The RICH are costing Social Security $150 Billion a year.

No. Go look at Trump's returns, not mine. You should already know there are lots of ways to take income other than as an employee. And, there are lots of assets that are not taxed as they grow.

It's "mstly everything" only if that's the way you want it to be. It doesn't have to be like that.

They paid $0 on net income of $11B.

I don't care HOW they did that, it's just ludicrous from the get go.

 

Insurance is a product you buy, not an investment or a bank account. Your car insurance kicks in if the definition of the calamity is met - a wreck of a particular size, or whatever. Otherwise, there can be no claim. If you're lucky, youll never see money from your insurance company!

With SS, people want to think they it is an investment or bank account, not even close to insurance.

SS could be thought of as insurance against the eventuality that you worked for years, but for whatever circumstance have no means of support late in life, when continuing to worrk isn't possible. That is, you can make a claim if you need support - the insured event.

I believe we should be using some level of means testing. One version might be that if someon's income is, say, $150K/year or more (due to investments, etc.) then no insurance claim (SS payment) is justified.

 

If SS were modified to be slightly more like insurance by doing means testing, there would be fewer payouts and the system would be on stronger financial footing.

Think what it would mean for car insurance if, after having no claim, you could ask your company to start paying your money back anyway! Obviously, insurance would have to be significantly more expensive.

 

You are totally bemused and irrational.

When SS Receipts surpass Outlays......,

The Treasury Secretary keeps the surplus/excess, and issues a non-marketable Government Account Series certificate

Thus, the Treasury Secretary is the BORRWER, and WE The Taxpayers are the LENDERS

Last, stop asking people where we should invest money that has already been borrowed and spent.

 

[

All the little takers are the same.
They just want other peoples money

 

You injected your income into this not me. And that income would still be taxed, what kind of income do you have that is not taxed. And those assets which grow, you pay tax on them when you realize the gain. If you are selling them for income you owe capital gains tax on them.

So you will not be collecting Social Security?

Depends on the circumstance.

 

Yes as I said, SS does not sell the bonds and become the debtor. SS is then lender just as if YOU buy T bills. And you and others complained that that is what is done. So if not invested in those special T bills where would you prefer it be invested? What would you prefer be done with that $3T reserve and any surplus contributions?

 

You want your company pension or 401k retirement plan means tested?

 

Quote: What would you prefer be done with that $3T reserve and any surplus contributions?


Correction; What we should have done.....

Once again, when excess contributions were historically high;

Canada, Norway, Korea, Denmark, Taiwan, and many more foreign central governments were investing them into stocks, bonds, real estate, and infrastructure world-wide.

Question; Why the did it?

Answer; Because their actuaries were telling them; "Sir/Mam, in order to provide for the future fiscal demands of retiring baby boomers, and to maintain our trust fund's solvency, we will need to increase contribution rates, and/or keep raising the retirement age, and/or lower benefits, and/or SEEK HIGHER RETURNS."

Question: How they did it?

Answer; Simply put, they've chartered GSE's/investment boards, hired money managers, paid them a decent salary, NO COMMISSIONS.

Question; Why we've been ignoring recommendations and warnings from our actuaries?

Answer; Several reasons, mainly;

Yesterday

a. Political Polarization; Republicans wanted to privatize SS, and Democrats wanted to maintain the status quo, thus, there were no bipartisan deals to reform SS.

b. Politicians from both political parties were using the money like a giant slush fund, thus, a lack of willingness to let go.

Today

a. Political Polarization

b. Political Polarization

 

"Tje Rich" (a completely ambiguous and arbitrary twrm, btw) cost Social Security absolutely nothing. It is Social Security that cost people money, via coercion.

 

Probably not a good time to mention the rich and everyone else is capped on benefits they can receive. Pretty much makes this rant a.....rant.

 

As I said I would like to see investment in the economy also but not through a government board selecting individual equities. I would prefer broad based index funds, perhaps some specific market index funds.

You mentioned Canada
"The CPP Investment Board invests in private equity, public companies, and real estate. The CPPIB invests in real estate and made their first direct office investment in Seattle in 2016.[9] Notable investments include 50% of the American pet store chain Petco,[10] 50% of American luxury department store chain Neiman Marcus, 50% of Australian office tower development International Towers Sydney, 40% of the Ontario Highway 407 toll highway, 21.5% of South Korean discount store chain Homeplus, and 19.8% of multinational media corporation Entertainment One.[11]

As outlined in its Policy on Responsible Investing, first adopted in 2005, the Board considers environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues/factors from a risk/return point of view and encourages companies to adopt policies and practices that enhance long-term financial performance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPP_Investment_Board

That's a problem for me, a government board injecting politics into it. Picking the winners and losers I don't believe the money should be used to steer companies into particular political or social positions.

And better yet I would like to see some partial privatization so that part of the contributions go into a personal account with the same restrictions into what they could be invested.

But for now the left would complain about investing the money, "a give away to corporate America" and other such canards which is why I ask what is the alternative.

 

You raise a few good points.

For your info;

......the Canuck's plan shows a nominal rate of return of 9.1%, 10 year annualized

......I'm in a low risk asset allocation, and the company I work for matched my contributions, and since 2007, my annual rate of return.is 7.2%.

…...5 year CD's, 3% APY

......and according to your 2018 SS report, Treasury only paid out 3% of total assets, and I'm a top 10%, thus, in my case, MINUS 2% = 1%, and here's why;

October 1st, 2018 Public Debt............$15,771 trillion
FY 2018 interest on the Debt...............$325 billion (interest on the debt is a mandated expense)

 

I am not colleciting SS, but I am on Medicare.

I haven't suggested Amazon is committing tax fraud. I'm saying that corporate tax law is LUDICROUS. And, the result is that YOUR taxes have to be higher.

 

It doesn't matter what corporate taxes are. You will pay for them anyway. All costs get passed to consumers.

 

How does that work?

 

NO. I want SS means tested.

401k plans show one of the serious problems with having personal investment vehicles such as that as a replacement for SS.

 

umm... is there a middle finger smiley?

 

SS and Medicare are two different features.

Nobody is actually required to benefit from either of them.

 

The government cannot invest S.S.funds in ANYTHING which places it at risk, thus it's in U.S.Treasuries.

 

Plus, I'm WAY sure I don't want our legislature or executive branch dabbling in stock or commodities markkets or any other public investment like somee stupenddously wealthy partisan alcoholic day trader.

 

So you are on SS but not old enough to get Medicare?

 

You do understand why SS was created in the first place?

 

I understand now. Just one more of your ideas to tax the rich and give their money to the poor and stupid.

 

Very few actually know whether they will be wealthy at retirement.

Today, the number who are actively pursuing adequate retirement plans is pathetic.

In my view, SS is insurance against the chance of crapping out. And, people can crap out for several reasons beyond their control. The Bush crash crushed the retirement investments of large numbers of Americans. Citizens suffered a combined multi-trillion dollar loss, wth individuals even losing the homes they thought were investments. People crap out by getting sick or suffering some disabling event, requiring people to refocus their lives on survival - or on the survival of somone they are obliged to support.

It's remarkable how firmly Americans even up through their 20s and 30s think they are invulnerable.

It's also protection for me against other people crapping out such that I end up having to pay for them through social safetynet taxes.

And, means testing results in a lower funding requirement.