So, in other words, you think Americans are idiots.
No, not in other words. In your own words, you think Americans are idiots.
Also, here's a hint for you. Americans NEVER saved enough for retirement, even before there was any such thing as Social Security.
When I was a child (well, under 30, anyway) I thought exactly like you do on this topic. Forget Social Security! Just give me the money - I'll invest it as I choose and be much, MUCH better off. And that would have been true. I would have invested it well and been much better off.
The problem is that most Americans wouldn't. And then we'd be back to letting millions of seniors starve because they were not wise enough to save earlier in life . . . or bailing them out using taxpayer funds.
Here's another hint for you. Look up what happened to the poverty rate of senior citizens prior to the advent of Social Security and after Social Security came into effect.
That's like saying we need to give food stamps to everyone because only SOME people need them.
1) there are now more americans working full time than ever before
2) the labor force participation rate for the key 18-64 demographic is now back to where it was before the pandemic. The overall number is lower because of the steady aging of the nation.
whenever you read about labor statistics, beware the effect of the aging of americ. until the population stops aging like this, there is a permanent headwind to jobs/labor. We are dropping out millions of workers because of aging and not replacing them at the young end.
So when you hear 'biden economy labor problems' just translate it to 'aging of america is skewing the statistics'
Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin was hammered on social media for giving a defense of the economy under President Joe Biden in her newest column. Rubin argued in her column that if inflation were not a factor that Bid...
lefties love to complain about 'wealth inequality'
but a two-earner family has an inflation-adjusting, risk-free annuity worth maybe $2 million.
A one-earner family has a risk-free annuity worth maybe $1 million.
Add the value of that annuity to households' income...and that 'wealth inequality' shrinks by a massive, massive amount.
Think of every US house you drive by as having a million-dollar annuity..it changes the way you look at the wealth of the nation.
but lefties can't use that argument because they are too invested in a 'wealth inequality' view of America. Righties hate SS because it is a successful gummint program. So no one makes that argument. But it's a good one.
1) there are now more americans working full time than ever before
2) the labor force participation rate for the key 18-64 demographic is now back to where it was before the pandemic. The overall number is lower because of the steady aging of the nation.
whenever you read about labor statistics, beware the effect of the aging of americ. until the population stops aging like this, there is a permanent headwind to jobs/labor. We are dropping out millions of workers because of aging and not replacing them at the young end.
So when you hear 'biden economy labor problems' just translate it to 'aging of america is skewing the statistics'
when inflation slows down as it will you'll just find another thing to complain about.
fact is, there's a job for everyone, wages are rising quickly, houses are worth a lot more than last year, stock market is at near all time highs, covid is falling away, GDP grew almost 6% last year and until the Rs decided to toss children back into poverty, child poverty was down a massive amount.
that's a boom.
inflation is bad but it's just one factor. And if you don't buy cars or fly or drive a lot and you live on a coast...inflation is a nothingburger. And that's a lot of people.
when inflation slows down as it will you'll just find another thing to complain about.
fact is, there's a job for everyone, wages are rising quickly, houses are worth a lot more than last year, stock market is at near all time highs, covid is falling away, GDP grew almost 6% last year and until the Rs decided to toss children back into poverty, child poverty was down a massive amount.
that's a boom.
inflation is bad but it's just one factor. And if you don't buy cars or fly or drive a lot and you live on a coast...inflation is a nothingburger. And that's a lot of people.
If the economy was truly booming, then your party would be winning elections nationwide and expanding their power. This is clearly not the case.
So, continue living with your delusion and watch your party get decimated for the next two years.
Here's a polite hint for you and agip and others: You would fail to persuade "adult" and a few others on this thread that the sky is blue if their tribe said that it was red. Do you REALLY think that you're going to persuade them about something AT ALL more complicated than that?
Trolliminator (sp???) is mostly correct. They deserve nothing but derision. And probably not even that.
eh its fun playing with libertarians. watching them struggle to maintain their perfect libertarian theory as the evidence for it collapses all around them is fun,
it's like watching people who were 'hard left' in their college years get a job and a mortgage and see how some people just don't want to work and then they lefty people become less lefty.
when inflation slows down as it will you'll just find another thing to complain about.
fact is, there's a job for everyone, wages are rising quickly, houses are worth a lot more than last year, stock market is at near all time highs, covid is falling away, GDP grew almost 6% last year and until the Rs decided to toss children back into poverty, child poverty was down a massive amount.
that's a boom.
inflation is bad but it's just one factor. And if you don't buy cars or fly or drive a lot and you live on a coast...inflation is a nothingburger. And that's a lot of people.
If the economy was truly booming, then your party would be winning elections nationwide and expanding their power. This is clearly not the case.
So, continue living with your delusion and watch your party get decimated for the next two years.
remember that the AOC/bernie types are in that 'not approve/disapprove' group and they certainly won't vote for the sedition/ask putin for personal favors/openly racist party. So you have to be careful here. in the same way, if romney were president, the deplorables would 'disapprove' of him and he'd have the same 41% approval. But the deplorables would still vote for romney in the end.
with the current setup, no president will get over 55% approval...we're too splintered up.
Go watch the video of the hand in combat that happened in the tunnel, the tunnel that the President Elect walks out, as he goes to take the oath of office, go watch that video. "Go watch as Capitol Police Officers fought in that bloody battle,as police officers were dragged out of this building, as police officers were crushed, while former president Donald Trump sat in the dining room next to the Oval Office watching television.
(And to her GOP colleagues who are trying to wash away that day:) "So, don't think that you can whitewash this and think that you can maintain your character and your honor and duty."
lefties love to complain about 'wealth inequality'
but a two-earner family has an inflation-adjusting, risk-free annuity worth maybe $2 million.
A one-earner family has a risk-free annuity worth maybe $1 million.
Add the value of that annuity to households' income...and that 'wealth inequality' shrinks by a massive, massive amount.
Think of every US house you drive by as having a million-dollar annuity..it changes the way you look at the wealth of the nation.
but lefties can't use that argument because they are too invested in a 'wealth inequality' view of America. Righties hate SS because it is a successful gummint program. So no one makes that argument. But it's a good one.
Where are you getting that $1 million figure?
Does it take into account how much you had to pay into Social Security all those years or is that only the average payout?
Wealthy people pay a lot less in social security tax than the poor (as a percent of income).
The average social security check at age 67 is around $1,500. Somewhere between 12 and 40% of Americans rely solely on Social Security in retirement. You argue that the kid washing lettuce at Wendy's should make at least $2,600 a month but you think $1,500 is a great deal for retirees?
If the "forced savings" was done intelligently that $1,500 check would be much much larger.
OASDI is 7.65% If you make $50,000 you pay $3,825 a year in Social Security tax. Over a 40 year career that is $153,000. If you put that same $3,825 into an index fund after 40 years you'd have over $1.1 million.
If the government didn't suck at everything it did there would be no poverty in retirement
forcing people to invest in the stock market is a complete mess. What happens if the US is like Japan and the market is lower than a peak for 30 years? or like Europe, where stocks have gone nowhere for 15 years? That might happen here when we go to population shrinkage as we are starting to. And of course we've had long long periods in the US where stocks do nothing or go down. People would be destitute.
And do you give people the right to sell early? they'd panic sell all the time. What about the poor people who retire into a bear market and lose half their money?
libertarians are just simpletons. they love theory and think people will choose correctly if given the option. You'd think they'd see enough really bad decision making by the time they are adults to make them leave libertarianism but sometimes the theory is just too pretty.
Anyway, SS is not perfect but it guarantees to keep elderly out of hunger and poverty. A risk free inflation-adjusted annuity is a good thing that benefits us all. A two-income family has a risk free annuity worth between 1-2 million dollars. Pretty good.
You don't have any idea how social security works. You don't have any idea how investing works. Yet you've formed opinions on both... LOL!
Social security is broken. Pretending it's great isn't a solution. Anyone retiring after 2034 will only get 78% of their benefits and it only gets worse after that.
Stocks have ALWAYS gone up in the long run. The worst 30 year run in stock market history was 1965-1994. It still averaged 4% returns every year which beats anything SS has been doing. As you approach retirement age the investments get more conservative.
I didn't propose a comprehensive plan I proposed the most basic change imaginable and it would STILL produce better results than the existing system which is broken.
If you think libertarians are simpletons you should take a look at what the Democrats have been up to for the last 200 years...
Social Security is LITERALLY poverty if it's all you have.
when inflation slows down as it will you'll just find another thing to complain about.
fact is, there's a job for everyone, wages are rising quickly, houses are worth a lot more than last year, stock market is at near all time highs, covid is falling away, GDP grew almost 6% last year and until the Rs decided to toss children back into poverty, child poverty was down a massive amount.
that's a boom.
inflation is bad but it's just one factor. And if you don't buy cars or fly or drive a lot and you live on a coast...inflation is a nothingburger. And that's a lot of people.
If the economy was truly booming, then your party would be winning elections nationwide and expanding their power. This is clearly not the case.
So, continue living with your delusion and watch your party get decimated for the next two years.
Your problem is that you only care about perception and not reality. Every argument you make is, "But the polls say....".
It's not just about winning the next election. It's about actually improving the lives of Americans.
lefties love to complain about 'wealth inequality'
but a two-earner family has an inflation-adjusting, risk-free annuity worth maybe $2 million.
A one-earner family has a risk-free annuity worth maybe $1 million.
Add the value of that annuity to households' income...and that 'wealth inequality' shrinks by a massive, massive amount.
Think of every US house you drive by as having a million-dollar annuity..it changes the way you look at the wealth of the nation.
but lefties can't use that argument because they are too invested in a 'wealth inequality' view of America. Righties hate SS because it is a successful gummint program. So no one makes that argument. But it's a good one.
Where are you getting that $1 million figure?
Does it take into account how much you had to pay into Social Security all those years or is that only the average payout?
Wealthy people pay a lot less in social security tax than the poor (as a percent of income).
He either made it up or he read an article a moron wrote and didn't realize the author was a moron...
The average retirement benefit check from social security is $1500 assuming you wait until age 67 to get full benefits.
For that $1500 check to be worth $1,000,000 you'd need to live to be about 122 years old.
When SS was created there were over 30 workers paying in for every person receiving benefits. Most Americans didn't even live long enough to reach retirement age. Average life expectancy in 1935 was 60 years.
Now we have less than 3 workers paying into the system for every person receiving benefits. People live to be 78/79 and can retire at 67.
The system is BROKEN. It is untenable can't be fixed without jacking up the tax a huge amount or drastically reducing the benefits.
forcing people to invest in the stock market is a complete mess. What happens if the US is like Japan and the market is lower than a peak for 30 years? or like Europe, where stocks have gone nowhere for 15 years? That might happen here when we go to population shrinkage as we are starting to. And of course we've had long long periods in the US where stocks do nothing or go down. People would be destitute.
And do you give people the right to sell early? they'd panic sell all the time. What about the poor people who retire into a bear market and lose half their money?
libertarians are just simpletons. they love theory and think people will choose correctly if given the option. You'd think they'd see enough really bad decision making by the time they are adults to make them leave libertarianism but sometimes the theory is just too pretty.
Anyway, SS is not perfect but it guarantees to keep elderly out of hunger and poverty. A risk free inflation-adjusted annuity is a good thing that benefits us all. A two-income family has a risk free annuity worth between 1-2 million dollars. Pretty good.
You don't have any idea how social security works. You don't have any idea how investing works. Yet you've formed opinions on both... LOL!
Social security is broken. Pretending it's great isn't a solution. Anyone retiring after 2034 will only get 78% of their benefits and it only gets worse after that.
Stocks have ALWAYS gone up in the long run. The worst 30 year run in stock market history was 1965-1994. It still averaged 4% returns every year which beats anything SS has been doing. As you approach retirement age the investments get more conservative.
I didn't propose a comprehensive plan I proposed the most basic change imaginable and it would STILL produce better results than the existing system which is broken.
If you think libertarians are simpletons you should take a look at what the Democrats have been up to for the last 200 years...
Social Security is LITERALLY poverty if it's all you have.
So what would you do instead of SS? How would your plan work?
lefties love to complain about 'wealth inequality'
but a two-earner family has an inflation-adjusting, risk-free annuity worth maybe $2 million.
A one-earner family has a risk-free annuity worth maybe $1 million.
Add the value of that annuity to households' income...and that 'wealth inequality' shrinks by a massive, massive amount.
Think of every US house you drive by as having a million-dollar annuity..it changes the way you look at the wealth of the nation.
but lefties can't use that argument because they are too invested in a 'wealth inequality' view of America. Righties hate SS because it is a successful gummint program. So no one makes that argument. But it's a good one.
People with higher income tend to live longer. So they get to receive more of what they paid into.
lefties love to complain about 'wealth inequality'
but a two-earner family has an inflation-adjusting, risk-free annuity worth maybe $2 million.
A one-earner family has a risk-free annuity worth maybe $1 million.
Add the value of that annuity to households' income...and that 'wealth inequality' shrinks by a massive, massive amount.
Think of every US house you drive by as having a million-dollar annuity..it changes the way you look at the wealth of the nation.
but lefties can't use that argument because they are too invested in a 'wealth inequality' view of America. Righties hate SS because it is a successful gummint program. So no one makes that argument. But it's a good one.
Where are you getting that $1 million figure?
Does it take into account how much you had to pay into Social Security all those years or is that only the average payout?
Wealthy people pay a lot less in social security tax than the poor (as a percent of income).
Ack, I did make a mistake - my memory was the $1m figure but that's for a two-income household not a 1-income household.
rationale:
An average SS check is $1658, or $20,000 per year.
To get that same inflation-adjusted, risk-free amount from an annuity in the private market, you'd have to pay around $500,000 up front.
So a single-worker household has an average SS 'value' of $500,000 and a two-income house has an average SS value of around $1 million.
Of course, a third of American households make over $100,000/year so their SS checks will be much more than $1658, and closer to my original post.
So as you drive around an average neighborhood imagine every house having an annuity worth $500k-$1mn. A middle class neighborhood has far more than that.
That does change the calculus of wealth inequality a lot.
You don't have any idea how social security works. You don't have any idea how investing works. Yet you've formed opinions on both... LOL!
Social security is broken. Pretending it's great isn't a solution. Anyone retiring after 2034 will only get 78% of their benefits and it only gets worse after that.
Stocks have ALWAYS gone up in the long run. The worst 30 year run in stock market history was 1965-1994. It still averaged 4% returns every year which beats anything SS has been doing. As you approach retirement age the investments get more conservative.
I didn't propose a comprehensive plan I proposed the most basic change imaginable and it would STILL produce better results than the existing system which is broken.
If you think libertarians are simpletons you should take a look at what the Democrats have been up to for the last 200 years...
Social Security is LITERALLY poverty if it's all you have.
So what would you do instead of SS? How would your plan work?
I don't have a plan typed up waiting to send over to Nancy....
But the stock market is the answer. There are ways you could structure it to do everything social security does with greater returns and even generate more money for other things.
You could leave everything Social Security does completely intact and just change the way the money is invested.
