iamshack

QUOTE (Joxer_Daly @ Feb 7, 2013 -> 01:51 PM) True. Although, given that the guy got freaked out by a few harmless religious icons, I don't think he'll be into getting pumped off his missus!!! People into santeria do animal sacrifice and what not...I don't think it was a few harmless icons...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 7, 2013 -> 11:08 AM) And really this argument just comes down to SS/Balta wanting people with lower incomes to live the lifestyles of those with higher incomes. I'd like a definition for "modest retirement" because I have a feeling everyone would view that differently. "Bob and Sue Banker get to take a country wide trip in their RV during retirement. NOT FAIR. Everyone should be able to do that. RV's for everyone!" Also, that SS Plus plan talks about cutting the deduction for employee retirement plans. That's just screwing the middle class with employers that provide matches to employee plans. Employers would stop offering them, and people would have even less savings/retirement income and become even more dependent on SS. And in 20 years you'll argue that SS Plus isn't enough to provide a "modest retirement" and we're back to square one. (I am 100% behind the idea of taxing the wealthy more, however) Why don't we START with the idea that everyone is responsible for themselves? If NEED be, society can help out those that have experienced a rough life. I read that to be talking more about the pension funds some companies have, not the 401k matching programs, but I could be wrong.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Feb 7, 2013 -> 10:30 AM) I might not have to worry about it if she decides I'm a piece of s*** and wants to leave me. She's not vindictive like that although I should probably try to do something really nice due to my gaffe. Any suggestions gentlemen? I dunno...if you do anything too nice you look like you're trying to make up for the s*** you just did...which may not be what she wants to think about on Valentine's Day... Maybe have her over at your place and make dinner or something low-key like that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 7, 2013 -> 09:02 AM) SS isn't a personal savings account managed by the government. The payroll taxes you pay every two weeks (or w/e) turn around and go right back out to current benefits recipients. If you wanted to privatize the system as personal savings accounts in a for-profit bank for some reason (where it'd be public risk backing up the accounts), you'd be fundamentally changing the system and would need some way to cover current beneficiaries. You'd also need those accounts to have a mandatory COL interest rate and not the 0.1% you'd get now in a typical savings account. It's not only about lower-income people who can't save enough because they don't have much if any discretionary income after living expenses. It's also that, with any investment, there are going to be winners and losers. People who did save and invest but still didn't end up with all that much, like those who have managed to sack away and average of $120k by retirement, are still going to be living a pretty meager retirement. Or people who lost most of their retirement accounts when the companies they worked for went under. As a society, we have more than enough wealth for this to not be the case, to provide for a modest retirement for every American. If we want to increase SS benefits, it'd mean increasing payroll taxes in one form or another, which means you'd have slightly less discretionary income to invest as you see fit, but you'd also see higher SS benefits yourself as well. The current payroll tax, which is capped at ~$105k and applies only to wage income, is a regressive tax anyway. I think this article from The Atlantic does a much better job of explaining the case than I ever could: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...uble-it/266095/ This is really the core of the philosophy: I'm not trying to argue the technical nuances of how the money is handled so much as the fact that there is just as much risk involved in having the government manage a social retirement program versus having individuals save the money in the same type of conservative methods themselves. Now this discussion started off with you and Balta framing this issue as one in which we couldn't trust the banks or Wall Street or anyone in the financial arena because of the recent economic collapse. Now you're seemingly shifting the debate to it being an issue of the wealthy needing to contribute more to the Nation's social retirement piggy bank to assure that the lower income folks are able to count on at the very least, a modest retirement. I don't necessarily have an issue with that. What I do have an issue with is labeling the entire private financial sector as broken or corrupt because of what happened with the whole housing bubble. We need to continue to invest in our markets, and this includes brokerage accounts for personal investing as well as 401k accounts and pensions. This is a significant part of our economy.

And my refund has arrived. Yay, Government!

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 7, 2013 -> 10:33 AM) LOL. Methinks the guilt wouldnt be there right now if it was good. And yes, it can be good. Really good He was just worried she was going to cast a spell on his junk and make it turn black and ooze green pus.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 08:27 PM) You'd need a lot more than $250k to retire at 65. The point I was making is that I don't see any significant difference between losing my money in a bank over the social security system going to s***. Even when banks fail, the gov't finds other banks to buy the failed banks, and you don't lose your money. Of course, Balta brings up the guy with more than $250k in the bank...as if this person isn't sophisticated enough to invest their money in other vehicles. However, if what you're ultimately saying is that we need to raise the social security tax because lower income folks are unable to save enough money, that is quite a different issue than saying should we increase the social security tax because private investment is too risky. I would be willing to chip in more to support lower income folks. However, I don't want to replace or reduce the ability I have to invest my own discretionary income because private investment is too risky.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 08:25 PM) Yes, essentially. would you accept a .5% increase if it meant 1 million more retirees would be able to have a modest retirement instead of a harsh one or none at all? I'm not sure...because what you're telling me is that it is darn near impossible to assure a modest retirement myself.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 08:07 PM) I don't know what you're talking about anymore. Everyone with wage income currently pays the regressive payroll tax. Their employers also pay this. If you want to increase benefits, you can do it without raising taxes on the $50k level. Eliminate the regressive cap is one way. It is nothing like a private savings account at a bank. Oh, so why should I subsidize the social security earmarked for others then? Essentially what you and Balta are arguing is that we increase the social security program, instead of allowing those with savings to invest it themselves, do so, correct? Ultimately, I am having more of my money taken from me so that I have less to invest on my own, and paying more so that others who earn less can have more money in retirement, correct?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 08:03 PM) You aren't a current beneficiary relying on that income is the difference, your money isn't being loaned out for private profit with public risk, and you have a guaranteed income for your eventual retirement. Ss benefits could be raised in a variety of ways that wouldn't affect the median income earner, such as raising the cap. But you told me this was money they could not afford to save...so how can they afford to have it taken out of their paycheck?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 07:50 PM) The federal government only insures what, $250k of bank deposits? Are we really worried about those who are exceeding this amount? Aren't they usually going to be sophisticated enough to find better investment vehicles? I thought this was about the guy who can't save any money?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 07:30 PM) Are you a sovereign nation that prints it's own currency and collects taxes? They're special treasuries created solely as somewhere to place the excess tax revenues. It's the government "investing" in its own treasuries, not sticking it in someone else's bank. I'm not disputing that...but if the monies are going to current beneficiaries or into special treasuries, what is the real difference between my money going there or into a bank, where it is federally insured by that same US Gov't? Additionally, if the problem is the person who makes $50k and cannot afford to save, how is taking more money out of that person's paycheck going to help them?

Why is this any different than just putting my own money into a savings account?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 07:05 PM) Not really. They are SS treasuries that can't be sold. They exist solely to hold the intentional overpayments to the system since the 1980's reform in anticipation of payroll tax shortfalls as the baby boomers retire. Remember Gore's "lockbox"? http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds. In the past, the trust funds have held marketable Treasury securities, which are available to the general public. Unlike marketable securities, special issues can be redeemed at any time at face value. Marketable securities are subject to the forces of the open market and may suffer a loss, or enjoy a gain, if sold before maturity. Investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding cash. Data on trust fund investments provide a breakdown by interest rate and trust fund for any month after 1989. As stated above, money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary. Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government. Seems like they are investments to me...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 06:54 PM) A way of storing the small overpayments that were generated by the system deliberately to prepare for the baby boom. They're not investments?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 06:43 PM) It's not really an investment, it doesn't have a rate-of-return. And what are special treasuries?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 05:57 PM) Social Security and Medicare, both of which have substantially lower overhead than their private-sector counterparts. They have a lower administration % perhaps, but how is that money invested? Where does it go? Does it just sit in an account somewhere?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 05:51 PM) Who will administer this program? The Social Security Administration. Increased SS benefits wouldn't be farmed out to wall street, much as they'd love to start siphoning off of that money. Also not sure you've followed what I've said about guns. My post was obviously in jest. That being said, which massive government programs are run particularly well?

What you both are saying is that the only way people are capable of saving or will bother to save is if it is a mandated government program which removes the money from their paychecks prior to them getting it. And who will administer this program? The government? And who will they farm it out to? Oh yeah, the folks that currently run the 401k systems, who you both are claiming have absolutely no clue what they are doing. What are your other options? Put it in a bank...oh wait, the bankers are all idiots and corrupted too! So you can store it under your mattress, right? Nope, because neither of you would allow anyone to have a gun!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 05:11 PM) Or, we could just recognize that switching to a 401K system has produced a lot of hardship for a lot of people and adjust our safety net somewhat in response. So we're expected to believe that you know all of the 401k systems flaws, and that those flaws are greater than any of it's advantages, and yet, you can't even pick a mutual fund out of your own plan?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 05:07 PM) So if I really, truly can't pick a mutual fund because I suck at it, should I be forced to have a s*** retirement or to pay exorbitant fees for someone else to hopefully do a better job at picking? I'm still not seeing any good reason for that to be the system beyond "well-off people can make some more money." It's not a net benefit for a majority of people. Well if you want to use that reasoning, we should eliminate all kinds of personal freedoms for the sake of the greater good.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 03:06 PM) Just don't drop your damn phone. I've never used a case on any of my phones, and I've yet to break one. Sure, they get dinged up a bit, maybe some micro scratches, but nothing serious...but taking that beautiful phone you just got and stuffing it into an ass ugly case makes me angry. And I don't care what case you got...in comparison to that phone, it's ugly. I didn't mind the glass backing of my older iPhones, either...and I wouldn't mind it on that Nexus...it's just something that doesn't bother me. I view phones as delicate electronics, sometimes beautiful ones. I don't go around dropping portable hard drives, watches, or any other semi delicate products, either...I don't know how people break their s*** so much (but they do)...just be careful with it, damn it. Also, keep in mind most people replace their phones every 1-2 years anyway, so who cares if it gets some dings, dents, or micro scratches...nobody can notice that but you, the user of the phone. It's like being bothered that the underside of your cars bumper got scratched...nobody can see it anyway...so who cares. I agree...I have never bought a case either...it is a delicate piece of electronics, but it's not a family heirloom either. You're going to replace it in 2-3 years anyways.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 04:59 PM) No, it really isn't. He's asking why we should make tax expenditures to subsidize 401k's and IRA's instead of just providing better SS benefits with that same money. Well, apparently neither of you can choose a mutual fund, but you have all the answers to every societal ill. I don't f***ing know...probably because the government wants to simultaneously allow individuals to have control over more of their own money while providing incentives for them to save more of it?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 03:52 PM) Yeah, but I think we can assume, based on your success and background, that you're a pretty intelligent guy. Certainly above-average. What about the majority who isn't as smart or doesn't have innate investing and risk-management understanding? Well I suppose the world is rapidly evolving into a place where the people that are the most intelligent, with access to the most education and information certainly have an advantage. Those people will tend to fare the best. And if the electrical grid ever gets taken out like in Revolution, I will be f***ed.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 03:54 PM) 401(k)'s and IRA's are tax-advantaged plans. I understand that...but all kinds of s*** is...why does my income have to subsidize the roads Balta uses, the food he eats, the schools his offspring might go to in the future? I mean come on, that is a ridiculous statement.