Should Social Security be eliminated entirely?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's define people in need first and then have the government offer support just as they do now, hopefully to fewer people that are truly deserving (yeah I think there are some that are). Social Security is a tax. The idea that it's some sort of pool of savings is a sham.



[/ QUOTE ]

It is a safety net first and foremost. Savings plan is really a misnomer.

What you suggest was in place in the 1930's - it was not enough. All the charity in the world was not enough during the depression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good it's a safety net. The Great Depression is a non sequiter. Are you saying that there would have been no depression in the 30's if SS would have been expanded?????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Use google, the VAST majority of people playing options lose money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't find a statistic to back this up by searching Google. You didn't answer my question but that's ok. Also you side stepped the point I made that options are irrelevant to privitized Social Security.


[ QUOTE ]
2. Six years ago our company disolved their profit sharing plan and disbursed the funds to everyone. Almost every single one now has less money than they started with. Most got crushed in the stock market crash 2001.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you side stepped my question and points about IRAs. Sorry but your anecdotal recollections are irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
3. You make no sense. If people suck at saving then how is the government giving them back their money to save logical. Most people can't save. They will spend any extra money. If you don't know this then further discussion is pointless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's logical do you believe if people paid less in taxes they'd save more money??????????????? I do. All you have to do is actually back this up some how. There are many, many people in this country who save money. Puhleeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzze.

[bocablkr]

Sorry, but I could not get back on the site yesterday afternoon.

Adios,

You don't use google very well -

More people lose money trading options than make money.

Many people see the huge profits possible in options and think they're the path to riches. But the reality is much different for most. The SEC did a study a long time ago that showed over 85% of people who bought options lost money. The study was only for one quarter. But the result of that study is probably not too far from the truth…

The point is that people generally suck at savings. When they are given choices they choose poorly. Giving them more money doesn't mean they will save more - just spend more. If you think otherwise, so be it.

Mos,

[ QUOTE ]
You really cannot be this dense. The employer looks at what HE has to pay to employ YOU, not what you earn post tax.

The employer pays into SOC SEC for you too, so this amount is considered an employment expense. If soc sec taxes were not paid by the employer, your salary would be even higher, as employers have a salary range for jobs, and minus the soc sec expense, that range expands.

By your logic....if tax rates go up to 95%, you think employers would be giving out huge raises because they know you are only taking home 5%.



[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't had many economic courses have you. Please show this thread to a college economics professor and lets see what he says.

Why do you think areas that have high tax rates or state income taxes pay such higher salaries. Want to compare NYC salaries to Florida's. All cost of living expenses including taxes are factored in. If you don't think this is true then there is not much I can say. Taxes are not accounted for one to one but it is a substantial component that is factored in.

In your example, you don't think salaries would rise to offset the difference? Of course they would, everything would go up. In case you think I am full of crap, I just talked to my boss and asked him if Florida was suddenly to add a state income tax of say 10% would I receive a pay raise?He said that I would most likely receive a pay raise of close to 10% over the next few years to keep me at the same 'net' pay. It would probably not happen all at once or in the same pay raise period. So in essence, the 10% tax increase would not affect my standard of living in the long run. It would in the beginning until the increase was absorbed by my salary increases. These things have a way of evening out. Maybe I just work for a nice guy.

Probably wasted too much time on this - guess we can just agree to disagree.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't use google very well -

More people lose money trading options than make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Post a link then we can discuss what it means.


[ QUOTE ]
Many people see the huge profits possible in options and think they're the path to riches. But the reality is much different for most. The SEC did a study a long time ago that showed over 85% of people who bought options lost money. The study was only for one quarter. But the result of that study is probably not too far from the truth…

[/ QUOTE ]

Over 90% of options expire worthless are the stastics that I recall reading. Doesn't say a thing about profitibility of those who trade options in the aggregate. Do you see why?

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that people generally suck at savings. When they are given choices they choose poorly. Giving them more money doesn't mean they will save more - just spend more. If you think otherwise, so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's go from rank speculation to savings to obfuscate the issue. Earth to bocablkr, one is not allowed to trade options directly in an IRA account more or less (covered calls which limit losses are allowed). Nothing that I've read states anything about the government allowing people to speculate in options in their retirement accounts.

You have nothing to back up your claims and you've side stepped my point about IRAs again. The reason is that you can't back up your claims. IRAs IMO offer the best evidence of what people can do with their retirement accounts. I'd bet the ranch that in self directed IRAs people have not only done much better than what they would expect to get from like money put into SS but they've also beaten inflation by a wide margin. That returns on stocks in the long run vs. bonds is indisputable no matter what you believe.

Your assertion that nobody ever saves money is preposterous.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
You haven't had many economic courses have you. Please show this thread to a college economics professor and lets see what he says.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oops I now realize that I got sucked in by a troll, oh well.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Many people see the huge profits possible in options and think they're the path to riches. But the reality is much different for most. The SEC did a study a long time ago that showed over 85% of people who bought options lost money.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I don't believe you, and you haven't been able to provide a link to evidence that this is true. So, I counter with "Social security results in the death of 100 million babies a year. You don't believe me? To bad. I don't need to back up my assertions to win the argument."

2. Even if some people lost lots of money buying options, this is not an argument that the government needs control of my retirement savings.

[ QUOTE ]
The study was only for one quarter. But the result of that study is probably not too far from the truth…

[/ QUOTE ]

Small sample spaces don't help your cause.

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that people generally suck at savings. When they are given choices they choose poorly. Giving them more money doesn't mean they will save more - just spend more. If you think otherwise, so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You still have not answered the following question: If people need to delegate their long-term investment authority to the government why wouldn't they be better off delegating authority to someone else with a long-term time preference and competitive motivation to provide good returns (as opposed to government's short-term objectives and lack of competition)? If you can't provide an answer to this you have no basis for your argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Mos,

[ QUOTE ]
You really cannot be this dense. The employer looks at what HE has to pay to employ YOU, not what you earn post tax.

The employer pays into SOC SEC for you too, so this amount is considered an employment expense. If soc sec taxes were not paid by the employer, your salary would be even higher, as employers have a salary range for jobs, and minus the soc sec expense, that range expands.

By your logic....if tax rates go up to 95%, you think employers would be giving out huge raises because they know you are only taking home 5%.



[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't had many economic courses have you. Please show this thread to a college economics professor and lets see what he says.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually didn't make that post that you quoted, but ad hominen attacks don't help your argument either. Would you please just try to rationally answer challenges put to you? You just keep saying "you're just wrong because you don't know what you're talking about". If we're all so wrong, explain, don't assert. Asserting that I am too young or haven't taken enough economics courses to understand why I'm wrong is not an argument

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think areas that have high tax rates or state income taxes pay such higher salaries. Want to compare NYC salaries to Florida's. All cost of living expenses including taxes are factored in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they are. But that doesn't mean that if you take away taxes everybodies wages drop. Answer the question I posed before: If taxes are reduced, and your wages drop to previous after tax levels, where does the wealth that was previously going to the government go now?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but I could not get back on the site yesterday afternoon.

Adios,

You don't use google very well -

More people lose money trading options than make money.

Many people see the huge profits possible in options and think they're the path to riches. But the reality is much different for most. The SEC did a study a long time ago that showed over 85% of people who bought options lost money. The study was only for one quarter. But the result of that study is probably not too far from the truth…

The point is that people generally suck at savings. When they are given choices they choose poorly. Giving them more money doesn't mean they will save more - just spend more. If you think otherwise, so be it.[/quote[

How many people, as a percentage of the entire population, even *try* to trade options? The number is, I would wager, vanishingly small. To say that "people suck at savings" based on this tiny fraction is bogus.

And is the 85% number for people over their lifetime or for individual option trades? Let's say that we found a casino that paid 40-1 on straight-up roulette numbers. The vast majority of straight-up bets would be losers. Does that make them bad bets?

[Brainwalter]

I wonder if boca knows that the options market is a zero-sum game (negative after commissions, like the rake in poker) while the stock market is positive-sum.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but I could not get back on the site yesterday afternoon.

Adios,

You don't use google very well -

More people lose money trading options than make money.

Many people see the huge profits possible in options and think they're the path to riches. But the reality is much different for most. The SEC did a study a long time ago that showed over 85% of people who bought options lost money. The study was only for one quarter. But the result of that study is probably not too far from the truth…

The point is that people generally suck at savings. When they are given choices they choose poorly. Giving them more money doesn't mean they will save more - just spend more. If you think otherwise, so be it.

Mos,

[ QUOTE ]
You really cannot be this dense. The employer looks at what HE has to pay to employ YOU, not what you earn post tax.

The employer pays into SOC SEC for you too, so this amount is considered an employment expense. If soc sec taxes were not paid by the employer, your salary would be even higher, as employers have a salary range for jobs, and minus the soc sec expense, that range expands.

By your logic....if tax rates go up to 95%, you think employers would be giving out huge raises because they know you are only taking home 5%.



[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't had many economic courses have you. Please show this thread to a college economics professor and lets see what he says.

Why do you think areas that have high tax rates or state income taxes pay such higher salaries. Want to compare NYC salaries to Florida's. All cost of living expenses including taxes are factored in. If you don't think this is true then there is not much I can say. Taxes are not accounted for one to one but it is a substantial component that is factored in.

In your example, you don't think salaries would rise to offset the difference? Of course they would, everything would go up. In case you think I am full of crap, I just talked to my boss and asked him if Florida was suddenly to add a state income tax of say 10% would I receive a pay raise?He said that I would most likely receive a pay raise of close to 10% over the next few years to keep me at the same 'net' pay. It would probably not happen all at once or in the same pay raise period. So in essence, the 10% tax increase would not affect my standard of living in the long run. It would in the beginning until the increase was absorbed by my salary increases. These things have a way of evening out. Maybe I just work for a nice guy.

Probably wasted too much time on this - guess we can just agree to disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont need economics courses to understand that employers have a dollar range for any given job. This range takes into account: salary, employer fica and other taxes, healthcare costs, retirement (401k cost), and any other benefits he or she chooses to offer to attract and keep good employees. Generally your salary is about 60 of the total employment cost. (if you make 60k, it is likely costing your employer 100k to employ you)

Now if tax rates go up in a huge fashion, and your take home pay drops.... and your employer decides to give you a raise to compensate, that money must come from somewhere. The most common solution is to raise prices.

Now, since he has given you a huge raise to compensate for the tax increase, your "takehome" income is at the same level, yet everyone has had to raise prices substantially to offset the wage increase. So now your paycheck buys less because everything costs more.

Going further...now your employer has higher prices, but less people can afford to buy the product. He now requires less employees to produce for demand.

Seems like econ 101 to me....maybe you skipped that course.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if boca knows that the options market is a zero-sum game (negative after commissions, like the rake in poker) while the stock market is positive-sum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who the hell is talking about trading options for retirement? There are so many mutual funds that are low to moderate risk, that are great for retirement. It is a simple concept...the closer to retirement you get, the lower risk you want to be exposed to.

We are not talking about trading options, and buying on margin here...just simple solid funds on mostly well established companies, and diverse funds, that have cash, bond, and stock holdings.

Although I would not be opposed to letting people do what they want with thier money.