Privatize % of SS ?

[Flopper]

Ponzi schemes are illegal regardless of whether the cops are called or authorities are aware of their existence. No analogy is required. You admitted social security is a ponzi scheme. As such, the system needs to be reformed to something sustainable. Saying the status quo works and at the same time admitting it's an inherently flawed system is completely contradictory. Just because the failure point is somewhere in the distant future doesn't mean the underlying issues shouldn't be addressed. The sooner they are addressed the less damage that will occur in the long run.

First up: When you're the one making the laws, you can set up a legal Ponzi Scheme if you wish and voila, it's legal. Technically murder (the death penalty), kidnapping (extraordinary rendition), and other government practices are illegal if committed by private citizens. That's because one of the basic tenets of government is that you surrender to the government the right to take certain actions on behalf of the citizens.

Second: I agree there are problems. Social Security is a machine, and like any machine it needs to be maintained and adjusted from time to time. There are reforms that could make the system run for the forseeable future, but there's no guarantee that even with reform there isn't some unforeseen wrinkle waiting in the wings.

I am glad we agree on the technical point regarding taxation and the error about the "My Money" approach to Social Security. I know I'd be open to privatizing and investing any portion of the Social Security piggy bank that wasn't immediately needed to pay out to beneficiaries. For example: If Social Security owes 1 billion in immediate payments to beneficiaries and collects 2 billion this year in taxes, by all means privatize and invest the left over against the future.

The question is how to privatize.

That's fine, I'm not here to argue the legality of social security as it currently exists merely the efficacy of the system. Having said that, just because something is legal does not make it right. And my point is the system in not right. There is a reason the government has outlawed ponzi schemes. They are fraudulent and by definition cannot last into perpetuity.

I agree there has to be a way to wind down the system and ensure people who have been a part of the system get the benefits they deserve. Privatizing 100% of the system immediately would be completely out of the question, and obviously some people would rather the status quo so let them have it.

I don't think comparing Social Security to a Ponzi scheme is a good analogy. In a ponzi scheme people are putting their faith and trust in an individual. With Social Security people are putting their faith and trust in the United States government which represents the people. You may not feel that trust and faith is deserved but remember that once people lose faith in our government to honor it's financial obligations, it's all over. We have over 14 trillion dollars in debt held by just about every country, bank, and large corporation in the world. There is no collateral that backs this debt, just the promise from Uncle Sam, to pay it's obligations. Once we start failing to honor our financial obligations, Social Security will be least of our worries.

 

[MikeK]

Privatize and Opt Out if you want.

Best not to tamper with Social Security. It's been doing just fine for 75 years and in spite of the lies we hear from corporatist propagandists it will keep its promise with very minor adjustments in the future.

Leave well enough alone.

 

[Flopper]

For SS, the long term prospect of permanent deficits has Suddenly and Unexpectedly become Short Term:

The Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday that Social Security will pay out $45 billion more in benefits this year than it will collect in payroll taxes, further straining the nation’s finances. The deficits will continue until the Social Security trust funds are eventually drained, in about 2037.

Previously, CBO said Social Security would start running permanent deficits in 2016. In the short term, Social Security is suffering from a weak economy that has payroll taxes lagging and applications for benefits rising. In the long term, Social Security will be strained by the growing number of baby boomers retiring and applying for benefits.

CBO: Social Security to begin running permanent deficits this year, not 2016 Hot Air

All this means is that Social Security has to take $45 billion out of the 2.5 trillion dollar trust fund to make payments because of the weak economy. When the economy improves which most analyst are predicting this year, less money will come out of the fund. If we do nothing about Social Security, the trust fund will be gone between 2037 and 2041 and we will continue paying benefits out FICA tax collections. Benefits would decrease by about 25%. So the Social Security problem will solve itself if we do nothing. It's matter how we want to resolve the problem and who bears the pain.

 

[MikeK]

Either way, IF this idea is on the table, leave it to the individual taxpayer to decide what is best for THEIR money. Leave it with the Fed or take their own chances in the market. Right?

If Social Security were accessible to the individual to play around with it undoubtedly would have succumbed to disaster when the economy tanked in '07/'08. The fact that Social Security is analogous to an untouchable trust fund with a qualifying age mandate is the reason for its success. That fact reflects a major part of the genius in the program's conception.

Social Security (FICA) payroll deductions are a resented annoyance to younger workers, many of whom tend to believe the program will fail and they never will receive any benefit from it. That rather natural disposition remains constant until around age 40 - 45, which is when they begin to accept the fact that they are no longer young and the prospect of becoming even older and retiring becomes a perceptible reality. And the closer one gets to eligibility age the more valuable the concept of Social Security becomes

I'm nearly 75. Every month my bank account receives a very welcome direct deposit from the Social Security Administration. This will continue until I die. So the message I have for younger workers is don't be misled by the natural belief that you will never grow old. You will. And when you do you will be very grateful to those who conceived and implemented the Social Security program. It is a good and very valuable thing and you'll be glad you didn't have access to it before you reached eligibility.

 

[rdean]

So right wingers are saying, "If you gamble in the stock market, there is no chance you would lose your money"?

There is no chance in the short term, which is this short term that Obama has personally invested a Trillion dollars, that is Obama has invested the Deficit directly into the stock market. Short term you cannot lose as long as Obama is putting that kind of money directly into Wall Street. Obama has now lost the ability to invest in the stock market. If anything Obama has taught us is Obama's presidency sets records in everything, from being the first half black president (except when his campaign took him into Ohio or Kansas then Obama became the Grandson of White, Christian, Americans), to the President with the biggest government, to the President with the greatest unemployment figures, to the President who takes the most vacations and makes the most speeches.

How many people willing to bet the stock market will continue to rise or stay where its at under Obama, I bet the stock market has a record crash after the trillion dollars Obama put into the stock market is digested.

Short term Obama invested a trillion dollars of the deficit in the stock market,

Long term that money is lost, we will pay higher prices for electricity, food, gas, clothing, all do to Obama, Ried, Nancy Pelosi, and all the corrupt Republican and Democrat politicians.

rdean, if you were not so blinded by your incredible ignorance you would see that I have consistently stated Republicans are to blame as much as Democrats.

Rdean like so many others take not just my posts, but anyone anywhere who corrects lies with facts as being in support of a paticular party, that is blind ignorance on rdeans and everyone elses part.

Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, and now Obama, we are lucky to be alive, throw in Congress, it is unbelievable to think how well we would live and how great a world we would give to our children if we were not in the fight of our lives against a corrupt, failed government.

The burden of debt, the lack of an intelligent energy policy, a foreign policy able to change with the wind, its a miracle we have survived these fools this long.

On top of all this the only thing not being recommended to fix our financial problem is to grow our economy by 400,000,000 new jobs in the next 10 years.

How about grow industry and employment to resolve the problem.

The politicians are going to slowly bleed off the wealth of the elderly, who own trillions in stock, jobs will continue to disappear, new power will be batteries at best, and everyone knows batteries suck, for the environment and the pocket book. The only solution is the one Liberals hate, allow the United States of America to grow by reducing government and taking the power away from the lawyers and politicians.

We need to take the power of Government in all its forms to steal money in any form, tax, fee, redemtion values.

From city government to state, to federal government, we must take away the ability for government to collect money period, for anything.

Ten percent tax, one tax, nothing more, spend more you pay more at the same rate everyone pays, on anything and everything sold.

The government has no business having a death tax nor a property tax, the government has no business knowing I have medical bills by allowing me a tax deduction, the government has no business knowing the cost of mortgage by collecting tax then allowing a deduction.

Being able to collect money corrupts everyone from the President to the jerk working for the EPA to the person who determines if I filled out my immigration visa for my wife from Brazil correctly.

Give a person the power to collect money and it corrupts, government employees making mistakes brings revenue into the government, legal immigration is a great example, a government employee easily enters an address wrong in the computer and a person's wife's permanent resident card is lost and the government employee instead of admitting a mistake that reflects poorly on themselves determines the mistake was made by the citizen thus the citizen must repay all the fees and start over.

Its as simple as that, the government is now in the business to make money and the only way the government makes money is to take from me, of course they bled me dry, now they have borrowed against the future of my children.

Go ahead Rdean, that must piss you off, give me more negative rep. Go ahead, I am a far right lunatic because I view the governments ability to collect money as a corrupting force that must be stopped.

All levels, city to county to state to federal government, one tax one time, ten percent when a buck is spent.

I have not seen a leader since Ronald Reagan and under Reagan things did not improve, or maybe they did, I may not of seen the improvement because I do live in Conservative Hell, California.

You're moving to Brazil? Good. Hope you enjoy it. Send us a postcard.

 

[M14 Shooter]

-I- support allowing a person to keep his 6.2% 'contribution' and then allowing that to invest it however he wants.
I also support a person's employer giving that person the 6.2% they 'contribute' as well, but I'm not going to impose that on anyone.

You are responsible for you.
Take charge of your life, and accept that you will live by your decisions.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

The thrifty and industrious are doing fine despite having 15+% of their earnings bilked away to pay for that Ponzi scheme, not because of it.

That said, you're still taking a substantial portion of their production, which would serve everyone better circulating in the private sector rather than just being seized and transferred. And there would also be much more money available for families private charities to care for the amount of people who ended up broke through no fault of their own, which would likely be a fraction of those who simply failed to plan for their futures and deserve to live on the poor farm.

So now you're saying that people could be "circulating their money in the private sector" instead of saving and investing in their futures? And, according to you, it would be preferable for people to beg from charities who ends up broke.

Guess what? We've already been down that road pre-Social Security and it doesn't work.

Social Security has kept and is keeping MILLIONS OF PEOPLE out of poverty. You don't like it? Take it up with them.

Better yet, don't be a hypocrite by signing up for your "handout" from the government when your time comes.

When money is saved and invested, it circulates in the economy creating more wealth, you economic rube.

Actions and inactions have consequences.

Your welfare program rewards the shortsighted and punishes the thrifty and industrious.

And your leftist boilerplate claim that SS has kept people out of poverty is entirely unprovable.

it makes the poverty more comfortable thats about it.

 

[MikeK]

[it makes the poverty more comfortable thats about it.

Which is precisely what Social Security is intended to do.

My parents had a really bad time during the Great Depression. But according to them, as bad as things were for them and their friends it was worse for the elderly, many of whom starved and froze to death on the streets or managed to stay alive by rummaging for food in garbage cans or eating pet foods.

That reality served as inspiration for the Social Security program. And in the current economic reality you may rest assured that were it not for Social Security there would be millions more old people having to choose between paying for shelter or food, or being unable to pay for either.

 

[Skull Pilot]

[it makes the poverty more comfortable thats about it.

Which is precisely what Social Security is intended to do.

My parents had a really bad time during the Great Depression. But according to them, as bad as things were for them and their friends it was worse for the elderly, many of whom starved and froze to death on the streets or managed to stay alive by rummaging for food in garbage cans or eating pet foods.

That reality served as inspiration for the Social Security program. And in the current economic reality you may rest assured that were it not for Social Security there would be millions more old people having to choose between paying for shelter or food, or being unable to pay for either.

Bullshit.

even earning the average income of 43K a year a person who will save 15% of that at a very conservative rate of return of 6% for say 45 years (from age 22 to 67) will have over a million dollars.

Consider that over the last 100 years the average rate of return for the stock market as a whole was about 10% and that of the S&P 500 was just over 8% for the same time period and it's not unreasonable to claim that a person making just 43K per year could save between 3 and 6 million dollars over a working lifetime

Consider also that for every 150K invested at 5% one can receive 1000 a month in income for 20 years. Therefore if one has 3 million saved it is not unreasonable to say that in retirement one can expect a monthly income of 40K or an annual income of 480K.

Tell me why would the government not want a large portion of the population to have that kind of retirement income???

 

[DaGoose]

[it makes the poverty more comfortable thats about it.

Which is precisely what Social Security is intended to do.

My parents had a really bad time during the Great Depression. But according to them, as bad as things were for them and their friends it was worse for the elderly, many of whom starved and froze to death on the streets or managed to stay alive by rummaging for food in garbage cans or eating pet foods.

That reality served as inspiration for the Social Security program. And in the current economic reality you may rest assured that were it not for Social Security there would be millions more old people having to choose between paying for shelter or food, or being unable to pay for either.

Bullshit.

even earning the average income of 43K a year a person who will save 15% of that at a very conservative rate of return of 6% for say 45 years (from age 22 to 67) will have over a million dollars.

Consider that over the last 100 years the average rate of return for the stock market as a whole was about 10% and that of the S&P 500 was just over 8% for the same time period and it's not unreasonable to claim that a person making just 43K per year could save between 3 and 6 million dollars over a working lifetime

Consider also that for every 150K invested at 5% one can receive 1000 a month in income for 20 years. Therefore if one has 3 million saved it is not unreasonable to say that in retirement one can expect a monthly income of 40K or an annual income of 480K.

Tell me why would the government not want a large portion of the population to have that kind of retirement income???

Many, many people would LOVE to have a job that pays $43,000 a year. You chose the average so that means 50% of the population makes less than that and in many cases far less.

My brother works for Star trucking and is making $10 per hour with no benefits and my cousin who works for Caterpillar is making $16 per hour with no benefits. Many people just don't have enough extra each month to put anywhere near 15% aside for retirement. Hell, they're barely making ends meet!!

I don't understand why so many people want to turn back the hands of progress and take us backwards to life that existed before SS. I'm betting you don't know or ever knew anyone who lived through those rough times.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My brother works for Star trucking and is making $10 per hour with no benefits and my cousin who works for Caterpillar is making $16 per hour with no benefits. Many people just don't have enough extra each month to put anywhere near 15% aside for retirement. Hell, they're barely making ends meet!!

6.2 + 6.2 = 12.4. That's pretty close.

I don't understand why so many people want to turn back the hands of progress and take us backwards to life that existed before SS.

I don't understand why so many people think it is the government's place to make sure that evewryone provides for everyone elses' retirement.
:shrug:

 

[rightwinger]

If you want to invest money in the market for your retirement, you are allowed to do so tax free. You are a fool if you don't do so. But then again, planning for the future is not something Americans do well

SS is there no matter how much you screw up

 

[FA_Q2]

Which is precisely what Social Security is intended to do.

My parents had a really bad time during the Great Depression. But according to them, as bad as things were for them and their friends it was worse for the elderly, many of whom starved and froze to death on the streets or managed to stay alive by rummaging for food in garbage cans or eating pet foods.

That reality served as inspiration for the Social Security program. And in the current economic reality you may rest assured that were it not for Social Security there would be millions more old people having to choose between paying for shelter or food, or being unable to pay for either.

Bullshit.

even earning the average income of 43K a year a person who will save 15% of that at a very conservative rate of return of 6% for say 45 years (from age 22 to 67) will have over a million dollars.

Consider that over the last 100 years the average rate of return for the stock market as a whole was about 10% and that of the S&P 500 was just over 8% for the same time period and it's not unreasonable to claim that a person making just 43K per year could save between 3 and 6 million dollars over a working lifetime

Consider also that for every 150K invested at 5% one can receive 1000 a month in income for 20 years. Therefore if one has 3 million saved it is not unreasonable to say that in retirement one can expect a monthly income of 40K or an annual income of 480K.

Tell me why would the government not want a large portion of the population to have that kind of retirement income???

Many, many people would LOVE to have a job that pays $43,000 a year. You chose the average so that means 50% of the population makes less than that and in many cases far less.

My brother works for Star trucking and is making $10 per hour with no benefits and my cousin who works for Caterpillar is making $16 per hour with no benefits. Many people just don't have enough extra each month to put anywhere near 15% aside for retirement. Hell, they're barely making ends meet!!

I don't understand why so many people want to turn back the hands of progress and take us backwards to life that existed before SS. I'm betting you don't know or ever knew anyone who lived through those rough times.

They already are investing near 15%!!! THAT'S THE POINT. If that money was invested and not pissed into SS then at retirement they would be far better off.

 

[DaGoose]

Bullshit.

even earning the average income of 43K a year a person who will save 15% of that at a very conservative rate of return of 6% for say 45 years (from age 22 to 67) will have over a million dollars.

Consider that over the last 100 years the average rate of return for the stock market as a whole was about 10% and that of the S&P 500 was just over 8% for the same time period and it's not unreasonable to claim that a person making just 43K per year could save between 3 and 6 million dollars over a working lifetime

Consider also that for every 150K invested at 5% one can receive 1000 a month in income for 20 years. Therefore if one has 3 million saved it is not unreasonable to say that in retirement one can expect a monthly income of 40K or an annual income of 480K.

Tell me why would the government not want a large portion of the population to have that kind of retirement income???

Many, many people would LOVE to have a job that pays $43,000 a year. You chose the average so that means 50% of the population makes less than that and in many cases far less.

My brother works for Star trucking and is making $10 per hour with no benefits and my cousin who works for Caterpillar is making $16 per hour with no benefits. Many people just don't have enough extra each month to put anywhere near 15% aside for retirement. Hell, they're barely making ends meet!!

I don't understand why so many people want to turn back the hands of progress and take us backwards to life that existed before SS. I'm betting you don't know or ever knew anyone who lived through those rough times.

They already are investing near 15%!!! THAT'S THE POINT. If that money was invested and not pissed into SS then at retirement they would be far better off.

And you honestly think that if given that 15% back everyone would automatically invest it?

Nope. No way. Many, if not most would simply use it to pay bills or something. Don't you know that the US has a horrible savings rate?

U.S. savings rate falls to zero - MSN Money

 

[FA_Q2]

Many, many people would LOVE to have a job that pays $43,000 a year. You chose the average so that means 50% of the population makes less than that and in many cases far less.

My brother works for Star trucking and is making $10 per hour with no benefits and my cousin who works for Caterpillar is making $16 per hour with no benefits. Many people just don't have enough extra each month to put anywhere near 15% aside for retirement. Hell, they're barely making ends meet!!

I don't understand why so many people want to turn back the hands of progress and take us backwards to life that existed before SS. I'm betting you don't know or ever knew anyone who lived through those rough times.

They already are investing near 15%!!! THAT'S THE POINT. If that money was invested and not pissed into SS then at retirement they would be far better off.

And you honestly think that if given that 15% back everyone would automatically invest it?

Nope. No way. Many, if not most would simply use it to pay bills or something. Don't you know that the US has a horrible savings rate?

U.S. savings rate falls to zero - MSN Money

Have you read ANYTHING that I have written in this thread or are you purposely being obtuse? I am advocating for privatization, NOT opt out. Give them the 15% to INVEST. If they want it to put it in a government investment plan then they can have government bonds. Give them CHOICE and CONTROL. You are still stuck on leaving SS as it is now and arguing against a point that very few even here have - eliminating it. Most of us understand why SS exists and that there needs to be a program in place. The one that is there is a crap shoot though and people would be far better off if they could invest it themselves into safe investments.

 

[asterism]

Now that has to rank among the most ignorant statements of all time. Anytime you get back something you paid in on cannot, by any means, be considered a "handout".

Not even when you get back far more than you ever paid in, huh?

Talk about ignorant.

Only if you factor in Medicare and again only if you live long enough to collect it. But like I said, it's more of an insurance program than anything.

Let's say you pay Home Owners insurance and incur a total loss. Then the premiums that everyone else pays goes to you and you will collect far more money than you ever paid in. Do you consider THAT a handout?

Now do you see how it works?

Class dismissed.

Would any insurance company be allowed to run their plan the way Social Security OASDI is run?

 

[asterism]

SS was never meant to be a pension. Current workers are supporting current retirees. Here's my suggestion to fix it. We need to admit to ourselves that all SS is, is welfare for people that didn't squirrel away enough nuts for the winter of their life. So only poor people need collect. And by poor, I mean people who won't survive without it. If you make SS good enough to be comfortable, people will lose the incentive to save for their retirement, so it needs to only be good enough for survival, not comfort.

Then, with the benefits so drastically cut (because most people won't qualify to collect a red cent from it), we should reduce our FICA taxes to a really low level to support it, since it shouldn't take much taxes at that point to keep it going. Yes, that means most of us don't get to see any benefits, but at least our taxes can be cut now and our take-home pay increased.

This will also shrink the size of government, which I like.

I agree, bring it back to the original vision and make it a true safety net not a hammock.

 

[mdn2000]

They already are investing near 15%!!! THAT'S THE POINT. If that money was invested and not pissed into SS then at retirement they would be far better off.

And you honestly think that if given that 15% back everyone would automatically invest it?

Nope. No way. Many, if not most would simply use it to pay bills or something. Don't you know that the US has a horrible savings rate?

U.S. savings rate falls to zero - MSN Money

Have you read ANYTHING that I have written in this thread or are you purposely being obtuse? I am advocating for privatization, NOT opt out. Give them the 15% to INVEST. If they want it to put it in a government investment plan then they can have government bonds. Give them CHOICE and CONTROL. You are still stuck on leaving SS as it is now and arguing against a point that very few even here have - eliminating it. Most of us understand why SS exists and that there needs to be a program in place. The one that is there is a crap shoot though and people would be far better off if they could invest it themselves into safe investments.

You missed the The Goose stating people would do something horrible, like pay a bill instead of saving or investing.

Imagine how ignorant people are, to actually pay a bill instead of saving money.

I had not thought of it this way, the last thing we need is to have people think they should not have bills and that they should be paid, hell, the people might actually expect the government to pay its bill's, or I mean take our money and spend it however they like, instead of saving.

There is no money in Social Security because the greedy pigs in Washington are simply greedy pigs.

People paying bills, how horrible.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Which is precisely what Social Security is intended to do.

My parents had a really bad time during the Great Depression. But according to them, as bad as things were for them and their friends it was worse for the elderly, many of whom starved and froze to death on the streets or managed to stay alive by rummaging for food in garbage cans or eating pet foods.

That reality served as inspiration for the Social Security program. And in the current economic reality you may rest assured that were it not for Social Security there would be millions more old people having to choose between paying for shelter or food, or being unable to pay for either.

Bullshit.

even earning the average income of 43K a year a person who will save 15% of that at a very conservative rate of return of 6% for say 45 years (from age 22 to 67) will have over a million dollars.

Consider that over the last 100 years the average rate of return for the stock market as a whole was about 10% and that of the S&P 500 was just over 8% for the same time period and it's not unreasonable to claim that a person making just 43K per year could save between 3 and 6 million dollars over a working lifetime

Consider also that for every 150K invested at 5% one can receive 1000 a month in income for 20 years. Therefore if one has 3 million saved it is not unreasonable to say that in retirement one can expect a monthly income of 40K or an annual income of 480K.

Tell me why would the government not want a large portion of the population to have that kind of retirement income???

Many, many people would LOVE to have a job that pays $43,000 a year. You chose the average so that means 50% of the population makes less than that and in many cases far less.

My brother works for Star trucking and is making $10 per hour with no benefits and my cousin who works for Caterpillar is making $16 per hour with no benefits. Many people just don't have enough extra each month to put anywhere near 15% aside for retirement. Hell, they're barely making ends meet!!

I don't understand why so many people want to turn back the hands of progress and take us backwards to life that existed before SS. I'm betting you don't know or ever knew anyone who lived through those rough times.

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.

And I think your confusing average with median.

All I know is that I'd have way more money to retire on if the government didn't confiscate 15% of my income for SS and medicare. And so would everyone else.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Many, many people would LOVE to have a job that pays $43,000 a year. You chose the average so that means 50% of the population makes less than that and in many cases far less.

My brother works for Star trucking and is making $10 per hour with no benefits and my cousin who works for Caterpillar is making $16 per hour with no benefits. Many people just don't have enough extra each month to put anywhere near 15% aside for retirement. Hell, they're barely making ends meet!!

I don't understand why so many people want to turn back the hands of progress and take us backwards to life that existed before SS. I'm betting you don't know or ever knew anyone who lived through those rough times.

They already are investing near 15%!!! THAT'S THE POINT. If that money was invested and not pissed into SS then at retirement they would be far better off.

And you honestly think that if given that 15% back everyone would automatically invest it?

Nope. No way. Many, if not most would simply use it to pay bills or something. Don't you know that the US has a horrible savings rate?

U.S. savings rate falls to zero - MSN Money

Make it mandatory if you want. In fact that would be a government mandate I would support. We've all had that 15% taken from us so what would it matter if we were compelled to save it in a privately held account?