Who has a better chance of winning with Obama?

[DGuller]

A dedicated tax that finances a bare bones form of Social Security for people who crapped away all their savings in stupid day trades.

And that's not moral hazard?

[derspiess]

Um you would put faith in the federal government to control billions of dollars that could artificially control and swing markets and expect them to use it for the interests of the people and not for political purposes? 

No.  I think the idea is for individuals to make that decision.

Oh and we would almost certainly have to bail out the losers? 

I wouldn't favor that.  I almost never favor that in any circumstance.  If you know you're going to get bailed out some way, you'll take less calculated risks.

Yeah that is real fucking Lockian.

Thanks

Besides having massive government run investment schemes sounds more like socialism to me.  Public capital management?  Holy shit that would be a trainwreck.  And you think this is a free market solution?  LOL.

Did I say any of that?

Besides look at how the stock market has gone the past few years, we would be lurching from political crisis to political crisis.

I still have to think my 401k is going to give me a much better return over the long haul than what I'm paying into Social Security.

If the Government wants to run a pension scheme it needs to be run in the way governments run shit.  They fucking suck at running businesses and making investments and all that.  I mean they are unable to make even the most basic and commonsense reforms to sociall security because they are too scared of the political fallout.  Just think if capitol for important donors was at stake.

Agree.

I also put more faith in business than government to generate wealth and I would recomend to anybody to invest in a pension fund and not rely on SS continuing to exist at all.  But that and wanting a disastrous reform are not the same thing.

All well & good, but how happy are you with seeing 6.2% (which is temporarily 4.2% but will go back up) of your paycheck go out the window, with you likely to only get pennies on the dollar back when you reach retirement age?  Wouldn't it be nice to control how some of that gets invested?

[Valmy]

All well & good, but how happy are you with seeing 6.2% (which is temporarily 4.2% but will go back up) of your paycheck go out the window, with you likely to only get pennies on the dollar back when you reach retirement age?  Wouldn't it be nice to control how some of that gets invested?

I am not particularly happy.  It is a necessary evil of living in a democracy where that thing has almost universal support (and why wouldn't it?).  I just want to see it not increase and instead we reduce payments and/or increase the age of eligibility.

My issue is I do not trust the politicians to just let it float.  If a good number of people lose their money they would have no choice but to swoop in and bail them out.  Further I have my doubts that it would have really been up to the investor.  The State would have considered it its interest to have more and more control over what you could do with the savings account and eventually it would be a tool of patronage and corruption....you know for our own good.

[DGuller]

All well & good, but how happy are you with seeing 6.2% (which is temporarily 4.2% but will go back up) of your paycheck go out the window, with you likely to only get pennies on the dollar back when you reach retirement age?

Pennies on the dollar?  Isn't that a little, what's the word, utterly dishonest?  If we do nothing, at some point Social Security will pay 75% of the promised obligations to perpetuity.  It's not ideal to do a quarter-default on the promised obligations, but to say that you'll be getting pennies on the dollar because of it is nothing else than flat out lying.

[derspiess]

Pennies on the dollar?  Isn't that a little, what's the word, utterly dishonest?  If we do nothing, at some point Social Security will pay 75% of the promised obligations to perpetuity.  It's not ideal to do a quarter-default on the promised obligations, but to say that you'll be getting pennies on the dollar because of it is nothing else than flat out lying.

I don't trust that figure.

[DGuller]

Pennies on the dollar?  Isn't that a little, what's the word, utterly dishonest?  If we do nothing, at some point Social Security will pay 75% of the promised obligations to perpetuity.  It's not ideal to do a quarter-default on the promised obligations, but to say that you'll be getting pennies on the dollar because of it is nothing else than flat out lying.

I don't trust that figure.

Oh, OK then.  As long as you don't trust the official figures calculated by the experts, you are free to use your own figures as facts.

[derspiess]

Pennies on the dollar?  Isn't that a little, what's the word, utterly dishonest?  If we do nothing, at some point Social Security will pay 75% of the promised obligations to perpetuity.  It's not ideal to do a quarter-default on the promised obligations, but to say that you'll be getting pennies on the dollar because of it is nothing else than flat out lying.

I don't trust that figure.

Oh, OK then.  As long as you don't trust the official figures calculated by the experts, you are free to use your own figures as facts.

You didn't mention any source, so am I supposed to just take your word for it?

[Barrister]

I'm sure that derspeiss could do better investing that money than giving it to the government, but "pennies on the dollar" doesn't sound at all correct.

[Valmy]

I'm sure that derspeiss could do better investing that money than giving it to the government, but "pennies on the dollar" doesn't sound at all correct.

I think he is predicting the collapse of the SSA.  I am not expecting anything myself that is why I invest alot in my private pension.

[Sheilbh]

Do you guys seriously think that the US is going to return to pre-Roosevelt provision for the elderly over the next 30-40 years?

[MadImmortalMan]

Do you guys seriously think that the US is going to return to pre-Roosevelt provision for the elderly over the next 30-40 years?

What? No fucking way. Nor the post-Roosevelt provision either.

We have IRAs and 401ks now--the greatest thing the federal government has done for the US Citizen since the abolition of slavery. So, while we may continue to get diminishing returns from our SSA compared to our forefathers, we'll still be light years better off than they were.

[Ideologue]

Do you guys seriously think that the US is going to return to pre-Roosevelt provision for the elderly over the next 30-40 years?

What? No fucking way. Nor the post-Roosevelt provision either.

We have IRAs and 401ks now--the greatest thing the federal government has done for the US Citizen since the abolition of slavery. So, while we may continue to get diminishing returns from our SSA compared to our forefathers, we'll still be light years better off than they were.

Need I remind you of the ATOM BOMB?

[MadImmortalMan]

Do you guys seriously think that the US is going to return to pre-Roosevelt provision for the elderly over the next 30-40 years?

What? No fucking way. Nor the post-Roosevelt provision either.

We have IRAs and 401ks now--the greatest thing the federal government has done for the US Citizen since the abolition of slavery. So, while we may continue to get diminishing returns from our SSA compared to our forefathers, we'll still be light years better off than they were.

Need I remind you of the ATOM BOMB?

That was, of course, done for the good of all humanity--not just US citizens.   

[Admiral Yi]

The problem with privatization is that it turns on its head the very idea of having SS in the first place.  The point of SS is to guarantee, in a way that only government can, some level of income in retirement for everyone.  It's supposed to be sn insurance policy, not a return-maximizing investment vehicle.  The point of insurance is to minimize the downside, not to maximize the upside.

We've been over this before.  Insurance companies can guarantee, in a way that only government and financial institutions can, some level of income in retirement for everyone through annuities.

[Admiral Yi]

A dedicated tax that finances a bare bones form of Social Security for people who crapped away all their savings in stupid day trades.

And that's not moral hazard?

I said moral hazard could be managed.  I didn't say it could be eliminated.  Well, actually it could if we wanted to be brutally indifferent.