- 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: Social Security - Help me understand better
Posted on 2/9/23 at 10:17 am to southdowns84
Posted on 2/9/23 at 10:17 am to southdowns84
quote:
I’m as conservative as it gets, but if you don’t believe social security is the lesser evil, you shouldn’t be accusing anyone of being naive. People in this country cannot be trusted to save for retirement.
"I support the second amendment, but....."
Yeah, people in this country can't be trusted to save because we've trained them not to. This is the exact same thing the libs do with school lunches; look at the growing numbers and assume those children will all starve to death without the lunch program.
If you release a zebra from the zoo into the wild it probably won't last that long. That's not because zebras can't thrive in the wild, it's because you trained that one to behave a certain way. If SS weren't around you'd see a lot more people taking care of their own business, but daddy government keeps bailing them out so they don't worry about it.
2
Posted on 2/9/23 at 10:48 am to BigJim
quote:It is far more sustainable than cost of carry on our non-SS debt in a 5-6% inflationary environment.
the program unsustainable under current tax rates ($ inflows) and benefits ($ outflows).
Understanding SS value as a borrowing vehicle is critical to keeping the eye on the overall deficit ball. SS accounting discounts the monetized federal leverage SSTF surpluses provided for years.
Translation: Assuming all else as equal, without SS, our current debt would be higher, not lower. Current SSTF inflow-outflow is in relative balance. So current deficits would be higher solely based on cost of carry for a higher debt.
Due to demographics, SS will indeed fall out of balance in current dollars over the next few years. It will serve as a deficit "shiny object" while feds otherwise irresponsibly overspend and redistribute our money. There will be pressure, particularly on GenY/GenZ to accept a still lower ROI as Uncle Sam forces them to lend him money in the future.
We need to all understand that lending money at submarket ROI is not a "benefit."
Posted on 2/9/23 at 10:52 am to Flats
quote:
If you release a zebra from the zoo into the wild it probably won't last that long. That's not because zebras can't thrive in the wild, it's because you trained that one to behave a certain way. If SS weren't around you'd see a lot more people taking care of their own business, but daddy government keeps bailing them out so they don't worry about it.
These are great platitudes for this message board, but this has nothing to do with reality. You clearly have no interest in actually understanding the issues and only want to throw out broad remarks that sound good in your head.
Forget SS entirely. You are getting robbed by it and orphaned children are unfairly benefitting from it at your expense. So are surviving spouses even though their deceased spouse paid in the same as you. Shame on them for playing by the same rules you’re subject to.
Go look up average and median 401k balances by age and tell me we don’t have a problem. I have no sympathy for any of the people that haven’t saved enough either, so please spare me that long-winded straw man this time. I have no interest in bail outs. I don’t know where you got the notion I was in favor of that. You’re a fool if you think both parties won’t push for it though.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 10:52 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Actuarial analysis is different than insurance itself.
Fair enough.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 10:57 am to southdowns84
quote:
You clearly have no interest in actually understanding the issues
Awesome; another Carnac. frick off.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 11:02 am to southdowns84
quote:
People in this country cannot be trusted to save for retirement.
How is that my problem?
I choose not to be a nanny.
quote:
Social security isn’t a solution but at least it’s a safety net.
You mean a safety net for some who are incapable of saving while it fricks other people over.
Social Security should be a voluntary program.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 11:10 am to Flats
quote:
Awesome; another Carnac. frick off.
This might be your most respectable response yet.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 11:13 am to southdowns84
quote:That's about like considering PayDay Loans a benefit for the indigent community.
Social security isn’t a solution but at least it’s a safety net.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 11:23 am to FMtTXtiger
First off... it is a government program and NONE of us have a personal retirement savings account there. People think that the money they and their employer pay in (roughly 7%) is their money for retirement. It is not! The government has complete control of it.
Now... If someone is disabled or lives a long time after drawing benefits, they could possibly receive more than they pay in. I have no reason to think this will be me. I won't get back more than I pay in until I hit 80.
Now... If someone is disabled or lives a long time after drawing benefits, they could possibly receive more than they pay in. I have no reason to think this will be me. I won't get back more than I pay in until I hit 80.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 11:23 am to 93and99
quote:
How is that my problem?
You’re right, it’s not a problem that the overwhelming majority of Americans haven’t save me enough for retirement.
Making SS voluntary will definitely help the situation.
Seriously though, I’d be a fan of making it voluntary for people that actually participate in retirement plans.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 11:25 am to FMtTXtiger
It's just another tax.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 11:26 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
That's about like considering PayDay Loans a benefit for the indigent community.
You’re right, letting poor people opt out of SS so they can bump up that payday loan just a little more is a fantastic idea.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 11:32 am to ShermanTxTiger
quote:Indeed, and now run the numbers assuming all the money you paid in accrued 8, 9, or 10% interest. You'll never get that back.
I won't get back more than I pay in until I hit 80.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 11:49 am to southdowns84
quote:A word to the wise: if you don't understand what you're reading, simply say so. I'm happy to clarify. If you don't understand what you are reading, and attempt to respond sarcastically, it doesn't come off well.
You’re right, letting poor people opt out of SS so they can bump up that payday loan just a little more is a fantastic idea.
...
The point is, taking money from a working class employee, holding it for 40yrs, using it to monetize your own debt over the ensuing period, then returning it in monthly aliquots at a miserable ROI IS NO BENEFIT. It is no service.
Taking that money, investing it in a US Treasury account with full ownership of residuals, would be a service. Investing it in a standard retirement account would be a service. Using it as a federal debt vehicle for 40yrs, then returning it incrementally at subpar rates to inflation is not a service. It is not a favor.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 12:08 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
It is far more sustainable than cost of carry on our non-SS debt in a 5-6% inflationary environment.
Yeah, but that's a pretty low bar. I understand your point, that doesn't suggest any solution.
quote:
Due to demographics, SS will indeed fall out of balance in current dollars over the next few years. It will serve as a deficit "shiny object" while feds otherwise irresponsibly overspend and redistribute our money. There will be pressure, particularly on GenY/GenZ to accept a still lower ROI as Uncle Sam forces them to lend him money in the future.
Pressure? It's inevitable. Unless we just let triggered cuts to retirees kick in, and I don't think that will be allowed to happen.
We are basically looking at increased payroll taxes. Nothing else will much fly politically. Maybe R's can extract a mandatory program as part of it, but they will probably chicken out.
And whatever the solution the sooner the better.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 12:35 pm to Flats
quote:
This might be one of the most naive things I've ever read. If you don't think the gimmedat class knows about "crazy money", I don't know what to tell you. Remember the Obamaphone lady? "You got low income, you disability..."
They know. Trash finds a way to live off the backs of others, and even if they're not industrious in any other part of their life they'll damn sure find out how to get free money.
Folks may well know about the Obamaphone, which is actually the George W Bush phone because the program predates Obama's election by 6 years, but like the phone those people would not get a phone were it not for the manufacturers and the carriers encouraging it and they wouldn't get disability with the gang of doctors and lawyers who convince them they are eligible and proceed to facilitate the case for them.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 12:37 pm to furrydogs
quote:
I haven't read all of your replies but a lot of them made sense and are rational. Smashing success might be a stretch though. Social Security hasn't kept up with actuary tables or demographic changes. Social Security started when life expectancies were in the mid 60's and we had a vastly different population demographic. The biggest change to SS to address this was moving Full Retirement Age to 67 which hasn't been enough to shore it up. Folks need to be realistic and accept that we need to raise the Full Retirement Benefit to age 70 and possibly move the early number from 62 to 65.
You are 100% spot on. That is not the doing of the trust fund, however, that is our elected leaders who are unwilling to do what is necessary because we, the folks who put them in office, will get madder than a wet hen.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 12:41 pm to southdowns84
quote:
Social security is a ripoff, but 2.9% of that is for Medicare and 6.2% is being paid by the employer.
Most people absolutely don’t have the discipline needed to save 15% for retirement.
Employer ain't paying bupkus the empoyee is earning the employer "contribution". No employer is going to pay for an employee for long...they are going to go out of business or find another employee if they are having to pay for anything the employee is not earning. The employer portion is called a contribution because it sounds as if the employer and the employee is in it together. It is all coming out of the compensation package of the employee. Every red penny...
Posted on 2/9/23 at 12:47 pm to Auburn1968
quote:
$1000 invested in the stock market 40 years ago would be about $36,000 today at the market's average growth rate of 9%.
$1000 invested in the SS "Trust Fund" 40 years ago comes out to about $2,200 at the "Trust Fund" interest rate of about 2%. Inflation has averaged about 4% over the last 40 years.
$1000 invested in a specific investment 40 years ago may have increased in value much more significantly than the market's average. A person could have taken that same $1000 to a craps table and with some luck made way more than it would have made in market average. Social security was never meant to be an individual retirement account. It was meant to be provide some dignity for the elderly, the disabled and the orphaned, many of whom never had $1000 to invest but will be on the dole or otherwise a problem for the rest of us without some basic income. We could just shoot them, I guess, or otherwise just leave them to their own devices but about 80% of Americans think SS is preferable to either choice...only the hateful and greedy gripe about it.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 12:49 pm to Bayoutigre
quote:
social security IS a ponzi scheme,you have 3 people working putting into the system for every person collecting.do you contribute enough in a month to pay a third of a retirees pension? we were supposed to have 15 to 20 working for every 1 collecting
Again, a ponzi scheme is sold on you being paid out of returns on your investment, not by the other people in the scheme. Social security is sold, up front, as you being paid by those investing in the scheme, not from YOUR investment in the scheme. It really is simple minded to pretend that you don't undrstand this OR just stupid if you really do not...
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News