On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:21:45 -0700 (PDT), DaveS
wrote:

On Oct 25, 3:07*pm, "
wrote:

The SSI system is and always has been an entitlement/welfare system
masquerading as a retirement system. *It is probably by far the
largest accounting gimmick of all time, with the social left and
right, each for its own reasons, pretending that payments represent
some sort of investment with some sort of future return, while
presidents and congresses from Nixon's time on have used the payments
to hide the true extent of their spending deficits. *Anyone counting
on, or assuming that they are "owed," any sort of decent future SSI
payments upon retirement 10-15 years out is likely to be sorely
disappointed. *Eventually people will catch on, maybe, forcing a
dialogue about the fundamental issue of entitlement for the elderly,
but until then we'll continue to have these surreal whatifs tossed at
us. * Personally I believe that we should provide a base income to the
elderly, inversely indexed to other retirement income, but I don't
assume or expect to receive much of it, if any.- Hide quoted text -


Well before you get to expound you ought to know that SSI stands for
SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME. It is NOT the Social Security payments
that people invest in for their retirement. Like lots of folks,
(mostly men because the truth is that most men know **** about
schools, medical insurance or Social Security)who talk of what they
THINK they know about the basic social support infrastructure in this
country, your assumptions are not based on the realities of the fund.

Even if NOTHING were done to increase money flowing INTO the fund, OR
cut benefits OUT of the fund, folks paying into the fund now would get
at least 70% of the promised benefit.

Er, how do you figure that? I have no idea of the exact numbers, but
I'd offer that most folks taking benefits from SSI have not contributed
much to "the fund" as they have paid very little tax or otherwise
contributed to the general funding of the Fed.

Now, if you're talking about old age benefits, those folks have
contributed, in general, but there is no way that take-out will continue
to exceed input and when the whole "Trust Fund" **** hits the fan
(granted, not for a coupla-three decades, if projections are halfway
close), your age group's kids and my age group are gonna be lucky to get
anything and certainly my "take-out" is not going to be anywhere near my
_overall_ input.

Your "assumptions" cost the brokerage industry something like $400
million in propaganda to plant that false perception in American
minds. It is bull****.

Huh? I'd gladly and happily sign (and honor) something that relieved me
of any right to any SSA administered funds if I could get my contribs
back now with even a 3-4% interest and never having to contribute
anything again - I'll take care of myself and dependents, thank you very
much.

Remember that the majority of working Americans 24 months ago
supported the idea of privatizing Social Security. And the majority of
Americans would have seen the value of their individual accounts fall
thru the floor the first day of privatization because the SUPPLY of
equities would have been the same as the day before, AND . . .

. . . they would have lost as mush as half of what remained in their
"privatized individual account" in the last month. The Social Security
fund would have been privatized all right. . . right into the
collapsed stock market. There is no free lunch.

No, but a proper investment strategy will, over the years, yield more
than the various Fed programs ("old age" - "Social Security") and
welfare (SSI) schemes

Dave
We were required to stay awake in econ classes at both BYU and the U
of Utah.

Well, sure...suppose someone fell asleep with the cookies in the oven...

HTH,
R