Eliminating official poverty through the mechanism of unemployment compensation would be more cost effective and could lower our tax burden.

^ huh?
/please do elaborate...

__________________
"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain"- Iowa state motto
-Squidward
Ventura/ Paul '12

-Retro Fit

This is highly misleading because the numbers used for my calculations were for a 40 yr investment period with the investments exclusively in T-Bills at a below par ROI and also assumes that Social Security will not have to reduce payments in the future even though the CBO has shown that Social Security expendatures will exceed revenues by 25% in the future.

But sticking with just T-Bills current projected yield on T-bills is over 4.7% (see link) and even with investing just the 12.4 percent of income from age 20-70 (current retirement age for Social Security) the ROI would be about $800,000 gross and assuming life expectancy of 100 the monthy payment would be over $4000 or $48,000 annually.

http://www.forecasts.org/30yrT.htm

This is the "worst investment plan" with the "lowest possible return on investment" and it still beats Social Security.

A diversified portfolio, which is recommended by all investment experts, would result in a ROI equal to or greater than 10% and would still be a very safe retirement strategy and would result in about $4.3 million at retirement age 70. If we assumed that this amount was converted into T-Bills at age 70 the annual income at 4.7% interest alone is over $200,000 per year forever!!!!!!

Social Security is a joke from any financial standpoint when compared to private retirement investment accounts.

__________________
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
Forum Rules and Guidelines: http://www.politicalforum.com/curren...uncements.html

Shiva,
What's really disingenuous about the argument is that it assumes that the SS payout will remain what it has always been.

Of course, this cannot possibly be the case. SS went into the red for the first time this year, and is projected to be deeper and deeper underwater from here on out. The trust fund that was supposed to make up for the shortfall has already been spent by Congress.
Rather than paying SS to make up for what it took, Congress is ripping another half a trillion *out* of it's hide with the Obamacare bill. All this at a time when the baby boomers are starting to retire. It's a perfect storm.

SS cannot remain solvent under these conditions, yet he projects that the payout will somehow remain unchanged. Real life doesn't work like that.

__________________
"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain"- Iowa state motto
-Squidward
Ventura/ Paul '12

-Retro Fit

I believe it is even more disingenuous to not have recourse to a market friendly poverty elimination scheme that conforms to state at-will employment laws and the federal at-will employment doctrine.

Are you talking about a job policy like in France where it is very hard to fire employees?

__________________
Republicans have never met a tax cut they didn't like.
Democrats have never met a spending bill they didn't like.

All above ideas have become pointless, Americas New health plan will drive deficit spending to new highs and make the ability of the economy to grow out of the debt impossible. Sad day for the future of america

__________________
The Angels are watching and they are not happy. just because you believe a writer you have found, never means the writer you believe is correct in their beliefs

Under at-will employment doctrine and state laws, in principle, a market participant should be able to apply for unemployment compensation, merely for being naturally unemployed.

There is no reason to deny or disparage a person's privileges or immunities without just cause.