You might or you might end up screwed. And what happens if millions of seniors end up screwed?Give me the $400/month I stick into SSI and I'll get a better return on it then what the government does with it.
You might or you might end up screwed. And what happens if millions of seniors end up screwed?Give me the $400/month I stick into SSI and I'll get a better return on it then what the government does with it.
If I made $15,000,000 I would be losing $12,263
I'm getting screwed NOW! Is the money I've been paying into that system for 30 years going into a fund for me (and my wife), while growing? NO!Originally Posted by Rojo
When I take a look at my 401K and mutual fund portfolio... if that is getting screwed, then bring it on! I'll give them that extra $400/month and tell them to "hurt me baby!"
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
In the late 70's, when I was in school, you always heard that Social Security wouldn't be around when my age group retires.
In the early 80's, when I was in college, you always heard that Social Security wouldn't be around when my age group retires.
In the late 80's, you always heard that Social Security wouldn't be around when my age group retires.
All through the 90's, you always heard that Social Security wouldn't be around when my age group retires.
Now in the 21st Century, you always hear that Social Security won't be around when my age group retires.
I'm glad I am not counting on Social Security when I retire.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
Here is my objection to SS.
The government assumes i'm too stupid to take care of myself. And maybe in some cases they are right.
But if i am, SS will barely keep me alive. people do use it as a single source of retirement income. they really do. without SS what happens to them?
well for starters if there were no SS right now for my generation and younger it means we actually have to think. we actually have to plan. we actually have to be responsible. thing is, the government doesn't believe we can be. with our own money no less!
I really laugh at this notion:
A well diversified portfolio, a well managed moderate risk portfolio probably survived just fine.What if you'd retired in 2000 or 2001?
this crutch needs to go away.
Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum.
Not really. My dad lost three quarters of a pretty safe portfolio and had to go back to work. A friend of mine had to come out of retirement because his union annuity was decimated.A well diversified portfolio, a well managed moderate risk portfolio probably survived just fine.
Or make enough money. We've had that discussion however.we actually have to plan. we actually have to be responsible. thing is, the government doesn't believe we can be. with our own money no less!
And are you denying that people won't invest prudently? What do you do with them? What do you say to someone who's worked hard for 50 years and seen his retirement "Enroned"? Call him an idiot and walk away?
SS has worked amazingly well. The elderly used to be among the poorest of our population (despite stock markets that were available to them). Now we joke about how much luchre the old farts have.
Me, I don't want to go back to the pre-Depression days. I don't want to live in Calcutta.
yeah, enron was a bad deal. lot's of people hurt by that. but those people all paid SS right? Had that mone gone to an IRA instead, or any other managed account, they'd be in better shape.
maybe i'm bitter because i've been there, but i don't want to pay to take care of someone else at the expense of my own family's future. fortunately for me, i don't have to.
Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum.
But if something happens to you or you live a long time, someone else is paying to take care of your family or you.i don't want to pay to take care of someone else at the expense of my own family's future.
Its actually pretty cool.
problem with SS.
it was designed to be soley suplemental income.
however, the primary perception of it among the masses (and it has been for many many years) is that it is supposed to be primary income.
the store for all your blade, costuming (in any regard), leather (also in any regard), and steel craft needs.www.facebook.com/tdhshop
yes, this really is how we make our living.
Notice the key word used here....not "can't" but won't. And because some don't want to take that responsibility, therefore it's my responsibilty to do so? I'm not talking about helping those that are poor or lower class; but those who have the means, yet don't wish to utilize them while they can (and while they are younger).
Should Donald Trump get SSI when he turns 65?
The elderly are a very well-off class (financially) when you compare them against the other age groups. And they got that way how? Saving, wise investments, having their homes paid off, along with other expenses, maybe? They planned ahead. They sure didn't get there via SSI. Yet this is the class we hear complaining so much about SSI, and how they can't afford prescriptions, medicine, etc. They'll be darned if they should have to pay more for those items and possibly have to dip into that personal nest egg.The elderly used to be among the poorest of our population (despite stock markets that were available to them). Now we joke about how much luchre the old farts have.
I agree with you 100% TFR....Was SSI intended/established to achieve this goal? I always thought it was established as a supplement? It sure has evolved. SSI, Medicare, Madicaid now take over 50% of the federal budget (and growing).people do use it as a single source of retirement income.
Last edited by GAC; 02-18-2005 at 09:25 AM.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
I'm not sure I'm following where you're going with that - I was all of 28 years old in 2000.
If the point you're trying to make is that the markets (and thus, many investment portfolios) tanked during that period, the flip-side is that everyone saw portfolio growth in the late 90s that was so good that it bordered on absurd. Over the course of a 30-40 year professional career, the normal person is going to have several peaks & dips just like those two. Anyone with any common sense or an ounce of financial savvy should know that the closer you get to retirement, the more you shift your retirement portfolio to favor conservative investments. It's hard for me to feel sorry for anyone age 50 and above in the mid to late 90s who still had the bulk of their retirement assets sitting in aggressive risk investment instruments. That's like playing with matches at an oil refinery.
In my particular case, I'm presently paying into 3 retirement programs: The mandatory program at work, a voluntary program at work, and Social Security. Assuming I continue in my current career, I'm in a program where I'll have the option to retire at age 52 (in the year 2024) and start drawing a pension immediately. Never have to work another day of my life if I don't want to. I'd live just fine off my pension, and wouldn't have to touch a penny in my 403 b (public sector equivalent of a 401 k) until my mid-60s. My pension and my 403 b, coupled with my wife's 401 k will be quite sufficient to provide for the two of us even if we both live to be 100 years old.
Imagine what I could do if I could take control of another couple of percentage points of my income, instead of handing it over to the government.
......
Everyone should read Ravenlord's post and understand the implication:
It is YOUR responsibility to provide for your own retirement.
It is NOT the government's responsibility.
Were the elderly a pretty well off class before social security?The elderly are a very well-off class (financially) when you compare them against the other age groups. And they got that way how? Saving, wise investments, having their homes paid off, along with other expenses, maybe? They planned ahead.
Odd how they weren't. I wonder why that might be.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
They weren't as poor as you'd like to describe prior to SSI.
But you explain it.
Are you saying they acquired/accumulate their wealth due to SSI? Or maybe they have been able to hang onto more of their acquired personal wealth while living off of, and demanding more and more from what was designed to be a supplemental program?
So I'm sending $400/month of my hard-earned money into a "pay as you go" program... money I could be using right now to invest in my familie's future, and to build wealth for when I, and my wife, retire... to provide for wealthy elderly who are drawing those SSI checks while sitting on that nest egg they built up? What's that nest egg for anyway? They can't take it with them.
And I always wondered why so many elderly were able to afford to retire to Florida and Arizona.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
They weren't?They weren't as poor as you'd like to describe prior to SSI.
http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/research_02e.stm
http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.htmlThe power of Social Security in lifting the elderly out of poverty is underscored by comparing the long term trends in the elderly and child poverty rates. Prior to the enactment of Social Security, poverty was widespread among the nation's elderly. Even 30 years ago, the elderly were more likely to live in poverty than the population as a whole. In 1966, 28.5% of the elderly in the United States had incomes below the poverty line, compared with 14.7% of the general population and 17.6% of children. By 1997 the national poverty rate for the elderly had fallen to 10.5% while the child poverty rate was 19.9% and the overall poverty rate was 14.7%.
Following the outbreak of the Great Depression, poverty among the elderly grew dramatically. The best estimates are that in 1934 over half of the elderly in America lacked sufficient income to be self-supporting. Despite this, state welfare pensions for the elderly were practically non-existent before 1930. A spurt of pension legislation was passed in the years immediately prior to passage of the Social Security Act, so that 30 states had some form of old-age pension program by 1935. However, these programs were generally inadequate and ineffective. Only about 3% of the elderly were actually receiving benefits under these states plans, and the average benefit amount was about 65 cents a day.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Another problem is SS didn't evolve like the rest of the country did. We are smarter, and better educated, though I'd still say real life economics needs to be a core curriculum item in HS. SS has pretty much stayed the same, in that it assumes we are too stupid to provide for our own future.
I never want my government to assume i am too stupid to take care of myself or my family. I do want the government to provide assistance to those families that need it. for example: I'm appalled at hearing that some military families are on food stamps.
But $200-400 per month funneled into an IRA instead of SS. or a mutual fund. or several mutual funds. I wish I had started working for my current employer 17 years ago. I'd be considering retirement at 40.
Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote
