"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jim," wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message
...

John H wrote:

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 21:06:20 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




He recorded all the payroll taxes he paid into the system (including
the
matching amount from his employer), tracked down the return the
Social
Security Trust Fund earned for each of the 45 years, and then
compared
the result with what he would have gotten had he been able to invest
the
same amount of payroll tax money over the same period in the Dow
Jones
Industrial Average (including dividends).


Which explains why one should never put all their investment eggs in
one

basket.

Even the Thrift Savings Plan allows diversification.

We can all find examples which would give a return less than the
social

security

return.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

The Dow is composed of 10 companies supposedly representing a cross
section of American industry (loosely defined of late) and is updated
periodically -- so go back to 1950 and see just how many companies he
invested in. I believe the Dow is a good measure of the economy, and
lists the type of large cap conservative company one should invest in
for their retirement.


there are presently 30 companies that make up the DJ Industrials. They
started in the 1884 with 12.
http://djindexes.com/mdsidx/download..._Hist_Comp.pdf


And I think the total return for the DJ over the last 30 years is 9%.
This
will sure beat the heck out of Treasuries over the same period. You
have to
calculate dividends reinvested as part of the return. Motley Fool
probably
has the returns on their site for total return with reinvested
dividends.


So why doesn't the government take the plunge if it's such a sure thing?
Pay the shortfall in SS; bring down the deficit; and as a shareholder
be able to influence cooperate decisions.

What part of the government do you not understand?

I think all of it.

It is an unnatural act
for them to spend less than they take in, and you know the politicians do
not like to do unnatural acts in public. Other than when Newt Grindrich
controlled Congress for a couple of years, the Congress has spent mucho
excess money every year, for at least 50 years. Worse thing we have is
"Zero Based Budgeting"! A built in inflation factor of a great % and when
they cut spending 2%, they still raised spending 5%+. They should be
required to budget like the rest of us.

And the other factor is that SS is part of the "online" budgeting thanks to
Johnson.........so all the SS 'surplus' is spent just like every other
dollar that the feds receive. The whole problem from the guvmint perspective
WRT privitizing SS is that they have already spent the money.....there is no
"trust fund" just empty IOU's to themselves.