Fixing(?) Entitlements

My personal suit is not in question here(and you're off by a mile) it is the average American who knows nothing of what your talking about that is what we're talking about here. Yes you know what's great for you and maybe it does seem simple for you but most of Americans don't have a clue to what you're talking about financially.


.....as for me ,The New York Curb Market / Exchange .

This doesn't make any sense.

If someone doesn't respond, you leave their portion of the investment in the T Bills that they're essentially invested in now. If they do respond, you put it in the funds they want to be in.

So the people that have no idea what's going on stay in the exact same investments they're in now, while the rest of us do what we feel is right for us.

This doesn't make any sense.

If someone doesn't respond, you leave their portion of the investment in the T Bills that they're essentially invested in now. If they do respond, you put it in the funds they want to be in.

So the people that have no idea what's going on stay in the exact same investments they're in now, while the rest of us do what we feel is right for us.

You hate America!!

You could give them an option to stick with the existing program or privatize it and move to investment vehicles of their choice.

This way, if somebody wants to keep it safe in T Bills, they can leave it where it is. Or, if the person takes no action at all, it stays where it is. Meanwhile the rest of us who actually understand how money works can be afforded the opportunity to grow our nest eggs.

I mean if we all paid into it, we should all have choices. Is it our money or not?

The big question is how do you protect the trust fund in the event the market tanks?

The big question is how do you protect the trust fund in the event the market tanks?

You don't. If I elect to put my portion in the stock market, my portion tanks. If you elected to keep yours safe and sound in bonds and money markets, yours doesn't tank.

Or, as added protection, you could put rules into it: if you're 57 or older then you must be in t bills, no equities allowed, something like that. To keep the masses from financially killing themselves in a bad market.

If you're younger than 57 and the market tanks, you have plenty of time to recover before you're 67.

This doesn't make any sense.

If someone doesn't respond, you leave their portion of the investment in the T Bills that they're essentially invested in now. If they do respond, you put it in the funds they want to be in.

So the people that have no idea what's going on stay in the exact same investments they're in now, while the rest of us do what we feel is right for us.

................and what I am saying is what if people don't know what it is you know and screw it up,don't say they can't ....you know better.

The big question is how do you protect the trust fund in the event the market tanks?I would think you have a constitutional amendment that mandates a 5-7 year low yield low risk lockbox that has a defined cost basis and a neutral party overseeing it.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

................and what I am saying is what if people don't know what it is you know and screw it up,don't say they can't ....you know better.

Then too bad for them, we shouldn't feel responsible if we gave them a safety net and they broke it.

Then too bad for them, we shouldn't feel responsible if we gave them a safety net and they broke it.




............and that is why a private system will not work.

Then too bad for them, we shouldn't feel responsible if we gave them a safety net and they broke it.I dont think it has to be that way. The system can have minimum safeguards to prevent someone from breaking it. You raise the age to 70, and at 60 start reducing the allowed aggressiveness of fund selection. By default 20 thru 40 year olds should be placed in highly aggressive funds, 40-60 medium aggressive, and over 60 least aggressive. If a person wants to change his/her default they have to actively sign and request each year to take on the responsibility.

Nearly all americans would benefit greatly from that type system.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

I dont think it has to be that way. The system can have minimum safeguards to prevent someone from breaking it. You raise the age to 70, and at 60 start reducing the allowed aggressiveness of fund selection. By default 20 thru 40 year olds should be placed in highly aggressive funds, 40-60 medium aggressive, and over 60 least aggressive. If a person wants to change his/her default they have to actively sign and request each year to take on the responsibility.

Nearly all americans would benefit greatly from that type system.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

You nailed it. I said pretty much the same in post 44.