- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Is one major cause of wealth disparity a poor rate of return on social security?
Posted on 5/28/14 at 8:17 am
Posted on 5/28/14 at 8:17 am
quote:
Conventional wisdom has it that a home—with a median sales price of about $290,000—is the average family’s biggest financial asset. But about 35 percent of Americans don’t own a home, and about two-thirds of homeowners have a mortgage, so their home asset is usually less than its face value.
So what is the average American’s biggest asset? The value of his or her Social Security benefits.
......
Their 2013 report estimates that a single male worker earning the average income of $44,800 (in 2013 dollars) turning 65 in 2015 can expect to receive $287,000 in Social Security benefits. However, that worker paid in $337,000, for a net loss of about $50,000. Both estimates assume a growth rate of 2 percent, which happens to match Piketty’s projection of long-term GDP growth.
That disparity between contributions and benefits declines significantly for women, who tend to live longer. A single female worker would have paid in the same amount, $337,000, but could expect to receive $314,000.
Thus, Social Security is the average American’s greatest financial asset, even bigger than their home equity—if workers had a private property right to their contributions. But the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that they don’t. Congress can cut those benefits—as some members have proposed—or even (although very unlikely) eliminate them; and the only recourse Americans would have is at the polls.
But what if workers were able to put that same amount of money . . . into a personal retirement account that could be invested in broad-based equities?
.... since the market’s inception U.S. stocks’ average long-term real rate of return is about 7 percent. Financial Advisor magazine estimates that the future long-term real rate of return for U.S. stocks is closer to 5 percent—but both are close to the 6 percent that Picketty only ascribes to the wealthiest.
Using an interest calculator, a $5,555 annual contribution over 40 years at 6 percent grows to about $970,000. Factor in that wealth and income inequality largely evaporates. People don’t have to be in that top thousandth percent of income to get excellent returns on their money and create real wealth. All they need is a private property right to keep and invest what they are contributing to Social Security right now.
LINK
Posted on 5/28/14 at 8:25 am to NC_Tigah
Didn't some State entity down there in Galveston try this 20 years or so back, NC? Now those retirees are living large...and living proof that your theory works.
Of course, the Dems will scream wolf, pointing to Stock Market fluctuations and potential losses...but we in the know, know why. Because the Statists want to keep control of the money. Money = power. Statist desire power.
Real Entitlement reform would push such a fix for the young who pay in to the system; Rand Paul (or whomever) should get out front on this. They'd get a lot of support from the young electorate.
Of course, the Dems will scream wolf, pointing to Stock Market fluctuations and potential losses...but we in the know, know why. Because the Statists want to keep control of the money. Money = power. Statist desire power.
Real Entitlement reform would push such a fix for the young who pay in to the system; Rand Paul (or whomever) should get out front on this. They'd get a lot of support from the young electorate.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 8:29 am to NC_Tigah
The fundamental issue with this analysis is the assumption that you would have more spending power with a rate of return of 6% versus 2%. That's normally true when a large group of the population is receiving 2% and a small group is receiving 6%. There is sufficient deflationary pressure on prices by the 2%ers for the 6%ers to enjoy.
The bottom line is when everyone is a millionaire no one is a millionaire. You need income disparity for the rich to enjoy their income. So even if the 2%ers started receiving 6%, a small group of smart people would receive 10% and the 6%ers would have the same spending power as the current 2%ers.
The bottom line is when everyone is a millionaire no one is a millionaire. You need income disparity for the rich to enjoy their income. So even if the 2%ers started receiving 6%, a small group of smart people would receive 10% and the 6%ers would have the same spending power as the current 2%ers.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 8:30 am to NC_Tigah
Love the link, but even w/ ss robbing people over the years, senior citizens are still among the wealthiest groups in America.
Age has a lot to do w/ the wealth gap. I believe that cronie capitalism is probably the biggest factor, though.
Age has a lot to do w/ the wealth gap. I believe that cronie capitalism is probably the biggest factor, though.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 8:31 am to stuntman
Why is their a cap on social security tax? All income needs to be taxed and keep the program going for all Americans.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 8:34 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
What's helped the poor and infirm most; capital formation or welfare? (And yes, ss IS welfare)
Posted on 5/28/14 at 8:34 am to stuntman
quote:
Age has a lot to do w/ the wealth gap
As it should be. The older people have been on the earth the longest and have had the most time to make the most money.
BTW, there is nothing wrong with an income gap. Crying about income disparity is just Marxist propaganda.
Income disparity is healthy for society. It pushes and pulls people to be more productive. Complaining about income disparity is complaining about having to be productive.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 8:37 am to NC_Tigah
The problem is that money paid into SS is not in an investment/interest bearing account, it is used to pay those currently collecting SS. Secondly, many recipients receive much more in benefits than they paid in. Also, SS is now paid to school age children diagnosed with ADHD.
Biggest ponzi scheme ever. Anyone trying to setup a business model based on SS would end up in prison.
Biggest ponzi scheme ever. Anyone trying to setup a business model based on SS would end up in prison.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 8:40 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
Why is their a cap on social security tax?
If you are making over $113,700 for all practical purposes you'll end up paying what the equivalent of the SS tax because of the progressive nature of the tax code.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 8:41 am to GumboPot
I agree almost entirely w/ that. But, wealth disparities that get created because of government intervention are not a good thing for society.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 8:47 am to NC_Tigah
I like the idea of eventually getting rid of SS and replacing it with a system that is a little more like a target retirement fund at Vanguard. Keep the expenses low by using index funds, and just rebalance a person's account based on their age and how near to retirement they are.
Contributions would be mandatory, like they are for SS.
It's wasteful for the majority of SS money to be sitting in low yield bonds. Sure, it protects the money, but it doesn't build wealth.
PS. I'm a dirty leftist
Contributions would be mandatory, like they are for SS.
It's wasteful for the majority of SS money to be sitting in low yield bonds. Sure, it protects the money, but it doesn't build wealth.
PS. I'm a dirty leftist
Posted on 5/28/14 at 8:52 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:
I like the idea of eventually getting rid of SS and replacing it with a system that is a little more like a target retirement fund at Vanguard. Keep the expenses low by using index funds, and just rebalance a person's account based on their age and how near to retirement they are.
I see A LOT of unintended consequences with this. Specifically bailouts.
As many complaints about the current system that I have the current system allows the equity class to enjoy their good financial decisions because there is a government class that places deflationary pressures on the market.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:15 am to NC_Tigah
quote:who would want this deal?
Their 2013 report estimates that a single male worker earning the average income of $44,800 (in 2013 dollars) turning 65 in 2015 can expect to receive $287,000 in Social Security benefits. However, that worker paid in $337,000, for a net loss of about $50,000
SS Is little more than a tax on the ignorant that don't understand compound earning.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:17 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:Why?
All income needs to be taxed and keep the program going for all Americans.
Most Americans would better off without it. Why do you hate poor people?
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:17 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
SS Is little more than a tax on the ignorant that don't understand compound earning.
No, it's a tax on EVERYONE, but it was designed and passed by the ignorant.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:30 am to NC_Tigah
SS is more than a retirement plan. It's also disability insurance and survivor's insurance which together account for more than 25% of the recipients. When you assign some value to the insurance component, the figures make a lot more sense.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:32 am to NikolaiJakov
quote:Indeed.
No, it's a tax on EVERYONE, but it was designed and passed by the ignorant.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:33 am to Layabout
quote:It doesn't increase the ROI to an individual taxpayer one bit, unless they are an SSI beneficiary.
When you assign some value to the insurance component, the figures make a lot more sense.
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 9:34 am
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:34 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
Why is their a cap on social security tax? All income needs to be taxed and keep the program going for all Americans.
Are you going to uncap benefits?
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:38 am to GumboPot
quote:Except that statement does not hold in a world market, even if the return was applied to the entire US.
The bottom line is when everyone is a millionaire no one is a millionaire. You need income disparity for the rich to enjoy their income. So even if the 2%ers started receiving 6%, a small group of smart people would receive 10% and the 6%ers would have the same spending power as the current 2%ers.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News