Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Exactly right on all points! Especially that many people need to be protected from themselves.That's exactly right. A good question would be "How many who have the ability actually invest their money? Or do they go out and spend it on things?"
As sad as it sounds many people need to be protected from themselves. And if you took SS out of it you would be supporting them on welfare.
That is the long and short of it. That is why the issue of Social Security needs no further debate. It has served its intended purpose admirably and flawlessly for over seventy-five years now and so it should be left alone!
A sustainable insurance plan means that the beneficiaries of the policies pay into it and the benefit schedule is set according to the pool of available resources. Individual payments are allocated according to the risk pool.A sustainable insurance plan means the money in equals money out. Raising the retirement age means less money out. Ending the cap on contributions means more money in.Ah. Tax more. That's always been the solution each and every time a problem has been found. If it's welfare it needs to be run as welfare, tax progressively and means test the benefit payout. If it's insurance it needs to be run as a sustainable insurance plan. Currently it's neither.
SS works and has worked for generations
The only way Social Security has worked for generations is because there has never been so few paying for so many. The solution of simply taxing more will be the undoing of the entire program.
Your solution is to treat the tax like welfare which is unsustainable when the benefits are treated like insurance policies, especially with no management of the "invested" income. It's never invested, it is spent.
No, you won't.If they choose not to do so, then they suffer the consequences.And you honestly think that if given that 15% back everyone would automatically invest it?
You are responsible for you and the choices you make - you , and no one else.
And then you and I will be responsible for supporting them on welfare.
Except that fewer people paying in means fewer proplr collecting benefits.Here are some indisputable facts.
1) Diverting SS into private accounts will do nothing more than speed up program insolvency.
These people will suffer for their own stupidity.2) Very few Americans save for their future.
This is a sure indication that SS has failed, given that SS was never intended to do so.3) SS has raised millions of seniors out of poverty.
Fallacy: appeal to popularity.4) The vast majority of Americans oppose doing away with SS and want it to continue.
Why are you so happy that so many people live off the wealth of others?SS is here to stay (by the will of Americans) so the best thing to do is accept that fact and look at ways to maintain solvency whether we raise the age a little more, raise or eliminate the earnings cap or reduce benefits for the upper income.
Here's the thing:Exactly right on all points! Especially that many people need to be protected from themselves.That's exactly right. A good question would be "How many who have the ability actually invest their money? Or do they go out and spend it on things?"
As sad as it sounds many people need to be protected from themselves. And if you took SS out of it you would be supporting them on welfare.
Here's the thing:Exactly right on all points! Especially that many people need to be protected from themselves.That's exactly right. A good question would be "How many who have the ability actually invest their money? Or do they go out and spend it on things?"
As sad as it sounds many people need to be protected from themselves. And if you took SS out of it you would be supporting them on welfare.
You and I are not responsible for these people - you and I are responsible for ourselves and the people we choose to take responsibility for.
Here's the thing:Exactly right on all points! Especially that many people need to be protected from themselves.
You and I are not responsible for these people - you and I are responsible for ourselves and the people we choose to take responsibility for.
Yes we are responsible for them.
We are not a third world country where those who do not keep up are allowed to die in the streets.
Americans look out for eachother ...always have
Social Security allows millions of Americans to retire in dignity once their working days are over
The keyword in your post is "could". In your previous post you assumed a 6% return which is not a risk free return.Tell me how can you call SS a success when it limits your retirement income?
I've already shown how a person making as little as 43K per year could retire with a monthly income of almost 20 times the maximum SS benefit.
It seems to me that SS is designed to keep people from being wealthy.
Because no matter what happens in your life from a wife taking everything you have to losing everything you own in the stock market, SS will provide you a guaranteed income for the rest of your life.
And there is nothing stopping anyone from investing as much or as little other income as they want and getting the monthly income of which you speak. And you will STILL get SS. So no, it does NOT "limit" your retirement income.
You could not be more wrong.
Tell me how the government confiscating 15% of my lifetime income to only give me the max of 2300 a month when if i had control of that same 15% I could very well receive up to nearly 20 times that amount is not limiting my income.
Add that 15% to what I already save and i would have already been able to retire (I'm 44) But because I had 15% of my income taken from me, I am still working.
The government wants the population to be beholden to it. What would our beloved politicians do if even the most modest income earners had millions to live on in retirement and real generational wealth was created for a large portion of the population?
The keyword in your post is "could". In your previous post you assumed a 6% return which is not a risk free return.Because no matter what happens in your life from a wife taking everything you have to losing everything you own in the stock market, SS will provide you a guaranteed income for the rest of your life.
And there is nothing stopping anyone from investing as much or as little other income as they want and getting the monthly income of which you speak. And you will STILL get SS. So no, it does NOT "limit" your retirement income.
You could not be more wrong.
Tell me how the government confiscating 15% of my lifetime income to only give me the max of 2300 a month when if i had control of that same 15% I could very well receive up to nearly 20 times that amount is not limiting my income.
Add that 15% to what I already save and i would have already been able to retire (I'm 44) But because I had 15% of my income taken from me, I am still working.
The government wants the population to be beholden to it. What would our beloved politicians do if even the most modest income earners had millions to live on in retirement and real generational wealth was created for a large portion of the population?
And I would get half of my ex wife's. And everything i saved after the divorce would be all mine.You may feel perfectly confident that you can build your on retirement nest egg. But what happens if you get divorced? Your little retirement nest egg just got cut in half.
If you become permanently disabled, you can apply for S.S. disability benefits, something you want find in your homegrown retirement plan.
Creditors, wifes, con men, recessions, failing mental faculties can take away all your assets before you retire, but they can't take away Social Security.
Less money in the hands of the government means less power for government.And as I said before if they were allowed to keep the additional 15% and save it themselves, they could retire with a hell of a lot more dignity.Here's the thing:
You and I are not responsible for these people - you and I are responsible for ourselves and the people we choose to take responsibility for.
Yes we are responsible for them.
We are not a third world country where those who do not keep up are allowed to die in the streets.
Americans look out for eachother ...always have
Social Security allows millions of Americans to retire in dignity once their working days are over
What is it with you people who would rather have the government control your retirement income instead of taking responsibility for yourself?
Less money in the hands of the government means less power for government.And as I said before if they were allowed to keep the additional 15% and save it themselves, they could retire with a hell of a lot more dignity.Yes we are responsible for them.
We are not a third world country where those who do not keep up are allowed to die in the streets.
Americans look out for eachother ...always have
Social Security allows millions of Americans to retire in dignity once their working days are over
What is it with you people who would rather have the government control your retirement income instead of taking responsibility for yourself?
That's what this is -really- about.
Those who suggest that people are entitled to live of the wealth of others and would force that wealth from those that earn it in order to give it to those that are supposedly entitled to is advocate for a form of slavery, and little else.
Liberalsim is the antithesis of liberty.
A sustainable insurance plan means that the beneficiaries of the policies pay into it and the benefit schedule is set according to the pool of available resources. Individual payments are allocated according to the risk pool.A sustainable insurance plan means the money in equals money out. Raising the retirement age means less money out. Ending the cap on contributions means more money in.
SS works and has worked for generations
The only way Social Security has worked for generations is because there has never been so few paying for so many. The solution of simply taxing more will be the undoing of the entire program.
Your solution is to treat the tax like welfare which is unsustainable when the benefits are treated like insurance policies, especially with no management of the "invested" income. It's never invested, it is spent.
It is not welfare...you only receive it if you have paid into it
SS is a safety net...it will be there no matter how much you fuck up. Pay off your house, max your 401K and take your SS and you will be fine
Here's the thing:Exactly right on all points! Especially that many people need to be protected from themselves.
You and I are not responsible for these people - you and I are responsible for ourselves and the people we choose to take responsibility for.
Yes we are responsible for them.
We are not a third world country where those who do not keep up are allowed to die in the streets.
Americans look out for eachother ...always have
Social Security allows millions of Americans to retire in dignity once their working days are over
The keyword in your post is "could". In your previous post you assumed a 6% return which is not a risk free return.You could not be more wrong.
Tell me how the government confiscating 15% of my lifetime income to only give me the max of 2300 a month when if i had control of that same 15% I could very well receive up to nearly 20 times that amount is not limiting my income.
Add that 15% to what I already save and i would have already been able to retire (I'm 44) But because I had 15% of my income taken from me, I am still working.
The government wants the population to be beholden to it. What would our beloved politicians do if even the most modest income earners had millions to live on in retirement and real generational wealth was created for a large portion of the population?
The only risk free return is zero. Tell me over what 45 year span in the last 200 years did a balanced investment portfolio ever return zero.
And I would get half of my ex wife's. And everything i saved after the divorce would be all mine.
If you become permanently disabled, you can apply for S.S. disability benefits, something you want find in your homegrown retirement plan.
You can purchase disability insurance privately for a fraction of the cost of SS AND get better benefits guaranteed to age 67. For example a 22 year old can purchase Disability insurance that would guarantee a 31K per year tax free benefit for as little as 45 dollars a month. And this policy will also pay a partial benefit if after an injury you earn less than before you were hurt. SS doesn't do that. What's more a return of premium policy would give you back all the premiums you paid if you don't make a claim.
Creditors, wifes, con men, recessions, failing mental faculties can take away all your assets before you retire, but they can't take away Social Security.
One can avoid creditors and con men. I already addressed the ex wife excuse and legal steps such as trusts and powers of attorney protect against health problems as far as your money is concerned.
Less money in the hands of the government means less power for government.And as I said before if they were allowed to keep the additional 15% and save it themselves, they could retire with a hell of a lot more dignity.
What is it with you people who would rather have the government control your retirement income instead of taking responsibility for yourself?
That's what this is -really- about.
Those who suggest that people are entitled to live of the wealth of others and would force that wealth from those that earn it in order to give it to those that are supposedly entitled to is advocate for a form of slavery, and little else.
Liberalsim is the antithesis of liberty.
That is not liberalism. That is living in a modern society. Modern societies look after the less fortunate. Your Dickensonian views have not been in effect for generations.
Thank goodnesss
That is not liberalism. That is living in a modern society. Modern societies look after the less fortunate.
You support allowing people to invest some or all of the SS payments into private account?
That is not liberalism. That is living in a modern society. Modern societies look after the less fortunate.
Is that what it's called these days, or is it people subsidizing the failure of others?
btw, Social Security is more an insurance program than an investment strategy.
just thought you may want to deal with the real world in an honest fashion.
