CBO: Social Security to run permanent deficits

Damn Yankee said:
Again, punishes people who made the right decisions, saved and worked hard. :palm:
Click to expand...
Only in the manner that you are "punished" when you don't make a claim on your car insurance even though you paid for the coverage. Make it an insurance program, not a retirement program.

I don't necessarily think this is the track we should take, only that it makes no sense to say that people are "punished" when they cannot make a claim against insurance for which they paid premiums.
 
I am planning to retire in about 6 years and will be 51 at the time. I will draw SS (it it is still available) when I can to subsidize my retirement. Like Topper, I am not counting SS as part of my retirement but if it is available I will start drawing it at the earliest opportunity.
 
leaningright said:
I am planning to retire in about 6 years and will be 51 at the time. I will draw SS (it it is still available) when I can to subsidize my retirement. Like Topper, I am not counting SS as part of my retirement but if it is available I will start drawing it at the earliest opportunity.
Click to expand...

They will not default on this obligation. It would be akin to defaulting on the debt. Check with your financial adviser (assuming they include SS in planning as they should) in terms of long term planning, for most individuals it pays to wait on SS.
 
SF if the difference is as great as you say I'll prob wait as I won't need it.
I do plan on consulting a professional first.
 
I'd love to see the #'s for what someone in my age bracket could expect in terms of returns at the time of retirement if the same amount I've been contributing to SS was allocated to a more privatized investment program, versus the paltry amount I'll likely get in SS when I retire, if anything.

That would be a very good pro-privatization argument, imo...
 
Topspin said:
SF if the difference is as great as you say I'll prob wait as I won't need it.
I do plan on consulting a professional first.
Click to expand...

The difference depends entirely on how long past age 78 you expect to live. If you are in good health at 60, you are most likely going to go past the break even point. Obviously we never know regarding accidental death, but even then it would benefit your wife in terms of the bene's she would receive.

The main reasons to take early:

1) poor health
2) you don't think SS will be there
3) you are not in a financial position to wait until age 70
 
Damocles said:
Only in the manner that you are "punished" when you don't make a claim on your car insurance even though you paid for the coverage. Make it an insurance program, not a retirement program.

I don't necessarily think this is the track we should take, only that it makes no sense to say that people are "punished" when they cannot make a claim against insurance for which they paid premiums.
Click to expand...

But its not an insurance program. If you save and invest wisely and amass a nice portfolio your "premium" doesn't go down. In fact if you work hard and make a higher salary your "premium" increases.

I don't see how your comparison or analogy applies at all.
 
A short time ago the congress had an opportunity to do something Reagan did six or seven times, raise taxes so as to cover the cost of our constitutional democracy. Did they do it, of course not, rhetorical nonsense has so invaded the minds of the corporate tools, say taxes and Pavlov's dog rises from the dead, salivates and says repeatedly 'hell no, you can't.' Think this is the video. PS Reagan also raised SS level.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpOUctySD68"]YouTube - No You Can't (Featuring John Boehner)[/ame]
 
Onceler said:
I'd love to see the #'s for what someone in my age bracket could expect in terms of returns at the time of retirement if the same amount I've been contributing to SS was allocated to a more privatized investment program, versus the paltry amount I'll likely get in SS when I retire, if anything.

That would be a very good pro-privatization argument, imo...
Click to expand...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p01s03-cogn.html

Markets are betting tables on another level. Good if you are lucky and can move quickly, not so good if you go in high or need to get out at the wrong time. 2008 proved that beyond a doubt.
 
Topspin said:
Midcan obviously isn't a serious investor.
Click to expand...

After the crash, so many privatization opponents came out with some variation of "See what will happen if we privatize! Seniors will lose everything!"

Crazy stuff. The returns over time would be amazing for not just seniors, but the economy in general. Privatization is such a no brainer...
 
Superfreak said:
Privatization means that the control of the money comes out of the hands of government and goes into the hands of the citizens.

In my opinion, we should have separate individual accounts with a few limited investment options.... Treasury bonds, Wilshire 5000 Index and maybe the EAFE Index (or some exposure to non-US markets)

The reason I say the left won't go for it, is because they have consistently fought against it in the past. They use exaggerations like 'if we had invested EVERYTHING in the market in late 2008, the money would be gone, thus privatization is bad'.
Click to expand...




...or they could give me my damn money back and let ME decide how to use it since I actually work for it and all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top