pay future promises. If savers need their savings to grow at 6% and government bonds only return 4%, then the saving scheme has failed, even if government bonds never go down in price.

That's ultimately the problem with social security. It will not be able to pay what has been promised how it is currently configured. Thus, either taxes will have to go up or returns will have to go up, which means investing in other things other than government liabilities.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Th

Wrong. The payroll tax revenues buy the bonds. The bonds collect interest. The trust fund is the investment portfolio of the SSA.

Government collects income tax and puts it in the general fund. Government collects payroll taxes and put them in the general fund. Government sends checks out of the general fund to retirees. Government sends checks out to everyone else they fund.

Explain where in that something is saved and interest is paid

No they do not .

"The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Social Security History

Thee amount of mental retardation and or gullibility and this website is fucking unbelievable.



.

Yes, and you, kaz, and skull finish win, place, and show.

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?




Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other.


Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit."


.

Wrong again. If Congress were to decide to default on the US 's debt obligations, everyone who holds US debt would be potentially affected. That is not just SS, that is everyone who holds a US security.

 

[NYcarbineer]

BTW, the risk of any saving scheme - a pension fund, SS or whatever - is NOT just that whatever you invest in will go down. It is that the liabilities that have been promised won't be paid. That means that the contributions made by savers has not been enough or the return has not been high enough to pay future promises. If savers need their savings to grow at 6% and government bonds only return 4%, then the saving scheme has failed, even if government bonds never go down in price.

That's ultimately the problem with social security. It will not be able to pay what has been promised how it is currently configured. Thus, either taxes will have to go up or returns will have to go up, which means investing in other things other than government liabilities.

This 'promise' thing you people harp on is bogus.

In 1983, when Reagan saved SS for 50 years, SS was ONE YEAR away from insolvency. I'm sure by your 'logic' Reagan broke some 'promises' too.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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.

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.

AND if they had some control over the 15% of their lifetime income that the government squanders they'd be able to retire with millions AND leave a legacy for future generations but the government can't have that now can it because the government does so much better when more people depend on it

And it has nothing to do with genius all it has to do with is taking some time to learn about money if you're too fucking stupid and or lazy to do that it's your own fault.

See if we owned our own accounts you'd be free to put it 100% in US treasuries and be guaranteed the poverty that SS promises.

And I wouldn't have to give up my returns so you could do so

Well I would have lots more money if years ago I could have told the government how much it should be spending on the military.

 

[Contumacious]

Th

Government collects income tax and puts it in the general fund. Government collects payroll taxes and put them in the general fund. Government sends checks out of the general fund to retirees. Government sends checks out to everyone else they fund.

Explain where in that something is saved and interest is paid

No they do not .

"The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Social Security History

Thee amount of mental retardation and or gullibility and this website is fucking unbelievable.



.

Yes, and you, kaz, and skull finish win, place, and show.

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?




Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other.


Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit."


.

Wrong again. If Congress were to decide to default on the US 's debt obligations, everyone who holds US debt would be potentially affected. That is not just SS, that is everyone who holds a US security.

Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit."


SO STFU.



.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Th

No they do not .

"The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Social Security History

Thee amount of mental retardation and or gullibility and this website is fucking unbelievable.



.

Yes, and you, kaz, and skull finish win, place, and show.

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?




Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other.


Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit."


.

Wrong again. If Congress were to decide to default on the US 's debt obligations, everyone who holds US debt would be potentially affected. That is not just SS, that is everyone who holds a US security.

Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit."


SO STFU.



.

The Trust Fund is composed of US securities. Do you even know what that means?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Th

No they do not .

"The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Social Security History

Thee amount of mental retardation and or gullibility and this website is fucking unbelievable.



.

Yes, and you, kaz, and skull finish win, place, and show.

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?




Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other.


Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit."


.

Wrong again. If Congress were to decide to default on the US 's debt obligations, everyone who holds US debt would be potentially affected. That is not just SS, that is everyone who holds a US security.

Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit."


SO STFU.



.

Are you aware that most pension funds are invested? Are you that stupid you don't know that?

 

[Contumacious]

Th
Thee amount of mental retardation and or gullibility and this website is fucking unbelievable.



.

Yes, and you, kaz, and skull finish win, place, and show.

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?




Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other.


Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit."


.

Wrong again. If Congress were to decide to default on the US 's debt obligations, everyone who holds US debt would be potentially affected. That is not just SS, that is everyone who holds a US security.

Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit."


SO STFU.



.

The Trust Fund is composed of US securities. Do you even know what that means?

OK DINGLE BERRY,


EXPLAIN - WHY CONGRESS INVESTED THE 2.6 TRILLION IN US SECURITIES INSTEAD OF COMMON STOCK?

.

 

[FA_Q2]

Avoided the tough questions I see.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

You don't actually even follow any market news at all, do you? There is no fixed income investment that can "weather any market turbulence" and deliver 5%. Not to mention, since you are interested more in the history of the economy rather than its future, 5% would not have covered inflation on many ocassions in the past. Inflation is low now but to presume it will stay far enough below 5% that you won't have to start dipping into your principal is ludicrous. Even now, with inflation around 2%, you still only return 3% so you require 30 X your annual income requirements to retire an arbitrary number of years.

Far more sensible to invest your retirement in a life annuity with an insurance company (or multiple companies, to spread your risk). That way you only need the amount of money required for an average retirement length. Its a lot cheaper that way, unless your life plan is to work much more than you actually have to (or to die young)

You never heard of diversification have you?

Look Sheep if you think investing is day trading and using all your money to buy and sell one stock or one investment at a time then we have nothing to discuss.

Annuities are a losing proposition.

You whine about Wall Street bilking people but do you realize that insurance companies sell annuities to make a shit load of money off of them?

I used to sell annuities and I know how much insurance companies love that product

Diversification is useful but its utility is overrated. U.S. stocks tend to go up and down together. Nor did I ever equate "investing" with "day traders".

Of course insurance companies sell policies to make money off of them. They have to be compensated for the service they perform. Yet they also provide fixed income rates higher than the 5% you claimed to need for retirement - without the risk that you will outlive them.

For $1,000,000, a married couple of two 67 year olds can get paid $4850/mo. for the rest of their lives. To guarantee the same income for life using U.S. Treasuries, at the current return of 3.10% for 30 year obligations, requires an investment of $1,900,000 - but this assuming treasury rates don't go down when you go to reinvest.

Insurance companies are able to provide the better deal and still make money because instead of someone having to ensure they have enough capital to live off of for an arbitrary amount of time (i.e. never dipping into principal) - they only need enough to last the average length of retirement - the insurance risk pool takes care of the rest, with those who live shorter than expected "losing" the insurance bet and those who live longer "winning". You used to sell annuities but you don't get this?

 

[Contumacious]

"PRIVATIZE" is bad work acccording to the majority of the electorate.

The words they like is nationalize, government supremacist, free lunch, something for nothing.....


.