+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: One simple question Repubs. (/thread-215613.html)
- Tulsaman - 02-02-2005 09:22 PM
can i have one. because i don't want to invest my money. and i am one of these "Younger Americans"
- Rebel - 02-02-2005 10:26 PM
Tulsaman Wrote:can i have one. because i don't want to invest my money. and i am one of these "Younger Americans"Yeah, give me a portion of your money for the rest of your working life, appx. 45 years, and I promise you, I'll give you back 800 a month for the remainder of your life, average 10 years.
PM me and I'll give you my acct # and routing number. I'll send you the documentation once you send me confirmation.
Also, this money ceases when you die.
- Skipuno - 02-02-2005 10:32 PM
Trusting your retirement to the federal goverment is stupid. With a little education its not hard to take control of your own retirement funds. The only person that will ever take your best interest to heart is you. :D
- Tulsaman - 02-02-2005 10:54 PM
Skipuno Wrote:Trusting your retirement to the federal goverment is stupid. With a little education its not hard to take control of your own retirement funds. The only person that will ever take your best interest to heart is you. :Dbut i don't trust myself. :D
- Rebel - 02-02-2005 11:06 PM
Tulsaman Wrote:Read these words clearly:Skipuno Wrote:Trusting your retirement to the federal goverment is stupid. With a little education its not hard to take control of your own retirement funds. The only person that will ever take your best interest to heart is you. :Dbut i don't trust myself. :D
NOT OUR FAULT NOR IS IT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.
- blah - 02-05-2005 01:39 AM
Quote:but i don't trust myself.
Which is exactly why we need Social Security....Because people with this sentiment don't save any money, get to be 65 and say "Oh $hit, now what? I am 65, no one will hire me, I have a mortgage and a home equity loan (I had to have that big screen T.V.), $10,000 in credit card debt. Someone help me."
Enter Bleeding Heart Liberals.....
"It isn't your fault you are in this trouble. It is the "system". It was the "man" keeping you down. They forced that credit card on you. And you had to have that T.V. How could you watch the Super Bowl on a 20" screen? Let me bail you out....
As I see it, you must live with the consequences of your decisions, good or bad. If you choose to spend all of your money, you better be prepared to live like a Spartan.
I know I am not going to wait for the government for anything. I am saving today (and therefore, not buying that big screen T.V.), so that I don't have to depend on anyone. I for one would love to see them do away with SS. At the current rate I will be paying in my whole life and get nothing in return.
- fsquid - 02-05-2005 01:58 AM
get rid of it, I'm tired of seeing it being deducted from my paycheck.
- Schadenfreude - 02-05-2005 09:07 AM
blah Wrote:Social Security was founded so that elderly people who didn't have children or grandchildren to fall back on wouldn't starve or freeze to death when they could no longer work.Quote:but i don't trust myself.
Which is exactly why we need Social Security....Because people with this sentiment don't save any money, get to be 65 and say "Oh $hit, now what? I am 65, no one will hire me, I have a mortgage and a home equity loan (I had to have that big screen T.V.), $10,000 in credit card debt. Someone help me."
Enter Bleeding Heart Liberals.....
"It isn't your fault you are in this trouble. It is the "system". It was the "man" keeping you down. They forced that credit card on you. And you had to have that T.V. How could you watch the Super Bowl on a 20" screen? Let me bail you out....
To take an honest fear of the risks of private markets and turn it into financial irresponsibility is unfair.
- rickheel - 02-05-2005 11:42 AM
SS is the biggest ponzi trick out there. Had I invested what I have put into SS starting when I was 16 I could retire today.
- Motown Bronco - 02-05-2005 08:32 PM
Conservative growth funds are very low-risk, and long term CDs (earning 3%-5%, depending on current rates) are no-risk. If someone is a little nervous about dumping it into stocks, these are the accounts you'd want to look into. If one sets aside 10% of their income and invests in CDs - which offer relatively low rates in return - they'd still end up with a nice six-figure piggy bank at the end of 30-40 years of working.
Bush is correct in bringing this topic to the forefront, and suggesting ways to reform it. The quibbling over what year it'll be in "crises-mode" is just semantics. Unless taxes go through the roof or benefits are slashed, it will be at a crossroads someday. Maybe in 15 years, maybe 50. But there's no question demographics are changing in that direction. The increase in payroll % taxes and worker-to-retiree ratios over the years proves this.
I'm a little glass-half-full and thinking that the vast majority will make wise decisions when it comes to setting aside some of your earnings and saving. Given extra spending money, we might see those in their 20s be a little more carefree in their spending habits. But once people close in on 30, with the spouse, kid, mortgage, and other "adult" responsibilities staring at them, they usually wise up and set aside a percentage of their income.
As with anything legalized or left to the decision-making of the individual, there will always be a small segment that will not handle it or make ridiculously poor decisions involving it. That's true with just about anything.
- blah - 02-05-2005 11:14 PM
I just did a projection on what would happen if we were allowed to use our own SS money instead of the government.....
Here's what I found based on these assumptions....
Single person
Went to college (i.e. started working at 22)
Starting salary $35,000
Assumed salary would increase at rate of 2% (basically offset inflation. Pretty conservative estimate. 4-5% probably more accurate.)
Assumed current % given to government would go into my account and employer would still have to match these funds.
Assumed I would make 5% per year on savings. (Again pretty conservative. You can do this simply by putting your money into a CD).
Assumed that I would retire at 65.
Assumed that I could live off 2/3 of salary at retirement.
Assumed I did no other savings. (Really conservative, as most people put money into a 401K or similar account or an IRA.)
The result was that I did not run out of money until I was 89.5 years old. That is good enough for me....
- Fanatical - 02-08-2005 02:46 PM
Tulsaman Wrote:can i have one.Sure you can, but just be ready to have no money when you are 64
- Schadenfreude - 02-09-2005 12:18 AM
Fanatical Wrote:It is projected that, by 2042 or so, Social Security's income will only equal 73 percent of promised benefits.Tulsaman Wrote:can i have one.Sure you can, but just be ready to have no money when you are 64
In other words, it is quite reasonable to assume Tulsaman should get 73 percent of his promised benefits by the time he retires.
If Social Security's cost of living adjustment is tied to price inflation instead of wage inflation, then that gap narrows.
- Rebel - 02-09-2005 12:26 AM
Schadenfreude Wrote:Projected where? I "project" I will make 4 Mil a year next year.....however, I have no proof, nor a plan for it. So.....projected where? More importantly, who gives a rat's *** about a projection? Aren't we a nation of educated people? I think we have people that can provide something more than a "projection". A projection is nothing more than an "estimation".....which is what you are relying on foolishly. It's simple math. There WILL be more people on SS than the people can currently afford. Thanks to a Dem, LBJ, for removing it from a secure fund.Fanatical Wrote:It is projected that, by 2042 or so, Social Security's income will only equal 73 percent of promised benefits.Tulsaman Wrote:can i have one.Sure you can, but just be ready to have no money when you are 64
In other words, it is quite reasonable to assume Tulsaman should get 73 percent of his promised benefits by the time he retires.
If Social Security's cost of living adjustment is tied to price inflation instead of wage inflation, then that gap narrows.
On another note, it's not the governments job to make choices for an individual about his/her retirement. SS was about a S-U-P-P-L-E-M-E-N-T......which is not unconstitutional, however, forcing someone into it and forcing others to pay for it is.