On Boortz today. This what we have to stop.

[slater71]

I know he preaches to the choir but if the choir is a few million plus and they tell a few million, well, you know what I mean. He was talking to a guy about S.S. and of course was trying to sell it and he was using the Galveston Texas talking point. What he said almost made me drive off the road. " Would`t it be great that when you retire that you would get a monthly check that would be more than when you were working? Well that would be true if we could privatize S.S. and control our own money." Then he says that once Limbaugh gets talking about it, that it will start to sink in but at the moment, Limbaugh has some other things he has to take care of first.
This is what we can`t stop and what is killing us now. If we don`t come up with a plan and a way to stop the Hannitys and the Limbaughs of the world, we are in trouble.

[applegrove]

1. Don't you have to give it all back to the government?

[applegrove]

2. Bush hopes America will redo SS based totally on rumour & inuendo!!

[uppityperson]

3. People are stupid, and many have the lottery mentality

The lottery mentality is that they hope that they will win. Not necessarily the lottery, but that for some reason (not hard work and frugal living and saving) they will make it rich. This is why many invest in the stock market, watch those reality and game tv shows and get lottery tickets. Perhaps they will be the Lucky One. So, if they hear it often enough, they won't think further because perhaps THIS will be the way they make it. In my opinion which of course is slanted.

[K-W]

4. How much snake oil will America buy before the realize

that for decades the republicans have just been lying to them

[jdj]

5. if we go into iran it will be over for them

not for the hard-core sociopukes, but for the waffling moderates.

[cthrumatrix]

6. Impossible math.... this is an outright lie

do the math...you can't set aside 4% of your salry per year for 20 years and get a "life annuity" that would be greater than your annual salary (with makret returns 7%)

4% of 30,000 is $1200 year into your private account ...which might grow to $50,000 when you retire in 20 years....

How does $50,000 turn into at least $30,000 year for your retirement??????????????????

He is a liar

[qwghlmian]

8. Here is the math:

The Social Security payment today is 12.4% of your income.

Take a salary of 40K and average annual investment growth of 6% (very conservative, considering that average long term stock market growth is closer to 10%)

If you start at 20, save 12.4% of that 40K and continue for 40 years, your final amount will be: $813,676.

Once you retired at 60, you can draw out $40K/year from that amount (assuming the same 6% growth) forever. Or you can draw out $50K/year for approximately 43 years.

This is an optimistic scenario, but not overly so, based on long term investment growth history in the financial markets.


I don't understand the scare tactics here, really. "Booga! The stock market will make you poor". For people who do not believe in investing in the stock market, you can take the money that will be put in your private SS account and invest it in inflation-protected Treasury notes (or TIPS). That has a guaranteed return and is inflation-proof. You will be able to achieve with that exactly the same return that Social Security itself counts on. What is the problem?

[cthrumatrix]

10. you are waaay off...they are talking of $1000 / yr contribuitions

you contribute 4% of your salary for soc sec plan (you only put in 6% now)..where do you get 12%??????????

[qwghlmian]

11. 12.4% of your income is deposited into Social

Security today - you were not aware of that? Come on, this is basics.

The calculation I did was based on putting all the money that goes into SS today into a private account instead.

[cthrumatrix]

12. wrong....your company put's in the other 6%

I have not seen where corps are now putting thier 6% into your account.

Plus...you are still limited to $1000/yr in bush's plan

[qwghlmian]

13. If you work for an employer, your employer

puts in 6.2% and the other 6.2% is subtracted from your take-home pay. If you are an independent, you pay the whole 12.4%. Either way, 12.4% is deposited into Social Security from you. If you think that the 6.2% that your employer puts in is not part of your whole compensation package, that's a very naive view of it.

Boortz was not talking about "Bush's plan". He was (as I understand from the original post) talking about a theoretical, "fully privatized" Social Security plan.

[cthrumatrix]

14. let me help you

The Bush plan is potential reality ... the 401k plan-like discussion is "in existance" today for many people. You are mixing apples and oranges.

The company 6.2% contribution (Under Bush) would NOT go into your private account. In fact 2% of your 6% would not go into private accounts...these amounts continue to fund Soc Sec.

You only get 4% of your salary (I hear and read not to exceed $1000 yr.

So.... building any "huge nest egg" which you refer to is not possible.

In fact... the typical scenario yfor our life income annuity under this new plan might only get you $8,000- $10,000 (30 yr savings @7% return for 30yrs)

Hardly a windfall.... .

[qwghlmian]

15. Of course - but it would be misleading to treat that

$8/10K a year as the ONLY retirement benefits you would receive under Bush's plan (well, theoretically, since Bush's plan was not formally submitted and no one knows exactly what it is). That would be in addition to the (reduced) Social Security benefits that you'd be receiving as well. (and, by the way, you keep using 20 and 30 year terms in your calculations - why is that? Vast majority of people start paying into Social Security in early 20s, and retirement age today is 66 - so 40+ year terms would be more appropriate to use).

The question is: will that annuity from the private account upon your retirement be higher or lower than if that same amount of money was put into Social Security "the old way" and paid out the "old way"? The answer is: it would be about the same amount of money if you, the private account holder, would invest it exactly the same way Social Security does - in TIPS. If you would decide to go with a different investment, the answer is - it depends on how well your investment does. Historically long-term stock market investing has done vastly better than TIPS would.

On edit: I have seen a pretty good "privatization" plan proposed - it eliminates quite a few elements of risk of the plan that is currently bandied about. What it suggests is the same thing - portion of $ goes into private accounts, portion into the "old style" SS. What is different is what happens after 65. Instead of reduction of final SS benefits (because of the reduction in the contributions), the SS "retirement age" gets moved to somewhere around 71-72, but the payments remain the same (the burden on SS "trust fund" is exactly the same either way). So the retiree will use his "private account" money in order to retire at 65 (or earlier, if he wants) and will be assured of the full benefits at some point in the future.

[cthrumatrix]

16. let me help again...

the plan is that you receive when you retire a "life annuity" based on a 3% (inflation adjusted return).... this IS your soc sec payment.

IF your investments would perform @ 7%...there would be excess. that excess would be received in a "limp sum payment" OR added to your annuity lifetime payment.

Let me be clear...I find it very very unlikley that a person walks away with a huge lump sum over and above a 3% inflation adjusted return.

The other downside is that your account does not perform well. (I see this as remote and have used an average of 7% after expenses).

There are downsides in costs to the country. To replace the 4% you are putting your YOUR account the govt must RAISE Trillions "somehow" to pay for this 30 yr conversion.

Net-net....it will be costly and I find it hard for people to "replace what they would get in todays plan".

The fine details have not been fully announced...butI would be surprised it's much different from above.

[qwghlmian]

18. Your assertions are not supported by either

facts or simple math - as I have shown in my posts.

The "annuity" thing at the end is one of the most nebulous things in the plan - that is, no one articulated exactly what it will be, whether it will be there at all, and how much of the final account it will consume. When/if it is expressly defined/described, we can talk about it.

As I said, it should be easy for people who are risk-averse to duplicate current setup - invest your private account in TIPS (the management fees there will be miniscule if not 0). It should grow at exactly the same rate as it would if it was in the "Social Security Trust fund".

[cthrumatrix]

20. my assertions are based on what has been shared...

the "annuity thing" has been detailed in the Washington Post when it gave the details of the plan.

The intial plan said that the money accumulated MUST be paid out in a "life annuity".

The initial plan said that the $$$ amount that grew over 3%(Adjusted for inflation) could be available in a lump sum)

The initial plan said when you start taking your annuity payment that when you die...your heirs get ZERO.... that is the way a life annuity works.

Please query the Washinton Post...2-3 weeks ago there was a deatiled Q&A and more.

Obviously, the plan deatils can change becuase the "trial ballon" details are not selling.

To your point on TIPS investing and returns. Of course you would get the same return in "the plan". But the plan would pay out that return in life paymnents and when you die...it's gone. Another point was that when you die before retirement..your contributions go back to the govt.

I stress "initial plan" becuase it's a guess at which way things will go.... take a look at the comparisions:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/daily/graphics/alternatives_022405.html

[qwghlmian]

24. Here is a hint

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61708-2005Feb3?language=printer

"If I die, it belongs to my estate. If I divorce, it's a marital asset."

[cthrumatrix]

25. here is "non wh spin" in the same article.... heirs get ZERO when you die

What happens when I retire?

Upon retirement, workers would be required to trade in their investment portfolios for an annuity so that a combination of traditional benefits and their annuity payments would meet the poverty level, which was about $11,400 for a couple older than 65 in 2004. But if that income stream is higher, under Bush's proposal, retirees could use the additional money in their accounts as they wished, such as continuing to invest, increasing the size of the annuity payment or taking a lump-sum payment.


What happens if you die shortly after you have bought the mandated annuity?

That money is lost, just like in an annuity purchased in the private market.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61414-2005Feb3_2.html

[qwghlmian]

28. Your claim was:

"Another point was that when you die before retirement..your contributions go back to the govt."

That's incorrect.

[cthrumatrix]

29. once you contribute.... and take an annuity ...all control is lost

your contributions that you made over your life go back to Soc Sec. system.

The ONLY amount you keep is the "lump sum differential".


The admin has not come out and said anyhting about death benefits during your contribution accumulation phase. One can only "guess" what any payout would be (death benefit).

Common sense says they are borrowing trillions to launch this OR raise taxes...so don't expect a windfall -- they will try to keep as much as possible. That is the nature of the govt and Inusrance comapnies which control the annuities.

[qwghlmian]

30. Just like you have no idea about what the

death benefits before retirement will be, you also have no idea what the annuity terms will be. The terms of the annuity may include a death benefit similar to the current SS terms - you just don't know until it is submitted to Congress. Criticizing the plan based on points that may not exist is silly.

Most of the criticism I see focuses on "the private plan has to do better than 3% to work" - but that is just stating the obvious. If SS trust fund is based on 3% growth, then OF COURSE the private account has to do as well or better in order to be beneficial. As I said, a participant can *assure* that his account does as well as SS by buying TIPS. If you are of the opinion that you cannot trust people to decide for themselves what investment options to choose, then the plan is a bad one. I, for one, always tend to the side that says people know better than the government what to do with their own money.

Look, Social Security can be looked at as a disability insurance plan combined with a retirement savings account. In either case, the current setup is horrible. As a retirement savings account, Social Security historicall sucks - it underperformed the markets for as long as it existed. As an insurance, it is really bad - there is no contract, there is no guarantee of payment, it can be unilaterally changed at any time by the "insurer" (the government), the premiums are ridiculously high compared to other disability insurances etc. So - it is a bad deal either way. Privatizing it will make it into a reasonable (depending on terms) retirement savings plan. You can also revise it the other way, and convert it into a "real" insurance. But leaving it the way it is is just perpetuating a bad retirement plan combined with horrible insurance plan.

[cthrumatrix]

32. funny...I do know about life annuities (very well)

I did read the money goes back to the govt. that is a critical piece for funding the plan going forward (as it does so today)


I will end our conversation as follows:
---------------------------------------
IF this idea is sooooo good --- then the UK must be idiots for thier privitization efforts. Their projections have been waaaay off and benfits received are much less than planned. And this is with a plan that has a few decades behind it. I don't think they are idiots...the real costs were waaay off and the market returns were to ambitious.

This country is in miserable debt...do not ever think for one moment that this plan is a "giveback" to the people. I don't think raising $several trillion is possible -- nobody would buy such debt based on our inability to reduce our trade deifict even after the $$$ has lost 20% over the last two years.

there are many integrated parts...

[cthrumatrix]

26. let me add.... if you have a "return greater than 3% infaltion adjusted

your heirs get the lump sum (that you took when you retired). If you rolled that 7% return into an annuity --- it's gone.

[PaulaFarrell]

22. I see a couple of problems

Firstly, very few people start out at 40,000 a year; even if their wages averaged that over their lifetime (which is unlikely for many people) the lower earnings would almost certainly be in the first years, the higher in the later, so that the most important contributions, i.e. the ones that grow the most, would be the smallest in dollar amounts. So the final amount would be much less.

Second problem is that you are talking in constant dollars - some of that hypothetical 6% is lost to inflation. If you have 40,000 a year in 40 years time, with say 2% annual inflation, then that 40,000 is going to be worth only about 25,000 of today's dollars, and that's using only a straight 2% of 40,000 each year, not compounded.

[Deja Q]

7. Tell Boortz to look up his stock the day after S Korea ditched the dollar

Rich? Or poor?

SS should be VERY EASY to rebuke the repukes on.

And if the Dem party can't do that, then they deserve to have 0 votes given to them in 2006.

[oasis]

9. Many Rethugs are not even buying it and have let their representatives

in congress know about it. The Democrats are standing fast.

[librechik]

17. yeah, and Santa Claus gives you a new bike and a pony every year

as long as you tell your Congressman you want to get out of the raggedy old SS system and into the NEW IMPROVED BUSH SS, now with added fairy dust.

[shreck]

19. I have a 401k

I have a 401k I put 7% of my salary in. For those of you relying on SS for retirement, well I hear Fancy Feast goes well on white bread.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

35. You're lucky you have a 401K. Most employers don't have that option

and most employees live paycheck to paycheck. You were lucky to be able to put 7% of your paycheck away.

[radfringe]

21. anyone know how much $$$$

he's getting paid by the bushies to push this?

[Cooley Hurd]

23. He must be getting LOTS of $$$ to push this...

...shit sandwich known as Bush's SS plan.

[radfringe]

33. Hey Cooley -- here's a pic of our airdale

Dax - Female, will be 9 in June...

[Cooley Hurd]

34. OMG - she's gorgeous!

What a sweet face!:loveya:

[Charon]

27. Boortz

I have heard his Galveston talking point several times. Does anyone have any conflicting information to his spiel about the Galveston
program?

[Norquist Nemesis]

31. Connect them all with Gannon/Guckert

Seriously. They are all the same.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3176388