Reply With Quote
what are you talking about? you're referring to the fly by night con men, not the licensed ones. those guys make money if you do, it is in their best interest for them to create a winning portfolio for you...
Yes, we've heard of them. Unfortunately, all too many of them are good at stealing your money. No, not the large majority, but still too many.
what are you talking about? you're referring to the fly by night con men, not the licensed ones. those guys make money if you do, it is in their best interest for them to create a winning portfolio for you...
What do you think the federal government is doing with your Social Security contributions now?
Please, please, don't tell me you think Uncle Sam knows better how to invest for your retirement than do you.
, investing 100% of your contribution in T-bills would be better than the screwing you're getting now. At least they're guaranteed.
Enron
Pretty much. Turning it into more of a pure transfer program makes a lot more sense than the current system of taxing young minimum wage workers at ever increasing rates to pay benefits to wealthy retirees. Also that should keep payroll tax rates where they are if not actually allow for a decrease in those rates.
Forget about private accounts within SS, I don't want to be stuck with a limited number of ty child proof investments offered by a limited number of fund companies who bought off enough politicians to make unlimited fees off of me.
I can't wait to see one of the resident fascists refer to me as a socialist. Oh well, for everything there is a season...
Avg financial planner makes 160k per year. Why would they want to steal the pennies you put into social security?
People with financial planners fared a lot better than the people without. Planners forced employees to diversify out of Enron stock. People without financial planners were not diversified and paid a significant price. Enron is a primary example of why you should have a financial planner.enron
Financial planners make their money by churning investments. If they just diversified your money into mutual funds of various risks they wouldn't make any money at all.Avg financial planner makes 160k per year. Why would they want to steal the pennies you put into social security?
The Average person knows didly about investing and market diversification. This is why we have people who are financially devastated when companies like Enron or WorldCom go bankrupt. Under W's proposal, anyone who does not invest wisely would have no safety net left over at all.
People who can afford financial planners typically do better than those who cannot. Most small investors do so independently on web sites like Schwabb to avoid front or back load and administration and set-up costs. Greater returns aways equal greater risks. For instance, If someone has been caught up the tail end of the markets of 00-04 they are probably still on the losing end for this period. This could force people who were thinking about retiring soon to accepting higher risks for greater returns which ultimately will wipe some of them out. Then what? Dog food and cardboard boxes?People with financial planners fared a lot better than the people without. Planners forced employees to diversify out of Enron stock. People without financial planners were not diversified and paid a significant price. Enron is a primary example of why you should have a financial planner.
first, of all, the bush plan is not giving people free reign over their investments. you will not be allowed to put all your money into one single stock(like the dumbasses at enron, they deserved to lose everything for being re ed). also, financial planners will make money because the whole public will be using them vs just the wealthy. dan, if you like giving your money away and having no control, that is fine, but tell us why you like it like that? you talk about the government taking away your rights, but you don't complain about this. what is the deal?
Privatized accounts proposed by Bush are dead. He made the mistake of going after AARP. Not smart.
What I didn't get was Bush said that the SS fund is just a bunch of IOU's and then he turns around and says we can invest in Treasury bonds? Are those not IOU's too?
Huh?
Are the not both owed to us by the US govt?
Treasury Bonds are guaranteed.
Oh yeah, they perform better than an empty account.
Last edited by The Ressurrected One; 04-30-2005 at 11:14 AM.
Why isn't SS guaranteed?
If the govt is already taking taxes then why not invest it in Treasury bonds so we all get a better return?
Pulling it out of a govt fund to put in back into another govt fund just doesn't make sense to me.
Because, by definition, it's a Ponzi scheme...and, well, scams are hard to guarantee.
Good question...My guess is there is a lobby against such common sense. Kind of like the same mentality that's opposed to you and I being allowed to take our own money and invest it in T bills.
Why is the government the best vehicle for insuring my retirement?
It's not placed in a government fund now...it's spent.
i still can't believe why people don't want to be able to invest their own money..they would rather just give it to the government.. wtf is wrong with you people????
Once again, if the IOU's in the SS trust fund are a 'ponzi scheme' then the entire debt load that the U.S. owes to foreigners and to ourselves is also a 'ponzi scheme'. Those IOU's are treasury securities and bonds.Because, by definition, it's a Ponzi scheme...and, well, scams are hard to guarantee.
No one is against people having the ability to invest their own money. You can spend or you can invest the 75-80% of your income that you take home, your choice. What smart people are against is the $2-5 trillion dollars in new government spending that W and the 'so-called' conservatives want to bury all of us under for a ponzi scheme that will do nothing to save SS, but will make the investment industry, heavy Republican contributors, millions of dollars in extra profits.i still can't believe why people don't want to be able to invest their own money..they would rather just give it to the government.. wtf is wrong with you people????
you skip the point.. why should i give the government any of M Y money for them to invest for M Y retirement? i am a big boy and can invest on my own. i guess you don't like making your own decisions.
From what I've heard the costs to get these individual accounts setup is staggering.
that may be true. we wouldn't know exactly til we started.
but i think having the system go bankrupt costs more. what sucks is the ing demos won't help come up with a plan bc they don't want bush to get credit for it. they just sit on their asses and complain. if the demos don't win the next election then they will still vote against any ss legislation, and they won't try to come up with any plans. if they are for the poor people they would help on this issue. what they are doing now is nothing more than we do in here... ! haha
I kind of want to know before that. I haven't been impressed with this administration's read and react actions. The Iraq war was supposed to cost $30B, a staggering sum to be sure, but nothing compared to the latest estimates of $300B.we wouldn't know exactly til we started.
but you do know one thing as of right now. ss will pay out more than it takes in 12 years. and be officially in the red by 30 years...
why won't demos come up with a plan???
this should truly be a bi-partisan effort, but demos won't do anything... what is the deal? everyone will be affected by ss, demos and repubs
Progressives have a plan to save SS, but the adminstration doesn't want to save the program, it wants to destroy it. Republicans have never liked SS because it doesn't make them any money.this should truly be a bi-partisan effort, but demos won't do anything... what is the deal? everyone will be affected by ss, demos and repubs
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions