tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post7883434208060255439..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Allan Sloan Joins The WaPo VSP Truthiness Gang On Social SecurityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-20630049402881981442015-04-30T11:12:34.639-04:002015-04-30T11:12:34.639-04:00And Joe anyone who claims that "everyone made...And Joe anyone who claims that "everyone made money" in the 1970s either didn't life through those times or did so in a bubble. Perhaps in a back room in the Hamptons. Certainly not in major urban areas or in most of rural America.<br /><br />As to your empirical claim. Here is a table of income caps: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html<br /><br />I am having difficulty finding numbers from the 70's but this table showing both average and median net compensation still at a lower level in 1990 than the cap numbers in the 1970s, and by significant amounts.<br />http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html<br /><br />Got some better side by side numbers?Bruce Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13222670342780912788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-23119112377525308372015-04-30T11:00:25.137-04:002015-04-30T11:00:25.137-04:00Joe studies that show a negative return generally ...Joe studies that show a negative return generally discount the lifetime insurance benefits to zero, apparently on the grounds that they were never claimed. But this is ridiculous, presumedly prudent worker/investors would in many cases have taken steps to provide alternative survivor's insurance which in turn would have reduced the amount they had available to invest in higher risk/higher return instruments.<br /><br />Second the devil is in the details. My recollection is that a lot of those Reports compare the ROI based on first month return from the difference between a theoretical nest egg made up of contributions plus an implied ROI and Social Security. But don't actually include the price it would take to convert that nest egg into an inflation protected lifetime annuity. Perhaps the studies you allude to don't make this point. But since you don't provide citations it is not like you can challenge my own claim here.Bruce Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13222670342780912788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-9581903611405913592015-04-29T07:20:57.069-04:002015-04-29T07:20:57.069-04:00Studies from the 1970s are irrelevant at best and ...Studies from the 1970s are irrelevant at best and intentionally misleading at worst. At that time, everyone made money - a lot of it. The cap was less than the median income.<br /><br />Today is very different. To suggest that higher income people get the benefits that they have always gotten is laughable. People now ON AVERAGE get a negative return - according to Urban Institute and SSA. <br /><br />That is not the intent of Social Security. That isn't social insurance. It has become welfare for some, mainly retirees up to the early 00s. Now we are trying to figure out who will pay the cost of the welfare transfer.<br /><br />The problem with Sloan's commentary is that his comparison using investment adjusted dollars. Absent SS, he could have invested those dollars, yes. But SS didn't invest the dollars. That money was used to pay-off existing retirees.<br /><br />At 75% he can say that SS has been a bad deal for himself. At more than 2 to 1, he is a bad deal for Social Security.JoeTheEconomisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15000542138416955049noreply@blogger.com