Social Security Payments to Shrink for First Time in a Generation
- Thread starter meme
- Start date
They wouldn't be. Their return would still be exponentially higher than what they are getting through SS now.
It's a no brainer. I don't know why many on the left oppose this. SS is killing the budget, and is absolutely unsustainable. Most in my generation believe strongly that it will not even be there when we retire...
So why not privatize?
C
Cancel5
Guest
There more I learn, the less I know. Economics isn't my forte, I will just go bake some cookies!
Not only that, but a private account can be passed on to living descendants.
C
Cancel4
Guest
That's OK with rightwingnuts, unless they happen to be one of the victims.
Then they'll quietly accept a government bailout while opposing any further form of help for the rest of humanity.
Then they'll quietly accept a government bailout while opposing any further form of help for the rest of humanity.
uscitizen
Villified User
SS is not killing the budget. It is actually still providing a surplus that our gummit spends on wars and such.
3 trillion or so in surplus to date.'
Now the problem happens in a few years when that surplus needs to be put back into SS....
That is the real crisis, avioding paying back the stolen money.
evince
Truthmatters
Because it is fixable and a private retirement for everyone would mean those who had to retire at a given time would end up drawing on their money when it was at its lowest ebb.
The whole IDEA of SS was to keep old people from living in squalor
And all it does is ensure that many do. That same money they paid into the SS fund would have kept them in much better digs even if they were taking money out at the lowest ebb. First they do not withdraw the whole account, second, even at the low point they would actually get a positive return, unlike the SS payments they will receive.
The math doesn't add up. There is no time in history, even after great crashes, when seniors wouldn't have collected more over the course of decades, anyway.
Their ROI right now is paltry.
C
Cancel5
Guest
Widows and orphans, too.
C
Cancel4
Guest
The GOP opposed and obstructed Social Security too.
It is non-existent, not "paltry."
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
So have I, but because of my required payments to Social Security, the amount that I can add into my 401K is greatly curtailed.
C
Cancel4
Guest
How'd those Enron securities work for you? 
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Wow he must be real happy now that Obama's screwing him. I bet he won't make that mistake in 2012. LOL
uscitizen
Villified User
Not totally true I know of farmers and such that went by the minimal rules and only paid into SS for a few quarters and drew for the rest of their lives.
A heck of a ROI for them.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Not at all, as already explained. *shrug*
TuTu Monroe
A Realist
Yes, I believe the evil skunks did exactly that. Let's boycott them.
C
Cancel5
Guest
It was very helpful after some of the policies towards their employees got around!
Good for Wal-Mart, still won't shop there, for the most part.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
this is 100% incorrect. You are basing your comment on the idiocy that privatization = invest the money in the stock market. That is simply the bullshit scare tactic used by those idiots in DC who wish to keep dipping into the SS funds.
privatization simply means the government doesn't control the money. Individuals do. The money could be invested in Tbonds rather than the stock market desh.