• 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!

Social Security is a hoorible deal. especiallt for poor people

KLATTU

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
19,259
Reaction score
6,899
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Not only do you not make money, you actually lose it. And when you did, nothing goes to your heirs.


comparison_of_social_security_to_private_accounts_-_table_1_male_workers_table_2_female_workers_.jpg
 
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.
 
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!
People have demonstrated an inability or an unwillingness to save for retirement.
For many it is Social security, or nothing.
 
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 continued robbing of Middle Class Paul to subsidize the GOP tax bonanza to wealthy Peter.
 
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.

It introduces the concept of allowing SS deductions to be be diverted to private accounts. So you're forced to save.
 
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.

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).
:applaud
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

The 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
 
Not only do you not make money, you actually lose it. And when you did, nothing goes to your heirs.


View attachment 67236415

Exactly. Lefters love being forced into paying for and buying things that they don't very much want or like. Imagine their attitude if a republican president (which wouldn't have happened) started this ponzi scheme?

EVERY giant, (mandatory under the punishment of prison), government program was started under some sort of crisis...(that's how socialist/progressives operate!) fdr's massive socialist programs were started during the depression, jfk's and lbj's began during the crisis years of the civil rights movement and Vietnam, barrycare during the latest crisis. What the **** will these rat bastards do to us the next time they come to power?
 
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.

Would you contribute to ss if you weren't forced to?
 
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.
If you look at SS formula,
(Highest 35 year average/420 months, 90% of the first $895, 32% of anything between $895 and $5397, and 15% of anything over $5397,
It becomes obvious that the system is highly weighted against most hitting that Maximum.
I think a person would have to have a 35 year average income of over $70 K per year to hit the maximum.
 
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 problem is any plan to "privatize" Social Security is full of huge, massive downsides, and will blow up the budgets for years as current SS contributions are diverted to private accounts, but existing retirees and those near retirees need those taxes to fund existing promises.

Also, no need for the partisan BS aside. Lots of Democrats are poor and care about poor people as much as you do. The trick is to change SS without cutting benefits for...the poor. It's an incredibly difficult task, which is why you never actually see concrete, scored, detailed GOP proposals to do it - they know the sticker shock will be huge, to quote Trump. So the GOP makes vague proposals with back of the envelope cost estimates that are essentially BS propaganda. Sort of like their healthcare proposals, which looked quite different once the details were put on paper and scored by CBO than the lofty Paul Ryan white paper promises that relied on his infamous magic asterisk.
 
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 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.

It's sad but when the Heritage Org went full on partisan a few years ago, their output became essentially worthless, and I don't pay attention to them anymore. And I do mean it's sad - we need conservative think tanks proposing alternatives, but it does no good when the "think tank" is a propaganda org for the GOP, and that's all Heritage is these days.
 
The 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
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.
 
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.

I agree sort of, but there's a lot of people who are simply poor and if you don't have insurance (another big problem) then all it takes is a heart attack at 64 and your life savings (if you had them) is wiped out, or your child got in a wreck and was in ICU for a week, etc., or you fell at work and are disabled and can't work for the last 5 years, etc. So if we want to rely on savings then we have to put the things in place to make that realistic for everyone, and not just the lucky duckies who hit 65, happy and healthy, with no major setbacks for them, their spouse, their kids.
 
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.

Indeed. Seniors are now 25% of the electorate and growing.

Robbing them of the SS money they contributed all their working lives will get someone thrown out of office pronto.
 
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.

That is what Canada does. Our CPP can invest its surplus in any investments Canadian or otherwise. I expect some restrictions on how much high risk investments can be made
 
I would like to see the APPENDIX because that reveals HOW Heritage got those numbers.
 
Back
Top Bottom