(10-09-2026 02:13 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 01:57 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 01:20 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 11:44 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 09:28 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Dear Dummy,

$1000 invested at 11% for 67 years is exactly $1,535,188.00

Good grief you are dumb.

Your post shows a staggering ignorance of personal finance, but you did get the actual math right. Sort of. In one specific incorrect scenario.

67 years at 11% is only 1.5M if you use a continuous compounding factor.

Let’s examine two variables here :
11% - The accepted nominal long term return of the SP500 is 10%. Over the last 30 years the CAGR of the SP500 is 10.4%.
Continuous Compounding - In order to get your math to work you had to use a continuous compounding factor. Let me give you a little hint, the A in CAGR stands for annual. Historical returns are stated in compound annual growth rate. You can’t use a historical annual growth rate and then make a forward projection with continuous compounding. You use an annual compounding frequency.

So even if we use your 11% CAGR $1000 at birth in 67 years it’s $1.088M. You are off by 33%.

If we use the actually accepted historical long term average of 10% it’s 593k.

Both of those are current (birth year) dollars and future purchasing power would be reduced by inflation. At 2.5% inflation the 11% rate would deliver $208k in future purchasing power, while the 10% rate would deliver $113k in purchasing power.

You should try reading more and typing less, perhaps you could chip away at your ignorance.

Dear dummy,

glad you finally admit that 1000 at 11% over 67 years is 1.5million dollars. You could have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment and future regret if you just checked your math to begin with, and didnt try to pull straw man arguements out of your ass desperately trying to finally prove me wrong on somethng.

I hate to agree w/ Elvis here but he's right. Nobody's calculating a retirement based on continuous compounding.

you also dont save for retirement by putting a fixed amount in an account and doing nothing else.

All I was doing was showing how much a fixed amount would grow with the rate of return we have been seeing.

Truth be told, under Trump my investments have ballooned. They compounded over time while I was also contributing. Then the past two years have seen my accounts grow 16%-20% just while Trump has been in office.

Elvii hasnt done as well, because he projected the S&P woud drop to 4547.

If you are trying to show how much a fixed amount will grow then do the math properly instead of celebrating your ignorance. At least you learned how compounding intervals works today.

You use annual for forward projections based on past performance because past performance is measured in an annual rate.

(10-09-2026 02:39 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 02:13 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 01:57 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 01:20 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 11:44 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Your post shows a staggering ignorance of personal finance, but you did get the actual math right. Sort of. In one specific incorrect scenario.

67 years at 11% is only 1.5M if you use a continuous compounding factor.

Let’s examine two variables here :
11% - The accepted nominal long term return of the SP500 is 10%. Over the last 30 years the CAGR of the SP500 is 10.4%.
Continuous Compounding - In order to get your math to work you had to use a continuous compounding factor. Let me give you a little hint, the A in CAGR stands for annual. Historical returns are stated in compound annual growth rate. You can’t use a historical annual growth rate and then make a forward projection with continuous compounding. You use an annual compounding frequency.

So even if we use your 11% CAGR $1000 at birth in 67 years it’s $1.088M. You are off by 33%.

If we use the actually accepted historical long term average of 10% it’s 593k.

Both of those are current (birth year) dollars and future purchasing power would be reduced by inflation. At 2.5% inflation the 11% rate would deliver $208k in future purchasing power, while the 10% rate would deliver $113k in purchasing power.

You should try reading more and typing less, perhaps you could chip away at your ignorance.

Dear dummy,

glad you finally admit that 1000 at 11% over 67 years is 1.5million dollars. You could have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment and future regret if you just checked your math to begin with, and didnt try to pull straw man arguements out of your ass desperately trying to finally prove me wrong on somethng.

I hate to agree w/ Elvis here but he's right. Nobody's calculating a retirement based on continuous compounding.

you also dont save for retirement by putting a fixed amount in an account and doing nothing else.

All I was doing was showing how much a fixed amount would grow with the rate of return we have been seeing.

Truth be told, under Trump my investments have ballooned. They compounded over time while I was also contributing. Then the past two years have seen my accounts grow 16%-20% just while Trump has been in office.

Elvii hasnt done as well, because he projected the S&P woud drop to 4547.

If you are trying to show how much a fixed amount will grow then do the math properly instead of celebrating your ignorance. At least you learned how compounding intervals works today.

You use annual for forward projections based on past performance because past performance is measured in an annual rate.

Its grown a hell of a lot in the past 2 years. Thanks to Trump, and not the soiled diaper goober you voted for who caused a giant mess Trump has to fix.

(10-09-2026 02:14 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 01:28 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 11:55 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Back to the OP. This boomer doesn't support higher taxes for anything.

Would you support this, T-A (hypothetically because it's not going to happen):

Doubling (or even tripling or quadrupling) the "sin taxes" (those taxes on cigarettes, cigars, e-cigarettes, beer, wine, distilled spirits, lotteries, casinos, sports betting, sugary sodas, fast food and cannabis) ...

... in exchange for dropping the tax on earned income (i.e., productivity).

I would favor that.

Ponder

Not a chance. I participate in the former and not the latter, lol.

You're a hard-living gent. And I respect you for that.

(10-09-2026 05:05 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 02:14 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 01:28 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 11:55 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Back to the OP. This boomer doesn't support higher taxes for anything.

Would you support this, T-A (hypothetically because it's not going to happen):

Doubling (or even tripling or quadrupling) the "sin taxes" (those taxes on cigarettes, cigars, e-cigarettes, beer, wine, distilled spirits, lotteries, casinos, sports betting, sugary sodas, fast food and cannabis) ...

... in exchange for dropping the tax on earned income (i.e., productivity).

I would favor that.

Ponder

Not a chance. I participate in the former and not the latter, lol.

You're a hard-living gent. And I respect you for that.

Actually, of your entire list, I only personally partcipate in 2: Distilled spirits (sparingly) and fast food (frequently). But I will admit I have willingly done every single one at some point, most for years. Too old to keep up that pace now, lol.

(10-09-2026 06:35 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 05:05 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 02:14 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 01:28 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 11:55 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Back to the OP. This boomer doesn't support higher taxes for anything.

Would you support this, T-A (hypothetically because it's not going to happen):

Doubling (or even tripling or quadrupling) the "sin taxes" (those taxes on cigarettes, cigars, e-cigarettes, beer, wine, distilled spirits, lotteries, casinos, sports betting, sugary sodas, fast food and cannabis) ...

... in exchange for dropping the tax on earned income (i.e., productivity).

I would favor that.

Ponder

Not a chance. I participate in the former and not the latter, lol.

You're a hard-living gent. And I respect you for that.

Actually, of your entire list, I only personally partcipate in 2: Distilled spirits (sparingly) and fast food (frequently). But I will admit I have willingly done every single one at some point, most for years. Too old to keep up that pace now, lol.

There is a reason some on the board quietly (and respectfully) refer to you as the "The Old Pro."

So after living thru the greatest period of over consumption, over spending, reckless financial management, unearned prosperity, and lack of savings and investment to boot, this group wants others to pay more for their mistakes.

And this is the group that fancies itself more CONSERVATIVE!

It’s shocking, but I’m not at all shocked. I’ve been observing this type of Americans for many years.

#Spoiled
#RichKidSyndrome
#SomePeopleCantBePleased