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

[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

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.

Exactly right.

SS is designed to keep people dependent and poor.

 

[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.

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

If everyone simply invested their own contributions in individual accounts, then you have winners and losers. Conceptually, using something like a Canadian model that toro suggested, that has universal coverage and defined contributions, with funds being invested in a range of market index funds ... then over time it could work

 

[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.

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.

If everyone simply invested their own contributions in individual accounts, then you have winners and losers. Conceptually, using something like a Canadian model that toro suggested, that has universal coverage and defined contributions, with funds being invested in a range of market index funds ... then over time it could work

No thank you. I don't think it is society's responsibility to protect people from the consequences of their own decisions. The bit you are missing is that some people will do far better managing their own money, so you are penalizing them in order to bail out idiots.

 

[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.

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

If everyone simply invested their own contributions in individual accounts, then you have winners and losers. Conceptually, using something like a Canadian model that toro suggested, that has universal coverage and defined contributions, with funds being invested in a range of market index funds ... then over time it could work

No thank you. I don't think it is society's responsibility to protect people from the consequences of their own decisions. The bit you are missing is that some people will do far better managing their own money, so you are penalizing them in order to bail out idiots.

Some will, some won't. We're not talking theory here. Noble economic prizes have been won on this issue. In fact, exercises in individual behavior in markets and bubbles are standard in economics classes. The result is predicitable and uniform. It boils down to whether we'd let people who lost their money and didn't have enough to eat ... starve, or whether the rest of us would pay taxes for their food.

 

[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.

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.

If everyone simply invested their own contributions in individual accounts, then you have winners and losers. Conceptually, using something like a Canadian model that toro suggested, that has universal coverage and defined contributions, with funds being invested in a range of market index funds ... then over time it could work

No thank you. I don't think it is society's responsibility to protect people from the consequences of their own decisions. The bit you are missing is that some people will do far better managing their own money, so you are penalizing them in order to bail out idiots.

Some will, some won't. We're not talking theory here. Noble economic prizes have been won on this issue. In fact, exercises in individual behavior in markets and bubbles are standard in economics classes. The result is predicitable and uniform. It boils down to whether we'd let people who lost their money and didn't have enough to eat ... starve, or whether the rest of us would pay taxes for their food.

Then that is an issue of public policy for welfare/transfer payments.

Artificially suppressing the investment returns of the majority to engage in transfer payments is the wrong solution.

If you want such a program, then be honest and just tax people.

 

[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.

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

If everyone simply invested their own contributions in individual accounts, then you have winners and losers. Conceptually, using something like a Canadian model that toro suggested, that has universal coverage and defined contributions, with funds being invested in a range of market index funds ... then over time it could work

No thank you. I don't think it is society's responsibility to protect people from the consequences of their own decisions. The bit you are missing is that some people will do far better managing their own money, so you are penalizing them in order to bail out idiots.

Some will, some won't. We're not talking theory here. Noble economic prizes have been won on this issue. In fact, exercises in individual behavior in markets and bubbles are standard in economics classes. The result is predicitable and uniform. It boils down to whether we'd let people who lost their money and didn't have enough to eat ... starve, or whether the rest of us would pay taxes for their food.

Then that is an issue of public policy for welfare/transfer payments.

Artificially suppressing the investment returns of the majority to engage in transfer payments is the wrong solution.

If you want such a program, then be honest and just tax people.

There's nothing remotely connected to transfer payments if the govt collects taxes from you and your employer to place them in index funds so as to finance pensions for the entire workforce. Admittedly you might have a point it the govt placed some general revenue into the benefits paid to lower income workers.

But, if your desire is simply to have private accounts ... I'll see you at the ballot box, because you will lose.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

See... you guys are so f..king stupid!
I'm going to yell to get your attention!!!
THERE IS NO WAY TO INVEST IN THE DJIA!!!! It is an AVERAGE!
YOU can invest in the stocks that make up the DJIA... BUT the DJIA is the average of select stocks
prices at the end of the trading day. And over the 112 years of the DJIA the stocks that make up the
DJIA (and the stocks have changed over the years) have had an average growth over 112 years of
7.2% over the 112 years.
BUT THERE IS NO way to invest in the "DJIA"!!!

Yeah, I know that about DJIA, So why bring up the avg returns? lol


ONE policy conservatives have EVER been correct about since the US Founding? Just one?

Seems their premises NEVER work as promised. Look to Chile's privatization for a good example!

You're right. Chile would be a good example for us to follow.


That's because in 1981 Chile Labor Minister Jose Pinera replaced the country's bankrupt social security system with this famous system of private accounts.
It redirected workers' existing social security taxes to a new market-based system of investing choices that let workers make their own decisions in a program run by private companies.
The Dictuc study shows Chile's private pensions over three decades have yielded returns six times higher than what workers got under Chile's old social security system — which, by the way, was similar to ours.
The study shows that saving for retirement through the market is actually far less dangerous than relying on the government for pensions. Workers' returns on Social Security in the U.S. for those currently retiring is zero. For workers just starting their careers, the return is forecast to be negative as the trust fund goes bust.


Yes Chile s Private Pension Model Works Big Time - Investors.com

How well has the system performed? John Tierney, a writer for the New York Times, went to visit Pablo Serra, a former classmate and friend in Santiago a few years ago, and they compared notes on how well their respective retirement programs were doing. Tierney brought along his latest statement from Social Security, while his friend brought up his retirement plan on his computer. It turned out that they both had been contributing about the same amount of money, so the comparison was apt, and startling, said Tierney:
Pablo could retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age. OR
Pablo could retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would almost triple the $25,000 pension promised [to me] by Social Security starting a year later, at age 66. OR

Pablo could retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and [in addition receive] a one-time cash payment of $223,000.
Tierney wrote that Pablo said “I’m very happy with my account.” Tierney suggested that, upon retirement, Pablo could not only retire nicely, but be able to buy himself a vacation home at the shore or in the country. Pablo laughed it off, and Tierney wrote: “I’m trying to look on the bright side. Maybe my Social Security check will cover the airfare to visit him.”

Chile s Privatized Social Security Program is 30 Years Old and Prospering

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Workers not to blame for Quebec pension problem Don Pittis - Business - CBC News

The trouble with private equity valuations and why Canada s pensioners should care - The Globe and Mail

Here's my take.

No one will control my money for my best interest as well as I will. I rolled my 401K into a Roth IRA, and got a statement that my broker had placed the money into a Public-Bond market, earning a whooping 1%. Had it moved over to the Euro-Pacific Fund, and got 26% last year.

No matter what system you put in place, there will be people to game the system. The Canadians had some of their government employee pension funds, run by the government, make terrible investments, and now they are cutting benefits. The main CPP fund is being invested in a wide range of investments, some of which are questionable, but the public has ZERO control.

What I want is this....

Well... first I would like to eliminate Social Security completely.

But if that isn't an option, then we should do the Galveston County Texas deal. For those of you who don't know, or conveniently forgot... The government ran a pilot program, allowing people to Opt-Out of Social Security. They allowed people to take the money collected by Social Security, and place it into any investment fund that was approved.

The test was quickly eliminate, because EVERYONE Opted out. Can't let people have control like that. Ruins government tax revenue.

However the people that legally opted out, were allowed to keep their opt-out, and their money continued into their private investments, which paid out massively compared to that pathetic payouts of Social Security.

We need to do that, only we need to allow complete freedom in choice of investments. I want 100% control of where my money is, and who has it. If I blow it all, and end up broke, that's on me. If I make millions with wise investments, and you don't, sucks to be you.

I'd rather not have Social Security at all. If I end up in the hospital, what good does a nifty retirement fund do me, when I'm about to die? The person who knows best where I need to put my money.... is me. Not some liberal egg head in an ivory tower, and certainly not some dip wad voted in by the lowest common denominator of society.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Called screw the newer workers.

Yeah, better to give tax cuts for 'job creators' so they can off shore US jobs right?

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

 

[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.

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.

If everyone simply invested their own contributions in individual accounts, then you have winners and losers. Conceptually, using something like a Canadian model that toro suggested, that has universal coverage and defined contributions, with funds being invested in a range of market index funds ... then over time it could work

No thank you. I don't think it is society's responsibility to protect people from the consequences of their own decisions. The bit you are missing is that some people will do far better managing their own money, so you are penalizing them in order to bail out idiots.

Some will, some won't. We're not talking theory here. Noble economic prizes have been won on this issue. In fact, exercises in individual behavior in markets and bubbles are standard in economics classes. The result is predicitable and uniform. It boils down to whether we'd let people who lost their money and didn't have enough to eat ... starve, or whether the rest of us would pay taxes for their food.

Then that is an issue of public policy for welfare/transfer payments.

Artificially suppressing the investment returns of the majority to engage in transfer payments is the wrong solution.

If you want such a program, then be honest and just tax people.

There's nothing remotely connected to transfer payments if the govt collects taxes from you and your employer to place them in index funds so as to finance pensions for the entire workforce. Admittedly you might have a point it the govt placed some general revenue into the benefits paid to lower income workers.

But, if your desire is simply to have private accounts ... I'll see you at the ballot box, because you will lose.

Yes it is. Some are earning far less returns on their money in order to provide a bail out fund for people who are too ignorant to put their money in no load Vanguard fund.

 

[boedicca]

Called screw the newer workers.

Yeah, better to give tax cuts for 'job creators' so they can off shore US jobs right?

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

Dad2three is one of the type that creates "Bad Luck":

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded- here and there, now and then- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.This is known as "bad luck." -- R.A. Heinlein

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Looks like the privatized system in Texas worked better than Social Security.
How much should we raise SS taxes to keep it from going broke?
I mean, we need to protect the crappy returns we get from SS, right?
I mean, higher returns in the stock market might actually help our seniors and shrink government at the same time.
Can't have that.

 

[Toro]

Your highly politically biased article doesn't seem to realize that the Canada Pension Plan is already privatized.

CPPIB Canada Pension Plan Investment Board

SO YOU DO HAVE READING COMPREHENSION ISSUES. I'M NOT SURPRISED


The plan is administered by Human Resources and Social Development Canada on behalf of employees in all provinces and territories except Quebec, which operates an equivalent plan, the Quebec Pension Plan. Changes to the CPP require the approval of at least 2/3 of Canadian provinces representing at least 2/3 of the country's population. In addition, under section 94A of the Canadian Constitution, pensions are a provincial responsibility, so any province may establish a plan anytime. The CPP is funded on a "steady-state" basis, with its current contribution rate set so that it will remain constant for the next 75 years, by accumulating a reserve fund sufficient to stabilize the asset/expenditure and funding ratios over time. Such a system is a hybrid between a fully funded one and a "pay-as-you-go" plan

THAT'S GOV'T, NOT PRIVATE


The Liberal government of Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson in 1965 first established the Canadian Pension Plan. Contribution rates were first set at 1.8% of an employee's gross income per year with a maximum contribution limit. By the mid-1990s though this low contribution rate was not sufficient to keep up with Canada’s aging population. As a result the total CPP contribution rates for both employee and employer together were raised to an annual rate of 9.9 per cent by 2003.



At its inception, the prescribed CPP contribution rate was 1.8% of an employee's gross income up to an annual maximum. Over time, the contribution rate was increased slowly. However, by the 1990s, it was concluded that the "pay-as-you-go" structure would lead to excessively high contribution rates within 20 years or so, due to Canada's changing demographics, increased life expectancy of Canadians, a changing economy, benefit improvements and increased usage of disability benefits (all as referenced in the Chief Actuary's study of April 2007, noted above). The same study reports that the reserve fund was expected to run out by 2015. This impending pension crisis sparked an extensive review by the federal and provincial governments in 1996. As a part of the major review process, the federal government actively conducted consultations with the Canadian public to solicit suggestions, recommendations, and proposals on how the CPP could be restructured to achieve sustainability once again. As a direct result of this public consultation process and internal review of the CPP, the following key changes were proposed and jointly approved by the Federal and provincial governments in 1997:

• Increase total CPP annual contribution rates (employer/employee combined) from 6% of pensionable earnings in 1997 to 9.9% by 2003.
• Continuously seek out ways to reduce CPP administration and operating costs.
• Move towards a hybrid structure to take advantage of investment earnings on accumulated assets. Instead of a "pay-as-you-go" structure, the CPP is expected to be 20% funded by 2014, such funding ratio to constantly increase thereafter towards 30% by 2075 (that is, the CPP Reserve Fund will equal 30% of the "liabilities" - or accrued pension obligations).

In March 2013, average monthly benefits for new retirement pension (taken at age 65) was $596.66 and the maximum amount was $1,012,50.


Hell, they are living the dream right? lol

Canada Pension Plan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Your highly politically biased article doesn't seem to realize that the Canada Pension Plan is already privatized.

CPPIB Canada Pension Plan Investment Board

SO YOU DO HAVE READING COMPREHENSION ISSUES. I'M NOT SURPRISED


The plan is administered by Human Resources and Social Development Canada on behalf of employees in all provinces and territories except Quebec, which operates an equivalent plan, the Quebec Pension Plan. Changes to the CPP require the approval of at least 2/3 of Canadian provinces representing at least 2/3 of the country's population. In addition, under section 94A of the Canadian Constitution, pensions are a provincial responsibility, so any province may establish a plan anytime. The CPP is funded on a "steady-state" basis, with its current contribution rate set so that it will remain constant for the next 75 years, by accumulating a reserve fund sufficient to stabilize the asset/expenditure and funding ratios over time. Such a system is a hybrid between a fully funded one and a "pay-as-you-go" plan

THAT'S GOV'T, NOT PRIVATE


The Liberal government of Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson in 1965 first established the Canadian Pension Plan. Contribution rates were first set at 1.8% of an employee's gross income per year with a maximum contribution limit. By the mid-1990s though this low contribution rate was not sufficient to keep up with Canada’s aging population. As a result the total CPP contribution rates for both employee and employer together were raised to an annual rate of 9.9 per cent by 2003.



At its inception, the prescribed CPP contribution rate was 1.8% of an employee's gross income up to an annual maximum. Over time, the contribution rate was increased slowly. However, by the 1990s, it was concluded that the "pay-as-you-go" structure would lead to excessively high contribution rates within 20 years or so, due to Canada's changing demographics, increased life expectancy of Canadians, a changing economy, benefit improvements and increased usage of disability benefits (all as referenced in the Chief Actuary's study of April 2007, noted above). The same study reports that the reserve fund was expected to run out by 2015. This impending pension crisis sparked an extensive review by the federal and provincial governments in 1996. As a part of the major review process, the federal government actively conducted consultations with the Canadian public to solicit suggestions, recommendations, and proposals on how the CPP could be restructured to achieve sustainability once again. As a direct result of this public consultation process and internal review of the CPP, the following key changes were proposed and jointly approved by the Federal and provincial governments in 1997:

• Increase total CPP annual contribution rates (employer/employee combined) from 6% of pensionable earnings in 1997 to 9.9% by 2003.
• Continuously seek out ways to reduce CPP administration and operating costs.
• Move towards a hybrid structure to take advantage of investment earnings on accumulated assets. Instead of a "pay-as-you-go" structure, the CPP is expected to be 20% funded by 2014, such funding ratio to constantly increase thereafter towards 30% by 2075 (that is, the CPP Reserve Fund will equal 30% of the "liabilities" - or accrued pension obligations).

In March 2013, average monthly benefits for new retirement pension (taken at age 65) was $596.66 and the maximum amount was $1,012,50.


Hell, they are living the dream right? lol

Canada Pension Plan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You don't know what you just posted, do you?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

If everyone simply invested their own contributions in individual accounts, then you have winners and losers. Conceptually, using something like a Canadian model that toro suggested, that has universal coverage and defined contributions, with funds being invested in a range of market index funds ... then over time it could work

No thank you. I don't think it is society's responsibility to protect people from the consequences of their own decisions. The bit you are missing is that some people will do far better managing their own money, so you are penalizing them in order to bail out idiots.

Some will, some won't. We're not talking theory here. Noble economic prizes have been won on this issue. In fact, exercises in individual behavior in markets and bubbles are standard in economics classes. The result is predicitable and uniform. It boils down to whether we'd let people who lost their money and didn't have enough to eat ... starve, or whether the rest of us would pay taxes for their food.

We all know liberals would let them starve.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Employers provide workman's compensation which is disability insurance for when you become disabled while working on the job. Most disabilities come from illness, not accidents. How many people do you think work for companies that provide the kind of disability insurance that covers people who have strokes or cancer? The term life insurance is cheap compared to the disability insurance.
One way or another you always need a gimmick or some kind of misinformation to make the privatization scheme work. This time we leave out the cost of disability insurance with the notion that everyone, or even a small majority of workers have disability insurance that will pay a worker a life time of wages if they get sick. Does anyone believe that? Does anyone believe that even a small minority of workers have that kind of coverage?

I have never worked for an employer that DID N OT offer short-term and long-term disability coverage!

 

[Camp]

Employers provide workman's compensation which is disability insurance for when you become disabled while working on the job. Most disabilities come from illness, not accidents. How many people do you think work for companies that provide the kind of disability insurance that covers people who have strokes or cancer? The term life insurance is cheap compared to the disability insurance.
One way or another you always need a gimmick or some kind of misinformation to make the privatization scheme work. This time we leave out the cost of disability insurance with the notion that everyone, or even a small majority of workers have disability insurance that will pay a worker a life time of wages if they get sick. Does anyone believe that? Does anyone believe that even a small minority of workers have that kind of coverage?

I have never worked for an employer that DID N OT offer short-term and long-term disability coverage!

I have never worked for an employer that payed for disability insurance other that workman's compensation.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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?

Because he was and is dumb as a rock?

 

[Jarlaxle]

I have never worked for an employer that payed for disability insurance other that workman's compensation.

You worked for some shitty employers, then!

 

[bripat9643]

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.

No we don't.

The only way to work it make it one "giant" pool of money.

Yeah, because the government has done such a good job managing Social Security. I can't imagine a worse idea than allowing government to invest my money.

 

[Camp]

I have never worked for an employer that payed for disability insurance other that workman's compensation.

You worked for some shitty employers, then!

Yup, just like 60% and probably more of the rest of Americans who work at jobs where employers don't pay disability coverage.