English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Stocks have historically earned 10% return over the last 80 years while Social Security has earned 2%. Bonus points if you know the rule of 72.

2007-11-08 04:26:47 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

3 answers

Homegirls ignorance on economics is troubling. She probably thinks the money she pays to SS is really HER money. What a joke. Why do you think the government makes you think that your employer is paying half of her SS. This is a cost of doing business and is therefore reducing the amount the employer is willing to pay her. Rule of 72 refers to how long it takes to double your money based on rate of return. 2% would take about 36 years. 10% would take about 7 years. In that same 36 years - as above $ 1 becomes $ 2 with social security. With stocks it would turn $ 1 into about $32. And libs are against partial private accounts! OMG!

2007-11-08 04:50:45 · answer #1 · answered by Johnny D 2 · 1 2

Social Security is an insurance program not an investment program.
Pay in your 40 quarters and when it is time to collect you collect for the rest of your life not until your investment is all drawn down.
Social Security also provides payments to your children and your spouse, also income if you are permanently unable to work.
Have you priced a private annuity, investment or insurance policy that provides the same benefits?

2007-11-08 12:37:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

It;s not a pyramid scheme - it's been robbed.

Has no one noticed that that massive pool of baby boomers that is supposed to be 'breaking' SocSec has been pouring money into the system and that money is being "lent" to the general budget?
Deficit spending and TAX CUTS are what is hurting Social Security.

2007-11-08 12:50:08 · answer #3 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers