Topic: Social Security (Read 2319 times)

There is no reason to limit your risks to treasuries. Over time you will "participate" in many crashes if you own stocks in a defined contribution plan, however if you are still contributing (you should be and they are designed so that you do) then you will be able to purchase stocks "cheaply" after a crash. A defined benefit plan will likely not invest in super safe investments like treasuries because they have an infinite time horizon while treasuries and bonds are meant for people who have a shorter time horizon.

When comparing job offers, defined contribution plans are much more transparent then defined benefit plans because it is difficult to determine the NPV of a defined benefit plan while the amounts that a company will put into a defined contribution plan is black and white.

But this makes these investments vulnerable to all market risks, right? If so, what is the difference then between defined benefit plans and defined contribution plans if you invest, say, in U.S. bonds (treasuries) as a means to avoid the risks and market crashes?

defined contribution plans invest what an employer and employee puts into it mostly in stocks and other investments that aim to have returns that are in excess of inflation.

Okay, I will try to memorize these names and play with these bots whenever there is an opportunity! Could you point to a forum where this thread originated from?

I find it likely that they were created by the admins here to repost threads and comments from other message boards in order to make these forums seem more active and drive site traffic to them. This thread wasn't created on this site, it was pulled over from another forum (a lot of threads here are copy and paste jobs from other sites).  So my guess is that they are official bots. There are others outside of these three like Novi, peanutcoins, and Sana who are also bots. Any threads created by them are ones taken from elsewhere as are all of their posts.

Why won't they get banned then?

Zolace, Rigon, and umair127 are all computer bots. They won't respond to you.

You probably forget about inflation that would eat up ("swindle away") all what you might have contributed by the time you retire.

Well the retirement ages need to be increased as well and begin transitioning but in essence if you work for 40 years and the investment isn't that shoddy the retirement money should have earned a fair bit of interest.

Basically if a government is receiving payments for years and then comes up short in the end that means either they did a poor job managing it or they did not calculate correctly in the beginning which is the life expectancy error.

The best way to fix it will probably be adjusting the rates now taking that hit for this generation and building up alternative investment vehicles for the next generation to retire.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html
From the US History charts we can see that the cut is increasing to compensate for that presently and compound interest should well cover that in 40 to 50 years the problem is now more or less.
http://www.calculator.net/investment-calculator.html
Can put some numbers in there and see it covers pretty well
Rule of 72
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/rule72.htm

At the present 7.650% it should cover future retirement but assuming the government invests at a modest 3% rate that amount doubles in 24 years. (After Inflation) So 40 or so years of payments gives it some time to grow before its withdrawn.

I think that retirement ages need to be increased by at least 5 years, but probably 10. When social security was created the retirement age was above what the average person would live to. Today, most people will end up dying decades after entering retirement.

Keep it but modify it
Modifications change the rates change the type of investments allowed and force governments to be unable to spend or use that money except for its intended purpose.

That or start developing other investment vehicles like Canada did with the RRSP and TFSA accounts

I think it should gradually be done away with and replaced with a 401k type style account for workers.

I do think regardless that social security needs to be seriously reformed as there is no way it can continue paying out the same level of benefits that it is based on today's life expectancy of the populatoin.

I'm not going to get anything out of it, I know that much.  SS was always a scam; just put a portion of your earnings into some kind of savings and you get the same effect, except it's:

A. Voluntary, ergo humanitarian and virtuous
B. Not tied to whether your nation will go broke or not

IIRC, during the time period this was passed into law, people retired around 60, and died very shortly after, usually surviving only another 5-7 years, so the cost of SS made sense.  Then people started to live much, much longer, and the cost of SS got out of control.  Also happened to be that America had a huge boom in population, who we all know as the baby boomers, who also lived much, much longer than what was intended for SS, and who are now showing us why central planning never works, even if it works for a while.

So here we are, getting bled dry for cash we'll never see again, to take care of people who were taught that they could be absolutely careless with their money because "the government would take care of them."  The past 70 years of American history have been one long party and now it's us who get to experience the hangover.  The best part is, this was all unintentional; the intention was, take care of these hard working Americans until they passed away.  Such is the effect of interfering with an economy.

Because if it's mandatory, it's the same thing and Social Security is guarenteed and would be flush with cash if not for being raided periodically.

A private option that had risks of loss defeats the purpose of a guarenteed savings program (Personally, I don't think politics would allow a functioning private system. The moment the first old person whines about not having their money, the givernment will bail them out).

A private option with no risk on return is near identical to what we have now.

If the problem is that people do not save enough, why not just replace Social Security with a mandatory private system. Instead of 12.4% of every dollar workers earn going to Social Security, the 12.4% goes into an individual savings and investment account that cannot be tapped until 60+.

Social Security will be around for as long as old people vote more than young people.

They will sacrifice a lot of/most stuff before they get rid of it.

Actually I don't know any young people who want to get rid of it. They just don't think it will be there and that's a good mentality to have since they will be pleasantly surprised when it's sitting there at retirement.

To answer the question, yes, SS should be around. Not enough people save on their own and it is designed for someone to not rely on inevitable assistance upon retirement and no retirement funds.

There should be a private option, but it shouldn't be entirely private.

You are confusing defined benefit plans with defined contribution plans. Defined benefit plans are terrible and are not controlled by the employee/retiree. Defined contribution plans are controlled by the employee, so there is no one to swindle you except yourself.

Perhaps we should specify what we mean when we say "social security".
Who gets money?
Unemployed people?
People with minimum wage jobs?
Old people?
A "one size fits all" system probably doesn't work.

did. and failed.

your parents can tell you stories about how companies swindled their workers pensions when it's almost time for them to cash out.

By the time I get to the age to receive any benefits from it, it will probably be crumbling apart or gone altogether. Yet 20% of my income gos to it. Thanks Obama.