Replies

If the retired generation was wealthy enough to provide for their own retirement what is the need for a transfer?

Now you are on to something! If, for example, for every $5 of income, a potential recipient would lose $1 of benefit, that might completely eliminate the upcoming problems related to demographic shifts. Privatizing does not solve the problem and could potentially create a much worse problem. For example, one nightmare scenario involves going to a privatized system, creating an unsustainable stock market bubble making the recently burst NASDAQ bubble look like a walk in the park and creating a feast for a new breed of sharpies to feed the hype and feast on the spoils. When the inevitable burst occurs (1929 or worse) we will have a big problem.

Underlying your faith in privitization is your belief that the future average gains in the stock market will match past gains. You also fail to consider the uneveness of past gains (periods of windfall profits followed by periods of substandard/negative returns. Based on the luck of timing, even if the past returns hold up on average, privatization could lead to entire generations with windfall returns and others requiring welfare support to maintain subsistence. As another poster (A. Pole) pointed out to you back in #44, the ultimate viability would, therefore, still be the implicit government guarantee.

Now you are on to something! If, for example, for every $5 of income, a potential recipient would lose $1 of benefit, that might completely eliminate the upcoming problems related to demographic shifts. Privatizing does not solve the problem and could potentially create a much worse problem. For example, one nightmare scenario involves going to a privatized system, creating an unsustainable stock market bubble making the recently burst NASDAQ bubble look like a walk in the park and creating a feast for a new breed of sharpies to feed the hype and feast on the spoils. When the inevitable burst occurs (1929 or worse) we will have a big problem.
Underlying your faith in privitization is your belief that the future average gains in the stock market will match past gains. You also fail to consider the uneveness of past gains (periods of windfall profits followed by periods of substandard/negative returns. Based on the luck of timing, even if the past returns hold up on average, privatization could lead to entire generations with windfall returns and others requiring welfare support to maintain subsistence. As another poster (A. Pole) pointed out to you back in #44, the ultimate viability would, therefore, still be the implicit government guarantee.

I don't believe future gains will match past gains. That's why I recommended 70/30 in my earlier post. I do know that TIPS pay a higher return than Social Security and that stocks will too. Again, over a long enough time frame. I know there are scary fluctuations. Again, thats greatly reduced by a 70/30 or 60/40 split.

I'm more scared at what will happen in 30 years when the government raises taxes or sharply cuts benefits. That will make losses in the market lately look like small potatoes.

Here's my idea, the gov can keep all my employers contributions past and future, I invest my portion (7.65%) and the government doesn't owe me any benefits when I retire. That makes me happy. It should also help pay for current retirees. What do you think?

Privatizing does not solve the problem and could potentially create a much worse problem. For example, one nightmare scenario involves going to a privatized system, creating an unsustainable stock market bubble making the recently burst NASDAQ bubble look like a walk in the park and creating a feast for a new breed of sharpies to feed the hype and feast on the spoils. When the inevitable burst occurs (1929 or worse) we will have a big problem.

I think the bubble fear is what A. Pole was addressing. I have a suggestion for that. If all retirees start dumping their stock to get spending money, that could cause a problem. My idea is that if the gov stops double taxation of dividends then companies can give their profits to shareholders via dividends rather than capital gains. If dividends are large enough, there is no need to sell to fund your retirement. If retirees do sell, the lower prices would make current workers more likely to buy the stock to capture the higher return. What do you think?