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 12-17-2018, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
6,514 posts, read 3,629,322 times
Reputation: 15779

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by maat55 View Post
Well, it is clear we have vastly different opinions on what constitutes forced poverty, personal responsibility and immoral policies that future generations will be burden with. As they say, socialism is great til you run out of other people’s money. What I see is you putting a gun to the head of my grandchildren in order to fund your utopian dream, while robbing everyone of wealth potential. That is the reality of your position.
The only Utopian in this conversation is you. You persist in clinging to a fantasy in which everyone prudently invests the money which is now going into SS, ignoring the reams of data that show how poorly the average investor performs even in accounts that offer limited investment choices such as 401k plans. You ignore the fact that SS is deliberately tilted to offer more support to those lower-income workers who would never be able to save enough on their own to ever retire. You completely ignore the reality of sequence risk when you argue that 100% of everyone's retirement money should be subject to it. And you ignore the fact that people in this country aren't going to allow the "less responsible" elderly who outlive their money (whether because of bad investor behavior, bad luck with sequence risk, or simply living longer than they planned for) to die in the streets. You plan just bumps up the welfare rolls; either way, your grandkids will be paying the bills. Is that unfair? No; in all societies, the young support the old. At least this way they don't have Mom and Dad moving into their apartment with them (which is how supporting the aging has been handled in most traditional societies).
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-17-2018, 10:08 AM
 
286 posts, read 62,175 times
Reputation: 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by maat55 View Post
I disagree. Historical market performance says that long term modest investments produce significant results. Americans could be growing this personal wealth and not burden future Americans with higher taxes and lower benefits from a poorly designed Government program.

We’ve had more than enough time to see the degradation of SS from generation to generation. It is sad that human will get dependent on government programs, when there is a better private option. Have you not noticed that welfare recipients tend to want to stay on welfare as opposed to working for more money? People are afraid to let go of the familiar and grab something better. Worse is forcing more a burden on future Americans.
I have plenty of of personal evidence to the contrary. Small investors have an almost zero chance of making money. Average investors choose an amount and a day that their "investment" money will be taken for distribution. After monitoring this for years, adding fees, and seeing the meagerly slow growth it becomes very apparent that it really a scam for the average investor.
How can you complain about welfare recipients doing nothing, while you choose to do nothing and expect some grand return on doing nothing? Funny how that works.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2018, 10:53 AM
 
11,967 posts, read 6,196,998 times
Reputation: 21995
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
The only age where I wouldn't believe social security would be better off with people dropping dead at retirement age would be one where I'm so mentally gone I've got a drool cup.

You don't have a drool cup?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2018, 11:04 AM
 
7,235 posts, read 6,794,695 times
Reputation: 5443
It's a waste of time. 71 percent of people who voted in the last election were age 65 or older. They have enough intelligence to want to keep their checks flowing even if others don't. Many in the 55- to 65-year old age group are also going to have enough sense not to give up 25-to-30 thousand dollar pension checks over the last 15-20 years of their lives in exchange for roughly 3,000 dollars less in taxes a year until they retire (assuming $50,000 median income). SS is there to protect some of the people who are attacking it and don't have the emotional intelligence to think through the ramifications.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2018, 11:05 AM
 
1,130 posts, read 597,622 times
Reputation: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by maat55 View Post
... We’ve had more than enough time to see the degradation of SS from generation to generation. ...
Maat55, I regret the changes of consumer price index methodology introduced during Obama’s administration, but the since the 1975 introduction of Cost-of-living adjustments, (COLA) for determining each year’s Social Security retirement benefits has and continues be a substantial improvement of the Social Security retirement system.
(I’m an old man; I expect within my lifetime to witness the introduction of COLA for determining each year’s federal minimum wage rate).
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2018, 11:10 AM
 
Location: Oklahoma
2,117 posts, read 704,059 times
Reputation: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aredhel View Post
The only Utopian in this conversation is you. You persist in clinging to a fantasy in which everyone prudently invests the money which is now going into SS, ignoring the reams of data that show how poorly the average investor performs even in accounts that offer limited investment choices such as 401k plans. You ignore the fact that SS is deliberately tilted to offer more support to those lower-income workers who would never be able to save enough on their own to ever retire. You completely ignore the reality of sequence risk when you argue that 100% of everyone's retirement money should be subject to it. And you ignore the fact that people in this country aren't going to allow the "less responsible" elderly who outlive their money (whether because of bad investor behavior, bad luck with sequence risk, or simply living longer than they planned for) to die in the streets. You plan just bumps up the welfare rolls; either way, your grandkids will be paying the bills. Is that unfair? No; in all societies, the young support the old. At least this way they don't have Mom and Dad moving into their apartment with them (which is how supporting the aging has been handled in most traditional societies).
I have never once assumed the populous could individually prudently invest. I’ve stated that they would have simple “qualified” options. There are numerous ways to insure individuals not just take their lump sum and run to a casino. A private system would still have limitations.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2018, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Oklahoma
2,117 posts, read 704,059 times
Reputation: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Maat55, I regret the changes of consumer price index methodology introduced during Obama’s administration, but the since the 1975 introduction of Cost-of-living adjustments, (COLA) for determining each year’s Social Security retirement benefits has and continues be a substantial improvement of the Social Security retirement system.
(I’m an old man; I expect within my lifetime to witness the introduction of COLA for determining each year’s federal minimum wage rate).
This has nothing to do with fixing the problem. It has more to do with making it worse. Unless the government has a magic wand, it cannot stop the perpetual tax hikes, deficits and growing government dependency. Only a private system can stop this. Americans are being robbed of personal prosperity in the name of “security” which basically keeps people poor.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2018, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
6,514 posts, read 3,629,322 times
Reputation: 15779
Quote:
Originally Posted by maat55 View Post
I have never once assumed the populous could individually prudently invest. I’ve stated that they would have simple “qualified” options. There are numerous ways to insure individuals not just take their lump sum and run to a casino. A private system would still have limitations.
And you still haven't stated how you're going to insure that each particular individual will choose the correct "qualifed option" for his or her age and risk tolerance. Absent solving that problem, your plan fails, as a percentage of people WILL choose the wrong option and end up with suboptimal results. (And you also haven't dealt with the issue of sequence risk, or the potential of outliving your savings that Social Security insures against.)
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2018, 04:15 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,410 posts, read 13,496,175 times
Reputation: 14348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aredhel View Post
And you still haven't stated how you're going to insure that each particular individual will choose the correct "qualifed option" for his or her age and risk tolerance. Absent solving that problem, your plan fails, as a percentage of people WILL choose the wrong option and end up with suboptimal results. (And you also haven't dealt with the issue of sequence risk, or the potential of outliving your savings that Social Security insures against.)
Good points.

He also has failed to address the moral, ethical and legal issues of compelling people to invest in corporations.

He also hasn't addressed the implications of compelling people to invest in corporations.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that members of public unions cannot be compelled to pay union dues to an organization that lobbies, advocates and engages in political actions that are diametrically opposed to one's political, philosophical, religious, moral or ethical beliefs.

Why would the Supreme Court then subsequently compel people to invest in corporations who do the same thing, lobby, advocate and engage in political actions that are diametrically opposed to one's political, philosophical, religious, moral or ethical beliefs?

And, if someone has invested in Starsucks, aren't they more likely to patronize Starsucks, instead of a privately owned coffee bar?

It logically follows they would patronize and support directly or indirectly those corporations in which they've invested, instead of non-corporate entities.

Currently, only 3% of businesses are corporations, and 97% are not. Do we really want a country where 97% are corporations and 3% are not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Maat55, I regret the changes of consumer price index methodology introduced during Obama’s administration,...
Spouting nonsense as usual.

There were no changes to Social Security. It still relies on CPI-W.

The only changes involving chained-CPI were to IRS tax brackets. Taxation of Social Security benefits remains unchanged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
...but the since the 1975 introduction of Cost-of-living adjustments, (COLA) for determining each year’s Social Security retirement benefits has and continues be a substantial improvement of the Social Security retirement system.
The law was amended in 1972, it just didn't take effect until 1975.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
(I’m an old man; I expect within my lifetime to witness the introduction of COLA for determining each year’s federal minimum wage rate).
The only thing you'll witness is the elimination of the federal minimum wage, since the Cost-of-Living varies so dramatically across the US that it's only effect is to unjustly enrich some, while having no impact on others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
Of course there are. we could increase the minimum age for a person to start receiving Social Security retirement benefits from age 62 to, say, age 67. Or to age 70. We could increase Full Retirement Age up to, say, age 75.
And your UE Rate would jump to about 14% and remain that high indefinitely.

France raised the retirement age, then lowered it, although it's still higher than what it was.

They lowered it, because they couldn't tolerate the perennially high UE Rate it would cause.

If you bothered to read BLS job projections, from now through 2042, 2/3rds of all jobs "created" are created by retiring Boomers.

So, instead of a BLS job report saying 230,000 jobs were created, it says only 75,900 were created, and that's not enough to absorb new and returning entrants to the work-force, so unemployment starts piling up real fast.

It would have a damaging effect on mobility and the economy, since workers would be afraid to leave the work-force to obtain additional education or training and return to the work-force at a higher wage, since no jobs are available.


Worse than that, many people retire at 62 in lieu of Social Security Disability.


If you force them to work longer, they will simply file for Disability, and then you will be paying them their 100% retirement rate, instead of a significantly reduced rate, so you still lose and whatever savings may have existed are negated by larger numbers of people on Social Security Disability.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Maat55, Social Security trust funds are a concept that never has existed.
It has existed since the 1939 Amendments to the 1935 Social Security Act. You need only study the data, except you wouldn't understand it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Social Security benefits earned by the current generation of retirees, are paid for by the the current generation of employees and employers.
No, the $2.8 Billion in the OASI Trust Fund contains monies accrued by the GI Generation, Silent Generation, Boomer Generation, Generation X and Generation Y.

Generation Y's contributions to the OASI Trust Fund are minimal in comparison to other Generations, since the program has typically paid out more than it collected for the last 8 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Shortfalls will be paid by increasing federal debt.
Wrong again.

Federal debt consists of public debt and intra-government debt.

Conversion of the special treasury securities in the OASI Trust Fund causes intra-government debt to decrease, while public debt increases by the equivalent amount.

The federal debt remains unchanged.

The maximum interest paid on marketable US Treasury bills, notes and bonds is 3.06% and that only applies to the 20-year bond. All other marketable US Treasury bills, notes and bonds pay less interest.

Since interest rates on the non-marketable special treasury securities is as high as 15.25%, it means the cost to service intra-government debt converted to public debt is less.

The US Treasury does not package monthly deficits as 20-year bonds. It packages them as Treasury bills, which currently pay 2.25% to 2.61%.

Since 2.25% is less than 15.25%, it costs tax-payers less to service that debt, so you actually save money, not lose money.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2018, 05:30 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma
2,117 posts, read 704,059 times
Reputation: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aredhel View Post
And you still haven't stated how you're going to insure that each particular individual will choose the correct "qualifed option" for his or her age and risk tolerance. Absent solving that problem, your plan fails, as a percentage of people WILL choose the wrong option and end up with suboptimal results. (And you also haven't dealt with the issue of sequence risk, or the potential of outliving your savings that Social Security insures against.)
There are target date funds. I’m quite sure the government and investment pros can provide a simple plan that won’t allow individuals tampering with it. These funds would likely be based in index funds. It may be possible that once a retiree reaches a specified date(like exists with SS), they may be required to take a % of the portfolio and buy into an annuity. These things will have time to worked out during a transition. I
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.


 

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