- 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: In just a few years, the average retiree will be receiving 37% more in SS than he paid in
Posted on 2/25/24 at 7:58 am to Marquesa
Posted on 2/25/24 at 7:58 am to Marquesa
quote:
This is lying with statistics. If I had put all the money that went to SS into a safe investment, like bonds - my money would have grown many times over. I"ve heard a rule of thumb that invested money doubles every 7 years on aveage. I've been giving money to SS for 50 years. So my money should have doubled 7 times
Now do the 75-85% of people who will receive SS who would have $0 invested if it were up to them. Your theorized returns pale in comparison to their theorized losses. That's why this "efficient investor" model is silly when describing a welfare program like SS.
The whole point of SS is security over efficiency.
1
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and the population rejected it
Nice try, it was the Dems in Congress that rejected Bush's allocation for a portion of a young worker's earmarked SS to go into indexed funds. Don't go changing SFP. Keep revising history. It's what you do best.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:02 am to Tomatocantender
quote:
it was the Dems in Congress that rejected Bush's allocation for a portion of a young worker's earmarked SS to go into indexed funds.
DEMs representing a huge portion of the population.
It wasn't universally favored among Republicans, either, especially the lower end of the SES spectrum.
quote:
Don't go changing SFP. Keep revising history. It's what you do best.
So your argument is DEMs don't argue for their voting population?
LINK
quote:
According to the Gallup organization, public disapproval of President Bush’s handling of Social Security rose by 16 points from 48 to 64 percent–between his State of the Union address and June.
This post was edited on 2/25/24 at 8:04 am
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Just make IRA contributions obligatory at a >6.2% rate plus a 6.2% employer match.
Now do the 75-85% of people who will receive SS who would have $0 invested if it were up to them.
That will never happen, because SS's purpose is not to benefit retirees.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
DEMs representing a huge portion of the population.
quote:
So your argument is DEMs don't argue for their voting population?
Nice crawfishing. You went from the population rejecting it to now only the Dems rejecting it. Thanks for telling on yourself as a full of shite poster. Damn that didn't take long for you to self sabotage your own bullshite post.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:11 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Another world indeed. Because unlike those other programs running at a deficit, SS remains in surplus.
SS spending is on another universe than anything other than Medicare, Medicaid, and military spending
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:11 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Just make IRA contributions obligatory at a >6.2% rate plus a 6.2% employer match.
And then what happens when the market shifts wildly for each population entering retirement? Remember the 2009 retirees who got absolutely fricked by that market? Or what about people who would retire in 2021, when the market was insanely high?
Again, from an efficiency standpoint, it makes sense. Government programs are about stability and security and not efficiency.
quote:
because SS's purpose is not to benefit retirees.
It is, just not in the most hyper efficient way.
Also, the private IRA methodology would create some pretty hefty inflation. You'd have over $1T invested into private companies and investments every year.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:12 am to Tomatocantender
quote:
Nice crawfishing
No crawfishing occurred.
quote:
You went from the population rejecting it to now only the Dems rejecting it.
The DEMs always rejected it. That's an automatic 47-48% of the population. It only took a little bit of the GOP to move to the majority, which is exactly what happened.
I'm sorry that you don't understand basic politics....or math.
quote:
Thanks for telling on yourself as a full of shite poster. Damn that didn't take long for you to self sabotage your own bullshite post.
What a self-own. You spiked the football and it hit you in your face off the bounce.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:13 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
So SS is basically means tested now.
Yeah, I get all that. I'm talking about getting thrown out entirely.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:15 am to Jorts R Us
I agree with you that I wish we had the option to just stop paying (especially since I'm self-employed).
But that will never happen b/c SS is a welfare program. People like you and me pay taxes for the government to inefficiently protect bad decision makers. That's what basically the function all regulatory and redistribution systems are created to perform.
What will always prevent actual reduction in these programs is the population of people who are (or are about to, in this example) receiving the benefits. Everyone wants welfare when they are receiving it.
But that will never happen b/c SS is a welfare program. People like you and me pay taxes for the government to inefficiently protect bad decision makers. That's what basically the function all regulatory and redistribution systems are created to perform.
What will always prevent actual reduction in these programs is the population of people who are (or are about to, in this example) receiving the benefits. Everyone wants welfare when they are receiving it.
This post was edited on 2/25/24 at 8:17 am
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:If they are invested and remain invested, absolutely NOTHING happens, and by May they are basically whole again. But IRA's could have constraining policies requiring some or all the investment be in US Dept securities.
And then what happens when the market shifts wildly for each population entering retirement? Remember the 2009 retirees who got absolutely fricked by that market? Or what about people who would retire in 2021, when the market was insanely high?
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:False.
But that will never happen b/c SS is a welfare program.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:21 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:False.
because SS's purpose is not to benefit retirees.
---
It is, just not in the most hyper efficient way.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:23 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
If that 37% is spread out over the 35 years of working for wages how in the heck did they get away with only giving us a 1.057 rate of return?
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:24 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
If they are invested and remain invested, absolutely NOTHING happens
Huge IF, especially once they're vested and can withdraw.
People in the upper tier in private markets lost their arse. You don't think the population of lower intelligence/decision-making won't do the same thing?
Again, you have to look at these programs from the POV of the government and the entire population. You have to build these systems to give equal opportunities to the lowest rung of society and decision-making. That destroys efficiency.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:24 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
I simply don’t think the average person on the left or the right currently grasps the shite storm coming to Medicare and ss in the 2030s
For sure the populist sheep on this board do not.
This post was edited on 2/25/24 at 8:25 am
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:26 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:You are a lawyer. You understand laws could easily be written to govern such things, at least I hope you do.
Huge IF, especially once they're vested and can withdraw.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:27 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Are you saying the collapse of SS is imminent?
I’d be for them overpaying SS since it mainly goes to old people if they would stop cutting huge tax refunds to people who don’t pay any actual taxes. That is an actual redistribution of wealth system.
I’d be for them overpaying SS since it mainly goes to old people if they would stop cutting huge tax refunds to people who don’t pay any actual taxes. That is an actual redistribution of wealth system.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:31 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Taxation is theft! /thread!
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:32 am to SlowFlowPro
It's nothing more than just another tax. I don't even consider it when thinking about my retirement planning. I understand why the idea of reduced benefits is unpopular, but I'm not interested in paying in even more into something I expect to see little of.
Page 5 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News