QUOTE (Rogerdodger @ Nov 13 2011, 01:49 PM)
I don't know about Rand, but after being raped for years by the Ponzi Scheme of Social Security, many folks find it's all they have left.
If you consider it just or moral to take from one person under the threat, and give that money to another, so be it.
And maybe you can take a little yourself as a "finder's fee."
Today it seems that a majority demand such an involuntary "re-distribution" without regard for the morality of it.
In doing so they turn a self-sufficient nation into a nation of dependents.
Actions have moral consequences.
Bankers can take risk without worry.
Nations and individuals can live beyond their means, knowing there will be a "safety net" to catch them...until there isn't.
Too bad we Serfs can't legally enroll in the Galveston, Texas retirement plan.
It was so successful the U.S. Congress passed a reform bill in 1983 that closed the door for local governments to opt out of Social Security.
The politicians hated seeing all that money they they couldn't get at to "re-distribute" for votes. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514
- Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]
- Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security's return - $1,500 instead of $853.
- Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
- Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.
- Galveston County's survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary - a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 - versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker's salary for school-age children.
In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County's disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.
Two government studies of the Galveston Plan - by the Government Accountability Office and the Social Security Administration - claim that low-wage workers do better under Social Security. However, these studies assumed a low 4 percent return, which is the minimum rate of return on annuities guaranteed by the insurance companies. The actual returns have been substantially higher.
This is something H. Cain has been trying to get away with for awhile now. Here is a pretty good analysis of all the BS -http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...on-retirement-/
Essentially, the initial study comparing the programs was done in 1999 and showed that about 1/2 would do better under one plan and 1/2 would do better under the other. An update to the study was done in 2005 and showed, with the markets (on which the pension relies) doing less well from 1999 to 2005 than they did in the 90s when the first study was undertaken, that more than 1/2 of the people would have done better under SS. The comparison has not since been done since the markets melted down in 2008/09 and have yet to fully recover - one might suspect little interest in conducting such a comparison due to the likely results.
Putting aside the actual comparison of endpoints, a clear sign of financial ignorance is someone attempting to make a point by comparing essentially a pension program run by a non-federal entity to a federal govt social safety net program like Social Security (SS).
Casting aside all the baloney of Trust Funds, FICA taxes, Ponzi schemes, yadda, yadda, yadda, SS is a federal program run by a monetarily sovereign nation that alone has a monopoly on issuing dollars - that entity and any of its programs can never go insolvent and can never run out the money that they alone can issue. That certainty is why financial planners put SS at the foundation level in diagramming one's retirement plans - it is the most certain element.
Now this is where people's heads explode and they start stammering about projections of Trust Fund depletion and only enough workers' for enough FICA taxes to provide only 78% of projected benefits in the 2030s (which, by the way, is
125% of what today's retirees get in constant dollars
, but that is another story). It simply is all BS.
FICA taxes can (and should) be completely eliminated and it would have no impact on the ability of the money issuer to pay all SS benefits as far into the future as you want to go. The federal govt doesn't save dollars - you give the feds cash when you pay your taxes, it goes into the shredder. Same thing happens at the electron level where most dollars are: when you pay your taxes, your bank sends electrons to the Fed where they go back into the ether from which they came when the govt spent them into the economy.
And the feds borrowing? For every dollar they borrow, they first injected that dollar into the economy. It runs around the economy several times (8-10x) making businesses and people wealthier, but ALWAYS winds up being lent back to the govt. The federal govt can NEVER not be able to borrow back the money it issues. That is not an opinion that is an accounting identity.
Comparing the federal govt financing to a county or state government, an individual, a household, a business, or to non-monetarily sovereign nations like Greece, Italy or even Germany (but not
the ECB) is like comparing a campfire to the sun. Suggesting that the federal govt has to balance its budget like any non-monetarily sovereign entity is like suggesting the sun needs air to burn. Even if you don't know anything about nuclear fusion, you should be smart enough to figure out that something different goes on with the sun - same think with the financing of a monetarily sovereign entity like our federal govt. Have you every really stopped, but aside all the preconceptions and really really think about it?
The vast majority of people don't get it. And it is not a matter of intelligence; it is about being wedded to a mythology and relying on mass cognitive dissonance to defend it. It is the primary source of nearly all economic problems in the world today or at least their resolution. Grasping it leads to a much deeper understanding of the world today..... and it can be very very profitable.
It also makes what most people have to say in heated SS arguments, whether supporters or detractors, simply laughable.