New Social Security Checks

I am sure that those in the 1930s that were living in boxes and destitute during the depression couldn't have imagined a government system like Social security until it happened.

It was fine and set up right, but as usual corruption and representatives spent the money on things it shouldn't have. They should never have been allowed to touch it. Since we know this, the only way to fix it, is to change it. Make it private, so government couldn't touch it.

Why should they care how much i save anyways. I earned it, i should be able to save as much as i want and not get penalized for doing so.

But, my old as dirt History Professor made a great point, and that is that US politics is like a metronome. It always swings back the same amount that it swung the other way.

It's been consistent for more than 100 years.

I for one and ready for that after the last president, and the simple fact is that the 3000 counties that voted for Trump didn't just vanish, those people that wanted what he was saying didn't go anywhere. They are still wanting what they voted for, and the midterms are going to be interesting. I really see it as 20 to 30 need to be replaced and if that happens, as we saw last night during the week, Trump had 20,000 people show up for a rally, it could happen. Then we can see a lot of scaling it back, fixing the libtard non-sense.

I have hope, but a garage full of bullets and powder just in case.
 
Originally Posted By: seeknulfindNumbers, smumbers, I don't give a hoot. The thing is communism is was and always will be a failure. That is the road we are on and we won't be turning back. As a nation I do not see another path - we either follow the current one towards the communist ideal or we turn the nation back to a constitutional republic. Can anybody really see this nation willingly dumping social security?

Yes, there are other possibilities of what may happen but I won't try to predict the future. I will only point out the direction we are headed. If the direction turns, fine. Many of us want it - electing Trump is a sure sign of this. But resistance is strong and there is more to President Trump than any of us can see. I do not know what we will see when the curtain is pulled back.

DAA, Thank you for pointing me to Zamyatin. I never heard of him before. Strangely enough, when looking for info on him, I ran across Orwell's review of "We". He thought it was a lot like Huxley's "Brave New World", another oft referred to book. I plan on digging in when I can.

God bless



Indeed. The vast majority of Americans are not principled people and are by and large willfully ignorant these days.

The future of a freedom loving society full of strong moral responsible self sufficient patriotic men and women is dismal at best, don't see it happening.
 
Originally Posted By: GCGet the deadbeats and leaches off the system and SS would be a bunch more stable...

And put congress INTO the SS...

I recall Goldwater ran in either 60 or 64.. He said SS would have to be changed and that was the end of him. Since the (D)s have changed SS several times and no one seems to care?? Dont ghet it.
 
Last edited:
So those folks who are 65-70 right now started their 40+ years in the SS system in the late 60's or early 70's. I would be interested to know at what point in their career did they start to make 30K per year. My old man was a journeyman electrician, and I don't think he made 30K per until the mid-90's. One of my grandmothers (retired from JC Penny) is still drawing SS and I seriously doubt she ever made 30K per year in her lifetime. So to base any number on the average of 30K per year is nonsense. Perhaps the figure should be bumped down to 12-18K per year.

Why not throw the cost of Medicare in the SS bucket of money. The money folks draw on SS wouldn't even cover the premium cost of a private plan. And let us not forget the cost of living adjustments of SS. Which grows at a much faster rate than the contributory contributions. People die before or die shortly after drawing SS, I get that, but their spouse generally ends up getting that or at least a portion of that after they pass.

Furthermore, to even mention a person's private retirement plan in the same conversation as SS is irrelevant and shameful. If your mother's uncles first cousin was a school teacher, cop, postal worker, or whatever, that was a personal decision they made for the long-term gains.

There are always exceptions to the rule like self-employed folks, but give me a break about the people in dire straights because of SS. More often than not folks will draw out way more than they ever contributed.

But for argument sake, let's say they did away with SS and put it into a 401k like many employers do, and while we are at, let us do away with Medicare too. How long would your fortunes last; the first heart attack, cancer treatment, hip replacement? Perhaps your giant 1.3m 401K could pay for the assisted living center at 6K a month after you break a hip.
 
Originally Posted By: littledawg




There are always exceptions to the rule like self-employed folks, but give me a break about the people in dire straights because of SS. More often than not folks will draw out way more than they ever contributed.

But for argument sake, let's say they did away with SS and put it into a 401k like many employers do, and while we are at, let us do away with Medicare too. How long would your fortunes last; the first heart attack, cancer treatment, hip replacement? Perhaps your giant 1.3m 401K could pay for the assisted living center at 6K a month after you break a hip.

I would like to have a conversation about what you are trying to say, but most of it was rambling and didn't make sense. What was your point?
The last two paragraphs made sense.
But, assuming that SS was set up to start after the average life expectancy means that SS shouldn't start until people are 80 since the life expectancy is 79. It's purpose is to keep the elderly from living on dog food.
Even so, it's not about getting what you paid in, it's about opportunity costs. I have been paying in since i was a teen, and now for the past Decade i have been paying the max amount. There is no way in the world that anyone would lend willingly a company that kind of money for the return i will get. There isn't a way living between 62,65,72 and 80 i would ever get even close to what i paid in.

I am paying in 7,600 personally and 15,200 combined annually. I have paid the max for over 10 years, and will do so for another 25. 35 years That is 266,000 my half, and 532,000 for total) if i retire at 66 i would get 2,600 per month from 66-80 for a total of 14 years (31,200 per year, for 436,800) or if waiting until 70 is 3,500 for 10 years (42,000/year for 10 years for 420,000) still less than i paid in. This all done without accounting for compound interest as i would earn in any investment. (also completely ignores all contributions for 15 years before my max SS earning years.)


So if i invested 633 (my half) per month for 35 years in bonds or mutual funds 3% annually that would be a starting amount at retirement of $267,000 and 543,000 for total contribution. Assuming that i cash out and don't earn another penny from then on, which would be stupid, but to keep it simple. 267,000 at 66 would be 19,071/yr or 1589 per month. for both my total it would be 38,785/yr and 3,232 per month. for the 14 expected years.

Tell me again SS is a good deal? Especially considering that when you die you don't get to keep it, and the money that you could have saved would pass to your kids but in SS it doesn't.

The other things you mention are what insurance is for. If you are 80 and you want to spend your savings on health care that is prolonging the impending death, that is your right, but if the tax payers are funding it, as is seen now, your not getting the care. Medicare needs additional insurance. For those that are too poor to cover it, we already have welfare, and medicaide. Failure to save isn't a reason to pay for care that is not effective recuperative care. If you get sick, great take care of it. if your 85 and have a bad hip, sorry if you don't have the money, you don't get a new hip. Wanting and affording are two different things. But this entire thing is seperate from SS since I am also paying for medicare already too.. Those numbers don't work out either and most would be far better off saving the money same as retirement in a health savings account from your teens to your retirement to cover the cost of end of life medical care.

long term care is something everyone should have insurance for, as well as short and long term disability. Insurance is paying for the things that you don't know will happen and are not normally expected.
 
As I said there are always exceptions to the rule, and perhaps you're one of them. For the majority of American's they draw out much more than they ever paid.

How old are you 35-40, and paying max SS?
 
something like that.. I went to college, and got a degree in a field that pays well. Aside from that, the amount you get is still dependent upon your contributions.

The only ones getting more than they paid in are the ones that never paid-in, or didn't pay in their entire adult lives. but then your question is how to get rid of the leaches and dead beats.


Even if you are not paying in the max, the payments change, and those payments are not tied to inflation. If you invest that money, those investments would rise and neutralize the effects of inflation if invested with someone that knows how and does this full time as a reputable and lic. investment adviser, (also a fiduciary, very important)

If you look at the amount that is withheld from your checks, that is 6%. Now double that.

Then figure out the time until you are 70 in years.
Here is a good link to figure out the math.
just plug in the numbers, to see what kind of money you are talking about.

http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calculator.htm

Then to figure out how much your investments would allow you to take per month for however long before running out you can use this one.
http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/finance/calculators/compoundinterestcalculator.php


Retirement should be planned for, Social Security is a ponzie scheme, and anywhere else other than Government run is completely illegal.

Best question to ask yourself, is that if it's so good, and people are getting more than the payout, why did Congress exempt themselves?
SS isn't broke because of the baby boomers, it's broke because politicians have dipped into it and spent the money because they could. With literally nothing to show for it. They blew it on handouts. buying votes with the plan that they would never be held accountable and never face charges for wasting the money.

Something that is completely illegal and has laws in the banking world (which i am a VP in corporate tech side of a bank)
Your bank cannot invest your money for you, they have be a holder and the holder has to have a completely separate company or division to provide checks and balances to ensure that the investor is doing so legitimately. To keep someone from leaving a pile of IOUs in a drawer as Congress has done to everyone.

Since there is no money in there, it's time to scrap it, and pay for those that paid in, but cut it off from the new. For those that are 30 or less, it should be required they have an IRA to put the money in, invest, let it sit. Whatever they want to do. But, you can't take it out. Then add a long term disability insurance plan which are about $50-75 for someone that age. Problem solved, there are tons of regulations that protect them, and at least its on a path to be removed, and no longer a looming growing debt that is going to consume the national budget when it doesn't need to be. Best of all, it's your money to spend as you retire the way you need, you don't have to look to see that the Government gave no increase despite inflation year after year. If there is some left over, you could leave it to you kids, or their kids for their college. That is the best part.. It's YOURS, you earned it.
 
Originally Posted By: Tbone-AZ
Something that is completely illegal and has laws in the banking world (which i am a VP in corporate tech side of a bank)
Your bank cannot invest your money for you, they have be a holder and the holder has to have a completely separate company or division to provide checks and balances to ensure that the investor is doing so legitimately. To keep someone from leaving a pile of IOUs in a drawer as Congress has done to everyone.





GLB gutted Glass Steagall almost 20 years ago. Gave us too big to fail (IOU's in a drawer). Commercial and investment banks have been one and the same institutions for a long time with only the thinnest of transparent corporate veil serving only to protect the interests of the institution itself (Too Big To Fail).

- DAA
 
Originally Posted By: DAA

GLB gutted Glass Steagall almost 20 years ago. Gave us too big to fail (IOU's in a drawer). Commercial and investment banks have been one and the same institutions for a long time with only the thinnest of transparent corporate veil serving only to protect the interests of the institution itself (Too Big To Fail).

- DAA

Do you mean GLBA? signed in 93'

Since then, they have SOX, and Frank/Dodd. (really ironic since those are the two crooks that were knee deep in the corruption that lead to the 08' crisis.(also ironically started by a provision in GLBA (signed by Clinton) that required banks to loan to those they knew wouldn't be able to pay it back, and under Odummer, they started enforcing Community Reinvestment act loans again, despite the issues they caused)

There is also the Basel (Bas-el) is a european banking laws that Odummer required of big banks under Tarp. This required banks to stress test and set more money aside for Just in case, and also an annual assessment with quarterly testing and assessments to figure out the value of the company and ensure that adequate capitol (however specific that is) on hand for the next 08 crisis.
This is a lot of work and time for something that doesn't really do diddly. The real growth that we are seeing in the companies right now is because of Trump and his relaxing of the capital holdings requirements back to what they were (or mostly)

The next big thing will be if they can get Tax reform done and that will see crazy growth.

But, with the investments i was referring to the SEC (securities, and exchange Commission) and the FDIC, and the Fed's requirements that govern these actions and processes.

(yes it is that boring, and yes that is why i have time to read and write here while i am listening to the endless meetings to make changes to systems)
 
Almost none of that has anything to do with the point I made.

My point is simply that there is not and has not been true separation of commercial and investment banks for a long time. The Volcker rule in Dodd Frank does very little to restore the separation required by Glass Steagal. The rest of Dodd Frank doesn't have anything to do with the separation. SOX and Basel have absolutely nothing to do with it either.

GLB was '99 not '93.

- DAA
 
Back
Top