And if the insurance company looses, where does the money come from ? ( from all the past .... depositors )
How do you define investment, you put in money, you get money back (if you win)
Just like Las Vegas.
So you are a Tea Bagger.
What a moronic argument. ...to be expected from you, though.
You reasonably expect the prospectus to reflect reality.
A bet, certainly. You don't have the reasonable expectation of winning. It is most certainly not an investment. However, the rules are clearly published.
Clueless, as ever. Keep it up, perhaps there is still someone out there who doesn't know what a moron you are.
Your are so cute when you get serious.
e
ve,
is
ment
up
7% less than FY2012. That's not a Washington cut, that's in actual dollars . The cut's even larger when adjusted for inflation.$713 billion were paid out versus income (taxes and interest) of $781 bill ion, a $68 billion surplus. And according to the board of trustees, payroll tax income will be sufficient to pay about three-quarters of scheduled ben efits through 2087. That's a long time. So, it appears Social Security is a n isolated, self supporting system not to be included in budget deficits.
Yes, that's about right, but it still won't be a budget problem for 20 year s. A bigger problem is SS disability benefits since loss of a job leads to being disabled. That system should be broke in a few years.
"Treasury will redeem trust fund asset reserves to the extent that program cost exceeds tax revenue and interest earnings until depletion of total tru st fund reserves in 2033, the same year projected in last year?s Trustees Report. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay about three-quar ters of scheduled benefits through 2087."
-Bill
"Cute" was originally "acute" which is not a term that you would apply to krw, but the way he regularly goes through his little routine does have it's charm.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Do these number include the number of retirees that will drop off the system ?
i.e. drop dead
Bill Bowden > A bigger problem is SS disability benefits Bill Bowden > since loss of a job leads to being disabled. Interesting. I don't disagree, but what mechanism are you describing there? I hadn't seen it presented that succintly before.
It's obvious your "argument" has been soundly eviscerated.
Yeah, Slowman, I'm sure you agree with your soulmate, Hammie, that insurance is a Ponzi scheme. Idiot socialists, both.
...and just where is the money going to come from to "redeem" these "asset reserves"? Face it, that train left forty years ago.
Mechanism? They apply for it. It keeps the "unemployment" numbers low.
Open eyes.
o krw, but the way he regularly goes through his little routine does have i t's charm.
Irony meter just pegged. Neither Hamilton nor I thinks that insurance is an y kind of Ponzi scheme. Lloyd's of London got going around 1688 (when the o riginal coffee shop first opened it's doors) and it's still running, which strongly suggests that it isn't a Ponzi scheme.
krw is idiotic enough to have got this point exactly backwards. This doesn' t make me think any the worse of him - I've never had a positive impression of his intellectual capacity.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
krw is fond of using words he doesn't understand. "Argument" is definitely one of them. He confuses is with "assertion".
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Don't tell him that !!
How else can we laugh at him, if he doesn't make stupid remarks.
hamilton
Na insurance company starts with money and sells coverage for accident or health, and the original pool with those sales added is used to cover all claims. Sales and "pool" do not spiral out of control like in Ponzi scheme, and ALL investors have a potential claim. In the event of catastrophic events, the insurance company can go broke in attempts to cover claims. It has happened a number of times.
So the bottom line here is that Insurance Companies and Social Security are NOT Ponzi Schemes for the same reason.
Which _was_ the topic under discussion.
Glad you see this the same way as I do.
hamilton
Wrong, of course (and everyone here but Slowman knows it). Insurance companies *invest* the pool of money so the pool grows. Government spends the poll so there is nothing to return. They can *only* return what has been collected, or borrowed, that year. IOW, like a Ponzi scheme, the government *will* run out of money when the "investors" demand their money. Insurance companies don't.
I'm quite sure that *big* difference will escape you, too.
Which you're too damned stupid to grasp.
Like all lefties, when you're soundly beaten, you claim victory. You really are an idiot. ...but you are a socialist, so that's redundant.
True enough, and they (SS admin) said it would not be used for ID !
So with this in mind, the pool of money should be able to pay all those claims that the medical industry (MI) charges.
Why then do the insurance companies say they can not (will not) pay for procedures that the MI say are necessary ?
Why is it the the CEO of these companies are getting 10s of millions of dollars for their great stewardship of those monies ?
Insurance companies invest to build big buildings for their CEOs.
If there were some sort of transparency .......
...and do not forget the government lied to us (so what else is new?) and called it "insurance".
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.