would having the govt mandate everyone setup an IRA work?

[dullard]

I see. So the government's SS fund has $2.6T in assets, but the assets are IOU's from the government. But that's ok, because it's really the taxpayers who have $2.6T in assets in the SS fund, and the money is owed to them by the government. Wait, where is the government gonna get the $2.6T to pay off the taxpayers? Oh, yeah, taxpayers. Yeah, I see. Good thing someone is watching over and being responsible with the money that otherwise wouldn't be spent responsibly.

You are looking at it wrong. Suppose they had $2.6T in bank accounts. That is a $2.6T of IOUs from the bank. Suppose they had $2.6T of corporate bonds - that is $2.6T of IOUs from the companies. Suppose they had $2.6T of mutal funds (or exchange traded funds) - yep - that is $2.6T of IOUs from the mutual fund company.

No matter how you have it, it will be $2.6T of IOUs. Unless, you want a pile of $2.6T cash sitting in a vault earning no returns. Who in their right mind would want to take such a risk and earn no return?

It isn't the IOU part that is bad. The complaint you have is the fact that the US government is issuing bonds. That is a problem with our current congress and president. That isn't a problem with social security. I hope you can think about it and see the difference.

SS is doing fine at the moment. SS has a healthy bank account and is earning at least some interest on it. The government that needs to sell bonds to SS isn't fine.

 

[First]

LOL, are you serious?

SS is nowhere near the problem that is Medicare, but for someone to say SS is "very well funded," I'm sorry, that's a joke.

Someone just babied the numbers for you and you're still confused? Shocking.

 

[piasabird]

SS sucks if you are not one of the lucky few who live longer. A lot of fat people die early. People get shot on the street and people get run over by cars or die in accidents or by other means. People would be better off with their own IRA. However, with this lousy economy, with interest rates at Zero, it is hard to make some money without taking unacceptable risks in the stock market. Some people will make money with stock, but most will be lucky to break even. It is hard work being a full-time stock broker. When inflation is higher than the prime lending rate the value of money drops also. So a person has to make at least 4% just to stay ahead of inflation.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

You are looking at it wrong. Suppose they had $2.6T in bank accounts. That is a $2.6T of IOUs from the bank. Suppose they had $2.6T of corporate bonds - that is $2.6T of IOUs from the companies. Suppose they had $2.6T of mutal funds (or exchange traded funds) - yep - that is $2.6T of IOUs from the mutual fund company.

No matter how you have it, it will be $2.6T of IOUs. Unless, you want a pile of $2.6T cash sitting in a vault earning no returns. Who in their right mind would want to take such a risk and earn no return?

It isn't the IOU part that is bad. The complaint you have is the fact that the US government is issuing bonds. That is a problem with our current congress and president. That isn't a problem with social security. I hope you can think about it and see the difference.

SS is doing fine at the moment. SS has a healthy bank account and is earning at least some interest on it. The government that needs to sell bonds to SS isn't fine.

The trust fund isn't the main problem with SS. The problem is the unfunded liability. The tax increases or spending cuts necessary to make up the short fall are enormous.

 

[dullard]

The trust fund isn't the main problem with SS. The problem is the unfunded liability. The tax increases or spending cuts necessary to make up the short fall are enormous.

SS has plenty of funds now, and isn't really that far off from having plenty of funds in the future. True, without any tweaking, SS will have more funds going out long-term than coming in. That needs to be fixed, but it can be fixed relatively easilly with a simple small change here or there. Cut payouts slightly, raise taxes slightly, change the retirement age, eliminate the income cap, etc. All easy-to-understand and politically possible changes that could virtually fix SS forever.

The real problem is medicare, medicaid, prescription drug benefits, etc. Those aren't even remotely fixable with a simple tweak. We have tens of trillions promissed with no plan (really not even any hope of a plan) to get that money.

Congress and the president are bickering over tens of billions now and not doing a thing about that tens of trillions that loom ever closer. Shame on both political parties.

 

[bamacre]

You are looking at it wrong. Suppose they had $2.6T in bank accounts. That is a $2.6T of IOUs from the bank. Suppose they had $2.6T of corporate bonds - that is $2.6T of IOUs from the companies. Suppose they had $2.6T of mutal funds (or exchange traded funds) - yep - that is $2.6T of IOUs from the mutual fund company.

No matter how you have it, it will be $2.6T of IOUs. Unless, you want a pile of $2.6T cash sitting in a vault earning no returns. Who in their right mind would want to take such a risk and earn no return?

It isn't the IOU part that is bad. The complaint you have is the fact that the US government is issuing bonds. That is a problem with our current congress and president. That isn't a problem with social security. I hope you can think about it and see the difference.

SS is doing fine at the moment. SS has a healthy bank account and is earning at least some interest on it. The government that needs to sell bonds to SS isn't fine.

Trying to separate SS from gov't just makes it obvious you're trying to paint a prettier picture of the situation. Bottom line is taxpayers are responsible for the IOU's in the fund, and interest payments, too.

Like I said, I never stated SS was in deep trouble (like Medicare), I was only arguing the comment that it is "very well funded."

 

[bamacre]

Someone just babied the numbers for you and you're still confused? Shocking.

You should have changed your screen name from EvanLieb to "Salacious B. Crumb."

 

[Lithium381]

how is it different to mandate that the citizens buy something specific, than tax them for it and buy it FOR them?

 

[First]

Trying to separate SS from gov't just makes it obvious you're trying to paint a prettier picture of the situation. Bottom line is taxpayers are responsible for the IOU's in the fund, and interest payments, too.

Like I said, I never stated SS was in deep trouble (like Medicare), I was only arguing the comment that it is "very well funded."

:facepalm:

 

[Engineer]

A little related....not only are people who are retiring with 401k plans short...those with both 401k plans and pensions are short.

Click me!

I don't know how SS factors into the equation...didn't have time to read the entire article.

 

[Jhhnn]

would having the govt mandate everyone setup an IRA work?

It'd work for Wall St.

Next looting spree- The IRA Bubble! A fantastic investment vehicle, where the more you put in every month, the more you lose!

Gotta find a different sales pitch, that's all... something with a nice ring to it, like the Ownership Society...

 

[matt0611]

would having the govt mandate everyone setup an IRA work?

It'd work for Wall St.

Next looting spree- The IRA Bubble! A fantastic investment vehicle, where the more you put in every month, the more you lose!

Gotta find a different sales pitch, that's all... something with a nice ring to it, like the Ownership Society...

Thank the government that makes it impossible to save any real money without going into risky securities like stocks.