Jeb Bush: Next president should privatize Social Security

[Skull Pilot]

You don't understand investing if you call it gambling.

FYI the market has yielded a 10% return over its existence

Lets say you had invested ALL (or most) of your retirement bundle in AIG..... around 2007-2008.........You gambled and lost....what now??? Who do you turn to?

Why would you be so fucking stupid as to put all your eggs in one basket?

Take a little time to read about investing and you will see 2 words repeatedly.

Balance and diversification.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

K. And?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

How can you oppose something you admit you know nothing about?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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?

Whoever said you were?

 

[Skull Pilot]

We have developed 401ks and IRAs to encourage Americans to invest in the private sector for their retirement

These devices have replaced pensions in most companies. Social Security is the only source of dependable monthly retirement for most Americans

All Americans should be encouraged to have a retirement fund, Social Security and a paid off home to cover their retirement

If you think a 401 is a good deal you're an idiot.

The 401K tax treatment is nothing but the financial RAPE of the middle class because BOTH the contributions AND the gains are taxed as regular income where the gains should be taxed at the lower capital gains rates.

 

[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.

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.

So again, no real difference from what we have now except rather just setting up a 401K myself, I am required to do so and have my SS benefits cut. And if something happens and I lose the investment money, well there are no guarantees in life and there is always welfare.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

They had social security in China in 1935? No shit. And we modelled our system after theirs? The things I learn from you rightwingers!

 

[Skull Pilot]

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..

Yeah god forbid people control the 15% of their lifetime income and actually be able to retire financially secure instead of the government stealing it for their off the books slush fund

This is really why its best for all. Morons like you look back and see "Oh, look, the stock market out-performed social security, in the PAST", and then you make predictions about the future based on that, completely ignoring three things 1) its the future 2) the past results would have been vastly different if ss funds had been dumped into the market 3) actual gains are never as good as the index because - people make less in bad economies and more in good economies, meaning they tend to invest more when stock prices are high and less when they are low.

Over ANY 40 year period the market has had positive returns well above Treasury Bills

Look up dollar cost averaging maybe you'll learn something

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm sorry, but anyone who peruses this board for ten minutes realizes there are A LOT of rubes in this world. And those rubes are ripe for the plucking by financial frauds who will strip them and leave them naked in the street.

And then those millions upon million upon millions of bankrupt rubes will demand the government support them when they turn 65 and have no nest egg.

I'm sure Wall Street loooooooooves the idea of more money falling into their hands. Love, love, love it.

Why do you have to pay someone to invest for you when you can do it yourself.

Shit you can look up Warren Buffet's portfolio and copy it if you want just get an E trade account and pay a small fee for each trade

 

[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

They had social security in China in 1935? No shit. And we modelled our system after theirs? The things I learn from you rightwingers!

Yeah and it's working great keeping Americans in poverty

 

[Esmeralda]

if those getting ready to collect SS had put that money AWAY for themselves.

IDIOT.......Put that money away WHERE????

Under their mattresses?
On a bank CD yielding .05%?
Gamble it on the stock market?

Are you old enough to be up this late. ? if you DON'T KNOW how people INVEST monies without THIS GOVERMENT holding their hand and wiping their ass while they're at it. You child are the idiot. and You need to stay in romper room until you learn how to interact with adults without having to call them names. Go have them change your diapers

What a jackass liar you are. Tell us all about your stock portfolio, trailer park dweller.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Remember it was Reagan who saved Social Security in 1983. Funny to see how far to the right of Reagan are modern day conservatives.

REagan was just another big government dupe

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

We have developed 401ks and IRAs to encourage Americans to invest in the private sector for their retirement

These devices have replaced pensions in most companies. Social Security is the only source of dependable monthly retirement for most Americans

All Americans should be encouraged to have a retirement fund, Social Security and a paid off home to cover their retirement

If you think a 401 is a good deal you're an idiot.

The 401K tax treatment is nothing but the financial RAPE of the middle class because BOTH the contributions AND the gains are taxed as regular income where the gains should be taxed at the lower capital gains rates.

The gains aren't taxed until you withdraw. So unless you plan on never realizing a gain or a loss until retirement and/or having a higher income in retirement than in your working years, long term, you're still better with the 401k. Being taxed every time you realize a gain in your portfolio means the capital gains tax compounds like negative interest might - over a long period of investing even being taxed at double the rate only once on withdrawal will usually beat out being taxed every time you realize a gain over the 30-40 years you are investing.

Not to mention many people will convert to mostly bonds in retirement - they can make the conversion in their 401k by selling their stocks and buying bonds and won't have to pay the capital gains on the realized gain. They pay income tax on the bond interest just like they would if they were in an ordinary account.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We have developed 401ks and IRAs to encourage Americans to invest in the private sector for their retirement

These devices have replaced pensions in most companies. Social Security is the only source of dependable monthly retirement for most Americans

All Americans should be encouraged to have a retirement fund, Social Security and a paid off home to cover their retirement

If you think a 401 is a good deal you're an idiot.

The 401K tax treatment is nothing but the financial RAPE of the middle class because BOTH the contributions AND the gains are taxed as regular income where the gains should be taxed at the lower capital gains rates.

The gains aren't taxed until you withdraw. So unless you plan on never realizing a gain or a loss until retirement and/or having a higher income in retirement than in your working years, long term, you're still better with the 401k. Being taxed every time you realize a gain in your portfolio means the capital gains tax compounds like negative interest might - over a long period of investing even being taxed at double the rate only once on withdrawal will usually beat out being taxed every time you realize a gain over the 30-40 years you are investing.

Not to mention many people will convert to mostly bonds in retirement - they can make the conversion in their 401k by selling their stocks and buying bonds and won't have to pay the capital gains on the realized gain. They pay income tax on the bond interest just like they would if they were in an ordinary account.

No Shit Sherlock.

I know when gains are taxed it's the tax RATE on the gains that is the issue here.

Why on earth would you want to pay regular income tax on the gains in an investment account?

Every dime you take out of a 401 K is taxed as regular income.

On top of that the government tells you how much to take out every year so as to make sure they wring every tax dollar out of you as possible and to ensure you have little or nothing left to pass on to your family.

The only time anyone should invest in a 401 is if the employer matches and then contribute only enough to max out the match.

Save the rest of your money in a ROTH IRA if you qualify (I don't) and then save the rest after taxes in a private portfolio.

That keeps the fucking government out of your pocket in retirement.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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..

Yeah god forbid people control the 15% of their lifetime income and actually be able to retire financially secure instead of the government stealing it for their off the books slush fund

This is really why its best for all. Morons like you look back and see "Oh, look, the stock market out-performed social security, in the PAST", and then you make predictions about the future based on that, completely ignoring three things 1) its the future 2) the past results would have been vastly different if ss funds had been dumped into the market 3) actual gains are never as good as the index because - people make less in bad economies and more in good economies, meaning they tend to invest more when stock prices are high and less when they are low.

Over ANY 40 year period the market has had positive returns well above Treasury Bills

That's awesome, when you figure out how I can invest $1 today in a stock present in 1975, let me know.

Look up dollar cost averaging maybe you'll learn something

That's great, you read a few pages on investing, and you think you're Warren Buffet now. This is exactly why its good morons like you are forced to buy retirement insurance - to insure you against your own false sense of intelligence.

Dollar cost averaging fails the ordinary worker because the ordinary worker, on average, faces lay-offs and stagnant wages when stocks are priced low and tends to receive his pay raises and more hours when stocks are priced high - THEREFORE - the inescapable economic reality is that workers have less money to invest when stocks are priced low and more money to invest when stocks are priced high. This is in fact part of what drives the swings in the stock market. DERP. The average investor does not beat the market.


Tell me - honestly - you are doing dollar cost averaging, right? How long have you been investing the same amount of money in terms of total dollars? 5 years ? 10 years? You get a raise, you don't start investing more? If you get laid off - do you plan on keeping up your dollar cost investing?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Whoever said you were?

You.
You want the state to cover people when they make poor choices.
That makes me responsible.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

BTW, most people in retirement get most of their cash income from social security.

Thats because they've been conditioned to think SS IS their retirement. If they didnt have SS they would know they had to provide for themselves.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Not true. You should try investing sometime.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

So again, no real difference from what we have now except rather just setting up a 401K myself, I am required to do so and have my SS benefits cut.

Incorrect. You are required to contribute exactly $0 to the privatization plan.
The differences, therefore, are very real.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Every dime you take out of a 401 K is taxed as regular income.

Right but its at a lower rate than your tax during earning years.

Its really simple here bro. Say you are taxed now in the 25% bracket but you'll retire in the 15% bracket.

$1 of pre-tax income = $0.75 in an ordinary brokerage account
$1 of pre-tax income = $1.00 in a 401.

So the initial investment is higher in the 401.

Suppose then after 30 years you are able to 20X the initial investment,

The $0.75 in the ordinary account becomes $15
The $1.00 in the 401 becomes $20.


Now you withdraw that money in retirement, when you are being taxed at %15.
The $15 in the ordinary account is not taxed, so you withdraw $15.
The $20 in the 401 is taxed, but you still wind up with $17.

$17 is more than $15!!!

Note how I have been generous and assumed that the ordinary account had no realized gains during that period. The ordinary account would have even less in it if gains were realized periodically.


In fact, the ONLY situation in which a 401 does not make sense is if you anticipate having substantially higher income in retirement than during your working years.