patrick.net

smaulgld says

Iosef V HydroCabron says

True, but that was not the decision of the Social Security administrators, and not relevant to the question of their efficiency.

Sure it is because they never got the chance to operate without a government backstop. Also SS, has as you assert, lower costs because they don't buy and sell securities, they do no research, nothing, they sit back and let their assets get looted by the federal government.

LOL. I think Bernie Madoff's overhead was suspiciously low too. How many staff members do you really need to cook books anyway? If the Social Security Administration has 20,000 staff members, that might be 19,999 too many, as far as growing the fund as investment is concerned.

VxI
smaulgld says

SoftShell says

If you can't spell "won't", you don't deserve the fuckin thing...

smaulgld says

We wont own our own homes, we wont be able to afford it.

Wot?

Iosef V HydroCabron says

According to a report from the Justice Policy Institute, lobbyists for the private prison industry have pushed “three strikes” and “truth-in-sentencing” laws across the country. Both types of laws adversely affect drug users.

smaulgld says

Strategist says

Private prisons would save us even more money.

Focusing on throwing only real criminals in jail would reduce the prison rolls and save us money and make us safer

Point taken.
So lets change some laws. Everyone lobbys....you cannot pick one guy and hang him from the tallest tree. Lets change some laws to reflect the 21st century. If these private prison owners break laws, lets lock them up in their own prisons.
As for drugs.....I'm sure some prisoners who are locked up should be freed. I'm more concerned about the dangerous hard core criminals.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

You have to admit the USPS is a Ponzi, however.

Everyone knows that.

It's not, don't believe that any more then when right wingers tell you that social security doesn't deliver the mail better than any one else

Iosef V HydroCabron says

I don't buy this example as anything more than conservative dogma.

The USPS delivers to every address in the United States, including back-mof-beyond rural locations which cannot possibly be profitable, 6 days a week, for miniscule prices: first class is less than 50 cents, and much commercial mail is far cheaper.

FedEx and UPS perform a more limited set of services and charge far more for them.

Exactly right. There are locations where it costs USPS $2500 per year per customer to deliver mail and locations where it costs probably $9 per year per customer to deliver mail. The postal service, in cutting its costs, has actually engaged in significant efforts to curb the former while increasing the latter. For example, they no longer deliver directly to certain remote places that can only be reached by plane and instead deliver to the local post office serving that area. As another example, they have eliminated blue boxes that don't get 25 or more pieces of mail per week.

In addition, some percentage of the USPS deficit is created by Congress requiring it to fund its pensions differently from the private sector. Congressional mandates often serve to make USPS unprofitable (e.g. not cutting 6th day of mail, hell, cut the 4th and 5th day too).

USPS has cut its employee count significantly in the last 10-15 or so years -- more than 20% last I checked.

The other thing I'd note is that mail in this country is ridiculous cheap. In countries smaller than one of our states, the rate can often be 2X what our cost is, and sometimes more.

smaulgld says

If SS worked, more and more people would opt in. If it didn't it would go away

By definition this "free market test" will not work. SS is not about you "investing" your money into a retirement fund. It is about your children paying 6.2% (x2) to directly pay for your retirement. It's a transfer of wealth from children to parents. If SS was truly an investment tool, then your opt in/out idea would work as a market test. And it would fail. Why? Because 6.2% (even x2) is not enough to fund anyone's retirement.

Australia has a system in which employers pay 9% (going to 12%) and many will pay more (15% often). Individuals add whatever they want to that. When the system started in 1992, employers paid in 3%. It has increased incrementally since then and will be 12% by 2021. (In the meantime, our SS has been 6.2% each since 1990. No change.)

In the end, the Aussies get what they paid in plus investment interest. SOCIALISTS!

corntrollio says

In addition, some percentage of the USPS deficit is created by Congress requiring it to fund its pensions differently from the private sector.

It's the biggest reason, yes.

I would like to see FedEx step in a employ a walking man to every single fucking house in America. They would declare bankruptcy, be bailed out by the taxpayer, cancel all employee retirements, and hire new mail carriers at half the cost. Hmm...maybe we should just cancel 1-2 days of USPS and move on to more important things.

jazz music says

Come to think of it, yes, since they do lobby for harsher, longer sentences to augment their labor force that really does mean that innocent people will be there making them richer faster working for free.

They view potential convicts as potential revenue and potential profits and bonuses for them-that is their business and the only way they can grow their business is not by providing a better service but by providing more of it and since government has a monopoly on whom they can toss in their prisons they have an interest in lobbying the government to do so- not in the name of profit of course but in the name of keeping us safe

JH says

By definition this "free market test" will not work. SS is not about you "investing" your money into a retirement fund. It is about your children paying 6.2% (x2) to directly pay for your retirement. It's a transfer of wealth from children to parents. If SS was truly an investment tool, then your opt in/out idea would work as a market test. And it would fail. Why? Because 6.2% (even x2) is not enough to fund anyone's retirement.

Remember also that "Social Security" isn't just for retirement, so that puts further strain on the system. The proper long name is OASDI -- Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. That means that if you die with children, your spouse and children may also collect. In addition, your spouse can collect if he/she is at retirement age if you are not getting benefits (either due to suspension or death).

Whether 12.4% is sufficient solely for retirement for a single person, and not survivorship/disability is open to interpretation, but it's probably not sufficient for the standard of living a lot of people would like, even if it's enough for the standard of living many of them deserve.

For example, if you are 25 years old, plan to retire at 70, make $55K/year now, and have $5K in retirement funds, 11% of additional funds beyond 6.2% payroll tax are needed to retire with $2.7 million according to this calculator to replace 85% of your pre-retirement income if you live to 92, which also assumes you will get Social Security:
http://money.cnn.com/calculator/retirement/retirement-need/

Fiddling with the assumptions -- adjustments for inflation, return on investment, and percentage of pre-retirement income -- makes a huge difference because this is compounding over so many years. Social Security does provide a safety net for lower income people. If you changed the assumption to 30 years old, plan to retire at 70, make $200K/year now, and have $100K in retirement funds, you'd need to bump up the savings to 18-19% to meet the assumptions because Social Security doesn't cover as large a percentage.

corntrollio says

For example, if you are 25 years old, plan to retire at 70, make $55K/year now, and have $5K in retirement funds, 11% of additional funds beyond 6.2% payroll tax are needed to retire with $2.7 million according to this calculator to replace 85% of your pre-retirement income if you live to 92, which also assumes you will get Social Security:

So the assumptions that I made were: 30 years working at $50k/year with a 5% annual return. That yields just under $500k. This does not account for inflation, however, so a median earner who started paying in in 1984 was not making $50k/year, and the 5%/year does not take into account inflationary losses, which are substantial over 30 years even if the govt claims there is no inflation.

You are absolutely right that if someone invests even a small amount of their income on top of SS, they will be fine (assuming they have paid off their home, HELOCs, cars, and student loans, and they can work until or beyond 67). But the reality is that most have not. And the second reality is that they are going to 1) run SS dry, 2) run medicare dry, and 3) charge their kids' generation a LOT of money for their homes.

I wonder how much the other SS pieces cost...probably a lot. Does it cover disabilities for veterans? If so, that's another hidden future expense of the 3 gulf wars (and a present expense for vietnam).

JH says

I wonder how much the other SS pieces cost...probably a lot. Does it cover disabilities for veterans? If so, that's another hidden future expense of the 3 gulf wars (and a present expense for vietnam).

There will also be extra costs for the VA health system as the vets get older and need more care.

HC said: It's not certain that the USPS is inefficient when compared to private carriers.
Amazon appears to be turning to the US Postal Service more for "last mile" solutions. Sunday delivery, who knew?

EBGuy says

HC said: It's not certain that the USPS is inefficient when compared to private carriers.

Amazon appears to be turning to them more for "last mile" solutions. Sunday delivery, who knew?

They do have the infrastructure and zip code system

smaulgld says

There will also be extra costs for the VA health system as the vets get older and need more care.

Not if we keep them off the wait lists.

But yes, these wars have been and will be insanely expensive. And ironically, when we started them, gas was $1/gallon. Now look where it is. Team America!!!!

JH says

Not if we keep them off the wait lists.

But yes, these wars have been and will be insanely expensive.

Figure around $1,200,000,000 spent per fatality on 9-11.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

JH says

Not if we keep them off the wait lists.

But yes, these wars have been and will be insanely expensive.

Figure around $1,200,000,000 spent per fatality on 9-11.

And about what 4 american soldier deaths per 9/11 civilian death?

JH says

Iosef V HydroCabron says

JH says

Not if we keep them off the wait lists.

But yes, these wars have been and will be insanely expensive.

Figure around $1,200,000,000 spent per fatality on 9-11.

And about what 4 american soldier deaths per 9/11 civilian death?

That'll show 'em: Suck on it, al Qaeda!

jazz music says

Come to think of it, yes, since they do lobby for harsher, longer sentences to augment their labor force that really does mean that innocent people will be there making them richer faster working for free. The guards get more money from the system too.

What it "sounds like" to me is that this "land of the free" as is is going to need an ever increasing amount of prisons, SWAT teams, police, spies, cameras, and special forces to continue disappearing any dissenting voices, or, uh terrorists.

Sounds to me like you are trying to squash the dissenting voices of the lobbyists.

jazz music says

"The real truth" as you say is this: dissenting voices ARE FREEDOM. It's not freedom to go out and conspicuously blow money, which is the very thing that the police will never disrupt.

What? It is freedom to spend your money. Now your'e trying to restrict people from spending their own money.

jazz music says

If the law silences DISSENT, then the the law is nothing better than a hostile occupation force.

I don't see anyone trying to silence you. I do see you trying to take away the freedoms of others.

JH says

You are absolutely right that if someone invests even a small amount of their income on top of SS, they will be fine (assuming they have paid off their home, HELOCs, cars, and student loans, and they can work until or beyond 67). But the reality is that most have not. And the second reality is that they are going to 1) run SS dry, 2) run medicare dry, and 3) charge their kids' generation a LOT of money for their homes.

Yeah, that's the biggest problem -- that's why I make a distinction between the retirement that people desire vs. what they deserve. I look at some Baby Boomers right now and think, "You spent all your money, bitches!" especially when you consider that they got cheap education, cheap housing, and a lot of them got pensions, and the heart of their earning years were in a 25 year bull market.

jazz music says

Wow, this is the most lengthy and honest thought you have ever posted. And it almost makes me regret putting you on ignore.

It wasn't me who said the above.
You talk about freedoms and then put me on ignore, basically denying me my constitutional rights.
Why would anyone want to put anyone on ignore? It's the internet. Relax.

jazz music says

And it almost makes me regret putting you on ignore.

My wife is always putting me on ignore....most of the time I never even find out why. There is no "Hello, how was you day" no dinner, and no explanation. So I'm forced to go to the "Yard House" have some good beer, good food, flirt with bartender or some half drunk beauty sitting next to me.
And when I get home my wife thinks I was punished. LOL.