If you could opt out of social security, would you do it?

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Nope. I get free healthcare, and if anything unpredictable should happen i get cared for as much as i will ever need. Without having to pay for it.
Same with my parents, and everyone else.

[edit]

Yeah, i'm not american.

And we get the same quality of healthcare as you do, and we pay less then half of what you do.

I like how you call it free healthcare and then say that you pay for it.

Our taxes support it, just as your taxes support Medicair. The difference is no one in Canada is going bankrupt, without food ect to have to pay for treatment.

Ok? It's not free. Thanks for the extra info?

A difference between Canada's system and the US system is that the poor are not paying for the preferential treatment of the rich and elite of society by the extraction of their income through taxes. The rich skip the insane waiting lines while the poor or uninfluential part of society die in Canada. This is like comparing a broken down Honda Accord to a broken down Toyota Camry.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Legend
Yes. 22.

But we are still obligated to transition off it so we don't have a bunch of homeless elderly people.

A diversitifed portofolio using MPT should make roughly 12-4% before inflation. So I could use that money much more effectively than SS. Some people argue that dividends are decreasing and that "you can't save for your retirement."

While it's true that dividends have decreased, you need to look at why companies have done this: Taxes. Instead of exposing all that profit to taxes, companies have opted to defer taxes by repurchasing its own shares, reinvest it's earnings or expand it's services/operations. In 2003, Bush signed the "Jobs and Growth Reconciliations Act of 2003" which reduced taxes on dividends. Since then, dividends have significantly increased.

Must we go over this again? You are not going to get anything like a 12-14 percent return.
Stop spreading lies.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Yes, but it's a loaded question, and it's not the point of the system. It's a little bit of wealth redistribution that benefits the people who will be poorer than me. I'm sure if you ask future-minded minimum-wage earner they'd say no.

SS isn't an investment plan.

WRONG. SS is not wealth redistribution. You get back based on what you contribute.
RIGHT. SS is an an insurance plan as well as a retirement plan.

 

[XZeroII]

In a heartbeat. In fact, I wouldn't even need to get back what I've already paid in. It's not like I'm going to get anything back anyway. I'm 24.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
In a heartbeat. In fact, I wouldn't even need to get back what I've already paid in. It's not like I'm going to get anything back anyway. I'm 24.

If NOTHING is done you will get back 76 percent of what your expected benefits are today. Within about 10 years the age distribution in America will give SS such huge support that SS will be fixed thru some simple tweaks like raising the retirement age to correlate with life expectancy.
It's a LIE that you won't get anything back. If SS wasn't killed with a huge republican majority and Republican President who spend a huge amount of political capital trying to kill SS you can be sure it won't ever be killed.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Legend
Yes. 22.

But we are still obligated to transition off it so we don't have a bunch of homeless elderly people.

A diversitifed portofolio using MPT should make roughly 12-4% before inflation. So I could use that money much more effectively than SS. Some people argue that dividends are decreasing and that "you can't save for your retirement."

While it's true that dividends have decreased, you need to look at why companies have done this: Taxes. Instead of exposing all that profit to taxes, companies have opted to defer taxes by repurchasing its own shares, reinvest it's earnings or expand it's services/operations. In 2003, Bush signed the "Jobs and Growth Reconciliations Act of 2003" which reduced taxes on dividends. Since then, dividends have significantly increased.

Must we go over this again? You are not going to get anything like a 12-14 percent return.
Stop spreading lies.

You have given no evidence that long term returns of a MPT portfolio should perform any worse than it has historically. I've debunked your dividends concern.

Is there any reason that the Siegel constant of stock returns that's existed in the past 200 years is going to change? I expect 7.5% in stock return just like it's been the in past 200 yeras, and I expect that the Nobel Prize winning Modern Portfolio theory will continue to increase returns while reducing risk.

You don't understand investing, and you frequently lash out at people with political partisan attacks with no grounds. Read one of these books, and learn something:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0071362363?v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0071429581?v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/007058043X?v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0525944354?v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/140008198X?v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471730335?v=glance

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Legend
Yes. 22.

But we are still obligated to transition off it so we don't have a bunch of homeless elderly people.

A diversitifed portofolio using MPT should make roughly 12-4% before inflation. So I could use that money much more effectively than SS. Some people argue that dividends are decreasing and that "you can't save for your retirement."

While it's true that dividends have decreased, you need to look at why companies have done this: Taxes. Instead of exposing all that profit to taxes, companies have opted to defer taxes by repurchasing its own shares, reinvest it's earnings or expand it's services/operations. In 2003, Bush signed the "Jobs and Growth Reconciliations Act of 2003" which reduced taxes on dividends. Since then, dividends have significantly increased.

Must we go over this again? You are not going to get anything like a 12-14 percent return.
Stop spreading lies.

You have given no evidence that long term returns of a MPT portfolio should perform any worse than it has historically. I've debunked your dividends concern.

Is there any reason that the Siegel constant of stock returns that's existed in the past 200 years is going to change? I expect 7.5% in stock return just like it's been the in past 200 yeras, and I expect that the Nobel Prize winning Modern Portfolio theory will continue to increase returns while reducing risk.

You don't understand investing, and you frequently lash out at people with political partisan attacks with no grounds. Read one of these books, and learn something:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0071362363?v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0071429581?v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/007058043X?v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0525944354?v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/140008198X?v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471730335?v=glance

You really think some pop economics book will prove your point?
Whats the sense of arguing with someone who thinks the stock market is 200 years old or that growth during Americans industrialization will be the same as American growth in a competive inter-related world? The market has a NEGATIVE growth over the last 8 years, and you are dreaming of 12-14 percent long term? You are dreaming of 20-25 percent for the next 8 years to make that up? With a population disproportionately entering retirement age?
Go on dreaming. I prefer to let my B.S. in Economics and overwhelming(compared to you)knowledge of economics be my guide.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Nope. I get free healthcare, and if anything unpredictable should happen i get cared for as much as i will ever need. Without having to pay for it.
Same with my parents, and everyone else.

[edit]

Yeah, i'm not american.

And we get the same quality of healthcare as you do, and we pay less then half of what you do.

I like how you call it free healthcare and then say that you pay for it.

Our taxes support it, just as your taxes support Medicair. The difference is no one in Canada is going bankrupt, without food ect to have to pay for treatment.

Ok? It's not free. Thanks for the extra info?

A difference between Canada's system and the US system is that the poor are not paying for the preferential treatment of the rich and elite of society by the extraction of their income through taxes. The rich skip the insane waiting lines while the poor or uninfluential part of society die in Canada. This is like comparing a broken down Honda Accord to a broken down Toyota Camry.

As I know fullwell the horror stories of long waiting times, with my familly, freinds and relatives on both sides on the border, many of which are in bad health I can honestly compare the two. The difference in wait times between Canada and the US is usually none, to two weeks at best. Canada suffers from a "abuse" system where everyone and there mother want a scan of somesort to put the worries at rest. The people who honeslty need it get it. Usually within days. As my mom, grandmother and father all did for cancerous tumors.

Now, if you were someone with a non-life thretening illness you would have to wait until the indivduals with life threatening illnesses had gone, or you could go to another part of your province and get the service.

Where is the major difference between the two?

My Uncle who is an America who had prostate cancer, is 125000 in dept.

My grandmother who lives in Canada who had breast cancer is now in remission and is dept free.

My uncle is stressed to the max due to a combination of cancer/debt, my grandmother is only stressed over dept.

People who can afford it, can skip the waiting lines in some provinces, or go to the states. People in America can skip the waiting lines and go to India (like they do). The two systems both have there faults, but I would personally enjoy the extra week or two of waiting, if it was even that in favor of a 100k+ dept.

 

[HombrePequeno]

I would opt out in a heartbeat. Social Security won't be much of a safety net for my generation. You may think SS being able to pay out 75% of benefits after 2042 (assuming they lower government spending in other areas) may be great but for many people that will give them a negative return rate. Why should I pay in more than I get out?

I am fine, however, with a safety net. I think the government should make you invest 10-12% of your income but also have a slight tax added on to that (say 2-3%) in case there are people who did a poor job investing and need something to fall back on. That fund would also go to people that live longer than had been projected and use up all of their retirement.

Chile has a system similar to that and has been pretty successful with it for the past 26 years.

BTW, I'm 21.

 

[Slew Foot]

I'd do it so fast it'd make your head spin.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Legend
Yes. 22.

But we are still obligated to transition off it so we don't have a bunch of homeless elderly people.

A diversitifed portofolio using MPT should make roughly 12-4% before inflation. So I could use that money much more effectively than SS. Some people argue that dividends are decreasing and that "you can't save for your retirement."

While it's true that dividends have decreased, you need to look at why companies have done this: Taxes. Instead of exposing all that profit to taxes, companies have opted to defer taxes by repurchasing its own shares, reinvest it's earnings or expand it's services/operations. In 2003, Bush signed the "Jobs and Growth Reconciliations Act of 2003" which reduced taxes on dividends. Since then, dividends have significantly increased.

Must we go over this again? You are not going to get anything like a 12-14 percent return.
Stop spreading lies.

You have given no evidence that long term returns of a MPT portfolio should perform any worse than it has historically. I've debunked your dividends concern.

Is there any reason that the Siegel constant of stock returns that's existed in the past 200 years is going to change? I expect 7.5% in stock return just like it's been the in past 200 yeras, and I expect that the Nobel Prize winning Modern Portfolio theory will continue to increase returns while reducing risk.

You don't understand investing, and you frequently lash out at people with political partisan attacks with no grounds. Read one of these books, and learn something:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0071362363?v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0071429581?v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/007058043X?v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0525944354?v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/140008198X?v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471730335?v=glance

You really think some pop economics book will prove your point?
Whats the sense of arguing with someone who thinks the stock market is 200 years old or that growth during Americans industrialization will be the same as American growth in a competive inter-related world? The market has a NEGATIVE growth over the last 8 years, and you are dreaming of 12-14 percent long term? You are dreaming of 20-25 percent for the next 8 years to make that up? With a population disproportionately entering retirement age?
Go on dreaming. I prefer to let my B.S. in Economics and overwhelming(compared to you)knowledge of economics be my guide.

So you think that simply posting your nonsense into a forum makes it real?

High Growth != High Returns no matter how much you want to believe it. Growth stocks or stocks in quickly growing nations are grossly overpriced and have such high expectations that they perform way below S&P 500. The S&P500 also made quite a bit of money in the last 10 years, despite what you infer from growth.

Go benchmark Vanguard Wellington against S&P500 and see that despite "negative growth" that the S&P 500 turned 10,000 into 23,500 in the past 10 years.

http://flagship2.vanguard.com/VGApp/hnw...1&FundIntExt=INT&DisplayBarChart=false

On the other hand, stocks in companies that have a decent price that are not growing or even slowly declining can beat the S&P 500. Phillip Morris is a prime example as it's raked in an average of 19.75% annualized interest/year between 1957 and 2003.

You actually have a B.S. in Economics?! Wow.

You are not competing against my knowledge, which from what I've seen I have considerable more. You are competing against Warren Buffet, Harry Markowitz, Merton Miller, William Sharpe, Jeremy J Siegel, John C Bogle, William Berstein, Richard Ferri, etc.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: techs
And in 10 years as the boomers retire the support for SS will be so overwhelming that it will be untouchable.
Your question should have specified whether they would opt out knowing SS would still be there.
And notice that the young are more likely to want to opt out. There is something to be said for older and wiser heads.

Not true at all. The BB generation is only interested in having full benefits for THEIR generation. Having SS exist for the generation after all but a few of them are dead is not a priority.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: ericlp
Well it depends...

What about the money I've been putting in there all these years? If I opt out will I forfeit not getting anything at 64? OR ......

If I opt out will I just get what I put in from the past? But if I lost everything then forget it. Who knows I might make it to 64! Another 22 years away.

Altho, if I were 20 years of age I'd be saying Heck YES!!!! With out a doubt.

You get benefits based on what you paid in previously. But that isn't taking into account future changes in the payout scheme i.e. you could end up with nothing.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Legend

You actually have a B.S. in Economics?! Wow.

You are not competing against my knowledge, which from what I've seen I have considerable more. You are competing against Warren Buffet, Harry Markowitz, Merton Miller, William Sharpe, Jeremy J Siegel, John C Bogle, William Berstein, Richard Ferri, etc.

Haha techs spouting his nonsense again.

76% of a miserable return not even counting inflation. Fun.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Nope. I get free healthcare, and if anything unpredictable should happen i get cared for as much as i will ever need. Without having to pay for it.
Same with my parents, and everyone else.

[edit]

Yeah, i'm not american.

And we get the same quality of healthcare as you do, and we pay less then half of what you do.

I like how you call it free healthcare and then say that you pay for it.

Costindependant healthcare. I pay for it trough taxes.
I still pay less than you

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: techs
And in 10 years as the boomers retire the support for SS will be so overwhelming that it will be untouchable.
Your question should have specified whether they would opt out knowing SS would still be there.
And notice that the young are more likely to want to opt out. There is something to be said for older and wiser heads.

Not true at all. The BB generation is only interested in having full benefits for THEIR generation. Having SS exist for the generation after all but a few of them are dead is not a priority.

QFT. I hear it every day with the older crowd. "Make sure you work and pay in to SS so I can get mine!". If I mention about opting out, I get flamed as being selfish. Started over 13 years ago and still getting flamed over it.

 

[Aisengard]

But why should we complain about it? I heard it before, once we get a Democrat in office that won't raid the Social Security fund then it'll be, well, secure. Ask your parents if they complained about paying into Social Security for their parents. So yes, it is selfish.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
But why should we complain about it? I heard it before, once we get a Democrat in office that won't raid the Social Security fund then it'll be, well, secure. Ask your parents if they complained about paying into Social Security for their parents. So yes, it is selfish.

Ask my parents if they were paying the same rate as I am now. Why is it selfish to want to save for myself instead of the government doing it for me? Because the government couldn't manage the money well enough to give a decent return with future payments to pay it? Because the government (Democrat or Republican) uses the money as part of the general treasury?

 

[Aisengard]

It's selfish because you want more money for yourself. Like I said, SS is a safety net, a wealth redistribution, not an investment plan. Richer people are not going to get out as much as they put in, that's how welfare works, and that's how SS works. [EDIT] You're not even 'putting in' money, you're not getting that back. SS worked, and has always worked, by funding the elderly with the people who work. And then they get funded by the next generation. And so on. SS operates on that principle. It's American, and if you don't like it, then you can move. I mean, isn't that the Republican mantra? [/EDIT]

Instead of complaining about SS, which has worked these past 70 years, why not complain about the politicians who are ruining it? I can tell you, you just want more money for yourself. Justafiably selfish? Maybe. But it's selfish all the same, and you shouldn't be all surprised when people call you on it.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
It's selfish because you want more money for yourself. Like I said, SS is a safety net, a wealth redistribution, not an investment plan. Richer people are not going to get out as much as they put in, that's how welfare works, and that's how SS works. [EDIT] You're not even 'putting in' money, you're not getting that back. SS worked, and has always worked, by funding the elderly with the people who work. And then they get funded by the next generation. And so on. SS operates on that principle. It's American, and if you don't like it, then you can move. I mean, isn't that the Republican mantra? [/EDIT]

Instead of complaining about SS, which has worked these past 70 years, why not complain about the politicians who are ruining it? I can tell you, you just want more money for yourself. Justafiably selfish? Maybe. But it's selfish all the same, and you shouldn't be all surprised when people call you on it.

I don't see why I should give money to millionaries. Can you explain why someone who has more money then I will make in 10 years should get to steal part of my wages? How is it selfish to want to stop such theft?

Edit: There is nothing the goverment could have done to fix SS. SS is fundimential flawed in that it requires many more births person then we have now.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
It's selfish because you want more money for yourself. Like I said, SS is a safety net, a wealth redistribution, not an investment plan. Richer people are not going to get out as much as they put in, that's how welfare works, and that's how SS works. [EDIT] You're not even 'putting in' money, you're not getting that back. SS worked, and has always worked, by funding the elderly with the people who work. And then they get funded by the next generation. And so on. SS operates on that principle. It's American, and if you don't like it, then you can move. I mean, isn't that the Republican mantra? [/EDIT]

Instead of complaining about SS, which has worked these past 70 years, why not complain about the politicians who are ruining it? I can tell you, you just want more money for yourself. Justafiably selfish? Maybe. But it's selfish all the same, and you shouldn't be all surprised when people call you on it.

Sure I want more of MY money for myself. It's my money. Call it selfish if you wish. It is my money and I want it for ME. The previous generations didn't take the time nor attitude to shore it up and now that a huge chunk is going through without enough younger workers to keep up, they want me and my generation to pony up to make sure THEY get their "selfish" (as you say) share. I say let them take a cut then instead of raising mine (or my yearly limit) to pay for them.

Selfishness, as you call it, is a two way street. When it comes to them vs me, I'll choose ME every time!

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: RichardE
No

21years of age, 32k/year

:thumbsup:

I'm with you on that. I've read 2 articles in the last month (unfortunately i don't have them, i read them while waiting to get my haircut and at the doc) that said Canada's Pension Plan is on track and doing good (apparently it was revised like 5 years ago). Add the fact that Alberta has the largest oil reserves in the world, and a barrel of oil is now $70 and rising, we're going to be doing pretty good in the future.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Aisengard
It's selfish because you want more money for yourself. Like I said, SS is a safety net, a wealth redistribution, not an investment plan. Richer people are not going to get out as much as they put in, that's how welfare works, and that's how SS works. [EDIT] You're not even 'putting in' money, you're not getting that back. SS worked, and has always worked, by funding the elderly with the people who work. And then they get funded by the next generation. And so on. SS operates on that principle. It's American, and if you don't like it, then you can move. I mean, isn't that the Republican mantra? [/EDIT]

Instead of complaining about SS, which has worked these past 70 years, why not complain about the politicians who are ruining it? I can tell you, you just want more money for yourself. Justafiably selfish? Maybe. But it's selfish all the same, and you shouldn't be all surprised when people call you on it.

Sure I want more of MY money for myself. It's my money. Call it selfish if you wish. It is my money and I want it for ME. The previous generations didn't take the time nor attitude to shore it up and now that a huge chunk is going through without enough younger workers to keep up, they want me and my generation to pony up to make sure THEY get their "selfish" (as you say) share. I say let them take a cut then instead of raising mine (or my yearly limit) to pay for them.

Selfishness, as you call it, is a two way street. When it comes to them vs me, I'll choose ME every time!

If you get your way you will end up paying 50 percent in taxes in 25 years. That should MAYBE cover the cost of 30-70 million seniors on welfare. And by the time your are near retirement you can count on paying up to 70 percent.
Its that simple.
If you were really smart and not just selfish you would support SS.
And if you get your way and SS is abolished you will CERTAINLY lose the combined 14 percent that is now being paid by your employer into SS. In fact your selfishness will cause a 14 percent drop in your income.

 

[the Chase]

Yes. Not even a second thought. I don't have any faith that either Democrats or Republicans or both parties united will try to fix it until it's too late. And the "fixes" are just defaulting on their promises/stealing from ALL of us. So I get to 65 (the original age to start getting benefits- 1st takeback) and look forward to 67 when I can retire. But what's this, they are fixing SS so now the age is moved to 72. And when I hit 72 I get 90% of what I put in. Wow what a bargain. Kill it now and let the American people have some of their dignity back. I'll buy my Mom and Dad some food and have them move back in with me.

Edit- to the above poster-
1. Want to know where you got your numbers.
2. At least if they taxed us into poverty they are being honest about it and we could move to another country/try to vote in true change.
3. Your employer would have that 7 percent to increase your income with so you would actually have it. And can you really call it income if you don't receive it?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Aisengard
It's selfish because you want more money for yourself. Like I said, SS is a safety net, a wealth redistribution, not an investment plan. Richer people are not going to get out as much as they put in, that's how welfare works, and that's how SS works. [EDIT] You're not even 'putting in' money, you're not getting that back. SS worked, and has always worked, by funding the elderly with the people who work. And then they get funded by the next generation. And so on. SS operates on that principle. It's American, and if you don't like it, then you can move. I mean, isn't that the Republican mantra? [/EDIT]

Instead of complaining about SS, which has worked these past 70 years, why not complain about the politicians who are ruining it? I can tell you, you just want more money for yourself. Justafiably selfish? Maybe. But it's selfish all the same, and you shouldn't be all surprised when people call you on it.

I don't see why I should give money to millionaries. Can you explain why someone who has more money then I will make in 10 years should get to steal part of my wages? How is it selfish to want to stop such theft?

Edit: There is nothing the goverment could have done to fix SS. SS is fundimential flawed in that it requires many more births person then we have now.

Millionaires who are forced to pay into social security should get full benefits out of it.