(10-09-2026 07:36 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  More backpedaling as you try to cover up for bad math.

What happened to your “invest $1000 at birth for 1.5M claim, you hoping people forgot about that one?

Dear Dummy,

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

Good grief you are dumb.

(10-08-2026 09:51 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I'm 64 and will strongly need social security income. But I'm not sure I would support taxing younger people to help we Boomers with social security. Maybe a special tax focused on excess consumption. I'm not a fan of taxing folks' earned income (i.e., their productivity).

Regardless, I would need to ponder.

Why? Those young people are getting theirs, just like the OP. Yet you dont see him complaining about OTHER PEOPLE paying taxes to help him afford his children....


The OP is collecting between 10k and 12k each and every year off those kids from age 1 day to 18 years old. "The average single worker draws roughly $383,000 in total lifetime Social Security benefits before they die"

The OP will rake in roughly half that, for doing nothing, other than helping to make babies....by the time he's in his mid 40s.


We all want others to pay more taxes if "WE" are getting part of that tax money. Now here comes his excuses on why the government handout he's getting is so valuable to the rest of use.

" An average single worker pays roughly $367,000 into Social Security over their lifetime" so roughly 100% of what they get back. Those people paid TAXES to help offset the FREE HANDOUT, the OP is getting. So damn straight those on SS wants others to help fund their SS.....


o get back the money they paid into it.

Money that was borrowed from to give to other "tax payers"

Until they pass a law where no politician can touch SS money and it be used for its intended purpose, nothing will change.

My wife and I paid off our home in 11 and a half years and believe me, putting that money in the bank instead of giving it to a mortgage company has paid off. I get more SS then she does because she was a teacher and I don't think that teachers get SS benefits. She gets a little because she worked outside of teaching to put herself through college. I put into SS since I was 16 and until I turned 53 when I retired definitely I stopped putting any money into it. I get a little from an IRA that I invested in when I was working and my retirement check that I've been getting since I retired. She gets a retirement check and like I said a little from SS. The only debt we have now is buying products that she needs because of her illness, home taxes, utilities, and groceries. We lack for nothing except good health for her. We can't vacation anymore so we aren't spending thousands on that like we used to every year.

The thing that will keep people out of water during their old age is not paying a mortgage, but people would rather spend that money on luxuries instead. We live in a school district that is very expensive, the highest in the city where there are about 4 districts. If like Trump claims that he would eliminate home taxes that would be a great idea for many, we would benefit too as no one likes to give away their money to people who love to waste it.

(10-09-2026 09:42 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:51 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I'm 64 and will strongly need social security income. But I'm not sure I would support taxing younger people to help we Boomers with social security. Maybe a special tax focused on excess consumption. I'm not a fan of taxing folks' earned income (i.e., their productivity).

Regardless, I would need to ponder.

Why? Those young people are getting theirs, just like the OP. Yet you dont see him complaining about OTHER PEOPLE paying taxes to help him afford his children....


The OP is collecting between 10k and 12k each and every year off those kids from age 1 day to 18 years old. "The average single worker draws roughly $383,000 in total lifetime Social Security benefits before they die"

The OP will rake in roughly half that, for doing nothing, other than helping to make babies....by the time he's in his mid 40s.


We all want others to pay more taxes if "WE" are getting part of that tax money. Now here comes his excuses on why the government handout he's getting is so valuable to the rest of use.

" An average single worker pays roughly $367,000 into Social Security over their lifetime" so roughly 100% of what they get back. Those people paid TAXES to help offset the FREE HANDOUT, the OP is getting. So damn straight those on SS wants others to help fund their SS.....


o get back the money they paid into it.

Money that was borrowed from to give to other "tax payers"

I'm basically with you, WKUYG

(10-09-2026 09:52 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 09:42 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:51 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I'm 64 and will strongly need social security income. But I'm not sure I would support taxing younger people to help we Boomers with social security. Maybe a special tax focused on excess consumption. I'm not a fan of taxing folks' earned income (i.e., their productivity).

Regardless, I would need to ponder.

Why? Those young people are getting theirs, just like the OP. Yet you dont see him complaining about OTHER PEOPLE paying taxes to help him afford his children....


The OP is collecting between 10k and 12k each and every year off those kids from age 1 day to 18 years old. "The average single worker draws roughly $383,000 in total lifetime Social Security benefits before they die"

The OP will rake in roughly half that, for doing nothing, other than helping to make babies....by the time he's in his mid 40s.


We all want others to pay more taxes if "WE" are getting part of that tax money. Now here comes his excuses on why the government handout he's getting is so valuable to the rest of use.

" An average single worker pays roughly $367,000 into Social Security over their lifetime" so roughly 100% of what they get back. Those people paid TAXES to help offset the FREE HANDOUT, the OP is getting. So damn straight those on SS wants others to help fund their SS.....


o get back the money they paid into it.

Money that was borrowed from to give to other "tax payers"

I'm basically with you, WKUYG

I agree SS could have been ran better but most people want SAFE, instead of "better".

Boomers, on average gave the government interest free loans for 45 years, just to get that money back once they "age out". Money that was reached into by the government that is spending $128 billion per year just on the Child tax credit....

a family can make up to 400k a year and still get this money.

128 billion wipes out the 2025 short fall

So the question should be does the government hold the responsibility to pay back Americans that gave this government interest free loans for 45 years. Or younger people that have children?

Or should those younger people, since they are getting what is basically the amount that SS was short in 2025....

pay a few dollars more each month in taxes

One is a handout and one Americans paid in over 45 years just to draw that same money monthly when they reach 62 years old.

Handout vs I paid for it

Damn straight boomers and those just short of 65 want those getting the handout to pay them their money back

(10-09-2026 09:42 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:51 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I'm 64 and will strongly need social security income. But I'm not sure I would support taxing younger people to help we Boomers with social security. Maybe a special tax focused on excess consumption. I'm not a fan of taxing folks' earned income (i.e., their productivity).

Regardless, I would need to ponder.

Why? Those young people are getting theirs, just like the OP. Yet you dont see him complaining about OTHER PEOPLE paying taxes to help him afford his children....


The OP is collecting between 10k and 12k each and every year off those kids from age 1 day to 18 years old. "The average single worker draws roughly $383,000 in total lifetime Social Security benefits before they die"

The OP will rake in roughly half that, for doing nothing, other than helping to make babies....by the time he's in his mid 40s.


We all want others to pay more taxes if "WE" are getting part of that tax money. Now here comes his excuses on why the government handout he's getting is so valuable to the rest of use.

" An average single worker pays roughly $367,000 into Social Security over their lifetime" so roughly 100% of what they get back. Those people paid TAXES to help offset the FREE HANDOUT, the OP is getting. So damn straight those on SS wants others to help fund their SS.....


o get back the money they paid into it.

Money that was borrowed from to give to other "tax payers"

I've covered this with your dumb ass many times over now how much money they'll contribute over a lifetime compared to what we benefit from. Since the gov't is clearly not going to fix the system they've got to incentivize people to reproduce... Somebody's got to pay for all this SS.

(10-09-2026 10:10 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 09:42 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:51 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I'm 64 and will strongly need social security income. But I'm not sure I would support taxing younger people to help we Boomers with social security. Maybe a special tax focused on excess consumption. I'm not a fan of taxing folks' earned income (i.e., their productivity).

Regardless, I would need to ponder.

Why? Those young people are getting theirs, just like the OP. Yet you dont see him complaining about OTHER PEOPLE paying taxes to help him afford his children....


The OP is collecting between 10k and 12k each and every year off those kids from age 1 day to 18 years old. "The average single worker draws roughly $383,000 in total lifetime Social Security benefits before they die"

The OP will rake in roughly half that, for doing nothing, other than helping to make babies....by the time he's in his mid 40s.


We all want others to pay more taxes if "WE" are getting part of that tax money. Now here comes his excuses on why the government handout he's getting is so valuable to the rest of use.

" An average single worker pays roughly $367,000 into Social Security over their lifetime" so roughly 100% of what they get back. Those people paid TAXES to help offset the FREE HANDOUT, the OP is getting. So damn straight those on SS wants others to help fund their SS.....


o get back the money they paid into it.

Money that was borrowed from to give to other "tax payers"

I've covered this with your dumb ass many times over now how much money they'll contribute over a lifetime compared to what we benefit from.

I covered it with your dumb ass just as many times of the MONEY those of us that raised more children than you (with hand in the cookie jar) contribute over a lifetime compared to what we benefit from. Without depending on the government for 10k a year to offset cost in raising our children.


Now I admit, must not did a good enough job, because those children LOVES getting that government HANDOUT/ENTITLEMENT off our grandchildren.


You cry about shite but still got your hand in that GOVERNMENT COOKIE JAR....

over $200,000 in 18 years and everyone on this board taxes are paying for that. You or your children are not special. They are not going to "pay into the system" any more than the children that did not get this $200,000

Stop crying because people that paid into the government for 45+ years are now expecting that government give them that money back......

before they giver you 200k over 18 years because you bore a child. Nothing else, got your wife or girlfriend pregnant vs people that paid in well over 300k to the government to hold for them then give it back


btw if what you say is true, why do you complain about those poor working mothers getting a ETC? You dont think those children are going to "pay into the system"? Cant have that argument both ways. Not unless you believe your children are better, more important....

I'm sure you'd write a check back to the feds. Multiple people have explained the child tax credit to you on here. It's not costing you anything. It just lowers people's tax burden just like all the write-offs you use are doing. Unless you think all money belongs to the gov't and they just decide how much we get to keep.

But you don't want to wrap your mind around that simply b/c you're bitter it wasn't around when you had young kids.

(10-08-2026 09:21 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I tend to agree. I'd like to have that 6.2% back and invest it myself.

My dad just retired.

I looked at how much he put in and was put it by his employer. He would be insanely secure had he been able to manage that money in an ultra conservative investment account

Its a horrible system that full of so much waste and missed opportunity

(10-09-2026 09:28 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 07:36 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  More backpedaling as you try to cover up for bad math.

What happened to your “invest $1000 at birth for 1.5M claim, you hoping people forgot about that one?

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.

Back to the OP. This boomer doesn't support higher taxes for anything.

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

We probably should be shooting for around $4 million in 2026 dollars as a Social Security replacement for 67 years from now. That would be about $552,000 in 2026 dollars, 4% of which would be about $22,000. That would out the initial grant amount at about $7,000.

We had a solution put forth by George W. Bush that was similar to the one currently enacted by Argentina. Private retirement accounts. Social Security was going to be insolvent down the road. Heck, it's still headed that way. Anyway, he did his best to lay it out as plainly as possible, and the leftist media lied, saying Social Security would go away when he said it would stay. Unfortunately, enough people, even some Republicans, believed the media's lies and GWB had to drop it.

Politicians -- people in general -- complain about a problem and then complain when someone tries to solve said problem. Simply put, people prefer familiarity and comfort to change, even necessary change.

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

(10-09-2026 09:28 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 07:36 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  More backpedaling as you try to cover up for bad math.

What happened to your “invest $1000 at birth for 1.5M claim, you hoping people forgot about that one?

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.

(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

(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:  

(10-09-2026 07:36 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  More backpedaling as you try to cover up for bad math.

What happened to your “invest $1000 at birth for 1.5M claim, you hoping people forgot about that one?

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.

Please Google the definition of annual and compounding and get back to us.

Your financial projections were shite. Stop trying.

(10-09-2026 10:32 AM)b2b Wrote:  I'm sure you'd write a check back to the feds. Multiple people have explained the child tax credit to you on here. It's not costing you anything. It just lowers people's tax burden just like all the write-offs you use are doing. Unless you think all money belongs to the gov't and they just decide how much we get to keep.

But you don't want to wrap your mind around that simply b/c you're bitter it wasn't around when you had young kids.

In the end---you are simply making the best of the rules that are in place. As an individual, beyond a vote---thats the only absolute level of control one has over ones own life. Same with Social Security and the Boomers----except a retirement is something that (for most) requires a lifetime of planning and work to set up for. Its not something that current retirees or those nearing the finish line can simply change on a dime. As Bullet said, the last time a collapse of Social Security was addressed was in the 1980's and in that instance nobody over 40 was affected by changes (giving the oldest affected over 20 years to plan ahead for the changes which would be phased in over time). My guess is the fix for the current problem will be similar for the same reasons. You cant change the rules at the last second for those who's increased contributions to the new Social Security actually saved the system for everyone who relied on the system for the last 40+ years.

(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:  

(10-09-2026 07:36 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  More backpedaling as you try to cover up for bad math.

What happened to your “invest $1000 at birth for 1.5M claim, you hoping people forgot about that one?

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.

(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:  

(10-09-2026 07:36 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  More backpedaling as you try to cover up for bad math.

What happened to your “invest $1000 at birth for 1.5M claim, you hoping people forgot about that one?

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.

(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.