What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increase immigration.

This just kicks the can down the road, don't ya think/.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the hell are you ranting about? I've only made two posts in this thread and you quoted both of them. Nice job ranting at me for things I didn't post.

1. Population aging is a filunction of low population growth. The poster I was responding to was clearly suggesting that population growth in absolute terms created the SS mess, not that lack of population growth created the mess.

2. Let me get this straight: That SS will continue to pay out 75% of benefits is a positive? The program will cost five (perhaps six) times what it was originally projected to cost and will deliver only 75% of its benefits. Only a leftist would hold this out as a success or positive. That's a hell of a consolation prize.

3. You claim that SS is free of investment risk and will remain an inflation adjusted source of income. First, those are some pretty incredible claims to make in the same post in which you acknowledge that SS will soon only be capable of paying out 75% of its obligations. You're really arguing that a quasi-retirement program that needs ever escalating amounts of money confiscated through state power and that continuously faces near term shortfalls is free of investment risk? Second, SS is only free of investment risk and a good guard against inflation if you assume the federal government is incapable of default and if you believe that the dollar will remain a reserve currency forever. I wouldn't bet a mortgage payment on either of those assumptions, let alone 5-6% of the national GDP. Your claims are borderline irrational at this point.

4. The real problem is that the political left simply doesn't have the will to accurately price entitlements (e.g., Obamacare, nationalization of student loan program). As a result, entitlement programs virtually always cost more than originally projected and deliver fewer benefits than were originally promised. While myRAs are a decent concept in the abstract, what do you think is going to happen to short term economic growth when employees have fewer discretionary dollars to spend? Do you really believe hat state and federal governmwnts are going to be able to restrain themselves from trying to funnel myRAs toward government debt (increasing systemic risk in the process). Sure, in 30-40 years things should balance out if governments don't default in heir debts, but there will be short term pain.

5. SS will be significantly restructured at some point in time and some cohort of beneficiaries will feel significant financial pain from it. The only relevant questions are when will it happen and how bad will it hurt.

6. Your solution is to simply do the same thing that has been done for 75 years: throw more money at the problem through higher taxes and additionally reduce discretionary income through myRA plans. This time things will be different, right?

Oh FFS. Grow up and act like an adult, and argue like one.

Your uninformed ranting doesn't deserve a lengthy response.
1. If you can't understand the dependency ratio, I can't help you. However, you've basically admitted that I'm right about population aging, even if you tried to twist my argument around.
2. Social Security continues to keep 1/3 of older Americans out of poverty, and yes, that's a huge success. If you're one of those conservatives who thinks the elderly need to go back to living off cat food, again, I can't help you.
3. You're confusing investment risk with political risk--I was very careful to choose my terms but you obviously can't see the distinction. Again, I can't help you become smarter.
4. You're confusing Obama's myRAs with state autoIRA proposals, but these are two very different things. Also, you seem unaware that auto-IRA proposals would rely on private investment managers, so the state or federal governments involved would not handle the funds. Even if the government did handle the auto-IRA funds (which it won't), you also missed the post above about how government bonds as investments are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government and would take Congressional action to change--reading comprehension really doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

For the rest, yes I agree there will be restructuring. But even Trump doesn't think SS should go away completely. Trump has actually said that he wants to preserve Social Security in its present form, all of it. You're out of step with most of your conservative buddies. There's much more likelihood than you want to think that there will be a compromise that preserves a solid first tier benefit, and one that will help the poor in particular.

(And huh? You say I quoted both of your two posts, and so you're mad that I'm talking to you? Huh?)

1. If you wanted to suggest that the LACK of population growth was the problem you should have said that. Don't blame me for your poor writing.

2. Re: SS keeping aging Americans out of poverty being a success: almost any problem can be solved by throwing money at it. Here in reality land, we have finite resources and infinite needs. Hence, achieving an outcome is not enough to declare something a success or failure. In reality land, we have to choose how to allocate our resources efficiently. SS supporters have utterly failed for 75 years to efficiently allocate resources to this issue and we once again are talking about devoting even more resources to the problem. This time, things will turn out different right? That's what you really believe, right? That the problem is that it needs just a little bit more money through a combo of higher taxes and reduced benefits for certain segments of the population? I sort of admire you--a lesser person would be humbled by 75 years of failure. But not you.

3. Political risk IS investment risk, genius. Those of us who actually allocate capital for living generally refer to it as regulatory risk. Call it whatever you want, it IS rolled into the more encompassing concept of investment risk.

4. Distinctions between auto-IRAs and the myRA proposal notwithstanding, the full faith and credit of the US government is a function of the government's ability to pay its debts. That you think congressional action means anything with respect to the governments ability to pay its debts is completing missing the issue. Hint: if the money is not there, Congress' action or inaction is completely irrelevant.

Apetitie for political compromise and the wisdom of the policy changes flowing from such compromise are two entirely different issues. De Tocqueville diagnosed the limit of the American republic in 1835. That politicians on the left and right have a desire to kick the problem down the road through political compromise is not in and of itself an indication that preservation of SS is a good idea. And if not wanting my kids to have to bear the burden of bad policy decisions made today makes me a political outlier, so be it.

Go back and re-read your first paragraph at 7:45 last night. Except for three (now four) posts in this sub-conversation, I haven't posted in this thread. All of those topics you claimed you had to educate me on we're never raised by me that was a different poster and your ranting in that first paragraph had nothing to do with me even though you directed that screed at me.

Also, you rightky bring up the unfunded Bush wars as a problem with conservative governance. I don't defend the financing of Bush's wars. But it is worth noting that the total unfunded liability for that garbage was about $3.5T-4.0T. A staggering sum to say the least. Yet it pales in comparison to the $75T unfunded SS liability and even bigger unfunded MC liability. Conservatives should be humbled by Bush's mistakes. But, from an economic perspective, even given the longer time horizon, the unfunded liabilities arising out of SS and MC are much worse than Bush's unfunded wars. I guess massive finacial mistakes are only a problem when Republicans make the mistake, right? For liberals, it's only a reason to double down on what hasn't worked for 75 years.

All anybody can say is that Trump's right there with the liberals in terms of keeping SS in its present form. So you'd better not vote for him after all.

It does seem obvious now that you're a money manager who wants to get your hands on money from privatizing SS. So long as private accounts aren't subject to any restrictions on the fees you charge. In fact, ICI opposes the auto-IRA plans for that reason and some more reasons having, although they never state it outright, to do with limitations on how money managers could handle and charge fees for the accounts.

Also, where does the $75T figure come from? The 75-year unfunded liability is $11.5T and the infinite horizon unfunded liability is $35T (2016 Trustees p. 201). But even then--and this is key--you have to put that in the context of an economy that will also grow a lot over the next 75 years. It's not like we have to pay $11.5 trillion tomorrow out of today's economic resources. In fact, SS as a pct of GDP actually falls once the boomers start dying off. Infinite horizon quotes never seem to mention this fairly obvious point. Since you're complaining about the inability of forecasters to get things right, and championing your own stellar financial skills, I'm sure you know how very, very bogus it is to project SS out to infinity. That's like asking the founding fathers to project what SS, the population and the economy (all underlying assumptions) would look like in 2016. Most countries project their pension systems out 10-30 years.

Also, if you or someone else got that $75T figure by "forgetting" to discount to PV, as a financial whiz kid you should be ashamed to use it. I'll put my advanced Econ degree from a top university up against your BA in business any day.

Sorry about confusing you with the other rude, arrogant conservative.

You're insane. It's obvious that I'm a money manager that wants to get my hands on retirement accounts? I assure you nothing could be further from the truth. My only economic interest tied to retirement funds is my own retirement. And if we're comparing CVs, I'm more than happy to stack my law review/coif at a top law school against some Econ grad program. Let me guess, you're sitting on an M.A. in Econ, right?

As you can see from this thread, there are some people who just want the system to go away and don't want any compromises that would keep it working.

My problem is that the problem never gets solved and continued incremental escalation is necessary to "keep it working for a few more years." The reality is that the current version of the program would never get passed as stand alone legislation. But instead we continue to increase the burden on subsequent generations throwing good money after bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are way down in the weeds. The thing is insolvent and you're arguing about mowing the lawn while the house is on fire.

It's not insolvent. When the trust fund runs out in 2034 or so, there will still be enough money to pay 75% of benefits forever. The trust fund was an add-on created by Ronald Reagan so he could kick the can down the road by raising taxes without cutting benefits while getting credit for being a fiscal conservative. But we should go back to what it was before, a pay-as-you-go system, just by balancing income and outflow. And I repeat if we DO NOTHING, there will be a 25% cut in benefits, but the system will last forever.

Well, a 25% cut wouldn't hurt the upper income retirees! but those who depend on SS for a significant portion if their retiree income (if not all of it) would really suffer. As it is, we have people trying to get by on $1000 a month. (Even if ones house is paid off, that's quite a struggle.)

So what's your definition of upper income retirees? Have you checked actual contributions to social security v payouts? ie low income pay ins get a much better return. Payments have no basis in reality. Just like anyone earning more than 85k after retirement pays higher medicare. And that premium becomes huge with a top add on cost of more than 450/month per individual.

It's like earned income tax credit- just money legislated to go in or out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're insane. It's obvious that I'm a money manager that wants to get my hands on retirement accounts? I assure you nothing could be further from the truth. My only economic interest tied to retirement funds is my own retirement. And if we're comparing CVs, I'm more than happy to stack my law review/coif at a top law school against some Econ grad program. Let me guess, you're sitting on an M.A. in Econ, right?

As you can see from this thread, there are some people who just want the system to go away and don't want any compromises that would keep it working.

My problem is that the problem never gets solved and continued incremental escalation is necessary to "keep it working for a few more years." The reality is that the current version of the program would never get passed as stand alone legislation. But instead we continue to increase the burden on subsequent generations throwing good money after bad.

A$$. Too many ultra right conservatives are like you: blustery and rude. And unwilling to admit when you're wrong even if somebody called you out as being totally wrong. Multiple times you got called out as being totally wrong.

Signed, Wharton grad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the hell are you ranting about? I've only made two posts in this thread and you quoted both of them. Nice job ranting at me for things I didn't post.

1. Population aging is a filunction of low population growth. The poster I was responding to was clearly suggesting that population growth in absolute terms created the SS mess, not that lack of population growth created the mess.

2. Let me get this straight: That SS will continue to pay out 75% of benefits is a positive? The program will cost five (perhaps six) times what it was originally projected to cost and will deliver only 75% of its benefits. Only a leftist would hold this out as a success or positive. That's a hell of a consolation prize.

3. You claim that SS is free of investment risk and will remain an inflation adjusted source of income. First, those are some pretty incredible claims to make in the same post in which you acknowledge that SS will soon only be capable of paying out 75% of its obligations. You're really arguing that a quasi-retirement program that needs ever escalating amounts of money confiscated through state power and that continuously faces near term shortfalls is free of investment risk? Second, SS is only free of investment risk and a good guard against inflation if you assume the federal government is incapable of default and if you believe that the dollar will remain a reserve currency forever. I wouldn't bet a mortgage payment on either of those assumptions, let alone 5-6% of the national GDP. Your claims are borderline irrational at this point.

4. The real problem is that the political left simply doesn't have the will to accurately price entitlements (e.g., Obamacare, nationalization of student loan program). As a result, entitlement programs virtually always cost more than originally projected and deliver fewer benefits than were originally promised. While myRAs are a decent concept in the abstract, what do you think is going to happen to short term economic growth when employees have fewer discretionary dollars to spend? Do you really believe hat state and federal governmwnts are going to be able to restrain themselves from trying to funnel myRAs toward government debt (increasing systemic risk in the process). Sure, in 30-40 years things should balance out if governments don't default in heir debts, but there will be short term pain.

5. SS will be significantly restructured at some point in time and some cohort of beneficiaries will feel significant financial pain from it. The only relevant questions are when will it happen and how bad will it hurt.

6. Your solution is to simply do the same thing that has been done for 75 years: throw more money at the problem through higher taxes and additionally reduce discretionary income through myRA plans. This time things will be different, right?

Oh FFS. Grow up and act like an adult, and argue like one.

Your uninformed ranting doesn't deserve a lengthy response.
1. If you can't understand the dependency ratio, I can't help you. However, you've basically admitted that I'm right about population aging, even if you tried to twist my argument around.
2. Social Security continues to keep 1/3 of older Americans out of poverty, and yes, that's a huge success. If you're one of those conservatives who thinks the elderly need to go back to living off cat food, again, I can't help you.
3. You're confusing investment risk with political risk--I was very careful to choose my terms but you obviously can't see the distinction. Again, I can't help you become smarter.
4. You're confusing Obama's myRAs with state autoIRA proposals, but these are two very different things. Also, you seem unaware that auto-IRA proposals would rely on private investment managers, so the state or federal governments involved would not handle the funds. Even if the government did handle the auto-IRA funds (which it won't), you also missed the post above about how government bonds as investments are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government and would take Congressional action to change--reading comprehension really doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

For the rest, yes I agree there will be restructuring. But even Trump doesn't think SS should go away completely. Trump has actually said that he wants to preserve Social Security in its present form, all of it. You're out of step with most of your conservative buddies. There's much more likelihood than you want to think that there will be a compromise that preserves a solid first tier benefit, and one that will help the poor in particular.

(And huh? You say I quoted both of your two posts, and so you're mad that I'm talking to you? Huh?)

1. If you wanted to suggest that the LACK of population growth was the problem you should have said that. Don't blame me for your poor writing.

2. Re: SS keeping aging Americans out of poverty being a success: almost any problem can be solved by throwing money at it. Here in reality land, we have finite resources and infinite needs. Hence, achieving an outcome is not enough to declare something a success or failure. In reality land, we have to choose how to allocate our resources efficiently. SS supporters have utterly failed for 75 years to efficiently allocate resources to this issue and we once again are talking about devoting even more resources to the problem. This time, things will turn out different right? That's what you really believe, right? That the problem is that it needs just a little bit more money through a combo of higher taxes and reduced benefits for certain segments of the population? I sort of admire you--a lesser person would be humbled by 75 years of failure. But not you.

3. Political risk IS investment risk, genius. Those of us who actually allocate capital for living generally refer to it as regulatory risk. Call it whatever you want, it IS rolled into the more encompassing concept of investment risk.

4. Distinctions between auto-IRAs and the myRA proposal notwithstanding, the full faith and credit of the US government is a function of the government's ability to pay its debts. That you think congressional action means anything with respect to the governments ability to pay its debts is completing missing the issue. Hint: if the money is not there, Congress' action or inaction is completely irrelevant.

Apetitie for political compromise and the wisdom of the policy changes flowing from such compromise are two entirely different issues. De Tocqueville diagnosed the limit of the American republic in 1835. That politicians on the left and right have a desire to kick the problem down the road through political compromise is not in and of itself an indication that preservation of SS is a good idea. And if not wanting my kids to have to bear the burden of bad policy decisions made today makes me a political outlier, so be it.

Go back and re-read your first paragraph at 7:45 last night. Except for three (now four) posts in this sub-conversation, I haven't posted in this thread. All of those topics you claimed you had to educate me on we're never raised by me that was a different poster and your ranting in that first paragraph had nothing to do with me even though you directed that screed at me.

Also, you rightky bring up the unfunded Bush wars as a problem with conservative governance. I don't defend the financing of Bush's wars. But it is worth noting that the total unfunded liability for that garbage was about $3.5T-4.0T. A staggering sum to say the least. Yet it pales in comparison to the $75T unfunded SS liability and even bigger unfunded MC liability. Conservatives should be humbled by Bush's mistakes. But, from an economic perspective, even given the longer time horizon, the unfunded liabilities arising out of SS and MC are much worse than Bush's unfunded wars. I guess massive finacial mistakes are only a problem when Republicans make the mistake, right? For liberals, it's only a reason to double down on what hasn't worked for 75 years.

All anybody can say is that Trump's right there with the liberals in terms of keeping SS in its present form. So you'd better not vote for him after all.

It does seem obvious now that you're a money manager who wants to get your hands on money from privatizing SS. So long as private accounts aren't subject to any restrictions on the fees you charge. In fact, ICI opposes the auto-IRA plans for that reason and some more reasons having, although they never state it outright, to do with limitations on how money managers could handle and charge fees for the accounts.

Also, where does the $75T figure come from? The 75-year unfunded liability is $11.5T and the infinite horizon unfunded liability is $35T (2016 Trustees p. 201). But even then--and this is key--you have to put that in the context of an economy that will also grow a lot over the next 75 years. It's not like we have to pay $11.5 trillion tomorrow out of today's economic resources. In fact, SS as a pct of GDP actually falls once the boomers start dying off. Infinite horizon quotes never seem to mention this fairly obvious point. Since you're complaining about the inability of forecasters to get things right, and championing your own stellar financial skills, I'm sure you know how very, very bogus it is to project SS out to infinity. That's like asking the founding fathers to project what SS, the population and the economy (all underlying assumptions) would look like in 2016. Most countries project their pension systems out 10-30 years.

Also, if you or someone else got that $75T figure by "forgetting" to discount to PV, as a financial whiz kid you should be ashamed to use it. I'll put my advanced Econ degree from a top university up against your BA in business any day.

Sorry about confusing you with the other rude, arrogant conservative.

You're insane. It's obvious that I'm a money manager that wants to get my hands on retirement accounts? I assure you nothing could be further from the truth. My only economic interest tied to retirement funds is my own retirement. And if we're comparing CVs, I'm more than happy to stack my law review/coif at a top law school against some Econ grad program. Let me guess, you're sitting on an M.A. in Econ, right?

As you can see from this thread, there are some people who just want the system to go away and don't want any compromises that would keep it working.

My problem is that the problem never gets solved and continued incremental escalation is necessary to "keep it working for a few more years." The reality is that the current version of the program would never get passed as stand alone legislation. But instead we continue to increase the burden on subsequent generations throwing good money after bad.

Reposting for formatting, just so you get the point.

A$$. Too many ultra right conservatives are like you: blustery and rude. And unwilling to admit when you're wrong even if somebody called you out as being totally wrong. Multiple times you got called out as being totally wrong.

Signed, Wharton grad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would support raising the cap and reducing benefits are the very top of the income scale. Maybe the top 5%.
I also recognize the problem with raising the retirement age to 68, so can't support that even though I don't expect it to be a sacrifice for me (fingers crossed.) I do hope social scientists are doing more work to figure out a way to identify to differentiate the physical labor jobs from others. For example, if every job was deemed PL or not, and every quarter (or every time an employer submitted info on employees) the PL category were indicated, perhaps once someone had accrued so many quarters of PL, they would be eligible for full benefits at 65, or something like that.
Good news is that what's needed to fix SS is actually much 'easier' than what's needed to keep Medicare solvent for the long term!

Surgeons are on their feet so PL works? If you lose your job or have mandatory retirement it is hard to find a job. Retirement advice is to take it at 70 now but benefit advantages [increases from 62/66] could be legislated away. Now if you live in a high cola and were earning more $ -ie retired teacher in major city gets max SS, 100% pension, pays extra for medicare. However retired teacher in low cola area gets less than max, pays no extra for medicare, gets 100% pension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are way down in the weeds. The thing is insolvent and you're arguing about mowing the lawn while the house is on fire.

It's not insolvent. When the trust fund runs out in 2034 or so, there will still be enough money to pay 75% of benefits forever. The trust fund was an add-on created by Ronald Reagan so he could kick the can down the road by raising taxes without cutting benefits while getting credit for being a fiscal conservative. But we should go back to what it was before, a pay-as-you-go system, just by balancing income and outflow. And I repeat if we DO NOTHING, there will be a 25% cut in benefits, but the system will last forever.

Well, a 25% cut wouldn't hurt the upper income retirees! but those who depend on SS for a significant portion if their retiree income (if not all of it) would really suffer. As it is, we have people trying to get by on $1000 a month. (Even if ones house is paid off, that's quite a struggle.)

So what's your definition of upper income retirees? Have you checked actual contributions to social security v payouts? ie low income pay ins get a much better return. Payments have no basis in reality. Just like anyone earning more than 85k after retirement pays higher medicare. And that premium becomes huge with a top add on cost of more than 450/month per individual.

It's like earned income tax credit- just money legislated to go in or out.

Recently posted the above in italics. To Wharton Grad- benefits don't relate to pay-in . When you see what goes in and what comes out only simplistic language suffices. Economics? Finance? really based on strokes of a pen and votes.

[Anonymous]

PP who is bragging about her law degree from "a top law school" could have done the Harvard Law Review for all I care. What matters is whether she understands Social Security. Clearly she doesn't, going by the number of times people have had to correct her. She has no business bullying people on the subject because bullying is no substitute for lack of knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are way down in the weeds. The thing is insolvent and you're arguing about mowing the lawn while the house is on fire.

It's not insolvent. When the trust fund runs out in 2034 or so, there will still be enough money to pay 75% of benefits forever. The trust fund was an add-on created by Ronald Reagan so he could kick the can down the road by raising taxes without cutting benefits while getting credit for being a fiscal conservative. But we should go back to what it was before, a pay-as-you-go system, just by balancing income and outflow. And I repeat if we DO NOTHING, there will be a 25% cut in benefits, but the system will last forever.

Well, a 25% cut wouldn't hurt the upper income retirees! but those who depend on SS for a significant portion if their retiree income (if not all of it) would really suffer. As it is, we have people trying to get by on $1000 a month. (Even if ones house is paid off, that's quite a struggle.)

So what's your definition of upper income retirees? Have you checked actual contributions to social security v payouts? ie low income pay ins get a much better return. Payments have no basis in reality. Just like anyone earning more than 85k after retirement pays higher medicare. And that premium becomes huge with a top add on cost of more than 450/month per individual.

It's like earned income tax credit- just money legislated to go in or out.

Recently posted the above in italics. To Wharton Grad- benefits don't relate to pay-in . When you see what goes in and what comes out only simplistic language suffices. Economics? Finance? really based on strokes of a pen and votes.

F off, you and your buddy are ignorant blowhards. It's hard to even understand what you just wrote.

Signed, Wharton grad

[Anonymous]

PS, I should have learned from the last time I stepped into the Political Forum. I was surrounded by some thoughtful people who were drowned out by the obnoxious extreme right wingers who had opinions on things they didn't have a clue about. Like Econ and Finance and Social Security, for example. Tell them they're wrong and they just call you names and repeat the same stupid points over and over.

Outta here, this is a waste of my time

Signed, Wharton grad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the hell are you ranting about? I've only made two posts in this thread and you quoted both of them. Nice job ranting at me for things I didn't post.

1. Population aging is a filunction of low population growth. The poster I was responding to was clearly suggesting that population growth in absolute terms created the SS mess, not that lack of population growth created the mess.

2. Let me get this straight: That SS will continue to pay out 75% of benefits is a positive? The program will cost five (perhaps six) times what it was originally projected to cost and will deliver only 75% of its benefits. Only a leftist would hold this out as a success or positive. That's a hell of a consolation prize.

3. You claim that SS is free of investment risk and will remain an inflation adjusted source of income. First, those are some pretty incredible claims to make in the same post in which you acknowledge that SS will soon only be capable of paying out 75% of its obligations. You're really arguing that a quasi-retirement program that needs ever escalating amounts of money confiscated through state power and that continuously faces near term shortfalls is free of investment risk? Second, SS is only free of investment risk and a good guard against inflation if you assume the federal government is incapable of default and if you believe that the dollar will remain a reserve currency forever. I wouldn't bet a mortgage payment on either of those assumptions, let alone 5-6% of the national GDP. Your claims are borderline irrational at this point.

4. The real problem is that the political left simply doesn't have the will to accurately price entitlements (e.g., Obamacare, nationalization of student loan program). As a result, entitlement programs virtually always cost more than originally projected and deliver fewer benefits than were originally promised. While myRAs are a decent concept in the abstract, what do you think is going to happen to short term economic growth when employees have fewer discretionary dollars to spend? Do you really believe hat state and federal governmwnts are going to be able to restrain themselves from trying to funnel myRAs toward government debt (increasing systemic risk in the process). Sure, in 30-40 years things should balance out if governments don't default in heir debts, but there will be short term pain.

5. SS will be significantly restructured at some point in time and some cohort of beneficiaries will feel significant financial pain from it. The only relevant questions are when will it happen and how bad will it hurt.

6. Your solution is to simply do the same thing that has been done for 75 years: throw more money at the problem through higher taxes and additionally reduce discretionary income through myRA plans. This time things will be different, right?

Oh FFS. Grow up and act like an adult, and argue like one.

Your uninformed ranting doesn't deserve a lengthy response.
1. If you can't understand the dependency ratio, I can't help you. However, you've basically admitted that I'm right about population aging, even if you tried to twist my argument around.
2. Social Security continues to keep 1/3 of older Americans out of poverty, and yes, that's a huge success. If you're one of those conservatives who thinks the elderly need to go back to living off cat food, again, I can't help you.
3. You're confusing investment risk with political risk--I was very careful to choose my terms but you obviously can't see the distinction. Again, I can't help you become smarter.
4. You're confusing Obama's myRAs with state autoIRA proposals, but these are two very different things. Also, you seem unaware that auto-IRA proposals would rely on private investment managers, so the state or federal governments involved would not handle the funds. Even if the government did handle the auto-IRA funds (which it won't), you also missed the post above about how government bonds as investments are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government and would take Congressional action to change--reading comprehension really doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

For the rest, yes I agree there will be restructuring. But even Trump doesn't think SS should go away completely. Trump has actually said that he wants to preserve Social Security in its present form, all of it. You're out of step with most of your conservative buddies. There's much more likelihood than you want to think that there will be a compromise that preserves a solid first tier benefit, and one that will help the poor in particular.

(And huh? You say I quoted both of your two posts, and so you're mad that I'm talking to you? Huh?)

1. If you wanted to suggest that the LACK of population growth was the problem you should have said that. Don't blame me for your poor writing.

2. Re: SS keeping aging Americans out of poverty being a success: almost any problem can be solved by throwing money at it. Here in reality land, we have finite resources and infinite needs. Hence, achieving an outcome is not enough to declare something a success or failure. In reality land, we have to choose how to allocate our resources efficiently. SS supporters have utterly failed for 75 years to efficiently allocate resources to this issue and we once again are talking about devoting even more resources to the problem. This time, things will turn out different right? That's what you really believe, right? That the problem is that it needs just a little bit more money through a combo of higher taxes and reduced benefits for certain segments of the population? I sort of admire you--a lesser person would be humbled by 75 years of failure. But not you.

3. Political risk IS investment risk, genius. Those of us who actually allocate capital for living generally refer to it as regulatory risk. Call it whatever you want, it IS rolled into the more encompassing concept of investment risk.

4. Distinctions between auto-IRAs and the myRA proposal notwithstanding, the full faith and credit of the US government is a function of the government's ability to pay its debts. That you think congressional action means anything with respect to the governments ability to pay its debts is completing missing the issue. Hint: if the money is not there, Congress' action or inaction is completely irrelevant.

Apetitie for political compromise and the wisdom of the policy changes flowing from such compromise are two entirely different issues. De Tocqueville diagnosed the limit of the American republic in 1835. That politicians on the left and right have a desire to kick the problem down the road through political compromise is not in and of itself an indication that preservation of SS is a good idea. And if not wanting my kids to have to bear the burden of bad policy decisions made today makes me a political outlier, so be it.

Go back and re-read your first paragraph at 7:45 last night. Except for three (now four) posts in this sub-conversation, I haven't posted in this thread. All of those topics you claimed you had to educate me on we're never raised by me that was a different poster and your ranting in that first paragraph had nothing to do with me even though you directed that screed at me.

Also, you rightky bring up the unfunded Bush wars as a problem with conservative governance. I don't defend the financing of Bush's wars. But it is worth noting that the total unfunded liability for that garbage was about $3.5T-4.0T. A staggering sum to say the least. Yet it pales in comparison to the $75T unfunded SS liability and even bigger unfunded MC liability. Conservatives should be humbled by Bush's mistakes. But, from an economic perspective, even given the longer time horizon, the unfunded liabilities arising out of SS and MC are much worse than Bush's unfunded wars. I guess massive finacial mistakes are only a problem when Republicans make the mistake, right? For liberals, it's only a reason to double down on what hasn't worked for 75 years.

All anybody can say is that Trump's right there with the liberals in terms of keeping SS in its present form. So you'd better not vote for him after all.

It does seem obvious now that you're a money manager who wants to get your hands on money from privatizing SS. So long as private accounts aren't subject to any restrictions on the fees you charge. In fact, ICI opposes the auto-IRA plans for that reason and some more reasons having, although they never state it outright, to do with limitations on how money managers could handle and charge fees for the accounts.

Also, where does the $75T figure come from? The 75-year unfunded liability is $11.5T and the infinite horizon unfunded liability is $35T (2016 Trustees p. 201). But even then--and this is key--you have to put that in the context of an economy that will also grow a lot over the next 75 years. It's not like we have to pay $11.5 trillion tomorrow out of today's economic resources. In fact, SS as a pct of GDP actually falls once the boomers start dying off. Infinite horizon quotes never seem to mention this fairly obvious point. Since you're complaining about the inability of forecasters to get things right, and championing your own stellar financial skills, I'm sure you know how very, very bogus it is to project SS out to infinity. That's like asking the founding fathers to project what SS, the population and the economy (all underlying assumptions) would look like in 2016. Most countries project their pension systems out 10-30 years.

Also, if you or someone else got that $75T figure by "forgetting" to discount to PV, as a financial whiz kid you should be ashamed to use it. I'll put my advanced Econ degree from a top university up against your BA in business any day.

Sorry about confusing you with the other rude, arrogant conservative.

You're insane. It's obvious that I'm a money manager that wants to get my hands on retirement accounts? I assure you nothing could be further from the truth. My only economic interest tied to retirement funds is my own retirement. And if we're comparing CVs, I'm more than happy to stack my law review/coif at a top law school against some Econ grad program. Let me guess, you're sitting on an M.A. in Econ, right?

As you can see from this thread, there are some people who just want the system to go away and don't want any compromises that would keep it working.

My problem is that the problem never gets solved and continued incremental escalation is necessary to "keep it working for a few more years." The reality is that the current version of the program would never get passed as stand alone legislation. But instead we continue to increase the burden on subsequent generations throwing good money after bad.

Reposting for formatting, just so you get the point.

A$$. Too many ultra right conservatives are like you: blustery and rude. And unwilling to admit when you're wrong even if somebody called you out as being totally wrong. Multiple times you got called out as being totally wrong.

Signed, Wharton grad

Let me get this straight: PP declares me to be some self-interested greedy person because it simply is not possible in PP's mind that my position is held in good faith. This all comes after PP rants at me because she confused me with another poster. PP then proceeds to play the credentials game with me while trying to talk down to me and I'm the ass? I'm blustery and rude? Nah, if this conversation went into the gutter it's because that's where PP wanted it to go. Don't blame me for defending myself in kind.

[Anonymous]

When you write things like "those of us who actually allocate capital for a living generally refer to it as investment risk" you can kinda see how people think you're a money manager.

You do also start every.single.post of yours with an attack on someone else's intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I would stop the ability to claim SS if you've never paid in.

Who gets SS if they don't pay in? I thought you had to have 40 quarters of earning, and the benefit is figured in your top 35 years.

DH grandma got SS for decades after her husband died. She never worked a job a day in her life. I'm certain she was not a citizen but drew a check for almost 50 years.

50 years? Did she live to be 110?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I would stop the ability to claim SS if you've never paid in.

Who gets SS if they don't pay in? I thought you had to have 40 quarters of earning, and the benefit is figured in your top 35 years.

DH grandma got SS for decades after her husband died. She never worked a job a day in her life. I'm certain she was not a citizen but drew a check for almost 50 years.

50 years? Did she live to be 110?

The spouse and survivor benefits are based on your spouse's work. You don't have to have worked yourself and it looks like you don't have to be a citizen, although I'm not sure about that. If he died when she was 35, 40, 50, and she didn't remarry, they'd pay her benefits.

Social Security was created in the 1930s when the typical family had a working dad and a non-working mom. It may be time to revisit that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I would stop the ability to claim SS if you've never paid in.

Who gets SS if they don't pay in? I thought you had to have 40 quarters of earning, and the benefit is figured in your top 35 years.

DH grandma got SS for decades after her husband died. She never worked a job a day in her life. I'm certain she was not a citizen but drew a check for almost 50 years.

50 years? Did she live to be 110?

The spouse and survivor benefits are based on your spouse's work. You don't have to have worked yourself and it looks like you don't have to be a citizen, although I'm not sure about that. If he died when she was 35, 40, 50, and she didn't remarry, they'd pay her benefits.

Social Security was created in the 1930s when the typical family had a working dad and a non-working mom. It may be time to revisit that.

I understand the way it works. And if 'grandma' was young when grandpa died she drew only until the youngest child hit 16 ( http://fsrcpa.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Social-Security-Blackout-Period.pdf ) and she would go through a blackout if the child hit that age before she hit the 60's.

That said, my great grandmother drew for 32 years after her husband died but she lived to a 100. She was not representative of the norm however.