Comments on: We’re So Scroooood http://davebudge.com/?p=1452 Finance, Economics & Random Musings Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:44:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Mark T http://davebudge.com/?p=1452&cpage=1#comment-192149 Mark T Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:38:03 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1452#comment-192149 Social Security is a solid and well-funded program that has lifted millions out of poverty and guaranteed retirement income to rich and poor alike. It offers 1) retirement income; 2) survivor benefits for spouses and children, and 3) disability income. In addition, the annuities are life-guaranteed - that is, they don't run out in case you outlive the mortality tables. There's nothing like it available in the private sector. Nothing can touch it. Go out and price it for yourself and see - ask your estate planner (life insurance salesman) for a product that does everything that SS does, and see if you can afford it. In addition. Social Security operates on a dime. Where a typical mutual fund will take 26% of ultimate beneifts in expenses over an investor's life, Social Security takes about 3%. And that is the rub - Wall Street investment houses see the billions that go through SSA and salivate - they are not getting their cut. That's why the push for privitization. One other factor - Social Security works, has worked, will continue to work. It's a very high quality retirement model, better than anything the private sector offers. For that reason, government haters hate it. Karl (Max Bucks) - you're deluding yourself if you think that you really would be $300,000 ahead without SS. That's one of the reasons that the Bush plan fell on its face. The numbers didn't crunch. Social Security is a solid and well-funded program that has lifted millions out of poverty and guaranteed retirement income to rich and poor alike. It offers 1) retirement income; 2) survivor benefits for spouses and children, and 3) disability income. In addition, the annuities are life-guaranteed – that is, they don’t run out in case you outlive the mortality tables.

There’s nothing like it available in the private sector. Nothing can touch it. Go out and price it for yourself and see – ask your estate planner (life insurance salesman) for a product that does everything that SS does, and see if you can afford it.

In addition. Social Security operates on a dime. Where a typical mutual fund will take 26% of ultimate beneifts in expenses over an investor’s life, Social Security takes about 3%.

And that is the rub – Wall Street investment houses see the billions that go through SSA and salivate – they are not getting their cut. That’s why the push for privitization.

One other factor – Social Security works, has worked, will continue to work. It’s a very high quality retirement model, better than anything the private sector offers. For that reason, government haters hate it.

Karl (Max Bucks) – you’re deluding yourself if you think that you really would be $300,000 ahead without SS. That’s one of the reasons that the Bush plan fell on its face. The numbers didn’t crunch.

]]> By: Max Bucks http://davebudge.com/?p=1452&cpage=1#comment-191772 Max Bucks Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:57:36 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1452#comment-191772 Actually, it’s simpler than that. In the disturbed mind of the socialist, the state does everything better. And, naturally, the thing the state does better than anything else is waste money. Actually, it’s simpler than that. In the disturbed mind of the socialist, the state does everything better. And, naturally, the thing the state does better than anything else is waste money.

]]> By: Walter Greenspan http://davebudge.com/?p=1452&cpage=1#comment-191698 Walter Greenspan Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:28:02 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1452#comment-191698 Democrats and their fellow travelers are disingenuous about why they do not want to privatize Social Security. Democrats and their fellow travelers do not want to privatize Social Security because: (1) if Social Security was privatized then they could not use the argument "vote for me because I will protect and/or increase your Social Security monthly check"; and, (2) if these Democrats could still be elected, they would be prevented from their first love: raising taxes on corporations, because this would be harmful to the investments of those who, if Social Security was private, had invested in corporate equities. Democrats and their fellow travelers are disingenuous about why they do not want to privatize Social Security.

Democrats and their fellow travelers do not want to privatize Social Security because: (1) if Social Security was privatized then they could not use the argument “vote for me because I will protect and/or increase your Social Security monthly check”; and, (2) if these Democrats could still be elected, they would be prevented from their first love: raising taxes on corporations, because this would be harmful to the investments of those who, if Social Security was private, had invested in corporate equities.

]]> By: Mark T http://davebudge.com/?p=1452&cpage=1#comment-191608 Mark T Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:19:56 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1452#comment-191608 Max - You must be one of those fortunate investors who doesn't pay any expenses, only collects profits, and who never allows current trends to influence long term prospects. Indeed you would be richer. Max – You must be one of those fortunate investors who doesn’t pay any expenses, only collects profits, and who never allows current trends to influence long term prospects. Indeed you would be richer.

]]> By: Max Bucks http://davebudge.com/?p=1452&cpage=1#comment-191538 Max Bucks Tue, 25 Sep 2007 05:41:12 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1452#comment-191538 I’d be $300,000 richer today if it weren’t for jackasses like FDR and Mark T. I’d be $300,000 richer today if it weren’t for jackasses like FDR and Mark T.

]]> By: Mark T http://davebudge.com/?p=1452&cpage=1#comment-191517 Mark T Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:32:56 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1452#comment-191517 Medical costs will continue to eat larger portions of our GDP as time goes on, no matter how we pay for it. That doe snot relive us of the obligation to take care of our seniors. We have to do it. And believe me, the private sector does not want to do health care for seniors (not without a massive subsidy, anyway). That's how Medicare came to be in the first place. "Enforceable" - interesting word. These bonds are supposedly legal obligations of the United States Government. They seem real - not paying them is going to take some smooth PR. But I have faith they will not be honored. Medical costs will continue to eat larger portions of our GDP as time goes on, no matter how we pay for it. That doe snot relive us of the obligation to take care of our seniors. We have to do it.

And believe me, the private sector does not want to do health care for seniors (not without a massive subsidy, anyway). That’s how Medicare came to be in the first place.

“Enforceable” – interesting word. These bonds are supposedly legal obligations of the United States Government. They seem real – not paying them is going to take some smooth PR. But I have faith they will not be honored.

]]> By: Steve http://davebudge.com/?p=1452&cpage=1#comment-191511 Steve Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:46:05 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1452#comment-191511 If there is a Trust Fund, or a promise for that matter, it should be enforceable. I just don't think any of us can sue to enforce it. I am afraid that it is only smoke and mirrors, and it is going to be made worse when a whole bunch of us take early retirement just so that they will be on board before it fails. As to just funding it, SS and Medicare already consume half the federal budget (not the military which only takes 1/4). If there is a Trust Fund, or a promise for that matter, it should be enforceable. I just don’t think any of us can sue to enforce it.

I am afraid that it is only smoke and mirrors, and it is going to be made worse when a whole bunch of us take early retirement just so that they will be on board before it fails.

As to just funding it, SS and Medicare already consume half the federal budget (not the military which only takes 1/4).

]]> By: Mark T http://davebudge.com/?p=1452&cpage=1#comment-191505 Mark T Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:54:45 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1452#comment-191505 Steve - this is the essence of the debate, I think you know. Is there really a trust fund? As I said to Dave, only if we can trust our politicians. There is a way to judge how trustworthy they are: If they say drop-dead date is 2018, they are anticipating breaking the promise behind the Trust Fund. If they say it is 2053, then they are not. You said DD date is 2018, so I presume you do not believe there is a trust fund. I'm pulled hard in that direction too. To fix Social Security, which is very close to solvent, we need only remove the cap or extend the tax to income besides wages. Right now working people pay the whole load, investors get off free. We could easily fund it in perpetuity. But I don't think the privatizers want that - I think they want it dead and gone. I know it is pay as you go, I know I'm paying for my mother's now and that my kids will pay for me. I'm OK with that - it's a good program offering benefits the private sector cannot begin to match. PS - to fix Medicare, fund it. Steve – this is the essence of the debate, I think you know. Is there really a trust fund? As I said to Dave, only if we can trust our politicians. There is a way to judge how trustworthy they are: If they say drop-dead date is 2018, they are anticipating breaking the promise behind the Trust Fund. If they say it is 2053, then they are not.

You said DD date is 2018, so I presume you do not believe there is a trust fund. I’m pulled hard in that direction too.

To fix Social Security, which is very close to solvent, we need only remove the cap or extend the tax to income besides wages. Right now working people pay the whole load, investors get off free. We could easily fund it in perpetuity. But I don’t think the privatizers want that – I think they want it dead and gone.

I know it is pay as you go, I know I’m paying for my mother’s now and that my kids will pay for me. I’m OK with that – it’s a good program offering benefits the private sector cannot begin to match.

PS – to fix Medicare, fund it.

]]> By: Steve http://davebudge.com/?p=1452&cpage=1#comment-191486 Steve Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:22:07 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1452#comment-191486 Oh, and let's not forget the effect of Medicare, which is going bust even faster. Oh, and let’s not forget the effect of Medicare, which is going bust even faster.

]]> By: Steve http://davebudge.com/?p=1452&cpage=1#comment-191466 Steve Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:10:55 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1452#comment-191466 Mark, the workers like you and me have been paying in to support the current retirees. We haven't paid a dime into our own retirement. I am curious how you think that we can fix it in a "flash." The coming retirement of the Baby Boomers (I am one of them) is going to reduce the actual number of workers, so we will have to raise the tax rate on everyone. Since Social Security tax is essentially regressive, (it falls heaviest on those making less than $89k if I remember right) we will have to raise the cap. But that is only a temporary measure at best. If we means test Social Security, does that mean if you were foolish enough not to provide for your retirement you are rewarded, but if you did save, you get less than the share you paid in? There are a host of problems in this, and by ignoring it, we are only going to make it worse. Mark, the workers like you and me have been paying in to support the current retirees. We haven’t paid a dime into our own retirement. I am curious how you think that we can fix it in a “flash.”
The coming retirement of the Baby Boomers (I am one of them) is going to reduce the actual number of workers, so we will have to raise the tax rate on everyone. Since Social Security tax is essentially regressive, (it falls heaviest on those making less than $89k if I remember right) we will have to raise the cap. But that is only a temporary measure at best.
If we means test Social Security, does that mean if you were foolish enough not to provide for your retirement you are rewarded, but if you did save, you get less than the share you paid in?
There are a host of problems in this, and by ignoring it, we are only going to make it worse.

]]>