- 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: Tell me why my idea is dumb - retirement nest egg for future generations
Posted on 3/1/23 at 7:20 am to LSU_historian
Posted on 3/1/23 at 7:20 am to LSU_historian
Vanguard gave 10 million to Hillary
0
Posted on 3/1/23 at 7:26 am to LSU_historian
quote:
an average 8% rate of return
Well, good luck with that.
If the US seriously considers putting all SS money in the stock market, i will insist that my kids all be stock investment managers to pocket the trillions of fees and transaction costs that will be skimmed off that ocean of free money.
Posted on 3/1/23 at 7:32 am to jrbjr
quote:
The problem is that future social security taxes are needed to pay the current obligations.
Spot on. The problem is my money right now is going to a retired person. When I retire, another young worker’s money is going to pay for my retirement. My money doesn’t go to me.
Posted on 3/1/23 at 8:20 am to TBoy
quote:
If the US seriously considers putting all SS money in the stock market, i will insist that my kids all be stock investment managers to pocket the trillions of fees and transaction costs that will be skimmed off that ocean of free money.
The amount of wealth generated by "retirement" savings in the US since the 1980s is slightly less than the fees paid to manage those savings and the losses from downturns in the market. Now a pile of folks will come along and tell us anecdotes about their accounts or someone they know but the fact is people have been saving for retirement at a higher rate than ever in the history of the US and are worse off, on average, in retirement, than they were in the 1970s. They have many workers in a position where they will never be able to afford to retire now they want to do away with the one mechanism that does allow working people to retire, social security. The wealthy can't stand the idea of a working person not working.....
Posted on 3/1/23 at 8:27 am to Shepherd88
quote:
This is bc SS is the ultimate Ponzi scheme.
All due respects but calling SS a ponzi scheme when one knows better is intellectual dishonesty. Calling a ponzi scheme and not knowing better is just a pitiful admission that your parroting something you heard from someone else and have no idea what it means.
A ponzi scheme relies on future investors to pay current investors. It is sold as an investment with quick and high rates of return. It also, by definition, must involve criminal activity. Social security is not sold or promoted or has ever been, in any way shape form or fashion been an investment. That fact alone prevents it being catagorized as a ponzi scheme. It is and always has been an isurance policy, the benefits are GUARANTEED by the faith of the US Government (again, get that in a Ponzi scheme). The only facet of the 2 is that current beneficiaries rely on current contributors....in exactly the same way ALL insurance companies operate. The difference is that Ponzi schemes are, by definition, criminal while insurance companies are not.
Posted on 3/1/23 at 8:28 am to LSU_historian
If everyone has a million dollars then nobody really has a million dollars.
Scarcity can be a bitch like that.
Scarcity can be a bitch like that.
Posted on 3/1/23 at 8:30 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
With a 40 year time horizon, historically it’s almost always equaling out.
He said start at 18 end at 58.
Someone has to lose. There would never be any losses if that were not the case and there are definite losses. Yes, it is a true statement that over any 40 year period investments increase in value....but it is also safe to say that depending on when you get in and out you may lose everything. That ain't happening with Social Security....
Posted on 3/1/23 at 8:31 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Yup
There’s plenty of great ideas to replace social security for future generations.
The transition, however, would be a major PITA.
That’s why replacement efforts have gone nowhere. It’s not for a lack of ideas. It’s because of the transition costs since it’s all a Ponzi scheme.
Anytime you find someone comparing SS to a Ponzi Scheme you have 2 choices...be an idiot just like them and pretend you do not any better or recognize that they are either an idiot or a liar.
Posted on 3/1/23 at 8:34 am to AwgustaDawg
I hate how they call it “social security” instead of it’s real name
Boomer Welfare
Boomer Welfare
Posted on 3/1/23 at 8:35 am to Steadyhands
quote:
I think you're thinking of the current SS system was set up, which is essentially why it is failing.
SS is not and has never failed or been failing. It is a SMASHING and BOOMING success story. Are there things needing doing which will ensure it succeeds for years to come? Yes. Will those things get done? If history serves, yes. The only caveat is if we frick around and let the bankers get the money then we will be well and truly screwed....
Posted on 3/1/23 at 8:53 am to AwgustaDawg
quote:
A ponzi scheme relies on future investors to pay current investors. It is sold as an investment with quick and high rates of return
This is exactly what social security is. The only reason it’s not criminal is bc it’s formed by the US Government.
I have a very deep understanding of the financial world.
Posted on 3/1/23 at 8:54 am to LSU_historian
quote:
So instead of social security the future generations would get $50,000.00 placed into a roth ira at 18 that they would pay back with yearly contributions($1,250.00) for the next 40 years. That $50,000.00 would be invested in VTI and with an average 8% rate of return and compounding interest everyone would have a million dollars tax free at 58 years old.
And where is the skim in this for Uncle Sam?
Every single thing they touch has a skim attached.
You know - a vig for the big guy
Posted on 3/1/23 at 9:27 am to AwgustaDawg
quote:
The only facet of the 2 is that current beneficiaries rely on current contributors....in exactly the same way ALL insurance companies operate.
You may want to look over insurance regulations. They abide by different guidelines than the social security trust fund.
You almost had it. Lol
Posted on 3/1/23 at 9:30 am to AwgustaDawg
quote:
SS is not and has never failed or been failing. It is a SMASHING and BOOMING success story.
So benefits haven't been reduced over the years "to save social security"? Benefits won't be reduced again within the next 10 years "to save social security"?
A booming success like the Georgia lottery where benefits are expanding to juco and trade schools? We can expect ssi benefits to expand?
quote:
The only caveat is if we frick around and let the bankers get the money then we will be well and truly screwed....
Wtf? Lol
Posted on 3/1/23 at 9:59 am to LSU_historian
Would have to make that IRA inaccessible for any reason. Otherwise you'd have people paying the penalty and blowing it.
Posted on 3/1/23 at 10:30 am to meansonny
quote:
So benefits haven't been reduced over the years "to save social security"? Benefits won't be reduced again within the next 10 years "to save social security"? A booming success like the Georgia lottery where benefits are expanding to juco and trade schools? We can expect ssi benefits to expand?
SSI benefits went up 8.6% this year.
BTW the GA lottery decreased benefits in 2011 for the Hope, it used to pay mandatory fees and books.
Posted on 3/1/23 at 10:40 am to Dawgfanman
quote:
SSI benefits went up 8.6% this year.
Lol. No they didn't.
Benefits adjusted up 8.6% so retired folks aren't getting less adjusted for inflation.
quote:
BTW the GA lottery decreased benefits in 2011 for the Hope, it used to pay mandatory fees and books.
When it first rolled out, it excluded household incomes over $100k.
If you are trying to argue that that lottery is less of a success story than SSI, then you aren't as smart as I give you credit.
If you are trying to argue that the lottery is not a much larger program today with more eligibility and more avenues to spend benefits than its inception, then I can stop replying because it doesn't matter what I correct for you. You won't be able to comprehend it.
Posted on 3/1/23 at 12:01 pm to meansonny
quote:
SS is not and has never failed or been failing. It is a SMASHING and BOOMING success story.
So benefits haven't been reduced over the years "to save social security"? Benefits won't be reduced again within the next 10 years "to save social security"?
A booming success like the Georgia lottery where benefits are expanding to juco and trade schools? We can expect ssi benefits to expand?
quote:
The only caveat is if we frick around and let the bankers get the money then we will be well and truly screwed....
Wtf? Lol
Benefits being reduced are a result of people living longer and political hesitancy to raise the FRA or the amount of the tax. They should be reduced further as more and more people retire and live even longer...or the tax rate will have to increase. None of that diminishes the fact that the basic issues SS was created to address are far better today than they were prior to SS and have been for some what, 80 years?
SS HAS expanded. It is FAR easier to get a social security disability pension than it ever has been and it has been getting easier every year for a LONG time. It is an entire industry now....and that is a HUGE problme for SS and one that will have to be addressed. It has also expanded dramatically just in the sheer number of recipients who are without question eligible to recieve benefits....again, an issue that needs to be addressed. The fact that it has expanded as it has and is still viable (for how long in current manifestation is up to debate but not long without some subsidy or significant changes) is testimony to how succesful it hs been in its core function.
If we turn the fund into individual retirement accounts ran by bankers they will be the only ones making anything. Take a look at the majority of people's retirement accounts for proof of this. It might work out well for some but others are going to get destroyed when they are most vunerable all based on the vaugeries of the market and their birthdate and health. And when that happens those who do well will be forced to reach into their wallets to subsidize those that don't but the bankers will simply pocket all the money they can.
Posted on 3/1/23 at 12:10 pm to el Gaucho
quote:
I hate how they call it “social security” instead of it’s real name
Boomer Welfare
A heaping pile of recipients today are Gen Z or younger.
SS is a bad idea for certain BUT as long as we insist on doing things that drive up the cost of living like requiring indoor plumbing and the like AND refuse to require employers to foot the entire bill of THEIR cost of production there is no way around taxpayers subsidizing the gap in income that we do today. There are no free lunches...the options are limited. Either earn enough to survive throuh work, be on the dole, be a criminal or some combination of the first 2 or all three. Most people would agree employment is the best solution yet we also readily allow many employers to pay less than it costs their employees to produce and someone has to make up the difference. There ain't no free lunch...someone has to pay.
We could drastically lower our expectations and standard of living and look at zoning and building codes and the like and make it possible for folks to live on the poverty wages many employers skate by on today....but who is going to want that next door to them? Why we don't call out employers who rely on taxpayer subsidization for their living is beyond me because we readily blame the employee.....
Posted on 3/1/23 at 12:28 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
Benefits being reduced are a result of people living longer and political hesitancy to raise the FRA or the amount of the tax. They should be reduced further as more and more people retire and live even longer...or the tax rate will have to increase
You fail to mention mismanagement/poor actuarials.
You fail to mention fraud.
You fail to mention "real inflation".
You fail to mention population fluctuations.
quote:
None of that diminishes the fact that the basic issues SS was created to address are far better today than they were prior to SS and have been for some what, 80 years?
The average monthly SSI benefit check in 2022 was $1681/month.
That is far better than what? Really. Answer that question. The average person receiving social security last year got $20,172. And that was an increase over the previous year. And the increase over the previous year didn't even fully fund the difference in premium costs for Medicare supplements year over year.
Imagine starting your career in 1960 thinking $7k/yr in retirement was going to be living the dream. Well 60 years later you are getting 3 times that amount and you are considered $500/month over the poverty level.
quote:
SS HAS expanded. It is FAR easier to get a social security disability pension than it ever has been and it has been getting easier every year for a LONG time.
We are talking about SSI and you want to change the subject to social security disability benefits.
And your example is now granting permanent disability benefits to people who go out into the workforce and work part time and full time jobs. Permanent disability benefits for "covid brain" and fybromyalgia.
I have one contact who told me how excited he was to have earned his permanent disability payments while being a full time student and working as a roadside assistance tech.
Personally, I don't care about disability benefits. Some need it and get it. It feels like a ton of people are milking the system. But God forbid those "bankers" handle the money.
quote:
If we turn the fund into individual retirement accounts ran by bankers they will be the only ones making anything. Take a look at the majority of people's retirement accounts for proof of this. It might work out well for some but others are going to get destroyed when they are most vunerable all based on the vaugeries of the market and their birthdate and health. And when that happens those who do well will be forced to reach into their wallets to subsidize those that don't but the bankers will simply pocket all the money they can.
What do you think would happen if we gave the people a referendum?
What would happen if people had a choice for federally operated social security insurance or a personal account that they can manage themselves or contract a manager to oversee.
Are you afraid of such a referendum? Do you think people choosing to manage their own funds are dumb because someone else somewhere down the line could earn income for management?
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News