SS vs. Private Savings

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Since no one else has pointed this out, please explain to me how a Walmart greeter (with a family maybe?) can save 10% of their income. It's not going to happen.

But why should I worry? I plan on saving more than enough to retire comfortably, so fvck everyone else, right?

Edit: I dislike SS and am all in favor of private savings...if it can work out. But I'm not a slave to ideas that aren't complete like some of you, apparently.

Hehe... like the Hall and Oates song... "They're out of touch, they're out of touch..."

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: irwincur

Your investment gain estimates are wildly optimistic and could be negative if the market goes south as it did in 2001.

With all of the booms and busts the market has averaged over 11%, even including the great depression. To think that the latest bust was the end of the world is nothing more than short sighted. Most intelligent people see a bust as a time to put more money in to ride the wave to the top. Smart financial management is the key.

In terms of 'wildly optimistic' - I don't see how using below average gains could ever be seen as optimistic. Wildly optimistic would be more like 12% or better.

My buddy the financial advisor is managing a fund that has averaged 17% over the last 3 years.

And many other people have gone bankrupt. If the average is 10%, and some are getting 20%, that means someone is losing out.

hence the word "diversify" I used earlier, the above example was a single fund.

And how does one good fund mean another one is losing out? Who was the one who has no idea what they are talking about?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Since no one else has pointed this out, please explain to me how a Walmart greeter (with a family maybe?) can save 10% of their income.

That walmart greeter would much rather invest his 10% in private accounts and retire nicely, than pay 12% in SS Taxes and get screwed.

nice straw man though.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Since no one else has pointed this out, please explain to me how a Walmart greeter (with a family maybe?) can save 10% of their income.

That walmart greeter would much rather invest his 10% in private accounts and retire nicely, than pay 12% in SS Taxes and get screwed.

nice straw man though.

Not a strawman... that was a bit of reality.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: irwincur

Your investment gain estimates are wildly optimistic and could be negative if the market goes south as it did in 2001.

With all of the booms and busts the market has averaged over 11%, even including the great depression. To think that the latest bust was the end of the world is nothing more than short sighted. Most intelligent people see a bust as a time to put more money in to ride the wave to the top. Smart financial management is the key.

In terms of 'wildly optimistic' - I don't see how using below average gains could ever be seen as optimistic. Wildly optimistic would be more like 12% or better.

My buddy the financial advisor is managing a fund that has averaged 17% over the last 3 years.

And that didn't even make up for the losses from the preceding 3 years.

actually the fund has been in the positive since it was started in 1993, so its never lost.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Since no one else has pointed this out, please explain to me how a Walmart greeter (with a family maybe?) can save 10% of their income.

That walmart greeter would much rather invest his 10% in private accounts and retire nicely, than pay 12% in SS Taxes and get screwed.

nice straw man though.

Not a strawman... that was a bit of reality.

But I just showed you how completely backward it was, he could actually get a BETTER investment plan for LESS of his income, so hed have more for his family now. Does this make sense now? Or is it still an "incomplete idea" to you?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Since no one else has pointed this out, please explain to me how a Walmart greeter (with a family maybe?) can save 10% of their income.

That walmart greeter would much rather invest his 10% in private accounts and retire nicely, than pay 12% in SS Taxes and get screwed.

nice straw man though.

Not a strawman... that was a bit of reality.

But I just showed you how completely backward it was, he could actually get a BETTER investment plan for LESS of his income, so hed have more for his family now. Does this make sense now? Or is it still an "incomplete idea" to you?

So how are you going to make up the huge overhead that this program requires?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
...
So how are you going to make up the huge overhead that this program requires?

lol, like SS doesnt have massive overhead? We could just use that infrastucture for starters, and probably shrink it down a bit while at it.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
...
So how are you going to make up the huge overhead that this program requires?

lol, like SS doesnt have massive overhead? We could just use that infrastucture for starters, and probably shrink it down a bit while at it.

The current SS system has an overhead of less than 1%...

SS Overhead

Here's another link...

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
...
So how are you going to make up the huge overhead that this program requires?

lol, like SS doesnt have massive overhead? We could just use that infrastucture for starters, and probably shrink it down a bit while at it.

The current SS system has an overhead of less than 1%...

SS Overhead

Here's another link...

And you can make a $10,000 trade on Ameritrade for $7, ya the stock market is just chock full of expensive overhead.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
...
So how are you going to make up the huge overhead that this program requires?

lol, like SS doesnt have massive overhead? We could just use that infrastucture for starters, and probably shrink it down a bit while at it.

The current SS system has an overhead of less than 1%...

SS Overhead

Here's another link...

And you can make a $10,000 trade on Ameritrade for $7, ya the stock market is just chock full of expensive overhead.

Most mutual funds have management fees of around 1%. Many have above 1%.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
...
So how are you going to make up the huge overhead that this program requires?

lol, like SS doesnt have massive overhead? We could just use that infrastucture for starters, and probably shrink it down a bit while at it.

The current SS system has an overhead of less than 1%...

SS Overhead

Here's another link...

And you can make a $10,000 trade on Ameritrade for $7, ya the stock market is just chock full of expensive overhead.

Most mutual funds have management fees of around 1%. Many have above 1%.

so we shop around a little, big deal. Stop using futile arguments to poke holes in the obvious winner.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
...
So how are you going to make up the huge overhead that this program requires?

lol, like SS doesnt have massive overhead? We could just use that infrastucture for starters, and probably shrink it down a bit while at it.

The current SS system has an overhead of less than 1%...

SS Overhead

Here's another link...

And you can make a $10,000 trade on Ameritrade for $7, ya the stock market is just chock full of expensive overhead.

Most mutual funds have management fees of around 1%. Many have above 1%.

so we shop around a little, big deal. Stop using futile arguments to poke holes in the obvious winner.

Why privatize it? Why doesn't the government fork over every penny I ever put into the program and let me decide what I want to do with it? Isn't it MY money... I'd rather have it then let a Wall Street con-man rip me off down the line.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
...
So how are you going to make up the huge overhead that this program requires?

lol, like SS doesnt have massive overhead? We could just use that infrastucture for starters, and probably shrink it down a bit while at it.

The current SS system has an overhead of less than 1%...

SS Overhead

Here's another link...

And you can make a $10,000 trade on Ameritrade for $7, ya the stock market is just chock full of expensive overhead.

Most mutual funds have management fees of around 1%. Many have above 1%.

so we shop around a little, big deal. Stop using futile arguments to poke holes in the obvious winner.

Why privatize it? Why doesn't the government fork over every penny I ever put into the program and let me decide what I want to do with it? Isn't it MY money... I'd rather have it then let a Wall Street con-man rip me off down the line.

I agree, but its a compromise, you cant just screw the people who have been paying into it thier entire lives.

Eventually yes, after everyone who fits the "grandfather clause" is long gone, we can shift to complete freedom with our money.

 

[glenn1]

Yeah, right. Tell that to anyone who planned on retiring on their investments in 2001.

Or any Enron employee.

Your investment gain estimates are wildly optimistic and could be negative if the market goes south as it did in 2001.

That's all well and good, but what you're missing is that the younger generations don't care what the returns are. I would consider a theoretical investment where I lost 99% of the principal (but was absolutely positive to receive the remaining 1% since I own the assets) to be superior to trusting in the promises of Congress to pay me something, anything. In short you're not recognizing that the implied value we attach your promises concerning Social Security is ZERO, and any alternative will beat zero every time. We simply do not trust Congress to honor their promises, and if you think you can do so you're fooling yourself. Unless and until you realize that the ownership component has to be addressed, you're going to lose every time, and lose huge.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
...
So how are you going to make up the huge overhead that this program requires?

lol, like SS doesnt have massive overhead? We could just use that infrastucture for starters, and probably shrink it down a bit while at it.

The current SS system has an overhead of less than 1%...

SS Overhead

Here's another link...

And you can make a $10,000 trade on Ameritrade for $7, ya the stock market is just chock full of expensive overhead.

Most mutual funds have management fees of around 1%. Many have above 1%.

so we shop around a little, big deal. Stop using futile arguments to poke holes in the obvious winner.

Why privatize it? Why doesn't the government fork over every penny I ever put into the program and let me decide what I want to do with it? Isn't it MY money... I'd rather have it then let a Wall Street con-man rip me off down the line.

I agree, but its a compromise, you cant just screw the people who have been paying into it thier entire lives.

Eventually yes, after everyone who fits the "grandfather clause" is long gone, we can shift to complete freedom with our money.

My first choice will always be to leave it alone, second is to kill the program altogether...

The elderly have no shot any other way... give them their money in a lump sum or continue the SS program as is.

Wall Street only knows how to screw the average investor and with trillions of dollars in the pot, the urge will be irresistible.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
...
So how are you going to make up the huge overhead that this program requires?

lol, like SS doesnt have massive overhead? We could just use that infrastucture for starters, and probably shrink it down a bit while at it.

The current SS system has an overhead of less than 1%...

SS Overhead

Here's another link...

And you can make a $10,000 trade on Ameritrade for $7, ya the stock market is just chock full of expensive overhead.

Most mutual funds have management fees of around 1%. Many have above 1%.

so we shop around a little, big deal. Stop using futile arguments to poke holes in the obvious winner.

You are the one who claimed SS has "massive overhead." Now it has been shown to you that it has a smaller overhead than most mutual funds. So it's your arguement that is futile. And private accounts are not an obvious winner by a longshot. You could lose 10% just as easily as you can make 10%, and you can lose even more to inflation.
Are you so naive to believe that every walmart employee can retire a multi-millionaire without major inflation?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
...
So how are you going to make up the huge overhead that this program requires?

lol, like SS doesnt have massive overhead? We could just use that infrastucture for starters, and probably shrink it down a bit while at it.

The current SS system has an overhead of less than 1%...

SS Overhead

Here's another link...

And you can make a $10,000 trade on Ameritrade for $7, ya the stock market is just chock full of expensive overhead.

Most mutual funds have management fees of around 1%. Many have above 1%.

so we shop around a little, big deal. Stop using futile arguments to poke holes in the obvious winner.

You are the one who claimed SS has "massive overhead." Now it has been shown to you that it has a smaller overhead than most mutual funds. So it's your arguement that is futile. And private accounts are not an obvious winner by a longshot. You could lose 10% just as easily as you can make 10%, and you can lose even more to inflation.
Are you so naive to believe that every walmart employee can retire a multi-millionaire without major inflation?

sigh, here we go again.

read the big bold fact I put above. We are not talking about year to year, no one retires on a single years investemt returns. The 40 year AVERAGE, thats A-V-E-R-A-G-E, over FORTY years, (thats 4 decades, aka "four score") HAS NEVER (meaning its hasnt happened, at any time, ever, nope, not once) been below 10%

Has this sunk through your thick skull yet?

you can lose even more to inflation

ok now your going off the deepend, when has infaltion been above 10% for 40 years? like holy crap that would be insane, we'd be buying loaves of bread with dumptrucks full of money by now.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
...
So how are you going to make up the huge overhead that this program requires?

lol, like SS doesnt have massive overhead? We could just use that infrastucture for starters, and probably shrink it down a bit while at it.

The current SS system has an overhead of less than 1%...

SS Overhead

Here's another link...

And you can make a $10,000 trade on Ameritrade for $7, ya the stock market is just chock full of expensive overhead.

Most mutual funds have management fees of around 1%. Many have above 1%.

so we shop around a little, big deal. Stop using futile arguments to poke holes in the obvious winner.

You are the one who claimed SS has "massive overhead." Now it has been shown to you that it has a smaller overhead than most mutual funds. So it's your arguement that is futile. And private accounts are not an obvious winner by a longshot. You could lose 10% just as easily as you can make 10%, and you can lose even more to inflation.
Are you so naive to believe that every walmart employee can retire a multi-millionaire without major inflation?

sigh, here we go again.

read the big bold fact I put above. We are not talking about year to year, no one retires on a single years investemt returns. The 40 year AVERAGE, thats A-V-E-R-A-G-E, over FORTY years, (thats 4 decades, aka "four score") HAS NEVER (meaning its hasnt happened, at any time, ever, nope, not once) been below 10%

Has this sunk through your thick skull yet?

you can lose even more to inflation

ok now your going off the deepend, when has infaltion been above 10% for 40 years? like holy crap that would be insane, we'd be buying loaves of bread with dumptrucks full of money by now.

Average over last 40 years does not mean anything over the next 40 years. The US GDP is growing at 3-4%. Are you saying the stock market is going to outpace the GDP growth by 7% per year over the next 40 years? The reason the market has grown so much before is that foreigners have been pumping money into the US and buying US securities. But foreigners, like the US face their own retirement expenditures and demographic challenges that will require them to sell securities to finance those. So who do you expect to support that 10% annual stock market growth over the next 40 years? Let me guess, it's just going to happen because it happened for the last 40 years?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
...
So how are you going to make up the huge overhead that this program requires?

lol, like SS doesnt have massive overhead? We could just use that infrastucture for starters, and probably shrink it down a bit while at it.

The current SS system has an overhead of less than 1%...

SS Overhead

Here's another link...

And you can make a $10,000 trade on Ameritrade for $7, ya the stock market is just chock full of expensive overhead.

Most mutual funds have management fees of around 1%. Many have above 1%.

so we shop around a little, big deal. Stop using futile arguments to poke holes in the obvious winner.

You are the one who claimed SS has "massive overhead." Now it has been shown to you that it has a smaller overhead than most mutual funds. So it's your arguement that is futile. And private accounts are not an obvious winner by a longshot. You could lose 10% just as easily as you can make 10%, and you can lose even more to inflation.
Are you so naive to believe that every walmart employee can retire a multi-millionaire without major inflation?

sigh, here we go again.

read the big bold fact I put above. We are not talking about year to year, no one retires on a single years investemt returns. The 40 year AVERAGE, thats A-V-E-R-A-G-E, over FORTY years, (thats 4 decades, aka "four score") HAS NEVER (meaning its hasnt happened, at any time, ever, nope, not once) been below 10%

Has this sunk through your thick skull yet?

you can lose even more to inflation

ok now your going off the deepend, when has infaltion been above 10% for 40 years? like holy crap that would be insane, we'd be buying loaves of bread with dumptrucks full of money by now.

Average over last 40 years does not mean anything over the next 40 years. The US GDP is growing at 3-4%. Are you saying the stock market is going to outpace the GDP growth by 7% per year over the next 40 years? The reason the market has grown so much before is that foreigners have been pumping money into the US and buying US securities. But foreigners, like the US face their own retirement expenditures and demographic challenges that will require them to sell securities to finance those. So who do you expect to support that 10% annual stock market growth over the next 40 years? Let me guess, it's just going to happen because it happened for the last 40 years?

Holy crap, do I have to clear this up AGAIN?

I didnt say the LAST 40 years, I said ANY 40 YEAR PERIOD, EVEN ANY 40 YEAR PERIOD THAT INCLUDES THE GREAT DEPRESSION, the US STOCK MARKET HAS NEVER PERFORMED UNDER 10%

Ok, if you need help understanding that again, print this out and take it up to your teacher, she will try to explain it for you.

Besides, if you want to look at the LAST 40 years, its more like 13%, not 10

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Train

Holy crap, do I have to clear this up AGAIN?

I didnt say the LAST 40 years, I said ANY 40 YEAR PERIOD, EVEN ANY 40 YEAR PERIOD THAT INCLUDES THE GREAT DEPRESSION, the US STOCK MARKET HAS NEVER PERFORMED UNDER 10%

Ok, if you need help understanding that again, print this out and take it up to your teacher, she will try to explain it for you.

Besides, if you want to look at the LAST 40 years, its more like 13%, not 10

well i think the average thing is what people are afraid of. Half of the people get bigger return, half get smaller. Not to mention americans are horrible in terms of handling money (one of the lowest savings rates in the world) and the avg cc debt is just amazing...

on avg people would be better off, however there would be a significant number of people that get screwed by the system, which goes agains the intended purpose of ss (social safety net). There's nothing stopping you from investing/savings as is. That's why you have 401K and why employer match etc. I believe the avg amount in peoples 401 at 55 years old is around ~50G. People seem to prefer consumption and worry about the rest later.

I have no doubt that i would be better off with personal savings (or my family etc.), but it will cost us more in the long run in terms of welfare and other safety nets when people with 0 money skills blow it all away.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Train

Holy crap, do I have to clear this up AGAIN?

I didnt say the LAST 40 years, I said ANY 40 YEAR PERIOD, EVEN ANY 40 YEAR PERIOD THAT INCLUDES THE GREAT DEPRESSION, the US STOCK MARKET HAS NEVER PERFORMED UNDER 10%

Ok, if you need help understanding that again, print this out and take it up to your teacher, she will try to explain it for you.

Besides, if you want to look at the LAST 40 years, its more like 13%, not 10

well i think the average thing is what people are afraid of. Half of the people get bigger return, half get smaller. Not to mention americans are horrible in terms of handling money (one of the lowest savings rates in the world) and the avg cc debt is just amazing...

on avg people would be better off, however there would be a significant number of people that get screwed by the system, which goes agains the intended purpose of ss (social safety net)

wow, are you TRYING to mis-state everything? If everyone diversifies, what they get WILL BE THE AVERAGE, no one gets more, no one gets less.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Train

Holy crap, do I have to clear this up AGAIN?

I didnt say the LAST 40 years, I said ANY 40 YEAR PERIOD, EVEN ANY 40 YEAR PERIOD THAT INCLUDES THE GREAT DEPRESSION, the US STOCK MARKET HAS NEVER PERFORMED UNDER 10%

Ok, if you need help understanding that again, print this out and take it up to your teacher, she will try to explain it for you.

Besides, if you want to look at the LAST 40 years, its more like 13%, not 10

well i think the average thing is what people are afraid of. Half of the people get bigger return, half get smaller. Not to mention americans are horrible in terms of handling money (one of the lowest savings rates in the world) and the avg cc debt is just amazing...

on avg people would be better off, however there would be a significant number of people that get screwed by the system, which goes agains the intended purpose of ss (social safety net)

wow, are you TRYING to mis-state everything? If everyone diversifies, what they get WILL BE THE AVERAGE, no one gets more, no one gets less.

you cannot diversify over the entire spectrum of the market, which again brings us at the aggregate average problem. Plus how are you planning on making everyone diversify to begin with? There will be a ton of people that get greedy when they see quick capital gains. A ton of people got burned in 2000 when the bubble burst (my stepdad lost some ~200K)

 

[irwincur]

Average over last 40 years does not mean anything over the next 40 years. The US GDP is growing at 3-4%. Are you saying the stock market is going to outpace the GDP growth by 7% per year over the next 40 years? The reason the market has grown so much before is that foreigners have been pumping money into the US and buying US securities.

Hmm, and millions of working Americans pouring TRILLIONS into the markets will harm them in some way? That is bad for American businesses? If meager foreign investment was enough to fuel a 100 year boom, I suspect that a MASSIVE increase in domestic investment will likewise be very good for the markets, public companies, government, and the end user.


About the efficiencies of SS being around 1% vs. the efficiencies of a market fund being around 1%. Who cares. Inefficiency in the government is a loss, that 1% is lost, that is billions of dollars. Inefficincis in the private sector are paid to other businesses for services, jobs, consultants, etc... In essense, every single dollar (whether being spen efficiently or not) still makes it way into the private sector and does good. What is the harm with a couple of billion going towards jobs, equipment, etc... Just don't see it.


About the morons here and averages. An average is just that, a statistial middle ground. If you look at averages you can expect that in a stable system (which the markets have proven to be) they will maintain pace. To say that there are outliers - well yes, someone in always at the top or bottom. But if you ever took a decent level statistics class you would realize that the outliers are so infinitely tiny compared to the mass that they do not matter when calculating anything. It would be stupid to suggest that because there is a potenital for outliers in any average, that it is not a fair assesment. For everyone that would make 1% there would be someone making 19%.

LIFE IS NOT FAIR. I REALLY DO NOT KNOW WHO TOLD LIBERALS THIS, BUT IT IS PATENTLY FALSE. IT IS A LESSON THAT MOST 'NORMAL' AND WELL EDUCATED PEOPLE LEARN VERY EARLY IN LIFE.

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: Train

wow, are you TRYING to mis-state everything? If everyone diversifies, what they get WILL BE THE AVERAGE, no one gets more, no one gets less.

"diversify" isn't a magic bullet anymore than "privatize"

no one is arguing that private accounts are stupid, but blindly believing that your portfolio will get average growth in a FREE MARKET economy is bs