Privatize % of SS ?

[asterism]

Fact: America's once great Middle Class became great because of government assistance

Fact: The same government that supposedly created the prosperity also created the failure.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Fact: America's once great Middle Class became great because of government assistance

Fact: The same government that supposedly created the prosperity also created the failure.

Wrong: Ronald Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, are not FDR

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Here's how your insurance costs break down

if I make 43k a year for 45 years I will have paid approximately 290,250 to SS. At age 67 I will be eligible for a monthly benefit of 1581. Lets say I live 20 years after I retire so I will have collected 379,440

That means that all that money taken by the government earned about 1.12% over the 45 years I was contributing.

If I got 3% I would have had an income in excess of 3400 a month for 20 years in retirement.

Tell me again how SS is better?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Here's how your insurance costs break down

if I make 43k a year for 45 years I will have paid approximately 290,250 to SS. At age 67 I will be eligible for a monthly benefit of 1581. Lets say I live 20 years after I retire so I will have collected 379,440

That means that all that money taken by the government earned about 1.12% over the 45 years I was contributing.

If I got 3% I would have had an income in excess of 3400 a month for 20 years in retirement.

Tell me again how SS is better?

Social Security is NOT a personal investment plan. Maybe you should read history?

Social Security is a safety net program guaranteeing the elderly in America never again had to live in poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth.

Pre Social Security the elderly and disabled lived in abject poverty in the USA...and conservatives fought bringing them out of poverty...fought it every step of the way: fact

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Here's how your insurance costs break down

if I make 43k a year for 45 years I will have paid approximately 290,250 to SS. At age 67 I will be eligible for a monthly benefit of 1581. Lets say I live 20 years after I retire so I will have collected 379,440

That means that all that money taken by the government earned about 1.12% over the 45 years I was contributing.

If I got 3% I would have had an income in excess of 3400 a month for 20 years in retirement.

Tell me again how SS is better?

Social Security is NOT a personal investment plan. Maybe you should read history?

Social Security is a safety net program guaranteeing the elderly in America never again had to live in poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth.

Pre Social Security the elderly and disabled lived in abject poverty in the USA...and conservatives fought bringing them out of poverty...fought it every step of the way: fact

They wouldn't be living in poverty if they saved the money the government took from them in their own accounts.

What don't you get about that?

 

[Flopper]

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.

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.

You fail to grasp the concept. Social Security provides a retirement benefit totally independent of what tragedies may befall a person.

In investing terms, risk free returns are the lowest risk investments that provide a return. Typically we say short term treasuries are risk free.

 

[Flopper]

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.

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.

You fail to grasp the concept. Social Security provides a retirement benefit totally independent of what tragedies may befall a person.

In investing terms, risk free returns are the lowest risk investments that provide a return. Typically we say short term treasuries are risk free.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fact: America's once great Middle Class became great because of government assistance

:roll:
Show this to be true.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Social Security is NOT a personal investment plan. Maybe you should read history?

Social Security is a safety net program guaranteeing the elderly in America never again had to live in poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth.

You say that as if this is something the government is supposed to take care of.

 

[FA_Q2]

The keyword in your post is "could". In your previous post you assumed a 6% return which is not a risk free return.

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.


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.

You fail to grasp the concept. Social Security provides a retirement benefit totally independent of what tragedies may befall a person.

In investing terms, risk free returns are the lowest risk investments that provide a return. Typically we say short term treasuries are risk free.

And you fail to grasp the simple fact that a sound investment strategy will outperform the abysmal payback of SS 100% of the time. Find a mutual fund of investment plan that has failed to return 2% over 40 years. Doesn't exist, even with the recent market crash people did not see that kind of a turnaround over the last 40 years. Even if that money is placed in a CD you would get a better return and that is generally considered a risk free investment.

The real question here is why SS seems to be so sacred that it cannot be improved. I constantly see straw men and misdirection in the arguments against some sort of privatization. The current system is not effective and the payouts are abysmal. Your solutions of raising the retirement age and tax caps are ridiculous. You really believe that forcing people to work till they are 70 is a better plan? That, after 45 years in the workforce you should still be working? That the solution is hope more people die before taking their benefits THEY HAVE PAID FOR so those that do not die can barely scrape by at the poverty level? Why do we even want a program that ensures people are barely able to survive. Simple privatization that allows investment into safe investment plans would vastly improve the situations of those that draw SS and make it a decent safety net. As it stands now, it barely allows those that have saved to live and puts those that don't in poverty.

 

[MikeK]

[SS and medicare contributions are 15% of his income. Just let him invest it himself. I guarantee he'll be better off in the end.

You guarantee it?

Do you have any idea how many working Americans who followed the plan you've laid out were practically wiped out by the '07/'08 collapse? Rather than saying you guarantee success from investing I think you'd be more realistic by just saying you're pretty sure it will work out okay.

Because of the conditioning I got from my parents who survived the Depression I do not share your confidence in private investing. They knew people who were well off and had plenty of money invested but ended up penniless. They, themselves, experienced a period in America so dismal that most contemporary Americans can't imagine it.

Their ordeal through those years taught them a painful lesson and their advice to us was to get a civil service job with a good pension, stay out of debt and don't invest in anything but government bonds. I followed that advice and while I'm not as well off as I might have been if I had a lot of private investments I managed to raise and educate my daughters very well and at this stage of my life I am quite comfortable and secure and I want for nothing.

Over the years I often wondered if I'd followed the wrong advice -- but in 2008 I was finally convinced that I didn't. So as far as I'm concerned, Social Security is a very good thing.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The keyword in your post is "could". In your previous post you assumed a 6% return which is not a risk free return.

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.


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.

You fail to grasp the concept. Social Security provides a retirement benefit totally independent of what tragedies may befall a person.

In investing terms, risk free returns are the lowest risk investments that provide a return. Typically we say short term treasuries are risk free.

And you fail to grasp that if a person had control over the money confiscated for SS they would have enough money to plan for any tragedy that befell them and would receive more money in all cases.

 

[Skull Pilot]

[SS and medicare contributions are 15% of his income. Just let him invest it himself. I guarantee he'll be better off in the end.

You guarantee it?

Do you have any idea how many working Americans who followed the plan you've laid out were practically wiped out by the '07/'08 collapse? Rather than saying you guarantee success from investing I think you'd be more realistic by just saying you're pretty sure it will work out okay.

And just two years later stocks have rebounded. So all that would have happened is that retirement might have been delayed. Even if a person only earned 3% over a life time he'd have a bigger retirement income than from SS

Because of the conditioning I got from my parents who survived the Depression I do not share your confidence in private investing. They knew people who were well off and had plenty of money invested but ended up penniless. They, themselves, experienced a period in America so dismal that most contemporary Americans can't imagine it.

There has never been a 45 year period where the stock market returned a negative.

Their ordeal through those years taught them a painful lesson and their advice to us was to get a civil service job with a good pension, stay out of debt and don't invest in anything but government bonds. I followed that advice and while I'm not as well off as I might have been if I had a lot of private investments I managed to raise and educate my daughters very well and at this stage of my life I am quite comfortable and secure and I want for nothing.

Over the years I often wondered if I'd followed the wrong advice -- but in 2008 I was finally convinced that I didn't. So as far as I'm concerned, Social Security is a very good thing.

And the stock market has rebounded. What's more if you'd have been buying stock for the last 2 years you would have done very well.

Your argument still does not show how the government confiscating 15% of your income for SS makes you better off than if you saved that money yourself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The real question here is why SS seems to be so sacred that it cannot be improved.

Less money in the hands of the governmeent = less power for goveernment
Fewer people receiving benefits from the government = less power for government.
People taking responsibility for themselves = less power for the government

 

[M14 Shooter]

So as far as I'm concerned, Social Security is a very good thing.

Just remember-
If your entire 401k is made up of Enron stock, you still have more money than what sits in the SS trust fund.

 

[Flopper]

I have no doubt that one can set up an investment plan that would return more than S.S. over 30 or 40 years with practically no risk. The problem is not with the investment but rather the investor. A recent study found 1 in 4 adults did not know the difference between stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. Further, they believed getting tips as to when and what to buy and sell was the way to success. If S.S. were privatized those that need it most would go into retirement with nothing.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have no doubt that one can set up an investment plan that would return more than S.S. over 30 or 40 years with practically no risk. The problem is not with the investment but rather the investor. A recent study found 1 in 4 adults did not know the difference between stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. Further, they believed getting tips as to when and what to buy and sell was the way to success. If S.S. were privatized those that need it most would go into retirement with nothing.

And just whose fault is it if one doesn't care enough about their and their own family's financial future to learn a little bit about money?

Should 15% of my lifetime income be taken from me because some fucking moron doesn't give two shits about his future?

 

[The T]

I have no doubt that one can set up an investment plan that would return more than S.S. over 30 or 40 years with practically no risk. The problem is not with the investment but rather the investor. A recent study found 1 in 4 adults did not know the difference between stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. Further, they believed getting tips as to when and what to buy and sell was the way to success. If S.S. were privatized those that need it most would go into retirement with nothing.

And just whose fault is it if one doesn't care enough about their and their own family's financial future to learn a little bit about money?

Should 15% of my lifetime income be taken from me because some fucking moron doesn't give two shits about his future?

But does when thier bennies are taken from government largess?

Those on welfare are DUMBASSES for ever getting ON IT to begin with.

Make better life choices and cease making the rest of us pay for your mistakes.

 

[Flopper]

I have no doubt that one can set up an investment plan that would return more than S.S. over 30 or 40 years with practically no risk. The problem is not with the investment but rather the investor. A recent study found 1 in 4 adults did not know the difference between stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. Further, they believed getting tips as to when and what to buy and sell was the way to success. If S.S. were privatized those that need it most would go into retirement with nothing.

And just whose fault is it if one doesn't care enough about their and their own family's financial future to learn a little bit about money?

Should 15% of my lifetime income be taken from me because some fucking moron doesn't give two shits about his future?

Over nine million people do not have checking accounts or savings accounts. These people live from paycheck to paycheck keeping their money in their wallet or a cookie jar. Do you really believe these people are going to get an education in investing and open up a brokerage account.

Privatizing S.S. so people like you can earn an additional 2 or 3% return would defeat the entire purpose of S.S.

 

[Flopper]

I have no doubt that one can set up an investment plan that would return more than S.S. over 30 or 40 years with practically no risk. The problem is not with the investment but rather the investor. A recent study found 1 in 4 adults did not know the difference between stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. Further, they believed getting tips as to when and what to buy and sell was the way to success. If S.S. were privatized those that need it most would go into retirement with nothing.

And just whose fault is it if one doesn't care enough about their and their own family's financial future to learn a little bit about money?

Should 15% of my lifetime income be taken from me because some fucking moron doesn't give two shits about his future?

But does when thier bennies are taken from government largess?

Those on welfare are DUMBASSES for ever getting ON IT to begin with.

Make better life choices and cease making the rest of us pay for your mistakes.

Social Security is not welfare. Benefits are paid to those who work and pay into the system.