Obama (aka whiner) treated like a dog?

[apple0154]

Apple has been reduced to moronic babbling.

7% this, 7% that. No concept at all what has been proposed or what it means. Taking things away from the government is wrong in Apples world. Government is mommy, and Apple needs to be tucked in at night with a nigh nigh story that always end happily ever after.

Obviously this discussion has become too complex for you. That 7% which is so mysterious to you was a figure mentioned a while back as a portion of SS contributions one should be permitted to invest privately. If people cut their contributions to government (SS) by 7% when the government already has a problem paying benefits what will happen? Is that too tough a question?

If people invest under laws that means they leave those investments in place, they will have more money for their own retirement. That means the SS system will be burdened less. SS can actually decrease benefits without harming the beneficiary because they also have income derived from the investments. That mean less payment from SS, which in turn means the system can run longer without resorting to the typical "lets fix it all by taxing people more" liberal answer to fiscal problems. But it does NOT mean less for the retiree because they are also deriving income from the invested portion of their SS contributions.

One more time. That's assuming the investments people make turn out well. If SS will be able to pay out less because people will have an income from their private investments are you suggesting SS will pay out more to those whose investments did not turn out well?

If so, great. If not, then you're right back to why SS was implemented. People didn't have money when they retired or after their "working years".

You can spin it any way you want. The bottom line is people have to have money to live on when they retire. That was the purpose of SS. Furthermore, the argument that the country/government can't afford it is nonsense. Virtually every other industrialized country has an "old age" plan just like they have a medical plan.

As for the rest of FICA taxes, they should also be invested. Right now they are "invested" in t-bills, which means the government gets to play hide-the-deficit bookkeeping while spending FICA taxes and filling the SS trust fund with IOUs. Not only that, but IF we ever pay off those IOUs, the interest T-bills garner is paid by the U.S. tax payer - another fiscal burden we do not need. Invested in the private markets means no general tax money is used to bolster the fund, it will generate a far better ROI, it is the high-end definition of long term investment so short term panics and downturns will not affect its ability to pay in the long run. Set it up like a corporate pension fund, only with hard line, steel-reinforced-brick-wall protections against invading the fund for any reason outside of SS payments. A trillion dollar fund making an average 7-8% annual ROI compounded will rapidly reach the point of being what SS was supposed to be from the beginning: a self-sustaining retirement assurance fund. We could lower contributions allowing people to keep more of their paycheck while simultaneously guaranteeing them better long term benefits when they reach retirement age.

Well, the whole idea is to prevent the government from using the money so I agree with protections against raiding the fund. But let's not forget there have been corporate pension plans that have gone to dust. Enron comes to mind. Remember them? How do those former employees/investors get their retirement money back? Answer: they don't and that's the problem in a nut shell.

As for the government being a "nanny" Enron was just as much a "nanny" as the government is. Just because some one or "entity" looks after things does not mean they're a nanny. Is your auto mechanic a nanny? Your doctor? Lawyer?

People buy home and life insurance. Are those companies nannies? SS is an insurance policy against poverty in old age. While some life insurance policies are considered investments they are a very poor form of investment. So is SS. Neither life insurance nor SS are primarily investment vehicles. SS guarantees a minimum level of income for all retirees. What one pays in is the minimum. Any cut in contributions to the government has to result in a cut in benefits. So, we're right back to square one. What happens to those whose private investments crash?

 

[apple0154]

Because the government does not HAVE to pay that portion out. The laws, as proposed, would require the person to invest the money in some type of conservative private retirement account - a government mandated IRA. When retirement time comes, SS pays out its portion, and the SS/IRA portion pays out its portion. Burden on the SS fund is lowered by more than 7%, while the IRA-type portion would end up paying out MORE than 7%. Government wins because burden on SS would be diminished by more than they would lose in revenues, and the retiree wins because they would gain more from the invested portion than they would lose from lowered SS payments.

If....IF the companies people invest in do well.

As I noted in a prior post ask someone who worked at Enron. They'll explain it to you.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

If....IF the companies people invest in do well.

As I noted in a prior post ask someone who worked at Enron. They'll explain it to you.

and AGAIN... someone needs to explain it to YOU....

NO ONE IS SUGGESTING PEOPLE INVEST IN INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES.... NO ONE.

That is simply YOUR FEAR MONGERING.

 

[apple0154]

what you continue to fail to grasp is that we are NOT talking about changing the fact that people pay into SS. Most of the money would still be invested in treasuries.

The government having access to the money, being able to change the rules of the program whenever they fuck up, raising the retirement age, lowering benefits, raising taxes.... that is NOT more secure than individuals having control of the money.

Let's wait and see what transpires concerning raising the retirement age or cutting benefits before yelling "Fire". As for raising taxes I don't see that effecting a retiree living strictly on SS.

Why change the rules allowing private investment when other rules can be changed? The idea is to keep SS and improve it, not whittle away at it. Keep it simple.

 

[apple0154]

and AGAIN... someone needs to explain it to YOU....

NO ONE IS SUGGESTING PEOPLE INVEST IN INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES.... NO ONE.

That is simply YOUR FEAR MONGERING.

The point is why complicate things? If changes are to be made make the changes that are required such as preventing the government from using the money. That would be a lot simpler than having two forms of investment and a certain percentage for each.

On that note I have to go. Viewing at a funeral home. By contrast it makes this discussion most enjoyable.

 

[Timshel]

I was addressing a poster's concerns about depending on the government when the deficit is so high. My point is investing in the government, paying into SS, is definitely more secure than investing in any company.

Not at the returns SS promises in the future.

 

[apple0154]

Not at the returns SS promises in the future.

SS can honor it's commitments.

 

[Timshel]

SS can honor it's commitments.

What commitments? SS will continue because it makes no real commitments and can continue to reduce benefits. Without reform it will have to decrease benefits and/or increase premiums. It will likely do both and promises a horrible returns for future generations.

You tell stories about how hard it would be for beneficiaries to survive on less, but without real reform that is the ONLY possible choice for all.

 

[apple0154]

What commitments? SS will continue because it makes no real commitments and can continue to reduce benefits. Without reform it will have to decrease benefits and/or increase premiums. It will likely do both and promises a horrible returns for future generations.

You tell stories about how hard it would be for beneficiaries to survive on less, but without real reform that is the ONLY possible choice for all.

When the boomers retire, say at 65, most will be dead in 20 years. Even those born today are expected to die before reaching 80.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...im=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+span+in+usa

That being the case the number of payouts will be considerably less later on so while there may be a temporary increase the necessary contributions will decrease over time.

As for commitments the government can reduce benefits but it can also maintain them if the population wishes which it most certainly will do considering the number of boomers (voters).

 

[cawacko]

When the boomers retire, say at 65, most will be dead in 20 years. Even those born today are expected to die before reaching 80.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...im=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+span+in+usa

That being the case the number of payouts will be considerably less later on so while there may be a temporary increase the necessary contributions will decrease over time.

As for commitments the government can reduce benefits but it can also maintain them if the population wishes which it most certainly will do considering the number of boomers (voters).

it's easy right because the governnment can just continue to print money like it grows on trees with no actual effect on the economy.

 

[hotdog]

Barack Obama are you a fascist? Are you a socialist, communist, feudalist, mercantilist?