Good and Bad news from Exit Polling

[AZGrizFan]

I disagree. If I was allowed to keep that money and invest it myself, I’d make a shitload more interest than the government doles out in dribs and drabs. The government takes YOUR money, gives it back to you piecemeal, and that’s somehow “assistance” from the government?

We're both right. Yes you or I would make more money if we were allowed to keep and invest what we pay into SS. But I don't think the government gets enough in premium and interest to equal what they pay out. The difference is government assistance. SS is more like a union negotiated defined benefit plan and the employer/government underwrites the risk.

Well, I’ll fall back to my original premise. All government “assistance” is just a collection of and redistribution of OUR tax dollars. Their version of “assistance”: take YOUR money, invest it in shitty investments, hold onto it for 30-50 years, then give it back to you in tiny chunks, with some alleged interest (1/4-1/10 of what you could have earned privately). So, calling it “government” assistance is a nonstarter.

[houndawg]

Wrong, Poindexter, social security is not government assistance. . And if Joe Biden want to impress me he needs to do something about the 3 trillion dollars he and his thieving friends have been spending for decades now. And while they're at it they had better start paying serious attention to Switzerland's experiment with UBI because eventually thats what's going to save them when the pitchfork mob wants their money back.

Try and keep up, dipshit. If you do not work (but are of working age), anything you receive is assistance. If you receive SS, you’re getting money back that you paid in. That is not assistance.

moved the goal posts

[AZGrizFan]

Try and keep up, dipshit. If you do not work (but are of working age), anything you receive is assistance. If you receive SS, you’re getting money back that you paid in. That is not assistance.

moved the goal posts

For the idiots in the crowd.

[kalm]

About the same amount of time we've been starving education to fund the never-ending wars.

Yeah, the US has been starving education so much that as if 2016 its 5th out of 3 doz+ OECD countries in per pupil spending.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cmd.pdf

Like I’ve said before, it’s a socio economic problem. You also need to compare state and local spending since funding is often tied to property tax revenues and levies. Nationally our system is a patchwork of supportive and affluent communities that are well funded and poor districts that require more resources because the local revenue and support from parents is less.

There’s also an overlap like our district which has upper middle class neighborhoods and a prison, two Large casinos and Air Force Base. Levies always pass and outcomes in general are solid but we still have school sock and coat drives for needy kids in winter.

‘Murica!

[kalm]

I disagree. If I was allowed to keep that money and invest it myself, I’d make a shitload more interest than the government doles out in dribs and drabs. The government takes YOUR money, gives it back to you piecemeal, and that’s somehow “assistance” from the government?

We're both right. Yes you or I would make more money if we were allowed to keep and invest what we pay into SS. But I don't think the government gets enough in premium and interest to equal what they pay out. The difference is government assistance. SS is more like a union negotiated defined benefit plan and the employer/government underwrites the risk.

SS and Medicare also reduce poverty which leads to increased consumer demand from seniors. It also keeps them in their own places longer. Perhaps privatization of national entitlements would pay out the same benefits with enough efficiency to still make a profit for firms off low income retirees?

It wouldn’t be compulsory so would enough of them contribute?

I’m open to the idea just skeptical of the outcome.

[AZGrizFan]

We're both right. Yes you or I would make more money if we were allowed to keep and invest what we pay into SS. But I don't think the government gets enough in premium and interest to equal what they pay out. The difference is government assistance. SS is more like a union negotiated defined benefit plan and the employer/government underwrites the risk.

SS and Medicare also reduce poverty which leads to increased consumer demand from seniors. It also keeps them in their own places longer. Perhaps privatization of national entitlements would pay out the same benefits with enough efficiency to still make a profit for firms off low income retirees?

It wouldn’t be compulsory so would enough of them contribute?

I’m open to the idea just skeptical of the outcome.

So your argument is that people aren’t smart enough to set aside for themselves, they need a benevolent government to do that for them and FORCE them to put aside money?

[UNI88]

Yeah, the US has been starving education so much that as if 2016 its 5th out of 3 doz+ OECD countries in per pupil spending.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cmd.pdf

Like I’ve said before, it’s a socio economic problem. You also need to compare state and local spending since funding is often tied to property tax revenues and levies. Nationally our system is a patchwork of supportive and affluent communities that are well funded and poor districts that require more resources because the local revenue and support from parents is less.

There’s also an overlap like our district which has upper middle class neighborhoods and a prison, two Large casinos and Air Force Base. Levies always pass and outcomes in general are solid but we still have school sock and coat drives for needy kids in winter.

‘Murica!

It's a socio-economic problem that is exacerbated by federal government involvement - the No Child Left Behind (Bush) and Every Student Succeeds (Obama) Acts set education in this country back. They're a big reason why I'm leery of calls for the Feds to fix education and think we should leave it up to the states.

[kalm]

Like I’ve said before, it’s a socio economic problem. You also need to compare state and local spending since funding is often tied to property tax revenues and levies. Nationally our system is a patchwork of supportive and affluent communities that are well funded and poor districts that require more resources because the local revenue and support from parents is less.

There’s also an overlap like our district which has upper middle class neighborhoods and a prison, two Large casinos and Air Force Base. Levies always pass and outcomes in general are solid but we still have school sock and coat drives for needy kids in winter.

‘Murica!

It's a socio-economic problem that is exacerbated by federal government involvement - the No Child Left Behind (Bush) and Every Student Succeeds (Obama) Acts set education in this country back. They're a big reason why I'm leery of calls for the Feds to fix education and think we should leave it up to the states.

No argument on that. I do wish some states would be better at it.

[kalm]

SS and Medicare also reduce poverty which leads to increased consumer demand from seniors. It also keeps them in their own places longer. Perhaps privatization of national entitlements would pay out the same benefits with enough efficiency to still make a profit for firms off low income retirees?

It wouldn’t be compulsory so would enough of them contribute?

I’m open to the idea just skeptical of the outcome.

So your argument is that people aren’t smart enough to set aside for themselves, they need a benevolent government to do that for them and FORCE them to put aside money?

Some aren’t and then they become a liability to all. I’m just stating a reality and question about whether there’s enough of a
market for low income earner investments.

[UNI88]

SS and Medicare also reduce poverty which leads to increased consumer demand from seniors. It also keeps them in their own places longer. Perhaps privatization of national entitlements would pay out the same benefits with enough efficiency to still make a profit for firms off low income retirees?

It wouldn’t be compulsory so would enough of them contribute?

I’m open to the idea just skeptical of the outcome.

So your argument is that people aren’t smart enough to set aside for themselves, they need a benevolent government to do that for them and FORCE them to put aside money?

Unfortunately, he isn't wrong. There are a lot of people that would choose not to save for retirement, delayed gratification is bad and all. If the Feds are going to force people to save I wish they would give people who know what the heck they're doing some control over their money and how it's invested.

This pseudo-progressive idea that investments, 401ks, IRAs, etc. are bad is ridiculous.

[AZGrizFan]

So your argument is that people aren’t smart enough to set aside for themselves, they need a benevolent government to do that for them and FORCE them to put aside money?

Unfortunately, he isn't wrong. There are a lot of people that would choose not to save for retirement, delayed gratification is bad and all. If the Feds are going to force people to save I wish they would give people who know what the heck they're doing some control over their money and how it's invested.

This pseudo-progressive idea that investments, 401ks, IRAs, etc. are bad is ridiculous.

Well....I guess I fall into the camp that if you’re not going to save for your own retirement, it’s not the government’s job to MAKE you do it. And one could argue that if you DON’T save outside of SS, you’re in poverty level ANYWAYS.

[kalm]

So your argument is that people aren’t smart enough to set aside for themselves, they need a benevolent government to do that for them and FORCE them to put aside money?

Unfortunately, he isn't wrong. There are a lot of people that would choose not to save for retirement, delayed gratification is bad and all. If the Feds are going to force people to save I wish they would give people who know what the heck they're doing some control over their money and how it's invested.

This pseudo-progressive idea that investments, 401ks, IRAs, etc. are bad is ridiculous.

I haven’t heard that the left is against IRA’s and 401k’s.

[UNI88]

Unfortunately, he isn't wrong. There are a lot of people that would choose not to save for retirement, delayed gratification is bad and all. If the Feds are going to force people to save I wish they would give people who know what the heck they're doing some control over their money and how it's invested.

This pseudo-progressive idea that investments, 401ks, IRAs, etc. are bad is ridiculous.

Well....I guess I fall into the camp that if you’re not going to save for your own retirement, it’s not the government’s job to MAKE you do it. And one could argue that if you DON’T save outside of SS, you’re in poverty level ANYWAYS.

Pick your poison. Like Kalm said, "Some aren’t and then they become a liability to all " Would you rather the government force people to save or not and then to have some become a liability getting government assistance when they get old? Telling those people to pound sand isn't going to happen so it isn't a realistic option.

[AZGrizFan]

Unfortunately, he isn't wrong. There are a lot of people that would choose not to save for retirement, delayed gratification is bad and all. If the Feds are going to force people to save I wish they would give people who know what the heck they're doing some control over their money and how it's invested.

This pseudo-progressive idea that investments, 401ks, IRAs, etc. are bad is ridiculous.

I haven’t heard that the left is against IRA’s and 401k’s.

Biden wants to tax 401k’s. Wants to totally change the way they’re structured because “they’re a rich person’s tool and poor people are getting screwed”.

[AZGrizFan]

Well....I guess I fall into the camp that if you’re not going to save for your own retirement, it’s not the government’s job to MAKE you do it. And one could argue that if you DON’T save outside of SS, you’re in poverty level ANYWAYS.

Pick your poison. Like Kalm said, "Some aren’t and then they become a liability to all " Would you rather the government force people to save or not and then to have some become a liability getting government assistance when they get old? Telling those people to pound sand isn't going to happen so it isn't a realistic option.

Meh. It’s one of those areas where I’m further along the libertarian scale than in some areas.....survival of the fittest....I’ll take care of mine, you take care of yours....that kind of shit.

[houndawg]

SS and Medicare also reduce poverty which leads to increased consumer demand from seniors. It also keeps them in their own places longer. Perhaps privatization of national entitlements would pay out the same benefits with enough efficiency to still make a profit for firms off low income retirees?

It wouldn’t be compulsory so would enough of them contribute?

I’m open to the idea just skeptical of the outcome.

So your argument is that people aren’t smart enough to set aside for themselves, they need a benevolent government to do that for them and FORCE them to put aside money?

Obviously there's a spectrum, and the election results prove that there are at least 70,000,000 people of limited intelligence. These types would benefit from letting the gubmint do the work because if they were left to do their own investing their money would very shortly be in the pocket of one of the millions of crooked "financial planners" this country specializes in producing.

[houndawg]

Unfortunately, he isn't wrong. There are a lot of people that would choose not to save for retirement, delayed gratification is bad and all. If the Feds are going to force people to save I wish they would give people who know what the heck they're doing some control over their money and how it's invested.

This pseudo-progressive idea that investments, 401ks, IRAs, etc. are bad is ridiculous.

I haven’t heard that the left is against IRA’s and 401k’s.

I guard mine jealously

[houndawg]

Unfortunately, he isn't wrong. There are a lot of people that would choose not to save for retirement, delayed gratification is bad and all. If the Feds are going to force people to save I wish they would give people who know what the heck they're doing some control over their money and how it's invested.

This pseudo-progressive idea that investments, 401ks, IRAs, etc. are bad is ridiculous.

Well....I guess I fall into the camp that if you’re not going to save for your own retirement, it’s not the government’s job to MAKE you do it. And one could argue that if you DON’T save outside of SS, you’re in poverty level ANYWAYS.

Long term it seems obvious that between overseas labor and domestic automation we'll eventually be discussing the pros and cons of Universal Basic Income