Campaign Against Social Security based on Deliberate Deception

[30ashopper]

Au contraire...mon frere.

Translated into Southernese: You should tune up your Google machine.

To wit:

One man's retirement math: Social Security wins / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

For 45 years, the defense-industry analyst paid into the system until his retirement in 1994. But with all the recent hoopla over reform, Mr. Logue, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate, decided to go back and check his own records. Would he have done better investing his money than the bureaucrats at the Social Security Administration?

He recorded all the payroll taxes he paid into the system (including the matching amount from his employer), tracked down the return the Social Security Trust Fund earned for each of the 45 years, and then compared the result with what he would have gotten had he been able to invest the same amount of payroll tax money over the same period in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (including dividends).

To his surprise, the Social Security investment won out: $261,372 versus $255,499, a difference of $5,873.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't rebuild your own transmissions or work on your teeth.

Besides, you still think SS comes from your NET.

"If the extra return from privatization is not very advantageous, "why even consider changes that all agree would be very disruptive?" asks Logue."

That's cute, out of the top 15 articles detailing how the returns we can expect are lower under social security's current system, you picked out the one article that shows social security and private accounts yield about the same return for someone who has already retired.

You're still loosing the argument IMHO even with your example, since there are numerous ancillary gains independent of return for a more private system where individuals have more control.

 

[Matt J]

If the accounts didn't allow short term trading, I seriously doubt anyone would have lost that much in the last market correction. Besides, this downturn was a once in a hundred year storm, there's no reason why the federal government couldn't step in a help replace lost saving for low income workers if they felt the situation warranted it.

Independent of all this, if the choice to manage your own retirement savings was made by an individual, they would have to live with that decision.

You must see a world I don't - where average adults are perceived as children government must constantly coddle and herd. I wonder why that is.

Two words:

Tea Party

No I wouldn't expect the government plan to allow shorting since that technically requires you to borrow money to invest.

 

[beachFool]

That's cute, out of the top 15 articles detailing how the returns we can expect are lower under social security's current system, you picked out the one article that shows social security and private accounts yield about the same return for someone who has already retired.

You're still loosing the argument IMHO even with your example, since there are numerous ancillary gains independent of return for a more private system where individuals have more control.[/QUOTE]

That was the article that popped up first. The other ones were blogs.

I disagree about any ancillary gains of defined contribution plans being superior to defined benefit plans.

As a business owner who has PAID both sides of Social Security since 1979 (PAID as in forked over my hard-earned money) I disagree with your Monopoly money example also.

Even though I PAY both sides for my income and have kicked the employee side SS still works for the country.

It is an extra tax for small business owners but those were the rules when I got in the game.

 

[30ashopper]

That's cute, out of the top 15 articles detailing how the returns we can expect are lower under social security's current system, you picked out the one article that shows social security and private accounts yield about the same return for someone who has already retired.

You're still loosing the argument IMHO even with your example, since there are numerous ancillary gains independent of return for a more private system where individuals have more control.[/QUOTE]

That was the article that popped up first. The other ones were blogs.

I disagree about any ancillary gains of defined contribution plans being superior to defined benefit plans.

As a business owner who has PAID both sides of Social Security since 1979 (PAID as in forked over my hard-earned money) I disagree with your Monopoly money example also.

Even though I PAY both sides for my income and have kicked the employee side SS still works for the country.

It is an extra tax for small business owners but those were the rules when I got in the game.

Are you on social security now?

 

[Matt J]

Are you on social security now?

He's not old enough.