wmw999 2,452
However, if things tank (e.g. like right now), they would like to have some sort of safety net, because "who knew."
Someone has to pay for that safety net, whether times are good (and it seems quite pointless and only necessary for the improvident) or bad (when it doesn't seem like enough).
It's probably in the best interest of society as a whole not to have too many older people starving and freezing. Unfortunately, some of those older people were improvident.
Wendy W.
QuoteQuoteQuote
If you put all the money you paid into soso security over your life into safe secured accounts you would have at least twice the amount of money for retirement. so in otherwords, you have been robbed of at least half your retirement.
I think those who are retiring this year are pleased to have Soc Sec because their nice safe 401Ks have tanked so badly. Those who invested in nice safe real estate are regretting it too.
QuoteI guess you missed the part about safe secured accounts.
According to the Cato Institute's analysis, SocSec returns are generally** above both long term government bonds and TBills. Less than corporate bonds or the stock market, BUT THOSE ARE HARDLY SAFE SECURED accounts.
** effective rate depends on time period, income, and marital status. Stll, SocSec is generally better.
www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n1-4.html
A comparison of the pre-tax rates of return from the social security system (Tables 2, 3, and 4) with the average rates of return for alternative investments for the time period 1945-89 in Table 1 shows that the social security returns are very favorable. The returns for those retiring presently or in the near future are impressive. For 65-year-old couples (Table 2), the rates of return from the social security system range from 8.14 percent for 50/50 income split couples with 1990 incomes of $100,000 to 11.24 percent for one-earner couples with incomes of $10,000. These rates exceed those of all investments for the 1945-89 time period except the most risky, common stock, which had a rate of return of 13.57 percent. As predicted, couples with one earner have high rates of returns because they receive spousal benefits without making additional contributions. For 65-year-old singles, the rates of return ranging from 7.65 percent for a male beneficiary with income of $100,000 to 10.02 percent for a female with income of $10,000 are somewhat lower than for couples because of the lack of spousal benefits but still compare favorably with all investments except common stock. As anticipated, females have higher rates of return than males with the same income because of their longer life expectancy. Overall, the rates for many 65-year-old beneficiaries are almost twice as high as the average rates of return for long-term corporate bonds, long-term government bonds, and U.S. Treasury Bills for the 1945-89 time period. [3]
Quotewhat is not mentioned is how long you have to live and how many years you need to get social security to out way investing for yourself. Do I need to collect for 30 years to make your statement true? If I found out I was going to die I might just want to blow my money or give it to my kids. Can't do that with soso security.
Changing your tune now that your last one was proven to be a flop
Quote
It's probably in the best interest of society as a whole not to have too many older people starving and freezing.
Wendy W.
Euthanasia?
rehmwa 2
QuoteQuote
It's probably in the best interest of society as a whole not to have too many older people starving and freezing.
Wendy W.
Euthanasia?
that's wasteful - according to this Ross Perot pamphlet I have here, old people can be dehydratred and the remaining minerals and powders can be "recycled" for our own personal applications
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Quotewhat is not mentioned is how long you have to live and how many years you need to get social security to out way investing for yourself. Do I need to collect for 30 years to make your statement true? If I found out I was going to die I might just want to blow my money or give it to my kids. Can't do that with soso security.
Changing your tune now that your last one was proven to be a flop
Quoteno not changing my tune. My last one was not a flop. I you have to collect social security for 30-40 years to make your statement true, considering most people collect for 10-15 years, saving for yourself is better. The gov always fucks you when they get involved.
Not to mention my money wouldn't be going to illegal imigrants who are collecting social security.
wmw999 2,452
How does that compare with the number who are paying in to social security?
Wendy W.
jcd11235 0
QuoteThe reason soso security is viable for 30 years is because they don't give you enough to live.
It's an insurance, not a retirement plan.
QuoteIf you put all the money you paid into soso security over your life into safe secured accounts you would have at least twice the amount of money for retirement. so in otherwords, you have been robbed of at least half your retirement.
You'll find very few, if any, life annuities that have averaged 7% return on investment since inception. That's what Social Security has averaged.
billvon 2,998
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Correct. Nor should they. It should not serve as someone's retirement; it should serve as a safety net that can keep them alive if all else fails.
Yes, if you're on social security you might have to move back into the kid's house, or share a rental with 3 other people. You might have to sell the bigscreen TV. If you don't like that - well, should have invested better. At least you won't starve.
jcd11235 0
Quotewhat is not mentioned is how long you have to live and how many years you need to get social security to out way investing for yourself. Do I need to collect for 30 years to make your statement true? If I found out I was going to die I might just want to blow my money or give it to my kids. Can't do that with soso security.
That's the difference between a defined benefit plan and a defined contribution plan. Social security is a defined benefit plan. You cannot outlive your benefits like is possible with a defined contribution plan.
Why do you think the trend with employers has been to shift from pensions to 401K plans? It shifts all of the risk from the employer to the employee. It allows employers to pay a smaller benefit that appears bigger to employees because they have an account with a balance that they can observe.
Since social security is an insurance plan, and not a retirement plan, it would be a very bad idea to set it up as a defined contribution plan.
mnealtx 0
QuoteDon't blame me if your question was incoherent.
Wrong again - YOU tried to deflect the question, twice.
1. Trying to deflect from Congress to the President when lawrocket made a comment comparing Congress' action on healthcare to their action on getting us out of Iraq - both things that they campaigned on in '06.
2. Trying to say that the Dems ran in '06 on whether they could authorize use of force. You got your ass handed to you on that one, too.
You tried to string a line of bullshit twice, and got slapped down twice - thanks for playing.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteEuthanasia?
No, they'll just withold the cancer meds since it's too expensive - or maybe just leave them in the ambulances.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
jcd11235 0
QuoteWrong again
Yes, you are. If you believe otherwise, perhaps you should go back and reread your posts.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteWrong again
Yes, you are. If you believe otherwise, perhaps you should go back and reread your posts.
Why don't you just go ahead and show me. I'd like to see the
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
jcd11235 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteWrong again
Yes, you are. If you believe otherwise, perhaps you should go back and reread your posts.
Why don't you just go ahead and show me. I'd like to see theillogic trail you followed.
It would be a good learning experience for you to look yourself, rather than expect someone to just hand it to you.
mnealtx 0
QuoteIt would be a good learning experience for you to look yourself, rather than expect someone to just hand it to you.
Then maybe you should.
Posts paraphrased, below:
jcd: the public could vote to change health coverage once the government controlled it.
mnealtx: like we can with our income taxes?
jcd: "like we vote for politicians who can change our taxes" (different than your original claim of "the people can vote to change it", btw)
lawrocket: like the politicians who got us out of iraq
jcd: the president got us in iraq (first red herring)
mnealtx: congress authorizes use of force
jcd: what does this have to do with getting out of iraq?
mnealtx: that's what the dems ran on in 06
jcd: do you mean dems ran on the ability to wage war? (second red herring)
mnealtx: shows pelosi quote and dem platform issue on getting troops out of iraq
Class is dismissed, there will be a pop quiz on "following the flow of thread posts" tomorrow.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
chuckakers 425
QuoteHow does that compare with the number who are paying in to social security?
You mean when they commit a second felony by using a fake social security number? The first felony being in the country illegally, of course.
D-10855
Houston, TX
jcd11235 0
QuoteQuoteIt would be a good learning experience for you to look yourself, rather than expect someone to just hand it to you.
Then maybe you should.
Posts paraphrased, below:
…
At least you edited out your butchered metaphor.
Apparently your question wasn't if Congress' authority to declare war was part of the Democratic election campaign platform in 2006. After reading your paraphrased version, it appears you were asking if, in 2006, the Democrats campaigned on "congress [sic] authorizes use of force"? It's still not a coherently written question, but, to answer it as best as I can, given my lack of fluency in any language other than English, no, in 2006 the Democrats did not campaign on Congress authorizing use of force.
I think you'll find that they campaigned on reaching out to the President, in a display bipartisanship, to work out a timetable for the redeployment of US troops from Iraq. While they did do that, the President (along with many in his party) was not willing to cooperate, so such a timetable was not established. That lack cooperation may well have doomed the Republicans' bid for the White House last November, considering how unpopular the war had become once Americans realized that none of the reasons given for invading that sovereign country were legitimate.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
jcd11235 0
QuoteSocial security pays better than Madoff did - he gave 10%. And here you are cheering it. The government's Ponzi scheme is all right, I guess.
7% < 10%
If you think a lower return is the same as paying better, then send me $10K, and I'll guarantee you a -100% return. That must be a lot better, right?
Muenkel 0
QuoteSocial security pays better than Madoff did - he gave 10%. And here you are cheering it. The government's Ponzi scheme is all right, I guess.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7%
If you think a lower return is the same as paying better, then send me $10K, and I'll guarantee you a -100% return. That must be a lot better, right?
I guess lawrocket needs to use a big ass sarcasm icon when corresponding with you.
_________________________________________
Chris
Even 10.02% >10%.
There is something to be said about providing returns greater than a free market would provide - that is, a legitimate free market (not based on fraud, etc.)
Is there no concern about investment returns higher than anything but the "riskiest" common stock? Ivan Boeski and Michael Milken couldn't dream of the returns that the government gives.
And this is to be cheered. Just like Countrywide and Enron and Global Crossing (who did it right - both partners on GC greased different parties.)
My wife is hotter than your wife.
jcd11235 0
Quote11.24%>10%
Even 10.02% >10%.
According to Dr. Rob Brown, since inception, Social Security has averaged a ~7% annual return for everyone. (Sorry, no link, I have the data from the notes from a lecture I attended that Dr. Brown gave last spring in Orlando.)
I'm sure you noticed the 10.02% figure from the Cato Institute article applies to "a [single] female with income of $10,000." Certainly, you recognize that most of us do not fit into that category. Furthermore, that figure comes from the period of 1945 to 1989, not since Social Security's inception to the present (actually ~2008).
QuoteThere is something to be said about providing returns greater than a free market would provide - that is, a legitimate free market (not based on fraud, etc.)
QuoteIs there no concern about investment returns higher than anything but the "riskiest" common stock? Ivan Boeski and Michael Milken couldn't dream of the returns that the government gives.
Are you suggesting that only the riskiest common stock can provide returns that exceed 7%? Or are you relying on the red herring claim of 10.02% for single 65 year old (now 75 year old) females with an annual income of $10,000?
QuoteAnd this is to be cheered. Just like Countrywide and Enron and Global Crossing (who did it right - both partners on GC greased different parties.)
I would suggest you try doing some actual research on the topic before making such disingenuous comparisons, lest you come across as a shady lawyer who is pissing on our legs while claiming that it's raining. You're better than that.
Social Security offers an excellent return on investment in comparison to other long term, low risk investments. It is not the shady ponzi scheme that you try to paint it as.
Quote>The reason soso security is viable for 30 years is because they don't give you enough to live.
Correct. Nor should they. It should not serve as someone's retirement; it should serve as a safety net that can keep them alive if all else fails.
Yes, if you're on social security you might have to move back into the kid's house, or share a rental with 3 other people. You might have to sell the bigscreen TV. If you don't like that - well, should have invested better. At least you won't starve.
Quotebut if that money was investeds for me i would do better at retirement. also I wouldn't be paying for someone elses lack of self control.
I think those who are retiring this year are pleased to have Soc Sec because their nice safe 401Ks have tanked so badly. Those who invested in nice safe real estate are regretting it too.
According to the Cato Institute's analysis, SocSec returns are generally** above both long term government bonds and TBills. Less than corporate bonds or the stock market, BUT THOSE ARE HARDLY SAFE SECURED accounts.
** effective rate depends on time period, income, and marital status. Stll, SocSec is generally better.
www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n1-4.html
A comparison of the pre-tax rates of return from the social security system (Tables 2, 3, and 4) with the average rates of return for alternative investments for the time period 1945-89 in Table 1 shows that the social security returns are very favorable. The returns for those retiring presently or in the near future are impressive. For 65-year-old couples (Table 2), the rates of return from the social security system range from 8.14 percent for 50/50 income split couples with 1990 incomes of $100,000 to 11.24 percent for one-earner couples with incomes of $10,000. These rates exceed those of all investments for the 1945-89 time period except the most risky, common stock, which had a rate of return of 13.57 percent. As predicted, couples with one earner have high rates of returns because they receive spousal benefits without making additional contributions. For 65-year-old singles, the rates of return ranging from 7.65 percent for a male beneficiary with income of $100,000 to 10.02 percent for a female with income of $10,000 are somewhat lower than for couples because of the lack of spousal benefits but still compare favorably with all investments except common stock. As anticipated, females have higher rates of return than males with the same income because of their longer life expectancy. Overall, the rates for many 65-year-old beneficiaries are almost twice as high as the average rates of return for long-term corporate bonds, long-term government bonds, and U.S. Treasury Bills for the 1945-89 time period. [3]