Jeb Bush: Next president should privatize Social Security

[OohPooPahDoo]

People living off of social security alone do live in poverty.

If all you depend on is SSI you are poor dude.

Moronic.........First, NO ONE is stating that SS should be your ONLY retirement asset.

Second, you or anyone else is free to gamble your other assets in the stock market or real estate or a winery.....

But that's what people believe. They think SS is there for them until they realize it's not enough by then they are screwed. I've seen it a million times. 2000 dollars a month to live on is not enough.

So what you're saying is people are generally irresponsible when it comes to retirement planning.

Likely so.
Why do you believe that people should not be responsible for their poor choices?

Investment choices are usually only known to be poor after the fact.

 

[NYcarbineer]

People living off of social security alone do live in poverty.

If all you depend on is SSI you are poor dude.

Moronic.........First, NO ONE is stating that SS should be your ONLY retirement asset.

Second, you or anyone else is free to gamble your other assets in the stock market or real estate or a winery.....

But that's what people believe. They think SS is there for them until they realize it's not enough by then they are screwed. I've seen it a million times. 2000 dollars a month to live on is not enough.

So what you're saying is people are generally irresponsible when it comes to retirement planning.

Likely so.
Why do you believe that people should not be responsible for their poor choices?

The People's choice is to have Social Security.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, I fully object to the state forcing people to pay into any plan, but since there are two choices under discussion, the "have to" discussion can wait. You're an adult; act like one and be responsible for yourself.
SS: The state take my money so it can pay others, and tells me how much, if anything, I will get paid by others when I retire.
PP: I control my money.
Guarantees?
You think there are guarantees in life?

So your solution is to take the old and infirm and toss them into the street where they can eat out of garbage cans. Because heck, there are no guarantees in life. That about it?

Given what I actually said, how did you reach that conclusion?

I asked you what guarantees my retirement money had if the private plan loses it and you laughed and said there are no guarantees.

Correct. Welcome to life on Earth.

So if the plan loses my money and I am unable to work, what options do I have other than live on the street?

Ahh... you're unfamiliar with the particulars of privatization, at least as laid out on 2005.
Why do you argue from ignorance? If you were familiar with the subject, you'd know your question is inapplicable.

Social security was not privatized in 2005. Is it you can't answer that question or won't?

Allow me to alleviate your of your ignorance.

Assuming that any future plan to privatize SS follows the plan laid out on 2005, up to 1/3 of your 12.4% combined FICA withholding can go into the privatized account, the other 2/3 will go into SocSec like it does today, from which you will draw normal SocSec benefits.

Knowing that, tell me how your question has any relevance?

 

[M14 Shooter]

People living off of social security alone do live in poverty.

If all you depend on is SSI you are poor dude.

Moronic.........First, NO ONE is stating that SS should be your ONLY retirement asset.

Second, you or anyone else is free to gamble your other assets in the stock market or real estate or a winery.....

But that's what people believe. They think SS is there for them until they realize it's not enough by then they are screwed. I've seen it a million times. 2000 dollars a month to live on is not enough.

So what you're saying is people are generally irresponsible when it comes to retirement planning.

Likely so.
Why do you believe that people should not be responsible for their poor choices?

Investment choices are usually only known to be poor after the fact.

You did not answer my question. Please give it a shot.

 

[bendog]

That actually seems to be your solution. If the gov't ever runs out of money to pay out SS checks, what doyou think will happen?

The Treasury will borrow money.

That sounds like a healthy approach. Not.

Borrowing is what any business does when it cannot meet its short term obligations.

Well, the problem is either revenues increase and spending drops NOW, or we won't be able to borrow.

NOW ?

Oops. Too late. Guess we can't borrow anymore.

Stop it. The facts aren't even in dispute.
Medicare and Social Security -- not defense -- are driving debt says Marco Rubio PolitiFact Florida

 

[NYcarbineer]

People living off of social security alone do live in poverty.

If all you depend on is SSI you are poor dude.

Moronic.........First, NO ONE is stating that SS should be your ONLY retirement asset.

Second, you or anyone else is free to gamble your other assets in the stock market or real estate or a winery.....

But that's what people believe. They think SS is there for them until they realize it's not enough by then they are screwed. I've seen it a million times. 2000 dollars a month to live on is not enough.

So what you're saying is people are generally irresponsible when it comes to retirement planning.

Likely so.
Why do you believe that people should not be responsible for their poor choices?

It's a legitimate role of government to help people avoid poor choices.

 

[g5000]

If Jeb wants to sink his chances of winning the election, and possibly sink his chances of winning the GOP nomination, he should just keep blathering on about privatizing Social Security.

Then he will learn the same lesson his brother did. It's a wildly unpopular and stupid idea.

 

[PratchettFan]

So your solution is to take the old and infirm and toss them into the street where they can eat out of garbage cans. Because heck, there are no guarantees in life. That about it?

Given what I actually said, how did you reach that conclusion?

I asked you what guarantees my retirement money had if the private plan loses it and you laughed and said there are no guarantees.

Correct. Welcome to life on Earth.

So if the plan loses my money and I am unable to work, what options do I have other than live on the street?

Ahh... you're unfamiliar with the particulars of privatization, at least as laid out on 2005.
Why do you argue from ignorance? If you were familiar with the subject, you'd know your question is inapplicable.

Social security was not privatized in 2005. Is it you can't answer that question or won't?

Allow me to alleviate your of your ignorance.

Assuming that any future plan to privatize SS follows the plan laid out on 2005, up to 1/3 of your 12.4% combined FICA withholding can go into the privatized account, the other 2/3 will go into SocSec like it does today, from which you will draw normal SocSec benefits.

Knowing that, tell me how your questions has any relevance?

So really, no actual difference at all other than (assuming what you said has anything to do with this plan) 1/3 of my benefits being unsecured. So, given that my SS benefits will only come to about $30,000 per year then losing that 1/3 gets me to $20,000. So no worries then. I'll be eligible for welfare. Great plan.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Given what I actually said, how did you reach that conclusion?

I asked you what guarantees my retirement money had if the private plan loses it and you laughed and said there are no guarantees.

Correct. Welcome to life on Earth.

So if the plan loses my money and I am unable to work, what options do I have other than live on the street?

Ahh... you're unfamiliar with the particulars of privatization, at least as laid out on 2005.
Why do you argue from ignorance? If you were familiar with the subject, you'd know your question is inapplicable.

Social security was not privatized in 2005. Is it you can't answer that question or won't?

Allow me to alleviate your of your ignorance.

Assuming that any future plan to privatize SS follows the plan laid out on 2005, up to 1/3 of your 12.4% combined FICA withholding can go into the privatized account, the other 2/3 will go into SocSec like it does today, from which you will draw normal SocSec benefits.

Knowing that, tell me how your questions has any relevance?

So really, no actual difference at all...other than (assuming what you said has anything to do with this plan) 1/3 of my benefits being unsecured. So, given that my SS benefits will only come to about $30,000 per year then losing that 1/3 gets me to $20,000. So no worries then. I'll be eligible for welfare. Great plan.

Now that you understand the issue, I'm glad to see you no longer have any worthwhile objections.

 

[g5000]

We'll return to Rush Limbaugh's epic speech in support of privatizing Social Security right after he does this commercial for genuine 18-karat one ounce gold plated double eagle coins!

 

[PratchettFan]

I asked you what guarantees my retirement money had if the private plan loses it and you laughed and said there are no guarantees.

Correct. Welcome to life on Earth.

So if the plan loses my money and I am unable to work, what options do I have other than live on the street?

Ahh... you're unfamiliar with the particulars of privatization, at least as laid out on 2005.
Why do you argue from ignorance? If you were familiar with the subject, you'd know your question is inapplicable.

Social security was not privatized in 2005. Is it you can't answer that question or won't?

Allow me to alleviate your of your ignorance.

Assuming that any future plan to privatize SS follows the plan laid out on 2005, up to 1/3 of your 12.4% combined FICA withholding can go into the privatized account, the other 2/3 will go into SocSec like it does today, from which you will draw normal SocSec benefits.

Knowing that, tell me how your questions has any relevance?

So really, no actual difference at all...other than (assuming what you said has anything to do with this plan) 1/3 of my benefits being unsecured. So, given that my SS benefits will only come to about $30,000 per year then losing that 1/3 gets me to $20,000. So no worries then. I'll be eligible for welfare. Great plan.

Now that you understand the issue, I'm glad to see you no longer have any worthwhile objections.

I'm happy I could make you glad.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Imagine everyone's surprise when they discover government spent all the freaking SS money. Is it possible to privatize $2 trillion dollars of IOU's from congress? I don't think so.

When you buy a savings bond for your kid, you get an IOU from the government. When you put cash in a money market account, in most cases you're getting an IOU from the government. When you invest in municipal bonds, you get IOU's from the government.

Why would anyone buy a savings bond?

You'd be better off putting that money into a mutual fund for your kid

Nice idiotic attempt to deflect.

btw, most mutual funds have cash reserves that they put in money market accounts that are largely composed of US treasuries,

which are IOU's from the government.

The cash reserves in a mutual fund are a miniscule portion of the total assets of that fund and have little or no effect on the funds return.

 

[PratchettFan]

I asked you what guarantees my retirement money had if the private plan loses it and you laughed and said there are no guarantees.

Correct. Welcome to life on Earth.

So if the plan loses my money and I am unable to work, what options do I have other than live on the street?

Ahh... you're unfamiliar with the particulars of privatization, at least as laid out on 2005.
Why do you argue from ignorance? If you were familiar with the subject, you'd know your question is inapplicable.

Social security was not privatized in 2005. Is it you can't answer that question or won't?

Allow me to alleviate your of your ignorance.

Assuming that any future plan to privatize SS follows the plan laid out on 2005, up to 1/3 of your 12.4% combined FICA withholding can go into the privatized account, the other 2/3 will go into SocSec like it does today, from which you will draw normal SocSec benefits.

Knowing that, tell me how your questions has any relevance?

So really, no actual difference at all...other than (assuming what you said has anything to do with this plan) 1/3 of my benefits being unsecured. So, given that my SS benefits will only come to about $30,000 per year then losing that 1/3 gets me to $20,000. So no worries then. I'll be eligible for welfare. Great plan.

Now that you understand the issue, I'm glad to see you no longer have any worthwhile objections.

Oh wait. There is one thing I still don't understand. You said under privatization you control your money. If you are required to invest (and I assume the plan specifies what types of investments are eligible), and you still have to pay into SS, how is it you are controlling your money?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Correct. Welcome to life on Earth.
Ahh... you're unfamiliar with the particulars of privatization, at least as laid out on 2005.
Why do you argue from ignorance? If you were familiar with the subject, you'd know your question is inapplicable.

Social security was not privatized in 2005. Is it you can't answer that question or won't?

Allow me to alleviate your of your ignorance.

Assuming that any future plan to privatize SS follows the plan laid out on 2005, up to 1/3 of your 12.4% combined FICA withholding can go into the privatized account, the other 2/3 will go into SocSec like it does today, from which you will draw normal SocSec benefits.

Knowing that, tell me how your questions has any relevance?

So really, no actual difference at all...other than (assuming what you said has anything to do with this plan) 1/3 of my benefits being unsecured. So, given that my SS benefits will only come to about $30,000 per year then losing that 1/3 gets me to $20,000. So no worries then. I'll be eligible for welfare. Great plan.

Now that you understand the issue, I'm glad to see you no longer have any worthwhile objections.

I'm happy I could make you glad.

We both know you still hate the idea.
We both know you know you have no sound reason for doing so.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hey Sheep do some math.

Take 15% of your lifetime income and do a calculation of how much you would have if you got a 7% return on that over your life time then tell me that SS is a better deal

The current payroll tax is 6.2%. Not 15%. You can put the other 8.8% wherever you want.

Your employer matches it or didn't you know that?

The total of all FICA taxes is 7.5 from the employee and 7.5% from the employer or 15% of the employee's income.

Let people have that 15% to invest and no one would need medicare.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Moronic.........First, NO ONE is stating that SS should be your ONLY retirement asset.

Second, you or anyone else is free to gamble your other assets in the stock market or real estate or a winery.....

But that's what people believe. They think SS is there for them until they realize it's not enough by then they are screwed. I've seen it a million times. 2000 dollars a month to live on is not enough.

So what you're saying is people are generally irresponsible when it comes to retirement planning.

Likely so.
Why do you believe that people should not be responsible for their poor choices?

Investment choices are usually only known to be poor after the fact.

You did not answer my question. Please give it a shot.

If you are talking about in the context of retirement insurance, its because their "poor choices" are only know to be poor after the fact. That's the answer. Did you have trouble comprehending the English words in the last version of this answer?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Social Security depends on those who are working to support those who are retired

How do we privatize Social Security without cutting off benefits to those already retired?

Borrow from CHina like we do for all the other shit we can't afford

 

[M14 Shooter]

Correct. Welcome to life on Earth.
Ahh... you're unfamiliar with the particulars of privatization, at least as laid out on 2005.
Why do you argue from ignorance? If you were familiar with the subject, you'd know your question is inapplicable.

Social security was not privatized in 2005. Is it you can't answer that question or won't?

Allow me to alleviate your of your ignorance.

Assuming that any future plan to privatize SS follows the plan laid out on 2005, up to 1/3 of your 12.4% combined FICA withholding can go into the privatized account, the other 2/3 will go into SocSec like it does today, from which you will draw normal SocSec benefits.

Knowing that, tell me how your questions has any relevance?

So really, no actual difference at all...other than (assuming what you said has anything to do with this plan) 1/3 of my benefits being unsecured. So, given that my SS benefits will only come to about $30,000 per year then losing that 1/3 gets me to $20,000. So no worries then. I'll be eligible for welfare. Great plan.

Now that you understand the issue, I'm glad to see you no longer have any worthwhile objections.

Oh wait. There is one thing I still don't understand. You said under privatization you control your money. If you are required to invest (and I assume the plan specifies what types of investments are eligible), and you still have to pay into SS, how is it you are controlling your money?

Allow me to continue to relieve you of your ignorance.
Assuming any plan follows the form of the 2005 plan, you have the option of 5 401k-style funds into which you can allocate the aforementioned up to 1/3 of your 12.4% FICA withholding. Upon retirement, that sum is yours.
You control the investment your money and you get the sum of your investment upon retirement.

 

[PratchettFan]

Social security was not privatized in 2005. Is it you can't answer that question or won't?

Allow me to alleviate your of your ignorance.

Assuming that any future plan to privatize SS follows the plan laid out on 2005, up to 1/3 of your 12.4% combined FICA withholding can go into the privatized account, the other 2/3 will go into SocSec like it does today, from which you will draw normal SocSec benefits.

Knowing that, tell me how your questions has any relevance?

So really, no actual difference at all...other than (assuming what you said has anything to do with this plan) 1/3 of my benefits being unsecured. So, given that my SS benefits will only come to about $30,000 per year then losing that 1/3 gets me to $20,000. So no worries then. I'll be eligible for welfare. Great plan.

Now that you understand the issue, I'm glad to see you no longer have any worthwhile objections.

I'm happy I could make you glad.

We both know you still hate the idea.
We both know you know you have no sound reason for doing so.

Hate it? Too strong a word. The only thing I know about this plan is what you presented here. I don't even know who proposed it, let alone what is actually in it. The purpose of a safety net is to catch you if you happen to fall. Cutting large holes in the net just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But that's what people believe. They think SS is there for them until they realize it's not enough by then they are screwed. I've seen it a million times. 2000 dollars a month to live on is not enough.

So what you're saying is people are generally irresponsible when it comes to retirement planning.

Likely so.
Why do you believe that people should not be responsible for their poor choices?

Investment choices are usually only known to be poor after the fact.

You did not answer my question. Please give it a shot.

Because their "poor choices" are only know to be poor after the fact. That's the answer.

How does that answer follow with any degree of soundness from the question?
You make a bad decision -- how am I responsible for it?