Just normal American Utopia...

[Archy1221]

18 minutes ago, deedsker said:

And that is why the program was needed in the first place.

But you are both stating a scenario I never talked about.  Why is it that SS is automatically taken out, but a replacement option wouldn’t be?  

[Archy1221]

4 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

So you still wouldn't let me get to my own hard-earned money and spend it as I see fit?  

Are you allowed to get to your hard earned money and spend it as you see fit in the current SS system? 

[Guy Chamberlin]

11 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Are you allowed to get to your hard earned money and spend it as you see fit in the current SS system? 

 

That was my point, chief. I thought you were promising to fix that. 

[Archy1221]

35 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

That was my point, chief. I thought you were promising to fix that. 

That’s a pretty strange point chief since I never promised to fix allowing people to have access to not invest the 12.4% of hard earned money.   In fact chief, I said a few times that the money would be taken in the same way SS is currently and instead of SS not in addition to.  It would be put into funds, not individual stocks, and not allowed for withdrawal until retirement age. 

[ZRod]

Are we just going to ignore the survivor, disability, and unemployment benefits of SS? How would you invest that money you're not making if you're one of those beneficiaries?

 

It's an odd conversation when you're pushing to turn a benefits program born out of the great depression into an investment program... Only 15 years removed from the great recession, and a couple years on from a huge market crash.

[Guy Chamberlin]

11 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

That’s a pretty strange point chief since I never promised to fix allowing people to have access to not invest the 12.4% of hard earned money.   In fact chief, I said a few times that the money would be taken in the same way SS is currently and instead of SS not in addition to.  It would be put into funds, not individual stocks, and not allowed for withdrawal until retirement age. 

 

I'll try this again, but with fewer words.

 

Are you taking the money people are currently required to put into Social Security, and requiring them to put it into a different fund operated by someone else? 

[Lorewarn]

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I'll try this again, but with fewer words.

 

Are you taking the money people are currently required to put into Social Security, and requiring them to put it into a different fund operated by someone else? 

I’ll try answering with fewer words….yes

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

Only 15 years removed from the great recession, and a couple years on from a huge market crash.

Well, the indexed return since 2007 has been 9.2% per year.  That Good???  It includes a Great Recession and a huge market crash.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

35 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I’ll try answering with fewer words….yes

 

I could have sworn that a mere three hours ago you were concerned that people didn't have a choice.

 

I am open-minded that there could be newly calibrated financial instruments that would maximize the massive influx of America's nest egg while maintaining an eye on safety and reliable returns. I'm also mindful that you might turn to one of the most respected private 401K managers in the country, a former head of NASDAQ with every endorsement you could want to lead the transition, and by the time you find out he's Bernie Madoff, it's too late.  

[BigRedBuster]

40 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Well, the indexed return since 2007 has been 9.2% per year.  That Good???  It includes a Great Recession and a huge market crash.  

No way.  11 of those years have been Democrats in office.  Those all had to be at least 20% down every year.

[Archy1221]

23 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

No way.  11 of those years have been Democrats in office.  Those all had to be at least 20% down every year.

Not that I’m aware of.   Possible you have more info than the rest of society however. 

[Archy1221]

30 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I could have sworn that a mere three hours ago you were concerned that people didn't have a choice

Maybe you could copy and paste the words you are talking about.   My concerns have always centered around the return on the money put in and if there is a better option.  But certainly correct me by posting something different. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

5 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I’m saying that it’s not a choice similar to SS tax not being a choice.  

 

Ah. Maybe you're saying that you're okay with the lack of choice (about the withholding itself) but you'd prefer the lack of choice be shared (or fully operated) by private investment entities. 

[deedsker]

6 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

But you are both stating a scenario I never talked about.  Why is it that SS is automatically taken out, but a replacement option wouldn’t be?  

Don't know about replacements. I am fine with SS as is and wish the funds couldn't be appropriated by other functions of government so as to avoid fake funding issues. Without extra blockades, the program is quite remarkable.