31–40 of 277 posts
Let me guess, getting your entire career salary in a lump sum before you're 30 and having the impulsive personality of an athlete doesn't mix well?
What's your basis for saying athletes have impulsive personalities?
In many situations, people who are identified as being at risk have somebody else placed in control of the finance, by court action. Brain injury patients for instance. Hmmm.. hang on.. whats the major risk factor in the football circuit again? Seriously: the recruitment of minors for major league with giant cash benefits should require them to sign a consent form for arms-length management of their capital for some…
So this looks great at first right? It's like a lotto winner taking the lifetime payments instead of the lump sum. The problem is you can take loans against that money very easily, or you can sign the contract over to someone else very easily. Want to invest $300,000 in your friends restaurant because you think he's a great chef, just take a loan against 10 years worth of your guaranteed income stream.
In many situations, people who are identified as being at risk have somebody else placed in control of the finance, by court action. Brain injury patients for instance. Hmmm.. hang on.. whats the major risk factor in the football circuit again? Seriously: the recruitment of minors for major league with giant cash benefits should require them to sign a consent form for arms-length management of their capital for some…
> Seriously: the recruitment of minors for major league with giant cash benefits should require them to sign a consent form for arms-length management of their capital for some time period, and give them the income stream not the capital. No, thanks. It's their money, let them have it. If they want it to be invested on their behalf, that's fine. But it should be their choice. How would you like it if your employer to…
In many situations, people who are identified as being at risk have somebody else placed in control of the finance, by court action. Brain injury patients for instance. Hmmm.. hang on.. whats the major risk factor in the football circuit again? Seriously: the recruitment of minors for major league with giant cash benefits should require them to sign a consent form for arms-length management of their capital for some…
> Seriously: the recruitment of minors for major league with giant cash benefits should require them to sign a consent form for arms-length management of their capital for some time period, and give them the income stream not the capital. No, thanks. It's their money, let them have it. If they want it to be invested on their behalf, that's fine. But it should be their choice. How would you like it if your employer to…
Let me guess, getting your entire career salary in a lump sum before you're 30 and having the impulsive personality of an athlete doesn't mix well?
What's your basis for saying athletes have impulsive personalities?
People are crazy. But it's fun to watch them get so good at stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Seriously: the recruitment of minors for major league with giant cash benefits should require them to sign a consent form for arms-length management of their capital for some time period, and give them the income stream not the capital. No, thanks. It's their money, let them have it. If they want it to be invested on their behalf, that's fine. But it should be their choice. How would you like it if your employer to…
That is quite literally how retirement works.
And to the extent that it's not (e.g. National Insurance): it should be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Seriously: the recruitment of minors for major league with giant cash benefits should require them to sign a consent form for arms-length management of their capital for some time period, and give them the income stream not the capital. No, thanks. It's their money, let them have it. If they want it to be invested on their behalf, that's fine. But it should be their choice. How would you like it if your employer to…
Replace your employer with government and its real life social security. In theory I support it... if it lasted till I retired.
The Court’s decision was not surprising. In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”
We would likely have a national riot if Social Security was just yanked at once. But if my own life is any guess, the age to qualify for "benefits" keeps going higher and higher. It's theft by attrition, and backed as not theft by courts.
I do not agree with CATO's eventual policy of "privatization" at all. The other choice, which was not posited, was to earmark the funds, keep them segregated from the general fund. Then do the right thing and set Social Security as a guarantee at the same age for everyone. And, remove that cap.
(1) https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/is-there-right-...