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.
No, it doesn't. There's no investment, just an accounting entry.Which confirms what I said, although you didn't mean to.
The money no longer exists, and the accouting ledger can be wiped clear at any time.
That's like saying that the money the Chinese put into U.S. treasuries no longer exists, or the money millions of Americans use to buy U.S. bills, notes, and bonds no longer exists.
Yes...It's illustrating the absurd by being equally absurd.Push it to the absurd?
Isn't there a debating term for that?
Nothing absurd about SSI. It's functioned very well for decades.
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.
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?
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?
Privatize public education first, K through 12, and Soc. Sec. changes become largely unnecessary.
No... its not... because those things are not accounting entries.No, it doesn't. There's no investment, just an accounting entry.Which confirms what I said, although you didn't mean to.
The money no longer exists, and the accouting ledger can be wiped clear at any time.
That's like saying that the money the Chinese put into U.S. treasuries no longer exists, or the money millions of Americans use to buy U.S. bills, notes, and bonds no longer exists.
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?
And for people under a certain age, Social Security is just pouring money down a rathole, because unless something changes drastically and soon, it's not going to exist by the time they retire. And they know it.
The annual deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets in amounts less than interest earnings through 2024, and then by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084. The projected exhaustion date for the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds is unchanged from last years report.
redeeming trust fund assets...The annual deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets in amounts less than interest earnings through 2024, and then by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084. The projected exhaustion date for the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds is unchanged from last year’s report.
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?
And for people under a certain age, Social Security is just pouring money down a rathole, because unless something changes drastically and soon, it's not going to exist by the time they retire. And they know it.
Privatize public education first, K through 12, and Soc. Sec. changes become largely unnecessary.
Unfortunately, you still have to do something about all the people who are already past primary school education.
But I'm with you on the privatizing public education idea. My teenaged son, who has been homeschooled his entire life until this year, is now attending a charter school. While charter schools operate in theory as public schools, in that they don't charge tuition and are open to essentially anyone, this school ALSO does not take public money. It funds its operations solely (and very well) strictly on its own profits.
"How does a school make profits?" you ask. In this case, it does so by offering its students the option of what are essentially trade-school classes, which function as businesses offering services to the community. For example, the auto shop classes are taught in an actual, working auto repair shop. The photography classes are taught in a professional photography studio. The school has a printing shop that, among other things, does automobile wraps for businesses looking to use their company cars as advertisements. So the students not only work on their academics AND learn profitable skills, they ALSO learn the necessary skills of holding down a job and how to conduct oneself as an employee.
redeeming trust fund assets...The annual deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets in amounts less than interest earnings through 2024, and then by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084. The projected exhaustion date for the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds is unchanged from last years report.
These are the IOUs the accountants put into the trust fund to account for the money taken out. Given that these are nothing but placeholders for money that was spent elsewhere - that is, an intragovernmental loan - where will the money for these 'trust fund assets' come from?
1: You didnt answer the questionredeeming trust fund assets...
These are the IOUs the accountants put into the trust fund to account for the money taken out. Given that these are nothing but placeholders for money that was spent elsewhere - that is, an intragovernmental loan - where will the money for these 'trust fund assets' come from?
Hmmmm.....aren't mutual funds operated much the same way? Does that mean your 401k is basically worthless? (Assuming, of course, that you do in fact have a 401k.)
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?
And for people under a certain age, Social Security is just pouring money down a rathole, because unless something changes drastically and soon, it's not going to exist by the time they retire. And they know it.
It's a Ponzi Scheme.
When SS started, there were more than 40 tax payers per beneficiary. We are now down to 3:1, with a ratio of 2:1 in the not so distant future. It's unsustainable.
The only rational and fair solution is to phase in privatization and means testing. The residual program after full implementation should be a safety net for those who truly are poor - and not a national retirement income entitlement.
But it's not a Ponzi scheme. And Ponzi himself, who died in a hospital charity ward with only enough money for his burial, would never have recognized it as his own.
1: You didnt answer the questionredeeming trust fund assets...
These are the IOUs the accountants put into the trust fund to account for the money taken out. Given that these are nothing but placeholders for money that was spent elsewhere - that is, an intragovernmental loan - where will the money for these 'trust fund assets' come from?
Hmmmm.....aren't mutual funds operated much the same way? Does that mean your 401k is basically worthless? (Assuming, of course, that you do in fact have a 401k.)
2: No. Nothing like the same thing.
Again:
Given that these 'assets' are nothing but placeholders for money that was spent elsewhere, where will the money for these 'trust fund assets' come from?
Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.
What....do you think you know more than the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Commissioner of Social Security? I guess they could really use someone with your obvious expertise on that board.
No... its not... because those things are not accounting entries.No, it doesn't. There's no investment, just an accounting entry.
The money no longer exists, and the accouting ledger can be wiped clear at any time.
That's like saying that the money the Chinese put into U.S. treasuries no longer exists, or the money millions of Americans use to buy U.S. bills, notes, and bonds no longer exists.
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?
And for people under a certain age, Social Security is just pouring money down a rathole, because unless something changes drastically and soon, it's not going to exist by the time they retire. And they know it.
Guess again Chicken Little. Even if NO action is taken they can still collect at least 75% of their benefits.
The annual deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets in amounts less than interest earnings through 2024, and then by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084. The projected exhaustion date for the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds is unchanged from last years report.
Trustees Report Summary
And for people under a certain age, Social Security is just pouring money down a rathole, because unless something changes drastically and soon, it's not going to exist by the time they retire. And they know it.
It's a Ponzi Scheme.
When SS started, there were more than 40 tax payers per beneficiary. We are now down to 3:1, with a ratio of 2:1 in the not so distant future. It's unsustainable.
The only rational and fair solution is to phase in privatization and means testing. The residual program after full implementation should be a safety net for those who truly are poor - and not a national retirement income entitlement.
Sorry. It's not a Ponzi Scheme either.
But it's not a Ponzi scheme. And Ponzi himself, who died in a hospital charity ward with only enough money for his burial, would never have recognized it as his own.
Why Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme - Jan. 7, 2009
Guess again Chicken Little. Even if NO action is taken they can still collect at least 75% of their benefits.
