Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-25-2010, 11:49 PM   #121
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Kerrville,Tx
Posts: 2,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster View Post
I suspect that one's opinion of whether or not to have SS depends on how old you are. Young people look at it as a Ponzi scheme of which they got in late and will lose. Wheras older people have so much invested they need to stick with it even though the Ponzi scheme is flawed.

.
However at least some people in the 1960s had the same attitude about SS. My parents (born in the 1920s) felt that they would get nothing back, but in fact got 16 and 19 years of benefits from SS. So in one sense that point of view is an old one. (Of course my mother thought that FDR was one of the worst things that ever happened to the US, following the viewpoint of her father).
__________________

__________________
meierlde is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 10-26-2010, 01:03 AM   #122
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
kyounge1956's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeritus View Post
Raising the age puts the cuts disproportionately on poor African Americans due to shorter life expectancies. Not to mention that the working ability of low income workers declines dramatically as they reach the middle and late 60s
(snip)That's not true, they would not be "cut" out of anything by that.

OK, LE for African Americans on average is shorter, I believe that to be true. Should we base policy on it? SS provides payments for life. You don't get any past that, it is there to help support you while you are alive, whether that is one year or 40 years - that's the deal. Once I'm dead, I don't need support.

If we want to match payments or contributions to LE, I guess everyone needs to fill out a questionnaire - how long did your parents live, what are your indicators, risks, etc. Seems that would be "fairer" than basing it on ethic background. And Oh, do I get my money back if I come down with a terminal disease before retirement age? I think this is one of those areas where we have to treat everyone equal. The whole purpose of an annuity is to group risk together.

-ERD50
I found 2006 U.S. life expectancy statistics here. People born after 2000 would have been 5 at the time this data was gathered, so I looked at the life expectancy for five-year-olds. An average white child age 5 in 2006 could expect to live another 73.7 years. Under current rules, this child would be eligible for full SS at age 67, and draw benefits, on average, for 11.7 years, or 8.7 years of benefits if FRA were raised to 70. This is a decrease of a little over 25% in the time that person would receive benefits. An average black child age 5 in 2006 could expect to live another 69.4 years, drawing benefits for 7.4 years under current rules. Raising FRA to 70 decreases the average black person's time of eligibility to 3.4 years, less than half of what it would be under current rules.

I am not suggesting that retirement age should be different for blacks than for whites, but there is no way to get around the fact that losing (on average) over 50% of eligibility for benefits is a much larger effect than losing 25% of it.
__________________

__________________
kyounge1956 is offline   Reply With Quote
I would Love To Opt Out..
Old 10-26-2010, 01:09 AM   #123
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 71
I would Love To Opt Out..

I am 39 years old and at this point don't expect a dime back from SS, and, despite the handy statements that I am sent regularly. For the good of all, I would be willing to continue to contribute some amount to pay for those who above a certain age who were "promised" benefits and will rely on them to live (sorry Mr. Gate and Mr. Buffett..you are out, as means testing is a great idea)

The bottom line for me is that I do not want the federal government having any part of my retirement planning or investing. I can find better, smarter, more efficient, and higher yielding options on my own.

I will agree to pay a small tax into a "social security"-like fund that will provide for those that simply don't have enough money to take reasonable care of themselves.

I, morally, cannot demand that other people fund my retirement with their hard earned money. And, I cannot understand why anyone would willingly choose the federal government to manage their money for them (ex: see federal deficit & debt). How about this to make everyone happy, let the federal government's retirement program compete in the open market with all the other investment options and those that think it's the best can send in their money for handling

Again, it's an interesting debate and I continue to be surprised by all of those who think SS is a good program for us all....
__________________
cb7010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2010, 04:06 AM   #124
Recycles dryer sheets
keegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb7010 View Post
I am 39 years old and at this point don't expect a dime back from SS, and, despite the handy statements that I am sent regularly. For the good of all, I would be willing to continue to contribute some amount to pay for those who above a certain age who were "promised" benefits and will rely on them to live (sorry Mr. Gate and Mr. Buffett..you are out, as means testing is a great idea)

The bottom line for me is that I do not want the federal government having any part of my retirement planning or investing. I can find better, smarter, more efficient, and higher yielding options on my own.

I will agree to pay a small tax into a "social security"-like fund that will provide for those that simply don't have enough money to take reasonable care of themselves.

I, morally, cannot demand that other people fund my retirement with their hard earned money. And, I cannot understand why anyone would willingly choose the federal government to manage their money for them (ex: see federal deficit & debt). How about this to make everyone happy, let the federal government's retirement program compete in the open market with all the other investment options and those that think it's the best can send in their money for handling

Again, it's an interesting debate and I continue to be surprised by all of those who think SS is a good program for us all....


CB... Can you identify a place in the world where you'd like to live where libertarian ideals are the principle economic and governing philosophy?

SS does compete in a free market and most folks support it.
__________________
keegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2010, 07:29 AM   #125
Full time employment: Posting here.
ronocnikral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 852
Quote:
Originally Posted by keegs View Post
SS does compete in a free market and most folks support it.
this is interesting. to me in this case, "free" means having a choice without being put in jail, having wages garnished etc. i don't get to choose if i participate in SS. so how does it compete in a free market? even within the mandated contributions, one does not get to elect how the money is invested.

futhermore, i would say most people support the idea of SS, many more would disagree with its operations. if by "support" you mean "pay in to," see above.
__________________
ronocnikral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2010, 07:37 AM   #126
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb7010 View Post
I can find better, smarter, more efficient, and higher yielding options on my own.
That's fine for you, but what about the vast majority of the remaining folks that can't do what you are doing?
__________________
rescueme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2010, 08:14 AM   #127
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyounge1956 View Post
I found 2006 U.S. life expectancy statistics here. People born after 2000 would have been 5 at the time this data was gathered, ...

I am not suggesting that retirement age should be different for blacks than for whites, but there is no way to get around the fact that losing (on average) over 50% of eligibility for benefits is a much larger effect than losing 25% of it.
I'm not sure that LE at age 5 is relevant - I think you need to look at LE at retirement age, or maybe well into their wage earning years when they would have paid a significant amount into the system. Regardless, we'd probably still find a difference in LE across different groups.

But the question remains - should we base policy on that? Is raising the retirement age across the board "unfair" to some? Maybe (or maybe not - since as I said, everyone gets paid "for life"), but then again it would be "unfair" to smokers, people with MS, probably all sorts of cross sections of society that might attract lawyers with class action law suits. Those groups will pay "disproportionately more" into the systems than others. Maybe we should charge more to people who come from families with long lives to compensate? Or people who take care of their health? It all gets rather silly. It's a life annuity - if you try to make it something else, it gets screwy.

I can't think of any rational way to deal with the differences, and that's why I called out the comment from Emeritus. What's the point of even mentioning it? In fact, if I turned the argument around (if you say that a group receives less in some social services, they should pay less; then it holds that if they receive more in some social services they should pay more), I'm sure there would be howls from many corners. I'm not going to go there, and I don't support that thinking. It holds that I don't support the view from the other angle other.

You know, this comes back to the problem with govt involvement in things - the "one size fits all" approach. If we were all educated and encouraged to save for our own retirement (doesn't take an advanced degree, some of the "simplest" people I can think of "get it"), we could do with our money what we want. If I died early, I could pass that money onto my heirs. Not so with SS. Which is "fairer" to a group with a short LE? Maybe SS is the "problem", not the "solution"?

One other thought comes to mind - it's almost impossible to be "fair", it's pretty straightforward to be "equal".

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2010, 08:36 AM   #128
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,616
An observation: Black LE is lower than white LE in the US. While it is difficult to "tease out" the various factors contributing to life expectancy, it's almost certainly not true that blacks live shorter lives solely because they are black. Poor people live shorter lives, and blacks are disproportionately poor. People with less education live shorter lives, and blacks in the US have lower levels of education on average. Lifestyle/behavioral factors (diet, smoking, exercise, drug use, exposure to violence) are also obviously important. I'm fairly sure that all these other things are vastly more important in determining life expectancy than being black or white.

I know some will argue that the root causation for some of these other longevity factors is racial, but from a strict actuarial perspective (as opposed to a sociological/"social justice" approach) we'd need to make these other determinations before deciding on what is "fair."
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2010, 09:02 AM   #129
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
An observation: Black LE is lower than white LE in the US.
But they are both "losers"

"U.S. Hispanics can expect to outlive whites by more than two years and blacks by more than seven, government researchers say in a startling report that is the first to calculate Hispanic life expectancy in this country."

Hispanics' Lifespan Longest In US, CDC says
__________________
rescueme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2010, 09:25 AM   #130
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
An observation:

... Poor people live shorter lives, ...

we'd need to make these other determinations before deciding on what is "fair."
Excellent point. So it is probably more generally correct (and gets us away from the racially charged issues) that poor people would be "disproportional affected" by a rise in retirement age.

But to come full circle, SS payouts are very progressive - the poor generally get disproportionally higher payments relative to what they put in. For life - which is what SS was designed to do.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2010, 09:35 AM   #131
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
FIRE'd@51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
But to come full circle, SS payouts are very progressive - the poor generally get disproportionally higher payments relative to what they put in. For life - which is what SS was designed to do.
I don't know the statistics, but if actuarially, lower-income people, on average, live shorter lives, then the progressive nature of the payout would tend to compensate for that effect as well.
__________________
I'd rather be governed by the first one hundred names in the telephone book than the Harvard faculty - William F. Buckley
FIRE'd@51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2010, 09:40 AM   #132
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Agreed

I may have miscommunicated. #2 (taxing the individual accounts) is clearly not borrowing, it is taxation (though it is taxation of accounts the individuals wouldn't have had at all in the absence of this proposal, so that should help gain acceptance)
If you're suggesting a new tax on existing 401k and IRAs to fund the individual accounts, then there is no borrowing. But I don't think that's what you meant.

The borrowing arises because we have to put dollars into those new IAs, where do we get the dollars to do that? If you are planning to carve them out of existing SS taxes, then you have the problem that we need 100% of existing SS taxes just to pay current benefits. The same tax dollar can't be used to buy $1 of stocks and pay $1 of benefits, one of those dollars has to be borrowed.

If you think the repayment from a 5% tax on the gain is going to offset this expense "soon", just imagine an agreement between us. You give me $1,000. I'll invest it in stocks and give you 5% of my gain, when will you be whole? Now suppose you give me $1,000 every year, when will you be whole?

Quote:
#3 (limit the portion of payroll tax that can be deposited into personal accounts) is not a revenue stream but a way to manage the channeling of the total funds collected as SS payroll taxes to help assure enough goes to the "common pool" to allow the monthly checks to be written.
Maybe you mean that #2 and #3 are really one idea, #3 is just clarifying how fast dollars go into the individual accounts? If so, the problem is the 100% above, there are no "extra" dollars to fund the IAs.
Quote:
I'm sure there are ways other than those suggested above to do this without more borrowing. But, that's not to say some borrowing couldn't be part of the mix. It's fashionable this year.
Borrowing is always fashionable with some people, I don't think either of us wants to see it on the scale necessary to make these proposals work. You're "sure there are ways", but with the thousands of people who have thought about this, nobody has come up with one yet. Replacing our paygo SS with a mandatory individual account system will require substantial new taxes, or cuts in benefits which are much deeper than the cuts necessary to balance the existing system, or huge borrowing (coupled with willful ignorance of how the asset markets would respond to that borrowing). There are no painless methods.
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2010, 09:45 AM   #133
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Rustic23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lake Livingston, Tx
Posts: 3,624
Life Expectancy is something I know very little about. It is one of those things often quoted, but I bet few among us really understand the data behind it. I think it changes with age. i.e. the life expectancy of an infant, say 85, is different than a 90 year old say 95. In order to really compare, and IMO, to discuss SS's as it relates to social, racial, and economic groups, you would need to look deeper in to LE statistics. Seems to me you need to look at LE at different ages. What is the LE for each group at say 21? Is it closer? How about 30 or 65? If a group has a higher teen death rate, does that effect the argument? I don't have the answers.
__________________
If it is after 5:00 when I post I reserve the right to disavow anything I posted.
Rustic23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2010, 09:54 AM   #134
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
I can't think of any rational way to deal with the differences, and that's why I called out the comment from Emeritus. What's the point of even mentioning it? In fact, if I turned the argument around (if you say that a group receives less in some social services, they should pay less; then it holds that if they receive more in some social services they should pay more), I'm sure there would be howls from many corners. I'm not going to go there, and I don't support that thinking. It holds that I don't support the view from the other angle other......
One other thought comes to mind - it's almost impossible to be "fair", it's pretty straightforward to be "equal".

-ERD50
La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain.

Securing the general Welfare is one of the reasons people founded this country.
__________________
Emeritus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2010, 10:05 AM   #135
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb7010 View Post
I am 39 years old and at this point don't expect a dime back from SS, and, despite the handy statements that I am sent regularly. For the good of all, I would be willing to continue to contribute some amount to pay for those who above a certain age who were "promised" benefits and will rely on them to live (sorry Mr. Gate and Mr. Buffett..you are out, as means testing is a great idea)

The bottom line for me is that I do not want the federal government having any part of my retirement planning or investing. I can find better, smarter, more efficient, and higher yielding options on my own.

I will agree to pay a small tax into a "social security"-like fund that will provide for those that simply don't have enough money to take reasonable care of themselves.

I, morally, cannot demand that other people fund my retirement with their hard earned money. And, I cannot understand why anyone would willingly choose the federal government to manage their money for them (ex: see federal deficit & debt). How about this to make everyone happy, let the federal government's retirement program compete in the open market with all the other investment options and those that think it's the best can send in their money for handling

Again, it's an interesting debate and I continue to be surprised by all of those who think SS is a good program for us all....
This reminds me of Milton Friedman. While other "libertarians" wanted to replace SS with some mandatory savings system, MF said we should eliminate it and replace it with nothing. IMO, MF had the consistent position.

Here are a couple practical comments:

The "some amount" that you are willing to contribute needs to be just about the entire current tax rate. Ten years from now, the currently scheduled benefits will requires 107% of the current tax rate. All the people collecting then are probably in your "above a certain age" group. 15 years from now, we'll need 117% of the current rate, and 20 years from now we'll need 125%. I'm guessing that all the cuts you were thinking about will be needed simply to live within current taxes. So you would need to pay the current tax rate throughout your working career even if we could change the law today.

SS may be unique among gov't programs in that a family can choose to partially opt out. You can start now by telling your children that when you retire you will apply for any benefits that are still available, but you will immediately split those benefits among them to offset the SS taxes they pay. IMO the important thing is to tell them now, so it will be hard to change your mind when you're older. This solves the moral issue within your family.

If all the people who think like you did this, they would erode the importance of SS in a single generation. Your generation may not be able to assemble the political majority to change laws today, but your children's will have a much better chance if many of them know they are already effectively outside SS.
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2010, 10:35 AM   #136
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
kyounge1956's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
I'm not sure that LE at age 5 is relevant - I think you need to look at LE at retirement age, or maybe well into their wage earning years when they would have paid a significant amount into the system. Regardless, we'd probably still find a difference in LE across different groups.
I chose age 5 because the original suggestion was to increase retirement age for everyone born after 2000, and the age 5's were the first age group in the statistics who would fit that description. However, white people have longer life expectancy than blacks up to age 75. At age 80, it is essentially equal, and over 80, life expectancy is a year or so longer for blacks than for whites. However, significantly fewer black people live to age 80 than whites, especially black men (see table B on pg 3 of the report).

Quote:
But the question remains - should we base policy on that? Is raising the retirement age across the board "unfair" to some? Maybe (or maybe not - since as I said, everyone gets paid "for life"), but then again it would be "unfair" to smokers, people with MS, probably all sorts of cross sections of society that might attract lawyers with class action law suits. Those groups will pay "disproportionately more" into the systems than others. Maybe we should charge more to people who come from families with long lives to compensate? Or people who take care of their health? It all gets rather silly. It's a life annuity - if you try to make it something else, it gets screwy.

I can't think of any rational way to deal with the differences, and that's why I called out the comment from Emeritus. What's the point of even mentioning it? In fact, if I turned the argument around (if you say that a group receives less in some social services, they should pay less; then it holds that if they receive more in some social services they should pay more), I'm sure there would be howls from many corners. I'm not going to go there, and I don't support that thinking. It holds that I don't support the view from the other angle other.

You know, this comes back to the problem with govt involvement in things - the "one size fits all" approach. If we were all educated and encouraged to save for our own retirement (doesn't take an advanced degree, some of the "simplest" people I can think of "get it"), we could do with our money what we want. If I died early, I could pass that money onto my heirs. Not so with SS. Which is "fairer" to a group with a short LE? Maybe SS is the "problem", not the "solution"?

One other thought comes to mind - it's almost impossible to be "fair", it's pretty straightforward to be "equal".

-ERD50
Neither Emeritus nor I suggested that policy should be based on this. You "called him out" for something he didn't say. What we both said is that the raising the retirement age to 70 would affect blacks disproportionately, and the data bears that out. Maybe this discrepancy is, as suggested elsewhere in the thread, more of a high income/low income effect, and partly or fully canceled out by the progressive nature of SS benefits. Other policy changes that have been suggested, such as removing the income cap on SS tax, would, I suspect, affect white people disproportionately, because a greater percentage of white people than blacks have wages above the current cap.

I know! Remove the income cap and raise the retirement age to 70.
__________________
kyounge1956 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2010, 10:38 AM   #137
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyounge1956 View Post
What we both said is that the raising the retirement age to 70 would affect blacks disproportionately, and the data bears that out.
Frankly, in this economy, I think raising the age to 70 is a nonstarter simply because of its impact on unemployment even if it is the right thing to do actuarially. If you change the "workforce" from roughly ages 20-65 to 20-67 and then 20-70, you have a larger percentage of people who have to work in an era when there aren't enough jobs for those in the smaller workforce -- let alone the expanded one.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2010, 10:58 AM   #138
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Two observations:
-- Present workers would still be benefiting from their payments into the common SS pool. These payments would buy them true insurance--a monthly check they'll receive if, in retirement, their individual investment accounts don't produce income up to a pre-defined level (the funds for these checks will come from future workers--just as the funds do today).
Quick reality check- there will be gamers, ad dsome will go for the moon in their private accounts, figuring that they are backstopped by what you are calling the insurance aspect.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2010, 11:19 AM   #139
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
Quick reality check- there will be gamers, ad dsome will go for the moon in their private accounts, figuring that they are backstopped by what you are calling the insurance aspect.
Yes, that could happen. There are at least two things that would oppose this tendency:
1) Many of the proposals set limits on what the investments could be in (maybe indexes, etc), some opened the door to wider options for some of the money when people attained a certain asset level. So, it would be impossible for someone to gamble on pork belly futures because that option simply isn't available.
2) The "safety net" makeup checks are available to investors whose personal accounts don't produce an annuity payout equal to some baseline amount. If past history is any guide, investors in the conservative investments above will be well above this baseline amount by retirement age. Even if all the "safeties" were removed, a prospective retiree who has accumulated a nut that will throw off $3K per month and which can be passed on to his heirs would seem unlikely to bet it all aggressively in hopes of getting still more, knowing that the safety net promises just $1500 per month, and which stops on his death. Marginal utility theory and all . . .

But it brings up a point--the present system provides a baseline income to all participants. How much would individual savings go up (to the benefit of private industry and society as a whole) if the safety net were totally gone or at least much lower? Given that, what's the true cost of this safety net? I think many politicians know the political impact this net has, and they revel in it, seeking all the time to increase public dependency for the long-term benefit of their philosophy. The more folks who have a stake in higher government benefits, the better they and their friends will fare over time.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2010, 11:29 AM   #140
Recycles dryer sheets
keegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronocnikral View Post
this is interesting. to me in this case, "free" means having a choice without being put in jail, having wages garnished etc. i don't get to choose if i participate in SS. so how does it compete in a free market? even within the mandated contributions, one does not get to elect how the money is invested.

futhermore, i would say most people support the idea of SS, many more would disagree with its operations. if by "support" you mean "pay in to," see above.
Ron,

What I meant is that in our free market system, where many alternatives are available, voters have declined the privatization option.

SS is just like any other fixed annuity, you don't get to pick how the issuer invests the funds. My understanding is that SS funds are invested in treasuries backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. It's a credit worthiness that investors continue to flock to.

The only threat to your investment in social security is the voter. Which leads me to assume that these arguments about SS serve an ideological agenda.
__________________

__________________
keegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Madoff - how to protect yourself? cyclone6 FIRE and Money 40 12-18-2008 11:47 AM
Online Fraud -- how can I protect myself. JB Other topics 10 10-20-2008 04:14 PM
Best way to protect your money godoftrading FIRE and Money 17 06-08-2008 10:02 PM
Protect Yourself from the Falling Dollar ShokWaveRider FIRE and Money 8 07-05-2006 12:02 PM
incorporate to protect assets? TallCotton Other topics 52 05-23-2005 09:56 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:20 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.