It seems like with the section of Ryan the whole plan to "privatize" social security has come into the spotlight again: Of course the stock market tanked a few years after this plan was first introduced so it was easy to say how terrible it would have been if it had been implemented, and that still seems to be the general feeling given the sluggish performance of the market. This came up in another thread, and I noted that the market has returned enough that the exaggerations that people would have gone broke certainly don't hold true, but I did not had enough time to continue discussing it (or the multitude of other turns that that thread took) so I have come here asking for your help coming up with a scheme for coming up with some numbers to determine if the idea of privatization would still be a loser, especialy for a young person, but we could adress all kinds of "reasonable" investors, ie people who would follow the typical investing advice that would be recommended for a person of their age. What I was thinking of is a month by month speadsheet that would breakdown what a porftfoilio would look like for somone who just kept all of their money in the traditional system, vs a person who had instead invested in the private market. Does anybody have the interest and the wherewithall to create such a spreadsheet, and allow the assembled group to make very suggestions for assumptions so we can compare the results?
I could try to do this myself if I thought I would get good feedback. The problem is, it will involve assumptions, and of course whoever does the work will have to make asumptions, so I preferred to make it kind of a "group project" so everyone would have "buy in" when it comes to the assumptions. I also don't know how to provide the nifty links to excel spreadsheets that I have seen other people do.
In my case it's a no-brainer. Even with the stock market woes I'd have so much more money today put away for my retirement had I been given the option of investing it myself instead of giving it to the government. (this is of course assuming I'd invest it the same way I invested my 401k. Safe, diversified, minimizing speculation, as we all should invest money we need to count on.)
Well I would be limiting it to only what you have had to put in since 2005 when Bush made his proposal. It was easy in 2008 and 2009 for people to say see, if we had allowed people to get into the market they would have lost, and the rebound since then has still be pretty week, so I would be interested to see where we sit now, especially if it becomes an issue in the campaign.
People can use this to calculate their SS rate of return. http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/01/approximating-social-securitys-rate-of.html Is from a blog, so the accuracy may be debatable. I came up with a low of 1.25 and a high of 1.75 Rate of return. Not really sure if that is better or worst than my 401K (I have a high % in International and mid-risk stock). Vs Stock market Total ROR (first % is for price appreciation, second % is for dividends) http://observationsandnotes.blogspot.com/2009/03/average-annual-stock-market-return.html
True. The biggest problems facing unsophisticated investors are first their own greed and second the greed of unscrupulous brokers who prey on them. The best way to offer the option of privatization would be by limiting the options to safe investments, thus protecting investors from both those dangers.
Maybe you would. But for most people it works like this - Something goes up a lot in price Get excited, buy it when it's hot It goes down in price Get depressed, sell it when it is cold That means load up on technology in 1999, panic in 2003 and sell, buy real estate funds in 2006, panic in 2008 and sell, buy bonds now. Oh yeah and rush to buy Facebook in 2012 because you know -- you know! -- it's a guaranteed money maker.
I wouldn't give them any flipping option at all. If you did privatize, the only investment option would be the U.S. market (stocks, bonds, other assets possibly too). Actually world market would be better but I assume not possible politically.
I agree but would most republicans allow for this? Or would that be considered "big government" telling people what to do? Also how hard would Investment firms lobby against that?
Nah, that would be a "safe" option, I agree it should be available. But what you describe would not give you much more than a Social Security Rate of return. I would allow for a little less safe option of Stock Spiders. Not allowing buying specific stocks, just buying into the full market. In the long run good stocks should out weight the bad stocks.
Then you'd get misleading results. Retirement investments need to be judged long term. Short term there can be fluctuations even for safe investments. I presume it would be young people who'd have the biggest benefit from privatization. A 55 year old who wants to retire in the next 5 to 10 years would probably be wise to leave his money with the government. (I personally wouldn't, but that's me.)
I don't know. I would be against a system that allows people to speculate irresponsibly with their retirement money. At least up to a stipulated reasonable amount deemed necessary in order to retire. Beyond that, let them gamble if they want.
What percentage of our money in Social Security would you say on average will be used for our retirement plan? And conversely, what percentage of our retirement plan would you say on average should depend on Social Security?
I understand that SS has undergone some pretty serious "mission creep" over the years, but the fact is, that it's conceptually different from a retirement plan. "Risk" (however small) isn't really an option for a program designed to save the poor from spending their old age in bread lines. In other words, much like Medicare, SS would be best served by (eventually) taking a lot less from employees/employers while applying increasingly strict means testing to focus the "insurance" that this program should be on the people that need it to survive. Whether you take the rest of the money and force people to invest (or let them do with it what they wish) it is something I leave open for discussion
It would be great if that's what SS was. Then it would be much more manageable. But why have so many who are not close to being poor come to depend on it so much?
Like I said... Mission Creep. The problem with mission creep is that it's very very hard to take back what you've now given out.
When did people not dying when they are supposed to become mission creep? 2 words solution. Death Panels. I blame the Reps for making that a bad thing.
Another Solution For all 70 year olds. One per week, Pay Per View Event. (Help fund Medicare). The survivors get to collect Social Security for the rest of their lives.