Which would you rather have $1m in the bank or Social Security Check???

[auditor0007]

Take the checks. It has a terrific return if you live that long. You'll get back much more than you paid in.

It's a black hole. I have paid into that Ponzi scheme for years and will collect NOTHING.

Why will you collect nothing? Are you planning on dying before you are eligible?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Much is made about 70 being the new 50,
70 is the new 50 in the Workforce | TIME.com

This means for people LIKE ME age 71 I am still very active in my business nearly as much as I was when I was 50!

So while I'm getting MINE.. i.e. social security I don't understand why especially younger people don't figure out that because there are more of people like me, i.e. living longer then what SS originally planned in the 1930s i.e. (I'd be dead by 65!) they need to fix this!
Because as more of us live longer and yet we have SS kicking in at 65. With more retired people at 65 getting SS there are fewer younger people paying in!

Solution..
A) Raise retirement age to 70 for all those people currently under age 50!
B) Give the younger people the chance to tell SS where to put their payments... privatize SS!

So by raising the age we have more people paying in for those younger people when they retire at 70!
But more importantly IF NOT mandatory BUT IF the young employee wants to invest say at 25 their SS/Medicare payments into
the wild and risky stock market for 20 years then the next 20 switch a portion to more secure investments and then last 20 years
into totally secured risk free investments.. this 25 year old would have base on average starting salary of $30,000 with increases
in income over the 60 years would have nearly $1 million that is solely under the young worker control!
So at age 70 getting ready to retire this young (now old retiree) has money set aside MORE then traditional SS would pay.
Also with $1 million the health care costs would be taken care of with no need for medicare!

AND AGAIN NO one would be forced to participate in the privatized SS... you want traditional more power!
Two solutions that would solve the "safety net" destruction that is ahead!

How would a 35 year old recover under your plan if they lost all of their capital gain and most of their investment when we repeat the Great Recession of '07 to '09?

Keep in mind 'your plan' could only be implemented if the Republicans had control of the White House and both Chambers of Congress; and, if the R's were still opposed to any government regulation or oversight of 'wall street' and the financial services industries. Greed and efforts to increase profits when Caveat emptor was the only rule seems a recipe for disaster.

 

[Jarlaxle]

not all are good at handling money....not all are good at all trades.....it just how humans are....

NO SHIT! GEEZ so why penalize ALL of us that ARE good and the MAJORITY of Americans ARE..
We have SS for those few that AREN'T good and AS I've constantly pointed out!
It is NOT for EVERYONE but at least GIVE EVERYONE the choice!
Frankly you obviously are a womb to tomb take care of me person.
Feed a person a fish a day rather then teach the person to fish and feed for a lifetime!
YOU like most phony "compassionate" people are actually hurting people by simply feeding NOT teaching!

You honestly believe the majority of people MUST be fed and NOT teach the majority to feed themselves!
Is that correct?

Because again reading closer instead of jumping to conclusions the suggestion that MOST of us truly compassionate people make is
that people be given a CHOICE! Those of us truly compassionate people KNOW there are a few that will need help BUT what better way
to help the unfortunate then the Majority having their OWN money and then time to help the less fortunate RATHER then looking to the government for womb to tomb.. how absolutely dismal your paternalistic path looks to people that want to make their own decisions!

When people make your choice and lose we will have to bail them out.

Don't bail them out. [/thread]

 

[Brain357]

Ask your President about that!
REMEMBER every one seems to forget!
The change in SS would ONLY be for 55 or YOUNGER.. Anyone over 55 continues to get traditional SS.
Also REMEMBER did you READ??
The individual under 55 would HAVE the CHOICE which they don't have NOW...
A) Continue with traditional SS which is fine no problem with that other then age should be raised to 70 for retirement as the age 65 was based on 1930s tables!
B) BUT if the under 55 WANTS to choose privatized THE ONLY distinction is this:
All the contributions would be directed in investments selected by the individual. NO one else. obviously a whole cottage industry would exist helping
these people. And Obviously there will be some losers! NO question. But we have SS losers today that ONLY exist because of SS.

But at least the individual has the freedom to choose!
You keep forgetting that. If you don't think you want to THEN DON"T choose the privatization.
BUT YOU are NOT the judge of ME. By forcing me to do what YOU want is undemocratic.
Let me or the individual that wants to choose Self directed SS/Medicare can do better.. LET ME CHOOSE that!

Somebody will have to bail out the losers. No thanks.

How about if your really rich and don't need ss you don't collect unless your wealth drops below some level? That should provide some extra money.

Yes you are absolutely right.. somebody will have to bail out the losers! NO question!
Tell me how many losers do you think would have to be bailed out???
You think now logically.. If a "loser" at age 25 was able to put away (NOT TOUCH by the way... can't withdraw...) their contributions.
They over 20 years invest at 25 in venture funds,speculative,etc... they still will have a 9% gain...)
So how many losers ????

Also your point about very rich getting SS YOU'RE right!
But again we are talking about the majority of slubs like me that simply want a choice! Why should YOU make the decision about MY future?

How do you predict the future? Most will choose your new option but some won't. People on SS now are getting the money from people working now. Where does that money come from if all the young choose your new option?

 

[Borillar]

Much is made about 70 being the new 50,
70 is the new 50 in the Workforce | TIME.com

This means for people LIKE ME age 71 I am still very active in my business nearly as much as I was when I was 50!

So while I'm getting MINE.. i.e. social security I don't understand why especially younger people don't figure out that because there are more of people like me, i.e. living longer then what SS originally planned in the 1930s i.e. (I'd be dead by 65!) they need to fix this!
Because as more of us live longer and yet we have SS kicking in at 65. With more retired people at 65 getting SS there are fewer younger people paying in!

Solution..
A) Raise retirement age to 70 for all those people currently under age 50!
B) Give the younger people the chance to tell SS where to put their payments... privatize SS!

So by raising the age we have more people paying in for those younger people when they retire at 70!
But more importantly IF NOT mandatory BUT IF the young employee wants to invest say at 25 their SS/Medicare payments into
the wild and risky stock market for 20 years then the next 20 switch a portion to more secure investments and then last 20 years
into totally secured risk free investments.. this 25 year old would have base on average starting salary of $30,000 with increases
in income over the 60 years would have nearly $1 million that is solely under the young worker control!
So at age 70 getting ready to retire this young (now old retiree) has money set aside MORE then traditional SS would pay.
Also with $1 million the health care costs would be taken care of with no need for medicare!

AND AGAIN NO one would be forced to participate in the privatized SS... you want traditional more power!
Two solutions that would solve the "safety net" destruction that is ahead!

Leave SS alone. If you want to gamble on the stock market, horse races, or local casino, then go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. Even if you are getting SS, you can turn right around and spend it on stocks, lotto tickets, or place it on Lucky Dan at Santa Anita in the 5th race.

Of course, given the choice between $1,000,000.00 in the bank or a monthly SS stipend, most folks would pick the million dollars. There is no guarantee that you would ever make that kind of money though.

 

[Toro]

Much is made about 70 being the new 50,
70 is the new 50 in the Workforce | TIME.com

This means for people LIKE ME age 71 I am still very active in my business nearly as much as I was when I was 50!

So while I'm getting MINE.. i.e. social security I don't understand why especially younger people don't figure out that because there are more of people like me, i.e. living longer then what SS originally planned in the 1930s i.e. (I'd be dead by 65!) they need to fix this!
Because as more of us live longer and yet we have SS kicking in at 65. With more retired people at 65 getting SS there are fewer younger people paying in!

Solution..
A) Raise retirement age to 70 for all those people currently under age 50!
B) Give the younger people the chance to tell SS where to put their payments... privatize SS!

So by raising the age we have more people paying in for those younger people when they retire at 70!
But more importantly IF NOT mandatory BUT IF the young employee wants to invest say at 25 their SS/Medicare payments into
the wild and risky stock market for 20 years then the next 20 switch a portion to more secure investments and then last 20 years
into totally secured risk free investments.. this 25 year old would have base on average starting salary of $30,000 with increases
in income over the 60 years would have nearly $1 million that is solely under the young worker control!
So at age 70 getting ready to retire this young (now old retiree) has money set aside MORE then traditional SS would pay.
Also with $1 million the health care costs would be taken care of with no need for medicare!

AND AGAIN NO one would be forced to participate in the privatized SS... you want traditional more power!
Two solutions that would solve the "safety net" destruction that is ahead!

I would agree with all those except I'd still make it mandatory.

People simply do not save enough. They wouldn't save their FICA taxes. They'd spend it. And they'd wind up on government assistance when they're old anyways.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Take the checks. It has a terrific return if you live that long. You'll get back much more than you paid in.

It's a black hole. I have paid into that Ponzi scheme for years and will collect NOTHING.

Why will you collect nothing? Are you planning on dying before you are eligible?

Yes. I will not live to 65. No male in my family has for (at least) nine generations. In addition, early-onset dementia runs in my family.

 

[Brain357]

NO SHIT! GEEZ so why penalize ALL of us that ARE good and the MAJORITY of Americans ARE..
We have SS for those few that AREN'T good and AS I've constantly pointed out!
It is NOT for EVERYONE but at least GIVE EVERYONE the choice!
Frankly you obviously are a womb to tomb take care of me person.
Feed a person a fish a day rather then teach the person to fish and feed for a lifetime!
YOU like most phony "compassionate" people are actually hurting people by simply feeding NOT teaching!

You honestly believe the majority of people MUST be fed and NOT teach the majority to feed themselves!
Is that correct?

Because again reading closer instead of jumping to conclusions the suggestion that MOST of us truly compassionate people make is
that people be given a CHOICE! Those of us truly compassionate people KNOW there are a few that will need help BUT what better way
to help the unfortunate then the Majority having their OWN money and then time to help the less fortunate RATHER then looking to the government for womb to tomb.. how absolutely dismal your paternalistic path looks to people that want to make their own decisions!

When people make your choice and lose we will have to bail them out.

Don't bail them out. [/thread]

Then we have homeless seniors. Not going to happen.

 

[Toro]

Much is made about 70 being the new 50,
70 is the new 50 in the Workforce | TIME.com

This means for people LIKE ME age 71 I am still very active in my business nearly as much as I was when I was 50!

So while I'm getting MINE.. i.e. social security I don't understand why especially younger people don't figure out that because there are more of people like me, i.e. living longer then what SS originally planned in the 1930s i.e. (I'd be dead by 65!) they need to fix this!
Because as more of us live longer and yet we have SS kicking in at 65. With more retired people at 65 getting SS there are fewer younger people paying in!

Solution..
A) Raise retirement age to 70 for all those people currently under age 50!
B) Give the younger people the chance to tell SS where to put their payments... privatize SS!

So by raising the age we have more people paying in for those younger people when they retire at 70!
But more importantly IF NOT mandatory BUT IF the young employee wants to invest say at 25 their SS/Medicare payments into
the wild and risky stock market for 20 years then the next 20 switch a portion to more secure investments and then last 20 years
into totally secured risk free investments.. this 25 year old would have base on average starting salary of $30,000 with increases
in income over the 60 years would have nearly $1 million that is solely under the young worker control!
So at age 70 getting ready to retire this young (now old retiree) has money set aside MORE then traditional SS would pay.
Also with $1 million the health care costs would be taken care of with no need for medicare!

AND AGAIN NO one would be forced to participate in the privatized SS... you want traditional more power!
Two solutions that would solve the "safety net" destruction that is ahead!

Leave SS alone. If you want to gamble on the stock market, horse races, or local casino, then go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. Even if you are getting SS, you can turn right around and spend it on stocks, lotto tickets, or place it on Lucky Dan at Santa Anita in the 5th race.

Of course, given the choice between $1,000,000.00 in the bank or a monthly SS stipend, most folks would pick the million dollars. There is no guarantee that you would ever make that kind of money though.

The stock market isn't gambling. Almost all pension funds are invested in stocks. SS should be as well.

 

[auditor0007]

Take the checks. It has a terrific return if you live that long. You'll get back much more than you paid in.

Horse shit.. you get a better return on a crappy savings or money market account... and you can pass on the leftovers

If you pay the maximum into SS then you will not get back more than you put in, but most Americans never come close to putting in the maximum, so they make out just fine and they don't have to worry whether the money will be there or not. As much as some people worry that they won't get their SS when they retire, the fact is that unless the entire federal government collapses, SS will be there for everyone.

 

[g5000]

This is assuming of course that the corporations running the privatized social security scam don't make shitty investments that end up crashing the entire global economy in which the young worker is totally fucked and the CEO who fucked him gets a multi-million dollar bonus.

AGAIN you don't read very well do you??
The privatized SS DON"T do the investments! YOU do. YOU are at fault.

You think the people who watch Jersey Shore or who think Sarah Palin is a political genius are capable of understanding the ripoff schemes that would sprout up like weeds if SS was privatized?

I think you are the one being stupid.

 

[g5000]

This is assuming of course that the corporations running the privatized social security scam don't make shitty investments that end up crashing the entire global economy in which the young worker is totally fucked and the CEO who fucked him gets a multi-million dollar bonus.

This.

 

[g5000]

Drive around your town. Look at all your white middle class neighbors who bought Disney vacations, boats, SUVs, and plasma TV with HELOCs and who ended up foreclosing their homes. Of those who managed to survive, look at all your other white middle class neighbors who are still underwater on their mortgages.

These people are going to wisely invest, and won't just spend the extra cash they have available to invest?

 

[g5000]

Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and index to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors who instituted Social Security, we should be working longer than they did.

 

[auditor0007]

Much is made about 70 being the new 50,
70 is the new 50 in the Workforce | TIME.com

This means for people LIKE ME age 71 I am still very active in my business nearly as much as I was when I was 50!

So while I'm getting MINE.. i.e. social security I don't understand why especially younger people don't figure out that because there are more of people like me, i.e. living longer then what SS originally planned in the 1930s i.e. (I'd be dead by 65!) they need to fix this!
Because as more of us live longer and yet we have SS kicking in at 65. With more retired people at 65 getting SS there are fewer younger people paying in!

Solution..
A) Raise retirement age to 70 for all those people currently under age 50!
B) Give the younger people the chance to tell SS where to put their payments... privatize SS!

So by raising the age we have more people paying in for those younger people when they retire at 70!
But more importantly IF NOT mandatory BUT IF the young employee wants to invest say at 25 their SS/Medicare payments into
the wild and risky stock market for 20 years then the next 20 switch a portion to more secure investments and then last 20 years
into totally secured risk free investments.. this 25 year old would have base on average starting salary of $30,000 with increases
in income over the 60 years would have nearly $1 million that is solely under the young worker control!
So at age 70 getting ready to retire this young (now old retiree) has money set aside MORE then traditional SS would pay.
Also with $1 million the health care costs would be taken care of with no need for medicare!

AND AGAIN NO one would be forced to participate in the privatized SS... you want traditional more power!
Two solutions that would solve the "safety net" destruction that is ahead!

Leave SS alone. If you want to gamble on the stock market, horse races, or local casino, then go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. Even if you are getting SS, you can turn right around and spend it on stocks, lotto tickets, or place it on Lucky Dan at Santa Anita in the 5th race.

Of course, given the choice between $1,000,000.00 in the bank or a monthly SS stipend, most folks would pick the million dollars. There is no guarantee that you would ever make that kind of money though.

The stock market isn't gambling. Almost all pension funds are invested in stocks. SS should be as well.

If we began adding $1 trillion per year to the stock markets, what effect would that have on them?

 

[g5000]

For anyone who thinks privatizing Social Security would be a good idea, I have some waterfront inverse floater bonds in Florida I would like to sell you.

 

[bendog]

Leave SS alone. If you want to gamble on the stock market, horse races, or local casino, then go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. Even if you are getting SS, you can turn right around and spend it on stocks, lotto tickets, or place it on Lucky Dan at Santa Anita in the 5th race.

Of course, given the choice between $1,000,000.00 in the bank or a monthly SS stipend, most folks would pick the million dollars. There is no guarantee that you would ever make that kind of money though.

The stock market isn't gambling. Almost all pension funds are invested in stocks. SS should be as well.

If we began adding $1 trillion per year to the stock markets, what effect would that have on them?

Exactly. At one time, back around 1999 or 2000, back before W gave away the surplus, there was some thought that if we let money not go into the trust fund and instead let it go into a pool of balanced, diversified accounts with things like a mix of global economies, metals, commodities .... REAL ESTATE ... nobody would actually lose any money, though the double diget returns were the stuff of con artists ......

And then Real Estate turned out to be an investment where bankers didn't have actual capital to back up the risk.

 

[Toro]

Leave SS alone. If you want to gamble on the stock market, horse races, or local casino, then go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. Even if you are getting SS, you can turn right around and spend it on stocks, lotto tickets, or place it on Lucky Dan at Santa Anita in the 5th race.

Of course, given the choice between $1,000,000.00 in the bank or a monthly SS stipend, most folks would pick the million dollars. There is no guarantee that you would ever make that kind of money though.

The stock market isn't gambling. Almost all pension funds are invested in stocks. SS should be as well.

If we began adding $1 trillion per year to the stock markets, what effect would that have on them?

We wouldn't be adding $1 trillion a year.

 

[g5000]

Leave SS alone. If you want to gamble on the stock market, horse races, or local casino, then go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. Even if you are getting SS, you can turn right around and spend it on stocks, lotto tickets, or place it on Lucky Dan at Santa Anita in the 5th race.

Of course, given the choice between $1,000,000.00 in the bank or a monthly SS stipend, most folks would pick the million dollars. There is no guarantee that you would ever make that kind of money though.

The stock market isn't gambling. Almost all pension funds are invested in stocks. SS should be as well.

If we began adding $1 trillion per year to the stock markets, what effect would that have on them?

If you put a trillion dollars into CDOs in the early to mid 2000s, what effect would that have had?

Oh, yeah. We all know what effect that had.

 

[Borillar]

Much is made about 70 being the new 50,
70 is the new 50 in the Workforce | TIME.com

This means for people LIKE ME age 71 I am still very active in my business nearly as much as I was when I was 50!

So while I'm getting MINE.. i.e. social security I don't understand why especially younger people don't figure out that because there are more of people like me, i.e. living longer then what SS originally planned in the 1930s i.e. (I'd be dead by 65!) they need to fix this!
Because as more of us live longer and yet we have SS kicking in at 65. With more retired people at 65 getting SS there are fewer younger people paying in!

Solution..
A) Raise retirement age to 70 for all those people currently under age 50!
B) Give the younger people the chance to tell SS where to put their payments... privatize SS!

So by raising the age we have more people paying in for those younger people when they retire at 70!
But more importantly IF NOT mandatory BUT IF the young employee wants to invest say at 25 their SS/Medicare payments into
the wild and risky stock market for 20 years then the next 20 switch a portion to more secure investments and then last 20 years
into totally secured risk free investments.. this 25 year old would have base on average starting salary of $30,000 with increases
in income over the 60 years would have nearly $1 million that is solely under the young worker control!
So at age 70 getting ready to retire this young (now old retiree) has money set aside MORE then traditional SS would pay.
Also with $1 million the health care costs would be taken care of with no need for medicare!

AND AGAIN NO one would be forced to participate in the privatized SS... you want traditional more power!
Two solutions that would solve the "safety net" destruction that is ahead!

Leave SS alone. If you want to gamble on the stock market, horse races, or local casino, then go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. Even if you are getting SS, you can turn right around and spend it on stocks, lotto tickets, or place it on Lucky Dan at Santa Anita in the 5th race.

Of course, given the choice between $1,000,000.00 in the bank or a monthly SS stipend, most folks would pick the million dollars. There is no guarantee that you would ever make that kind of money though.

The stock market isn't gambling. Almost all pension funds are invested in stocks. SS should be as well.

And nobody is preventing you from investing in stocks.