There is NO RISK in privatizing SS and investing in stock market!!!

[Dad2three]

It is horrible, if you understood the poor returns.
It involves math, so I can see why you'd be confused.

Says a Klown who supports the GOP. I know lets cut taxes, it will bring in more revenues AND create jobs, lol

 

[Dad2three]

Every time they tweak it, they lower the returns for new workers.

Yeah, because those retiring in 2014 are getting less than those that retired in 1984 *shaking head*

 

[bripat9643]

It's a government agency, you fucking nimrod.

Weird you don't know that SS has been tweaked MANY times

YES, WHY IS IT THERE?

It's there because corporations go bankrupt - a fact that doesn't prove your point, nimrod.

 

[bripat9643]

Every time they tweak it, they lower the returns for new workers.

Yeah, because those retiring in 2014 are getting less than those that retired in 1984 *shaking head*

In inflation adjusted terms, yes they are. They also have to pay taxes on their benefits, which people didn't have to do in 1984.

 

[bripat9643]

Privatizers want to replace guaranteed income with a system that feeds money to people who touted Housing Securities as conservative investments - which is why they were sold to so many pension funds and decimated a number of retirees. As for Treasuries: what could go wrong lending money to the US Government?

The main goal of the privatization movement is to dismantle Social Security. This is coming from someone who believes that it is impossible to retire without a diversified portfolio, one that is carefully managed over one's entire working life.

Privatizers want to replace guaranteed income

Guaranteed income?
I thought we were talking about Social Security, the program that could be reduced at any time by Congress and the President?
Social Security, the program that is going to reduce benefits by about 25%, in about 17 years, when the "Trust Fund" is scheduled to run out.

Sure, it will not be fixed it like it has DOZENS of times, and could easily do by just removing the taxing cap

That would be great, raise taxes even more for the poor returns of the Social Security system.
What could go wrong?

The claim that "it can be fixed" is just an admission that it's bankrupt.

Sure, because when the US created the national highway system they just did it once. Same as the VA system, HUD, DOE, DOD, etc

When a private corporation can't meet its obligations, it has to declare bankruptcy. It doesn't get to change the terms on the loans it has received.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What you have back peddled to is the concept that a person not be required to prepare for retirement at all. Let me keep my money in cash if I want. But even if that were the case, you would be forcing me to do something with my money that I may not want to do. I would have to prove to the government that I was putting my money somewhere as a set aside for my retirement. A mandate is a mandate. A portion of my money would be mandated to be set aside, even if in a foolish and stupid way as to not acquire a single digit of interest and to lose value over the years through inflation. I would invest my funds in cash and coins and after forty or so years open the box and the $100 bill I put in the box 40 years ago would still be worth $100.
You are attempting to say a mandate to invest for ones retirement is not a mandate. Social Security is a mandate. The country mandates that you prepare for retirement so that when you reach the age of retirement you will lessen or not become a burden on society. The country demands that each citizen make minimum preparations for an occurrence or situation that has a great probability of taking place.

A portion of your money is already mandated to be taken by Social Security. I never said the savings wasn't a mandate. I said you are not forced to buy any one particular investment vehicle or any at all if you choose.

You have yet to

So I have mentioned two topics in this thread and yet to have gotten a realistic response to either. How is privatization of Social Security not a government mandate on the same scale as the ACA and how does a private investment portfolio provide the disability and death insurance provided for in Social Security. What happens to the calculations when you include the additional cost required to replace those insurance benefits when the switch is made from SS to privatization? Someone tried to answer the question but the math was way off. They claimed most Americans had this kind of coverage through their work. When I checked I discovered that very few Americans actually have the kind of insurance provided by SS.[/QUOTE]

What you have back peddled to is the concept that a person not be required to prepare for retirement at all. Let me keep my money in cash if I want. But even if that were the case, you would be forcing me to do something with my money that I may not want to do. I would have to prove to the government that I was putting my money somewhere as a set aside for my retirement. A mandate is a mandate. A portion of my money would be mandated to be set aside, even if in a foolish and stupid way as to not acquire a single digit of interest and to lose value over the years through inflation. I would invest my funds in cash and coins and after forty or so years open the box and the $100 bill I put in the box 40 years ago would still be worth $100.
You are attempting to say a mandate to invest for ones retirement is not a mandate. Social Security is a mandate. The country mandates that you prepare for retirement so that when you reach the age of retirement you will lessen or not become a burden on society. The country demands that each citizen make minimum preparations for an occurrence or situation that has a great probability of taking place.

So I have mentioned two topics in this thread and yet to have gotten a realistic response to either. How is privatization of Social Security not a government mandate on the same scale as the ACA and how does a private investment portfolio provide the disability and death insurance provided for in Social Security. What happens to the calculations when you include the additional cost required to replace those insurance benefits when the switch is made from SS to privatization? Someone tried to answer the question but the math was way off. They claimed most Americans had this kind of coverage through their work. When I checked I discovered that very few Americans actually have the kind of insurance provided by SS.

The SS contribution is already mandated. I have never said otherwise. All privatizing means is that you not the government owns and controls the account with your money in it. How is that worse than the government doing that very thing for you?

You are not being forced to buy anything and you are not being forced to hire an investment adviser. You can buy all you own investment products yourself if you wish. That is unlike the insurance mandate because many people are actually being forced to pay for coverage they neither need nor want.

Now if you want to talk about the SS disability insurance then you have to realize that SS disability is one of the worst and most expensive disability insurances out there.

 

[Skull Pilot]

But even stupid people like me know that you are mandating that they invest in a private investment account. That means you are mandating that citizens pay private business to invest their money or mandating that citizens support corporations. Is forced participation in a investment portfolio a mandate or not? Why is a mandate to have a health insurance plan different than a mandate to have a retirement plan? And how come you guys always say the insurance benefits in SS don't really count for much, but never provide links proving the actual numbers. You guys want us to believe a million dollar life insurance plan is no big deal. Everyone gets one of those whenever and wherever they work. Get unemployed, don't worry, your private policy covers you even when you stop paying the premiums and will be glad to send your kids thousands of dollars every month until they turn 18 or 19. Sure they will.

Maybe you should learn a little about insurance yourself.

Private disability policies generally pay you 75% of your income until age 67 and will pay partial benefits if you can return to work in a different occupation.

Life insurance is cheap for young people but in all reality one does not need much life insurance until married with dependents. There are policy riders that will keep an insurance plan in force if you are unable to pay the premiums

It's called planning.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You are not being forced to buy anything. You can leave your entire retirement savings in a cash position if you want to. The point is that you and you alone would control where the money goes. How is that worse than the government choosing for you?

But you do know that the so called Social Security Trust fund is filled with nothing but US treasury IOUs don't you?

You can't compare the forced purchase of private insurance to people owning their own retirement accounts.

One forces you to part with money you may not want to spend on coverage that you don't need like drug and alcohol counseling or for coverage for kids you will never have the other allows you to control money that you have earned.

No sense of history pre SS huh? You and your type believe in myths and fairy tales, when push comes to shove, YOUR ideology is bankrupt and ridiculous, that'
s why NO nation has EVER successfully used it!

What is my ideology?

And if allowing people to control the money they earn is ridiculous then tell me how letting a government that can't even balance its own books manage your money is not insane.

 

[Toro]

I explained the flaw in the argument perfectly clear but you simply don't understand it. You cannot make a direct comparison to other pension funds because it assumes that all risk/reward parameters are constant amongst the funds, which isn't the case.

I will give you an example. By your posting style, I assume you're a teenager. At some point, you will get a job and start saving money. If you decide to take finance when you get to college, you will learn that there is generally a trade-off between risk and return. The more risk you take, the more compensation you should receive and the higher expected return should be. If you don't need your money for a long time, then you should take on more risk because over time, your return will be higher and you can withstand volatility in the market. But if you need the money soon, you should take less risk because you might lose money in the near term and won't be able to make it back later. Thus, young people should take on more risk in their savings and old people should take on less risk. So when you have a job in 10 years or so, you should be earning a higher return on your savings than your grandmother. Your grandmother will earn less of a return than you, but there is no "cost" to your grandmother simply because she has a lower return than you will. That just reflects different risk profiles.

Pension plans are similar. Because populations in the Northeast are older than in the South, plans in the Northeast should have less risky investments than in the South. Thus, without adjusting for the risk of the plans, it is specious to compare plans solely based on returns. Thus, there is no "cost" simply because one plan underperforms another.

There are several other reasons why comparing pension plans to each other is not proper policy, and there are other ways to measure "cost," but that's probably enough for you today.

"You cannot make a direct comparison to other pension funds because it assumes that all risk/reward parameters are constant amongst the funds, which isn't the case."

Sure, YET the promised benifts NEVER naterialized for the first 3 years. Weird how conservatives, like you Bubba, NEVER are correct on policy, EVER, except to benefit the 1%ers

EVERYTHING you EVER posit is just right wing crap, based on myths and fairy tales and you NEVER accept reality like Banksters creating a world wide credit bubble. No it was 'gov't policy' that made them do it, lol

When you have something of substance to add to the discussion rather than mindless rant, please feel free to share it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is horrible, if you understood the poor returns.
It involves math, so I can see why you'd be confused.

Says a Klown who supports the GOP. I know lets cut taxes, it will bring in more revenues AND create jobs, lol

Sounds good. Cut government 60%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Every time they tweak it, they lower the returns for new workers.

Yeah, because those retiring in 2014 are getting less than those that retired in 1984 *shaking head*

New workers, dipshit.

 

[Camp]

But even stupid people like me know that you are mandating that they invest in a private investment account. That means you are mandating that citizens pay private business to invest their money or mandating that citizens support corporations. Is forced participation in a investment portfolio a mandate or not? Why is a mandate to have a health insurance plan different than a mandate to have a retirement plan? And how come you guys always say the insurance benefits in SS don't really count for much, but never provide links proving the actual numbers. You guys want us to believe a million dollar life insurance plan is no big deal. Everyone gets one of those whenever and wherever they work. Get unemployed, don't worry, your private policy covers you even when you stop paying the premiums and will be glad to send your kids thousands of dollars every month until they turn 18 or 19. Sure they will.

Maybe you should learn a little about insurance yourself.

Private disability policies generally pay you 75% of your income until age 67 and will pay partial benefits if you can return to work in a different occupation.

Life insurance is cheap for young people but in all reality one does not need much life insurance until married with dependents. There are policy riders that will keep an insurance plan in force if you are unable to pay the premiums

It's called planning.

Maybe I know enough about insurance. Better yet, I know about sales pitches and hustling. You just made the claim that private disability policies pay 75% of your income until age 67. Where does the other 25% come from, who pays your medical insurance and what happens when you reach the age of 67? And how much does it cost to get that wonderful plan that depends on guess what to balance itself and keep you out of the poor house, Social Security. And you love to call life insurance cheap for young people. The country is full of people trying to make ends meet. What about those people who need the $50 to $100 per month to buy things like, you know, food, or make car payments or pay the electric bill or even a pair of shoes for their 6 year old.
To compare SS a privatized plan requires you to invest equal amounts of funds into both programs for the same amount of time and compare the return of each. Privatization proponents are able to show that private investment can beat the return on the SS return. What happens when you deduct the amount of cost for compatible insurance coverage from the privatization plan. Key word is compatible. Those are the numbers privatization proponents never seem to want to show or talk about.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But even stupid people like me know that you are mandating that they invest in a private investment account. That means you are mandating that citizens pay private business to invest their money or mandating that citizens support corporations. Is forced participation in a investment portfolio a mandate or not? Why is a mandate to have a health insurance plan different than a mandate to have a retirement plan? And how come you guys always say the insurance benefits in SS don't really count for much, but never provide links proving the actual numbers. You guys want us to believe a million dollar life insurance plan is no big deal. Everyone gets one of those whenever and wherever they work. Get unemployed, don't worry, your private policy covers you even when you stop paying the premiums and will be glad to send your kids thousands of dollars every month until they turn 18 or 19. Sure they will.

Maybe you should learn a little about insurance yourself.

Private disability policies generally pay you 75% of your income until age 67 and will pay partial benefits if you can return to work in a different occupation.

Life insurance is cheap for young people but in all reality one does not need much life insurance until married with dependents. There are policy riders that will keep an insurance plan in force if you are unable to pay the premiums

It's called planning.

Maybe I know enough about insurance. Better yet, I know about sales pitches and hustling. You just made the claim that private disability policies pay 75% of your income until age 67. Where does the other 25% come from, who pays your medical insurance and what happens when you reach the age of 67? And how much does it cost to get that wonderful plan that depends on guess what to balance itself and keep you out of the poor house, Social Security. And you love to call life insurance cheap for young people. The country is full of people trying to make ends meet. What about those people who need the $50 to $100 per month to buy things like, you know, food, or make car payments or pay the electric bill or even a pair of shoes for their 6 year old.
To compare SS a privatized plan requires you to invest equal amounts of funds into both programs for the same amount of time and compare the return of each. Privatization proponents are able to show that private investment can beat the return on the SS return. What happens when you deduct the amount of cost for compatible insurance coverage from the privatization plan. Key word is compatible. Those are the numbers privatization proponents never seem to want to show or talk about.

To compare SS a privatized plan requires you to invest equal amounts of funds into both programs for the same amount of time and compare the return of each.

I've "invested" more in SS than in my 401K and already my 401K will provide more than SS, even if I don't put another dollar in my 401K for the next 20 years.

 

[healthmyths]

But even stupid people like me know that you are mandating that they invest in a private investment account. That means you are mandating that citizens pay private business to invest their money or mandating that citizens support corporations. Is forced participation in a investment portfolio a mandate or not? Why is a mandate to have a health insurance plan different than a mandate to have a retirement plan? And how come you guys always say the insurance benefits in SS don't really count for much, but never provide links proving the actual numbers. You guys want us to believe a million dollar life insurance plan is no big deal. Everyone gets one of those whenever and wherever they work. Get unemployed, don't worry, your private policy covers you even when you stop paying the premiums and will be glad to send your kids thousands of dollars every month until they turn 18 or 19. Sure they will.

Maybe you should learn a little about insurance yourself.

Private disability policies generally pay you 75% of your income until age 67 and will pay partial benefits if you can return to work in a different occupation.

Life insurance is cheap for young people but in all reality one does not need much life insurance until married with dependents. There are policy riders that will keep an insurance plan in force if you are unable to pay the premiums

It's called planning.

Maybe I know enough about insurance. Better yet, I know about sales pitches and hustling. You just made the claim that private disability policies pay 75% of your income until age 67. Where does the other 25% come from, who pays your medical insurance and what happens when you reach the age of 67? And how much does it cost to get that wonderful plan that depends on guess what to balance itself and keep you out of the poor house, Social Security. And you love to call life insurance cheap for young people. The country is full of people trying to make ends meet. What about those people who need the $50 to $100 per month to buy things like, you know, food, or make car payments or pay the electric bill or even a pair of shoes for their 6 year old.
To compare SS a privatized plan requires you to invest equal amounts of funds into both programs for the same amount of time and compare the return of each. Privatization proponents are able to show that private investment can beat the return on the SS return. What happens you deduct the amount of cost for compatible insurance coverage from the privatization plan. Key word is compatible. Those are the numbers privatization proponents never seem to want to show or talk about.

You know I know MORE about insurance then you do I'm sure because I sold Term life insurance to people who were sold on whole life as a "savings" account and as a result one of my client's who read "Mortality Merchants" asked me what could he buy for the same amount of premium he was paying for his $20,000 whole life at his age of 38? I quoted him a $75,000 policy 20 year reducing term policy.
He switched. 3 years later he died leaving his wife and 5 kids $72,000 policy instead of $20,000.
So I have personal experiences that you don't have!
I had an idiot CLF father of a son I converted from the $20,000 whole life his Dad sold him call me and warn me I was going to lose my license. I asked him what kind of rate of return did his son's $20,000 whole life policy return. This idiot said and I'll never forget .." I don't know what the stock market rate is..." IDIOT!

I am assuming you are of the same mindset ... ignorant of the "stock market rate"...
For the record... Over the past 112 years the DJIA has grown at an average of 7.2% a year.
Yes there have been 40 years when there was no gain but losses BUT 73 years with gains...and again
over 112 years an average over 7.25%
And unlike your unsubstantiated, hyperbolic claims here is the above link to prove the above:
Dow Industrial Average Stock Market Index Historical Graph DJIA
So again FACTS NOT guesses....

1) A $1,000,000 Life insurance 20 year term at age 30 -- $50.00/ month.... OK???
Assume he dies at 32 and the $1 million lump sum is divided by 4 kids all age 1 till age 18 :
each kid gets $1,000/month!

And guess what ?? Most people that have 4 kids will probably already HAVE life insurance!

2) Now Disability insurance... YUP problem..

A 30 year old in the example above is paying $37.84 per month or around $454 per year for a disability policy
with a monthly benefit of $2500.
AND GUESS WHAT??? Most people with 4 kids probably have a job, that also has disability insurance coverage but what would I know right???

But you see what YOU have done is what most people are doing even with regards to Ferguson MO...
USING an Isolated infrequent event, i.e. 32 year male with 4 kids becomes disabled or dies.

YES it happens!
But explain me then why insurance company actuaries (case you don't know what an "actuary" is ... advanced degreed individual that calculates premiums...) are willing to pay out $1,000,000 for the 32 year if he dies at 32 or pay out nearly a $1,000,000 if the 32 becomes disabled?

They've calculated the odds and UNLIKE YOU they know this is NOT the usual event for a 32 year old with 4 kids!

They don't JUMP to exaggerated examples.
The don 't USE these examples as the RULE but rather the EXCEPTION!
YOU understand that there are historical tables that tell actuaries what the disability and mortality potentials are and obviously they consider the guy if he had to pay out of his pocket the $90/month for a $1m policy and a $1m disability policy again... both most likely already available AT no cost to the 32 year old from his employer!!

But you like usual have jumped to conclusions based on individual examples i.e. the exception and not the rule!
Do you understand???

 

[Toro]

To compare SS a privatized plan requires you to invest equal amounts of funds into both programs for the same amount of time and compare the return of each.

I've "invested" more in SS than in my 401K and already my 401K will provide more than SS, even if I don't put another dollar in my 401K for the next 20 years.

More to the point, a standard 60% equity / 40% bond portfolio in this country has outperformed a 100% government bond portfolio over every 50 period for at least 150 years.

 

[Skull Pilot]

But even stupid people like me know that you are mandating that they invest in a private investment account. That means you are mandating that citizens pay private business to invest their money or mandating that citizens support corporations. Is forced participation in a investment portfolio a mandate or not? Why is a mandate to have a health insurance plan different than a mandate to have a retirement plan? And how come you guys always say the insurance benefits in SS don't really count for much, but never provide links proving the actual numbers. You guys want us to believe a million dollar life insurance plan is no big deal. Everyone gets one of those whenever and wherever they work. Get unemployed, don't worry, your private policy covers you even when you stop paying the premiums and will be glad to send your kids thousands of dollars every month until they turn 18 or 19. Sure they will.

Maybe you should learn a little about insurance yourself.

Private disability policies generally pay you 75% of your income until age 67 and will pay partial benefits if you can return to work in a different occupation.

Life insurance is cheap for young people but in all reality one does not need much life insurance until married with dependents. There are policy riders that will keep an insurance plan in force if you are unable to pay the premiums

It's called planning.

Maybe I know enough about insurance. Better yet, I know about sales pitches and hustling. You just made the claim that private disability policies pay 75% of your income until age 67. Where does the other 25% come from, who pays your medical insurance and what happens when you reach the age of 67? And how much does it cost to get that wonderful plan that depends on guess what to balance itself and keep you out of the poor house, Social Security. And you love to call life insurance cheap for young people. The country is full of people trying to make ends meet. What about those people who need the $50 to $100 per month to buy things like, you know, food, or make car payments or pay the electric bill or even a pair of shoes for their 6 year old.
To compare SS a privatized plan requires you to invest equal amounts of funds into both programs for the same amount of time and compare the return of each. Privatization proponents are able to show that private investment can beat the return on the SS return. What happens when you deduct the amount of cost for compatible insurance coverage from the privatization plan. Key word is compatible. Those are the numbers privatization proponents never seem to want to show or talk about.

Since you pay no tax on disability insurance benefits and yo won't be driving back and forth to work every day you don't need to collect 100% of your gross income to maintain your standard if living. And SS does not provide any type of life insurance.

So it seems you really don't know anything about insurance .

 

[Camp]

But even stupid people like me know that you are mandating that they invest in a private investment account. That means you are mandating that citizens pay private business to invest their money or mandating that citizens support corporations. Is forced participation in a investment portfolio a mandate or not? Why is a mandate to have a health insurance plan different than a mandate to have a retirement plan? And how come you guys always say the insurance benefits in SS don't really count for much, but never provide links proving the actual numbers. You guys want us to believe a million dollar life insurance plan is no big deal. Everyone gets one of those whenever and wherever they work. Get unemployed, don't worry, your private policy covers you even when you stop paying the premiums and will be glad to send your kids thousands of dollars every month until they turn 18 or 19. Sure they will.

Maybe you should learn a little about insurance yourself.

Private disability policies generally pay you 75% of your income until age 67 and will pay partial benefits if you can return to work in a different occupation.

Life insurance is cheap for young people but in all reality one does not need much life insurance until married with dependents. There are policy riders that will keep an insurance plan in force if you are unable to pay the premiums

It's called planning.

Maybe I know enough about insurance. Better yet, I know about sales pitches and hustling. You just made the claim that private disability policies pay 75% of your income until age 67. Where does the other 25% come from, who pays your medical insurance and what happens when you reach the age of 67? And how much does it cost to get that wonderful plan that depends on guess what to balance itself and keep you out of the poor house, Social Security. And you love to call life insurance cheap for young people. The country is full of people trying to make ends meet. What about those people who need the $50 to $100 per month to buy things like, you know, food, or make car payments or pay the electric bill or even a pair of shoes for their 6 year old.
To compare SS a privatized plan requires you to invest equal amounts of funds into both programs for the same amount of time and compare the return of each. Privatization proponents are able to show that private investment can beat the return on the SS return. What happens when you deduct the amount of cost for compatible insurance coverage from the privatization plan. Key word is compatible. Those are the numbers privatization proponents never seem to want to show or talk about.

Since you pay no tax on disability insurance benefits and yo won't be driving back and forth to work every day you don't need to collect 100% of your gross income to maintain your standard if living. And SS does not provide any type of life insurance.

So it seems you really don't know anything about insurance .

Well now you are just getting a bit desperate to make a point that can not be made. You claim we only need 75% of our income when we become disabled because we no longer have to drive to work? Like the cost for all of us to drive back and forth to work is equal to 25% of our income? In the real world your expenses go up when you become disabled. You probably will not be able to cut your own grass, repair your roof on your own or even wash your car. And that gas savings thing, you may have to burn those savings up going to physical therapy sessions, medical appointments and treatments. These things are just the tip of the iceberg. Seriously, a person who thinks living expenses go down when one becomes disabled has a problem with reality.

The statement that SS does not provide any type of life insurance really does show your complete lack of knowledge about SS. I posted the plan once. Here is the link again:

ssa.gov/survivorplan

 

[Skull Pilot]

But even stupid people like me know that you are mandating that they invest in a private investment account. That means you are mandating that citizens pay private business to invest their money or mandating that citizens support corporations. Is forced participation in a investment portfolio a mandate or not? Why is a mandate to have a health insurance plan different than a mandate to have a retirement plan? And how come you guys always say the insurance benefits in SS don't really count for much, but never provide links proving the actual numbers. You guys want us to believe a million dollar life insurance plan is no big deal. Everyone gets one of those whenever and wherever they work. Get unemployed, don't worry, your private policy covers you even when you stop paying the premiums and will be glad to send your kids thousands of dollars every month until they turn 18 or 19. Sure they will.

Maybe you should learn a little about insurance yourself.

Private disability policies generally pay you 75% of your income until age 67 and will pay partial benefits if you can return to work in a different occupation.

Life insurance is cheap for young people but in all reality one does not need much life insurance until married with dependents. There are policy riders that will keep an insurance plan in force if you are unable to pay the premiums

It's called planning.

Maybe I know enough about insurance. Better yet, I know about sales pitches and hustling. You just made the claim that private disability policies pay 75% of your income until age 67. Where does the other 25% come from, who pays your medical insurance and what happens when you reach the age of 67? And how much does it cost to get that wonderful plan that depends on guess what to balance itself and keep you out of the poor house, Social Security. And you love to call life insurance cheap for young people. The country is full of people trying to make ends meet. What about those people who need the $50 to $100 per month to buy things like, you know, food, or make car payments or pay the electric bill or even a pair of shoes for their 6 year old.
To compare SS a privatized plan requires you to invest equal amounts of funds into both programs for the same amount of time and compare the return of each. Privatization proponents are able to show that private investment can beat the return on the SS return. What happens when you deduct the amount of cost for compatible insurance coverage from the privatization plan. Key word is compatible. Those are the numbers privatization proponents never seem to want to show or talk about.

Since you pay no tax on disability insurance benefits and yo won't be driving back and forth to work every day you don't need to collect 100% of your gross income to maintain your standard if living. And SS does not provide any type of life insurance.

So it seems you really don't know anything about insurance .

Well now you are just getting a bit desperate to make a point that can not be made. You claim we only need 75% of our income when we become disabled because we no longer have to drive to work? Like the cost for all of us to drive back and forth to work is equal to 25% of our income? In the real world your expenses go up when you become disabled. You probably will not be able to cut your own grass, repair your roof on your own or even wash your car. And that gas savings thing, you may have to burn those savings up going to physical therapy sessions, medical appointments and treatments. These things are just the tip of the iceberg. Seriously, a person who thinks living expenses go down when one becomes disabled has a problem with reality.

The statement that SS does not provide any type of life insurance really does show your complete lack of knowledge about SS. I posted the plan once. Here is the link again:

ssa.gov/survivorplan

You are being deliberately obtuse. Disability benefits are tax free. Get that tax free. The other savings from not having to travel are in addition to the substantial tax savings. AND a private disability policy will pay you partial benefits if you can't return to your previous occupation SS disability doesn't. And do you even know what SS disability pays?

It's based on a complicated weighted average for simplicity's sake let's use the same 4000 a month figure. Now with private DI you would get 75% of that a month tax free and could collect that entire amount as long as you are unable to work at your profession (not any profession mind but the one you were working when you became disabled)

Under SS DI you would receive 1715 a month. That's a far cry from the 3000 a month a private Di policy would pay now isn't it. And SS DI will end as soon as they say you are ready to begin work at any job even if it pays substantially less than your previous job where the Private Di will pay you a partial benefit if you have to work at a lesser paying job.

An SS death benefit is not life insurance.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Dude...time to give up. Campy is covering his ears and hollering, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!" like a 5-year-old.

 

[Dad2three]

New workers, dipshit.

Weird, you mean conservative policies are hurting 'new workers' like libs have said for nearly 35 years? I agree