Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
That's the crux of the problem. They not only wouldn't like the way you would raise taxes they wouldn't like you cutting defense spending either.
How to kickstart en economy
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
Based Chad
Was it me?
wow. onceler and the practical benefits of wall street. Im stupefied and terrified, shocked and chagrined.
Based Chad
Was it me?
The practical benefits of wallstreet = the value of forced assrape
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Wrong... had it been privatized AND invested in the S&P 500 in 2003 when Bush suggested it... the SS funds would be UP about 10%. If it had been done in 2004 when he tried to push it again, it would be down about 5%.
But again, privatization DOES NOT MEAN THE MONEY HAS TO GO INTO THE EQUITY MARKETS
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yes, it means less accountability TO the taxpayer because the TAXPAYER would have control. I know you enjoy the government telling you what is best for you and thus want them to continue taking your money and pretending they are going to eventually give it back, but some of us don't actually have your faith in that occurring.
Based Chad
Was it me?
How does the taxpayer have control when things are privatized? What exactly are you blabbering about. It seems stupid at first glance.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Privatization = Taxpayer decides how the money is invested and has control of the account. Should the taxpayer die at age 65, that money is part of his/her estate.
Current system = Government takes the funds, spends them and then tells us they may have to cut benefits in 20 years when the fund becomes insolvent. Should the tax payer die the beneficiaries might be able to get some benefits, but normally the bulk of the money is lost.
evince
Truthmatters
No because you are lying you dipshit.
I told bac that his opinion about what the Dem party should do did not matter because he was a member of another party.
You just are too stupid or too dishonest to get it right.
Based Chad
Was it me?
I didn't realize you were discussing SS specifically. I would probably agree with that on ss. You mean INDIVIDUALIZED, really.
I thought we were talking infrastructure/services in general.
Here is the worst of what has happened to the Chilean Pension Fund; a fund similar to the one Bush proposed.
Note that though investors near retirement who had not transfered investments from variable income fund A into variable income fund D or E did lose about 17% in this latest crisis-BUT even those losses do not prevent their enjoying a comfortable retirement and for those who are not close to retirement a likely opportunity to not only recover losses, but to increase their investments.
Note that though investors near retirement who had not transfered investments from variable income fund A into variable income fund D or E did lose about 17% in this latest crisis-BUT even those losses do not prevent their enjoying a comfortable retirement and for those who are not close to retirement a likely opportunity to not only recover losses, but to increase their investments.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Oh... yeah, just talking about SS.
Yes, it would essentially be individualized (similar to an IRA, but still a mandatory contribution via payroll deduction)... but privatization is still correct as well given that it means putting the money in the hands of the private sector vs. being government run.
Infrastructure has to be 'run' by the state governments (though funding can obviously come from the Fed as well)
cawacko
Well-known member
That's the thing investing in individual stocks was not even an option. The options were far more conservative than that. And when we talk about privatization we are not talking about privatizing 100% of SS (at least what Bush proposed) it was the option of putting 7% into an individual account if the individual wanted to. The individual had the CHOICE.
Personally, I'd be fine w/ 100% in the market.
Even after the crashes we have experienced in history, the returns over time are still exponential. It's a no brainer.
What do we get with SS now? 2%?
Awful....
cawacko
Well-known member
I agree with you, I'd be fine with it as well. Was just pointing out what has been proposed so far is nowhere near 100% privatization.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Dunno, but Desh has used it many times before...
EDIT: The first Google hit is Desh using it on USMB!!
The 3rd and 4th hits are here using it here on JPP.
EDIT: The first Google hit is Desh using it on USMB!!
The 3rd and 4th hits are here using it here on JPP.
Last edited:
Maybe when you grow the fuck up, you can be an astronaut....
cawacko
Well-known member
Dunno, but Desh has used it many times before...
EDIT: The first Google hit is Desh using it on USMB!!
The 3rd and 4th hits are here using it here on JPP.
that is hilarious!
Good Luck
New member
Absolutely correct. What the fear mongers of stock investing tend to forget (or gloss over) is the difference between short term and long term investing and how that plays out in the stock market. Relative to the bigger picture, the working lifetime of an individual is, at best, a MID-term investment longevity. Stock downturns are comparatively short lived to overall stock growth. The people who got hurt were the ones who either panicked and sold while prices were in free fall, or the ones who were forced by circumstances to sell at that time. People who hung on were not hurt nearly as bad, and will eventually recover everything and a healthy dividend besides. People who hung on AND invested while stocks were cheap are going to come out WAY ahead.
The fund is big enough to weather downturns, while the continued input from FICA taxes could take advantage of those downturns, which are assured good gains. Look at the most recent downturn. The DOW was down to around 6500, which was very bad news for the short term. But it's back up over 10K even with recent losses. For money invested while it was down, that's a 50% increase in 18 months. One of my favorite stock, Apple Corp, dropped to around 80, and is now a few pennies under 250. Not quite tripled my money on that move (bought at 92 while it was still going down). Hire a bunch of smart investors to take care of the fund, and SS would be safe for centuries without any need for raising the cap or otherwise increasing the FICA tax. Even with the most all downturns included, the annual increase of the stock market has averaged a bit over 10% over its lifetime. And that is 10% annually that the tax payers do not have to pay for.
Conversely the measly 2% "investment" of SS funds comes from the tax payer, placing one more burden on an outrageously overspent federal budget. Not to mention, by "investing" SS funds in T-bills, it effectively transfers those funds to the general fund, where they can be spent at will on any damned thing uncle Sam feels like. It's how the Clinton administration cooked the books to claim a "balanced" budget. They spent all the SS surplus after converting it to T-bills.
If the basic structure of SS were left as is: a giant pool from which benefits are paid, investing the money in the market would significantly ease the strain on the system The SS surplus fund would double every 7 years WITHOUT additional input. WITH additional input the government could secure payments for the future AND could decrease the tax rate on the people at the same time.
Last point: the SS surplus fund sits at over 2.5 Trillion dollars. Imagine that effect that amount of money could have on business. Corporations sell stock for the purpose of generating revenue for expansion. Expand the markets by 2.5 trillion, money that exists instead of borrowed by the government, and the word "stimulus" would gain real meaning again. Expanding business means new jobs, better paying jobs, development of new ideas from R&D departments, etc. etc. etc. The item of concern here would be having TOO much influence. The law would need to be written so the handlers of the fundd could not invest too much in any one area.
evince
Truthmatters
usloyal2theend, Fuck off.
You dont get to shut down speach you dont like.
I know people who provide facts that make your failed ideas harder to defend PISSES YOU OFF but that does not mean these facts cant be viewed by other people.
Telling other Americans to shut up when the whole point of sites like this is to discuss the facts is bullshit.
You are not loyal to America you are loyal to your fucked up failed idea of what YOU think America is.
FUCK OFF YOU PHONY ASSED PATRIOT.
You dont get to shut down speach you dont like.
I know people who provide facts that make your failed ideas harder to defend PISSES YOU OFF but that does not mean these facts cant be viewed by other people.
Telling other Americans to shut up when the whole point of sites like this is to discuss the facts is bullshit.
You are not loyal to America you are loyal to your fucked up failed idea of what YOU think America is.
FUCK OFF YOU PHONY ASSED PATRIOT.
Last edited: