Our Message: You Can Transform Your Life and Solve Your Problems by Escaping America for a Better Life & Love Overseas! Discover Friendlier People, Social Connection, Saner Cultures, Lower Cost Living, Healthier Food, Greater Freedoms and More!
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
momopi wrote:Companies ditched pension plans in favor of 401(k)'s, because they wanted to push the market risk on the employees.
Pensions were generally mismanaged. If they actually paid into pension funds and left the money in the market, rather than depending on future revenue to pay for current obligations, things would have been fine. But, as is the problem with SS, they did not properly manage the funds and relied too much on future revenues to make their pensions solvent. It isn't the market that is the problem, it's companies promising you 4% of your income a year in a pension fund but then only paying 2% to the fund manager, who then invests half of what is needed in poorly performing but safe investments like bonds.
I think it should all go into 401ks anyway, but the hospital I worked for actually had a damn good pension system that was fully funded and completely solvent due to having a group of Ivy League economists running it as a pet project. Pensions could work, but they are never designed in a way that is geared toward long term solvency.
momopi wrote:Companies ditched pension plans in favor of 401(k)'s, because they wanted to push the market risk on the employees.
Pensions were generally mismanaged. If they actually paid into pension funds and left the money in the market, rather than depending on future revenue to pay for current obligations, things would have been fine. But, as is the problem with SS, they did not properly manage the funds and relied too much on future revenues to make their pensions solvent. It isn't the market that is the problem, it's companies promising you 4% of your income a year in a pension fund but then only paying 2% to the fund manager, who then invests half of what is needed in poorly performing but safe investments like bonds.
I think it should all go into 401ks anyway, but the hospital I worked for actually had a damn good pension system that was fully funded and completely solvent due to having a group of Ivy League economists running it as a pet project. Pensions could work, but they are never designed in a way that is geared toward long term solvency.
All retirement funds funneled into 401K's? Wonderful. Let's make everybody's retirement subject to the vagaries of the rigged stock market. Wall Street's been trying to corral those funds for many years. Do you work for them, or just shill on the side occasionally?
And do you seriously mean to say social security's problems have to do with mismanagement, and not with the $2.5 trillion dollars in assets that have been "borrowed" from the SS trust fund for things like your pal McCain's optional wars?
Fortunately, Elizabeth Warren and others seem to have you people trying to pillage the program on the run. I thought this last budget deal would get out the hammer, since corporate Democrats such as Obama and the Clintons have long been under Wall Street's control. But the populist winds are blowing stronger now, and the pols can sense it.
And by the way, social security and Medicare are enormously popular because they actually benefit many millions of people who have paid into the system for decades, myself included. You might try to factor those millions in when indulging in your sophomoric schoolboy theorizing.
Pensions are screwed. They need about an 8% interest rate to survive, but the FED has made interest rates close to zero to help out the big Banksters. That's why the stock market is exploding creating another asset bubble. There is no other place to go. Pensions are going to be the next big collapse. We are owned by the Banksters until there is a revolution.
momopi wrote:Companies ditched pension plans in favor of 401(k)'s, because they wanted to push the market risk on the employees.
Pensions were generally mismanaged. If they actually paid into pension funds and left the money in the market, rather than depending on future revenue to pay for current obligations, things would have been fine. But, as is the problem with SS, they did not properly manage the funds and relied too much on future revenues to make their pensions solvent. It isn't the market that is the problem, it's companies promising you 4% of your income a year in a pension fund but then only paying 2% to the fund manager, who then invests half of what is needed in poorly performing but safe investments like bonds.
I think it should all go into 401ks anyway, but the hospital I worked for actually had a damn good pension system that was fully funded and completely solvent due to having a group of Ivy League economists running it as a pet project. Pensions could work, but they are never designed in a way that is geared toward long term solvency.
All retirement funds funneled into 401K's? Wonderful. Let's make everybody's retirement subject to the vagaries of the rigged stock market. Wall Street's been trying to corral those funds for many years. Do you work for them, or just shill on the side occasionally?
And do you seriously mean to say social security's problems have to do with mismanagement, and not with the $2.5 trillion dollars in assets that have been "borrowed" from the SS trust fund for things like your pal McCain's optional wars?
Fortunately, Elizabeth Warren and others seem to have you people trying to pillage the program on the run. I thought this last budget deal would get out the hammer, since corporate Democrats such as Obama and the Clintons have long been under Wall Street's control. But the populist winds are blowing stronger now, and the pols can sense it.
And by the way, social security and Medicare are enormously popular because they actually benefit many millions of people who have paid into the system for decades, myself included. You might try to factor those millions in when indulging in your sophomoric schoolboy theorizing.
Actually the way I would privatize social security would protect the investments made by anyone over 45 years of age, and offer subsidies to anyone younger for the next 20 years based upon how long they had paid into the system. Same with medicare. But the end result of my plan would basically be that social security would be phased out within 60 years, and replaced with private accounts that could be invested in treasuries, the stock market, bonds, precious metals, or any mix of the four. Instead of the current system where your money is invested in treasuries the government controls (then loots) it would be in an account you controlled that you could put in the same treasuries OR any other mix of assets at your own discretion. And I am well aware of the issues with looting SS, they piss me off to no end. Even if it had not been raided, SS could not support itself, as it was designed at a time when people lived less than 5 years after retirement and also had 6 workers to support them, compared to the current situation of living 17 years past retirement with less than 2 workers paying into the system and falling.
SS and Medicare, if privatized, would allow the federal deficit to be dealt with within years of their removal. This guarantees the future if our country, as deficits are the prime reason the US dollar will become unstable in coming years.
There's also the option of self-directed IRA's, which you must be cautious with. Despite the name "self directed", you should not make decisions on self-directed IRA's without consulting qualified legal and financial advisers.
momopi wrote:Companies ditched pension plans in favor of 401(k)'s, because they wanted to push the market risk on the employees.
Pensions were generally mismanaged. If they actually paid into pension funds and left the money in the market, rather than depending on future revenue to pay for current obligations, things would have been fine. But, as is the problem with SS, they did not properly manage the funds and relied too much on future revenues to make their pensions solvent. It isn't the market that is the problem, it's companies promising you 4% of your income a year in a pension fund but then only paying 2% to the fund manager, who then invests half of what is needed in poorly performing but safe investments like bonds.
I think it should all go into 401ks anyway, but the hospital I worked for actually had a damn good pension system that was fully funded and completely solvent due to having a group of Ivy League economists running it as a pet project. Pensions could work, but they are never designed in a way that is geared toward long term solvency.
All retirement funds funneled into 401K's? Wonderful. Let's make everybody's retirement subject to the vagaries of the rigged stock market. Wall Street's been trying to corral those funds for many years. Do you work for them, or just shill on the side occasionally?
And do you seriously mean to say social security's problems have to do with mismanagement, and not with the $2.5 trillion dollars in assets that have been "borrowed" from the SS trust fund for things like your pal McCain's optional wars?
Fortunately, Elizabeth Warren and others seem to have you people trying to pillage the program on the run. I thought this last budget deal would get out the hammer, since corporate Democrats such as Obama and the Clintons have long been under Wall Street's control. But the populist winds are blowing stronger now, and the pols can sense it.
And by the way, social security and Medicare are enormously popular because they actually benefit many millions of people who have paid into the system for decades, myself included. You might try to factor those millions in when indulging in your sophomoric schoolboy theorizing.
Actually the way I would privatize social security would protect the investments made by anyone over 45 years of age, and offer subsidies to anyone younger for the next 20 years based upon how long they had paid into the system. Same with medicare. But the end result of my plan would basically be that social security would be phased out within 60 years, and replaced with private accounts that could be invested in treasuries, the stock market, bonds, precious metals, or any mix of the four. Instead of the current system where your money is invested in treasuries the government controls (then loots) it would be in an account you controlled that you could put in the same treasuries OR any other mix of assets at your own discretion. And I am well aware of the issues with looting SS, they piss me off to no end. Even if it had not been raided, SS could not support itself, as it was designed at a time when people lived less than 5 years after retirement and also had 6 workers to support them, compared to the current situation of living 17 years past retirement with less than 2 workers paying into the system and falling.
SS and Medicare, if privatized, would allow the federal deficit to be dealt with within years of their removal. This guarantees the future if our country, as deficits are the prime reason the US dollar will become unstable in coming years.
Yeah, all Americans are smart enough to manage their investment portfolios wisely. That will definitely work.
The federal deficit is at a historically rather low percentage of GDP right now. It is not a significant problem, in fact we need more spending from the public sector to get out of the economic doldrums since it's not forthcoming from the private sector. Deficit scare mongering is just a tactic Wall Street uses to undermine the social welfare programs and get those funds redirected to the financial sector. Convince young people that they are in an inter-generational war to disguise the class war that we're all actually fighting and losing. Sad to see intelligent people fall for the propaganda.
