Privatize % of SS ?

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

If you'd gotten too sick to work during your career you'd have collected SSD.

That's one way it is DIFFERENT.

I've countered this excuse before.

At age 22 a person can buy a privately owned disability policy for less than $50 a month that will pay about 32K a year tax free if one if one becomes disabled.

Unlike SSDI the policy pays if you are unable to perform your current occupation. SSDI only pays if you can't perform any occupation.

The private policy will also pay you a partial benefit if after your injury you are unable to perform your prior occupation.

One can if they had access to the money stolen for the Ponzi scam live a better life, have more protection and retire much more securely.

But the government doesn't want to rule a bunch of people who are self sufficient.

Skull is an idiot. He just doesn't get it because he is stuck on stupid.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you'd gotten too sick to work during your career you'd have collected SSD.

That's one way it is DIFFERENT.

I've countered this excuse before.

At age 22 a person can buy a privately owned disability policy for less than $50 a month that will pay about 32K a year tax free if one if one becomes disabled.

Unlike SSDI the policy pays if you are unable to perform your current occupation. SSDI only pays if you can't perform any occupation.

The private policy will also pay you a partial benefit if after your injury you are unable to perform your prior occupation.

One can if they had access to the money stolen for the Ponzi scam live a better life, have more protection and retire much more securely.

But the government doesn't want to rule a bunch of people who are self sufficient.

Skull is an idiot. He just doesn't get it because he is stuck on stupid.

That's all you got; name calling?

Go ahead and run the numbers as I have and tell me how an average slob would be better off if he just gave 15% of his income to the fucking government instead of doing as I suggest.

 

[FA_Q2]

If you'd gotten too sick to work during your career you'd have collected SSD.

That's one way it is DIFFERENT.

I've countered this excuse before.

At age 22 a person can buy a privately owned disability policy for less than $50 a month that will pay about 32K a year tax free if one if one becomes disabled.

Unlike SSDI the policy pays if you are unable to perform your current occupation. SSDI only pays if you can't perform any occupation.

The private policy will also pay you a partial benefit if after your injury you are unable to perform your prior occupation.

One can if they had access to the money stolen for the Ponzi scam live a better life, have more protection and retire much more securely.

But the government doesn't want to rule a bunch of people who are self sufficient.

Skull is an idiot. He just doesn't get it because he is stuck on stupid.

Really? He is the only one that has brought real numbers and evidence to the table. All I see on the other side is a bunch of people whining about how they do not want SS touched at all. No one will even face the solution that I put fourth because there is no way to argue against it. Face it, there is no reason not to allow sound investments with SS other than it was not the dems that came up with the idea. Come out with an iota of an argument.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I've countered this excuse before.

At age 22 a person can buy a privately owned disability policy for less than $50 a month that will pay about 32K a year tax free if one if one becomes disabled.

Unlike SSDI the policy pays if you are unable to perform your current occupation. SSDI only pays if you can't perform any occupation.

The private policy will also pay you a partial benefit if after your injury you are unable to perform your prior occupation.

One can if they had access to the money stolen for the Ponzi scam live a better life, have more protection and retire much more securely.

But the government doesn't want to rule a bunch of people who are self sufficient.

Skull is an idiot. He just doesn't get it because he is stuck on stupid.

Really? He is the only one that has brought real numbers and evidence to the table. All I see on the other side is a bunch of people whining about how they do not want SS touched at all. No one will even face the solution that I put fourth because there is no way to argue against it. Face it, there is no reason not to allow sound investments with SS other than it was not the dems that came up with the idea. Come out with an iota of an argument.

what he and you have done is started an argument with yourselves and declared yourself 'winners'


SS is not and never was intended to be an investment strategy.

an insurance program that would keep Americans safe from the gamble that is life and the stock markets

 

[Rozman]

Absolutely not.

SSI is the ultimate safety net, designed to make sure that if you screw up..you still can salvage your life in your "Golden" years.

It should never ever be messed with.

I would rather have the choice to have some kind of control over my Social Security funds.
I have been kicking into this for 40 years now and have another 10 to go....

I doubt very much that I will ever get to see much or any of that when I plan to retire in 10 years.

Obama and the Obama wannabes coming down the pike with their Liberal Progressive agenda will find a way to spend it on green energy,or green drinks or making sure the millions of illegals in this country have health care and a good college education and free housing or something or other.

I would rather have a chance to get my hands on a few dollars and that chance lies with the Republicans.

 

[DaGoose]

Absolutely not.

SSI is the ultimate safety net, designed to make sure that if you screw up..you still can salvage your life in your "Golden" years.

It should never ever be messed with.

I would rather have the choice to have some kind of control over my Social Security funds.
I have been kicking into this for 40 years now and have another 10 to go....

I doubt very much that I will ever get to see much or any of that when I plan to retire in 10 years.

Obama and the Obama wannabes coming down the pike with their Liberal Progressive agenda will find a way to spend it on green energy,or green drinks or making sure the millions of illegals in this country have health care and a good college education and free housing or something or other.

I would rather have a chance to get my hands on a few dollars and that chance lies with the Republicans.

And if you failed with your investment strategy the rest of us would end up supporting you on welfare.

 

[Rozman]

Better I fail with my money then have the government piss it away on one of their spending projects.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Skull is an idiot. He just doesn't get it because he is stuck on stupid.

Really? He is the only one that has brought real numbers and evidence to the table. All I see on the other side is a bunch of people whining about how they do not want SS touched at all. No one will even face the solution that I put fourth because there is no way to argue against it. Face it, there is no reason not to allow sound investments with SS other than it was not the dems that came up with the idea. Come out with an iota of an argument.

what he and you have done is started an argument with yourselves and declared yourself 'winners'


SS is not and never was intended to be an investment strategy.

an insurance program that would keep Americans safe from the gamble that is life and the stock markets

So if people had the money stolen for SS AND they put away another 10% they'd be even better off. And at every instance, private insurance is cheaper and pays better benefits than SS does.

And I see you've fallen for the "all investments are risky" line the government feeds the rest of the sheep.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You support allowing people to invest some or all of the SS payments into private account?

Yeah.....those folks (on Wall Street) really need to rip-off MORE people.


​

 

[Skull Pilot]

You support allowing people to invest some or all of the SS payments into private account?

Yeah.....those folks (on Wall Street) really need to rip-off MORE people.


​

yeah god forbid people learn to handle their own money.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Absolutely not.

SSI is the ultimate safety net, designed to make sure that if you screw up..you still can salvage your life in your "Golden" years.

It should never ever be messed with.

IF this is the line of thinking, why not simply have everyone give 100% of their paychecks to the government....you know, just in case we screw up.

Yeah....the profit-potential is soooooooooooo much greater, on Wall Street....or, Vegas.

 

[editec]

Thought for the day...

Post the 1929 black depression, how many years did it take before the DOW climbed back to its previous pre-depression high?

I'll give ya'll time to look it up.

Did you figure it out?

Now imagine that you'd retired on that Black October Tuesday in 1929.

How socially secure do you suppose youy'd have been for the next 15 years or so?

 

[MSNY]

You support allowing people to invest some or all of the SS payments into private account?

Yes.

SS is not an investment one makes to get a return. Its
a goverment project of mismanged fund borrowing. People are
deceived into beleiving its a retirement fund they can depend on.

If one was 65 today, and ready to retire, and made just 2% simple interest
on what they had put in in a lifetime, how much further
would you be ahead?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Thought for the day...

Post the 1929 black depression, how many years did it take before the DOW climbed back to its previous pre-depression high?

I'll give ya'll time to look it up.

Did you figure it out?

Now imagine that you'd retired on that Black October Tuesday in 1929.

How socially secure do you suppose youy'd have been for the next 15 years or so?

For one when you're about to retire, you shouldn't have all your money in equities.

Why do all of you think that basic money management is some kind of esoteric scientific discipline?

 

[MSNY]

You support allowing people to invest some or all of the SS payments into private account?

Yeah.....those folks (on Wall Street) really need to rip-off MORE people.


​

yeah god forbid people learn to handle their own money.

We dont teach the basics starting in elementary schools.

When math is taught, why not add into that some simple things
kids can understand that help to understand savings as they grow
older?

its too late when Johnny & Mary are 50 and dont have a dime.
At that point why should taxpayers finance THERE retirement.
They needed to learn early in life, do it yourself.

 

[HUGGY]

You support allowing people to invest some or all of the SS payments into private account?

I believe you can invest your social security checks any way you want already.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah.....those folks (on Wall Street) really need to rip-off MORE people.


​

yeah god forbid people learn to handle their own money.

We dont teach the basics starting in elementary schools.

When math is taught, why not add into that some simple things
kids can understand that help to understand savings as they grow
older?

its too late when Johnny & Mary are 50 and dont have a dime.
At that point why should taxpayers finance THERE retirement.
They needed to learn early in life, do it yourself.

I agree that it should be taught but that it isn't should be no excuse for not learning how to handle money prudently.

 

[MSNY]

yeah god forbid people learn to handle their own money.

We dont teach the basics starting in elementary schools.

When math is taught, why not add into that some simple things
kids can understand that help to understand savings as they grow
older?

its too late when Johnny & Mary are 50 and dont have a dime.
At that point why should taxpayers finance THERE retirement.
They needed to learn early in life, do it yourself.

I agree that it should be taught but that it isn't should be no excuse for not learning how to handle money prudently.

It has everthing to do with it, Johnny & Mary are clueless presently.

Even the most savvy, need to see a financial counselor to know how
to handle savings.

But if there educated in the things that matter, like to handle
their own money, they would be further ahead.

 

[FA_Q2]

Thought for the day...

Post the 1929 black depression, how many years did it take before the DOW climbed back to its previous pre-depression high?

I'll give ya'll time to look it up.

Did you figure it out?

Now imagine that you'd retired on that Black October Tuesday in 1929.

How socially secure do you suppose youy'd have been for the next 15 years or so?

Once again, point to ANY 45 year period where a sound investment strategy did worse than SS does. We are still waiting for that little tidbit of info, aren't we...

Again, you are all arguing like we are talking about either letting people invest their SS into horse drawn buggies, sock shavers, anything they want or leaving it alone. THOSE ARE NOT THE ONLY 2 OPTIONS. Allowing people to invest their money in several sound investment strategies would be a far better and iron clad to boot. THAT is what we need and that is what you have been COMPLETELY unable to argue against.

 

[boedicca]

Really? He is the only one that has brought real numbers and evidence to the table. All I see on the other side is a bunch of people whining about how they do not want SS touched at all. No one will even face the solution that I put fourth because there is no way to argue against it. Face it, there is no reason not to allow sound investments with SS other than it was not the dems that came up with the idea. Come out with an iota of an argument.

what he and you have done is started an argument with yourselves and declared yourself 'winners'


SS is not and never was intended to be an investment strategy.

an insurance program that would keep Americans safe from the gamble that is life and the stock markets

So if people had the money stolen for SS AND they put away another 10% they'd be even better off. And at every instance, private insurance is cheaper and pays better benefits than SS does.

And I see you've fallen for the "all investments are risky" line the government feeds the rest of the sheep.

And what is more risky than a government tax collected for something that the government is not actually obligated to pay when the time comes, and which requires raising more taxes on a shrinking group of people to pay the benefits?