Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheEconomist
Just Facts : At the worst level of the 2008 crash, the rolling 40 year return of the S&P was more than 3% real, which basically double that of Social Security.
|
Red Herring
A red herring is a smelly fish that would distract even a bloodhound. It is also a digression that leads the reasoner off the track of considering only relevant information.
None of that has anything to do with Social Security, but then you're just a not-so-slick-snake-oil-saleswoman trying to con people out of their money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheEconomist
The problem with privatization is that we can't afford it.
|
No, the problem is you don't know how to make the numbers work, but then you're not really educated in Economics or Accounting or Finance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheEconomist
If we divert money away from SS to private accounts the system willl have no money with which pay the promises of the past.
Just Facts : Social Security is not guaranteed, or at least the Supreme Court has said so.
|
An internet troll would claim there is a promise to pay Social Security and then claim that Social Security is not guaranteed.
Oh,....wait.....that's what you have done.
The fatal flaw in your nonsensical tautology is that no matter what happens.....money is coming out of your economy: whether you slash benefits or raise taxes or tweak or twerk like Hambrain wants to do, money is coming out of your economy...
....and you ain't got the money.
The system is already insolvent and cannot pay "the promises of the past." Smart Economic and Political Policy would be to find a cut-point....who gets screwed the most under the current system? Generation Y does.
So find a way to pay Social Security until the last Generation X-Box Puke dies, and transition Generation Y-Work to a privatize system under State supervision.
And for the incurably stupid....Privatization != Wall Streetâ„¢.
Only Little Brains think that privatization means 401 (k) and Fidelity Investments and all the others. Their brains are just too small to be able to think outside the box silk-suited Madison Avenue executives have created for them.
As I have said dozens of times until I want to vomit on everybody's shoes...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mircea
This is a NAZI-like propaganda piece.
They are attempting to deceive people into believing that Social Security is some kind of savings and investment plan, and that you're "supposed" have your ship come in when you retire.
These kind of propaganda artists have an hidden agenda, which I believe is to convince people shift Social Security to some kind of 401(k) or other similar program.
Do not let them do that.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheEconomist
No one is seriously proposing privatizing Social Security because they would have to explain how they would pay for it.
|
What you really mean to say is they have to explain it to
you, because you don't get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheEconomist
Once payroll taxes go to a private account - there is no revenue to pay benefits to existing retirees.
|
Not in your little cookie-cutter cubicle box world.
You should have covered all of that -- ie tax policy, benefit programs, etc etc etc in your 4th year.
I did.
Did I mention this is the 21st Century?
You can tell us all about the abacus, and someone can bring you up to speed on computers -- and their capabilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheEconomist
Two think-tanks, Heartland and CATO, push privatized plans. Both say that Social Security's Chief Actuary has scored their proposal to achieve PERMANENT solvency. What they do not advertise clearly is that scoring was done 10 years ago or roughly 20 trillion dollars ago.
|
I have no interest in their views...which are probably wrong...and probably involve the Wizards of Wall Streetâ„¢.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheEconomist
What is option 2? No one can challenge something as vague as what you have described.
|
You're the economist....you figure it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheEconomist
The challenge I put to you is if someone gets option 2, you have to explain how you wlil replace the $96/month that went to Social Security. There is no head-room to divert revenue away from Social Security without driving it to insolvency faster. I am not saying that is fair, just a fact.
|
Um, there's an OASI Trust Fund.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheEconomist
Your options should include the fact that the minimum wage worker is likely able to draw the EITC which is a tax credit that was created to offset the high cost of payroll taxes for lower wage workers.
|
EITC is a drag on the economy and should be ended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheEconomist
Today Social Security is a bizarre collection of cashflows which reward things like divorce, having shorter working careers, more kids after 65, wive(s), and low-wage workers. The problem with Social Security for lower-wage workers isn't the $793/month - it is the possibility that the system falls into a state of insolvency.
|
By your own admission, it's already insolvent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheEconomist
The economic returns of the system have fallen steadily.
|
Spoken like a paid Wall Street Shillâ„¢.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheEconomist
Social Security is a contributory benefits system with dedicated revenue and dedicated expense. If you increase revenue, you automatically increase future expense.
|
No, you don't.
Bend Points
How can anyone possibly take you seriously, when you don't even understand the benefit formulas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheEconomist
Social Security is a financial system in which the promises of the past are overwhelming the revenue of the present.
|
That is due entirely to the fact that the FICA payroll tax has not been increased for 23 years.
Social Security has never gone more than 12 years without a FICA payroll tax increase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheEconomist
SS is not a government program.
|
It isn't? So, what, it's run by the United Federation of Planets? I just knew greys and extraterrestrials were gonna show up somewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheEconomist
You seem more gifted at typing than research.
|
At least I can type out the benefit formula...you can't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheEconomist
Your emphasis really doesn't change what MA-Mom said. Social Security is not an contractual interest. Your emphasis seemly re-enforces what she said. She simply shortened it to something worth reading.
|
Again, what the Court said was....
In our last consideration of a challenge to the constitutionality of a classification created under the Social Security Act, we held that "a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments as would make every defeasance of `accrued' interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603, 611. The fact that social security benefits are financed in part by taxes on an employee's wages does not in itself limit the power of Congress to fix the levels of benefits under the Act or the conditions upon which they may be paid. Nor does an expectation of public benefits confer a contractual right to receive the expected amounts.
[emphasis mine....since people's English language skills suck]
Source:
Richardson v. Belcher, 404 US 78, Supreme Court (1971)
The key term at issue here, "investigation," is defined as "[a] detailed inquiry or systematic examination." Am. Heritage Dictionary 920 (4th ed. 2000); see Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 1189 (1981) (defining "investigation" as "a searching inquiry"). Thus, the plain meaning of "investigation" clearly requires some degree of careful inquiry by creditors. Further, § 1681s-2(b)(1)(A) uses the term "investigation" in the context of articulating a creditor’s duties in the consumer dispute process outlined by the FCRA. It would make little sense to conclude that, in creating a system intended to give consumers a means to dispute—and, ultimately, correct—inaccurate information on their credit reports, Congress used the term "investigation" to include superficial, unreasonable inquiries by creditors. Cf. Cahlin v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 936 F.2d 1151, 1160 (11th Cir. 1991) (interpreting analogous statute governing reinvestigations of consumer disputes by credit reporting agencies to require reasonable investigations); Pinner v. Schmidt, 805 F.2d 1258, 1262 (5th Cir.1986) (same). We therefore hold that § 1681s-2(b)(1) requires creditors,after receiving notice of a consumer dispute from a credit reporting agency, to conduct a reasonable investigation of their records to determine whether the disputed information can be verified.
Source:
Johnson v MBNA America Bank, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (2004)
How do you think the
American Heritage Dictionary 920 and
Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary would define
"expected"
What, you didn't know judges use dictionaries?In
Flemming, Flemming had been injured at work. He was receiving worker's compensation benefits from the State. Flemming applied and was approved for Social Security Disability under OADI.
Flemming received an award notice from Social Security stating that he was to be paid a certain amount each month under OADI.
When Social Security discovered that Flemming was also receiving worker's compensation payments monthly from the State, the Social Security Administration reduced his monthly OADI benefit payments as an off-set to the worker's compensation benefits.
Fleming was expecting to receive $
N amount each month, but that figure was reduced.....the Supreme court said....
Nor does an expectation of public benefits confer a contractual right to receive the expected amounts.
What was the
expected amount to be received? The amount stated in the OADI award letter...which was reduced....and Flemming claimed Social Security could not reduce the amount.
I'm glad we got that straightened out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheEconomist
No actually insurance is a hedge against the cost of realized risk. Living beyond 65 is not a loss, but it is a massive a cost. Social Security is designed to help people manage the risk of living far beyond that age.
|
FDR never said that, so quit making things up as you go along. Social Security is a hedge against the loss of savings and/or pension plans. FDR use a three-legged stool as an analogy...
1] You have your personal savings; and
2] You have your pension/retirement plan; and
3] You have Social Security.
If your savings fail or are lost, then you have your pension and Social Security.
If your pension fails or is lost, then you have your personal savings and Social Security.
If you lose both your savings and your pension, then at least you have Social Security.
Make no mistake about it....Social Security was never intended to bank-roll your pre-retirement life-style when you had 21 years and partied all the time.
Social Security is no frills basic subsistence living, designed to keep you from roaming the streets as a bag-lady, or from sleeping under a bridge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheEconomist
The idea that insurance has no return is absurd. Insurance is measured by expected returns. You can say that they were not "overpaid." Virtually every research source disagrees with you.
|
And every single research source is basing their claim on a fallacy....just like everything you present is a fallacy.
Those shill sources you cite arrived at their conclusions based on a fallacy.....that Social Security is a savings account....it is not and never was, and was never intended to be.
Those shill sources that do not claim it is a savings account, claim it is an ERISA defined benefit plan, or a pension plan, or a 401(k) plan or an investment scheme.....anything but what Social Security really is.
Title 42 United States Code Section 402 - Old-age and survivors insurance benefit payments
(a) Old-age insurance benefits Every individual who—
(1) is a fully insured individual (as defined in section 414 (a) of this title),
(2) has attained age 62, and
(3) has filed application for old-age insurance benefits or was entitled to disability insurance benefits for the month preceding the month in which he attained retirement age (as defined in section 416 (l) of this title), shall be entitled to an old-age insurance benefit for each month, beginning with—
It says "insurance".....it doesn't say savings or investment or pension or stocks or bonds or Wall Streetâ„¢.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTheEconomist
As you pointed out, if I wreck my car I didn't make money.
|
The goal is not to make money.
Nobody gets insurance to make money; they get insurance to protect themselves.
All of your fallacies lead down the same path which dead-ends at Wall Streetâ„¢.
You can lie all you want with your slick propaganda and try to con these people into to turning over their lives to Wall Streetâ„¢, but I'll just keep slamming the door on you.
Vigilantly...
Mircea
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.
