On Jul 24, 7:42*pm, Ignoramus2408
wrote:


So, realistically, let's say that a soon to be retired, or retired man
-- not you, but someone less principled -- loses 95% of his social
security money due to some bad luck.
Could not happen under the proposed plan. Less than 50 percent,
probably more like 20 percent, could have been invested in stocks.
And that money would have to have been invested in diversified
stocks. So the person could possibly have lost about 10 percent of
his Social Security retirement. And if you think that Social Security
will provide enough money for retirement without other sources of
income, you are going to have a rude awaking.


And then this person has nothing at all for retirement. Do you think
that it would be possible to throw him out to the street and let him
die of starvation. I do not think so.

So what this will end up, is the worst of both worlds, with high
return investors subsidizing low return investors. That creates a
moral hazard of people investing in risky things, such that heads they
win, tails we lose.

The only beneficiary of "let's use Social Security money to gamble on
the latest investment fads" would only be Wall Street.
Not true.


If you, like me, like to invest money, it is best that we do it
outside of Social Security funds, which are not exactly ours anyway.

So you do not think the Social Security funds are our money? Did the
tooth fairy provide them?

Dan