| Author | Message | ||
     John Caffrey Citizen Username: Jerseyjack Post Number: 309 Registered: 11-2005 |
Representative Jim McCrey, (R), La. is expected to take over the Ways and Means committee chairmanship when we Republicans win in November. In a speech before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, he said he will make it his first priority to resurect the Social Security privatization bill. Social Security is socialism in its most virulent form. It seems strange that we don't have enough money in the treasury to stop taking money from dead people with the death tax but we have money for people to waste rocking in their rocking chairs waiting for the next check to come in. Lets win it this time. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5079 Registered: 5-2001 |
Calling something "socialism" is meaningless. Please try to address specifically what it is you don't like without resorting to labels. Except for what you refer to as the "death tax," which I prefer to call the "Paris Hilton tax." That's because repealing it benefits Paris Hilton more than the entire population of Maplewood combined. It's catching on, too! But you can bet that she won't be sitting in her rocking chair waiting for the next (dividend) check to come in. She'll be sitting in a chaise lounge by the pool. By the way, right now SS is taking in more than it distributes. That should be an answer to your question about why we have enough money for it. Why you are so eager to impoverish elderly people with no other means of support so you can give Paris Hilton a few more million, I cannot fathom. But Republicanism hasn't been about fairness, civility or compassion since the Grant administration, has it? | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5080 Registered: 5-2001 |
I just read your platform for your township committee campaign. I apologize for being clueless. A few more posts and I would have gotten it. After all, I figured out GOP Man LOOONNGG before anyone else did, and I have the P.L. to prove it. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5711 Registered: 8-2003 |
Like the front page article in the NY Times today about unions admitting they've demanded more benefits than the companies they've worked for can afford to pay, so is the Social Security system in this country rapidly facing that eventuality. Sure -- Ford and GM can still pay those benefits that are ruining them and destroying their debt rating in the process. The union thug representative, however, told his workers that it can't be ever thus. I'm sure some workers, like some Social Security recipients, don't care so long as they get theirs. The hell with their children who will be taxed more than the beneficiaries can bother to figure out. We'll just have to 'raise taxes on the wealthy' to keep a system that demographically can't sustain itself as it's currently constructed. And GM and Ford can just raise the price of their cars. The rich will pay as they won't change their behavior but just sit back and take it, and people will still buy Ford and GM cars no matter what you do, goes the thinking. tom -- why do you want to cut people's benefits by at least 25%? That's what will happen if you keep things as they are now. Or.... You could be one of the supporters of raising taxes or -- more recently, doing absolutely nothing -- who don't care about the children who must bear the burden. Their concern about debt and deficits vanishes when this topic comes up. And it's based upon an ideology that has successfully trained it's followers that they're too incompetent to manage or be in charge of assets (with government assistance) in this world. Because of that, their followers don't learn about asset management in it's simplest form and the circle continues. | ||
| John Caffrey Citizen Username: Jerseyjack Post Number: 312 Registered: 11-2005 |
Tom, Thanx | ||
| GOP Man Citizen Username: Headsup Post Number: 396 Registered: 5-2005  |
I'm with cjc on this one. The libs definitely don't care about the burden on the children, and if you ask them about it, their vaunted "compassion" vanishes. It's only people like us conservatives who understand that tax cuts are the only thing that will ensure that our children don't bear the burden of debt in the future. Only by cutting taxes now, will we asssure sufficient revenue in the future, since everyone knows that lower tax rates bring more revenue. you "balanced" budget libs opposing tax cuts are ensuring deficits as far as the eye can see. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5082 Registered: 5-2001 |
I'm afraid the problem with Agnes and Billie down at the Wal-Mart isn't that they're not up to speed on asset management, it's that they have no assets. Social Security is the only safety net they've got -- and if things keep going the way there are the only one they're going to get. It's amazing how real wages have been flat over the last couple of decades, while productivity is up and more importantly executive compensation is through the roof. Did you see the story in today's Journal about Monster.com's executive getting back-dated stock options? Time after time, options showed up priced for dates when the stock was at a nadir, right before a big runup. We're expected to believe it's a coincidence, but a Journal statistician figures it's a 9 million-to-one shot. The tax restructuring over the last twenty-five years has been an incentive -- an incentive to simply keep more. All the vaunted gains are going into the pockets of the already wealthy, while salaries, services and benefits for everything else are cut or threatened. And heaven forbid that even something as simple as raising the minimum wage happen. You want to see middle and lower-middle class people start saving? Get them out of the hand-to-mouth rat race. Get the ratios of salaries back to where they were when most Americans across the country could make a decent living. If we had an 85% top bracket you can bet that executive greed would grind to a near halt. Lower marginal rates were supposed to unleash the creativity of the marketplace, but it only increased the creativity of ways to grab what you could at, the expense of everyone underneath you. The same goes for the "Paris Hilton" Tax. Don't eliminate it. Raise it. Do you think the outgoing chairman of Exxon would have taken a half-billion dollars from his stockholders if 85% of it was going to taxes? No way. It would instead have gone into your mutual fund. Make that top bracket start high, and unlike the AMT index it. Start, say, at $4,000,000 taxable income. If you're making that much, you don't need any incentive to make another $1,000,000. Let it filter back to the people who labor for it but don't have insurance for their kids, or to the stockholders. As an aside to cjc, you know we've been down the Social Security road together before. You want to eliminate it altogether. You're entitled to your opinion, but please don't pretend that you to want to repair it. | ||
| John Caffrey Citizen Username: Jerseyjack Post Number: 314 Registered: 11-2005 |
OK. Tax cuts now are the answer. But where are the tax cuts coming from? Should they come from, "Ear Marks?" or in the case of New Jersey, "Christmas Tree Ornaments?" Alaskan bridges to nowhere? Defense spending? Defense mis-spending (waste $29. toilet seat) Highways in New Jersey? Highways in Alabama? Tax breaks to the oil companies? Tax break to Paris Hilton and 400 other families with the bills to be paid by everyone else? Stem cell research with no guaranteed results? Birth control for poor people who can't afford it? Soccer fields since no one plays that anyway? We all can add to the list of tax expedtitures we either value or consider a waste. Now, lets go back to expenditures for education. Public education began in the early 1840's in the U.S. Yeh, it started in Massachusetts with Horace Mann. But the push for it did not come from poor people who prefered keeping their kids on the farm or working at a trade. Rather, it came from the conservative factory owners who needed a workforce that could read and follow instructions and coordinate activites using time calibrators (clocks). Fast forward to the 1870's when the National Education Association was created. At one of their first conventions, the National Association of Manufacturers was invited to address the N.E.A. to tell teachers what skills and attitudes were wanted in graduates by the industrial sector. Courses were soon added after this address and the content of individual courses was changed to include socialization to time (detention if you are late), don't get out of your seat, political indoctrination (unions lead to socialism), spelling, drafting and so forth. Also note that the N.A.M. was not interesting in giving money to promote this education that was toward their benefit. Let the same poor people pay for it. So all this takes us to the question of what expenditures we value, who pays and who gains. Bringing these questions to the forefront was the purpose of writing my "campaign platform." I hope for a dialog on this. | ||
| GOP Man Citizen Username: Headsup Post Number: 401 Registered: 5-2005 |
tax cuts don't have to be offset by spending cuts. they pay for themselves, everyone knows that. tax cuts mean increased revenue to the treasury. the only way out of deficits is to keep cutting taxes. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5712 Registered: 8-2003 |
tom -- The implication that 'wages are flat' supposes that all costs going into hiring someone have been flat. That's simply not the case, especially given healthcare costs that have exploded. That's such a stupid term in reality. If it costs more to hire you, businesses don't 'eat it.' It's your money as related to the job. If you didn't earn the money to pay for your healthcare, businesses wouldn't hire you. So businesses are paying more for your healthcare and just giving less of it directly to you. Saying "ALL of the vaunted gains go to the already wealthy" is absurd given that roughly half of the country owns some form of stock now, which also makes the assertion that middle class people can't save because they're living "hand to mouth" ridiculous. They're already 'saving'' by sending their money into an SS system that's a lousy utilization of assets that can't sustain itself and pay the level of benefits it says it will. READ: IT WON'T WORK AS IT IS. Do you want to cut benefits by 25+% in the relatively near future? That would be your children if they live to 75. To say you were desiring that would be inflammatory, so I won't. Social Security's mechanism doesn't work, tom, and you well know it. If you don't think it isn't unsustainable you're seriously deluding yourself. And yes, my answer involves ownership and the market but you're not alone out there. If you fall back on the 'some couldn't handle it' argument there are real idiot-proof management techniques that can't help but deliver more than what's happening. You may even own one yourself. Yes, those people living around you that you think don't have a clue have them too. The strategy basically involves breathing as long as you can, unless you allow them to pass their assets on to their children. You know.....all the stuff that you hate. I'm not saying toss everyone to the winds either. I'm not even saying eliminate the SS Administration. Medicaid provides a service, and Social Security should have something addressing the poor, destitute, the orphans widows and other responsibilities is has including the maintenance and regulatory oversight of people's retirement. What's the answer from your side on how you know it has to be fixed, tom? It somehow has to either earn more money for itself or confiscate more money from citizens. Any ideas? I'd ask the Democratic leadership but they refuse to say. Surely you have an answer more pro-active than 'No!'" | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5713 Registered: 8-2003 |
tom....if you posted your ideas I think you didn't hit the right key. Try again. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5717 Registered: 8-2003 |
Can someone help tom out? | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2161 Registered: 8-2003  |
I can't speak for Tom, but I don't argue with people who refer to taxes as "confiscation." nothing personal, but knowing that we'll never come to any meeting of the minds, I'd prefer to save time and effort by just agreeing to disagree right from the get-go. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5094 Registered: 5-2001 |
I'm a little busy the last few days. Be patient. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 11816 Registered: 5-2001 |
If you invested in a Dow index fund in 2000, you would still be underwater, even before the management fees the banks and Wall Street firms are going to charge to manage your privatized account. I admit that SS needs fixing, but I don't think it should be destroyed. To privatize we either have to raise taxes or put several trillion on the National Master Card. Neither is acceptable to the Cons and the Libs don't like the addition to the debt. Like the old ad said, "Pay me know or pay me later". | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5718 Registered: 8-2003 |
You're already going to be adding several trillion on the debt unless you go along with cutting benefits by 25% to your kids. You could go into debt to maintain a system that doesn't work, or try something else. Which is it? If you stop doing what doesn't work, does that mean you're 'destroying' Social Security, or just Social Security as you've known it and replacing it with something that might actually pay for itself? Liberals. Enemy of debt while at the same time defenders of Social Security and other entitlements that are exploding. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5719 Registered: 8-2003 |
Tell you what, Doctor. I'll call taxes whatever you'd like me to call them if you've got got an idea here we can 'meet' on. How about "contributions" from the old Clinton days? | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 11819 Registered: 5-2001 |
As I said, pay me now or pay me later. Even if we pull out the old Master Card and put the cost on the debt, many people who retire at some point in the future and have to buy an annuity will be seeing a 25% lower benefit than they expected and the glossy statements from Fidelity led them to expect if the Dow is in a trough when they retire. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5097 Registered: 5-2001 |
Well we're going several trillion dollars into debt right now for a lot of systems that don't work, from the war in Iraq to tax cuts for Paris Hilton. It's been nearly six years and the revenue gains from the tax cuts have yet to materialize. Many people are of the opinion that Social Security can get over the hump that's 30-40 years down the road by making slight modifications to the current withholding schedules. Raising the cut-off point, or incrementing the rate a small amount. It doesn't take an awful lot. Demanding acquiescence to a 25% cut is a false choice. Right now, Social Security is still taking in more than it pays out, so it's hardly exploding. As for flat wages, the all-in cost of a worker with a good benefits package right now is around 140% of base salary. So the argument that healthcare costs are exploding isn't relevant to the exploding ratio of upper management to worker salaries. And that's 140% of a good benefits package, with fully-paid health insurance, lots of vacations and holidays, 401(k) plans with contributions, and a few other things I don't remember of the top of my head. The all-in cost for Clara and Dennis over at the Wal-Mart is probably more like 106%. The growth of CEO salaries is more like 1000%. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5720 Registered: 8-2003 |
tom -- you're focusing on the rich, per usual, and saying in comparison to them all the other people aren't as well off as I maintain. But my point was that total compensation -- that entire 140% -- has indeed gone up. Regardless what the CEO is making, healthcare spending for everyone is going up by 5-8% a year depending on which story you read. In the history of employer provided healthcare, it's only recently that those costs have been 'pass down' to the worker, when in fact the worker was paying those costs before and just not seeing the money in take-home pay. There is nothing 'flat' in this scenario. "It's been nearly six years and the revenue gains from the tax cuts have yet to materialize."?? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13deficit.html?ei=5090&en=a410f8c74d4 700a5&ex=1278907200&pagewanted=print So, if you raise the tax level to capture more earnings of 'the wealthy,' are you going allow them to collect a bigger benefit because of it? Are you also calling for tax hikes for all participants? If not, you're turning something described as "social insurance" into a welfare plan. You're charging someone a higher premium (who has less risk) for the same benefit. In essence, you're calling for a wealth transfer, the very thing FDR feared when he initiated the program. If you want to honestly make it a welfare program, fine. Call it that and run on it. Nor am I demanding acquiesence to a 25% cut. I'm just saying if you don't do something that's what is going to happen. Why not make the system capture a bigger return on the monies in there, and wall it off from government borrowing at low rates of return? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1465 Registered: 10-2004  |
cjc - your right. the healthcare system is an outrageous sellout to the big pharmaceutical companies and HMO's. What we need is nationalized healthcare with a guarantee of healthcare to everyone. Then we need a fixed social security system whose funds are not used in the budget for anything other then social security. Then we need a reduction in the federal beaurocracy starting with the department of faith based initiatives. We should revamp the homeland security department since it is a complete failure and reduce the amount we spend on the military industrial complex. that should go a long way towards solving all our financial issues. - oh yes we should put back into place the pay as you go rules so that we can not extend the deficit any further then it already is and yes we should reinstate the taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans. These people should gladly pay more into the national treasury to support America and the Americans who are so much less fortunate then they are. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5098 Registered: 5-2001 |
But further, I propose that the solution -- whatever it is -- has to wait a few years. The party which has railed against the basic existence of the system these last 70+ years simply cannot be trusted to reform it. They simply do not have the best interests at heart of the people who really need the system. Just take a look at the giveaway the prescription drug plan was. The SS plan that was test-marketed last year had so many traps and ceilings in it that it would have been virtually impossible for an investor to get any bigger return than what they're getting now, and a lot of chances to get less. On the other hand, it would have sent a lot of money into brokerage fees and fraudulent investments. That plan is mercifully dead and buried. But let me emphasize again, the idea of "rate of return" on Social Security is a fiction. Your rate of return is totally dependent on when you begin receiving benefits, and when you stop receiving them (i.e., die). If you live a long time, your rate is higher; if you are disabled or widowed in your thirties, your rate is higher; if you're single and die in your fifties, your rate is lower. If Congress raises benefits, or lowers them, or changes the tax structure, the return changes in a way totally dependent on the policy. There is no "rate of return" that can be calculated in a conventional sense. As for calling for "taxing the wealthy," changing the cut-off point from where it is now (I forget, somewhere around $85K) to $90K doesn't in any way change the system's relationship to them. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5721 Registered: 8-2003 |
It is at $90K now. If we raise that to $110K, do those taxpayers get a larger SS benefit? How does that effect the model? If you don't have the money earning and compounding, tom, you have a system that uses the payroll taxes of what used to be 4 and now is 2 or less going to pay the benefits of 1. Demographically, you can't have that continue as the current system is configured. To your way of thinking, only way to fix that is to raise taxes and eliminate the Social Security system as we know it exists and turn it into a welfare program. That's obviously not a problem for you. Your charge of 'rate of return' being fiction is misplaced. I'm talking about what the money in the system earns. It's not about what you get with no relation to whether you contributed enough or those monies earned enough to cover what it's paying you. Mind you, what it doesn't cover we let your kids pay. It's all about the concept of actually earning what you receive, tom. As for fiction, the fiction is in comparing the program offered by the President as in any way offering 'less' than SS today offers when in fact SS can't cover what it is promising by the time your children get on it. "Fraudulent investments"?? Gimme a break! What fraudulent investments? Rated mutual funds? You mean those stock index and bond funds you and the clueless neighbors all over Maplewood currently hold with cheap management fees? How can you trust a party that refuses to address the shortfalls of the program they claim to own? They won't even put your platform of tax hikes out there. What does that tell you? Do you also propose means-testing? | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2162 Registered: 8-2003 |
we shouldn't trust it to either party. we should trust it to true conservatives. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1470 Registered: 10-2004 |
yeah those government bonds the social security fund is invested in are really poor investment vehicles. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5723 Registered: 8-2003 |
Hoops -- There are other bonds out there, Hoops. Where do you have your money? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1472 Registered: 10-2004 |
oh sorry, I should have put my {sarcasm} html tag on. US bonds are the most secure investment in the world, its why the Chinese have bought so many of them. We guarantee the return on the investment. SSI should not be invested in the stock market, for wall street to skim money off the top. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5725 Registered: 8-2003 |
Is that where you have your money, Hoops? How many years out are you from retirement? Unless you're close to retiring soon, you're making a big mistake that you'll try to blame on others or the capitalist system. Notice the people telling you not to put Social Security money in the stock market have their own money there? Besides, there are other bond and cash instruments besides T-bills. Are you familiar with those? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1473 Registered: 10-2004 |
I am quite familiar with all investment products. But if you would like to give some specific investment tips to us here on MOL, I am sure we would that you would receive a very enthusiastic response. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 11827 Registered: 5-2001 |
Social Security interest accumulates tax free so tax free bonds (discounted because of this) aren't all that good an investment. Probably the best investment for 99% of the workers would be some sort of target fund that becomes more conservative as retirement age nears. Something similar to the funds run by Fidelity, Vanguard, etc. Another question is that if the SS Trust Fund isn't invested in T notes, how much will interest rates rise on those notes to attract other investors? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5727 Registered: 8-2003 |
BobK outlines a good approach for your investments there, Hoops. Real safe, and a higher return than those bonds you've been holding. Hoops -- either you don't understand it and transfer that lack of understanding and the premise that people can't learn, or you're successfully in the market and talking about how hard it is for the little people. Little people, I might add, who's population isn't growing as more and more people become investors in the US and markets worldwide. Those people could easily be guided automatically into the same low-fee vehicles you might/should have and if the government could set up a fall-back guarantee at some level in retirement -- why be opposed to that? Where are your holdings, Hoops? Not the amounts, just the percentages is all I'm asking? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1477 Registered: 10-2004 |
I am holding 70% equities both domestic and international and 30% bonds both government and institutional. SSI is not meant to be a savings account. It is an annuity to be used in retirement as guaranteed income. It is not each investors personal money but rather as a whole Americas money. I am sure that you already understand that. There are already investment vehicles set up for individuals to invest their own money in like 401ks and IRAs. There is no reason whatsoever to privatize SS insurance into a brokerage fund. I am in the market, although I consider myself one of the little people - you would consider me as such, but others might think of my as not so little. The point is that SSI is a supplement to personal savings not a replacement. The SSI system is not in bad shape right now and can be corrected to last another 70 years with only minor adjustments. There are far greater needs now then to 'fix' something that is not broken. As you pointed out previously businesses are struggling to keep up with the cost of medical insurance. More people every year are totally uninsured and that is placing an enourmous strain on our hospital emergency rooms. The country requires a health care system for all of its citizens that is both cost effective and top of the line. Fix that problem and business can breathe easy. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5728 Registered: 8-2003 |
Hoops -- the most telling thing about your post is that you don't think the money belongs to the people who earned it. It belongs to "America." You then say the SSI system isn't broken. You're in denial. In 2041, you can only pay approximately 70% of the promises it makes. In something like 2018, it starts to pay out more than it takes in. If SSI is an annuity, would you buy an annuity that returned 2%? What kind of payout would that get you? If you bought that, you'd be nuts. Admit it -- along with tom -- that you want SSI to become a welfare system and eliminate it as we know it. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5111 Registered: 5-2001 |
from wikipedia:
So again, the concept of "rate of return" simply does not apply in the traditional sense. Your rate of return is not calculable until after you die. I don't understand what you mean by turning it into a welfare system. Is "welfare system" one of those perjoratives you guys throw around like "socialism," or does it mean something specific in this sense? And what's wrong with the concept of "America" when it comes to the idea of shared assets? Or are we only allowed to share with other citizens a blind worship of George Bush? NEWS FLASH: without the infrastructure and citizenry of America "your money" is worthless. Like the South Park episode about the gang going to Afghanistan and giving the kids over there dollar bills, what are they worth if you can't buy anything? You're not living in a vacuum, no matter what you might think about your rugged suburban individualism. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5729 Registered: 8-2003 |
tom -- you just don't get it, do you. You've got money working for you that pays...whatever....for the lifespan of the annuitee. The instruments providing this cash in addition to what comes into the system that flies right out again to cover demands on the system in classic Ponzi fashion DOESN'T RETURN CRAP with SSI. Why is it you think that other private annuities can provide more of a return and higher payouts relative to the money invested? Yes, there is cross subsidy in SSI. This cross-subsidy combined with a CRAP rate of return requires MORE cross-subsidy which -- since population growth won't provide it in the traditional way it did at the founding of the system -- means others have to cross-subsidize those who can't cover their own rear ends even more because the model DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T AND CAN'T UTILIZE THE ENTIRE MARKETPLACE LIKE SUCCESSFUL MODELS CAN. The reason I use "welfare" for the umpteenth time is that FDR when he founded this system knew that popular support would shrink if it became a wealth transfer from the middle and upper classes to the lower class. That's why he limited the amount of income suspectible to the FICA tax. If you keep increasing it to cover this stupid system as it stands you will (rightly in my opinion) lose popular support because it becomes forced charity. When people say "Wait....that's my money in there!" and you tell them "Hey...you haven't put enough money in there and you're living off your children" it comes as a real shock. It also shocks them that there's not an account with their name on it with their money in it. They think they're paying for themselves and there's a certain amount of pride in that. But it's not the case. They don't like to be thought of as charity cases, but that's the truth. The real problem is you're denying the opportunity for some people to be able to rightly fund their own retirement and pass along the assets to others with part of that money because of a fealty based on ideology to a system that is shown to be inadequate. And your answer is to do nothing, which is quite popular with the Democrats these days. Finally, the concept of America is not based upon dependency on others for your outcome. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5114 Registered: 5-2001 |
Nobody is denying anybody anything. Anyone can invest money in any way they see fit, and pass the assets along when they die. Social Security does nothing to prevent this. For what does, you might take a closer look at stagnating wages and cheap credit. I don't agree 100% with your premise that SS should be in the business of maximizing returns on the monies it collects. Over the long haul, bonds do as well or better than stocks. Agreed, the rates that Treasury pays these special securities is pretty low and they could do better; but is that any more than a bookkeeping trick? But the idea of letting individuals manage their own funds is to me simply too prone to fraud and abuse. Once these billions of dollars flood the financial markets, in no time at all unscupulous managers are going to be hiking fees, churning accounts and investing <ahem> unwisely. P.T. Barnum told us there was a sucker born every minute; what with the growth in population since then, there's probably three or four born every second now. Ditto letting the Feds play favorites with the markets by managing the investment of public assets. We've seen enough favoritism and cronyism these last six years to make it pretty clear that money will not be steered to the most sound investments, but only to the most well-connected. But on principle I would not want to see the government have a large position in any particular corporation over the long haul. It's an unnecessary distortion of the market, and they are simply not sound enough for the kind of extremely long-term investment that has to be made. For example, if this had been around when we were kids it would have been a no-brainer for the government to invest in certain "blue chip" corporations. But where are they now? You could probably sell me a little more easily on munis (which right now don't yield all that much less than comparable treasuries, even with the tax exemption) or some kind of revenue bond. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1508 Registered: 9-2004 |
"In 2041, you can only pay approximately 70% of the promises it makes." CJC you would be right if... -SS trust fund earned no interest -If we average 1.8 % GDP growth 1.8% growth over 30 yrs represents a financial collpase, Thunderdome, if you will. A completely unrealistic sceanario, if it does happen we Boomers won't be worrying about getting SS chacks, thats for damn sure) Last year SS had something like 6 trillion in the Trust fund... how much would various Bonds be earning....@ ... I dunno... 3 to 6 %? Whats 3% interest on 6 trillion? And why did you leave out that sort of info, info that makes it appear that you are right? yawn. What If we average 3.6% growth GDP, like we have for ...I dunno... the last 100 Years. 3.6% growth makes SS good until 2061. And CJC, just how many Boomers should be alive in 2041, or 2051? If they are dead, do they still collect SS beni's? SO if we dont have to pay out to the Boomers (because they are dead),,, whats the problem? Birth rates in 1956-57 started dropping, so if they (Boomers) live to be 100 years old, they will be dead by 2056-57. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5115 Registered: 5-2001 |
Ah, but you see, the 1.8% GDP growth figure is for discussion of Social Security. The 3% figure is only to be used for talking about tax cuts. Get it now? | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1512 Registered: 9-2004 |
hmm . . .point taken . . . LOL. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2168 Registered: 8-2003 |
yet another reason it's not worth debating this issue with some people. anyone who looks at 35, 50 or 75 year economic projections and makes claims with absolute assurance ("SS will be bankrupt!" "SS is unsustainable!") is an ideologue who's not interested in real debate. there are scenarios that vary in likelihood, depending upon the assumptions you make regarding life expectancy, economic growth, wage trends, productivity, and immigration, just to name a few. if a person is interested in honest debate, they'll acknowledge for example, that the CBO projections give us nearly 10 more years of paying out full benefits than the SS Trustees projections do. For another example, I could say that we should assume legal immigration will proceed for the next 50 years at its current pace and guess what? The entire projected SS deficit disappears! so that's why I don't bother with a "debate" on this issue, unless someone is giving clear indication that they have an open mind with regard to evaluating the projections, as well as considering a full array of "fixes." |
