U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-05-2018, 08:19 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma
2,116 posts, read 704,059 times
Reputation: 975

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
small investors as a group suck at it . they have horrible behavior . this is just the thing ss was supposed to back stop
Again, Iím suggesting qualified groups that provide time adjusted mutual funds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-05-2018, 08:22 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma
2,116 posts, read 704,059 times
Reputation: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
Throw my retirement to the Wall Street wolves? No thanks, I'll stick to Social Security!
Qualified investments donít have to involve walstreet, though you would earn far better results in mutual funds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2018, 02:18 AM
 
66,296 posts, read 67,496,775 times
Reputation: 44425
Quote:
Originally Posted by maat55 View Post
Again, I’m suggesting qualified groups that provide time adjusted mutual funds.
the public would demand their money be put in annuity type investments the moment the investment value dipped .. that you can bet on. as well as most americans would end up doing poorly left to their own devices and non guaranteed results . especially the lower incomes , since ss gives them 6x the amount of income per dollar that it buys for a higher earner . you would starve the lower incomes once means tested ss was no longer.

there are pretty good reason ss works the way it does and it was put together by some of the smartest minds on the planet . sorry but neither you or i are smart enough to dream up a better system that actually would work and do what ss does in this country . i would bet my bottom dollar anything you think of would likely fail in use as opposed to the system we have which needs a relatively small amount of additional money to fill the gap and guarantees that income stability .

Last edited by mathjak107; 12-06-2018 at 02:34 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2018, 07:49 AM
 
11,967 posts, read 6,196,998 times
Reputation: 21989
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasperhobbs View Post
It would be a good idea to make SSDI part of welfare but I can't see the government making the change. Mainly because it makes too much sense and that usually contradicts government actions.

If you killed SSDI and shifted those people to welfare, you'd change who funds it. Social Security is funded largely by the middle and upper middle class. Everything else is funded largely by the 1%ers and 5%ers. With all the lobby money from the rich, it's hard to imagine shifting who pays for it.


3 1/2 years ago, I had to go to an urban Social Security office to take control of my mother's Social Security and Medicare affairs. It was jammed. I was the youngest person in the room. Near as I can tell, the room was full of people trying to scam SSDI. Since then, I've made a point of only going to rural Social Security offices. There might be 1 or 2 elderly people in the waiting room ahead of me. A 5 minute wait instead of hours.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2018, 07:51 AM
 
66,296 posts, read 67,496,775 times
Reputation: 44425
our taxes in the general fund are mostly funded by the same people , the middle and upper class . no difference. the higher incomes do pay in more general taxes no question but at the end of the day so what .

i say put ssdi on to welfare off the back of ss retirement and survivor . it has turned more in to a general welfare/ unemployment insurance program then an ss program . it just has been draining ss dry as it keeps going broke and needing a transfusion from ss retirement . perhaps limit the amount of ss dollars it can pull and then fund it through general funds instead of constantly pulling billions from ss retirement to keep meeting obligations and then leaving ss retirement short ..

Last edited by mathjak107; 12-06-2018 at 08:01 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2018, 08:28 AM
 
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
6,511 posts, read 3,629,322 times
Reputation: 15774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
No, it wouldn't, because the high earners don't need the money. They'd have no motivation to do that.
They would have plenty of motivation to do that. High earners want to keep as much of their money as they can, just like everyone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2018, 09:19 AM
 
66,296 posts, read 67,496,775 times
Reputation: 44425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
No, it wouldn't, because the high earners don't need the money. They'd have no motivation to do that. You're projecting the thinking of lower earners and people used to a life of scraping by, by hook or by crook, to people who already have more money than they need to finish their final years in a comfortable style.
nonsense .. everyone wants any money due them . we all "need " whatever money we can get because like i said lifestyles are like water . they level out to whatever we have . most of us want to buy as much lifestyle as we can .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2018, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Oklahoma
2,116 posts, read 704,059 times
Reputation: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
the public would demand their money be put in annuity type investments the moment the investment value dipped .. that you can bet on. as well as most americans would end up doing poorly left to their own devices and non guaranteed results . especially the lower incomes , since ss gives them 6x the amount of income per dollar that it buys for a higher earner . you would starve the lower incomes once means tested ss was no longer.

there are pretty good reason ss works the way it does and it was put together by some of the smartest minds on the planet . sorry but neither you or i are smart enough to dream up a better system that actually would work and do what ss does in this country . i would bet my bottom dollar anything you think of would likely fail in use as opposed to the system we have which needs a relatively small amount of additional money to fill the gap and guarantees that income stability .
There is no reason why everyone couldn’t just decide for themselves. It would not be difficult to have a mandatory system that had options. Mutual fund companies have numerous types of investments that include annuities, low risk funds and mixed funds. That fact that you are scared of what you don’t know isn’t a viable reason to force me into a system I despise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2018, 11:47 AM
 
66,296 posts, read 67,496,775 times
Reputation: 44425
there is a huge reason why everyone should not decide for themselves . the whole purpose of ss is not have people play with it or lose it . it goes WITH YOUR INVESTING. there is no better annuity product anywhere in this country better then what you get from ss
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2018, 12:47 PM
 
11,967 posts, read 6,196,998 times
Reputation: 21989
Quote:
Originally Posted by maat55 View Post
There is no reason why everyone couldnít just decide for themselves. It would not be difficult to have a mandatory system that had options. Mutual fund companies have numerous types of investments that include annuities, low risk funds and mixed funds. That fact that you are scared of what you donít know isnít a viable reason to force me into a system I despise.

The problem is the bottom half contributes far less to the system than they take out. I'd love to have 12.4% of my lifetime income invested in the market. I'm career high income so it would be a huge pile of money. My Social Security contributions prop up the bottom half that will never earn enough to fund their retirement. To make it politically palatable, I get to pull from the system at retirement age but not at all proportional to my contributions. It's a transfer from affluent people to less affluent people. We live in a social democracy. That's how it works in social democracies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top