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.

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 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

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

"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

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. :-)

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?).

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

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. :-)

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.

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