- 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
re: Do you believe in Social Security choice?
Posted on 7/7/14 at 4:03 pm to dat yat
Posted on 7/7/14 at 4:03 pm to dat yat
quote:I would wager most people would be more sympathetic to having their livelihood subsidized once they realized the benefits for themselves. But when you are the producer and not the consumer, you have a different perspective.
When I was in my mid 20s I thought about this a lot and believed opting out would an excellent idea.
Now in my late 40s, I see the wisdom in having younger generations supplementing my retirement one day. Soon you will understand.
IRTT: I support SS choice but realize it would never work with a "cold turkey" approach. I would think it would take a few generations to implement a way where those new to the workforce would not be forced to pay a dime into the program.
And to be honest, I don't think we'll ever get away from it or any of the other "entitlements" without a cataclysmic event drastically changing the landscape of our society. Too many people have become dependent on the "generosity" of others through forced redistribution. I liken it to an animal raised in captivity where once released, it doesn't know how to survive on its own. We are spoiled rotten and many would have no clue how to take care of themselves if they really had to.
1
Posted on 7/7/14 at 4:27 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
but restructuring SS to allow for investing sounds like a nice thing.
No.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 4:30 pm to goldennugget
quote:
Social Security is barely enough to live on
Insurance isn't supposed to make you rich.
quote:
Right now its about $1100 a month for a retired person.
A lot of people live on $1100 a month.
quote:
That's not much to live on.
Then save more. What do you want, a guaranteed mansion in retirement?
quote:
So you are screwed if you didn't save anything before hand.
Not really. For a married couple, 2 X $1100 = $2200 a month. Plenty of people live on that.
If you want SS to pay more it will have to take more.
This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 7/7/14 at 4:33 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
IRTT: I support SS choice but realize it would never work with a "cold turkey" approach. I would think it would take a few generations to implement a way where those new to the workforce would not be forced to pay a dime into the program.
It would fail miserably the next time the stock market crashes. Millions old old people would become destitute and guess what? They'd have to rely on government assistance programs in a time when tax revenues are low. That's no good!
quote:
And to be honest, I don't think we'll ever get away from it or any of the other "entitlements" without a cataclysmic event drastically changing the landscape of our society. Too many people have become dependent on the "generosity" of others through forced redistribution.
Social Security Retirement Insurance is something I pay for. It doesn't require your generosity.
Though actually - in truth - I don't. I pay into TSRL.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 4:37 pm to goldennugget
quote:Depends on much you paid in and for how long.
Right now its about $1100 a month for a retired person.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 4:52 pm to goldennugget
The problem with individual investment accounts is that most people just look back at the history of the stock market and figure they will get average returns with dollar average investing.
They fail to consider the fact their personal income will be subject to the same market forces that cause recessions and booms. In recessions, when the stock prices are lower - people, on average, save LESS for retirement - because they have less income. During booms, conversely, when stock prices are highest - people on average save MORE for retirement, because they have more income.
(IN fact - that's part of what drives recessions and booms!) So while dollar averaged investing sounds good on paper in practice the average person is going to have trouble implementing it.
So presuming you will be able to continue dollar averaged investing until retirement is just naive.
They fail to consider the fact their personal income will be subject to the same market forces that cause recessions and booms. In recessions, when the stock prices are lower - people, on average, save LESS for retirement - because they have less income. During booms, conversely, when stock prices are highest - people on average save MORE for retirement, because they have more income.
(IN fact - that's part of what drives recessions and booms!) So while dollar averaged investing sounds good on paper in practice the average person is going to have trouble implementing it.
So presuming you will be able to continue dollar averaged investing until retirement is just naive.
This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 7/7/14 at 4:59 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Retirement planning doesn't necessitate stock ownership, but even if everyone's 401Ks and other investments went down the toilet, (as harsh as this sounds) so what? The point is that everyone should be responsible for their own destiny. Let those who wish to help others do so willingly and those who can barely afford to take care of themselves stop being forced to provide for others. Perhaps the insecurity of self-reliance will drive closer bonds with friends and family, since people may need to rely on them more in the future. That would be a good thing, IMO. Plus, families and friends know your needs a lot better than the faceless government.
It would fail miserably the next time the stock market crashes. Millions old old people would become destitute and guess what? They'd have to rely on government assistance programs in a time when tax revenues are low. That's no good!
Technically, those on SS right now are relying on a government assistance program, since the money they are receiving is taken by force out of the paychecks of those working right now. Could it be that the only difference would be that they would only "need" it when times are bad rather than good and bad times? Who knows? But the issue is that SS is a one-size-fits-all program that doesn't fit everyone and is not sustainable. Something should be done about it.
quote:You're right in that it doesn't require my generosity because it is taken out of my check whether I am feeling generous or not. It actually removes kindness from the equation for the giver and can make the giver less inclined to be generous with other funds because it is easy to say "I'm already giving through my taxes".
Social Security Retirement Insurance is something I pay for. It doesn't require your generosity.
Though actually - in truth - I don't. I pay into TSRL.
But if you are referring to your future benefits that you will receive because you are paying for it: you aren't paying for it. You are paying now for the benefits that others are receiving now, and when you are receiving them (if you do) in the future, you will be receiving based on what others are paying at that time, since the money you pay in doesn't go into a savings account with your name on it.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 5:16 pm to FooManChoo
quote:So in 35 to 40 years, you pay into SS but you will refuse to accept the benefit because it's not your money but the generation behind you paying for it? That's pretty noble altruism!
But if you are referring to your future benefits that you will receive because you are paying for it: you aren't paying for it. You are paying now for the benefits that others are receiving now, and when you are receiving them (if you do) in the future, you will be receiving based on what others are paying at that time, since the money you pay in doesn't go into a savings account with your name on it.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 5:23 pm to goldennugget
quote:
Do you believe in Social Security choice?
Yes
Posted on 7/7/14 at 5:27 pm to Diamondawg
quote:I've got a feeling that I won't need to make that choice by then because I don't think it will exist as we know it today. But even if it does, I would hope that future me would not take it.
So in 35 to 40 years, you pay into SS but you will refuse to accept the benefit because it's not your money but the generation behind you paying for it? That's pretty noble altruism!
Posted on 7/7/14 at 5:36 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
So presuming you will be able to continue dollar averaged investing until retirement is just naive.
Why do you keep parroting this investment line of thinking like it is the end all be all to investing? There are multiple theories and guidelines to investing.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 5:40 pm to FooManChoo
You bitch about them taking 6.2% of your salary but you would willingly refuse to take $30 - $40 thousand per year when you retire? Do you know how silly that sounds?
Posted on 7/7/14 at 5:42 pm to Diamondawg
quote:I try to be a person of principles. I don't believe in forced redistribution of wealth and so I try to live according to that principle. No one is consistent 100%, but I do my best.
You bitch about them taking 6.2% of your salary but you would willingly refuse to take $30 - $40 thousand per year when you retire? Do you know how silly that sounds?
I don't care if it sounds "silly".
Posted on 7/7/14 at 5:45 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
You bitch about them taking 6.2% of your salary but you would willingly refuse to take $30 - $40 thousand per year when you retire? Do you know how silly that sounds?
You think SS works out to be a net gain for all people?
Posted on 7/7/14 at 5:46 pm to Diamondawg
quote:I'd rather neither option.
You bitch about them taking 6.2% of your salary but you would willingly refuse to take $30 - $40 thousand per year when you retire? Do you know how silly that sounds?
You shouldn't get anything out if you don't put anything in and you should get no more than what you put in. I don't want to put anything in.
This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 5:47 pm
Posted on 7/7/14 at 5:49 pm to goldennugget
Every time I see that SS withheld it burns me up because I know I'll never see a penny of it.
Tens of thousands of dollars taken against my will that will never be returned to me.
Tens of thousands of dollars taken against my will that will never be returned to me.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 5:51 pm to Stingray
quote:No. SS is a mess. It needs reform. It's naive to think that it will go away though or there would ever be an opt in/out provision. It's also naive to think that people who opted out if given the choice would do responsible saving on their own and a large majority end up a burden on the state.
You think SS works out to be a net gain for all people?
Posted on 7/7/14 at 5:53 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
It's naive to think that it will go away though or there would ever be an opt in/out provision.
It might go away if the whole system crashes one day....
Posted on 7/7/14 at 5:57 pm to Stingray
quote:That won't happen. They would just borrow some more money from China.
It might go away if the whole system crashes one day....
Posted on 7/7/14 at 5:57 pm to goldennugget
quote:It is a way for the government to force the populace to fund its debt, and thank the government for providing the opportunity. The government giving that up would be inconceivable.
I want to hear reasons why this is a bad idea.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News