Not only do you not make money, you actually lose it. And when you did, nothing goes to your heirs.
It could be better, but it does what it is supposed to do, for now!Not only do you not make money, you actually lose it. And when you did, nothing goes to your heirs.
You don't seem to understand the point of social security. It's the security part. You see private investments might work out better for you about 9 times out of 10, but it's that 10th time when the stock market crashes like it did under Bush, and probably will again under Trump and you lose everything you had when you're too old to make more that gets you. The goal of SS is to prevent the worse case scenario and take the risk out of the portfolio entirely.
You're also assuming that people would, in fact, invest that money in private accounts if it was optional. That is delusional.
The GOP's idea of how to pay for their $1.5 trillion dollar tax giveaways to the wealthy and corporations that never expire. The robbing of Middle Class Paul to subsidize the GOP tax bonanza to wealthy Peter.
WHOA- what was given away???
It could be better, but it does what it is supposed to do, for now!
People have demonstrated an inability or an unwillingness to save for retirement.
For many it is Social security, or nothing.
I think something could be made to work, but this is what we have.It introduces the concept of allowing SS deductions to be be diverted to private accounts. So you're forced to save.
I think something could be made to work, but this is what we have.
I agree that simply putting the funds in low interest CD's would be better, but Bush asked for more flexibility,
and was shot down.
I think something could be made to work, but this is what we have.
I agree that simply putting the funds in low interest CD's would be better, but Bush asked for more flexibility,
and was shot down.
The costs would have been quite high for a few decades to do anything similar to the Bush plan.
As current payouts are funded by a large part of current contributions, any diverting of those contributions would result in a short fall for payouts once the "surplus" has been used up. Or current payouts would have to be cut, can you say angry old people.
I am not sure it ever got that far, all that I read said Bush wanted the Social security administration to have more investment choices.
There are plenty of safe investments that have better returns that SS earns with their special government bonds.
Even modest returns could have kept the fund solvent for many years beyond current projections.
As it is now, at some point they will likely means test your social security benefits.
Not only do you not make money, you actually lose it. And when you did, nothing goes to your heirs.
View attachment 67236415
You don't seem to understand the point of social security. It's the security part. You see private investments might work out better for you about 9 times out of 10, but it's that 10th time when the stock market crashes like it did under Bush, and probably will again under Trump and you lose everything you had when you're too old to make more that gets you. The goal of SS is to prevent the worse case scenario and take the risk out of the portfolio entirely.
You're also assuming that people would, in fact, invest that money in private accounts if it was optional. That is delusional.
If you look at SS formula,The payout figures in the chart is I believe off by a significant amount.
The max payout per month at current rates is $2788. If that person lived for 25 years the payout would total over $836 000. Significantly higher than the total provided by the Heritage Org. If that assumption on their part was so wrong what else were they wrong in.
I know I'm tilting at windmills, but what can I say? I actually care about improving the lives of poor people.
( As opposed to certain political party who only pretend to care to pander for votes).
The payout figures in the chart is I believe off by a significant amount.
The max payout per month at current rates is $2788. If that person lived for 25 years the payout would total over $836 000. Significantly higher than the total provided by the Heritage Org. If that assumption on their part was so wrong what else were they wrong in.
Except that the review board had 3 recommendations, one was that the Social security administration be allowed to expand theThe issue is if you divert contributionsto private investments then current payouts are not being funded. That would require higher taxes to fund those prior commitments
The sad reality is that over the course of time, MANY people in this country gave up their personal responsibility and opted for the nanny state. It is undeniable that were it not for Social Security, many US citizens would have nothing to retire on. So...based solely on that fact, its critical that it be kept in place. Is it a great form of investment? No. Is it a solid, reliable form of accumulating resources for people that would not otherwise take care of themselves? Yes.
The costs would have been quite high for a few decades to do anything similar to the Bush plan.
As current payouts are funded by a large part of current contributions, any diverting of those contributions would result in a short fall for payouts once the "surplus" has been used up. Or current payouts would have to be cut, can you say angry old people.
Except that the review board had 3 recommendations, one was that the Social security administration be allowed to expand the
investment options to beyond special treasury bills. The funds would still be in SS control, but could grow faster than the lethargic
current rate.