Expand Social Security

[faithful_servant]

It's your choice but if you're implying it's unreliable you're wrong.




Wrong on both counts. The article explains why. The alternatives are shown to be unreliable.

Not all of the alternatives are unreliable. There have always been investments that are considered ultra-low risk.

We could do a phased reduction in how SSI works that would provide all the benefits of SSI plus granting a lot of additional benefits (New SSI or NSSI). Over the next 20 years or so, gradually move from our SSI payments going to the gov't to having them go to a set of NSSI funds that have been classified as being ultra-low risk. The return would be less than what most investors would find acceptable, but the ultra-low risk aspect is what we're pursuing. Those funds would be required to be American owned, so that we control those monies and not a foreign body (a matter of nat'l security to avoid having those funds used as an economic weapon against us). The earnings from those investments gets taxed at a few percent to pay for those who are indigent. The investment fund would be inheritable as long as it was rolled over into the heirs own NSSI account. These accounts would have a cap on them that once reached would allow people to put their NSSI payments into a more flexible set of funds with higher returns, but also accepting higher risks, but still American owned (with an increased tax rate on the returns). This provides funds for economic growth for the US, takes away the gov't's ability to use SSI monies as a way to shuffle around money and spend money we don't have. It provides the safety net that's needed and allows people to keep control of their money. Over the long term this kind of program would eventually grow to a point where the rollover from one generation to the next would provide most of the monies that go into the NSSI.

 

[Joe Steel]

... It is structured as a Ponzi Scheme ...

That's just not so. Ponzi schemes rely on fraud. They misrepresent their true nature. SS never has done that. It doesn't promise inordinate returns. It promises a benefit in return for a premium. That's how insurance works.

 

[Joe Steel]

we have a right to say no as well. you seem to think this is a one way street.

Of course we can say no but that would be foolish. SS has proven to be immensely successful. Americans love it. Only ideological extremists don't.

 

[joG]

That's just not so. Ponzi schemes rely on fraud. They misrepresent their true nature. SS never has done that. It doesn't promise inordinate returns. It promises a benefit in return for a premium. That's how insurance works.

It is true that Ponzi Schemes can rely on fraud. But that is not the defining moment.

PS: it is rather recent that ussc has been public about the payments not being guaranteed. This is even now not at all well understood by those forced to pay.

 

[Joe Steel]

Not all of the alternatives are unreliable. There have always been investments that are considered ultra-low risk.

All investments are subject to risk. That's why they earn money. SS isn't subject to any risk except political risk and we can control that.

 

[natsb]

All investments are subject to risk. That's why they earn money. SS isn't subject to any risk except political risk and we can control that.

SS is subject to financial risk. It is self funding. So when it runs low on money, benifits wil be cut.

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk

 

[ludin]

Of course we can say no but that would be foolish. SS has proven to be immensely successful. Americans love it. Only ideological extremists don't.

People like it because they don't realize they are getting ripped off. if people realized they were getting ripped off they wouldn't like it so much.
again SS will run out of funds by 2035. you want to expand it making it run out faster.

again great for those that are pulling out of the system. bad for people like me that are paying into it with no hope of recovering my so called investment.
so much for great success.

Ponzi scheme's rarely are successful and SS is proving that true once again.

 

[ludin]

SS is subject to financial risk. It is self funding. So when it runs low on money, benifits wil be cut.

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk

it isn't even self funding. it is highly dependent on more people paying in than taking out.

 

[ludin]

That's just not so. Ponzi schemes rely on fraud. They misrepresent their true nature. SS never has done that. It doesn't promise inordinate returns. It promises a benefit in return for a premium. That's how insurance works.

no it isn't insurance. lol it is an investment. and for investing in it the federal government says that you will be paid by other new investors basically.
that is 100% a Ponzi scheme. SS is highly dependent on new investors and investors that will be paying more money into it
than the old investors pulling out.

 

[TurtleDude]

There is another that is a little better.

Better individual planning and self control.

such thinking is anathema to those who want to live as perms-children and who outsource all responsibilities to the government

why be responsible and save for your future when you can suck on the public tit the rest of your life

 

[natsb]

it isn't even self funding. it is highly dependent on more people paying in than taking out.

Very true. I should have been more clear. It relies only on SS taxes and cannot pull funding from the general fund when its ledger runs dry. Therefore, when the people paying in can't pay enough to cover the benefits paid out, the benefits will get cut.

 

[code1211]

For the average worker, 401(k)s are poor retirement funding choices. Self-directed 401(k)s require too much management by persons who are not qualified to do so. Consider the average administrative worker. He might be capable at his job, reporting sales or developing marketing plans, but that doesn't make him a competent investor. Of course, he could pay a fee to the fiduciary but that would lower his return. Then there's the problem of market risk. A worker planning to retire has to base his planning on the uncertain state of the market. Those who retired just before the 2008 crash may have had to liquidate their investments at far below the value they needed to ensure a comfortable retirement. Social Security would have mitigated their distress but without it they would have been in trouble.

Where I work, the investment options are pretty easy to understand.

They are labeled by year with increasing risk and reward as the number increase.

I intend to retire in about 3 years, so my plan is the 2020 Plan. If a guy was 20 years old, his plan choice could be the 2065 plan.

For his needs and for the recovery time available, that is a pretty good choice. For me, the investment choices are just a little riskier than putting the cash in a mattress.

Not much to figure out with that. Also, I am contributing 15% to my 401K plus the roughly 12.5% that the feds are siphoning off. My employer is matching my contributions at the rate of 10% of my contributions. All in all, I am contributing through my work about 29% of my current income.

The part that is hard cash and that I can have and hold and bequeath is the part that goes to the 401K. The part the Government is taking will vaporize if I happen to die early.

The part that comes from the 401K will be bequeathed to my heirs and will finance the clearance of debt, education, house purchase; anything that is required. The SS vaporizing funds will only disappear.

One allows a subsistence stipend for the poverty stricken while the other is a huge wealth generating machine.

 

[code1211]

His heirs would have been a few thousand dollar better-off at best. Most poverty level workers have no way to fund a 401(k).

You have missed the point entirely.

Right now, every worker is contributing 12.5% of his income to the SS Fund. Let's assume that the guy earns only $20,000/year for his entire career, and that his career had to start when he was 18 years old and lasted until he was 65.

In cash, he will invested in cash more than $117,000.00.

Einstein said the most powerful force in the Universe is compound interest. I'm given to believe that Einstein was smart.

Here's one example of how an investment with continuous contributions will grow over time:

https://www.jaxmetro.org/calc/fv_multi.html


Plug in the 2500 initial investment at Age 18 and add another 2500 over the 47 year career ay only 3% and the outcome is over 2 million dollars. $20,000 x 12.5% = 2500.

What happens for this person's family if he dies at age 66 and this is bequeathed? This is a wealth generator.

 

[code1211]

such thinking is anathema to those who want to live as perms-children and who outsource all responsibilities to the government

why be responsible and save for your future when you can suck on the public tit the rest of your life

It is funny how people think.

At a $20,000 income, contributing the 12.5% taken by SS to a 401K that returns ONLY 3%, the outcome is more than 2 million dollars in 47 years of contribution.

If the same money is given to SS, it will provide a subsistence income to the poverty ridden guy who worked his whole life.

If he dies on the day he retires, his heirs get $400 to bury him. If he has the 401K result, his heirs get more than 2 Million dollars.

It's an astonishing difference and an astonishing improvement if we just get government out of the equation which is there only to add these funds to the general fund and help to steal cash from the public in yet another way.

 

[TurtleDude]

It is funny how people think.

At a $20,000 income, contributing the 12.5% taken by SS to a 401K that returns ONLY 3%, the outcome is more than 2 million dollars in 47 years of contribution.

If the same money is given to SS, it will provide a subsistence income to the poverty ridden guy who worked his whole life.

If he dies on the day he retires, his heirs get $400 to bury him. If he has the 401K result, his heirs get more than 2 Million dollars.

It's an astonishing difference and an astonishing improvement if we just get government out of the equation which is there only to add these funds to the general fund and help to steal cash from the public in yet another way.

the problem is-lots of people will blow the money on smokes or sweets, booze or blow jobs rather than putting it in a 401K. But I suspect if there was no social security, people would be a bit more careful. Darwinian tough love has its merits

 

[ludin]

Very true. I should have been more clear. It relies only on SS taxes and cannot pull funding from the general fund when its ledger runs dry. Therefore, when the people paying in can't pay enough to cover the benefits paid out, the benefits will get cut.

that is right. the SS can cut payments by 25%.
horrible ROI.

 

[code1211]

the problem is-lots of people will blow the money on smokes or sweets, booze or blow jobs rather than putting it in a 401K. But I suspect if there was no social security, people would be a bit more careful. Darwinian tough love has its merits

Well, in my little assumption, the monies are still diverted from the worker before the worker has a chance to spend them. The employer part of the contribution and the Employee part of the contribution both go to the IRA style retirement fund.

Also, for the purposes of my little dream scheme, the 401K style retirement is not open to any type of early withdrawal for all of the buy a house, improve your home, college tuition or so forth.

Traditional IRA's could still be used and these would afford those other uses.