Our social security would be in mutual funds. What a disaster that'd be right about now.

Our social security would be in mutual funds. What a disaster that'd be right about now.
Wrong. Bush wanted to put the surpluses in government bonds, and wanted to allow people to invest a portion of their own money if they chose to do so.

Still, even if he wanted to invest the surpluses in stocks, I don't follow your "logic." The current system is a ponzi scheme. I'd rather have XX% of the surpluses leftover for me than 0% of the surpluses leftover for me.

any countries have privatized their social securities systems. The biggest driving factor isn't so much that the returns are better (which is usually the case), but rather that it's good for the country's economy (since the money is being invested.)

This isn't such a great selling point in countries like America or the UK that have oversized financial services industries. But it's extremely attractive in developing countries, since having a strong domestic capital market promotes economic stability (as opposing being captive to foreign investors which will pull out at any sign of instability.)

Wrong. Bush wanted to put the surpluses in government bonds, and wanted to allow people to invest a portion of their own money if they chose to do so.Social security is NOT a government savings program, like a public 401(k).

Social security is simply a tax that young, productive people pay to offset the current costs of old, nonproductive people.

The 12.4% of your AGI (up to the limit, $102K now) you pay every year into social security is immediately sent back as checks to old fat people, so they can play golf and buy their power scooters.

There used to be some money left over, which the government immediately spent on other stuff. But while that was expected to last until 2017, the recession just about killed it.

With that background, you can see how anyone who suggests private investment as an alternative to social security really has no clue how the system works.

Our social security would be in mutual funds. What a disaster that'd be right about now.If you cherry pick the points at which you get in and out of the system (like, get in during late 2007 and get out in early 2009), then yes, it would be a disaster.

But I can easily cherry pick to get it the other way, like, get in a month ago and get out now, and you make 20%+.

In the long run, it would be wise to make such investments on some of the money, to maximize the overall return.

When you're facing retirement, or in retirement, you don't get to cherry pick. You get the cards you're dealt. I'd hate to see the value of my retirement accounts drop 30% just as I started needing to use them.

When you're facing retirement, or in retirement, you don't get to cherry pick. You get the cards you're dealt. I'd hate to see the value of my retirement accounts drop 30% just as I started needing to use them.Well, you are talking about a big fund for millions of people over many decades. It's not as though every American is going to retire at the same moment, so you don't have to plan it the same way you would an individual fund (less risk as you approach retirement).

When you're facing retirement, or in retirement, you don't get to cherry pick. You get the cards you're dealt. I'd hate to see the value of my retirement accounts drop 30% just as I started needing to use them.

Can you find me a single financial adviser in this country who would tell a client nearing retirement to be in stocks?

Our social security would be in mutual funds. What a disaster that'd be right about now.

I don't undersand your statement. I probably would not have resonponded but I read the below article before reading your post. SSI promises more than it can deliver which is basically a ponzi scheme. I expect even more tax hikes in the current SSI to cover what they can not pay.

Nonetheless, retirees are invested in bonds and GM bonds are becoming worthless... I am glad there is SSI, I just wish where as a positive return on it.

http://finance.yahoo.com/focus-retirement/article/107077/What-Social-Security's-Underfunding-Means-for-Your-Retirement?mod=fidelity-readytoretire

Social Security and Medicare's annual checkup revealed that the recession and longer life expectancies are taxing the health of the entitlement system. The Social Security Board of Trustees report found that program costs will exceed tax revenues in 2016, a year sooner than predicted in last year's report. The trust fund will be exhausted in 2037, four years sooner than the 2008 estimate. Here's a look at how the projections could affect your retirement plans.

I don't undersand your statement. I probably would not have resonponded but I read the below article before reading your post. SSI promises more than it can deliver which is basically a ponzi scheme. I expect even more tax hikes in the current SSI to cover what they can not pay.

Nonetheless, retirees are invested in bonds and GM bonds are becoming worthless... I am glad there is SSI, I just wish where as a positive return on it.

http://finance.yahoo.com/focus-retirement/article/107077/What-Social-Security's-Underfunding-Means-for-Your-Retirement?mod=fidelity-readytoretire

Social Security and Medicare's annual checkup revealed that the recession and longer life expectancies are taxing the health of the entitlement system. The Social Security Board of Trustees report found that program costs will exceed tax revenues in 2016, a year sooner than predicted in last year's report. The trust fund will be exhausted in 2037, four years sooner than the 2008 estimate. Here's a look at how the projections could affect your retirement plans.

Don't believe everything you read.

SSI is failing cause our government started borrowing from it long ago. Basically borrowing the excess like Turd said. If the government where to pay back the money it borrowed, SSI would work like it was supposed to when it was designed. Longer Life Expectancy has no bearing on its success/failure, only the planning of politicians who keep borrowing from it.

SSI is failing cause our government started borrowing from it long ago. Basically borrowing the excess like Turd said. If the government where to pay back the money it borrowed, SSI would work like it was supposed to when it was designed.
That was one thing Bush was trying to stop. He wanted to invest the surpluses in government bonds and wanted to allow people to invest a portion of their money in private accounts (many of which would likely contain stocks.)

Democrats made a straw man argument that Bush wanted to invest the surpluses in stocks. And instead of compromising on what to do with the surpluses, they blocked any SS reform under Bush whatsoever. And of course many republicans agreed with them, mostly ones from districts with high senior populations.

Social security is not an insurance program, it is a welfare program. It was just loosely constructed to appear like an insurance program when it was created to get more votes for it, since they got it passed by fooling some in congress who would be against a giant welfare program into thinking it was an insurance program. The trust fund wasn't even made until the 1980s, made under a committee head by Alan Greenspan, but politicians int he 1990s essentially killed the trust fund.

Social security is not an insurance program, it is a welfare program. It was just loosely constructed to appear like an insurance program when it was created to get more votes for it, since they got it passed by fooling some in congress who would be against a giant welfare program into thinking it was an insurance program. The trust fund wasn't even made until the 1980s, made under a committee head by Alan Greenspan, but politicians int he 1990s essentially killed the trust fund.The trust fund has existed since Social Security was created under Roosevelt in the late 1930s.

The first Social Security payout was made one day after the law was enacted.

Everyone knew that Social Security was a welfare program, and there was quite a power play between Roosevelt and the Supreme Court on his policies, which he won by threatening to pack the court.

No one thought it was an insurance program; that is stupid.

Social Security and Medicare's annual checkup revealed that the recession and longer life expectancies are taxing the health of the entitlement system.What longer life expectancies? Thanks to fat people we can now look forward to shorter (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150663,00.html) life expectancies. It does drive our health care costs through the roof, but at least there's one silver lining to it.

And like any socialist welfare program, Social Security hinges on the ability and willingness of a large pool of young, healthy, low-maintenance workers to finance a small pool of old, sick, and high-maintenance unemployed people.

It's falling apart not just because almost 10% of these young people are now unemployed (and therefore not paying into the system), but also because there are too many old people and not enough young people.

The first Social Security payout was made one day after the law was enacted.


I remember from school that there was a 10 year wait. From when the tax started to the first payout.

But that was from a public school.

I'm not willing to research it at this time.

I remember from school that there was a 10 year wait. From when the tax started to the first payout.There are limitations to benefits today, yes, but that's not what I meant.

I meant it is an obvious welfare program and not an investment program because it started paying benefits the next day after it was enacted. There is no investment, or insurance, function to Social Security. It simply collects lots of money from young working people, redistributes it to old non-working people, and forwards any remainder the federal government to piss away in any way the government sees fit, in exchange for a worthless I.O.U.

I remember from school that there was a 10 year wait. From when the tax started to the first payout.

But that was from a public school.

I'm not willing to research it at this time.

Looked it up cause it had me curiouse :biggrinfl

http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html#firstcheck

Little more than 1/2 down on the page.