Social Security, the easy way to fix it...

That didn't answer either paragraph of the post you responded to.

And, believing we can do something is fine, but not the same as proposing a solution.

 

You seem to be hung up on the accessibility of a 401k mandated system. IMO, that would be the least of our problems. Converting from a fAiled Ponzi scheme to a realistic assets system would come with great pain to most Americans. But, bankruptcy usually is difficult. Continuing to pretend the current system can continue in a fair manner is impossible. In fact, it hasn't been fair for decades.

 

Those real SS bonds are created when the government takes surplus FICA money to the general fund. They are created today by Americans and employers paying FICA. A huge portion of those paying FICA today will expect all of their FICA contributions to be transferred to a private investment account...this means the government must cash out those bonds.

No matter, I am unequivocally against private investment accounts for FICA...

 

"Hung up on" in the sense that depending on that system would be a significant error, while there has been no proposed satisfactory way of making that system at all mandatory - in fact, changes to it have been toward letting people get their money out so they can depend it.

But, you are hung up on this safetynet feature not being a great investment vehicle for every participant. But, you can not come up with ANY other safetynet feature that is any kind of investment vehicle.

If you had a viable replacement to propose and a workable transition plan, you would be better than the GOP brains of the last 80 years (Aug 14 being the 80th anniversary of SS Administration).. That is tough competition, so don't take it as an insult that you have not gotten there yet.

 

I'm suggesting we convert SS to a mandated 401k. I'm not suggesting we mandate 401k while keeping the government plan. It would be easy for Americans to accept a mandated 401k if it were using the current funds going to SS. Again, it would have to be a tiered transfer, but doing it is far better than the collapse or further socialization of the average American. If you were to see the big picture, you would see that only the rich truly enjoy freedom and prosperity. This is because most Americans are being turned into serfs by the safety nets.

 

There is no reason for SS to fail. It is easily in our power for it to continue through the bulge of retirees working through the system today. There are a good number of tweaks that can be made at any point, making any major change unnecessary. I pointed to one of those.

And this post of yours answers none of the questions I keep asking about your plan.

Also, note that 30 years of SS disbursements times the disbursements of today is more than $1.7 trillion - but that will increase due to cost of living, etc. That is a heck of a transition expense to figure out. And, if your plan is to wring that out of those who have been paying (and counting on) SS, I think you are going to have a tough time getting votes.

Let's remember that SS is the least "socialized" of our safety net features and as such would seem to be the least likely target if what you care about was punching holes in our safety net.

 

You're not grasping the failure of SS. It started as a minimal tax and minimal safeguard. It has turned into a major tax on discretionary income and has made most Americans dependent upon it as a primary retirement program. It has went from a 2% tax to 12.4% tax that has no where to go,but up.

You as a socialist, clearly do not care that Americans are being made serfs and each following generation will be slaves to this program. You will not accept its failure until it collapses, which it will. Just like Greece.

 

Buddy, you clearly have NO idea what it means to be a socialist. And, there is absolutely NO doubt that I am not one.

And, my objection to your proposal is that you have NO plan. You have hand waves, which is exactly why Bush failed to move this issue forward. If you were at all serious, you would make yourself conversant in the problems with this direction that caused Bush to fail on exactly this issue.

If you had a plan, I might be for it. But, you do not.

 

You are not clear as to what info you want. I have given you the working plan and a solution to get there. I'm not sure what you want.

 

It is dragging us into a socialist slow death.



Same thing we've been hearing for the past 60 years.

 

So, are you blind? Do you not see a huge dependency among Americans for SS? Do you not see a society that is less capable of self wealth building due to less disposable income? Do you not see a society heavily in debt and unfunded liabilities? All Ponzi schemes run the same course. They start out great then fail.

 

The Social Security Act was passed in 1935 - after all these 80 years we are still awaiting ''proof'' of this claim from cynics like you.

 

"The unequal distribution of property is the cause of violent factionalism in society"

Federalist, Essay # 10


~ James Madison, fourth president of the USA



Today, anyone who says that is called a "Marxist". Madison wrote this 40 years before Marx was born.

 

Yes, and Fico taxes keep going up and the deficit keeps going up.

 

Put an end to tax shelters, not Social Security, and the debt will be ended.

 

Put an end to government control of Americans retirement funds and let us build real wealth that can be passed to our posterity, as apposed to debt.

 

Well at least we've had massive tax cuts so the richest could get even richer. That makes you happy doen't it?

- - - Updated - - -

An the multitudes that don't can live under freeway overpasses. That way the richest can continue getting a larger and larger portion of the nation's wealth. That's what you want, isn't it?

 

You completely loose credibility when you make stupid statements like this. First, no one wants to see people loving under bridges. Appearantly, you believe Americans are too stupid to have money, so you contradict yourself by claiming they should have a larger portion of the wealth. And, how else are they going to get a bigger portion when the government uses a large portion of their discretionary funds to run a failed Ponzi scheme?

 

Yes, millions if not tens of millions are too "stupid" or unsophisticated to understand principles of investing to manage a safe portfolio.

And so tell us what is your solution for them.

 

Vanguard, Fidelity, T. R. Price.

We have a 401k system in place. All it needs is some minor adjustments to replace SS.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't ask you if we have a 401k system in place.

I'm asking what your plan is for the millions of people who end up in retirement without sufficient income?

 

Keep working. Live with relatives(like we used to), let private charities assist them.

Are you suggesting that government Ponzi schemes work better than long term investing into moderate private investments? Finally, many Americans that die before your beloved government declared retirement age, would be able to leave real wealth to their posterity.

My uncle passed away 75 while still working because SS could not support his meager lifestyle. The idea that someone could pay into a system for 40-50 years and still be poor is a travesty. Doing the same into moderate market investments would leave most millionaires.

 

Got it. And if you can't work and don't have relatives who will take you, there's always the freeway overpass, right?

What Govt Ponzi scheme?

 

Liberty is t free. It comes with responsibilities. If some make decisions that leave them broke, that is their choice. A mandated private system should keep most on a path to a decent retirement. Those who are truly needy and cannot fend for themselves have private charities, family, friends, churches, local and state programs to help them. We do not need the federal government past it's defined constitutional duties.

When it walks like a duck and kwacks like a duck......

 

But the system has been working wonderfully for the past 80 years.

- - - Updated - - -

Tom Paine was one of our Founding Fathers and he was the first one to propose Social Security.