“I prefer Bob over you, thank you. I’m on to you now.”
You shouldn’t because justlurking is accurately describing SS. I can’t tell if he’s pro or con SS, but he is describing how it’s designed.
There never was a lockbox and there never could be one. Money that piles up in segregated accounts would constantly reduce the money supply and lower the GNP. It would be a deflationary drag on the economy.
SS money has to be given to SS recipients. Or returned to the people it was taken from. Or, the favorite choice of big government politicians of both parties, loaned to the rest of the government. But it can’t sit idle in a “lockbox” without doing real harm to the economy.
[[I can’t tell if he’s pro or con SS, but he is describing how it’s designed.]]
We’re NOT talking about how ‘it’s designed’ We’re talking about how it’s playing out, and how it’s playing out does NOT resembled how it was designed-
[[There never was a lockbox and there never could be one.]]
The issue about the ‘lock box’ wasn’t about locking up the money so no one could use it- it was simply a metaphor to describe that it wouldn’t be used In the wrong manner- We know there’s no actual lock box, and that the money DOES need to be invested- but the fact is that it has been ‘invested’ In the wrong ways, in ways that it was not meant to be-
[[SS money has to be given to SS recipients. Or returned to the people it was taken from. Or, the favorite choice of big government politicians of both parties, loaned to the rest of the government. But it can’t sit idle in a “lockbox†without doing real harm to the economy.]]
Yes, both flaglady and myself and everyone else In the thread understand that- that is not what is at issue I n the discussion- the issue again is that the money was not supposed to be invested and simply just left alone- the issue is that it wasn’t invested properly- and had it been, we would be fine today-
Flaglady was right- The massive 2.7 or so trillion surplus should have been invested properly, and grown the way that the tax increase plan had designed it to cover the baby boomers that they knew were looming in the shadows waiting to retire- but that’s not what happened- the money was ‘borrowed’ by the government and used to cover costs accrued by the programs In the general fund and federal budget -
The government swears up and down they didn’t do anything wrong- and bristles at the word ‘stole’ but basically that is hat happened- Flag lady correctly points out that the government’s ‘borrowing’ has cost us in interest- interest we could have had had the money been used the way it was intended to
IF someone on your street offered to hold a chunk of your paycheck each week in a ‘lock-box/trust fund’ (again, lock box does not imply nothing can be done with the money), and they told you the m oney would always be available even if invested because they could sell those investments right away when needed, but they instead took and ‘borrowed’ your money, emptied the trust fund, paid off THEIR debts, then turned around and borrowed money to pay you when you ask for it AND charged you the interest they will have to pay o n the borrowed money, I don’t think that would be considered very ethical or right- and I think you’d agree that they mismanaged your money and cost you money, no?
Crude analogy I know, but it sort of represents what happened
I'm actually "con", but realistic about it -- it's too late to do anything material to "fix" it, because we missed our opportunity to do so back in the 80's. Other countries realized that demographic trends made inter-generational transfers were doomed to eventual failure, and transitioned to a national asset-based plan, similar to a 401(k), but with a minimum support level.
My Quixotic effort is only to educate people about Social Security, so they can understand what has happened and PLAN FOR WHAT WILL HAPPEN. A large part of the reason Social Security is in trouble is because people are uninformed, or unwilling to accept the truth.