Social Security Discussion

[RKMBrown]

I thought people understood the difference between net financial assets and net worth (net wealth). Our monetary consists of financial assets in the form of bonds and currency.

I'm not an accountant, nor do I play one on television. I'm a bond trader with a background in economics. Well....I still have an interest in economics apart from job which you could train a monkey to do.

Most people do understand the difference. (Take that back.) Some people do understand the difference. However, it's easy for statements to get lost in translation.

Bonds? I'd think you would prefer 401ks that use somewhat safe investments over SS then.

I'm a bond trader for an Italian bank, that's my profession.

Personally, I have a financial planner, but I have a traditional IRA, some mutual funds (REITS, bond funds, index funds) and we dabble in ETFs. I also like real estate in terms of investment. I tend to lean conservative in my investment strategies even though I'm still young.

Sounds like my portfolio. Though I pulled out of real estate, except for the stuff I live on. I made so much in real estate that I figured why be greedy, it was time to get out. Ended up being prophetic as I got out about a year before the bubble popped.

 

[Kimura]

Most people do understand the difference. (Take that back.) Some people do understand the difference. However, it's easy for statements to get lost in translation.

Bonds? I'd think you would prefer 401ks that use somewhat safe investments over SS then.

I'm a bond trader for an Italian bank, that's my profession.

Personally, I have a financial planner, but I have a traditional IRA, some mutual funds (REITS, bond funds, index funds) and we dabble in ETFs. I also like real estate in terms of investment. I tend to lean conservative in my investment strategies even though I'm still young.

Sounds like my portfolio. Though I pulled out of real estate, except for the stuff I live on. I made so much in real estate that I figured why be greedy, it was time to get out. Ended up being prophetic as I got out about a year before the bubble popped.

Lucky you. I bought in 2011, but it was a foreclosure. I got a really good deal, plus it's a three unit house. It basically pays for itself, but toilets and tenants are driving me up a wall at this point. I also had one tenant from hell, I kid you not.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm a bond trader for an Italian bank, that's my profession.

Personally, I have a financial planner, but I have a traditional IRA, some mutual funds (REITS, bond funds, index funds) and we dabble in ETFs. I also like real estate in terms of investment. I tend to lean conservative in my investment strategies even though I'm still young.

Sounds like my portfolio. Though I pulled out of real estate, except for the stuff I live on. I made so much in real estate that I figured why be greedy, it was time to get out. Ended up being prophetic as I got out about a year before the bubble popped.

Lucky you. I bought in 2011, but it was a foreclosure. I got a really good deal, plus it's a three unit house. It basically pays for itself, but toilets and tenants are driving me up a wall at this point. I also had one tenant from hell, I kid you not.

Yeah not a fan of units. To much risk, to much work. But I do like land, esp. the stuff I'm living on.

 

[Kimura]

Sounds like my portfolio. Though I pulled out of real estate, except for the stuff I live on. I made so much in real estate that I figured why be greedy, it was time to get out. Ended up being prophetic as I got out about a year before the bubble popped.

Lucky you. I bought in 2011, but it was a foreclosure. I got a really good deal, plus it's a three unit house. It basically pays for itself, but toilets and tenants are driving me up a wall at this point. I also had one tenant from hell, I kid you not.

Yeah not a fan of units. To much risk, to much work. But I do like land, esp. the stuff I'm living on.

I'd love to move to a nice piece of land. I go beer and dear hunting in NJ, PA, and NY. My uncle's friend has a place in PA, it's great, around four acres, then there's nothing but miles of forest. We were up there last weekend setting up our stands for bear season. What I wouldn't give to able to totally telecommute.

 

[RKMBrown]

Lucky you. I bought in 2011, but it was a foreclosure. I got a really good deal, plus it's a three unit house. It basically pays for itself, but toilets and tenants are driving me up a wall at this point. I also had one tenant from hell, I kid you not.

Yeah not a fan of units. To much risk, to much work. But I do like land, esp. the stuff I'm living on.

I'd love to move to a nice piece of land. I go beer and dear hunting in NJ, PA, and NY. My uncle's friend has a place in PA, it's great, around four acres, then there's nothing but miles of forest. We were up there last weekend setting up our stands for bear season. What I wouldn't give to able to totally telecommute.

I live on a ranch in a group of ranches, I'm on a creek with thousands of acres of land surrounding me. And I'm in a county that is has been the fastest growing county in the country for many of the last dozen or so years. Location location location... I fully expect to at least double my money every ten years.

 

[Kimura]

Yeah not a fan of units. To much risk, to much work. But I do like land, esp. the stuff I'm living on.

I'd love to move to a nice piece of land. I go beer and dear hunting in NJ, PA, and NY. My uncle's friend has a place in PA, it's great, around four acres, then there's nothing but miles of forest. We were up there last weekend setting up our stands for bear season. What I wouldn't give to able to totally telecommute.

I live on a ranch in a group of ranches, I'm on a creek with thousands of acres of land surrounding me. And I'm in a county that is has been the fastest growing county in the country for many of the last dozen or so years. Location location location... I fully expect to at least double my money every ten years.

That will work just fine for me. I'd probably rid around on an ATV and just shoot shit all day. Nothing says primal living like killing your food.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'd love to move to a nice piece of land. I go beer and dear hunting in NJ, PA, and NY. My uncle's friend has a place in PA, it's great, around four acres, then there's nothing but miles of forest. We were up there last weekend setting up our stands for bear season. What I wouldn't give to able to totally telecommute.

I live on a ranch in a group of ranches, I'm on a creek with thousands of acres of land surrounding me. And I'm in a county that is has been the fastest growing county in the country for many of the last dozen or so years. Location location location... I fully expect to at least double my money every ten years.

That will work just fine for me. I'd probably rid around on an ATV and just shoot shit all day. Nothing says primal living like killing your food.

Ayup... I use a bow normally, but yeah we could live off the land here.

 

[Politico]

This whole thread is completely off it's SS is a Ponzi scheme rails.

Sorry about that.

SS isn’t a Ponzi scheme because it’s not an investment opportunity or investment. SS is a public sector social insurance program which requires payments from certain people as a portion of their income. They then become partipants in SS and are promised a certain level of benefits which is tied to income and age. There is zero economic risk here; there is a level of political risk since politicians may change their position about their commitments to the program.

Secondly, SS isn’t a Ponzi scheme since none of its promoters mislead people who participate in the program. This information is freely available on the SS website.
SS payments aren’t made from new funds paid into the program by people. Operationally, there is zero connection between actual payments and the collection of FICA. Payments are made to the elderly, disabled, etc from the Treasury General Account. FICA payments ultimate destination is the TGA, but they are in no way, shape, or form related to SS payments. The Treasury Department issues bonds to SS in the total dollar amount of FICA collections, and SS can use or redeem these bonds when needed.

Also, unlike an actual Ponzi scheme, SS doesn’t make wild promises about future payments which ROI doesn’t merit or justify. For and foremost, there is no ROI for SS, because it’s not an investment. SS has a successful track record of seventy years. It’s an entitlement program, social insurance, and its benefits are guaranteed by the federal government.

No it's a Ponzi scheme. And one designed to find ways not to pay out the money pay people the money they are owed.

 

[Kimura]

This whole thread is completely off it's SS is a Ponzi scheme rails.

Sorry about that.

SS isn’t a Ponzi scheme because it’s not an investment opportunity or investment. SS is a public sector social insurance program which requires payments from certain people as a portion of their income. They then become partipants in SS and are promised a certain level of benefits which is tied to income and age. There is zero economic risk here; there is a level of political risk since politicians may change their position about their commitments to the program.

Secondly, SS isn’t a Ponzi scheme since none of its promoters mislead people who participate in the program. This information is freely available on the SS website.
SS payments aren’t made from new funds paid into the program by people. Operationally, there is zero connection between actual payments and the collection of FICA. Payments are made to the elderly, disabled, etc from the Treasury General Account. FICA payments ultimate destination is the TGA, but they are in no way, shape, or form related to SS payments. The Treasury Department issues bonds to SS in the total dollar amount of FICA collections, and SS can use or redeem these bonds when needed.

Also, unlike an actual Ponzi scheme, SS doesn’t make wild promises about future payments which ROI doesn’t merit or justify. For and foremost, there is no ROI for SS, because it’s not an investment. SS has a successful track record of seventy years. It’s an entitlement program, social insurance, and its benefits are guaranteed by the federal government.

No it's a Ponzi scheme. And one designed to find ways not to pay out the money pay people the money they are owed.

SS isn't an investment, it's social insurance, so it cannot be a ponzi scheme.

A ponzi scheme is sold as opportunity for investment where people are viewed as marks by con artists. They promise future payments that current ROI simply cannot justify. This type of arrangement facilitates payments to investors from funds paid into a pool by new investors (dupes, suckers, marks).

 

[SteadyMercury]

Ponzi schemes by their nature must hide their true financial status from their investors, since revealing it would expose it as a scam meant to mislead.

Social security is quite transparent, they provide extremely detailed financial reports and projections. Hell they'll tell you right upfront that none of it is guaranteed and what year they believe receipts will be greater expenses.

That characteristic alone makes it completely different than a ponzi scheme.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry about that.

SS isn’t a Ponzi scheme because it’s not an investment opportunity or investment. SS is a public sector social insurance program which requires payments from certain people as a portion of their income. They then become partipants in SS and are promised a certain level of benefits which is tied to income and age. There is zero economic risk here; there is a level of political risk since politicians may change their position about their commitments to the program.

Secondly, SS isn’t a Ponzi scheme since none of its promoters mislead people who participate in the program. This information is freely available on the SS website.
SS payments aren’t made from new funds paid into the program by people. Operationally, there is zero connection between actual payments and the collection of FICA. Payments are made to the elderly, disabled, etc from the Treasury General Account. FICA payments ultimate destination is the TGA, but they are in no way, shape, or form related to SS payments. The Treasury Department issues bonds to SS in the total dollar amount of FICA collections, and SS can use or redeem these bonds when needed.

Also, unlike an actual Ponzi scheme, SS doesn’t make wild promises about future payments which ROI doesn’t merit or justify. For and foremost, there is no ROI for SS, because it’s not an investment. SS has a successful track record of seventy years. It’s an entitlement program, social insurance, and its benefits are guaranteed by the federal government.

No it's a Ponzi scheme. And one designed to find ways not to pay out the money pay people the money they are owed.

SS isn't an investment, it's social insurance, so it cannot be a ponzi scheme.

A ponzi scheme is sold as opportunity for investment where people are viewed as marks by con artists. They promise future payments that current ROI simply cannot justify. This type of arrangement facilitates payments to investors from funds paid into a pool by new investors (dupes, suckers, marks).

social insurance
n.
An insurance program carried out or mandated by a government to provide economic assistance to the unemployed, the elderly, or the disabled.
social insurance - definition of social insurance by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

They promise future payments that current ROI simply cannot justify.

Sounds like Soc Sec.

This type of arrangement facilitates payments to investors from funds paid into a pool by new investors (dupes, suckers, marks).

So does this.

 

[RKMBrown]

Ponzi schemes by their nature must hide their true financial status from their investors, since revealing it would expose it as a scam meant to mislead.

Social security is quite transparent, they provide extremely detailed financial reports and projections. Hell they'll tell you right upfront that none of it is guaranteed and what year they believe receipts will be greater expenses.

That characteristic alone makes it completely different than a ponzi scheme.

Please explain then, why we have to pay more than 2% of our salary, which was the starting cost of this program? Let me see the transparent financial statements that said 2% is all we will have to pay. Contrast that with the current percent of income that we have to pay, 12.4%.

While at it please explain why people who put less in get more out as a % of their income:

It's not a ponzi because they force us to piss our money away?

Bullshit, just because the government does this rape of our income at the point of a gun, is no excuse for pissing our money away in a stupid socialist ponzi scheme in which each successive generation pays double till the damn thing blows up.

 

[Politico]

Sorry about that.

SS isn’t a Ponzi scheme because it’s not an investment opportunity or investment. SS is a public sector social insurance program which requires payments from certain people as a portion of their income. They then become partipants in SS and are promised a certain level of benefits which is tied to income and age. There is zero economic risk here; there is a level of political risk since politicians may change their position about their commitments to the program.

Secondly, SS isn’t a Ponzi scheme since none of its promoters mislead people who participate in the program. This information is freely available on the SS website.
SS payments aren’t made from new funds paid into the program by people. Operationally, there is zero connection between actual payments and the collection of FICA. Payments are made to the elderly, disabled, etc from the Treasury General Account. FICA payments ultimate destination is the TGA, but they are in no way, shape, or form related to SS payments. The Treasury Department issues bonds to SS in the total dollar amount of FICA collections, and SS can use or redeem these bonds when needed.

Also, unlike an actual Ponzi scheme, SS doesn’t make wild promises about future payments which ROI doesn’t merit or justify. For and foremost, there is no ROI for SS, because it’s not an investment. SS has a successful track record of seventy years. It’s an entitlement program, social insurance, and its benefits are guaranteed by the federal government.

No it's a Ponzi scheme. And one designed to find ways not to pay out the money pay people the money they are owed.

SS isn't an investment, it's social insurance, so it cannot be a ponzi scheme.

A ponzi scheme is sold as opportunity for investment where people are viewed as marks by con artists. They promise future payments that current ROI simply cannot justify. This type of arrangement facilitates payments to investors from funds paid into a pool by new investors (dupes, suckers, marks).

No it's a Ponzi scheme.

 

[Kimura]

No it's a Ponzi scheme. And one designed to find ways not to pay out the money pay people the money they are owed.

social insurance
n.
An insurance program carried out or mandated by a government to provide economic assistance to the unemployed, the elderly, or the disabled.
social insurance - definition of social insurance by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

They promise future payments that current ROI simply cannot justify.

Sounds like Soc Sec.

There is no ROI since it's not an investment.


You left this out from your link:

Social insurance


n

(Social Welfare) government insurance providing coverage for the unemployed, the injured, the old, etc.: usually financed by contributions from employers and employees, as well as general government revenue See also social security,

This type of arrangement facilitates payments to investors from funds paid into a pool by new investors (dupes, suckers, marks).

So does this.

It's not a ponzi scheme no matter how many time you tell yourself it is.

 

[Kimura]

No it's a Ponzi scheme. And one designed to find ways not to pay out the money pay people the money they are owed.

SS isn't an investment, it's social insurance, so it cannot be a ponzi scheme.

A ponzi scheme is sold as opportunity for investment where people are viewed as marks by con artists. They promise future payments that current ROI simply cannot justify. This type of arrangement facilitates payments to investors from funds paid into a pool by new investors (dupes, suckers, marks).

No it's a Ponzi scheme.

It's not a ponzi scheme, but if it helps keep your worldview intact, go with it.

 

[RKMBrown]

SS isn't an investment, it's social insurance, so it cannot be a ponzi scheme.

A ponzi scheme is sold as opportunity for investment where people are viewed as marks by con artists. They promise future payments that current ROI simply cannot justify. This type of arrangement facilitates payments to investors from funds paid into a pool by new investors (dupes, suckers, marks).

No it's a Ponzi scheme.

It's not a ponzi scheme, but if it helps keep your worldview intact, go with it.

If it's "insurance" where are the assets to pay the guaranteed payments.

 

[Politico]

Oops damn that pesky logic.

 

[Toro]

SS isn't an investment, it's social insurance, so it cannot be a ponzi scheme.

A ponzi scheme is sold as opportunity for investment where people are viewed as marks by con artists. They promise future payments that current ROI simply cannot justify. This type of arrangement facilitates payments to investors from funds paid into a pool by new investors (dupes, suckers, marks).

No it's a Ponzi scheme.

It's not a ponzi scheme, but if it helps keep your worldview intact, go with it.

It's not a Ponzi Scheme any more than Treasury bonds are a Ponzi Scheme.

A Ponzi Scheme is a scheme where unreasonably high returns are promised with no associated economic activity to support the promised return. It might be considered a Ponzi Scheme if the promised returns to SS recipients was 25% a year, but given that it's ticking along at 2%-3%, nobody reasonable can say its a Ponzi Scheme.

Liabilities of the US government are claims on future economic activity within the jurisdiction of the United States. A corporate bond is the same thing. A corporate bond is a claim on future activity of the corporation. Treasury bonds are liabilities of the US government. So are SS promises. One can argue that the promises of SS are too high and we will one day default by not paying the promised benefits (or not), but even if that's true, that doesn't make SS a Ponzi Scheme. Simply because we default on our liabilities doesn't make it a Ponzi Scheme. Large corporations default on their debt at the rate of about 1%-2% per year. Nobody knowledgeable would ever argue that every corporate default is a Ponzi Scheme.

People get confused because they think simply because it's a pay-as-you-go system, it inherently makes it a Ponzi Scheme. That's incorrect. All SS does is cut out the middle man in the bond market. SS acts exactly as a retirement fund that is invested 100% in government bonds. We could issue the bonds and drop them in the SS trusts, or we can just track the promises in the trusts as if we doing buying the bonds. The economics are the same.

I think SS is a poor system and should be changed, but it's not a Ponzi Scheme.

 

[RKMBrown]

No it's a Ponzi scheme.

It's not a ponzi scheme, but if it helps keep your worldview intact, go with it.

It's not a Ponzi Scheme any more than Treasury bonds are a Ponzi Scheme.

A Ponzi Scheme is a scheme where unreasonably high returns are promised with no associated economic activity to support the promised return. It might be considered a Ponzi Scheme if the promised returns to SS recipients was 25% a year, but given that it's ticking along at 2%-3%, nobody reasonable can say its a Ponzi Scheme.

Liabilities of the US government are claims on future economic activity within the jurisdiction of the United States. A corporate bond is the same thing. A corporate bond is a claim on future activity of the corporation. Treasury bonds are liabilities of the US government. So are SS promises. One can argue that the promises of SS are too high and we will one day default by not paying the promised benefits (or not), but even if that's true, that doesn't make SS a Ponzi Scheme. Simply because we default on our liabilities doesn't make it a Ponzi Scheme. Large corporations default on their debt at the rate of about 1%-2% per year. Nobody knowledgeable would ever argue that every corporate default is a Ponzi Scheme.

People get confused because they think simply because it's a pay-as-you-go system, it inherently makes it a Ponzi Scheme. That's incorrect. All SS does is cut out the middle man in the bond market. SS acts exactly as a retirement fund that is invested 100% in government bonds. We could issue the bonds and drop them in the SS trusts, or we can just track the promises in the trusts as if we doing buying the bonds. The economics are the same.

I think SS is a poor system and should be changed, but it's not a Ponzi Scheme.

So you are saying the assets you are buying with your SS payments are a % of labor of your children and grandchildren? Dude that's some sick shit right there.

 

[Toro]

It's not a ponzi scheme, but if it helps keep your worldview intact, go with it.

It's not a Ponzi Scheme any more than Treasury bonds are a Ponzi Scheme.

A Ponzi Scheme is a scheme where unreasonably high returns are promised with no associated economic activity to support the promised return. It might be considered a Ponzi Scheme if the promised returns to SS recipients was 25% a year, but given that it's ticking along at 2%-3%, nobody reasonable can say its a Ponzi Scheme.

Liabilities of the US government are claims on future economic activity within the jurisdiction of the United States. A corporate bond is the same thing. A corporate bond is a claim on future activity of the corporation. Treasury bonds are liabilities of the US government. So are SS promises. One can argue that the promises of SS are too high and we will one day default by not paying the promised benefits (or not), but even if that's true, that doesn't make SS a Ponzi Scheme. Simply because we default on our liabilities doesn't make it a Ponzi Scheme. Large corporations default on their debt at the rate of about 1%-2% per year. Nobody knowledgeable would ever argue that every corporate default is a Ponzi Scheme.

People get confused because they think simply because it's a pay-as-you-go system, it inherently makes it a Ponzi Scheme. That's incorrect. All SS does is cut out the middle man in the bond market. SS acts exactly as a retirement fund that is invested 100% in government bonds. We could issue the bonds and drop them in the SS trusts, or we can just track the promises in the trusts as if we doing buying the bonds. The economics are the same.

I think SS is a poor system and should be changed, but it's not a Ponzi Scheme.

So you are saying the assets you are buying with your SS payments are a % of labor of your children and grandchildren? Dude that's some sick shit right there.

All debt are claims on someone's future labor regardless of the issuing entity. Much of equity is too.