Privatize % of SS ?

[JakeStarkey]

The program is not insolvent. Night for now.

 

[DaGoose]

I am not afraid of the bogeyman because SS is not going to be privatized at all in our lifetimes. The numbers of younger Americans who are opposed simply grow larger with each year, and they will vote anyone who works for it. The second Bush said he was going to spend political capital on it was the moment that neo-cons' and corporationists' traction began slipping. The momentum is gone for our lifetimes.

At least until the programs insolvency. At that time people will begin to wake up. As payments decrease (even the libs were looking at reducing payments by 25%) and costs to live increase SS will quickly become a useless program and will need to be redone to continue achieving its goals.

Who said anyone is looking at reducing payments by 25%? Did you make that up or try to play on my words? I believe that most Americans support raising taxes to cover SS. And we already know that 90% of Americans view SS as a VERY important government program.

1) Social Security is here to stay, especially when you see that 90% of people under 30 feel it's an important program (and shows that they are more intelligent than some on this board).

2) Many, if not most, people would choose NOT to invest the 6.2% (yes, that's all it is, NOT the 15% some on this board would lead you to believe).

3) We have the benefit of hindsight as to what life was like before SS. It was really ugly people.

4) SS is currently keeping MILLIONS of seniors above the poverty level.

5) SS can pay out 75% of the benefits in 2084 and that's if we do nothing at all.

6) People can talk about investing in the stock market all they want but there'a always risk involved. Besides, didn't we all get to keep our nice, fat tax cut (thanks President Obama)? Why aren't you out investing THAT?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am not afraid of the bogeyman because SS is not going to be privatized at all in our lifetimes. The numbers of younger Americans who are opposed simply grow larger with each year, and they will vote anyone who works for it. The second Bush said he was going to spend political capital on it was the moment that neo-cons' and corporationists' traction began slipping. The momentum is gone for our lifetimes.

At least until the programs insolvency. At that time people will begin to wake up. As payments decrease (even the libs were looking at reducing payments by 25%) and costs to live increase SS will quickly become a useless program and will need to be redone to continue achieving its goals.

Who said anyone is looking at reducing payments by 25%? Did you make that up or try to play on my words? I believe that most Americans support raising taxes to cover SS. And we already know that 90% of Americans view SS as a VERY important government program.

1) Social Security is here to stay, especially when you see that 90% of people under 30 feel it's an important program (and shows that they are more intelligent than some on this board).

People under the age of 30? Like I want to let some idiot Gen Xer tell me what to do with my money.

2) Many, if not most, people would choose NOT to invest the 6.2% (yes, that's all it is, NOT the 15% some on this board would lead you to believe).

Wrong.

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

The total SS and medicare taken from employees is 7.65%, and since your employer matches it the grand total is 15.3%

For self employed people it is 15.3%.

3) We have the benefit of hindsight as to what life was like before SS. It was really ugly people.

And life could be much better for people if that were able to keep that 15% of their lifetime income and save it themselves. The numbers don't lie.

4) SS is currently keeping MILLIONS of seniors above the poverty level.

Barely. Their incomes could be 5 times higher if they kept their own money

5) SS can pay out 75% of the benefits in 2084 and that's if we do nothing at all.

So it.s 25% insolvent and rising.

6) People can talk about investing in the stock market all they want but there'a always risk involved. Besides, didn't we all get to keep our nice, fat tax cut (thanks President Obama)? Why aren't you out investing THAT?

How much was that so called big fat tax cut?

And people could be required by law to save that money just as they are required by law to fork it over to the fucking government.

And the "risky" stock market shit is getting old. There are ways to invest that are no more risky than letting the fucking government run your life.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Social Security is not broke, unless you believe that every U.S. government creditor is broke.

That's funny. So if you owe yourself money, you have an asset just like if someone else owes you money. So if I issue myself an IOU for one million dollars, I'm a millioinaire even though my net worth is zero. The liberal koolaid. Honestly my friend, if I could actually believe I would, it would make life so much easier. I'm just unfortunately not a moron. Alas.

You're ignorant, that's your only problem.

Where you don't understand this is, as hard as it is to comprehend, from a budgetary perspective, the federal government and Social Security are 2 separate entities.

There's a reason they refer to Social Security as 'off-budget'. Social Security has its own separate source of revenue, the payroll tax. Social Security puts the collected payroll taxes into Federal treasuries, just like thousands of institutions and individuals around the world do.

The federal government's obligation is to pay back bonds when they mature. They do that with general revenues that have nothing to do with Social Security.

If there's any problem, it's the federal government's general borrowing to excess that's the problem. Social Security is not the problem

 

[NYcarbineer]

point to any 45 year period where sound investments made a worse return than SS. Particularly since I am going to be getting much reduced benefits if I get any at all.
Explain the currrent worth % of a 60 year old person whose investment of the last thirty years would be today compared to 1 July 2007.

If he was investing since 1965 he would be quite well off. What he was worth 3 years ago is meaningless. It is a matter of what the value of his inputs as compared to his outputs. As a matter of fact, he should be even better off as you move more and more investments out of the stock market and into investments that are secure in the short term. This is where you completely fail, you want to look at the stock market as a matter of a few years. In that frame, stocks are extremely volatile. In the long term they are very secure. Note that you also fail entirely to realize that investment != stocks. There are TONS of investment instruments. As pointed out far earlier, I would have a simple CD as an option as well and those VASTLY outperform SS. I also pointed out how this investment process should be structured. Stocks are even better in the long term. You also fail to realize that stock have recovered and, while you would be out from withdrawals if you were in the market at the time, the majority of your retirement should still be available and raise in value. All you have demonstrated is your complete lack of understanding in investment instruments.

You are arguing a case that I have not presented and being willfully ignorant about investment processes. Try again.

You really are dense.

There is no SS Trust Fund stuffed with that Real Money Paid by Americans.

The trust fund is a bunch of accounting entries which are basically IOUs to be paid by future taxpayers (who have no say in the matter and didn't agree to this appalling arrangement).

The Trust Fund money is invested in Treasuries. Of course the Treasury note is an I.O.U. That's what bonds are...

...I cannot believe you don't know that. Oh wait, I can believe that.

You are being disingenuous here. The fact is that money was spent already. It was spent on the rising cost of SS as the baby boomers retire and the workforce shrinks. That money was then taken from that intended purpose and spent elsewhere. In its place were given bonds. In essence, the government owed itself money. If that was reflected in the deficit it would make more sense though still idiotic. Instead, we decided to ignore it. Now you are making dumb claims like SS will not add to the deficit as it pulls money from a trust fund that does not exist. The bonds are meaningless, basically like drawing up a paper that says I owe myself X dollars and because I owe that money to myself it is not really a debt.
I guess I can take money out of my savings account, replace it with an IOU, buy a cheeseburger and claim that I got the cheeseburger for free because I still have that 'money' in my account.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.

The bonds are meaningless? So the Chinese, the Saudis, most American private pension plans, most mutual funds, most insurance companies, and on and on and on and on -

who invest their money in U.S. BONDS -

have thrown their money away? Will never get it back?

Are you serious?

Because Social Security has done nothing other than what they do every day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Kaz is drinking reactionary koolaid. Bub,you are not government and how you run your paper IOUs have nothing do with government. Have the government go back to putting the SS taxes in one fund, and the solvency problem is over almost immediately. Kaz, you are talking to only the loony far right. You are dealing with the right, center, and left who know what they are talking about.

The comment made was the social security isn't broke. Social security has no money, it lives on taxpayers. Today's taxpayers, the gimme baby boomer generation saved nothing.

As for we have to "go back" to putting the SS taxes in one fund, you can't go back to something you never did. Not a dime was ever saved for social security.

So what would you have Social Security do? Hold all the payroll tax revenues in cash, and make essentially no return on it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

point to any 45 year period where sound investments made a worse return than SS. Particularly since I am going to be getting much reduced benefits if I get any at all.
Explain the currrent worth % of a 60 year old person whose investment of the last thirty years would be today compared to 1 July 2007.

If he was investing since 1965 he would be quite well off. What he was worth 3 years ago is meaningless. It is a matter of what the value of his inputs as compared to his outputs. As a matter of fact, he should be even better off as you move more and more investments out of the stock market and into investments that are secure in the short term. This is where you completely fail, you want to look at the stock market as a matter of a few years. In that frame, stocks are extremely volatile. In the long term they are very secure. Note that you also fail entirely to realize that investment != stocks. There are TONS of investment instruments. As pointed out far earlier, I would have a simple CD as an option as well and those VASTLY outperform SS. I also pointed out how this investment process should be structured. Stocks are even better in the long term. You also fail to realize that stock have recovered and, while you would be out from withdrawals if you were in the market at the time, the majority of your retirement should still be available and raise in value. All you have demonstrated is your complete lack of understanding in investment instruments.

You are arguing a case that I have not presented and being willfully ignorant about investment processes. Try again.

The Trust Fund money is invested in Treasuries. Of course the Treasury note is an I.O.U. That's what bonds are...

...I cannot believe you don't know that. Oh wait, I can believe that.

You are being disingenuous here. The fact is that money was spent already. It was spent on the rising cost of SS as the baby boomers retire and the workforce shrinks. That money was then taken from that intended purpose and spent elsewhere. In its place were given bonds. In essence, the government owed itself money. If that was reflected in the deficit it would make more sense though still idiotic. Instead, we decided to ignore it. Now you are making dumb claims like SS will not add to the deficit as it pulls money from a trust fund that does not exist. The bonds are meaningless, basically like drawing up a paper that says I owe myself X dollars and because I owe that money to myself it is not really a debt.
I guess I can take money out of my savings account, replace it with an IOU, buy a cheeseburger and claim that I got the cheeseburger for free because I still have that 'money' in my account.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
The bonds are meaningless? So the Chinese, the Saudis, most American private pension plans, most mutual funds, most insurance companies, and on and on and on and on -
who invest their money in U.S. BONDS -

Not the same bonds.

 

[DaGoose]

People under the age of 30? Like I want to let some idiot Gen Xer tell me what to do with my money.

Why not? They'll be picking your nursing home.

Wrong.

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

The total SS and medicare taken from employees is 7.65%, and since your employer matches it the grand total is 15.3%

For self employed people it is 15.3%.

You're right. I was mistaken. SS tax is only 4.2% in 2011, not the 6.2% I reported earlier.

What is the Social Security tax rate for 2011? | AccountingCoach.com Q&A

And what makes you think for one moment that the employer would give you their share to invest if not required by law? So your 15% investment is pure BS.

And life could be much better for people if that were able to keep that 15% of their lifetime income and save it themselves. The numbers don't lie.

What makes them entitled to the whole 15% when they only pay in 4.2%?

Barely. Their incomes could be 5 times higher if they kept their own money

Or it could be ZILCH if they used their 4.2% to buy stock in a company that goes bankrupt.

So it.s 25% insolvent and rising.

Only if we do NOTHING and that is nearly 60 years from now. But those under 30 will never let that happen.

How much was that so called big fat tax cut?

Does it matter? You didn't invest it anyway.

And people could be required by law to save that money just as they are required by law to fork it over to the fucking government.

And then you'd be whining about government overreach and "making" you do something.

And the "risky" stock market shit is getting old. There are ways to invest that are no more risky than letting the fucking government run your life.

Tell that to people who lost their money when the companies they invested in went bankrupt. Or didn't you know that could happen?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If he was investing since 1965 he would be quite well off. What he was worth 3 years ago is meaningless. It is a matter of what the value of his inputs as compared to his outputs. As a matter of fact, he should be even better off as you move more and more investments out of the stock market and into investments that are secure in the short term. This is where you completely fail, you want to look at the stock market as a matter of a few years. In that frame, stocks are extremely volatile. In the long term they are very secure. Note that you also fail entirely to realize that investment != stocks. There are TONS of investment instruments. As pointed out far earlier, I would have a simple CD as an option as well and those VASTLY outperform SS. I also pointed out how this investment process should be structured. Stocks are even better in the long term. You also fail to realize that stock have recovered and, while you would be out from withdrawals if you were in the market at the time, the majority of your retirement should still be available and raise in value. All you have demonstrated is your complete lack of understanding in investment instruments.

You are arguing a case that I have not presented and being willfully ignorant about investment processes. Try again.

You are being disingenuous here. The fact is that money was spent already. It was spent on the rising cost of SS as the baby boomers retire and the workforce shrinks. That money was then taken from that intended purpose and spent elsewhere. In its place were given bonds. In essence, the government owed itself money. If that was reflected in the deficit it would make more sense though still idiotic. Instead, we decided to ignore it. Now you are making dumb claims like SS will not add to the deficit as it pulls money from a trust fund that does not exist. The bonds are meaningless, basically like drawing up a paper that says I owe myself X dollars and because I owe that money to myself it is not really a debt.
I guess I can take money out of my savings account, replace it with an IOU, buy a cheeseburger and claim that I got the cheeseburger for free because I still have that 'money' in my account.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
The bonds are meaningless? So the Chinese, the Saudis, most American private pension plans, most mutual funds, most insurance companies, and on and on and on and on -
who invest their money in U.S. BONDS -

Not the same bonds.

Are you saying that the series of bonds bought by S.S. do not have the full faith and credit of the U.S. government behind them?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
The bonds are meaningless? So the Chinese, the Saudis, most American private pension plans, most mutual funds, most insurance companies, and on and on and on and on -
who invest their money in U.S. BONDS -

Not the same bonds.

Are you saying that the series of bonds bought by S.S. do not have the full faith and credit of the U.S. government behind them?

No... I'm saying that the Trust Find T-bills are not the same securities bought by people and governments - TFTB are nothing more than an intra-governmental loan.

 

[kaz]

Stupid argument. All governments are "broke" by your revisionist definition. No, SS is not broken, only your arguments, kaz.

Reaganism was not the solution, it made corporatism the problem.

Yes, government is always broke because it produces nothing. It has nothing of it's own. It lives by confiscating money from those who do. If you have no money and a gun, you are broke even if you have taken money and spent it and you possess the ongoing ability to continue to take and spend other people's money. You are then like government...

 

[kaz]

Social Security is not broke, unless you believe that every U.S. government creditor is broke.

That's funny. So if you owe yourself money, you have an asset just like if someone else owes you money. So if I issue myself an IOU for one million dollars, I'm a millioinaire even though my net worth is zero. The liberal koolaid. Honestly my friend, if I could actually believe I would, it would make life so much easier. I'm just unfortunately not a moron. Alas.

You're ignorant, that's your only problem.

Where you don't understand this is, as hard as it is to comprehend, from a budgetary perspective, the federal government and Social Security are 2 separate entities.

There's a reason they refer to Social Security as 'off-budget'. Social Security has its own separate source of revenue, the payroll tax. Social Security puts the collected payroll taxes into Federal treasuries, just like thousands of institutions and individuals around the world do.

The federal government's obligation is to pay back bonds when they mature. They do that with general revenues that have nothing to do with Social Security.

If there's any problem, it's the federal government's general borrowing to excess that's the problem. Social Security is not the problem

I'd explain it to you but you obviously don't care. I hope the reality that the only difference between Social Security and other welfare programs is how it's marketed doesn't become apparent and shatter the dream world you live in until you've lived to a ripe old age and moved on to the next life...

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's funny. So if you owe yourself money, you have an asset just like if someone else owes you money. So if I issue myself an IOU for one million dollars, I'm a millioinaire even though my net worth is zero. The liberal koolaid. Honestly my friend, if I could actually believe I would, it would make life so much easier. I'm just unfortunately not a moron. Alas.

You're ignorant, that's your only problem.

Where you don't understand this is, as hard as it is to comprehend, from a budgetary perspective, the federal government and Social Security are 2 separate entities.

There's a reason they refer to Social Security as 'off-budget'. Social Security has its own separate source of revenue, the payroll tax. Social Security puts the collected payroll taxes into Federal treasuries, just like thousands of institutions and individuals around the world do.

The federal government's obligation is to pay back bonds when they mature. They do that with general revenues that have nothing to do with Social Security.

If there's any problem, it's the federal government's general borrowing to excess that's the problem. Social Security is not the problem

I'd explain it to you but you obviously don't care. I hope the reality that the only difference between Social Security and other welfare programs is how it's marketed doesn't become apparent and shatter the dream world you live in until you've lived to a ripe old age and moved on to the next life...

In other words, you can't explain it, because you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not the same bonds.

Are you saying that the series of bonds bought by S.S. do not have the full faith and credit of the U.S. government behind them?

No... I'm saying that the Trust Find T-bills are not the same securities bought by people and governments - TFTB are nothing more than an intra-governmental loan.

Then it's a distinction without a difference. There are all sorts of U.S. treasury bonds, bills, notes, etc.

Unless you can prove that the securities that are held by S.S. do not enjoy the same safety and credit worthiness of those held by foreign countries, U.S. businesses, or individuals,

then you're making an immaterial distinction.

Social Security is not the problem. People trying to blame Social Security for our fiscal problems don't know what they are talking about.

 

[Skull Pilot]

People under the age of 30? Like I want to let some idiot Gen Xer tell me what to do with my money.

Why not? They'll be picking your nursing home.

Wrong. My wife and I save 30% of our gross income for retirement and i have set up income streams that will continue after I retire.

Wrong.

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

The total SS and medicare taken from employees is 7.65%, and since your employer matches it the grand total is 15.3%

For self employed people it is 15.3%.

You're right. I was mistaken. SS tax is only 4.2% in 2011, not the 6.2% I reported earlier.

What is the Social Security tax rate for 2011? | AccountingCoach.com Q&A

For 2011 and how long will that last. SS and Medicaid theft has traditionally been 15% of income.

And what makes you think for one moment that the employer would give you their share to invest if not required by law? So your 15% investment is pure BS.

You require it by law just as you do now only the control stays with the people not the fucking government.

What makes them entitled to the whole 15% when they only pay in 4.2%?

And the employer foots the rest of the bill. They still can be required to match. And self employed people fork out the entire 15%.

Or it could be ZILCH if they used their 4.2% to buy stock in a company that goes bankrupt.

You don't just buy stock in one company you idiot.

Only if we do NOTHING and that is nearly 60 years from now. But those under 30 will never let that happen.

Like i would trust some under thirty idiot to do anything and the fucking government IS doing something now. They're making SS more insolvent by temporarily decreasing contributions. That's real fucking smart.

Does it matter? You didn't invest it anyway.

And you know that how? As I said my wife and I save 30% of our gross every year. If I had the money the fucking government uses to fund its Ponzi scam, I'd be retired already.

And people could be required by law to save that money just as they are required by law to fork it over to the fucking government.

And then you'd be whining about government overreach and "making" you do something.

Why would I whine about something I suggested? If the government required people to save then it would for the first time truly be working in the public's best interests.

And the "risky" stock market shit is getting old. There are ways to invest that are no more risky than letting the fucking government run your life.

Tell that to people who lost their money when the companies they invested in went bankrupt. Or didn't you know that could happen?

You just proved you are better off letting the fucking government run your life because you haven't taken the time to learn how to invest your money.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It was, however, a major mistake to cut the payroll tax in the last stimulus bill.

That was the equivalent of someone dipping into their retirement money to buy a big screen tv.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It was, however, a major mistake to cut the payroll tax in the last stimulus bill.

That was the equivalent of someone dipping into their retirement money to buy a big screen tv.

But you keep trusting the fucking idiots in DC anyway.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It was, however, a major mistake to cut the payroll tax in the last stimulus bill.

That was the equivalent of someone dipping into their retirement money to buy a big screen tv.

But you keep trusting the fucking idiots in DC anyway.

Do you refuse to pay your taxes?

 

[Skull Pilot]

It was, however, a major mistake to cut the payroll tax in the last stimulus bill.

That was the equivalent of someone dipping into their retirement money to buy a big screen tv.

But you keep trusting the fucking idiots in DC anyway.

Do you refuse to pay your taxes?

Just because i pay the fucking government means I have to agree with how they waste my money?

I pay because i don't want to be incarcerated and that's the only reason.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But you keep trusting the fucking idiots in DC anyway.

Do you refuse to pay your taxes?

Just because i pay the fucking government means I have to agree with how they waste my money?

I pay because i don't want to be incarcerated and that's the only reason.

Then stop giving me shit about it.