Social security is not socialism but it needs to be privatized

There is no question about that The question is how it's paid for, which is actually a metaphor for how we make it work economically.

 

You've been reading too many right wing sites. See my previous post to you.

 

Because.... c'mon you can do it...

Insurance companies are required to pay into the equivalent of the FDIC to protect annuity holders. Still, payoffs are limited as with the FDIC and if you have a very large annuity and the insurer fails...you will lose money.

I'm in favor of investing SS proceeds into interest bearing state and federal bonds. Stocks and corporate bonds? No.

 

Health care should not be government-subsidized. It is unfair to place such a burden on an already-overwhelmed taxpayer base.

 

Do you have any evidence of embezzlement? I don't know much about American Social Security but you would think that if there were evidence of embezzlement it would be widely discussed.

 

Not sure what the point of your bumper sticker sloganeering is. It does make sense for the gov to do what they have been doing. It works.

 

Why the emphasis on equities? It could be invested in Government bonds.

 

Indeed, I agree. We already pay loads of taxes and fees that make for high costs of living. Healthcare being so expensive doesn't help this. It all comes down to making everything 'fit' economically, so that people can have the services and goods that they need without significant loss of quality of life in exchange, which is what high costs (relative to earnings) translate to. We don't want to be hard-working slaves barely making ends meet just so we can have the things we need.

 

then how about this, we invest it, but if the investment is worth less then ss would of been, we get the ss amount

add in that guarantee, and were all good, that takes the gamble out of it for the people and puts the gamble on the government

is the right that sure of themselves that their plan will pay off, then guarantee it

.

 

Let's try again. Maybe people aren't saving because the government tries to keep them from saving to drive consumption spending, for example by inflating the currency.

The whole economic agenda of the Keynesians is to prevent as much saving as possible, and then when people suggest we could save you say, "No, people won't save. We need the federal government to do that for us."

- - - Updated - - -

I think that would be better than the status quo.. but then again, the returns on the market will be much better than Social Security so where are they going to get the money to pay people if the market isn't making as great of returns?

 

Can I opt out please? I've paid in for 21 years. You can keep that money, and I want nothing in return other than being allowed to get out.

 

OK. I certainly agree that saving is not encouraged at present. Seems like you can't get any decent interest on savings, and I guess that comes back to the Fed's near-zero rates since 2008? It's certainly true that we're encouraged to spend, spend, spend. I don't mind that so much - I can always find stuff to spend money on It's much easier and more fun than saving, and then with SS there, I'm automatically "saving" in a way as well for retirement. So, what should change, exactly? We should save more for ourselves and government should do something to make that more attractive? Let's bear in mind that it's not just government, but the entire financial sector, that is engaging in these Keynsian economics. Government does what it's told, especially by the wealthy...

- - - Updated - - -

I'd go for that. Really, we should be able to opt out of SS. I don't like government mandating something of that nature, especially if we're capable of taking care of ourselves.

 

Given your extremely anti-capitaism political views, it is hard to imagine you as a financial planner.

Did you charge a management fee that was transparent?

Did you receive commissions on products such as annuities or mutual funds?

Did you charge a fee plus receive commissions?

Did you receive 12-B1 compensation on mutual funds you sold?

Was all of your compensation transparent to your clients?

 

If you agree that I should be able to opt out of SS, then we're basically in agreement and I don't see a point in continuing.

 

I'm sorry. Not interested in your "insightful analogy."

Interested in your backing up your claim that:
The FED is unconstitutional
FDIC is unconstitutional

So, again, head out of the casino and focus.

 

Guess it depends on what, if anything, should happen with SS beyond that. Knowing that people need some kind of savings to draw on eventually, simply making SS optional would potentially leave many with nothing if they opted out but didn't save or invest in some other way.

 

Are you saying that in the real world, adults can't be trusted to take care of themselves, and SS is a giant welfare program that pays an overall negative return to its contributors?

I'd really like it if you folks would quit lying and just call it a general 12.4% tax.

 

I believe in a free society and that people should be free to make choices and to face the full consequences in those choices. If you base the entire system on fixing the most careless, most miserable situations we can possibly think of you begin to create a world where we can't be free and make choices for ourselves.

An illustrative example of this is the NHS making people wait for a year to receive surgeries if they have a BMI over 30. Of course, you should be free to be as obese as you like so you could say this is a violation of their rights. But on the flip side, you're then making everyone else pay for their choice to be obese. So what's the answer? There really isn't one because healthcare is socialized and everyone has to control the choices of those around them.

I think that we should stop this policy of making people spend, spend, spend and understand that savings go into capital that will make us wealthier in the future. I think we should stop eroding the value of the dollar so people don't have to stash their money somewhere for it to hold value, helping create all of these financial bubbles.

Of course we should do what we can to help each other and encourage each other to save, but I don't think anyone has the right to force you to do so. Opting out of Social Security is the ultimate conservative value as you note, but liberals aren't happy with that so we're trying to compromise on something where you can at least get a decent rate of return.

People also look at these discussions and only consider the cost-- "oh, this guy wants to take away my Social Security because there's people out there who won't save" or whatever it is. There was a study by two economists which looked at the cost of government regulations alone, and they showed that since 1950 they've made the economy about a third of the size it otherwise would have been.

So much money and so many resources are being wasted by the federal government in all sorts of ways, including our Middle Eastern interventions. It's true, it's a "less safe" world when the government isn't there to mandate and regulate everything and make sure that the most miserable situation we can concoct in our minds is solved by forward-thinking progressives. But the more we become a liberated society-- where I can act first, and if I damage someone I'm taken to court later-- the wealthier we will become and the more wealth we have to pay for whatever problems do arise in such a world.

 

I believe in a free society and that people should be free to make choices and to face the full consequences in those choices. - While the federal government is certainly wasteful and makes many mistakes, we can't really live by this ideal you've stated either. We can't have a bunch of people suffering and dying because they failed to make good choices. It would be terrible for our society as well as for them personally. Crime would no doubt skyrocket and it would just be a sad and preventable situation all around.

 

So why don't we help them?

 

That was well said!

 

Why--so our financials can rip that off, too? Bad idea.

 

The right to protect intellectual property cannot be realized without paying to secure it. What are you going to do, tell others "I got here first!" and hope they agree??? Securing this right is a legal process and it costs money.

Section 9: You pay taxes to pay for it. If you feel that makes it ok, then maybe you would like national healthcare and Social Security and Medicare. You pay taxes. It is not free. So your claims of rights being free is contradicted by law and the Constitution.

- - - Updated - - -

Research it. Back-track. Sawyer said "Stocks could be a part of an overall portfolio though that would in turn stimulate economic growth." I was replying to him.

 

We all have to work. And that was almost 40 years ago. My views evolved.

 

It would still have to be funded but it would then have to be called some form of welfare.