tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post4045347035657491125..comments2023-11-08T12:09:20.020-05:00Comments on Prove Me Wrong: Rethinking Social SecurityJonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-55539015593315526242020-04-17T13:17:41.407-04:002020-04-17T13:17:41.407-04:00It is correct to assume that under ideal market co...It is correct to assume that under ideal market conditions the yield would be much higher. The issue is that market conditions are never ideal. Second using $50,000 as an income estimate is not a good move because it ignores the lower end of the spectrum of incomes where people rightly use all of their income on routine expenses. The problem with Ramsey's argument simply stated is that it is not reality. Countries such as Chile that have tried this have been abysmal failures despite what the right wing pundits have said. Market fluctuations, private management fees, and the like have eaten into a huge chunk of that day dream number. SS is a pay as you go system that generally is quite solvent and serves an important social and economic function of being a baseline. It is consistent regardless of economic conditions and moderates market fluctuations. Granted the ideal retirement mix would have more risky investments that yield higher returns, however getting rid of SS and other defined benefit plans is a losing proposition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-54067782096000170812011-07-04T10:21:13.648-04:002011-07-04T10:21:13.648-04:00Just yet another example of what happens to someth...Just yet another example of what happens to something/anything that the government touches.<br /><br />Article 1, Section 8 - only only only only only only only only please.<br /><br />Every program that the government touches goes from a 'good' and 'decent idea' to a complete disaster in a couple decades. This goes for the Right and Left.<br /><br />Want to solve our Political Garbage - any Politician who puts a plan on the table MUST be able to prove that it is Constitutionally sound to a panel of 5 Libs and 5 Conservatives (must have 6 votes) and it can not involve the word MANDATORY PARTICIPATION anywhere. <br /><br />If a great plan is great it should be able to stand alone and not require everyone to participate.<br /><br />HP is right about one thing that I always wonder about and it scares me just how crooked and wrong this is. This one scenario tells you all that you need to know about Social Security and how bad it is. What happens to a guy who dies at 64 years old to all of the money put into the pot? The guy contributed to Soc Sec for 46 years and died before he got 1 penny back so where in the hell did that money go? Wonder just how many people acutally die before they collect on Soc Sec, but have contributed all the way until there death and the program is still bankrupt - how crazy foolish is that. <br /><br />Same example 46 years of contributions - how much would that guy have contributed if his average salary was $45,000 for the 35 years the guy worked - do we know what kind of number that is?<br /><br />Please - Federal Over Lord's leave my money alone and let me plan for my retirement or let me at least spend my money while I am on this earth!!!Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-16098397001559361792011-07-04T00:04:18.084-04:002011-07-04T00:04:18.084-04:00I'd have thought we'd have a few points of...I'd have thought we'd have a few points of agreement here.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-64568854031153624492011-07-03T17:53:55.669-04:002011-07-03T17:53:55.669-04:00Few comments:
First, the administrative cost thin...Few comments:<br /><br />First, the administrative cost thing is such a pet peeve of mine. It just isn't a fair comparison. Remember, the average private company has to spend al ot of money on billing - social security, and also medicare btw, does that through the tax system. In other words, the administrative costs of the IRS have to be added to the administrative costs of Social-Security and Medicare. OR else it isn't fair. Then there is the issue of fraud. These government programs frankly don't spend a lot of time fighting that. But its <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/23/60minutes/main5414390.shtml" rel="nofollow">a real issue</a>. So you have to control for the different levels of fraud as well.<br /><br />Second, the problems with social-security is deeper than just the horrible return. There is the fact that social-security - because of a double payroll tax - puts a real cost burden on labor, which harms especially those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Then there is the issue of savings - many people simply save less, because of social-security. But because social-security's return is so shitty, this results in a net savings loss for these citizens. Then there is the effect of this on minorities and the poor - because we die at a younger age, we 'benefit' less from social-security.<br /><br />Third, social security is simply unfair. It's a transfer of wealth from the young to the old - regardless of need. Think about it: many of the young who are now paying social-security will not even make it to old age. They will die of health problems, car wrecks, crime, or whatever - in other words, the old already have an advantage over the young, they made it to old Age!<br /><br />Then, there is the issue that the elderly, as a block, are the richest segment of socieity. And the young are the poorest. Yet social-security is a transfer from the young (poor) to the old (rich).HispanicPundithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10220166238164432290noreply@blogger.com