Originally posted by FreakyKBH What does your comments have to do with mine, or am I just really tired?
If you read your own post, you'd see this:
Freaky: Were we allowed to invest our own money instead of having it borrowed against without our consent, imagine how much better people would be living.
Well we don't really have to imagine given the facts I presented.
Originally posted by no1marauder If you read your own post, you'd see this:
Freaky: Were we allowed to invest our own money instead of having it borrowed against without our consent, [b]imagine how much better people would be living.
Well we don't really have to imagine given the facts I presented.[/b]
So... you're saying that the exact same amount of money which was invested to yield over ten times the original amount is better to simply remain... the original amount?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH So... you're saying that the exact same amount of money which was invested to yield over ten times the original amount is better to simply remain... the original amount?
Where did you not learn math?
I'm saying the system you advocated was tried and failed. There were high rates of elderly poverty and those people were not "living better".
Social Security is an anti-poverty program and a successful one.
Originally posted by no1marauder I'm saying the system you advocated was tried and failed. There were high rates of elderly poverty and those people were not "living better".
Social Security is an anti-poverty program and a successful one.
Seriously.
Use your imagination for once.
SS is deducted as a tax.
401(k) is deducted and then you're taxed.
Structure alone saves the wage earners money.
SS is collected, and it sits: no option for the wage earner.
401(k) is collected and grows with a plethora of options for the wage earner.
Keep it mandatory, but structure it more akin to the one that makes money.
Pretty simple stuff, really.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Seriously.
Use your imagination for once.
SS is deducted as a tax.
401(k) is deducted and then you're taxed.
Structure alone saves the wage earners money.
SS is collected, and it sits: no option for the wage earner.
401(k) is collected and grows with a plethora of options for the wage earner.
Keep it mandatory, but structure it more akin to the one that makes money.
Pretty simple stuff, really.
Social Security is not a savings scheme, it's an anti-poverty scheme.
Originally posted by mchill They will do nothing to fix the massive entitlement mess of such things as Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid.
How in God's name did Social Security become a "entitlement??!!" I've paid into this program for over 45 years, most of it via full time employment, now it sounds like I'm just another lazy welfare scab for collecting it! I suppose my 401K is an entitlement as well, right??!! ðŸ˜
The government has been stealing from it and leaving worthless IOU's.
In reality, they owe you nothing and could reduce it by whatever amount they feel like.
Originally posted by no1marauder The purpose of Social Security was to reduce poverty among the elderly. It has been extremely successful in doing so. The tax you pay to Social Security goes to that program as explained many times here as has the reasons why it is certainly not a "ponzi scheme" (it's not an investment plan nor is it fraudulent).
But by all means, right wingers, propo ...[text shortened]... immense riches we have is "going broke" by paying the retired a bit more than the poverty line.
Which is why they set the age at which you could receive SS at the life expectancy of the time.
Since men die earlier than women and blacks die earlier tha whites, it was designed to support elderly white women.
If we were to update the policy so that it reflects the original purpose, we would have to set SS to be received at age 79.
Originally posted by whodey In reality, they owe you nothing and could reduce it by whatever amount they feel like.
If you don't want that to happen, vote for politicians who want to keep Social Security. Since you are a loyal GOP voter, and the GOP supports the very policy you here denounce, I suggest you reconsider your voting habits.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra If you don't want that to happen, vote for politicians who want to keep Social Security. Since you are a loyal GOP voter, and the GOP supports the very policy you here denounce, I suggest you reconsider your voting habits.
Why vote for someone who is unwilling to kill the ineffective, insulting hide-it-in-a-mattress "anti-poverty-which-isn't-concerned-with-more-just-some" program?
What's it going to be?
Money (which, as whodey pointed out, most likely won't be there, given the Ponzi-like structure and general fiduciary malfeasance of the jackasses holding the purse strings), excellent diction or more money?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Seriously.
Use your imagination for once.
SS is deducted as a tax.
401(k) is deducted and then you're taxed.
Structure alone saves the wage earners money.
SS is collected, and it sits: no option for the wage earner.
401(k) is collected and grows with a plethora of options for the wage earner.
Keep it mandatory, but structure it more akin to the one that makes money.
Pretty simple stuff, really.
As mentioned, Social Security is an anti-poverty program designed so that the beneficiaries receive some assured amount after retirement (though they can work and still receive their benefits up to a certain level of income). It has zero risk whereas any investment scheme has risk; if you were retiring in 2009 and your investment counselor had talked you into putting your 401(k) funds into mortgage backed securities, you'd have been screwed. So, of course, something with no risk is going to tend to have a lesser return than something with risk.
More importantly, Social Security is a "pay as you go" system with current contributions paying for those eligible for benefits now. It can't be replaced with a full 401(k) plan because there would be no money to pay out (you can't "invest" while at the same time paying out the entire amount). While bankers and brokers have been pushing for these types of "privatization" scams for years (it would result in tens of billions or more in fees for them each year), there is no way a plan such as you have sketched can do what Social Security does i.e. assure retirees a benefit that would keep them from poverty after they retire.
Originally posted by whodey The government has been stealing from it and leaving worthless IOU's.
In reality, they owe you nothing and could reduce it by whatever amount they feel like.
So where is the outrage?
This is ridiculous (as almost all whodey posts are). The IOUs given are just as "worthless" as US government bonds of any types. The US has never defaulted on any of their required payments though idiot Republicans have pushed it to the brink a few times for political grandstanding purposes during the Obama administration.
Sure, the US Congress could all of a sudden terminate Social Security and pay nothing. That would be in keeping with the type of ideology you represent. But given that the program is extremely popular with voters, that would be political suicide.
Originally posted by no1marauder As mentioned, Social Security is an anti-poverty program designed so that the beneficiaries receive some assured amount after retirement (though they can work and still receive their benefits up to a certain level of income). It has zero risk whereas any investment scheme has risk; if you were retiring in 2009 and your investment counselor had talked you ...[text shortened]... ecurity does i.e. assure retirees a benefit that would keep them from poverty after they retire.
Again, you lack vision.
Put whatever parameters you wish to put on the account.
Make it so whatever is contributed remains in the possession of the wage earner... but still make it possible for the amount to be invested.
It is literally impossible for all accounts to lose money, and it more likely that all will gain--- some more significantly than others--- and you secure the assured monies from those gains.
There is risk in the SS system: dollars you are forced to put into it in 1975 are not the dollars you withdraw in 2025; not even close.
When is the last time a 401(k) plan failed?
Originally posted by whodey The government has been stealing from it and leaving worthless IOU's.
In reality, they owe you nothing and could reduce it by whatever amount they feel like.
So where is the outrage?
The outrage SHOULD begin the day Ryan & Co. decide to finally try to privatize SS and hand over the trillions (with a "T"... it is not, and is nowhere near, being "broke" ) in the system to their bankster buddies. More loading up the money conveyor to the top 1%. Apparently, that's the only thing they can do right. They've obviously given up on actually governing and bothering with the illusion of trying to appear like they are actually doing their jobs, i.e. establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defence and promoting the general Welfare of the citizens of the US.
And the government has not been leaving "worthless I.O.U.s". The SS trust funds are secured by US Treasury bonds, which is a major reason why the Republicans and the banksters want it for themselves. Yes, privatizing it IS "stealing" it.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Again, you lack vision.
Put whatever parameters you wish to put on the account.
Make it so whatever is contributed remains in the possession of the wage earner... but still make it possible for the amount to be invested.
It is literally impossible for all accounts to lose money, and it more likely that all will gain--- some more significantly than other ...[text shortened]... t the dollars you withdraw in 2025; not even close.
When is the last time a 401(k) plan failed?
Anything to denigrate the worth of one of the best and most popular retirement systems on the planet, while attempting to scare the bejesus out of people nearing retirement age.
You call it a "ponzi" scheme while desiring to place it in the hands of the largest class of criminals on the planet. Bankers.
15 Jan '17 12:41
GOP to raise debt $9 trillion
Back to Top