2012 Elections

[hblask 1]

SS, on the other hand, could be sustained in a model where population distributions and levels remained constant.

Only if you give zero return on investment.

[SilentSnow 1]

All replacements for SS that have been proposed include the following:1. A grace period so that all those people who paid in all their life don't get screwed.2. A guaranteed minimum income at retirement3. Disability insurance -- details vary by plan4. Mandatory self-directed and personally owned investments accounts (in qualifying accounts, similar to mixed mutual fund/bond funds depending on age.Such a plan would meet all your objections, plus give the 99% that doesn't get injured a far, far better retirement than even the most optimistic Soc. Security scenario.

1.So now you're saying it's not an entitlement? Good to know. 2. This is impossible under a fully privatized plan. In fact, that is the whole point of Social Security- to provide a guaranteed minimum income at retirement that is not dependent on someone getting lucky with employment/their health/the stock market etc. 3.You mean like SS already has? 4.Has it ever occurred to you that not everyone wants to gamble their future playing a highly risky and rigged game?

[El Guapo 8]

2. This is impossible under a fully privatized plan.

Have you ever heard of a pension plan?

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Have you ever heard of a pension plan?

Correct me if I'm wrong but with a fully private pension plan there is no guarantee of end benefit, it's possible for a plan to be underfunded and for whoever is backing the plan to go bankrupt and not be able to cover any shortfall so that benefits end up being cut.Now if the question is whether there will be some income at retirement and the amount will vary depending on the return of the plan you put your money in that's different than saying if you put X in each year you're guaranteed to receive Y at retirement.

[Balloon guy 158]

Correct me if I'm wrong but with a government pension plan there is no guarantee of end benefit, it's possible for a plan to be underfunded and for whoever is backing the plan to go bankrupt like Greece and not be able to cover any shortfall so that benefits end up being cut.Now if the question is whether there will be some income at retirement and the amount will vary depending on the return of the government's ability to pay you your money in that's different than saying if you put X in each year you're guaranteed to receive Y at retirement.

[hblask 1]

1.So now you're saying it's not an entitlement? Good to know. 2. This is impossible under a fully privatized plan. In fact, that is the whole point of Social Security- to provide a guaranteed minimum income at retirement that is not dependent on someone getting lucky with employment/their health/the stock market etc. 3.You mean like SS already has? 4.Has it ever occurred to you that not everyone wants to gamble their future playing a highly risky and rigged game?

1. That response makes no sense. Are you asking if the govt is legally bound to pay us back? The answer to that is no. Are you asking if it is pure welfare? That is also no.2. The idea is to let the 98% who would do better reap their rewards, and the tiny percent that would not be able to succeed would basically just have a benefit paid from general revenue. So no, it's not 100% privatized plan, because too many idiots want to be coddled from birth to death.3. Yes, except sustainable.4. Has it ever occurred to you that most people have IRAs and can see the difference between that and SS? This little lie used to work in the old days, but people have experience with personal retirement accounts, so it doesn't work anymore. So yes, most people would prefer to own and direct their own retirement rather than trust it to the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Boehner and Obama.

[BaseJester 1]

4. Has it ever occurred to you that most people have IRAs and can see the difference between that and SS? This little lie used to work in the old days, but people have experience with personal retirement accounts, so it doesn't work anymore. So yes, most people would prefer to own and direct their own retirement rather than trust it to the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Boehner and Obama.

Just to clarify, in the alternatives you're referencing, could a person choose to invest 100% in US treasuries?

[hblask 1]

Just to clarify, in the alternatives you're referencing, could a person choose to invest 100% in US treasuries?

There are different versions proposed by different people, so I haven't delved into the details and won't until one of them has a chance of being passed.The ones I've glanced at seem to propose a mixed bag of stocks and bonds, but I don't see any reason why it couldn't also be invested in US Treasuries. That seems like a reasonable thing for some people to want. Hopefully, people would become educated about how to mix different investments properly. The plans I've seen don't allow anything riskier than a medium risk mutual fund; I'm sure safer would be allowed.

[El Guapo 8]

Just to clarify, in the alternatives you're referencing, could a person choose to invest 100% in US treasuries?

I'm assuming this would be a yes.

[BaseJester 1]

I'm assuming this would be a yes.

I would assume yes as well, but Silent Snow seems to have taken the hblask's comment to mean that people would be required to buy into the stock market.

[brvheart 1,752]

I would assume yes as well, but Silent Snow seems to have taken the hblask's comment to mean that people would be required to buy into the stock market.

Whoa. You read his posts? Amazing.

[El Guapo 8]

Let's not fool ourselves. People want certainty. They want SS to be like a pension and not like a 401k. Most people when they retire, want their assets to provide them guaranteed income. That is why the use of annuities has increased tremendously for the last decade. The way to fix SS is treat it like a traditional pension, with strict investment restrictions as to how much risk they can take.I wish copernicus still posted here, he could explain the nuances of how and why this would work.

[hblask 1]

Let's not fool ourselves. People want certainty. They want SS to be like a pension and not like a 401k. Most people when they retire, want their assets to provide them guaranteed income. That is why the use of annuities has increased tremendously for the last decade. The way to fix SS is treat it like a traditional pension, with strict investment restrictions as to how much risk they can take.I wish copernicus still posted here, he could explain the nuances of how and why this would work.

There's a reason most companies are moving away from defined benefit to defined contribution plans. It's what people want.All you'd need is one generation of people with the option, and nobody would ever go back to defined benefit type plans.People want certainty, but not as much as they want to be as rich as their neighbor.

[Balloon guy 158]

Let's not fool ourselves. People want certainty. They want SS to be like a pension and not like a 401k. Most people when they retire, want their assets to provide them guaranteed income. That is why the use of annuities has increased tremendously for the last decade. The way to fix SS is treat it like a traditional pension, with strict investment restrictions as to how much risk they can take.I wish copernicus still posted here, he could explain the nuances of how and why this would work.

Say what you want about Cop, when it came to SS that dude was amazingly intelligent.Kind of like me on the subject of....stuff like....Kind of like...He was really smart

[BaseJester 1]

Let's not fool ourselves. People want certainty. They want SS to be like a pension and not like a 401k. Most people when they retire, want their assets to provide them guaranteed income. That is why the use of annuities has increased tremendously for the last decade.

How do you explain the way people invest in their 401k plans? Are they just more aggressive because they have social security to fall back on?

[strategy 4]

Uncertainty is not really a requirement, although it is probably unprofitable to sell insurance for things that are relatively certain. That said, retirement is not a certainty. Neither is reaching age 65.

regular dental checkups are relatively certain, and I think dental insurers are doing okay despite that being a big portion of their business.my social security 'balance' is a lot bigger than I thought it would be. I really don't give a shit, though, and would happily give up my right to all of it in exchange for not having to pay in anymore. one can only dream.

[hblask 1]

regular dental checkups are relatively certain, and I think dental insurers are doing okay despite that being a big portion of their business.

Insurers love insuring small, predictable expenses. It's free money for them. That's why they lobby to make things like physicals and routine checkups a mandatory part of every policy. It makes no sense for the buyer to get insurance for stuff like that, so they have to use force of law to make us make a bad economic decision.

[Balloon guy 158]

Insurers love insuring small, predictable expenses. It's free money for them. That's why they lobby to make things like physicals and routine checkups a mandatory part of every policy. It makes no sense for the buyer to get insurance for stuff like that, so they have to use force of law to make us make a bad economic decision.

I thought it was a bonus for me giving them $400 a month with a $5,0000 deductable

[El Guapo 8]

There's a reason most companies are moving away from defined benefit to defined contribution plans. It's what people want.All you'd need is one generation of people with the option, and nobody would ever go back to defined benefit type plans.People want certainty, but not as much as they want to be as rich as their neighbor.

Sorry Henry but you are 100% wrong here. Companies are moving to 401K plans because they are much much cheaper to administer, and most don't even have a match anymore.

How do you explain the way people invest in their 401k plans? Are they just more aggressive because they have social security to fall back on?

This is a simple answer. Most people are idiots and have no idea what they are doing. You would be SHOCKED at the people who are still in cash after the market crashed in 2008. Most of them moved to cash around Feb/Mar of 2009.The people who try to actively manage their money usually put their funds in whatever asset class did the best the previous year. I see a lot of people heavy in Emerging Markets right now.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Insurers love insuring small, predictable expenses. It's free money for them. That's why they lobby to make things like physicals and routine checkups a mandatory part of every policy. It makes no sense for the buyer to get insurance for stuff like that, so they have to use force of law to make us make a bad economic decision.

Or maybe they do it because like getting an oil change in a car routine check ups in the long run decrease costs and people should be encouraged to do those things. If you don't follow the maintenance on your car you void the warranty and a warranty is nothing more than insurance. It makes perfect sense for an insurance company to require you to have routine check ups since having those in the end will both save money and keep you healthier since problems can be identified earlier and treated more quickly.I bet if they costed out two different types of policies. One where you're required to have routine check ups that are covered and one where you aren't required to have those check ups the one with the required check ups would be less expensive.

[hblask 1]

Or maybe they do it because like getting an oil change in a car routine check ups in the long run decrease costs and people should be encouraged to do those things. If you don't follow the maintenance on your car you void the warranty and a warranty is nothing more than insurance. It makes perfect sense for an insurance company to require you to have routine check ups since having those in the end will both save money and keep you healthier since problems can be identified earlier and treated more quickly.I bet if they costed out two different types of policies. One where you're required to have routine check ups that are covered and one where you aren't required to have those check ups the one with the required check ups would be less expensive.

I've considered that possibility, but I think people who don't get physicals when they cost $50 probably aren't going to get them just because they are free. It'd be interesting to see the actual stats on this.Or better yet, just quit making stupid laws and offer us both types of policies and let us decide.

[hblask 1]

Sorry Henry but you are 100% wrong here. Companies are moving to 401K plans because they are much much cheaper to administer, and most don't even have a match anymore.

I've never met anyone under 60 who longs to go back to the days of defined benefit plans. I suppose that, since I work with mostly programmers, my co-workers have the ability to use logic, but I don't find much difference with my non-programmer friends.What most people do is invest aggressively during their 20s and 30s and then slowly convert it to less volatile investments as they get older. A couple of the proposals I've seen to reform SS mandate a similar path.

[El Guapo 8]

I've never met anyone under 60 who longs to go back to the days of defined benefit plans. I suppose that, since I work with mostly programmers, my co-workers have the ability to use logic, but I don't find much difference with my non-programmer friends.What most people do is invest aggressively during their 20s and 30s and then slowly convert it to less volatile investments as they get older. A couple of the proposals I've seen to reform SS mandate a similar path.

I'm in my 30's and would rather have a pension plan. What you are missing is most pension plans are funded more by the employer than the employee, where the 401K is more the employee or ALL the employee.Let's take a police officer who retires at 55 after 30 years on the force. They will get 90+% of their last year salary. So lets say that equates to 7K per month, with COLA. To get that monthly income at that age, someone would have to have 2.1MM in their 401K plan. (with no COLA)To get that much money, the would need to put away $27,000 per year, getting a annual RoR of 6%.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

I've considered that possibility, but I think people who don't get physicals when they cost $50 probably aren't going to get them just because they are free. It'd be interesting to see the actual stats on this.Or better yet, just quit making stupid laws and offer us both types of policies and let us decide.

I'm suggesting that the insurance company in both my examples is paying for routine check ups. In one they require you to get those check ups thus their costs for routine check ups are higher than if they are optional but their overall costs are less and people are healthier because they've had those check ups. If that's the case requiring routine check ups is totally justified and it's stupid to oppose them.

[hblask 1]

I'm in my 30's and would rather have a pension plan. What you are missing is most pension plans are funded more by the employer than the employee, where the 401K is more the employee or ALL the employee.Let's take a police officer who retires at 55 after 30 years on the force. They will get 90+% of their last year salary. So lets say that equates to 7K per month, with COLA. To get that monthly income at that age, someone would have to have 2.1MM in their 401K plan. (with no COLA)To get that much money, the would need to put away $27,000 per year, getting a annual RoR of 6%.

You don't seriously believe there is a difference between "funded by employer" and "funded by employee" except an accounting gimmick, right? Total compensation to the employee remains the same because of competitive pressures.