Get rid of social security?

If it was privatized it would quickly become a scheme of some sort.

 

Landru Guide; If the Payroll Taxes collected over the years were used to pay off the National Deficit (investment), you would be correct, to a small degree. However those collected taxes were SPENT more often than not on other programs or even possibly the cost of Administering the Government, but in NO WAY invested. Your end results over the past 5-10 years, has been a double down servicing cost (interest), that will go on for generations.

This falls under current and future unfunded Liabilities, ALL of which will be borrowed and currently that final figure is 115.5 TRILLION DOLLARS and as of today, were expecting yearly deficits of at least a T$ into the for seeable future, it's simply unsustainable.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Said another way; Anything borrowed today, falls to the end of the current 17T$ authorized debt ceiling, which will only get us by 2012 FY and not be paid, if ever, decades into the future, where interest rates to keep on rolling over WILL be much higher. That 3T$ in bonds, disregarding inflation will eventually cost the economy/people, many times more than 3T$.

 

It could have been. But instead the three trillion or so extra taxes the working folks paid went to offset the deficits caused by tax cuts that mostly benefited the very wealthy.

It was the largest "take from the poor and give to the rich" scam since the Sheriff of Nottingham

 

I know what it is, it's a misleading lie, a scam, a con.
　
　
Just like tax breaks create jobs, without any proof required that jobs are indeed being created to get a cut.
　
　
Or here's a stimulus for you banks to make money available for small business loans with nothing in writing to assure that is what the money gets used for so instead it goes for pay raises and bonuses.
　
　
Or here is a free trade agreement, but don't worry that doesn't mean jobs will leave the country we promise but don't ask us to put anything in writing to be sure of it, and pay no attention to our fingers crossed behind our backs.
　
　
Or one of a million other lies we continue to allow our government to give us and accept as the truth until they pull the rug out from under us again.
　
　
Pass it and we will explain it later….contras? Don’t know anything about any contras…I did not have sex with that woman… they have WMD’s and we know where they are…etc… etc…etc…

 

Buck Naked; Why would that be true? If privatized and controlled by the States (regulation only) anything collected, SS revenue and yet today future Government bonds to cover what's supposedly in the trust fund (3T$), into Financial Institutions, that would simply be part of their daily operations. If one Institution does fails or somehow corrupted, others would take up both there income and obligations and things would roll along. Banks fail all the time, rarely needing FDIC coverage and most often the only difference people notice a difference, is when their monthly statement shows up under another name. It's not difficult for one entity (Government) to fraud the people, but with all the checks involved with Financial Firms, quarterly reports, annual meetings, board of directors, etc., it's very difficult for maybe 100+ entities to fraud everyone involved.

 

And the Dumbocrats fixed that right up.....

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Except the Dumbocrats spent their 1.5 years of absolute power spending even more money, and did squat on income.

 

No it isn't. Chile is a prime example of privatizing SS. It was such a success that when the first retirees went to collect their private pensions its caused massive demonstrations and riots by retirees that brought down the government, caused huge emergency government pension spending bills to be passed, and a wholesale abandonment of the private pension scheme. This in a nation where less than 20% of the population was enrolled.

As the recent financial debacle has shown, $Trillions in private investments can disappear almost overnight and millions looking to retire can become suddenly bereft of the funds to do so. Is it reasonable to expect that this will never happen again?

 

Imagine if you got to invest every penny you paid into social security instead of having to turn it over to Uncle Sam. You'd be posting from your villa in Monaco, not from some retirement home in Iowa.

 

Uh... T-bills are useless to hold, especially when they aren't paying out to match the rate of inflation. The "Trust Fund" is actually losing money on that transaction.

 

Proposed privatization would be voluntary so the "poor" could choose to continue under the existing Social Security program. Safety net provisions can also be included under privatization to meet the minimum Social Security benefits today of roughly $7,000/yr (today's dollars) which is what the "poor" currently receive.

Privatization provides 150% or more than Social Security if we use the Galveston Plan as a model. The possibility of someone receiving less than the $7,000 minimum Social Security payment is virtually nil and even that remote possibility can be addressed under privatization.

The arguments against privatization are really arguments against the People receiving more retirement income as opposed to the "poor" receiving less retirement income.

 

It could have been held in legal tender coins instead of as promissory notes. Why didn't the Treasury simply redeem the Federal Reserve notes in American Gold Eagles that were being produced by the US Mint? Three trillion dollars converted from legal tender Federal Reserve notes to lawful money is equal to 60 billion $50 American Gold Eagle coins which are lawful money and legal tender in the United States. Legal tender coins produced by the US Mint do not lose value.

 

The argument you make here is only of one particular proposal regarding Social Security. In addition, it's been proposed that Social Security be only a privatized system (subject to the whims and changes of markets), as well as proposals to eliminate Social Security entirely. From the smiles I see on Republicans' faces, when that idea is mentioned, I don't trust them to keep the system going, if the power to abolish it were put in their hands. This is the # 1 reason why I could never vote for a Republican on the federal level.

 

Not necessarily. You might be posting from a prison cell after committing armed robbery, just to get enough money for a meal (after your investments went bad). Hasn't the economic reality of the past few years shown you that ?

 

Retirement accounts are based upon long term investments and not short term fluxuations in the stock market. A review of 401K plans showed that even with the "recession" in 2008-2009 by 2010 the average return on investment for 401K's between 2001 and 2010 was over 8%. This fact has been established before with documentation.

Of note someone nearing retirement age would not typically have their investments in stock anyway. Stock investments are ideal for young investors as it rapidly builds a capital base for long term returns on investments. Investment experts advise individuals to move into more secure investments as they approach retirement age.

For examply, I'm 62 and about ten years ago I started converting stock assets into gold and silver assets. I have not been "hurt" by the recession at all and with gold at over $1800/oz I've substantially benefited from the recession. I didn't do anything special and would not have "lost money" had the recession not occured but because I followed the simply investment advice of experts by age adjusting my private investment accounts I did benefit from the recession.

Privatized investment accounts should and would be diversified and age adjusted accounts which are highly successful and follow the advice of all investment experts. Such investments are highly successful over the long term and I'm unaware of anyone not being a successful investor that followed this proven method

There is a simple rule for succesful investment: Diversify the investment portfolio and adjust the investments based upon age (or years to retirement).

It has never failed.

 

Can a case for a diversified investment portfolio "going bad" be presented to support this argument?

Even with the recent recession diversified investment portfolios remained successful and I've heard of no examples where this wasn't the case. I find the argument to be hypothetical nonsense unsupported by fact.

 

Yes the savings and loan scams of the late 80-early 90's never became a scheme/scam, or the housing loan scheme/scams that as of yet relatively nobody has been held accountable for were not a great success for the organized criminals in the banking/loaning community. Sorry, but where money is involved schemes and scams are inevitable.

 

unrealist; I really don't think you can compare the US Private Sector of today and the stability of the Chilean, 20-30 years ago. Since we're on ill advised plans, Bush 43's half baked portion investment accounts would have been no better, IMO.

As mentioned, about 30 years ago, before SS became mandatory or an option existed, some Texas Counties broke away from the SS system, with about the same contributions, paying retiree's twice the average SS benefit and still have a surplus cash on hand, over obligations.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrill...sonal-social-security-accounts-and-prospered/

Consider this; If privatized as I've suggested, the said 3T$ held by the Federal and EVERY dollar paid by employee's and employers, would be invested in a manner to increase the reserve pool, not spend on other political ventures of a Government, that changes attitudes every 2 years.

BuckNaked; I'm beginning to think, many people are wanting a centralized Federal Banking System, say holding all 401K's and IRA accounts in the same lock box with SS revenues. You know the liberal community would like nothing better????

Most every problem within the Financial Community, can be traced to over regulation by the Congress. What's been the solution, more regulation!!!

If what you mention is true (emphasized), what larger operation exist that handles more money or the control over more people, than the US Federal Government?

 

I will address this part, as I know very little about what a liberal wants since democrats and republicans are different sides of the same coin, and both are in place to provide and maintain an advantage for the rich/elites of this world and indeed the entire planet.
　
　
The regulations that are unnecessary and in place are there for one specific reason and that is to destroy the little guy. And who establishes these regulations? Those who benefit the most from them.
　
　
Industries finance political careers and in return politicians write the legislation for their true masters, or they just bring in the industries lawyers and allow them to write the legislation that suits their purpose. That purpose is domination and the implementation of inconsistency that gives the chosen few (who get the exemptions, loopholes and/or tax breaks) so that they are effected minimally by the outrageously destructive regulations you are talking about. These entities that dominate the "industries" themselves, over the past several decades have used regulations to eliminate their smaller competitors so that the system is more monopolized than consistent towards all participants. This is the problem, and this is what needs to be changed. Banking/savings and loans is no different when it comes to this practice, than than any other industries including oil/utilities/agriculture/pharmaceutical/medical, etc... etc...
　
　
The only reason you keep hearing the parroting of regulations these days is a relatively few entities dominate the fields of almost all major industries, and they work together to assure that prices are fixed and profits are unnaturally high. They have to, since if any of them buck the system they all lose, especially since it is a fixed market, and yes the best government corporate money can buy is doing their very best at manipulating the economy to assure the trend continues.

 

BuckNaked; If your referring to what's called the "Establishment Members", the elite of either the D or R parties, then I do agree with you, but their influence over today's electorate has been greatly diminished since Reagan. Frankly under either the D or R primary systems, I have no idea how any group could influence anything, other than maybe the MEDIA and I certainly don't believe you oppose that influence. I believe your leading toward "lobbyist", which I believe are the peoples best means to influence the Federal Government, once elected.

I'd need an example, but most regulation as proposed is intended to help the "little guy", even if the end result hurts the majority, Obamacare would be the best current example, followed by the EPA's emission regulations. Point, in hurting the big guy's, yes it's the little guy's that get hurt the most.

I don't think so; In a Free Market Capitalist economy, prices/profits are pretty well determined by the consumer, as are the trends.

I don't think Wal Mart has been bad for the US Society or any business that has grown to the point of GE, Apple, Exxon/Mobil or the Heath Care Group, actually causing others to become more efficient and keeping prices down.

 

Really? Right up until it collapsed the Chilean privatization of SS was held up as a model that all the world should follow by every conservative, libertarian and neocon.

SS is still not mandatory for states and municipalities. There was no breaking away since they never participated in the first place. You are a fount of misinformation.

It is not so easy to invest $3Trillion as it is to invest $100million. Besides, excess SS funds are invested in the safest investment possible, US Treasury Bonds, which pay interest. While it is fairly easy to find a counter party willing to take on an annuity for a few hundred employees reaching retirement soon it would be far more difficult, likely impossible, to find one for 20 or 40 million.

You really need to consider the problem of scale, things change drastically as the scale grows by orders of magnitude and become a large portion of the economy.

No, most every problem within the financial community can be traced to deregulation or lack of regulation in the first place. The financial meltdown of 2008 would not have been possible, and never happened, from the 1940s through the 1970s when stronger financial regulations were in place. The S&L crises in the early 80s was a direct result of S&L deregulation. As regulation has been reduced the economy has become more and more unstable due to lack of regulation and oversight of the financial markets.

 

Prices down ? Checked WalMart's prices lately ? They're anything but "down".

 

Only thing needed to be changed about Social Security is the benefit amounts. They are way too low, and they shouldn't be measured according to how much money people have made during their lives. The amounts should be raised much higher, and be more equal.

Also, there's no need to be giving Social Security to rich people who don't need it.

 

The statement is repeatedly made that the Bush tax cuts benefited the wealthy but when the discussion took place related to extending them we found that allowing them to expire for the wealthy only resulted in $70 billion/yr in additional revenue whereas allowing them to expire for those earning less than $200K/$250K (single/family) would result in $300 billion/yr in additional revenue. Based upon the amount of revenue lost by extending those tax cuts for everyone clearly indicates that those earning less than $200K/$250K benefited the most by a margin of over 4:1.

 

Could someone tell me which 3 Texas Counties don't get Social security??

What is their access to oil profits and what is their average income?

I suspect that there are MANY very wealthy counties in the USA that would do just fine without Social Security. So what? Does that mean everyone could?

 

Not hardly! That $300 billion is shared by about 97% of the tax paying population while the $70 billion is shared by about 3% of the tax paying populace. (Fact Check )

Assuming that the rational and common definitions of "benefited by" is at work here, then more money retained would equal more benefit and that would necessarily be defined on an individual basis (the 97% group of tax payors as a collective benefit in no clear way from the $300 bill).

Without knowing actual pop. numbers then, this disadvantage can still be readily illustrated by hypothesizing that there were just 100 million tax payors. The 97 mill would then each retain about $3092.00 each and the 3 mill high earners would retain about $23333.00 each.

I don't think it's rocket science to see who is benefiting more.