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.
This statement is hilarious. Maat55, mathjak107 is one of the most knowledgeable posters on this board when it comes to investments.
Be that as it may, he should know that personal retirement accounts modestly invested over decades, produce significant results. They would be superior to SS. A mature portfolio could purchase a sufficient annuity before 62/66.
Be that as it may, he should know that personal retirement accounts modestly invested over decades, produce significant results. They would be superior to SS.
He does know that. He also knows that the majority of people will not appropriately invest their money. The average small investor significantly underperforms the market, and the reasons are behavioral (and rooted in our emotional reactions to losing versus gaining significant amounts of money, which means the responses are very hard to change).
Joe q doesn’t need to understand any of it and then the reality is it’s not all that complicated to address. And by no coincidence you provided no suggestion on fixing the program
So, if it's not that complicated, how come you only talk about the Social Security money that is going to retirees?
Do you know how much of the Social Security money is going to people with disability? People who have never worked, and never will work? Do you know what percent of the kids in some southern states are on disabililty, and it's the families' main source of income?
Do you know how much money is paid out of the social secuirty fund every year to the guest workers who will retire in their home countries, and take their social secuirty monies with them (hint; when you look it up on a search engine, it's called "Totalization". One of the issues being discussed (in secret - Wikileaks got some of the working papers out) is how the millions of guest workers coming to the US will get their social security money.
If this is such a simple question, let me ask you: how much of the work force, in twenty years, do you think will be foreign guest workers who will NOT be paying into the system?
Do you know how many immigrants, and immigrants' parents are getting SSI checks?
A few minutes of search engine work might help in getting some of these "not that complicated" questions answered!
So, if it's not that complicated, how come you only talk about the Social Security money that is going to retirees?
Do you know how much of the Social Security money is going to people with disability? People who have never worked, and never will work? Do you know what percent of the kids in some southern states are on disabililty, and it's the families' main source of income?
Do you know how much money is paid out of the social secuirty fund every year to the guest workers who will retire in their home countries, and take their social secuirty monies with them (hint; when you look it up on a search engine, it's called "Totalization". One of the issues being discussed (in secret - Wikileaks got some of the working papers out) is how the millions of guest workers coming to the US will get their social security money.
Maybe you should reread what you quoted. In speaking of SS I said it’s not complicated to address and it’s not. Extend fra, lift the wage cap, reduce benefits
Quote:
If this is such a simple question, let me ask you: how much of the work force, in twenty years, do you think will be foreign guest workers who will NOT be paying into the system?
Do you know how many immigrants, and immigrants' parents are getting SSI checks?
A few minutes of search engine work might help in getting some of these "not that complicated" questions answered!
Again you’ve either misread or misinterpreted what I said because I was in no way discussing structural changes to any of the programs nor did I suggest the entirety of the plan wasn’t complicated. The solvency issue is easy to address. Payout less and take in more.
He does know that. He also knows that the majority of people will not appropriately invest their money. The average small investor significantly underperforms the market, and the reasons are behavioral (and rooted in our emotional reactions to losing versus gaining significant amounts of money, which means the responses are very hard to change).
I’m not suggesting they have a free reign of investments. I’m suggesting qualified plans. It is nonsense that we can’t have a prosperous private system. The American people are not children the government needs to nanny.
I’m not suggesting they have a free reign of investments. I’m suggesting qualified plans. It is nonsense that we can’t have a prosperous private system. The American people are not children the government needs to nanny.
You do know the money you put in is not yours to have right?
I’m not suggesting they have a free reign of investments. I’m suggesting qualified plans.
Again, you'e not getting it. An investment option that suits a 20 year old is inappropriate for the average 50 year old, and visa-versa. What's to keep a 20 year old from investing in the plan that's meant for a 50 year old, and a 50 year old from investing in the plan that's meant for a 20 year old? Invest n the wrong qualified plan for your age and risk tolerance, and the results will be poor.
People already have access to many different tax-advantaged investment plans for retirement. On the whole, they do poorly with them. Social Security's major strength is that it is NOT yet another investment plan. It's an insurance plan, and it's needed. Why do you want to change a program intended to function as an annuity product into an investment product?
Actually if you eliminated ss all together and people all got at 12.4% raise the majority would have little to nothing more to show for it 40 years later
Some would. Others wouldn't.
But at the end of the day, who is in a better position to decide what happens to an individual's money?
The individual herself?
Or elected Congressmen & Senators -- who, by the way, have their own gold-plated pensions & Cadillac health care at taxpayer expense?
likely a 3rd party is better . most americans suck at handling their own money as study after study shows how as a group they lag the investments they were in . they exhibit terrible investor behavior . just look at what you see now in the investing forum and personal finance as you have those wanting to bail , others think they are going to time things , etc
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.
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.
