• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Privatized Social Security

Helix said:
i've paid a lot into the system. i'll take what i signed up for. if there isn't enough money, raise taxes.
Click to expand...

Raising taxes isn’t what you signed up for.
 
James972 said:
thats not issue. issue is libcommie bureaucrats take 15% of your lifetime income ($1.4 million on average) and give you back dog food money if you live long enough to collect it. Do you want $1.4 million estate or dog food money?
Click to expand...
Everyone cannot have 1.4M though. That would not only be impossible (more people splitting the shares of the market means less money per person), but also even if they could, that money would be basically of the same value that SS gives.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Aberration said:
I agree! You should ONLY get what YOU signed up for!

The deal you signed up for will be insolvent in 2034. Good luck with that!
Click to expand...

Already addressed.
 
roguenuke said:
Everyone cannot have 1.4M though. That would not only be impossible (more people splitting the shares of the market means less money per person), but also even if they could, that money would be basically of the same value that SS gives.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

1.4M is not nearly enough even with SS for people my age. Of course everyone can have 1.4M.
 
Aberration said:
1.4M is not nearly enough even with SS for people my age. Of course everyone can have 1.4M.
Click to expand...
No they cant. And if they did, it would not cover their basic necessities any more than SS does/would.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
No they cant. And if they did, it would not cover their basic necessities any more than SS does/would.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes they can. If the return is more, which all available data proves it is, it provides better.
 
Aberration said:
Yes they can. If the return is more, which all available data proves it is, it provides better.
Click to expand...
That isnt how it works though. You can only invest so much and you hit a peak return, which would happen long before everyone invested.

Plus again, money only has value we give it, based on rarity, to at least a degree. So if everyone had the same amount, you would see inflation shoot up, causing 1.4M become worth far less than today.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
That isnt how it works though. You can only invest so much and you hit a peak return, which would happen long before everyone invested.

Plus again, money only has value we give it, based on rarity, to at least a degree. So if everyone had the same amount, you would see inflation shoot up, causing 1.4M become worth far less than today.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That is how it works. Even if return peaked its magnitudes better than SS.

You would not see inflation shoot up because all that 1.4M is not spent at once but over 30-40 years.
 
Aberration said:
That doesn’t answer the question. [emoji849]
Click to expand...

Yes it does. Current payments are made by current contributors. If you pull out current contributations and put them in private accounts who pays for current recipients
 
Aberration said:
No. Those who didn’t pay enough should bear the burden. They refused for 50+ years despite what the actuaries said. It not mine or future generations obligation.
Click to expand...

I think you underestimate the impact of your reasoning. I understand your position, but I have to ask what have you done about the burden over the last say 5 years. You are blaming seniors for doing exactly what you are doing.
 
Helix said:
i've paid a lot into the system. i'll take what i signed up for. if there isn't enough money, raise taxes.
Click to expand...

Here is the system you paid "a lot into". You paid money into the system, and received a promise that future generations might do the same. There hasn't been a guarantee since 1960 when the SCOTUS specifically said that the system you paid into did not give you earned benefits. You may not like the system you paid into, but that doesn't give you the right to change the terms of the system you paid into without getting the OK from people like Aberration. My guess is that there is more of them than 1.

The Democrats just passed another debate without mentioning Social Security. Where is your anger about that? If you get nothing, it stems from how little you did when you needed to. The answer just raise taxes has virtually no possibility to provide an answer that future generations will accept. If you eliminate the cap it is tax revenue no longer available to the serve the nation's other priorities. So what is that you are willing to ask younger Americans to forego. Student loan reform, infrastructure, there is going to be a price tag.

You need to stop making this about what you paid into a broken system, and realize that younger workers are paying more than you did.
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
Here is the system you paid "a lot into". You paid money into the system, and received a promise that future generations might do the same. There hasn't been a guarantee since 1960 when the SCOTUS specifically said that the system you paid into did not give you earned benefits. You may not like the system you paid into, but that doesn't give you the right to change the terms of the system you paid into without getting the OK from people like Aberration. My guess is that there is more of them than 1.

The Democrats just passed another debate without mentioning Social Security. Where is your anger about that? If you get nothing, it stems from how little you did when you needed to. The answer just raise taxes has virtually no possibility to provide an answer that future generations will accept. If you eliminate the cap it is tax revenue no longer available to the serve the nation's other priorities. So what is that you are willing to ask younger Americans to forego. Student loan reform, infrastructure, there is going to be a price tag.

You need to stop making this about what you paid into a broken system, and realize that younger workers are paying more than you did.
Click to expand...

If there isn't enough money, raise taxes. That's my final position.
 
vegas giants said:
Yes it does. Current payments are made by current contributors. If you pull out current contributations and put them in private accounts who pays for current recipients
Click to expand...

No. It doesn’t. No current payments are made from the fund. The fund has a surplus. Until 2034. If current contribution pull out then the fund has no new revenue and ends sooner. But still does not change the fact.
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
I think you underestimate the impact of your reasoning. I understand your position, but I have to ask what have you done about the burden over the last say 5 years. You are blaming seniors for doing exactly what you are doing.
Click to expand...

I think you are underestimating the impact of my reasoning.

They are the ones who willfully did nothing. Why do you expect me to have done something? Are you really trying to tell me they have no blame for the way they voted for 50 years? Good luck with that.
 
Aberration said:
I think you are underestimating the impact of my reasoning.

They are the ones who willfully did nothing. Why do you expect me to have done something? Are you really trying to tell me they have no blame for the way they voted for 50 years? Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Millennials are turning 40, and they have done nothing for 20 years. They have blame. You have blame. There is a lot of blame to go around when the shortfall is closing in on a year's GDP. We have done nothing for 80 years. What are you doing this year?
 
vegas giants said:
Wrong


Why Is Social Security Running Out of Money?
Click to expand...

I have read your link. I wouldn't link that site again. It is cliched, and painfully out of date. For example, the NRA hasn't been 65 in more than a decade.

Allow me to debunk the page's thesis : "So what’s the problem? Basically, demographics."

Here is a piece on Congressional Testimony of A.J. Altmeyer who ran the SS board in 1944. At the time, he predicted everything that we have seen unfold. He did it before the baby boomers were even a consideration. So he was very lucky or there are bigger problems. Altmeyer said that the problem was that Congress was underpricing benefits.

If you want the details...

Predicting Social Security's Financial Imbalance - FedSmith.com
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
I have read your link. I wouldn't link that site again. It is cliched, and painfully out of date. For example, the NRA hasn't been 65 in more than a decade.

Allow me to debunk the page's thesis : "So what’s the problem? Basically, demographics."

Here is a piece on Congressional Testimony of A.J. Altmeyer who ran the SS board in 1944. At the time, he predicted everything that we have seen unfold. He did it before the baby boomers were even a consideration. So he was very lucky or there are bigger problems. Altmeyer said that the problem was that Congress was underpricing benefits.

If you want the details...

Predicting Social Security's Financial Imbalance - FedSmith.com
Click to expand...

Dude current benefits are paid by current contributors.

I can link 5 more cites. Everyone knows this. You have to be kidding
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom