Posted on 08/30/2019 10:40:29 PM PDT by rintintin
100%
While a government bond in your portfolio is an asset, the government holding its own bonds as an asset is impossible. The government, as maker of the bonds, is on the hook for raising the money to redeem them. It both owes the money and is owed the money. The net value is zero. There are only a couple of ways for the government to raise money to “redeem” these bonds. It can tax directly, run a general surplus (overtax), or it can sell buildings or land. The least painful way would be to sell off many of its millions of acres and then stand back and surrender dominion over its use. Paying down the rest of the debt this way would be a good play too.
I can imagine good help with skills is hard to find. Even if they were paid less they would quickly move to above $100k.
As Life Expectancy increased, so should have the Benefit Age for Social Security.
A gradual increase in Eligibility, adding one Month over the next 36 Years would help keep it solvent, well sort of.
When all is said and done, it would raise the so called “full” Benefit Age to 70 and the “early” Benefit Age to 65. The same should be done for Medicare, raising Eligibility to Age 68, if not 70.
Of course, Congress could just rid of the “Cap” on Income over $132,900 that exists today. Medicare already has no Cap on Income. Just ask John Edwards...
Just for laughs, do everything I just stated above only if they stop putting the SS and Medicare Tax Money into the General Fund. You know, a like a Lockbox. LOL
How bad could it be if it Opens a New Window?
Over the past 10 years an S&P 500 index fund (SPY is an Exchange Traded example of such a fund) has returned 14.58% per year.
This fund was started in 1993, and the return since inception is about 9.5% per year.
Now I agree that if one is so unimaginative as to put his money in a savings account he will get an execrable return. OTOH a 10% return is within the reach of every American.
And, QQQ (the NASDAQ 100 fund) has a 10 year return of 18.27% per year.
These are not far out, wild investments. An S&P 500 investment is a mainstream, very conservative stock holding. NASDAQ 100 is a little more speculative, but still mainstream.
I have tried to teach dozens of kids how to "get rich slowly" -- put 10+% of your pay into just these two investments with each check and you will retire a wealthy person. And, you will not really miss that 10+%. If you can do 15%, even better. Just like everything else in life, many want the final result, but few are willing to put in the work to get it.
Something about lipstick and pigs comes to mind.
“As Life Expectancy increased, so should have the Benefit Age for Social Security.”
Even if life expectancy rises, many people are still being eased out of the workforce in their late 50s early 60s. (call it age discrimination or rational business employment strategy, whatever you will). And who is hiring people in that age bracket? So you’re saying Social Security should be unavailable to them till they’re 70 or more, even if they’re unemployed?
It is effectively means tested. The more you make after you take it the more of it is taxed at your highest marginal tax rate.
Otherwise you are mostly on the right track. It and the benefit should be phased out instead of merely ended after 5 years. How do you compensate a 56 year-old who will not get anything under your plan?
You set a false premise and then assume that is what I meant?
Interesting...
Always amazed that Chile could rework their SS & we sit here with the same dysfunctional system since FDR was president.
It can’t pay anything as long as we have a $22 Trillion National Debt and a $1 Trillion Yearly Deficit. It’s just borrowing less while paying out less.
“It is effectively means tested. The more you make after you take it the more of it is taxed at your highest marginal tax rate.
Otherwise you are mostly on the right track. It and the benefit should be phased out instead of merely ended after 5 years. How do you compensate a 56 year-old who will not get anything under your plan?”
By “means tested” I mean that if you can survive without it then you get nothing, the system is a ponzi scheme and we must stop robbing current workers to give money to people who don’t absolutely need it.
How do you suggest that it be phased out?
I suggested an end to new enrollments after 5 years because that should give people time to alter their plans and work longer in order to be able to retire.
I’m not too concerned with compensating past victims because the government must rob new victims to do so, I’m concerned with ending the robbery.
They had Pinochet.
What they don't tell you when they are trying to whitewash the future if "Social Security" is that this alleged "trust fund" is nothing but obligations backed by taxpayers. As they are cashed it, it means the government has to do one of two things, print more money, or raise taxes on those of us poor bastards that actually pay taxes. Since printing money is inflationary, it's just another way of stealing money from us. We're screwed either way. Socialist security was a scam fom the very beginning and the chickens associated with this particular ponzi scheme are only just now coming home to roost in a major way.
I’d rather the money be spent on America’s seniors than on more foreign wars and regime changes. Why do my GOP friends - except for Trump - never ask/complain about the cost of our endless wars?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.