Social Security - your thoughts?

[McDad]

The federal government can't afford an actual financially secure and prosperous middle class, how else would they scare people into compliance and voting for them.

Good to see you back on your meds. You're making some good points today.

 

[85SugarVol]

The difference is its not mandated.

You are having the federal government order people to invest in certain platforms, but you aren't guaranteeing their return.

My 401k does not guarantee a particular return, but I do it voluntarily.

You are already getting a negative return from SS though.

Do you know how many 30 year runs in the US Stock Market have produced a negative return?

 

[hog88]

Good to see you back on the your meds. You're making some good points today.

Got a few things off my plate.

 

[85SugarVol]

Thank you, SugarBalls.

Always sweet, never salty.

 

[InVOLuntary]

There's no quick fix for a problem that's festered for decades. You have to wean the public off over a long period of time. I would do a 40 year plan. Gradually remove people move people from SS to privatized investment accounts. As the folks on SS died off, less and less would be added to it.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Outside of privatizing SS everything else is just kicking the can down the road.

The trust fund going negative is what is drawing the attention.

So the options are to:

Reduce benefits by cutting amounts paid or by delaying participation ages.

Raising the TAX on workers and employers by increasing the 6.2% or by lifting the cap on high wages.

Fund the shortage by taking it out of the government’s general fund.

Or a combination of the 3.

Switching to a program without a trust fund and keeping the same revenue model and just paying out benefits from the current amounts collected reduces benefits by about a third.

The best solution is to grow the economy and employment and generate more revenue under the current set of rules. It’s political suicide to mess with any of the other options.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

There's no quick fix for a problem that's festered for decades. You have to wean the public off over a long period of time. I would do a 40 year plan. Gradually remove people move people from SS to privatized investment accounts. As the folks on SS died off, less and less would be added to it.

Or release deadly viruses on the population and not adjusting the tables to reflect the shorter average lifespans.

 

[85SugarVol]

There's no quick fix for a problem that's festered for decades. You have to wean the public off over a long period of time. I would do a 40 year plan. Gradually remove people move people from SS to privatized investment accounts. As the folks on SS died off, less and less would be added to it.

- Anyone under 15 gets moved automatically to the new system.
- Anyone under 50 can opt to the new system, but forfeits their SS “accruals”.
- Anyone over 50 rides it out, unaffected, in the existing system.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Or release deadly viruses on the population and not adjusting the tables to reflect the shorter average lifespans.

I thought it but didn't say it.

 

[InVOLuntary]

- Anyone under 15 gets moved automatically to the new system.
- Anyone under 50 can opt to the new system, but forfeits their SS “accruals”.
- Anyone over 50 rides it out, unaffected, in the existing system.

Now we're talking.

 

[hog88]

The trust fund going negative is what is drawing the attention.

So the options are to:

Reduce benefits by cutting amounts paid or by delaying participation ages.

Raising the TAX on workers and employers by increasing the 6.2% or by lifting the cap on high wages.

Fund the shortage by taking it out of the government’s general fund.

Or a combination of the 3.

Switching to a program without a trust fund and keeping the same revenue model and just paying out benefits from the current amounts collected reduces benefits by about a third.

The best solution is to grow the economy and employment and generate more revenue under the current set of rules. It’s political suicide to mess with any of the other options.

I agree that it's political suicide to even suggest privatization and that's an indication of the intelligence level of the average American. Or maybe just an example of successful brainwashing.

 

[RebKell]

 

[McDad]

- Anyone under 15 gets moved automatically to the new system.
- Anyone under 50 can opt to the new system, but forfeits their SS “accruals”.
- Anyone over 50 rides it out, unaffected, in the existing system.

Not sure if your ages work but the concept is viable.

 

[Vol737]

I thought it but didn't say it.

TGO doesn’t have a filter. That’s what I like about that guy. Fast ball down the middle with a strike.

 

[Vol737]

I agree that it's political suicide to even suggest privatization and that's an indication of the intelligence level of the average American. Or maybe just an example of successful brainwashing.

True on both counts.

 

[lawgator1]

You are already getting a negative return from SS though.

Do you know how many 30 year runs in the US Stock Market have produced a negative return?

For purposes of this discussion, you are comparing apples and elephants.

Let's say that starting in 2025 new people entering the work force contribute to a privatized investment platform rather than SS. And that another group does so in 2035.

In 2064, as that first group nears retirement, catastrophe strikes and all of their assets lose 60 percent of their value. Now, the second group may have time left to recover. But not the first group. The first group, the 2025 group, has their retirement nest eggs utterly cut in half, and just as they were to draw on it.

If you take all of the 30 year horizons over time do they recover? Sure. But there is a not insubstantial chance that when you retire and leave the work force your savings are severely diminished because you had the misfortune of bad timing.

 

[McDad]

For purposes of this discussion, you are comparing apples and elephants.

Let's say that starting in 2025 new people entering the work force contribute to a privatized investment platform rather than SS. And that another group does so in 2035.

In 2064, as that first group nears retirement, catastrophe strikes and all of their assets lose 60 percent of their value. Now, the second group may have time left to recover. But not the first group. The first group, the 2025 group, has their retirement nest eggs utterly cut in half, and just as they were to draw on it.

If you take all of the 30 year horizons over time do they recover? Sure. But there is a not insubstantial chance that when you retire and leave the work force your savings are severely diminished because you had the misfortune of bad timing.

Moronic positions. Unserious statements.

As a person ages, the prequalified investments can move from higher risk (like what you use with 401k) to lower risk vehicles.

What is a sufficient rate of return for you?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

What's really ashame is that we need SS at all. People should be responsible for their lives until they die. You can argue for or against it but we've made floor too comfortable. As Rush used to say, cradle to grave. I'm not advocating anything but a lot of people seem to be ok with a bare minimum existence.

SS was supposed to be a safety net. I can only imagine what a cluster **** 'medicare for all' (that Heels Up is fighting for) will be.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

For purposes of this discussion, you are comparing apples and elephants.

Let's say that starting in 2025 new people entering the work force contribute to a privatized investment platform rather than SS. And that another group does so in 2035.

In 2064, as that first group nears retirement, catastrophe strikes and all of their assets lose 60 percent of their value. Now, the second group may have time left to recover. But not the first group. The first group, the 2025 group, has their retirement nest eggs utterly cut in half, and just as they were to draw on it.

If you take all of the 30 year horizons over time do they recover? Sure. But there is a not insubstantial chance that when you retire and leave the work force your savings are severely diminished because you had the misfortune of bad timing.

Those plans should work like the lifetime funds do. As you near retirement, they move into insurance contracts and more stable investments like T bills. They shouldn't be investing in tech when you are turning 65. If this kind of investment vehicle is your ONLY retirement money source, it shouldn't be invested in anything remotely risky when you turn 50. It should be uber conservative.

 

[GroverCleveland]

For purposes of this discussion, you are comparing apples and elephants.

Let's say that starting in 2025 new people entering the work force contribute to a privatized investment platform rather than SS. And that another group does so in 2035.

In 2064, as that first group nears retirement, catastrophe strikes and all of their assets lose 60 percent of their value. Now, the second group may have time left to recover. But not the first group. The first group, the 2025 group, has their retirement nest eggs utterly cut in half, and just as they were to draw on it.

If you take all of the 30 year horizons over time do they recover? Sure. But there is a not insubstantial chance that when you retire and leave the work force your savings are severely diminished because you had the misfortune of bad timing.

Might want to read up on the experiences of, I believe, Galveston, TX city employees who were allowed to exit the ponzi scheme and instead invest their payroll deductions. They have done very, very well.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I agree. Even though Monty disagrees, everyone is currently "investing" in an organization which has 35T in immediate debt with no signs of slowing down. That sounds very risky to me.

Not when they can just create more out of thin air.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Hog, what's your point?

That government employees can participate in what is essentially a 401k? Ok, so can I.

That doesn't prove that privatizing SS means you can eliminate all risk.

What is it you are trying to achieve with a 'government' retirement vehicle? Are you trying to ensure that the participant won't starve? Pay his bills? Those bills can vary pretty widely. This is somewhat like the discussion on how the poor Gen Zers can't afford a house. Should the government retirement 401k (or whatever) provide subsistence income - enough to cover necessities of life, or should it provide more? Sometimes I have a hard time feeling sorry for folks who blew all their money while they were working only to cry in their soup about having to live on a fixed income. Sometimes. I know there are exceptions and I am not talking about that. My basic question is 'how much income should one expect from a forced retirement plan upon said retirement'?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

For investment returns to be guaranteed, that would resemble annuities that life insurance companies sell.

2008 says hi (only with Insurance companies)

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Is it just a coincidence that about 50% of workers pay zero federal taxes and getting 50% of votes will get politicians elected?

 

[hog88]

For purposes of this discussion, you are comparing apples and elephants.

Let's say that starting in 2025 new people entering the work force contribute to a privatized investment platform rather than SS. And that another group does so in 2035.

In 2064, as that first group nears retirement, catastrophe strikes and all of their assets lose 60 percent of their value. Now, the second group may have time left to recover. But not the first group. The first group, the 2025 group, has their retirement nest eggs utterly cut in half, and just as they were to draw on it.

If you take all of the 30 year horizons over time do they recover? Sure. But there is a not insubstantial chance that when you retire and leave the work force your savings are severely diminished because you had the misfortune of bad timing.

If I die at 65 I lose 100% of my "asset" by contributing to SS.

Plus what McDad said.