Fixing(?) Entitlements

[MTK]

I think privatizing Social Security would be a bad idea. Too many people out there live paycheck to paycheck with little to no savings as it is so the thought of putting them in charge of their Social Security is a little scary to me.

Social Security isn’t meant to be your one and only source of income when you retire, but for many people it is. I think it’s important to keep it secure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by MTK

I think privatizing Social Security would be a bad idea. Too many people out there live paycheck to paycheck with little to no savings as it is so the thought of putting them in charge of their Social Security is a little scary to me.

Social Security isn’t meant to be your one and only source of income when you retire, but for many people it is. I think it’s important to keep it secure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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?

If that was an option SS would fail . The more money into the fund the more it is suppose to make ...correct (basic,I know )? If people take the money that they think is theirs' and invest it poorly...what happens to those people when they are asking or dying for help? Let me ask you a question....do you have choice where your taxes go and what they pay for. I mean why should someone with no kids pay property taxes for a school system they do not use ?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Giantone

If that was an option SS would fail . The more money into the fund the more it is suppose to make ...correct (basic,I know )? If people take the money that they think is theirs' and invest it poorly...what happens to those people when they are asking or dying for help? Let me ask you a question....do you have choice where your taxes go and what they pay for. I mean why should someone with no kids pay property taxes for a school system they do not use ?

I see personal finance is not your strong suit. Obviously people would not be permitted to trade penny stocks - privatizing would treat it like your typical 401K where you have maybe 8 mutual fund options, all appropriately diversified. If you’re investing for more than 10 years, as most of us would be, you couldn’t lose money.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I see personal finance is not your strong suit. Obviously people would not be permitted to trade penny stocks - privatizing would treat it like your typical 401K where you have maybe 8 mutual fund options, all appropriately diversified. If you’re investing for more than 10 years, as most of us would be, you couldn’t lose money.

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 .

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I see personal finance is not your strong suit. Obviously people would not be permitted to trade penny stocks - privatizing would treat it like your typical 401K where you have maybe 8 mutual fund options, all appropriately diversified. If you’re investing for more than 10 years, as most of us would be, you couldn’t lose money.

This may not be the right way to ask this question, but i will try anyway.

Couldn't social security be set up in a way that accounts for time horizons. So funds needed for immediate and short term obligqtions are put in a "lockbox account with minimal interest" while mid to long term bligations are invested against stock indexed accounts?



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by MTK

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

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

[Chico23231]

Individual control > Government Control

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Individual control > Government Control

...........and?