This is the cliche thinking that I addressed in the article. The Trustees reports say that Social Security isn't excellent or top-notch. They say it is in need of immediate reform. Do you think that they are liars? Do you have any data to support your claim? If you are going to criticize privatizing Social Security you need to elevate your reasoning.
You are repeating the worst and most tired of the cliches. #1 suggests that there is market risk. Well with all of the downs in the stock market the market has outperformed the investment policy of Social Security 50 to 1. The idea of talking about market risk, when the system has a 100% asset concentration in a single security is laughable.
I give you a hard time because the subject deserves more thought than this.
After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund asset reserves to the extent that program cost exceeds tax revenue and interest earnings until depletion of total trust fund reserves in 2033, the same year projected in last year’s Trustees Report. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2087.
You are repeating the worst and most tired of the cliches. #1 suggests that there is market risk. Well with all of the downs in the stock market the market has outperformed the investment policy of Social Security 50 to 1. The idea of talking about market risk, when the system has a 100% asset concentration in a single security is laughable.
1 sticking my money in a acount and getting less than 1% intrest would be a better ROI than SS. In fact you can suff your money in a shoe box in your closet and still get a better ROI than SS.
2 wasn't talking about brokers was talking about using the inernet and the tools it has spinner to make your own investment decisions that's what my fater stater doing 10 years ago and that's what I'm starting to do.
3 it wasn't sold to the American people as insurance so why should I think of it that way. Also since congress can change the terms of your pay out after you've joined it's really not insurance either.
I imagine most people who elect SS at 62 didn't have much of an option.
1. Depends on how much you make.. the truth is.. if you live longer than your making years... you will NOT even come close to getting a better ROI sticking it in an account... in fact.. you will come out WAY better with social security. Simple fact.
Lets interject some facts. Yep.. social security is in need of reform. that makes sense... tell me any other insurance program that can operate for 70 years without changes? the fact is that social security is solvent for decades at current levels. The reason to act now is that it will have less effect NOW than if we wait until there is a problem. The fact is that WITH NO CHANGES.. the trust fund lasts until 2033 and after that tax income alone will pay for 2/3 benefit until 2087!
The fact is that WITH NO CHANGES.. the trust fund lasts until 2033 and after that tax income alone will pay for 2/3 benefit until 2087!
It's still just semantics. You can call it a safety net and I can call it a retirement account but it will still be whatever it is. It's money you can access when you reach a certain age, nothing more
Well and that's the issue.. there is nothing to prevent congress from down the road pushing vehicles that become speculative. They have already proven that they can't manage the countries finances.. I don't think it makes sense to turn them loose deciding what investments I can or not make. The fact is that despite an inept Congress.. social security has been racking up surpluses for decades and is solvent for decades and up to 2087 on 2/3 benefit without changes. That's a pretty dang successful program by any fiscal measure.Did I say anything about congress keeping its hands off it? That was the poster I responded to, not me. I said that congress could limit the types of investment vehicles allowee to keep these accounts from going speculative
And where would you get the cash for this bonanza? It is unrealistic to suggest that you can make those 64 and older whole. Now you want to give cash to everyone.
Trustees Report Summary
That's the Trustees report. Are they liars? Do you have any data to support your claim? do you have any data to support the idea that if we privatize social security that everyone would do better than the current system?
Who says I am giving cash to everyone? A person who fully divests from Social Security will have paid 10+ years in and get 0 out.
Social security is a safety net based on an insurance model. That's that only way it can work as a safety net.
Your idea of facts and Webster's seem to have a difference. The Social Security Administration do not say that you will come out better, much less way better. They say on average he is losing money in the system.
If you have any documentation on your statement please share it with us.
•Social Security provided at least half the income for 65 percent of the aged beneficiaries in 2010
The Social Security debate contains a lot of noise, where people argue in great earnest with the worst of cliches. Arguments are repeated over and over until people accept them out of volume rather than reason.
The idea to privatize Social Security deserves more consideration than it gets from either side. Opponents - with a straight face - will warn you about the risk of the stock market, when the money today sits in a system that is insolvent by any measure of the insurance industry. Proponents - with equal ardor - will promise you that a privatized Social Security system would create a pool of capital on which the economy will grow as though Social Security would be a magical money tree.
Before we replace, the eggs with sausage, someone should ask why is it that a new Social Security will perform the job of accumulating wealth better than the savings programs that we already have, and already subsidized. Virtually every American has access to personal savings accounts. They may be 401Ks, IRAs, brokerage accounts. If savings accounts with tax incentives are not getting the job done, how is throwing more money at them going to work any better?
Um....no, not magic...investment.
My facts are right... how about you come to my clinic and explain it to may 23 year old paraplegic patient how he is going to do worse, now that he is getting his social security.
Then you can explain it to my 95 year old patient that's been retired for thirty years (after being a manual laborer) and now is only living on social security as he has played out all other investments. You explain to him how he would be better off with the money that he sent to social security.
Now.. if the 23 year old dies at 65.. yeah.. he is going to lose money on average.
And here is a funny thing... its because on AVERAGE you lose money on the deal.. why it pays for itself. If we were all making money on the deal,, and all getting back more than we put in.. then it would not run a surplus would it. That's why its insurance, that's why its a safety net.
but the facts are that
Now.. for guys like me.. its probably a losing proposition.. UNLESS I get disabled or a myriad of other things that can happen in ones lifetime.
Invest what? Social Security has about 2.7 trillion in cash and about 26 trillion of liabilities held against that reserve. It is magic if you think you will generate 23 trillion in wealth.
You do not even understand what you are quoting in all CAPs no less. Social Security was insolvent in 1983, so let's not pretend that it hasn't had massive changes already.
The Trustees information that you have quoted isn't a prediction much less a guarantee. They say that in A GOOD ECONOMY Social Security might be able to pay full benefits until 2033.
If you had read the document that you are quoting you would have found on page 58, it says that the system might also be dry in 2027.
The Trustees have provided this information as a warning not a guarantee of success.
We don't have any facts. We have your word. The Urban Institute says that you are wrong, and so does the SSA's moneys-worths studies.
Of course they measure the return on insurance correctly, which includes the possibility of getting nothing.
Everyone will leave. So how will you pay the existing retirees?
Age 46 to 65 would be excluded from the divestment. Twenty somethings are on the low end of the earning spectrum so the actual hit to SS in year one would be 3% or less even if there is a 100% buy in from everyone eligible, but likely that would be a lot less.
Any short fall that can't be covered by minor adjustments to benefits can be explained to the recipients that we already spent that money on them when they raided the trust fund.
What is the unfunded liability of the DoD? You see, when it's convenient using accrual accounting versus cash accounting principles the argument can go in many different directions...
Fix the devaluation in respect to social Security and ONLY to Social Security, and you fix SS forever![/B]
It's easy to do. Interest to Social security bonds should be the current T-bill rate PLUS the inflation rate experience over previous 10 years. Still not toatally recuperative, but it would save Social security, and THAT would be fair!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?