| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
John H wrote:
PS, Even Harry Reid thought the personalization of a small percent was a good idea - until Bush suggested it! *************************** I am a huge fan of private savings for retirement. Over the years I have taken advantage of 401K and other programs to build up a cash reserve for retirement. Last I looked, I think I was up to $219.00 :-) I *agree with President Bush* (bet you never thought you'd read that from me).....that individual private citizens need to be more pro-active in planning for the last 20-30% of life when they will not be working. I *disagree* with Bush that reducing Social Security taxes for workers who agree to save the money privately instead will strengthen the tottering Social Security program, or really provide an adequate retirement savings for most Americans. The time to retire is when you can sustain your current lifestyle from passive income, and without spending into the principal. Folks who do otherwise all too often wind up "greeting" at WalMart or flipping burgers. Might as well keep working at a "real" job rather than retire to a mini wage teenie bopper's gig. I think that folks in their 50's who aren't saving 20-25% of their net pay or who don't have a pipeline of income from dividends, rents, royalties, etc are likely to be disappointed with life in their mid-60s and 70's. The difference in return between private investment of 2% of wages and the return that Soc Sec wold provide on that same amount won't make a huge difference. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
JohnH wrote:
Remember, the plan is designed not for people in their 50's, but for a much younger population. I wish I had been investing 3% of my ss money into stock funds since I began paying ss taxes as 17! *********************** And precisely what portion of the Social Security System, as it currently exists, prevented you from budgeting 3% of your income for savings or investment? Did the rest of your expenses and luxuries consume all of your disposable income? If you didn't invest 3%, was that the government's fault? (Careful, you'll start to sound like your own stereotype of a Democrat) :-) I was thinking of how tough it must be for people who rely on the "accumulation" model to retire these days. It's different for people who establish passive income streams, but with a retirement "nest egg" invested in a relatively safe bond fund, etc, wouldn't it take about $2.5- $3 million in cash to spin off $1500-2000 a week at current interest rates? It takes at least that kind of income to sustain a middle class lifestyle- and the typical couple earning enough to accumulate liquid assets or savings of $3 million may be used to living at something above middle class. (High real estate values have created a false sense of security for a lot of people. In many parts of the country, million-dollar homes are becoming common- and are nothing all that exceptional. People conclude they've got a million bucks as they pay off the mortgage- and maybe they do if they're willing to cash out and move to a single wide trailer someplace in the Dakotas. For everybody else, a million of their bucks are stuck in a house.) I'm not certain that it's reasonable to expect the average couple to accumulate $3 million in liquid assets, including compoounded interest, through the investment of 3% of average wages. People retiring today from an annual salary of $100,000 usually started working in the late 50's and early 60's when one tenth of that amount would have been considered a very high wage indeed. $500 a month was pretty common money back then. Compounding works most dramatically on money saved or invested during the earliest years of a working career, and even if a super thrifty couple managed to save 5-7% in those days, the sum that has been compounded started off as too small a number to (a few hundred bucks) to be worth as much as needed today. New American employment model might be this: Rather than work to earn a pension that insures you can quit work but maintain your lifestyle, work toward developing a career that you truly enjoy and is personally fulfilling. When the day comes when you turn 55, 60, 65 or whatever and your frinds ask if you're going to sit back and clip coupons from here to the finish line, you can look them in the eye and say "I couldn't imagine giving up my job! I enjoy it far too much to consider quitting." IMO, that may be the secret to a satisfactory old age..........(but it might be nice to have the financial resources to get by if it became medically impossible to continue working) |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ups.com... snip New American employment model might be this: Rather than work to earn a pension that insures you can quit work but maintain your lifestyle, work toward developing a career that you truly enjoy and is personally fulfilling. When the day comes when you turn 55, 60, 65 or whatever and your frinds ask if you're going to sit back and clip coupons from here to the finish line, you can look them in the eye and say "I couldn't imagine giving up my job! I enjoy it far too much to consider quitting." IMO, that may be the secret to a satisfactory old age..........(but it might be nice to have the financial resources to get by if it became medically impossible to continue working) Amen! Funny...we keep getting told up here that we will need x number of new workers to come and support the system, but the reality is...few jobs are available. With so many young people desperate for a decent paying job there aren't a lot of part time jobs for retired folk who might like to supplement pensions. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:01:18 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On 15 Feb 2005 09:41:15 -0800, wrote: JohnH wrote: Remember, the plan is designed not for people in their 50's, but for a much younger population. I wish I had been investing 3% of my ss money into stock funds since I began paying ss taxes as 17! *********************** And precisely what portion of the Social Security System, as it currently exists, prevented you from budgeting 3% of your income for savings or investment? Absolutely nothing in the current system prevented me from budgeting any amount of my net income for savings or investment. Did the rest of your expenses and luxuries consume all of your disposable income? If you didn't invest 3%, was that the government's fault? (Careful, you'll start to sound like your own stereotype of a Democrat) :-) No and no. I was thinking of how tough it must be for people who rely on the "accumulation" model to retire these days. It's different for people who establish passive income streams, but with a retirement "nest egg" invested in a relatively safe bond fund, etc, wouldn't it take about $2.5- $3 million in cash to spin off $1500-2000 a week at current interest rates? It takes at least that kind of income to sustain a middle class lifestyle- and the typical couple earning enough to accumulate liquid assets or savings of $3 million may be used to living at something above middle class. I don't think anyone has stated the 3% investment would *ever* provide a $1500 income stream. Where do you come up with this stuff? (High real estate values have created a false sense of security for a lot of people. In many parts of the country, million-dollar homes are becoming common- and are nothing all that exceptional. People conclude they've got a million bucks as they pay off the mortgage- and maybe they do if they're willing to cash out and move to a single wide trailer someplace in the Dakotas. For everybody else, a million of their bucks are stuck in a house.) What, pray tell, does anything in the above three paragraphs have to do with the voluntary investment of 3% of one's social security withholdings? I'm not certain that it's reasonable to expect the average couple to accumulate $3 million in liquid assets, including compoounded interest, through the investment of 3% of average wages. I'd be fairly certain it would be unreasonable to hold such an expectation. What has that to do with the question at hand? People retiring today from an annual salary of $100,000 usually started working in the late 50's and early 60's when one tenth of that amount would have been considered a very high wage indeed. $500 a month was pretty common money back then. Compounding works most dramatically on money saved or invested during the earliest years of a working career, and even if a super thrifty couple managed to save 5-7% in those days, the sum that has been compounded started off as too small a number to (a few hundred bucks) to be worth as much as needed today. Compounding is the key, for sure. If I were an 18 year-old now, I'd love to be able to have a choice of investing in the market or letting the government 'invest' my social security withholding, especially knowing I'd be able to pass it on if I die. New American employment model might be this: Rather than work to earn a pension that insures you can quit work but maintain your lifestyle, work toward developing a career that you truly enjoy and is personally fulfilling. When the day comes when you turn 55, 60, 65 or whatever and your frinds ask if you're going to sit back and clip coupons from here to the finish line, you can look them in the eye and say "I couldn't imagine giving up my job! I enjoy it far too much to consider quitting." IMO, that may be the secret to a satisfactory old age..........(but it might be nice to have the financial resources to get by if it became medically impossible to continue working) 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. His whole premise is flawed, since it is based on generating an income stream solely from investment growth and not from reducing the principal. The gross savings required to have a 2k a week retirement is significantly less if you withdraw from the principal as well..... 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 The issue was the 3% voluntary investment of social security withholdings. It had nothing to do with all the other tangents Chuck brought into it. You are right, of course. 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 |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John H" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:01:18 -0500, "P.Fritz" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On 15 Feb 2005 09:41:15 -0800, wrote: JohnH wrote: Remember, the plan is designed not for people in their 50's, but for a much younger population. I wish I had been investing 3% of my ss money into stock funds since I began paying ss taxes as 17! *********************** And precisely what portion of the Social Security System, as it currently exists, prevented you from budgeting 3% of your income for savings or investment? Absolutely nothing in the current system prevented me from budgeting any amount of my net income for savings or investment. Did the rest of your expenses and luxuries consume all of your disposable income? If you didn't invest 3%, was that the government's fault? (Careful, you'll start to sound like your own stereotype of a Democrat) :-) No and no. I was thinking of how tough it must be for people who rely on the "accumulation" model to retire these days. It's different for people who establish passive income streams, but with a retirement "nest egg" invested in a relatively safe bond fund, etc, wouldn't it take about $2.5- $3 million in cash to spin off $1500-2000 a week at current interest rates? It takes at least that kind of income to sustain a middle class lifestyle- and the typical couple earning enough to accumulate liquid assets or savings of $3 million may be used to living at something above middle class. I don't think anyone has stated the 3% investment would *ever* provide a $1500 income stream. Where do you come up with this stuff? (High real estate values have created a false sense of security for a lot of people. In many parts of the country, million-dollar homes are becoming common- and are nothing all that exceptional. People conclude they've got a million bucks as they pay off the mortgage- and maybe they do if they're willing to cash out and move to a single wide trailer someplace in the Dakotas. For everybody else, a million of their bucks are stuck in a house.) What, pray tell, does anything in the above three paragraphs have to do with the voluntary investment of 3% of one's social security withholdings? I'm not certain that it's reasonable to expect the average couple to accumulate $3 million in liquid assets, including compoounded interest, through the investment of 3% of average wages. I'd be fairly certain it would be unreasonable to hold such an expectation. What has that to do with the question at hand? People retiring today from an annual salary of $100,000 usually started working in the late 50's and early 60's when one tenth of that amount would have been considered a very high wage indeed. $500 a month was pretty common money back then. Compounding works most dramatically on money saved or invested during the earliest years of a working career, and even if a super thrifty couple managed to save 5-7% in those days, the sum that has been compounded started off as too small a number to (a few hundred bucks) to be worth as much as needed today. Compounding is the key, for sure. If I were an 18 year-old now, I'd love to be able to have a choice of investing in the market or letting the government 'invest' my social security withholding, especially knowing I'd be able to pass it on if I die. New American employment model might be this: Rather than work to earn a pension that insures you can quit work but maintain your lifestyle, work toward developing a career that you truly enjoy and is personally fulfilling. When the day comes when you turn 55, 60, 65 or whatever and your frinds ask if you're going to sit back and clip coupons from here to the finish line, you can look them in the eye and say "I couldn't imagine giving up my job! I enjoy it far too much to consider quitting." IMO, that may be the secret to a satisfactory old age..........(but it might be nice to have the financial resources to get by if it became medically impossible to continue working) 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. His whole premise is flawed, since it is based on generating an income stream solely from investment growth and not from reducing the principal. The gross savings required to have a 2k a week retirement is significantly less if you withdraw from the principal as well..... 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 The issue was the 3% voluntary investment of social security withholdings. It had nothing to do with all the other tangents Chuck brought into it. The liebrals are too afraid people may be able to take care of themselves without the 'big daddy guvmint" they strive for. You are right, of course. 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 |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
P.Fritz observed:
His whole premise is flawed, since it is based on generating an income stream solely from investment growth and not from reducing the principal. The gross savings required to have a 2k a week retirement is significantly less if you withdraw from the principal as well..... ************************************************** ******* Never, ever, spend the principal. The idea is to leave that to your kids, so they can blow in on wild parties, European vacations, cars, yachts, mistresses, and caviar after your demise. :-) |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? You yourself said that SS taxes did *not* prevent you from investing amounts beyond those impounded by the govt. for social security. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| 21st Century E-Commerce Money Making Formula | General | |||
| MONEY | General | |||
| MONEY | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
