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.
Problem with con tools is that they simply regurgitate the line that they are supposed to. It is irrational, of course. But that is all they are capable of.
They want the private investment firms to get richer. Just the way they are. Nothing that they can do about it.
But most importantly, they think that the voting public should not have what they want. And there is no question to a rational person that the vast majority of the voting public does not want ss privatized. And there are few candidates in safe enough districts to try to push or vote for privatization. So they will not. And for that reason, the public will get what they want. And the con tools may as well bey at the moon. Because they and any politician who would try to privatize ss will be about as popular as a turd in a punch bowl.
Ask W.
You are grossly confused ass hole. ITS MY GD MONEY AND I'LL SPEND IT HOW I WANT TO YOU CAN JUMP OFF A CLIFF YOU PARASITE.
Again, for the second time, SS is HIGHLY successful. Before its enactment, around half our nation's elderly lived in poverty. As of today, less than ten percent live in poverty due to SS.
Do you plan on using Medicare? Or is that another program designed by parasites? What your plan? Roll the disabled or elderly into a corner and let them expire?
Our social safety net is anemic and yet reactionaries want to totally gut them due to some ideological fantasy. Historically, your version of the Unites States never existed.
Thank God in heaven.
Bull shit, parasite. You can't "remove" someone from poverty by stealing 600k dollars from them over 40years (never accruing interest) and giving them 2400 a month back after they are 65 and then saying, your welcome I removed you from poverty in your old age. What a sick person you are.
The authors estimate that a $1,000 increase in Social Security benefits is associated with a 2 to 3 percentage point reduction in poverty rates for elderly households. They also find no statistically significant effect of benefits on income inequality, suggesting that higher-income and lower-income elderly benefit similarly from increases in Social Security.
Applying this estimate to the change in Social Security benefits between 1967 and 2000 suggests that the increase in benefits can explain all of the 17 percentage point decline in poverty that occurred during this period. The authors also find that higher benefits lead some elderly to live independently rather than with family members, and conclude that the effect of Social Security on poverty would have been even more dramatic in the absence of these changes in living arrangements.
Bull shit, parasite. You can't "remove" someone from poverty by stealing 600k dollars from them over 40years (never accruing interest) and giving them 2400 a month back after they are 65 and then saying, your welcome I removed you from poverty in your old age. What a sick person you are.
The economic data says otherwise, but I'm starting to realize that doesn't matter to you. What's your plan for the indigent, disabled, and elderly? Again, for the third time, SS is social insurance, not an investment vehicle.
Social Security and the Evolution of Elderly Poverty
The authors estimate that a $1,000 increase in Social Security benefits is associated with a 2 to 3 percentage point reduction in poverty rates for elderly households. They also find no statistically significant effect of benefits on income inequality, suggesting that higher-income and lower-income elderly benefit similarly from increases in Social Security.
Applying this estimate to the change in Social Security benefits between 1967 and 2000 suggests that the increase in benefits can explain all of the 17 percentage point decline in poverty that occurred during this period. The authors also find that higher benefits lead some elderly to live independently rather than with family members, and conclude that the effect of Social Security on poverty would have been even more dramatic in the absence of these changes in living arrangements.
Social Security and Elderly Poverty
Put the tax in a private account. No need to use general revenues.
The government will save trillions. Benefits will rise.
Win-win.
Privatizing SS would be another subsidy for Wall Street, which is why they would love to get their hands on it. It would a generate a about an additional 300 billion in fees and commissions for these guys. No thanks...
Also, even if some of these reactionary douche bags phased in privatization it wouldn't protect people from market downturns. The crash of 2008 would have robbed around 60% of retirement investors portfolios whether privatization was phased in switched over all at once.
SS is a great program and has kept many Americans out of abject poverty. We should increase benefit payments for retirees, not strip them of their economic rights through a disastrous privatization scheme.
Lies on lies on lies on lies. Not even one portion of your statements have even a small measure of truth.
Your ignorance is surpassed only by PMS and Matthew.
SS does not keep anyone out of abject poverty. NO ONE.
SS is a gross theft of our money.
Bull shit, parasite. You can't "remove" someone from poverty by stealing 600k dollars from them over 40years (never accruing interest) and giving them 2400 a month back after they are 65 and then saying, your welcome I removed you from poverty in your old age. What a sick person you are.
The economic data says otherwise, but I'm starting to realize that doesn't matter to you. What's your plan for the indigent, disabled, and elderly? Again, for the third time, SS is social insurance, not an investment vehicle.
Social Security and the Evolution of Elderly Poverty
The authors estimate that a $1,000 increase in Social Security benefits is associated with a 2 to 3 percentage point reduction in poverty rates for elderly households. They also find no statistically significant effect of benefits on income inequality, suggesting that higher-income and lower-income elderly benefit similarly from increases in Social Security.
Applying this estimate to the change in Social Security benefits between 1967 and 2000 suggests that the increase in benefits can explain all of the 17 percentage point decline in poverty that occurred during this period. The authors also find that higher benefits lead some elderly to live independently rather than with family members, and conclude that the effect of Social Security on poverty would have been even more dramatic in the absence of these changes in living arrangements.
Social Security and Elderly Poverty
All that chart shows is that the elderly are not living in poverty. You assume it's because of SS. My point is that if those "elderly" had been allowed to put their money in their own accounts in safe investments they would not only not be in poverty, but rather they would be quite well off, as in having 5times more income coming in than under SS.
But I understand if basic math escapes you.
Elderly poverty in the U.S. decreased dramatically during the twentieth century. Between 1960 and 1995, the official poverty rate of those aged 65 and above fell from 35 percent to 10 percent, and research has documented similarly steep declines dating back to at least 1939. While poverty was once far more prevalent among the elderly than among other age groups, today's elderly have a poverty rate similar to that of working-age adults and much lower than that of children.
Social Security is often mentioned as a likely contributor to the decline in elderly poverty. Enacted in 1935, the Social Security system experienced rapid benefit growth in the post-WWII era. In fact, there is a striking association between the rise in Social Security expenditures per capita and the decline in elderly poverty, as Figure 1 illustrates (with both series scaled to fit on the same figure).
This association is investigated further by researchers Gary Engelhardt and Jonathan Gruber in Social Security and the Evolution of Elderly Poverty, (NBER Working Paper 10466). Using data from the 1968 through 2001 March Current Population Surveys, the authors first examine aggregate trends in elderly poverty then conduct a statistical analysis to assess the role of Social Security in driving the decline in elderly poverty.
The authors draw several interesting conclusions from their analysis of aggregate trends. First, when poverty is measured relative to median non-elderly income rather than relative to the official poverty line, the decline in elderly poverty ended in the early 1980s. Income inequality has increased markedly since then among the elderly and non-elderly alike. Second, poverty rates are strongly cyclical - rising during recessions and falling during economic expansions - for the non-elderly but not for the elderly, highlighting the protective effect of Social Security. Third, decreases in elderly poverty over time have been similar across age groups but larger for married couples than for other groups.
As the authors note, assessing the causal effect of Social Security on poverty is difficult. For example, individuals may work and save more when benefits are less generous, so a simple calculation of the increase in poverty that would result from eliminating Social Security income would likely overstate the true effect by ignoring these behavioral responses.
To avoid this problem, the authors construct a measure of Social Security benefits that depends only on the Social Security rules that apply to each birth cohort and not on workers' actual labor market experience. They examine the relationship between this measure and poverty rates for people born between 1880 and 1935. For some of the analysis, the authors focus on a narrower range of birth cohorts, making use of the sharp drop in benefits experienced by the "notch" cohorts of 1917-1921.
The authors estimate that a $1,000 increase in Social Security benefits is associated with a 2 to 3 percentage point reduction in poverty rates for elderly households. They also find no statistically significant effect of benefits on income inequality, suggesting that higher-income and lower-income elderly benefit similarly from increases in Social Security.
Applying this estimate to the change in Social Security benefits between 1967 and 2000 suggests that the increase in benefits can explain all of the 17 percentage point decline in poverty that occurred during this period. The authors also find that higher benefits lead some elderly to live independently rather than with family members, and conclude that the effect of Social Security on poverty would have been even more dramatic in the absence of these changes in living arrangements.
My point is that if those "elderly" had been allowed to put their money in their own accounts in safe investments they would not only not be in poverty, but rather they would be quite well off, as in having 5times more income coming in than under SS.
The person being removed from poverty by social security won't have made nearly enough money to have put in 600k.Bull shit, parasite. You can't "remove" someone from poverty by stealing 600k dollars from them over 40years (never accruing interest) and giving them 2400 a month back after they are 65
The person being removed from poverty by social security won't have made nearly enough money to have put in 600k.Bull shit, parasite. You can't "remove" someone from poverty by stealing 600k dollars from them over 40years (never accruing interest) and giving them 2400 a month back after they are 65
This conversation reminds me of how the president said others lied when they disputed the promise of keeping our doctors with the ACA.Privatization would be a subsidy for Wall Street... ...all it would do is create a moral hazard, which Wall Street excels at.
SS isn't an investment. Secondly, what is it with your obsession with privatization? It's like you want to give Wall Street another subsidy, thus creating another moral hazard. Hey, I guess they deserve an additional 300 billion in fees and commissions courtesy of Uncle Sam.
Privatizing SS would be another subsidy for Wall Street, which is why they would love to get their hands on it. It would a generate a about an additional 300 billion in fees and commissions for these guys. No thanks...
Also, even if some of these reactionary douche bags phased in privatization it wouldn't protect people from market downturns. The crash of 2008 would have robbed around 60% of retirement investors portfolios whether privatization was phased in switched over all at once.
SS is a great program and has kept many Americans out of abject poverty. We should increase benefit payments for retirees, not strip them of their economic rights through a disastrous privatization scheme.
Lies on lies on lies on lies. Not even one portion of your statements have even a small measure of truth.
Your ignorance is surpassed only by PMS and Matthew.
SS does not keep anyone out of abject poverty. NO ONE.
SS is a gross theft of our money.
I could be wrong on the exact numbers, but I recall reading a study many years ago that with SS, 10% of seniors live in poverty. Without it, that number would rise to 40%.
Lies on lies on lies on lies. Not even one portion of your statements have even a small measure of truth.
Your ignorance is surpassed only by PMS and Matthew.
SS does not keep anyone out of abject poverty. NO ONE.
SS is a gross theft of our money.
I could be wrong on the exact numbers, but I recall reading a study many years ago that with SS, 10% of seniors live in poverty. Without it, that number would rise to 40%.
I have read similiar opinions. But all those opinions assumed that everything else would stay the same. It wouldn't. Millions of people take advantage of tax deffered IRAs, 401Ks, and other savings/investment vehicles and other attractive savings plans when these are made available to them. Had I put all that social security money into such private, tax deferred investments when I first started paying social security, I would have been able to retire on a very comfortable income.
Yes there will always be the irresponsible who won't do it and who will end up penniless in their old age but those who would have no family or friend to move in with would likely be in very small numbers. And we as a society can decide what we will do about those. But I suspect, if we could change the cultural expectations of what decent, honorable, responsible people do, the poor would be in a distinct minority and we would have a tiny percentage of folks dependent on government.
OK, you're absolutely right, SS is very popular. In fact, let's make it purely volutary and that way we won't have any more complaining from those one or two people that don't want it.How are you so sure social security is so unpopular?
Seriously, even though the bonkers left always spits out their empty talk about this America-loves-SS nonsense, we all know that nobody but nobody would ever voluntarily sign up for it if they had a choice. That's why since day one any talk about a voluntary SS has always been considered an option that would end SS.
One person's anecdotes are nice but they're a poor basis for public policy. The total private net worth of all American citizens is $74,820,940,000,000 (from here) so dividing that equally by 313,914,040 (from here) tells us that America's average personal net worth is $238,348.50....people generally don't save enough...
Median household net worth is a far more useful measure.One person's anecdotes are nice but they're a poor basis for public policy. The total private net worth of all American citizens is $74,820,940,000,000 (from here) so dividing that equally by 313,914,040 (from here) tells us that America's average personal net worth is $238,348.50....people generally don't save enough...
For people 10 years away from retirement, the median savings is $12,000. "Of the people between 55 and 64, one third haven't saved anything for retirement," Oakley says.
SS isn't an investment. Secondly, what is it with your obsession with privatization? It's like you want to give Wall Street another subsidy, thus creating another moral hazard. Hey, I guess they deserve an additional 300 billion in fees and commissions courtesy of Uncle Sam.
Then offer only passive options where fees are very low.
However, even if we don't, the real equity risk premium over Treasury bonds has been about 4% over time. If Wall Street charges 1% in fees, the participant is still better off over time.
FTR, all-in expenses for large public pension plans are roughly 20-30 bps IIRC.
.
Median household net worth is a far more useful measure.One person's anecdotes are nice but they're a poor basis for public policy. The total private net worth of all American citizens is $74,820,940,000,000 (from here) so dividing that equally by 313,914,040 (from here) tells us that America's average personal net worth is $238,348.50....people generally don't save enough...
From Wealth and Asset Ownership - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau as of 2011:
Median household net worth: $68,828
Excluding equity in own home: $16,942
According to Haven't saved enough for retirement? What to do?
For people 10 years away from retirement, the median savings is $12,000. "Of the people between 55 and 64, one third haven't saved anything for retirement," Oakley says.
Clearly there is a bit more supporting the case that people don't save a lot than Toro's anecdotal experience.
Median household net worth is a far more useful measure.
From Wealth and Asset Ownership - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau as of 2011:
Median household net worth: $68,828
Excluding equity in own home: $16,942
According to Haven't saved enough for retirement? What to do?
For people 10 years away from retirement, the median savings is $12,000. "Of the people between 55 and 64, one third haven't saved anything for retirement," Oakley says.
Clearly there is a bit more supporting the case that people don't save a lot than Toro's anecdotal experience.
But that is the result of a government that discourages private initiative and encourages people to look increasingly to government as the purveyor of all they will ever need. It is a cultural emphasis on "I want it now" and a failure to achieve a culture in which people do save and take responsibility to save for their old age. We can change our culture, however, and restore basic values if we have the will to do so.
The government helps with tax deferred IRAs and 401Ks etc. It could help more by providing other incentives to save - offer tax savings on money saved and spent after Age 65 or some such as that. I have attended churches that teach the principles as a matter of spiritual priorities: use the first 10% of your income for the benefit of others; place the second 10% in savings to achieve liberty and not be tied down or beholden in the service of anybody but God, and then budget and live on the rest. Whether one is religious or not, it is an excellent concept and could be made the cultural norm. Peer pressure is a powerful thing.
One person's anecdotes are nice but they're a poor basis for public policy. The total private net worth of all American citizens is $74,820,940,000,000 (from here) so dividing that equally by 313,914,040 (from here) tells us that America's average personal net worth is $238,348.50....people generally don't save enough...
This is where the extreme left will argue that America suffers from an inordinate inequality of wealth and that most Americans are are too incompetent to care for themselves. Thus, the masses must be made wards of the state and supported by funds confiscated from the excessively rich.
While this line of thinking seems very popular these days, historically it's a recipe for disaster.
