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.
It's no wonder that leftists hate the concept of folks managing their own retirement funds. They have NO CLUE how to read a prospectus, determine value, or figure out how stuff works.. Or when they are being scammed.
They really DO need help..
If I could manage the $18,000 I was forced to contribute to Social Security this year I'd still have it, instead the government spent all MY money as soon as the check cleared. And they are worried I might lose 10% investing it in the stock market, what vs the government spending every last penny? How is the government protecting my money when they spend it all, seriously WTF.
Before I started working in the pension industry, I was a retail stock broker.
Most individuals have no clue - zero, zip, nada - how to invest.
There is an ideological belief amongst a section of the American population that the government can never do better than the individual. Having spent over 20 years in capital markets, I believe that this belief is dead fucking wrong. Most people would be better keeping their retirement in SS than investing themselves, just like most people should listen to what their doctor says rather than prescribing their medical maladies themselves.
Having said that, I do think that individuals should have the right to manage their retirement if they want. SS should be managed as a professional pension fund, like the Canada Pension Plan. And if people think they can do better than the professionals - and 99.9% of people cannot - then they should have the right to do so.
[
It is insolvent in ANY year that the Treasury has to go borrow money (debt owed by YOU) to pay the income/expend gap.
That is 100% WRONG. That is where your confusion comes from.
Again. DO YOU KNOW WHAT A TRUST FUND IS?
If it belongs to ME -- I do.. Your mistake is assuming the Fed Govt plays by the same rules.
You should at least listen to that statement from the SS Admin I posted. They are TRYING to tell you that
the cupboard is bare. Without inciting a riot..
There is nothing of value in that fund. Just like there is nothing in the HiWay Trust Fund or the Indian Trust Fund that has been raided more times than a wooden frontier fort.. The Federal Govt is PROHIBITED from saving any cash or holding investments. It's year to year baby...
Remind me not to hire you as a financial consultant. If you don't know the diff between a retirement portfolio and a retirement INSURANCE program --- you're not coming near my wallet..
And I've calculated my return on SS if I live to 80.. It's about -20% ..... It's NOT universal. The buy-ins are not equal and neither are returns. You left that out of your "investment advice...
Remind me not to hire you as a financial consultant. If you don't know the diff between a retirement portfolio and a retirement INSURANCE program --- you're not coming near my wallet..
There is no difference between a retirement "portfolio" and a retirement "insurance" program. A retirement "insurance" program is backed by a "portfolio" of assets which is used to pay off the liabilities from the insurance contract. If the portfolio assets fail to pay the liabilities of the insurance contract, it is in default and you will not get paid what you are owed by your insurance. Your insurance is no better than the portfolio of assets that back it. That's no different than SS not being able to pay off what you will be owed in the future.
Most "insurance" portfolios are pools of bonds, usually including a big chunk of government securities, be it Treasuries, GSEs, etc., as well as corporate and other bonds. SS is effectively a pool of government liabilities, i.e. bonds, guaranteed by the Treasury, the economics no different than a portfolio of government bonds you can buy from a mutual fund company.
And I've calculated my return on SS if I live to 80.. It's about -20% ..... It's NOT universal. The buy-ins are not equal and neither are returns. You left that out of your "investment advice...
SS is an inefficient structure. It should be run like a professional defined contribution plan, like the Canada Pension Plan or the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth fund, that invests in a wide variety of assets, from stocks to bonds to real estate to private equity, etc.
No difference between retirement insurance and retirement portfolio? Where's the contract? Can I sue anyone? Why don't my heirs have a right to the proceeds? Where's the statement of assets? The SEC filings? The prospectus? Where's my control over the "investment"? Why is my return -20%?
No one should ever retire "on retirement insurance".. Or if they do -- at least the program ought to be managed so that benefits reflect the ACTUAL "investment" that the managers have made. Do you know of GOOD retirement investments where the managers squander the income on bombs and viagra and then DEPEND on FORCING you to financially backing the corporate debt instruments they plan to issue to cover the money they stole??? You're not angry.. Don't know how that can happen.. Unless you somehow haven't disclosed any "conflicts of interest" that might impair your judgement to be pushing SS over TRUE retirement investment..
But for purposes of this thread -- the ONLY question is --- WHY do the taxpayers have to pay TWICE for the SS surplus that was stolen (including the fictitious interest gimmick).?
Because eventually SS will be turned from a UNIVERSAL insurance program into a welfare benefit.
No difference between retirement insurance and retirement portfolio? Where's the contract? Can I sue anyone? Why don't my heirs have a right to the proceeds? Where's the statement of assets? The SEC filings? The prospectus? Where's my control over the "investment"? Why is my return -20%?
It doesn't matter if you have a contract if you are owed $100 and the portfolio of assets is only worth $80. You can sue the insurance company all you want, but your return is still going to be -20%, even if the contract says you are to earn +5%. Your insurance company can't conjure up money from thin air. If it doesn't have it, it doesn't have it.
At least the government has the power of taxation (and expropriation if need be), powers no corporation has. You can debate the morality of this power, but it is power nonetheless, which is why sovereigns almost always have an equal or higher credit rating than the companies in the country in which it is domiciled.
No one should ever retire "on retirement insurance".. Or if they do -- at least the program ought to be managed so that benefits reflect the ACTUAL "investment" that the managers have made. Do you know of GOOD retirement investments where the managers squander the income on bombs and viagra and then DEPEND on FORCING you to financially backing the corporate debt instruments they plan to issue to cover the money they stole??? You're not angry.. Don't know how that can happen.. Unless you somehow haven't disclosed any "conflicts of interest" that might impair your judgement to be pushing SS over TRUE retirement investment..
I've never made the claim that people should retire only on SS. They should also have savings outside of SS.
What I'm arguing is that people don't understand the nature of SS, and make up false claims about it, such as you are doing now.
But for purposes of this thread -- the ONLY question is --- WHY do the taxpayers have to pay TWICE for the SS surplus that was stolen (including the fictitious interest gimmick).?
The premise is false. The money was neither "stolen," nor was it paid twice.
If you want to start a thread about why SS is a bad system, I'll agree with you. But the underlying argument is wrong.
It's no wonder that leftists hate the concept of folks managing their own retirement funds. They have NO CLUE how to read a prospectus, determine value, or figure out how stuff works.. Or when they are being scammed.
They really DO need help..
If I could manage the $18,000 I was forced to contribute to Social Security this year I'd still have it, instead the government spent all MY money as soon as the check cleared. And they are worried I might lose 10% investing it in the stock market, what vs the government spending every last penny? How is the government protecting my money when they spend it all, seriously WTF.
Before I started working in the pension industry, I was a retail stock broker.
Most individuals have no clue - zero, zip, nada - how to invest.
There is an ideological belief amongst a section of the American population that the government can never do better than the individual. Having spent over 20 years in capital markets, I believe that this belief is dead fucking wrong. Most people would be better keeping their retirement in SS than investing themselves, just like most people should listen to what their doctor says rather than prescribing their medical maladies themselves.
Having said that, I do think that individuals should have the right to manage their retirement if they want. SS should be managed as a professional pension fund, like the Canada Pension Plan. And if people think they can do better than the professionals - and 99.9% of people cannot - then they should have the right to do so.
There is much discussion on this on this board. Almost any time SS and it's solvency (or lack thereof) is discussed, everyone talks about how SS has been "raided" and used to pay for other things. The problem here is that most of you, Democrat and Republican alike, who say this don't have a clue what you're talking about. So here, I'll explain it to you. I'd like to say that we could put the issue to rest once and for all, but I doubt that will be the case.
Before I begin, a prediction: Many of you will rush to respond without bothering to read, and in the process you'll jump to conclusions and make an ass out of yourself. Some will rail off on wild tangents. Many dissenters will be folks who claim to be conservatives, but are really just fake ass Cinos who like to complain and whine, and will be completely oblivious to the highly damaging implications I'll be presenting against the entire SS system. But you'll feel good because touching yourself always feels good. Many dissenters will be liberals, who will "like" this post, will note the Cinos dissenting for all the wrong reasons, and based upon that, will launch into your Hooray for Government dance, as if idiots being wrong instantly means that government is the solution to all our problems. Finally, if most people are adequately drawn to my blue highlighting of this paragraph so as to read it, and subsequently see their planned reaction described herein, few responses will be made because you'll realize that you've already been identified and you're now embarrassed at how much of an ass of yourself you were about to make.
Okay, now that that's cleared up, let's talk about the Social Security Trust, and what happens to the money.....
Overall, the Social Security Trust is fairly simple. Money goes in with the express purpose of being used to fund Social Security. It can't be used to pay to fuel up Air Force One for Obama's latest golfing venture. Simple. That being said, money static is money lost. That is to say, if money just sits on the coffee table, it's not doing anything except sitting there. In our personal lives most people know that building up a nest egg of cash that is doing nothing typically means lost opportunities. We could invest that money and make more money. Even something as simple and safe as putting it into a Certificate of Deposit with your bank might return a little bit of cash, all while you sit back and play video games for the next 18 months. If you're not going to be using your nest egg anyway, it's like giving up free money to just let it sit there.
That's why many, many years ago Congress passed a law that requires excess funds in the Social Security Trust to be "invested." Instead of just sitting there and collecting dust, the excess is invested and collects interest, which is then rolled back into the Trust. This "investing" is done in the form of intra-governmental loans. Basically, the government borrows money from itself, on a short term basis, in pretty much the same fashion as other government borrowing occurs. A bond is given to the Trust, and a few months later the Trust is repaid with interest.
Now, you might be thinking that "Well, this really does amount to raiding the SS Trust to pay for other things." On it's surface, it might appear that way. But in reality, it's not that way. And there are two reasons for that:
1 - At it's core, it's little more more than moving around cash. If your car broke down on Wed and you were short on cash, causing you to transfer $500 from your savings into your checking until payday Friday, at which point you put back the $500 plus added your normal per-paycheck savings contribution, would you call that "raiding" your savings account to pay you mechanic? Of course not. All you did was move your own cash around so that your check won't bounce.
2 - The law requires that the Trust be invested in his way. It doesn't matter how much or how little the government is spending on other things. Congress could pass a balanced budget, and the same thing would happen. Heck, the Congress could pass a budget that only authorizes $1,500 in spending, and the same thing would still happen. The Trust would still be invested, and the government would still borrow from itself.
This is why you may have heard such seemingly absurd things as "The debt is $18 trillion, but the real dept is only $10 trillion." What the "real" debt refers to is the amount of debt that is not in the form of intra-governmental loans; intra-governmental loans are included in the official calculation of the debt, so a sizable part of the $18 trillion includes cash that the government has just shifted around between accounts. (***Note: I do not know the actual figures off the top of my head, the $10 trillion amount is merely an explanatory tool).
Now that we understand that investing the excess funds in the Social Security Trust by means of intra-governmental debt is a long standing legal requirement that happens without regard to how much the government spends, some people might be ready to rejoice in the alleged marvel that is the Social Security system. Some might feel relieved that in fact the SS Trust is not being "raided" and might even see this as evidence that SS can remain solvent for many decades to come. But don't be so fast to celebrate. Because everything I've just said actually underscores the fact that Social Security is a drain on the American economy, and on the taxpayer.
As I explained, when excess funds from the SS Trust are loaned out to other parts of the government they are paid back with interest. This brings more money into the Trust. That money didn't come from your SS payroll taxes. It comes directly from your income tax. You are investing more money into the SS Trust than just your SS taxes!! The SS Trust is like a black hole. It sucks in money from every direction, and all it spits out are the decayed remnants of what's left over.
The amount of money a person receives in terms of SS retirement benefits will almost always be less than what you've paid into it as SS taxes. And now that we understand that we invest more than just our SS taxes into the SS Trust, the disparity of return is understood to be even greater. Allowing individuals to retain their SS taxes would allow them to instead invest those funds into retirement plans that would yield better returns, resulting in having more funds available for their own retirement. Additionally, the interest that the SS Trust sucks in from the taxpayers would result in a net savings of government expenses, allowing for lower deficits.
Yes, the government legally requires itself to spend the money instead of saving it and so there is no actual trust fund. that was clever of them
Do you have any clue how many trust funds, retirement plans, pension funds, IRA's, 401K's, 403B's, etc., etc.,
have all or part of their money invested in US treasuries?
No, you probably don't because you're retarded.
SS is NOT invested in US treasuries. The Trust fund holds only "intragovernmental IOUs".. There IS a difference.
The is a difference; however that difference is basically that special issue investments cannot be sold to a third party. They are issued by the U.S. Treasury and backed by the full faith and credit of the federal government. Special interest investments bear interest determined by a different formula than traded T. bonds.There is much discussion on this on this board. Almost any time SS and it's solvency (or lack thereof) is discussed, everyone talks about how SS has been "raided" and used to pay for other things. The problem here is that most of you, Democrat and Republican alike, who say this don't have a clue what you're talking about. So here, I'll explain it to you. I'd like to say that we could put the issue to rest once and for all, but I doubt that will be the case.
Before I begin, a prediction: Many of you will rush to respond without bothering to read, and in the process you'll jump to conclusions and make an ass out of yourself. Some will rail off on wild tangents. Many dissenters will be folks who claim to be conservatives, but are really just fake ass Cinos who like to complain and whine, and will be completely oblivious to the highly damaging implications I'll be presenting against the entire SS system. But you'll feel good because touching yourself always feels good. Many dissenters will be liberals, who will "like" this post, will note the Cinos dissenting for all the wrong reasons, and based upon that, will launch into your Hooray for Government dance, as if idiots being wrong instantly means that government is the solution to all our problems. Finally, if most people are adequately drawn to my blue highlighting of this paragraph so as to read it, and subsequently see their planned reaction described herein, few responses will be made because you'll realize that you've already been identified and you're now embarrassed at how much of an ass of yourself you were about to make.
Okay, now that that's cleared up, let's talk about the Social Security Trust, and what happens to the money.....
Overall, the Social Security Trust is fairly simple. Money goes in with the express purpose of being used to fund Social Security. It can't be used to pay to fuel up Air Force One for Obama's latest golfing venture. Simple. That being said, money static is money lost. That is to say, if money just sits on the coffee table, it's not doing anything except sitting there. In our personal lives most people know that building up a nest egg of cash that is doing nothing typically means lost opportunities. We could invest that money and make more money. Even something as simple and safe as putting it into a Certificate of Deposit with your bank might return a little bit of cash, all while you sit back and play video games for the next 18 months. If you're not going to be using your nest egg anyway, it's like giving up free money to just let it sit there.
That's why many, many years ago Congress passed a law that requires excess funds in the Social Security Trust to be "invested." Instead of just sitting there and collecting dust, the excess is invested and collects interest, which is then rolled back into the Trust. This "investing" is done in the form of intra-governmental loans. Basically, the government borrows money from itself, on a short term basis, in pretty much the same fashion as other government borrowing occurs. A bond is given to the Trust, and a few months later the Trust is repaid with interest.
Now, you might be thinking that "Well, this really does amount to raiding the SS Trust to pay for other things." On it's surface, it might appear that way. But in reality, it's not that way. And there are two reasons for that:
1 - At it's core, it's little more more than moving around cash. If your car broke down on Wed and you were short on cash, causing you to transfer $500 from your savings into your checking until payday Friday, at which point you put back the $500 plus added your normal per-paycheck savings contribution, would you call that "raiding" your savings account to pay you mechanic? Of course not. All you did was move your own cash around so that your check won't bounce.
2 - The law requires that the Trust be invested in his way. It doesn't matter how much or how little the government is spending on other things. Congress could pass a balanced budget, and the same thing would happen. Heck, the Congress could pass a budget that only authorizes $1,500 in spending, and the same thing would still happen. The Trust would still be invested, and the government would still borrow from itself.
This is why you may have heard such seemingly absurd things as "The debt is $18 trillion, but the real dept is only $10 trillion." What the "real" debt refers to is the amount of debt that is not in the form of intra-governmental loans; intra-governmental loans are included in the official calculation of the debt, so a sizable part of the $18 trillion includes cash that the government has just shifted around between accounts. (***Note: I do not know the actual figures off the top of my head, the $10 trillion amount is merely an explanatory tool).
Now that we understand that investing the excess funds in the Social Security Trust by means of intra-governmental debt is a long standing legal requirement that happens without regard to how much the government spends, some people might be ready to rejoice in the alleged marvel that is the Social Security system. Some might feel relieved that in fact the SS Trust is not being "raided" and might even see this as evidence that SS can remain solvent for many decades to come. But don't be so fast to celebrate. Because everything I've just said actually underscores the fact that Social Security is a drain on the American economy, and on the taxpayer.
As I explained, when excess funds from the SS Trust are loaned out to other parts of the government they are paid back with interest. This brings more money into the Trust. That money didn't come from your SS payroll taxes. It comes directly from your income tax. You are investing more money into the SS Trust than just your SS taxes!! The SS Trust is like a black hole. It sucks in money from every direction, and all it spits out are the decayed remnants of what's left over.
The amount of money a person receives in terms of SS retirement benefits will almost always be less than what you've paid into it as SS taxes. And now that we understand that we invest more than just our SS taxes into the SS Trust, the disparity of return is understood to be even greater. Allowing individuals to retain their SS taxes would allow them to instead invest those funds into retirement plans that would yield better returns, resulting in having more funds available for their own retirement. Additionally, the interest that the SS Trust sucks in from the taxpayers would result in a net savings of government expenses, allowing for lower deficits.
Yes, the government legally requires itself to spend the money instead of saving it and so there is no actual trust fund. that was clever of them
Do you have any clue how many trust funds, retirement plans, pension funds, IRA's, 401K's, 403B's, etc., etc.,
have all or part of their money invested in US treasuries?
No, you probably don't because you're retarded.
SS is NOT invested in US treasuries. The Trust fund holds only "intragovernmental IOUs".. There IS a difference.
The scare nonsense designed by right wingers in hopes of getting voters to agree to abolish Social Security is both dishonest and pathetic. Social Security is the most popular government program in the history of the country. Carping about it is a suicide move for an elected politician but a popular trope for demagogues seeking to whip up the know-nothing base of the GOP.
It's no wonder that leftists hate the concept of folks managing their own retirement funds. They have NO CLUE how to read a prospectus, determine value, or figure out how stuff works.. Or when they are being scammed.
They really DO need help..
If I could manage the $18,000 I was forced to contribute to Social Security this year I'd still have it, instead the government spent all MY money as soon as the check cleared. And they are worried I might lose 10% investing it in the stock market, what vs the government spending every last penny? How is the government protecting my money when they spend it all, seriously WTF.
Before I started working in the pension industry, I was a retail stock broker.
Most individuals have no clue - zero, zip, nada - how to invest.
There is an ideological belief amongst a section of the American population that the government can never do better than the individual. Having spent over 20 years in capital markets, I believe that this belief is dead fucking wrong. Most people would be better keeping their retirement in SS than investing themselves, just like most people should listen to what their doctor says rather than prescribing their medical maladies themselves.
Having said that, I do think that individuals should have the right to manage their retirement if they want. SS should be managed as a professional pension fund, like the Canada Pension Plan. And if people think they can do better than the professionals - and 99.9% of people cannot - then they should have the right to do so.
Social Security is a tax that guarantees me jack shit when I retire, assholes in congress on both sides of the isle keep telling me they have to screw me out of the Social Security benefits I paid for because I worked hard and became successful. Its like purchasing home owners insurance then when your house burns down they say well your rich you can afford it and refuse to pay.
Why not let me keep MY money and self insure? Oh because they need to confiscate MY money to redistribute it to losers. I'm their cash cow.
There is much discussion on this on this board. Almost any time SS and it's solvency (or lack thereof) is discussed, everyone talks about how SS has been "raided" and used to pay for other things. The problem here is that most of you, Democrat and Republican alike, who say this don't have a clue what you're talking about. So here, I'll explain it to you. I'd like to say that we could put the issue to rest once and for all, but I doubt that will be the case.
Before I begin, a prediction: Many of you will rush to respond without bothering to read, and in the process you'll jump to conclusions and make an ass out of yourself. Some will rail off on wild tangents. Many dissenters will be folks who claim to be conservatives, but are really just fake ass Cinos who like to complain and whine, and will be completely oblivious to the highly damaging implications I'll be presenting against the entire SS system. But you'll feel good because touching yourself always feels good. Many dissenters will be liberals, who will "like" this post, will note the Cinos dissenting for all the wrong reasons, and based upon that, will launch into your Hooray for Government dance, as if idiots being wrong instantly means that government is the solution to all our problems. Finally, if most people are adequately drawn to my blue highlighting of this paragraph so as to read it, and subsequently see their planned reaction described herein, few responses will be made because you'll realize that you've already been identified and you're now embarrassed at how much of an ass of yourself you were about to make.
Okay, now that that's cleared up, let's talk about the Social Security Trust, and what happens to the money.....
Overall, the Social Security Trust is fairly simple. Money goes in with the express purpose of being used to fund Social Security. It can't be used to pay to fuel up Air Force One for Obama's latest golfing venture. Simple. That being said, money static is money lost. That is to say, if money just sits on the coffee table, it's not doing anything except sitting there. In our personal lives most people know that building up a nest egg of cash that is doing nothing typically means lost opportunities. We could invest that money and make more money. Even something as simple and safe as putting it into a Certificate of Deposit with your bank might return a little bit of cash, all while you sit back and play video games for the next 18 months. If you're not going to be using your nest egg anyway, it's like giving up free money to just let it sit there.
That's why many, many years ago Congress passed a law that requires excess funds in the Social Security Trust to be "invested." Instead of just sitting there and collecting dust, the excess is invested and collects interest, which is then rolled back into the Trust. This "investing" is done in the form of intra-governmental loans. Basically, the government borrows money from itself, on a short term basis, in pretty much the same fashion as other government borrowing occurs. A bond is given to the Trust, and a few months later the Trust is repaid with interest.
Now, you might be thinking that "Well, this really does amount to raiding the SS Trust to pay for other things." On it's surface, it might appear that way. But in reality, it's not that way. And there are two reasons for that:
1 - At it's core, it's little more more than moving around cash. If your car broke down on Wed and you were short on cash, causing you to transfer $500 from your savings into your checking until payday Friday, at which point you put back the $500 plus added your normal per-paycheck savings contribution, would you call that "raiding" your savings account to pay you mechanic? Of course not. All you did was move your own cash around so that your check won't bounce.
2 - The law requires that the Trust be invested in his way. It doesn't matter how much or how little the government is spending on other things. Congress could pass a balanced budget, and the same thing would happen. Heck, the Congress could pass a budget that only authorizes $1,500 in spending, and the same thing would still happen. The Trust would still be invested, and the government would still borrow from itself.
This is why you may have heard such seemingly absurd things as "The debt is $18 trillion, but the real dept is only $10 trillion." What the "real" debt refers to is the amount of debt that is not in the form of intra-governmental loans; intra-governmental loans are included in the official calculation of the debt, so a sizable part of the $18 trillion includes cash that the government has just shifted around between accounts. (***Note: I do not know the actual figures off the top of my head, the $10 trillion amount is merely an explanatory tool).
Now that we understand that investing the excess funds in the Social Security Trust by means of intra-governmental debt is a long standing legal requirement that happens without regard to how much the government spends, some people might be ready to rejoice in the alleged marvel that is the Social Security system. Some might feel relieved that in fact the SS Trust is not being "raided" and might even see this as evidence that SS can remain solvent for many decades to come. But don't be so fast to celebrate. Because everything I've just said actually underscores the fact that Social Security is a drain on the American economy, and on the taxpayer.
As I explained, when excess funds from the SS Trust are loaned out to other parts of the government they are paid back with interest. This brings more money into the Trust. That money didn't come from your SS payroll taxes. It comes directly from your income tax. You are investing more money into the SS Trust than just your SS taxes!! The SS Trust is like a black hole. It sucks in money from every direction, and all it spits out are the decayed remnants of what's left over.
The amount of money a person receives in terms of SS retirement benefits will almost always be less than what you've paid into it as SS taxes. And now that we understand that we invest more than just our SS taxes into the SS Trust, the disparity of return is understood to be even greater. Allowing individuals to retain their SS taxes would allow them to instead invest those funds into retirement plans that would yield better returns, resulting in having more funds available for their own retirement. Additionally, the interest that the SS Trust sucks in from the taxpayers would result in a net savings of government expenses, allowing for lower deficits.
Yes, the government legally requires itself to spend the money instead of saving it and so there is no actual trust fund. that was clever of them
Do you have any clue how many trust funds, retirement plans, pension funds, IRA's, 401K's, 403B's, etc., etc.,
have all or part of their money invested in US treasuries?
No, you probably don't because you're retarded.
SS is NOT invested in US treasuries. The Trust fund holds only "intragovernmental IOUs".. There IS a difference.
OK, NYDumbass, you are on ignore, you know that. Obviously given the number of responses I see where others respond to you responding directly to me, you are responding to me very frequently. If you want to be paroled in April, cut the shit. And obviously you want to engage in conversation with me. So when you do get paroled, cut the crap of making every post about calling me a Republican. you agree with them WAY more than I do, it's not close
flacaltenn, as for SS, you're totally right, loaning yourself money is not an asset, government can't loan itself money and call it a "trust fund," it's just stupid.
Because eventually SS will be turned from a UNIVERSAL insurance program into a welfare benefit.
I'd actually disagree with this one particular part. The SS program is a welfare benefit.
The important stuff -- You said..
"" Most people would be better keeping their retirement in SS than investing themselves, just like most people should listen to what their doctor says rather than prescribing their medical maladies themselves. ""
Sounds pretty damn close to saying that folks shouldn't invest --- because SS is superior. I know you think folks are idiots -- so have the Govt FORCE them to invest. Into defined market based programs. Especially leftists who don't recognized when they've been robbed. TWICE.
Which is the next disagreement here. Taxes were collected that are BOUND to the benefit of the SS program. They were diverted into the General Fund. This is because you can't trust politicians with a "Trust Fund" .. The fact that they were overcharging (mostly blue collar and struggling workers) and then redirecting that money without ANY BENEFIT TO THE FUND --- is a crime.
THEN--- they create an accounting based of "full faith and credit" that those SAME TAXPAYERS or their children would be encumbered with FUTURE debt instruments loaded with that SAME PRINCIPLE and the fictiticious interest. So now -- taxpayers are coughing up the equivalent of the 1st Stolen with Interest.
Doesn't matter whether the interest exists or doesn't exist -- because the Treasury is "obligated" to issue NEW debt (on the backs of taxpayers) for each and every year that the "fund" runs an income deficit.
Those NEW debt instruments are the 2nd THEFT because for every deficit dollar paid in that year -- taxpayers have now coughed up $2 plus phoney interest plus the interest on the NEW debt instrument.
At the risk of sounding like a bleeding heart liberal, raising the Social Security tax on the working poor would not be wise. I have read where some liberals want to eliminate the payroll tax altogether below a certain income, Just saying.
Yeah, understand what you mean. My point was just that someone's excuse that syphoning money out of income taxes was the purpose of SS is ridiculous.
The important stuff -- You said..
"" Most people would be better keeping their retirement in SS than investing themselves, just like most people should listen to what their doctor says rather than prescribing their medical maladies themselves. ""
Sounds pretty damn close to saying that folks shouldn't invest --- because SS is superior. I know you think folks are idiots -- so have the Govt FORCE them to invest. Into defined market based programs. Especially leftists who don't recognized when they've been robbed. TWICE.
I didn't say people are idiots. That's you projecting.
People are no more idiots for having others look after their savings than having a mechanic look after their car or a doctor look after their health. Some people are better mechanics or know their health better, but most people don't.
Having spent 20 years in the financial industry - mostly in and around pension plans - I absolutely believe people should be forced to save if the goal is for people to have more savings for retirement. Absolutely no question about it. There is a ton of research and empirical evidence for this.
However, if you are so ideologically predisposed to believing that the government should never be involved in your life, that's different. The problem is that ideologues equate their belief system with superior outcomes, despite the empirical evidence. In the case of retirement savings, the ideologues are wrong. The government should compel people to save if the goal is to have more retirement savings. The issue then becomes the design of the retirement system
I think SS is a very poor system. SS should be run as a defined contribution plan that is widely diversified like a few other national pension plans. And people should have the option to opt out of SS if they wish but still be forced to put money away to invest in something else.
Which is the next disagreement here. Taxes were collected that are BOUND to the benefit of the SS program. They were diverted into the General Fund. This is because you can't trust politicians with a "Trust Fund" .. The fact that they were overcharging (mostly blue collar and struggling workers) and then redirecting that money without ANY BENEFIT TO THE FUND --- is a crime.
THEN--- they create an accounting based of "full faith and credit" that those SAME TAXPAYERS or their children would be encumbered with FUTURE debt instruments loaded with that SAME PRINCIPLE and the fictiticious interest. So now -- taxpayers are coughing up the equivalent of the 1st Stolen with Interest.
Doesn't matter whether the interest exists or doesn't exist -- because the Treasury is "obligated" to issue NEW debt (on the backs of taxpayers) for each and every year that the "fund" runs an income deficit.
Those NEW debt instruments are the 2nd THEFT because for every deficit dollar paid in that year -- taxpayers have now coughed up $2 plus phoney interest plus the interest on the NEW debt instrument.
Your understanding of SS isn't correct. The economics of SS is no different than a government bond mutual fund.
I get that it is confusing. When I first started looking at SS and how it worked, I was confused too.
An explanation for how SS works can be in found in the following thread.
Social Security Discussion
[
How social security works is government lies to you and tells you that you're saving for your retirement and they spend your money as it comes in like they do all other taxes. ..
There is much discussion on this on this board. Almost any time SS and it's solvency (or lack thereof) is discussed, everyone talks about how SS has been "raided" and used to pay for other things. The problem here is that most of you, Democrat and Republican alike, who say this don't have a clue what you're talking about. So here, I'll explain it to you. I'd like to say that we could put the issue to rest once and for all, but I doubt that will be the case.
Before I begin, a prediction: Many of you will rush to respond without bothering to read, and in the process you'll jump to conclusions and make an ass out of yourself. Some will rail off on wild tangents. Many dissenters will be folks who claim to be conservatives, but are really just fake ass Cinos who like to complain and whine, and will be completely oblivious to the highly damaging implications I'll be presenting against the entire SS system. But you'll feel good because touching yourself always feels good. Many dissenters will be liberals, who will "like" this post, will note the Cinos dissenting for all the wrong reasons, and based upon that, will launch into your Hooray for Government dance, as if idiots being wrong instantly means that government is the solution to all our problems. Finally, if most people are adequately drawn to my blue highlighting of this paragraph so as to read it, and subsequently see their planned reaction described herein, few responses will be made because you'll realize that you've already been identified and you're now embarrassed at how much of an ass of yourself you were about to make.
Okay, now that that's cleared up, let's talk about the Social Security Trust, and what happens to the money.....
Overall, the Social Security Trust is fairly simple. Money goes in with the express purpose of being used to fund Social Security. It can't be used to pay to fuel up Air Force One for Obama's latest golfing venture. Simple. That being said, money static is money lost. That is to say, if money just sits on the coffee table, it's not doing anything except sitting there. In our personal lives most people know that building up a nest egg of cash that is doing nothing typically means lost opportunities. We could invest that money and make more money. Even something as simple and safe as putting it into a Certificate of Deposit with your bank might return a little bit of cash, all while you sit back and play video games for the next 18 months. If you're not going to be using your nest egg anyway, it's like giving up free money to just let it sit there.
That's why many, many years ago Congress passed a law that requires excess funds in the Social Security Trust to be "invested." Instead of just sitting there and collecting dust, the excess is invested and collects interest, which is then rolled back into the Trust. This "investing" is done in the form of intra-governmental loans. Basically, the government borrows money from itself, on a short term basis, in pretty much the same fashion as other government borrowing occurs. A bond is given to the Trust, and a few months later the Trust is repaid with interest.
Now, you might be thinking that "Well, this really does amount to raiding the SS Trust to pay for other things." On it's surface, it might appear that way. But in reality, it's not that way. And there are two reasons for that:
1 - At it's core, it's little more more than moving around cash. If your car broke down on Wed and you were short on cash, causing you to transfer $500 from your savings into your checking until payday Friday, at which point you put back the $500 plus added your normal per-paycheck savings contribution, would you call that "raiding" your savings account to pay you mechanic? Of course not. All you did was move your own cash around so that your check won't bounce.
2 - The law requires that the Trust be invested in his way. It doesn't matter how much or how little the government is spending on other things. Congress could pass a balanced budget, and the same thing would happen. Heck, the Congress could pass a budget that only authorizes $1,500 in spending, and the same thing would still happen. The Trust would still be invested, and the government would still borrow from itself.
This is why you may have heard such seemingly absurd things as "The debt is $18 trillion, but the real dept is only $10 trillion." What the "real" debt refers to is the amount of debt that is not in the form of intra-governmental loans; intra-governmental loans are included in the official calculation of the debt, so a sizable part of the $18 trillion includes cash that the government has just shifted around between accounts. (***Note: I do not know the actual figures off the top of my head, the $10 trillion amount is merely an explanatory tool).
Now that we understand that investing the excess funds in the Social Security Trust by means of intra-governmental debt is a long standing legal requirement that happens without regard to how much the government spends, some people might be ready to rejoice in the alleged marvel that is the Social Security system. Some might feel relieved that in fact the SS Trust is not being "raided" and might even see this as evidence that SS can remain solvent for many decades to come. But don't be so fast to celebrate. Because everything I've just said actually underscores the fact that Social Security is a drain on the American economy, and on the taxpayer.
As I explained, when excess funds from the SS Trust are loaned out to other parts of the government they are paid back with interest. This brings more money into the Trust. That money didn't come from your SS payroll taxes. It comes directly from your income tax. You are investing more money into the SS Trust than just your SS taxes!! The SS Trust is like a black hole. It sucks in money from every direction, and all it spits out are the decayed remnants of what's left over.
The amount of money a person receives in terms of SS retirement benefits will almost always be less than what you've paid into it as SS taxes. And now that we understand that we invest more than just our SS taxes into the SS Trust, the disparity of return is understood to be even greater. Allowing individuals to retain their SS taxes would allow them to instead invest those funds into retirement plans that would yield better returns, resulting in having more funds available for their own retirement. Additionally, the interest that the SS Trust sucks in from the taxpayers would result in a net savings of government expenses, allowing for lower deficits.
Yes, the government legally requires itself to spend the money instead of saving it and so there is no actual trust fund. that was clever of them
Do you have any clue how many trust funds, retirement plans, pension funds, IRA's, 401K's, 403B's, etc., etc.,
have all or part of their money invested in US treasuries?
No, you probably don't because you're retarded.
SS is NOT invested in US treasuries. The Trust fund holds only "intragovernmental IOUs".. There IS a difference.
OK, NYDumbass, you are on ignore, you know that. Obviously given the number of responses I see where others respond to you responding directly to me, you are responding to me very frequently. If you want to be paroled in April, cut the shit. And obviously you want to engage in conversation with me. So when you do get paroled, cut the crap of making every post about calling me a Republican. you agree with them WAY more than I do, it's not close
flacaltenn, as for SS, you're totally right, loaning yourself money is not an asset, government can't loan itself money and call it a "trust fund," it's just stupid.
The government does not loan itself money because the Trust Fund doesn't belong to the government.
Why is that so hard for you idiots to understand?
[
How social security works is government lies to you and tells you that you're saving for your retirement and they spend your money as it comes in like they do all other taxes. ..
See, this is the root of the idiocy. The government does not do that. SS is a Trust Fund.
Please figure out what a Trust Fund is before you further make a fool of yourself.
