The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing


Subject:  Re: Attitude Question - SS Date:  3/15/2016  5:23 PM
Author:  JAFO31 Number:  79370 of 97891

Apologies. I should have checked formatting before posting. Re-posted below:


<<<Only you know your heart, and perhaps I am wrong. I know you only from what you post, and not IRL.>>>

""Then perhaps get better acquainted with my posts. Clearly you have ignored every single one in this thread."

I read a lot of your posts, and while I do not always (or perhaps even often) agree with you, I generally respect you and the positions you stake out.

""Here is one from roughly 10 years ago (took me a bit of work to find one closely related): [and yes I know that the referenced Heritage study is disputed but this goes more to my posting history and position than it does any specific study.]



What the article does state is that because blacks die at a much higher rate, that their kids get survivor benefits where as they otherwise would get nothing.

It must be great be a fatherless black child in America to know that you only had to lose a parent to "tremendously" benefit from social security!"


And that post was made in a thread maligning the failure of GWB's effort to privatize SS.

I also posted in that thread (though not in response to you) -

"Years ago, this is what I wrote about SS reform:

"I am especially concerned about (1) the transition period, (2) whether participation would be mandatory or optional, (3) the employers contribution, and (4) the tension between all-private PSA and guaranty of government minimum standard."

""Again two years later:


The system needs some ownership. Many poor can't afford to save more money than what they are FORCED to put into SS. Give them ownership of that money so when they die, any remaining balance is given to their family - help break the cycle of generational poverty by giving people ownership of their retirement income.


My opinion of SS is multi-faceted but I have long held that if we are going to have a socialized safety net, then it should not have such a large gaping hole as it pertains to the early demise of contributors."

Several questions, then. And IIRC correctly, you are an insurance guy (or generally knowledgeable about products and pricing).

Are there any insurance products (as opposed to annuities) sold by insurance companies in the marketplace that guarantee a return of all premiums?

I wish I had that are some term policies I bought when I was younger.

With respect to annuities, as I understand it, if one elects a return of premiums, then other payouts are less for the same dollars invested? In other words, as I understand it, if standardizing two annuities for the same payout, the one that also included return of premium would cost more?

And then the nitty gritty questions.

Given that this is only discussing SS tax, I assume that the 1.45% currently paid for Medicare is not under discussion and not part of the return on premium concept you are discussing. Correct? Or not?

Are you counting the employer paid portion in calculating the return of premium? If yes, why? It is a cost of doing business to the employer but unless you have good reasons that I can understand, I am not willing to assume that employers would necessarily pay it to employees as wages. I am not aware of any data that suggests or supports the proposition that most employers pay more because they incur savings in the costs of production. In fact, the limited data I do see suggests that much more of the savings go to capital than labor (other than perhaps to the C-suite labor).

How will you price the survivor's benefits - spouse, ex-spouse and minor children that will be paid in determining whether a premium refund is due?

Will you continue to force such payments as tax collections? If not, how will you deal with the present consumption, save for future consumption, delayed gratification issues and Maslow's hierarchy of needs?

Regards, JAFO
Copyright 1996-2020 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us