On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:54:17 -0700, "Canuck57"
wrote:



Too many are far too undiciplined to save. How about keep it but with a
twist.

401KL - 401K locked in. Your SSN taxes are the same but go into an account
exclusively in your name. Forced savings if you will.

Locked into what. Enron?
I basically like the idea, but because it's "Social Security" it has
to be secure.
I don't see how you get past the gov guaranteeing it.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:54:17 -0700, "Canuck57"
wrote:



Too many are far too undiciplined to save. How about keep it but with a
twist.

401KL - 401K locked in. Your SSN taxes are the same but go into an
account
exclusively in your name. Forced savings if you will.

Locked into what. Enron?
I basically like the idea, but because it's "Social Security" it has
to be secure.
I don't see how you get past the gov guaranteeing it.

--Vic

Locked in to investments. Overall it will make money. You do not put all
the money in Enron etc. And who is going to pay those "guaranteed" Social
Security payouts? The government can only tax so much. They increase
payout age. Happening now. They decrease payout amounts. Happening next.
You and employer pay in say $15k a year for 40 years. You get back $1k a
month for maybe 8 years. starting at age 72. $600k in gives $96K out.
401KL $600K in average growth of 3% a year for 40 years. 3% times 40 times
$300k {would actually be n=more, but just figure average amount of money
invested}= 120% increase of the $300K == $160k Total at retirement $600k +
$160K = $760K you can start drawing on at age 60 if retired, Figure a
couple of the investments did not pan out, so you only get $600k to draw
from at age 60. Seems as if is a better deal than SS.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:54:29 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:54:17 -0700, "Canuck57"
wrote:



Too many are far too undiciplined to save. How about keep it but with a
twist.

401KL - 401K locked in. Your SSN taxes are the same but go into an
account
exclusively in your name. Forced savings if you will.

Locked into what. Enron?
I basically like the idea, but because it's "Social Security" it has
to be secure.
I don't see how you get past the gov guaranteeing it.

--Vic

Locked in to investments. Overall it will make money. You do not put all
the money in Enron etc. And who is going to pay those "guaranteed" Social
Security payouts? The government can only tax so much. They increase
payout age. Happening now. They decrease payout amounts. Happening next.
You and employer pay in say $15k a year for 40 years. You get back $1k a
month for maybe 8 years. starting at age 72. $600k in gives $96K out.
401KL $600K in average growth of 3% a year for 40 years. 3% times 40 times
$300k {would actually be n=more, but just figure average amount of money
invested}= 120% increase of the $300K == $160k Total at retirement $600k +
$160K = $760K you can start drawing on at age 60 if retired, Figure a
couple of the investments did not pan out, so you only get $600k to draw
from at age 60. Seems as if is a better deal than SS.

Too much money there, and the wrong premise. SS should only provide a
bottom to keep people housed and fed if they contributed but have no
other savings/investments. It's not an real "investment."
Lots of actuarial figuring goes into it, given how people die off.
Why I want to get it out of the hands of the gov is because they spend
it for other things. Their accounting is pure B.S.
Having the individual accounts "invested" in non-gov entities would be
a dose of reality and accountability, and might stimulate the economy,
but if the gov won't guarantee it, why let them take it out of your
paycheck? Might as well put it in FDIC insured savings. But again
you're back to a gov guarantee.
There is no answer to ensured retirement without the gov.
And ensured retirement money - subsistence or not - is the main reason
for SS. It will never go away, because poor old folks sleeping under
bridges and begging for alms just won't be tolerated.
If equities get into the mix - and that may or may not be a good idea
- you get another can of worms opened with preferences and all.
And again, if the gov won't insure at least a bottom, what good are
they?

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:54:29 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:54:17 -0700, "Canuck57"
wrote:



Too many are far too undiciplined to save. How about keep it but with a
twist.

401KL - 401K locked in. Your SSN taxes are the same but go into an
account
exclusively in your name. Forced savings if you will.

Locked into what. Enron?
I basically like the idea, but because it's "Social Security" it has
to be secure.
I don't see how you get past the gov guaranteeing it.

--Vic

Locked in to investments. Overall it will make money. You do not put all
the money in Enron etc. And who is going to pay those "guaranteed" Social
Security payouts? The government can only tax so much. They increase
payout age. Happening now. They decrease payout amounts. Happening
next.
You and employer pay in say $15k a year for 40 years. You get back $1k a
month for maybe 8 years. starting at age 72. $600k in gives $96K out.
401KL $600K in average growth of 3% a year for 40 years. 3% times 40
times
$300k {would actually be n=more, but just figure average amount of money
invested}= 120% increase of the $300K == $160k Total at retirement $600k
+
$160K = $760K you can start drawing on at age 60 if retired, Figure a
couple of the investments did not pan out, so you only get $600k to draw
from at age 60. Seems as if is a better deal than SS.

Too much money there, and the wrong premise. SS should only provide a
bottom to keep people housed and fed if they contributed but have no
other savings/investments. It's not an real "investment."
Lots of actuarial figuring goes into it, given how people die off.
Why I want to get it out of the hands of the gov is because they spend
it for other things. Their accounting is pure B.S.
Having the individual accounts "invested" in non-gov entities would be
a dose of reality and accountability, and might stimulate the economy,
but if the gov won't guarantee it, why let them take it out of your
paycheck? Might as well put it in FDIC insured savings. But again
you're back to a gov guarantee.
There is no answer to ensured retirement without the gov.
And ensured retirement money - subsistence or not - is the main reason
for SS. It will never go away, because poor old folks sleeping under
bridges and begging for alms just won't be tolerated.
If equities get into the mix - and that may or may not be a good idea
- you get another can of worms opened with preferences and all.
And again, if the gov won't insure at least a bottom, what good are
they?

--Vic

A base to keep the old and infirm from starving was the basis for Social
Security. The Widows and Children's act. But LBJ figured out how to get
lots more money to spend for a war he and his family profited highly from,
but promising hire payouts, when raising the contribution amount. Worked
great for LBJ, early in, just like a good Ponzi scam. Up until LBJ I paid
1% of the first $3300 a year and the employer matched it. $660 a year
total. But now is about 16% total, and the government is hiding lots of
deficit spending via SS contributions. You think Clinton really balanced
the budget? Take out that 16% SS money, and the deficit would be huge.
Same as now. You expect people to not riot if they have contributed a
couple hundred thousand dollars over their working career for no return?
Especially if they also saved and lived within their means. Not buying 2
luxury cars and going on big time vacations when their income supports 2
Kia's and a trip to the national park campground.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:17:12 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:




You expect people to not riot if they have contributed a
couple hundred thousand dollars over their working career for no return?

That's exactly why SS won't die.
Even the ones who only contributed 10 grand in their lifetime will
join in on the
"The 50 Great Million Geezer March on Washington."

Especially if they also saved and lived within their means. Not buying 2
luxury cars and going on big time vacations when their income supports 2
Kia's and a trip to the national park campground.

That's what I meant about "personal accounts" bringing a dose of
reality. Might get people to start saving more for their retirement.
Then beyond all the politically-sensitive/rich-poor/class warfare,
accounting, etc, etc issues, there's plain old fraud.
What I never get is how the gov fails to hire an adequate number of
investigators to nip disability and medicare fraud.
I bet that's a huge chunk of money, and the investigators would be
profit centers, not overhead.
Works for insurance companies.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:17:12 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:




You expect people to not riot if they have contributed a
couple hundred thousand dollars over their working career for no return?

That's exactly why SS won't die.
Even the ones who only contributed 10 grand in their lifetime will
join in on the
"The 50 Great Million Geezer March on Washington."

Especially if they also saved and lived within their means. Not buying 2
luxury cars and going on big time vacations when their income supports 2
Kia's and a trip to the national park campground.

That's what I meant about "personal accounts" bringing a dose of
reality. Might get people to start saving more for their retirement.
Then beyond all the politically-sensitive/rich-poor/class warfare,
accounting, etc, etc issues, there's plain old fraud.
What I never get is how the gov fails to hire an adequate number of
investigators to nip disability and medicare fraud.
I bet that's a huge chunk of money, and the investigators would be
profit centers, not overhead.
Works for insurance companies.

--Vic

There are not going to be enough workers to pay for SS. So those 50 million
geezers are goign to be out of luck and money. France is trying to address
this now. One of the major reasons for public service union strikes. They
want the 90% pay at 30 years. Unfortunately in about 12 years, there will
be only 2 workers for every retiree. We have about 25 years if I remember
the numbers correctly.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:17:12 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:




You expect people to not riot if they have contributed a
couple hundred thousand dollars over their working career for no return?

That's exactly why SS won't die.
Even the ones who only contributed 10 grand in their lifetime will
join in on the
"The 50 Great Million Geezer March on Washington."

Especially if they also saved and lived within their means. Not buying 2
luxury cars and going on big time vacations when their income supports 2
Kia's and a trip to the national park campground.

That's what I meant about "personal accounts" bringing a dose of
reality. Might get people to start saving more for their retirement.
Then beyond all the politically-sensitive/rich-poor/class warfare,
accounting, etc, etc issues, there's plain old fraud.
What I never get is how the gov fails to hire an adequate number of
investigators to nip disability and medicare fraud.
I bet that's a huge chunk of money, and the investigators would be
profit centers, not overhead.
Works for insurance companies.

--Vic

There are not going to be enough workers to pay for SS. So those 50
million geezers are goign to be out of luck and money. France is trying
to address this now. One of the major reasons for public service union
strikes. They want the 90% pay at 30 years. Unfortunately in about 12
years, there will be only 2 workers for every retiree. We have about 25
years if I remember the numbers correctly.

And they will be angry when they don't get paid. Many a retired and soon to
retire have never saved for it depending very much on this.

This recession could in fact get very ugly, riots over food, jobs and
retirement benefits.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:54:17 -0700, "Canuck57"
wrote:



Too many are far too undiciplined to save. How about keep it but with a
twist.

401KL - 401K locked in. Your SSN taxes are the same but go into an
account
exclusively in your name. Forced savings if you will.

Locked into what. Enron?
I basically like the idea, but because it's "Social Security" it has
to be secure.
I don't see how you get past the gov guaranteeing it.

--Vic

Did Enron's company pension survive? NorTel? Failed banks? Is GM,
Chrysler solvent? For that mater CPP/OAS in Canada or Social Security in
the US?

Government guaranteeing it? I think I read somewhere if the US government
completely shut down 100% of it's expendatures it would still run short of
cash in 202x or some year like that. Canada is much sooner.
Unquestionaably they will downsize the payments and put harsh means tests in
place. Have $15,000 a year, you have too mucha nd claw it back. Canada
already does this at $55K Canadians (about 40K US), it is called the CPP/OAS
claw back.

Now if you are fool enough to put it all in one company, any one company you
are nuts.

Your point?

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:09:26 -0700, "Canuck57"
wrote:

Did Enron's company pension survive? NorTel? Failed banks? Is GM,
Chrysler solvent? For that mater CPP/OAS in Canada or Social Security in
the US?

Government guaranteeing it? I think I read somewhere if the US government
completely shut down 100% of it's expendatures it would still run short of
cash in 202x or some year like that. Canada is much sooner.
Unquestionaably they will downsize the payments and put harsh means tests in
place. Have $15,000 a year, you have too mucha nd claw it back. Canada
already does this at $55K Canadians (about 40K US), it is called the CPP/OAS
claw back.

Now if you are fool enough to put it all in one company, any one company you
are nuts.

Your point?

Hell, it's pretty obvious. Equities have tanked. Overall.
Sorry to break the news.
Who's going to be the "financial planner" for SS? You?
Go ahead and invest your own money however you want.
You ain't touching mine.
Tell you what.
You're welcome to run for office with all your plans.
Might get some votes.
About as many as all the other "investment experts" out there.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:09:26 -0700, "Canuck57"
wrote:

Did Enron's company pension survive? NorTel? Failed banks? Is GM,
Chrysler solvent? For that mater CPP/OAS in Canada or Social Security in
the US?

Government guaranteeing it? I think I read somewhere if the US government
completely shut down 100% of it's expendatures it would still run short of
cash in 202x or some year like that. Canada is much sooner.
Unquestionaably they will downsize the payments and put harsh means tests
in
place. Have $15,000 a year, you have too mucha nd claw it back. Canada
already does this at $55K Canadians (about 40K US), it is called the
CPP/OAS
claw back.

Now if you are fool enough to put it all in one company, any one company
you
are nuts.

Your point?

Hell, it's pretty obvious. Equities have tanked. Overall.
Sorry to break the news.
Who's going to be the "financial planner" for SS? You?
Go ahead and invest your own money however you want.
You ain't touching mine.
Tell you what.
You're welcome to run for office with all your plans.
Might get some votes.
About as many as all the other "investment experts" out there.

--Vic

I wasn't trying to run for government. Sooner run for 1st mate on the
Titanic.

My main point being, this is one hell of a lot worse than a simple 12-16
month recession and you can't count on pensions not specifically in your
name for much.