detox665
detox665 t1_jc8ofvd wrote
Reply to comment by windershinwishes in [OC] US Social Security Fund History by PM_Ur_Illiac_Furrows
Private bankers have a better track record for fiscal responsibility that congresscritters. I know that isn’t saying much but it is true.
The important thing is that the money be actually invested in something real and not just congress’s ability to tax future citizens.
detox665 t1_jc6o2ts wrote
Reply to comment by windershinwishes in [OC] US Social Security Fund History by PM_Ur_Illiac_Furrows
Eliminating the income cap will not generate enough revenue to cover the shortage. It isn't even close.
A privatized plan could still provide a minimum guaranteed income to all workers. (the "workers" part there is important, IMO).
If you take the FICA taxes that I generated (taken directly from my paycheck and my employer's "share"), and pretend that it was invested in a variety of index funds with a long-term growth of 5% (actual long-term growth is closer to 7%), I should have a bit over a million dollars at retirement age (+/-65). That includes the various "crashes" that have happened over the years.
If my retirement income is kept to less than long-term growth, I would have roughly $50k per year. Right now I'm projected to get $20-$25k depending on when the "haircut" hits and I have to work until almost 68.
Make it so half of any unused funds go back to the feds to cover those with lower lifetime earnings.
Even a person that works for nearly the minimum wage can generate $500-700k of retirement. But we can sweeten that a little from the government.
In the case of people with significant old-age issues (i.e. dementia) there is a pile of money that can be used for their care. That reduces the amount of money that the government must pay.
Social security as currently established is a Ponzi scheme. Sweden has privatized successfully as has Columbia. The only thing Social Security does well is to ensure that seniors are as equally poor as possible.
detox665 t1_jc3fld4 wrote
Reply to comment by thunder-thumbs in [OC] US Social Security Fund History by PM_Ur_Illiac_Furrows
The bonds that the trust fund holds are a unique series issued to the trust fund. You cannot buy them anywhere else. Makes it easy to default on them without harming the value/credit associated with other US bond series.
"The full faith and credit of the United States" is valuable only for as long as we can levy sufficient taxes to cover our bills. After that point, very bad things start happening very quickly.
I've been advocating for privatization since the Reagan administration. As things stand right now, I and my cohort are about to take it in the shorts because propaganda beats facts.
detox665 t1_jc2z4vr wrote
Reply to comment by mikevago in [OC] US Social Security Fund History by PM_Ur_Illiac_Furrows
One small detail that gets overlooked is that the fund is empty. All of the money put into it was exchanged for IOUs from Congress and then spent. It wasn't invested. It was spent.
The only way turn those IOUs back into cash are to tax current and future taxpayers to raise the money.
Pushing total tax rates to over 50% might not be a great plan if we want to have a growing economy.
detox665 t1_jefoi1z wrote
Reply to Songs that only became famous because of the music video? by WapplesAreDelish
Fish Heads by Barnes & Barnes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn73Wtem0No