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

[Dad2three]

The employer contribution is made every pay period, so no unfunded mandate to bankrupt future taxpayers.

One county does it? For about 30 years so that means ALL will do it like that? lol

 

[Toro]

Yep, but MANY LONG periods of time they had HORRIBLE returns and you want to put money in the Banksters hands who cost anywhere from 250% more to 1500% to administer it.

Again, in almost EVERY case privatization of the retirement funds have NEVER lived up to the promises made, in ANY nation. Weird right?

It's weird that you have such strong opinions about things you know little about.

Even during the worst decade for stocks, the 1930s, the total return over the entire decade was up, not down.

"Banksters?" Who are those exactly. Perhaps you are unaware that "bankers" aren't "investors." That is pretty basic stuff.

And the cost of administering a large pension plan is measured in basis points, not the sky-high numbers as you claim.

 

[Dad2three]

Even Mr. Holbrook has outlived his Alternate Plan benefits. When he retired 15 years ago (in 1996), he decided to receive $1,500 to $2,000 from his Alternate Plan account every month for 10 years. Now, his Alternate Plan account is empty.
Fortunately, Mr. Holbrook has other savings and, ultimately, $1,300 a month in Social Security benefits from his 27 years of contributions before his county dropped out of the program.

If the county dropped out of SS in 1981, he only contributed from 1981-1996.
16 years and he got $180,000 - $240,000 in benefits.
What would those 16 years of extra SS contributions given him?
I'll give you a hint, a hell of a lot less than $180,000-$240,000.

Perhaps YOU can answer WHEN HAS ANY POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER SUPPORTED WORKED THE WAY IT WAS PROMISED? lol

 

[Dad2three]

SS would buy the stocks in the entire market. The entire stock market didn't go bankrupt.

SS is paygo type system, was designed that way, you know that

 

[Toro]

SS is paygo type system, was designed that way, you know that

And?

 

[bendog]

[
]

The biggest risk in this would be to not make it independent enough. Whether or not American politicians have the wherewithal and good sense to do what's right rather than in their craven self-interest may be a bridge too far. I also think the transition might be difficult.

I don't worry too much about people paying into it. They're already paying into SS. I would guess that it would allow for a bit of a payroll tax cut given that not as much would need to be transferred to the trust.

yeah, I agree with the first paragraph. Given the holding in the Obamacare challenge, I don't see how the govt could mandate participation in any private life or disability insurance program. I am sure it would be cost prohibitive unless you got workers into term type insurance when they first entered the workforce, with term policies assuming the individuals would retain the same coverage till retirement. There would be some who wanted to opt out, which would screw the actuarial pooch. But, there'd probably be a way around it by calling it a governmental program that was privately administered for a fee.

 

[Dad2three]

It's weird that you have such strong opinions about things you know little about.

Even during the worst decade for stocks, the 1930s, the total return over the entire decade was up, not down.

"Banksters?" Who are those exactly. Perhaps you are unaware that "bankers" aren't "investors." That is pretty basic stuff.

And the cost of administering a large pension plan is measured in basis points, not the sky-high numbers as you claim.

Got it MORE nonsense from 'NOT a right winger'

Weird, Canada's system, that YOU stated is privatized costs about 3.5% a year to run, can the private markets claim that?

US social security admin costs runs about 7/10th of 1%


Social Security Administrative Expenses

THAT'S what the 'sky high' numbers come from

 

[Toro]

yeah, I agree with the first paragraph. Given the holding in the Obamacare challenge, I don't see how the govt could mandate participation in any private life or disability insurance program. I am sure it would be cost prohibitive unless you got workers into term type insurance when they first entered the workforce, with term policies assuming the individuals would retain the same coverage till retirement. There would be some who wanted to opt out, which would screw the actuarial pooch. But, there'd probably be a way around it by calling it a governmental program that was privately administered for a fee.

It wouldn't be designed like Obamacare. It would still be run by the DoL or whatever government agency. But the government would hire private investment companies to invest. That is done for many government agencies, as well as state pension plans. Much of it would replicate broad market indices that would cost a basis point or less.

 

[boedicca]

Yep, but MANY LONG periods of time they had HORRIBLE returns and you want to put money in the Banksters hands who cost anywhere from 250% more to 1500% to administer it.

Again, in almost EVERY case privatization of the retirement funds have NEVER lived up to the promises made, in ANY nation. Weird right?

It's weird that you have such strong opinions about things you know little about.

Even during the worst decade for stocks, the 1930s, the total return over the entire decade was up, not down.

"Banksters?" Who are those exactly. Perhaps you are unaware that "bankers" aren't "investors." That is pretty basic stuff.

And the cost of administering a large pension plan is measured in basis points, not the sky-high numbers as you claim.

Dad2three's modus operandi for coping with the vast universe is to remain staunchly unencumbered by knowledge.

 

[boedicca]

SS would buy the stocks in the entire market. The entire stock market didn't go bankrupt.

SS is paygo type system, was designed that way, you know that

Then why did Algore say our money was in a LockBox?

 

[bripat9643]

Even Mr. Holbrook has outlived his Alternate Plan benefits. When he retired 15 years ago (in 1996), he decided to receive $1,500 to $2,000 from his Alternate Plan account every month for 10 years. Now, his Alternate Plan account is empty.
Fortunately, Mr. Holbrook has other savings and, ultimately, $1,300 a month in Social Security benefits from his 27 years of contributions before his county dropped out of the program.

If the county dropped out of SS in 1981, he only contributed from 1981-1996.
16 years and he got $180,000 - $240,000 in benefits.
What would those 16 years of extra SS contributions given him?
I'll give you a hint, a hell of a lot less than $180,000-$240,000.

Perhaps YOU can answer WHEN HAS ANY POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER SUPPORTED WORKED THE WAY IT WAS PROMISED? lol

Here's another: Chile's Social Security system.

 

[boedicca]

yeah, I agree with the first paragraph. Given the holding in the Obamacare challenge, I don't see how the govt could mandate participation in any private life or disability insurance program. I am sure it would be cost prohibitive unless you got workers into term type insurance when they first entered the workforce, with term policies assuming the individuals would retain the same coverage till retirement. There would be some who wanted to opt out, which would screw the actuarial pooch. But, there'd probably be a way around it by calling it a governmental program that was privately administered for a fee.

It wouldn't be designed like Obamacare. It would still be run by the DoL or whatever government agency. But the government would hire private investment companies to invest. That is done for many government agencies, as well as state pension plans. Much of it would replicate broad market indices that would cost a basis point or less.

And that would turn into a giant crony boondoggle.

Better to let individuals keep their own accounts and pick their own investment managers/advisors.

 

[bripat9643]

SS would buy the stocks in the entire market. The entire stock market didn't go bankrupt.

SS is paygo type system, was designed that way, you know that

Yes, we know it was designed to be a Ponzi scheme right from the start.

 

[bendog]

There is a basic premise, however, that an economy will be more efficient if the govt is removed from taking dollars from one group and simply giving them to another group. There's a social contract to this as well, but economically, if you can take what are fica dollars, or a potion of them after paying for survivor and disability protection, and privately invest them in broad based index funds, there is more capital to create jobs and wealth. Essentially, it's the argument against socialism.

I'm willing to accept some functions can't be done privately. Prisons are a common misuse of "privatization." Cops, interstates, harbors ... the internet. And, drug makers don't get much buck on return from drugs like antibiotics.

I'm just looking for valid reasons why some type of Canadian model won't work. I'd say just putting all the money into stock market index funds might negative affect overvaluing equities and undervaluing other markets ... that's sort of what the fed's causing by supporting the housing bond market right now. But, that's just a quibble that's fixable.

I just don't see why it wouldn't have worked back in 2000. I'm not sure how we can do it now. The millinials will have their own surplus. I pray my kid's generation is wiser than we are.

 

[Toro]

Got it MORE nonsense from 'NOT a right winger'

Weird, Canada's system, that YOU stated is privatized costs about 3.5% a year to run, can the private markets claim that?

US social security admin costs runs about 7/10th of 1%


Social Security Administrative Expenses

THAT'S what the 'sky high' numbers come from

The cost is about 1% for CPP because much of CPP is an internally run fund that invests across many different asset classes. The 10 year return for CPP has been 7% per year, well above the ~4% SS has compounded over the same time period. That's a difference of nearly $30,000,000,000 that has accrued to the CPP, s0n.

Now go cut & paste something from moveon.org.

 

[bendog]

yeah, I agree with the first paragraph. Given the holding in the Obamacare challenge, I don't see how the govt could mandate participation in any private life or disability insurance program. I am sure it would be cost prohibitive unless you got workers into term type insurance when they first entered the workforce, with term policies assuming the individuals would retain the same coverage till retirement. There would be some who wanted to opt out, which would screw the actuarial pooch. But, there'd probably be a way around it by calling it a governmental program that was privately administered for a fee.

It wouldn't be designed like Obamacare. It would still be run by the DoL or whatever government agency. But the government would hire private investment companies to invest. That is done for many government agencies, as well as state pension plans. Much of it would replicate broad market indices that would cost a basis point or less.

And that would turn into a giant crony boondoggle.

Better to let individuals keep their own accounts and pick their own investment managers/advisors.

No. Then we have to pay welfare to those who lose in the markets. The only way to work it make it one "giant" pool of money.

 

[Skull Pilot]

All right since none of you sheep will actually post numbers because we all know people like you don't really like to do the math here you go

Let's assume a couple things to simplify.

Our person enters the work force at 22 and makes 40K a year. He never gets a raise.
He saves 450 a month and uses 50 a month to pay for a DI policy that will pay him more and for a longer time than SS DI will.

He gets an average return of 8% over his 45 year working life.

When he retires at 67 he will have 2.39 million dollars. Now that money will provide a 5000 a month income invested at a 5% return in a 25% tax bracket for 30 years. SS provides an average 1200 a month

Now if he's married add his wife's retirement account to that one and what do you think their retirement income would be?

If he dropped dead of a heart attack at 50 and had no life insurance at all his family would get over half a million dollars that was in his account. Better than the SS death benefit.

If both parents die before their money is gone then their kids get it.

2.39 million dollars. Now that money will provide a 5000 a month income invested at a 5% return in a 25% tax bracket for 30 years.

$2.39 million at 5% will give him $10,000 a month, less $2500 a month in taxes, forever!

You're right. I misquoted the graph. In fact the nest egg would continue to grow so that when he dies he would leave more to his family than he started with

 

[Skull Pilot]

The merry go round never stops. That's the point. From 1929 to 1932, the stock market fell 90%. Yet, from the end of 1929, through The Great Depression, World War II, the war in Korea, the war in Vietnam, Watergate, stagflation, the Kuwait war, the collapse of the tech bubble, 9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global financial crisis, stocks have returned 8.7% a year.

Yep, but MANY LONG periods of time they had HORRIBLE returns and you want to put money in the Banksters hands who cost anywhere from 250% more to 1500% to administer it.

Again, in almost EVERY case privatization of the retirement funds have NEVER lived up to the promises made, in ANY nation. Weird right?

Why do you have to pay someone to buy mutual funds and stocks for you?

Are you too stupid to use Fidelity, E trade, Charles Schwabb or any of the other internet sites where you can buy investment vehicles for a flat fee per purchase?

 

[Skull Pilot]

yeah, I agree with the first paragraph. Given the holding in the Obamacare challenge, I don't see how the govt could mandate participation in any private life or disability insurance program. I am sure it would be cost prohibitive unless you got workers into term type insurance when they first entered the workforce, with term policies assuming the individuals would retain the same coverage till retirement. There would be some who wanted to opt out, which would screw the actuarial pooch. But, there'd probably be a way around it by calling it a governmental program that was privately administered for a fee.

It wouldn't be designed like Obamacare. It would still be run by the DoL or whatever government agency. But the government would hire private investment companies to invest. That is done for many government agencies, as well as state pension plans. Much of it would replicate broad market indices that would cost a basis point or less.

And that would turn into a giant crony boondoggle.

Better to let individuals keep their own accounts and pick their own investment managers/advisors.

No. Then we have to pay welfare to those who lose in the markets. The only way to work it make it one "giant" pool of money.

Show me any 45 year period where the market has yielded negative returns.

 

[bripat9643]

All right since none of you sheep will actually post numbers because we all know people like you don't really like to do the math here you go

Let's assume a couple things to simplify.

Our person enters the work force at 22 and makes 40K a year. He never gets a raise.
He saves 450 a month and uses 50 a month to pay for a DI policy that will pay him more and for a longer time than SS DI will.

He gets an average return of 8% over his 45 year working life.

When he retires at 67 he will have 2.39 million dollars. Now that money will provide a 5000 a month income invested at a 5% return in a 25% tax bracket for 30 years. SS provides an average 1200 a month

Now if he's married add his wife's retirement account to that one and what do you think their retirement income would be?

If he dropped dead of a heart attack at 50 and had no life insurance at all his family would get over half a million dollars that was in his account. Better than the SS death benefit.

If both parents die before their money is gone then their kids get it.

2.39 million dollars. Now that money will provide a 5000 a month income invested at a 5% return in a 25% tax bracket for 30 years.

$2.39 million at 5% will give him $10,000 a month, less $2500 a month in taxes, forever!

You're right. I misquoted the graph. In fact the nest egg would continue to grow so that when he dies he would leave more to his family than he started with

We can't have that. Why would anyone need the government? It wouldn't be long before everyone was so wealthy they could buy their own country.