Ignoramus29034 wrote:
On 2009-07-24, RBnDFW wrote:
Ignoramus2408 wrote:
On 2009-07-24, RBnDFW wrote:
Ignoramus2408 wrote:
On 2009-07-24, RBnDFW wrote:
So, it's your money and you think the government is a better steward of
it? do they not have newspapers on your planet?
He was talking about Social Security money.
Right. Our money.

Giving it to Wall Street to manage, does not seem like a good
solution, for obvious reasons. (the money will end up being stolen by
legal means).
He was talking about allowing individuals to designate part of it
(half?) to a self-directed fund with limited options, slightly more
risk, but higher likelihood of returns. Still way better than the
current options - zero.

I'll save my own money, invest as I see fit, and accept the result
without whining.
The second part of this is always more difficult than it seems.
I lost 95% of my Roth account in the last year.
I'll be OK.
Ouch. Sorry. I thought the most people lost would be something like
60%.

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.
Actually, 52.5% if my math is correct.
Remember, half stayed in the traditional SS fund.

Well, so you and I agree that some money should stay "safe" and immune
already see the SS as that "safe fund". We only disagree on how
much. I think that as it stands, SS is a relatively small amount of
money and thus should all be outside of any sort of speculation.
Halving that amount will not make us richer or safer..

I agree, except that I do not feel the SS fund is safe under govt
control. Congress seems all too willing to tap into it for purposes
outside the intended use. It should have 3rd rail status


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.
he would have a reduced benefit.
He would make it up by work if possible, family, church.
Just like before SS came along.

Before SS came along, people did not live as long.

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.

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.
I agree. I see SS as supplemental, which is what it was designed to be.

We may be agreeing more than we thought originally.

Very likely