The George Bush Lock Box Thread

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by tw

That viewing stand with all its security costs about the same amount sent to how many millions of Tsunami victims?

YYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNN...

The first thing the people need are food/water/medicine, help burying the deceased and credit. Having a C-130 full of $100 bills there the next day doesn't accomplish a damn thing. The rest of the planet couldn't carry our jock strap when it comes to international aid and that includes aid granted under Bush so take a break from re-counting Ohio ballots and chill.

[Undertoad]

The perspective is correct: if we are going to say the US Gov is responsible for saving and protecting the entire fucking earth, then it is not that long a stretch to want to throw a big party when we elect one into office.

[Happy Monkey]

Anyone see The Daily Show last night? Bush had some interesting quotes on privatizing Social Security:

A personal savings account which will compound over time, and grow over time. A personal savings account which can't be used to bet on the lottery or, ya know, a dice game.

Ya know, like poor people do.

Instead, we'll let 'em move some of their social security, currrently in treasury bonds, into the stock market, and tell them not to retire in a down year.

And secondly the interesting there's a there's a, you know, African American males die sooner than other males do, which means the system is inherently unfair to a certain group of people. [turns to an African American male who has been seated next to him, who makes a startled looking noncommittal nonverbal response] And, that needs to be fixed!

I've got no witty response for that one.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Instead, we'll let 'em move some of their social security, currrently in treasury bonds, into the stock market, and tell them not to retire in a down year.

The social security fund is heavily invested in T-Bills and returns a paltry 2-3% annually. The stock market returns, on average, 11-12% per year (which includes down years, btw).

So, here is a chart of the two alternatives: A person who has $10,000 in his or her SS acct at age 30. Look what happens to that 10k (with NO additional money contributed) by the time the person is 65. Even if the stock market took a plunge in any of the last ten years the stock market option still kicks the living crap out of the paltry T-Bill return that SS gets.

I will say, however, that the stock option is only good for people with at least 20 years ahead of them. That is more than long enough to substantially increase the odds of actually achieving a return close to the historical average.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Beestie

The social security fund is heavily invested in T-Bills and returns a paltry 2-3% annually. The stock market returns, on average, 11-12% per year (which includes down years, btw).

That's average. If everyone in the US made the average salary, we would need no safety net. Whats the comparison of the minimum return for an individual in T-bills and stocks? That's what Social Security is for - a guaranteed minimum to live on.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Also, I would not discount the effects on a 15% tax on employment wages on the chances that a young black male will be violently killed.

Someone who dies young doesn't contribute much to Social Security in the first place. Once one reaches retirement age, I'd guess that most of the death-age discrepancy is more aligned to prosperity than race.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That's average. If everyone in the US made the average salary, we would need no safety net. Whats the comparison of the minimum return for an individual in T-bills and stocks? That's what Social Security is for - a guaranteed minimum to live on.

That argument is completely devoid of logic. No one earns exactly the "average" salary of all wage earners. But everyone who invests in the stock market earns the average return over the long run and that average return is remarkably stable. Why should I be penalized because you are terrified of the stock market. I can turn 10k into 450k while your 10k turns into 21k. But, in your world, I am prohibited because "its not fair to you." How so?? How does what I do with my money affect what you do with yours?

Also, please provide a scenario where a long term investment in T-Bills has outperformed the same investment in the stock market over a 35-year span.

And as for your point that SS provides a minimum amount to live on, let's see you do it. SS income is inadaquate - that's the reason alternatives are being proposed. And the whole basis of the SS system is that there be enough people paying into the system to cover those drawing from the system. That requirement is about to go out the window when the retiring baby boomers outnumber wage earners by a substantial margin. Prepare for even more cuts in benefits or, allow me to take more risk than you are willing to take to and earn (historically speaking) five times more than you and I'll help cover your deficit. If you do nothing, the system will not survive. What's your alternative solution?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Beestie

But everyone who invests in the stock market earns the average return over the long run and that average return is remarkably stable.

No they do not, as you admit later on:

Prepare for even more cuts in benefits or, allow me to take more risk than you are willing to take to and earn (historically speaking) five times more than you

What risk are you speaking of, if everyone earns the average? The fact is, people can and do lose their life savings on the market. Every fund is not a winner.

and I'll help cover your deficit.

That's not how it works, unless that's a personal promise from you to me, in which case it hardly solves the greater problem.

If you do nothing, the system will not survive. What's your alternative solution?

If we do nothing, the benefits eventually fall to 80% of the current levels, (adjusted for inflation). The simplest fix is to adjust the maximum taxable earnings based on the needs of the system.

[Undertoad]

Whites live longer than blacks and women live longer than men. The average life expectancy of a black male (about 66 I think?) ensures they will spend a lifetime paying into the system they can't afford, and then die before they collect anything. It's one of the regressive aspects of the system.

[Clodfobble]

Bah--I bet that statistic includes all the 16- to 25-year-old black males who die violently. What's the average life expectancy of a black male who's already made it to, say, 50?

[Undertoad]

They don't produce that number as far as I can tell. They do produce the number for people who've made 65. White females age 65 can expect to live 19.5 more years. Black males can expect to live 14.6 more years. (White males, 16.6 more years; black females, 18.0 more years.)

Also, I would not discount the effects on a 15% tax on employment wages on the chances that a young black male will be violently killed.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

They don't produce that number as far as I can tell.

actually it is all charted to the greatest detail by insurance industry. that is how they determine life insurance rates. i believe they are called the actuarial tables.

[Clodfobble]

That requirement is about to go out the window when the retiring baby boomers outnumber wage earners by a substantial margin.

Tiny nitpick--the baby boomer retirees won't specifically outnumber workers. The coming crisis is because the baby-boomers will reduce the worker-to-retiree ratio to 3-to-1 (whereas when the system was started the ratio was 16-to-1.) Still a crisis in financial terms, though, and I agree with everything else you've said.

[Happy Monkey]

Of course. It is currently a regressive tax, because we can afford to make it so. It can start to approach a flat tax, if needed. The majority of taxpayers would see no difference, as the rate would remain constant.

[lookout123]

if you raise a tax, someone will see the difference. break down the details on how you see this working, and why it would be better.

[Happy Monkey]

There are no extra details compared to the current system. One number gets raised in the formula. People who are above the current maximum will pay the tax on the difference, and receive the resulting increase in benefits after retiring.