On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:35:33 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

On 15 Feb 2005 19:13:10 -0800, wrote:

John H wrote:

That last paragraph is nicely done. Of course, it has no bearing on the

voluntary investment of 3% of social security withholdings.

A lot of words, Chuck, nicely written and all, but with no bearing on
the
question.
******

Certainly it bears on the question. Why must one be allowed to reduce
the contribution to a fund that is designed to sustain, widows,
orphans, the disabled, and the indigent elderly in order to invest 3,
4, 5, 10, 15, or 20% of an income on Wall Street?

That's one of the problems. SS cannot continue to support all of those
people on the amount that it brings in. SS is primarily a retirement
fund, and as such it offers a poor return on investment. Yours and my
money would offer a much better return if placed in a managed
investment fund.

Widows would get the benefits of what was earned in an individual's
fund.

Maybe SS needs to be split into two parts. One part saving for
eventual retirement, and the other an "insurance" policy that protects
against disability.

You yourself said
that SS taxes did *not* prevent you from investing amounts beyond those
impounded by the govt. for social security.

The thing is, if there were no MANDATORY SS, there would be people
who would work their whole life, and spend 100% of what they earn, and
then when they get old, they'd have nothing to show for it.

I realize that this is a somewhat socialistic opinion, but the simple
facts are that SOME people do not have enough personal responsibility
to plan for their "retirement". That's why the mandatory SS program
was created. But if SS were reformed to slowly shift from the current
"no interest" account to one which does earn compound interest, the
potential is there for a greater return on the investment.

Remember that there is no real "guarantee" that SS will be there when
we all retire. SS could be eliminated by the stroke of a pen, so the
argument that SS is "guaranteed" is naive.

I recall that you, yourself, offered up a very similar plan to slowly
migrate SS over to personal interest bearing accounts some time back.
I agreed that this was the best chance of reforming the system. Are
you no longer a believer in that plan?

Dave


Harry Reid did the same thing. I wonder is this is due to the idea or the
presenter.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"John H" wrote in message
...
On 15 Feb 2005 19:22:13 -0800, wrote:

P.Fritz squealed:

The liebrals are too afraid people may be able to take care of
themselves
without the 'big daddy guvmint" they strive for.

************************************************ *

This liberal thinks you darn well better plan to take care of yourself,
and doesn't need "Big Daddy" government to give me a 3% "allowance" to
invest.Social Security supports widows, orphans, the disabled, and the
indigent elderly. If I need to turn my financial back on that segment
of society in order to save for retirement, there's something screwed
up (and in a major way) with my personal finances.

Did you know that if they took the "cap" off of Social Security
earnings, the rate could be reduced from about 15% at present (split
between employer/employee or paid as self employment tax) to something
closer to 6-7%? There you go, several percent saved by both employee
and employer- more for investment. :-)

How is allowing the voluntary investment of 3% of an 18 year-old's
withholdings
going to hurt widows, orphans, the disabled, or the indigent elderly?

Come on, Chuck. You're spreading the same kind of panic one would expect
from
Kennedy or Pelosi, or Reid (who thought this was a good idea a few years
ago -
wonder what changed his mind?).

Of course he conviently forgets that congress has no constitutional
authorization to establish a social security system in the first place.

WRT the cap of SS earnings, once again liebrals used flawed static
thinking...........anybody with any sense at all knows that removig the cap
will result in a movement from "wages" to another source of income......like
dividends to avoid the tax increase.



John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes

John H wrote:

From whence came that tidbit? What percent of the current withholdings
goes to
support the WODI's you mention above? Remember, if 3% is personalized,
the other
97% is still there to provide the same support.


If the parents of the WODI had been allowed to invest some of their SS
money in
a decent manner and pass it on when they died, perhaps the indigent
wouldn't be
so indigent.


*****************

I thought you were a math whiz.

The employee's SS contribution is about 7.5% of wages, matched by the
employer.

If you take 3% of the employee wages out of the SS system, you are left
with about 75% of the money, not 97%.

We can't break faith with all of the people who have, foolishly,
planned on SS for old age income.

On 16 Feb 2005 08:36:06 -0800, wrote:

John H wrote:

From whence came that tidbit? What percent of the current withholdings
goes to
support the WODI's you mention above? Remember, if 3% is personalized,
the other
97% is still there to provide the same support.


If the parents of the WODI had been allowed to invest some of their SS
money in
a decent manner and pass it on when they died, perhaps the indigent
wouldn't be
so indigent.


*****************

I thought you were a math whiz.

The employee's SS contribution is about 7.5% of wages, matched by the
employer.

If you take 3% of the employee wages out of the SS system, you are left
with about 75% of the money, not 97%.

We can't break faith with all of the people who have, foolishly,
planned on SS for old age income.

According to Bloomberg.com,

Bush's proposal to allow younger workers to divert 4 percentage points of their
Social Security payroll tax into the accounts would add $1 trillion to $2
trillion to the deficit over 10 years, according to a panel he appointed in
2001.

The 4% (not 3% as I'd thought) is applied to their *tax*, not their income.

I've never proclaimed myself as a math wiz. Where did you get that?

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

John wrote:


The 4% (not 3% as I'd thought) is applied to their *tax*, not their
income.


*******************

Four pecent of 7.5%?

Isn't that about one third of a percent of income?

In other words, a young worker pulling in $50,000 a year would put away
$150.00 per year toward retirement?

Better check your information. If true, tell them not to spend that
princely, compounded sum in any one place. :-)

On 16 Feb 2005 09:16:20 -0800, wrote:

John wrote:


The 4% (not 3% as I'd thought) is applied to their *tax*, not their
income.


*******************

Four pecent of 7.5%?

Isn't that about one third of a percent of income?

In other words, a young worker pulling in $50,000 a year would put away
$150.00 per year toward retirement?

Better check your information. If true, tell them not to spend that
princely, compounded sum in any one place. :-)

Well, I just read another article that says, "...up to thirty percent of their
payroll tax."

You're correct, 3% of the tax itself wouldn't amount to much. The thirty percent
of the tax seems much more realistic.

Now it's an even better idea!


John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

John H wrote:
On 16 Feb 2005 09:16:20 -0800, wrote:

John wrote:


The 4% (not 3% as I'd thought) is applied to their *tax*, not their
income.


*******************

Four pecent of 7.5%?

Isn't that about one third of a percent of income?

In other words, a young worker pulling in $50,000 a year would put
away
$150.00 per year toward retirement?

Better check your information. If true, tell them not to spend that
princely, compounded sum in any one place. :-)

Well, I just read another article that says, "...up to thirty percent
of their
payroll tax."

You're correct, 3% of the tax itself wouldn't amount to much. The
thirty percent
of the tax seems much more realistic.

Now it's an even better idea!


John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and
necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

************************

I'm not so sure.

I've been investing for retirement for decades. My situation is
different from a lot of people as some of my income ($10-20 a week)
will continue perpetually, whether I "work" or not, but I have taken
advantage of a number of tax saving retirement plans *already in
existence* to accumulate the couple of hundred bucks I have so far
managed to save for my old age.

I've got or have had Ira this, Ira that, Roth Iras, Sep Iras- hell, I
think I've probably got an Ira Hayes somewhere among those accounts.
:-) My CPA (and wife) does my taxes, but on some of these accounts I
believe I defer the income tax on any money put in. Even in my
impoverished bracket, that amounts to a lot more than 3-4% of my
income. Some of the accounts have provisions where the money that went
in initially was taxed, but all the earnings are tax exempt or tax
deferred until I draw out the money when I get old (er) and
theoretically will be earning less (hardly possible) and in a lower tax
bracket.

Some of these accounts are too risky. One of my accounts is with a
major brokerage firm.
The last time the market imploded, I decided to move some of the money
into a real property investment here in Seattle. (I bought part of a
warehouse down by Safeco Field. I believe I own one doorknob and half a
broom closet as my share). Getting the paperwork squared away to where
I was allowed to move some money out of stocks and into a less volatile
investment was a serious challenge. One of the problems with a
retirement portfolio that is heavily invested in securities is that if
the market decides to go into a corrective "nosedive" just about the
time a worker is ready to quit working, it can have a serious effect on
the type of retirement lifestyle available to the worker.

The government has been giving tax relief to people establishing
individual retirement accounts for decades. That is a good idea, and it
certainly isn't something that Bush dreamed up.

Diverting 25% of SS impounds into the stock market, when the SS system
is already in trouble, may not be wise. It certainly isn't the least
bit necessary, as there are already a number of tax sheltered accounts
and schemes in place through which an American can establish a personal
retirement savings.

Social Security: Don't count on it, but don't take it away from those
who are truly in need.

On 16 Feb 2005 22:27:06 -0800, wrote:

Some snippage.


The government has been giving tax relief to people establishing
individual retirement accounts for decades. That is a good idea, and it
certainly isn't something that Bush dreamed up.

Diverting 25% of SS impounds into the stock market, when the SS system
is already in trouble, may not be wise. It certainly isn't the least
bit necessary, as there are already a number of tax sheltered accounts
and schemes in place through which an American can establish a personal
retirement savings.

Social Security: Don't count on it, but don't take it away from those
who are truly in need.

The diversion of some SS withholdings into some type of investment would cause
people to get involved in their own savings for retirement plan. There are many
folks, unlike you, who have *not* taken advantage of any of the various
government plans.

For folks like you, who have been maxing out their traditional IRA's, Roth
IRA's, 401K's, SEP's, etc., etc., the SS check at age 62 is just a little icing
on the cake anyway. :-)


John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes