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

[bendog]

The right could at least be honest. It isn't about rate of return, because if it was there'd be no discussion, or denying, that in terms of survivor insurance (which is a version of life insurance or an annuity), disability insurance for workers who leave the workforce early because of illness or injury, and the actual retirement benefit, Social Security IS NOT A BAD DEAL AT ALL.

Rather, the ayn rand crew who just don't see govt having any role in doing something to make sure people who were working, but no longer are, are getting some cash to spend.

I'm sorry but IT IS about "rate of return"!
Even at a modest 1% over 40 years a 25 year old putting the SS payments of his and his employer into a FDIC insured savings account would accumulate over $400,000! All the individual would have to do is tell the privatized SS where to put it.
But no very very ignorant people seem to think FDIC, stock market etc. ALL the same thing.
AGAIN.. over and over I have to point out that the whole process is matched with the age of the worker.
Ages 25 to 45 means puttting $$ into most likely that really risky gambling stock market..(that over 60 years averaged 9% growth down years which aren't many and up years which are MORE).
Then age 46 to 65 split between lower risk investments for smaller amount of accumulation and higher secure investment (Geez US treasure bills that SS buys..hmmmm???) for larger amount.
By time 65 nearly $1 million accumulated... now mostly in highly secured investments.."risky treasure bills"!!
Then at 65 person contracts with insurance company that bets the person will live shorter person says longer and with $500,000 earning 2% a year worker gets $24,000 a year..
Take $300,000 in secured investments for emergencies,etc. medical bills,etc.
Remaining $200,000 at rate of $10,000/year for 20 years means total available income $43,000.
Nearly double what SS will pay out..
AND the neat part!!!
Possibly he can leave an estate nest egg to help his offspring!
All done with the same amount that would be paid into SS and that SS would pay out
at $20,000 a year.
SO tell me who really is a f...king fool here!!!

It is NOT about rate of return, because if you attempt that analysis to calculate the benefits of the money you and your employer pay in, you also have to factor in how much it would cost to purchase annuity or insurance policies to equal the survivor and disability provisions of soc sec. Simply saying "I'm 25 and I could put this all in low cost index fund or FDIC insured account....." is bullshit. You, and others like you, who just don't want the govt in the social insurance area purposefully distort the math.

 

[bripat9643]

The right could at least be honest. It isn't about rate of return, because if it was there'd be no discussion, or denying, that in terms of survivor insurance (which is a version of life insurance or an annuity), disability insurance for workers who leave the workforce early because of illness or injury, and the actual retirement benefit, Social Security IS NOT A BAD DEAL AT ALL.

Rather, the ayn rand crew who just don't see govt having any role in doing something to make sure people who were working, but no longer are, are getting some cash to spend.

I'm sorry but IT IS about "rate of return"!
Even at a modest 1% over 40 years a 25 year old putting the SS payments of his and his employer into a FDIC insured savings account would accumulate over $400,000! All the individual would have to do is tell the privatized SS where to put it.
But no very very ignorant people seem to think FDIC, stock market etc. ALL the same thing.
AGAIN.. over and over I have to point out that the whole process is matched with the age of the worker.
Ages 25 to 45 means puttting $$ into most likely that really risky gambling stock market..(that over 60 years averaged 9% growth down years which aren't many and up years which are MORE).
Then age 46 to 65 split between lower risk investments for smaller amount of accumulation and higher secure investment (Geez US treasure bills that SS buys..hmmmm???) for larger amount.
By time 65 nearly $1 million accumulated... now mostly in highly secured investments.."risky treasure bills"!!
Then at 65 person contracts with insurance company that bets the person will live shorter person says longer and with $500,000 earning 2% a year worker gets $24,000 a year..
Take $300,000 in secured investments for emergencies,etc. medical bills,etc.
Remaining $200,000 at rate of $10,000/year for 20 years means total available income $43,000.
Nearly double what SS will pay out..
AND the neat part!!!
Possibly he can leave an estate nest egg to help his offspring!
All done with the same amount that would be paid into SS and that SS would pay out
at $20,000 a year.
SO tell me who really is a f...king fool here!!!

It is NOT about rate of return, because if you attempt that analysis to calculate the benefits of the money you and your employer pay in, you also have to factor in how much it would cost to purchase annuity or insurance policies to equal the survivor and disability provisions of soc sec. Simply saying "I'm 25 and I could put this all in low cost index fund ....." is bullshit.

You would still come out way ahead if you purchased life and disability insurance. In fact, the life insurance would just be another investment in your account.

Chile has a system where citizens have private investment accounts and they are also required to purchase life insurance and disability insurance. In other words, they have exactly the system you claim would not be a good deal, but the data shows they will end up way ahead of anyone collecting Social Security.

 

[bendog]

ah, no, it's not.

Pensions in Chile - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/world/americas/10iht-chile.html?_r=0
Further, not even bothering to do the math FOR YOU on disability insurance, Soc Sec would provide a surviving spouse and one kid benefits of roughly 25,200 per year. If there's more than one kid, even a 500K policy isn't gonna do that. And once you get past 40, those cheap term life policies aren't out there.

None of which is to say soc sec is a good investment. It's not. Most likely you'll never need the insurance provisions that would save your family from poverty. But it was never intended to be a retirement program. It was intended to reduce the % of the population living in poverty.

 

[Toro]

Treasury securities are worthless to the government because they are liabilities to the government.

Treasury securities that accrue to others held in trust by anyone, including the government, are most certainly not worthless.

If the government opened an account at a bank in your name, then issued bonds and put them into your account, they wouldn't be worthless. In the case of SS, instead of the account being held at a bank, its held at the Treasury. And instead of issuing bonds, the government issues securities similar to IOUs, which is what a bond is anyway.

 

[Toro]

When you issue an IOU to yourself, it's absolutely worthless. Try it out and see. Write "IOU $10 trillion" on a piece of paper. Then put it in your pocket. Now go out and see if you can buy a yacht with it.

The so-called "Trust Fund" is full of IOU's the government issued to itself. They are worth exactly as much as the IOU you just put in your pocket: nothing, in other words.

The IOUs are owed to you. Though its technically correct that the government "owes it to itself," what that means is that the government owes it to a government agency. But that government agency then owes you the money worth the IOUs plus unfunded liabilities.

 

[SteadyMercury]

None of which is to say soc sec is a good investment. It's not. Most likely you'll never need the insurance provisions that would save your family from poverty. But it was never intended to be a retirement program. It was intended to reduce the % of the population living in poverty.

Yep, so many of the arguments against it are apples and oranges by trying to compare an investment account balance to a social security program that doesn't have an account balance.

It is a tax, and a benefit. Not a defined contribution plan.

 

[bendog]

None of which is to say soc sec is a good investment. It's not. Most likely you'll never need the insurance provisions that would save your family from poverty. But it was never intended to be a retirement program. It was intended to reduce the % of the population living in poverty.

Yep, so many of the arguments against it are apples and oranges by trying to compare an investment account balance to a social security program that doesn't have an account balance.

It is a tax, and a benefit. Not a defined contribution plan.

And if you're in the top 2 quintiles and have only one or at the max two kids, and if your employment does not subject you to risk such as that seen by a truck driver or construction worker, you may be able to get a better return by 1) obtaining disability and term life insurance at a young age with premiums rising as you grow older, and 2) investing early on in a stock index fund, and later on in actual bonds or cd type vehicles, rather than in any mutual fund.

But, soc security's purpose is to keep families of workers who have risk and/or are lower earners out of poverty too.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
"Separate Agency"???
Well then explain WHY your Medicare/SS payments are counted as Federal Government general revenue ?

]

They aren't.

From SSA.gov:


From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

Social Security History

 

[healthmyths]

[
"Separate Agency"???
Well then explain WHY your Medicare/SS payments are counted as Federal Government general revenue ?

]

They aren't.

From SSA.gov:


From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

Social Security History

MYTH??? Better TELL ALL these sources that because THEY are obviously wrong and YOU are right!

• In 2010 the federal government collected $2.2 trillion, an amount equal to 14.9 percent of GDP. Federal revenue has ranged from 14.4 of GDP in 1950 to 20.6 percent in 2000 over the past five decades, averaging 17.9 percent.
• The individual income tax has been the largest single source of federal revenue since 1950, averaging 8 percent of GDP.
• Payroll taxes swelled following the creation of Medicare in 1965. Taxes for Medicare, combined with periodic increases in Social Security taxes, caused payroll tax revenue to grow from 1.6 percent of GDP in 1950 to 6 percent or more since 1980. Payroll taxes also include railroad retirement, unemployment insurance, and federal workers’ pension contributions.
• Revenue from the corporate income tax fell from between 5 and 6 percent of GDP in the early 1950s to 1.3 percent of GDP in 2010.
• Excise taxes fell steadily throughout the same period, from nearly 3 percent of GDP in 1950 to 0.5 percent in recent years.
• The remaining sources of revenue have fluctuated less, together claiming between 0.5 and 1.0 percent of GDP since 1950 and standing near the bottom of that range in 2010.What are the federal government s sources of revenue

Breakdown of Government Revenue

Q: What’s the percentage breakdown of the government’s tax revenue stream?

A: Nearly half of federal revenue came from income taxes on individuals last year, and another one-third came from social insurance taxes, mainly for Social Security.

FULL QUESTION

What percentage of all taxes collected are capital gains tax, corporate taxes, fees & tariffs (such as gas taxes), and personal income (less capital gains taxes)?

FULL ANSWER

A breakdown comes from The White House Office of Management and Budget, which shows that in fiscal 2007 (the 12 months ending last Sept. 30) receipts from individual income taxes accounted for 45.3 percent of the government’s total tax revenues, while receipts from social insurance and retirement taxes made up 33.9 percent and corporate income taxes 14.4 percent. Most of the social insurance and retirement taxes (94 percent of them) are Social Security and Medicare receipts; the category also includes unemployment insurance and Railroad Retirement. Excise taxes, which would include the gasoline tax our reader asked about, made up 2.5 percent of all receipts and 3.9 percent came from other sources. OMB’s "other" category includes estate and gift taxes, and customs duties and fees.

Taxes make up the vast bulk of federal revenues, of course. Individual income-tax payers supplied 41.5 percent of all federal revenues in fiscal 2010, but Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes paid both by workers and their employers made up nearly as much.
Fiscal FactCheck

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
"Separate Agency"???
Well then explain WHY your Medicare/SS payments are counted as Federal Government general revenue ?

]

They aren't.

From SSA.gov:


From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

Social Security History

MYTH??? Better TELL ALL these sources that because THEY are obviously wrong and YOU are right!

• In 2010 the federal government collected $2.2 trillion, an amount equal to 14.9 percent of GDP. Federal revenue has ranged from 14.4 of GDP in 1950 to 20.6 percent in 2000 over the past five decades, averaging 17.9 percent.
• The individual income tax has been the largest single source of federal revenue since 1950, averaging 8 percent of GDP.
• Payroll taxes swelled following the creation of Medicare in 1965. Taxes for Medicare, combined with periodic increases in Social Security taxes, caused payroll tax revenue to grow from 1.6 percent of GDP in 1950 to 6 percent or more since 1980. Payroll taxes also include railroad retirement, unemployment insurance, and federal workers’ pension contributions.
• Revenue from the corporate income tax fell from between 5 and 6 percent of GDP in the early 1950s to 1.3 percent of GDP in 2010.
• Excise taxes fell steadily throughout the same period, from nearly 3 percent of GDP in 1950 to 0.5 percent in recent years.
• The remaining sources of revenue have fluctuated less, together claiming between 0.5 and 1.0 percent of GDP since 1950 and standing near the bottom of that range in 2010.What are the federal government s sources of revenue

Breakdown of Government Revenue

Q: What’s the percentage breakdown of the government’s tax revenue stream?

A: Nearly half of federal revenue came from income taxes on individuals last year, and another one-third came from social insurance taxes, mainly for Social Security.

FULL QUESTION

What percentage of all taxes collected are capital gains tax, corporate taxes, fees & tariffs (such as gas taxes), and personal income (less capital gains taxes)?

FULL ANSWER

A breakdown comes from The White House Office of Management and Budget, which shows that in fiscal 2007 (the 12 months ending last Sept. 30) receipts from individual income taxes accounted for 45.3 percent of the government’s total tax revenues, while receipts from social insurance and retirement taxes made up 33.9 percent and corporate income taxes 14.4 percent. Most of the social insurance and retirement taxes (94 percent of them) are Social Security and Medicare receipts; the category also includes unemployment insurance and Railroad Retirement. Excise taxes, which would include the gasoline tax our reader asked about, made up 2.5 percent of all receipts and 3.9 percent came from other sources. OMB’s "other" category includes estate and gift taxes, and customs duties and fees.

Taxes make up the vast bulk of federal revenues, of course. Individual income-tax payers supplied 41.5 percent of all federal revenues in fiscal 2010, but Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes paid both by workers and their employers made up nearly as much.
Fiscal FactCheck

Payroll taxes are dedicated. By law they cannot be spent on anything other than recipient benefits and administration.

Stop making shit up.

 

[healthmyths]

[
"Separate Agency"???
Well then explain WHY your Medicare/SS payments are counted as Federal Government general revenue ?

]

They aren't.

From SSA.gov:


From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

Social Security History

MYTH??? Better TELL ALL these sources that because THEY are obviously wrong and YOU are right!

• In 2010 the federal government collected $2.2 trillion, an amount equal to 14.9 percent of GDP. Federal revenue has ranged from 14.4 of GDP in 1950 to 20.6 percent in 2000 over the past five decades, averaging 17.9 percent.
• The individual income tax has been the largest single source of federal revenue since 1950, averaging 8 percent of GDP.
• Payroll taxes swelled following the creation of Medicare in 1965. Taxes for Medicare, combined with periodic increases in Social Security taxes, caused payroll tax revenue to grow from 1.6 percent of GDP in 1950 to 6 percent or more since 1980. Payroll taxes also include railroad retirement, unemployment insurance, and federal workers’ pension contributions.
• Revenue from the corporate income tax fell from between 5 and 6 percent of GDP in the early 1950s to 1.3 percent of GDP in 2010.
• Excise taxes fell steadily throughout the same period, from nearly 3 percent of GDP in 1950 to 0.5 percent in recent years.
• The remaining sources of revenue have fluctuated less, together claiming between 0.5 and 1.0 percent of GDP since 1950 and standing near the bottom of that range in 2010.What are the federal government s sources of revenue

Breakdown of Government Revenue

Q: What’s the percentage breakdown of the government’s tax revenue stream?

A: Nearly half of federal revenue came from income taxes on individuals last year, and another one-third came from social insurance taxes, mainly for Social Security.

FULL QUESTION

What percentage of all taxes collected are capital gains tax, corporate taxes, fees & tariffs (such as gas taxes), and personal income (less capital gains taxes)?

FULL ANSWER

A breakdown comes from The White House Office of Management and Budget, which shows that in fiscal 2007 (the 12 months ending last Sept. 30) receipts from individual income taxes accounted for 45.3 percent of the government’s total tax revenues, while receipts from social insurance and retirement taxes made up 33.9 percent and corporate income taxes 14.4 percent. Most of the social insurance and retirement taxes (94 percent of them) are Social Security and Medicare receipts; the category also includes unemployment insurance and Railroad Retirement. Excise taxes, which would include the gasoline tax our reader asked about, made up 2.5 percent of all receipts and 3.9 percent came from other sources. OMB’s "other" category includes estate and gift taxes, and customs duties and fees.

Taxes make up the vast bulk of federal revenues, of course. Individual income-tax payers supplied 41.5 percent of all federal revenues in fiscal 2010, but Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes paid both by workers and their employers made up nearly as much.
Fiscal FactCheck

Payroll taxes are dedicated. By law they cannot be spent on anything other than recipient benefits and administration.

Stop making shit up.

Do you think I wrote ALL of the above?? Are you that f...king stupid???
Geez... right in front of your eyes and you still don't believe it!
What is the problem with people like you? Are you congenitally stupid?
AGAIN AND AGAIN... THESE aren't MY words!
Is factcheck.org making shit up?
Is The White House Office of Management and Budget making shit up??
How stupid are you really? Blaming ME?

 

[OnePercenter]

I find it interesting that the biggest bitcher's of Social Security are the one's collecting it......

 

[Jarlaxle]

Projecting AGAIN, dude?!

 

[healthmyths]

I find it interesting that the biggest bitcher's of Social Security are the one's collecting it......

I find it interesting that FACTS don't mean anything to people like you!
You make some type of comment without ANY basis...just throw crap on the forum!
Everything I wrote comes from the EXPERTS and researchers.. NOT my words!

As more informed and better qualified people then me have suggested:
a) raise retirement to age 68 for anyone UNDER age 55 and SS will be fine. That simple!
b) Allow ANY one under age 55 to chose
1) Self directed investment into savings accounts, treasuries,yes even the stock market!
2) or use the traditional method...
But give people a choice!
This ONE freedom of choice i.e. self directed into savings,etc. would generate so much more growth in the USA economy it would be unbelievable!
Obviously no one on this forum has ever heard of the Venture Capital Insurance Corp.. VCIC...
and the absolute guarantees that can be provided to the small investor!

 

[OnePercenter]

I find it interesting that the biggest bitcher's of Social Security are the one's collecting it......

I find it interesting that FACTS don't mean anything to people like you!
You make some type of comment without ANY basis...just throw crap on the forum!
Everything I wrote comes from the EXPERTS and researchers.. NOT my words!

As more informed and better qualified people then me have suggested:
a) raise retirement to age 68 for anyone UNDER age 55 and SS will be fine. That simple!
b) Allow ANY one under age 55 to chose
1) Self directed investment into savings accounts, treasuries,yes even the stock market!
2) or use the traditional method...
But give people a choice!
This ONE freedom of choice i.e. self directed into savings,etc. would generate so much more growth in the USA economy it would be unbelievable!
Obviously no one on this forum has ever heard of the Venture Capital Insurance Corp.. VCIC...
and the absolute guarantees that can be provided to the small investor!

You're letting the 'I've got mine so fuck everyone else sociopaths' speak for you? Letting people have control of their Social Security is a BAD idea, unless you can make commission from the action.....

 

[bripat9643]

Treasury securities are worthless to the government because they are liabilities to the government.

Treasury securities that accrue to others held in trust by anyone, including the government, are most certainly not worthless.

They are worthless to the government because they are liabilities to the government. I don't know how may times this has to be repeated. How many times do you numskulls have to be told that you can't loan money to yourself?

If the government opened an account at a bank in your name, then issued bonds and put them into your account, they wouldn't be worthless. In the case of SS, instead of the account being held at a bank, its held at the Treasury. And instead of issuing bonds, the government issues securities similar to IOUs, which is what a bond is anyway.

There's no account in your name, so those treasuries are worthless to you. They are also worthless to the government because the government issued them. When it comes time to redeem them, the party paying them off will be the government and the party collecting the proceeds will be the government. In other words, the government will be paying money to itself.

You really have to be fucking stupid to believe that the so-called "trust fund" has real money in it.

 

[bripat9643]

When you issue an IOU to yourself, it's absolutely worthless. Try it out and see. Write "IOU $10 trillion" on a piece of paper. Then put it in your pocket. Now go out and see if you can buy a yacht with it.

The so-called "Trust Fund" is full of IOU's the government issued to itself. They are worth exactly as much as the IOU you just put in your pocket: nothing, in other words.

The IOUs are owed to you. .

Wrong. They are owed to the government.

Though its technically correct that the government "owes it to itself," what that means is that the government owes it to a government agency. But that government agency then owes you the money worth the IOUs plus unfunded liabilities.

Nope. Legally the government owes you nothing. The Supreme Court has even ruled accordingly. Even if it did, the only way it could pay you is by taking the money from taxpayers, of which you are one. So the government takes the money from you or some other taxpayer with one hand, and it returns it to you with the other. The net gain to taxpayers is zilch.

 

[bripat9643]

None of which is to say soc sec is a good investment. It's not. Most likely you'll never need the insurance provisions that would save your family from poverty. But it was never intended to be a retirement program. It was intended to reduce the % of the population living in poverty.

Yep, so many of the arguments against it are apples and oranges by trying to compare an investment account balance to a social security program that doesn't have an account balance.

It is a tax, and a benefit. Not a defined contribution plan.

And if you're in the top 2 quintiles and have only one or at the max two kids, and if your employment does not subject you to risk such as that seen by a truck driver or construction worker, you may be able to get a better return by 1) obtaining disability and term life insurance at a young age with premiums rising as you grow older, and 2) investing early on in a stock index fund, and later on in actual bonds or cd type vehicles, rather than in any mutual fund.

But, soc security's purpose is to keep families of workers who have risk and/or are lower earners out of poverty too.

The purpose of Social Security is to buy the votes of old people. Any other claims are pure moonshine.

 

[bripat9643]

I find it interesting that the biggest bitcher's of Social Security are the one's collecting it......

I find it interesting that FACTS don't mean anything to people like you!
You make some type of comment without ANY basis...just throw crap on the forum!
Everything I wrote comes from the EXPERTS and researchers.. NOT my words!

As more informed and better qualified people then me have suggested:
a) raise retirement to age 68 for anyone UNDER age 55 and SS will be fine. That simple!
b) Allow ANY one under age 55 to chose
1) Self directed investment into savings accounts, treasuries,yes even the stock market!
2) or use the traditional method...
But give people a choice!
This ONE freedom of choice i.e. self directed into savings,etc. would generate so much more growth in the USA economy it would be unbelievable!
Obviously no one on this forum has ever heard of the Venture Capital Insurance Corp.. VCIC...
and the absolute guarantees that can be provided to the small investor!

You're letting the 'I've got mine so fuck everyone else sociopaths' speak for you? Letting people have control of their Social Security is a BAD idea, unless you can make commission from the action.....

Of course, you can't give a rational explanation of why it's a bad idea.

 

[bripat9643]

I find it interesting that the biggest bitcher's of Social Security are the one's collecting it......

I find it interesting that FACTS don't mean anything to people like you!
You make some type of comment without ANY basis...just throw crap on the forum!
Everything I wrote comes from the EXPERTS and researchers.. NOT my words!

As more informed and better qualified people then me have suggested:
a) raise retirement to age 68 for anyone UNDER age 55 and SS will be fine. That simple!
b) Allow ANY one under age 55 to chose
1) Self directed investment into savings accounts, treasuries,yes even the stock market!
2) or use the traditional method...
But give people a choice!
This ONE freedom of choice i.e. self directed into savings,etc. would generate so much more growth in the USA economy it would be unbelievable!
Obviously no one on this forum has ever heard of the Venture Capital Insurance Corp.. VCIC...
and the absolute guarantees that can be provided to the small investor!

You're letting the 'I've got mine so fuck everyone else sociopaths' speak for you? Letting people have control of their Social Security is a BAD idea, unless you can make commission from the action.....

A sociopath is one who preys on other members of society. That would describe all those who believe they are entitled to have other people pay their bills, like all the supporters of the Social Security Ponzi scheme.