|
NOYB wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "DSK" wrote in message . net... Fits wrote: Accepting the guvmint check returning the money that has essentially been stolen from you every year of your working life....more or less at gun point.......does NOT negate the complaint against socialism....... Sure it does. Accepting a Social Security benefits check... which is socialism... while complaining about socialism, especially saying that socialists ought to be killed... is just outright hypocrisy. I'd happily forgo my Social Security check later in life as long as I am exempt from paying FICA today. Remember that SS is for more than retirement. Should you get hit by a truck tomorrow, and are unable to work, you get to collect. I buy personal disability insurance for that kind of thing. If the truck kills you, your wife and kids (assuming you have any) also collect. That's why my life policy is for. And I'll bet you have less coverage, and pay more than SS. Max SS for 1995 is $1939/month -- indexed to cost of living My policy is $8400/month, tax-free, payable to age 65, and also indexed to cost of living. It ain't cheap, but I know it will be there when I need it. And I don't have to worry about the government monkeying around with it and paying me a few cents on the dollar because they mismanaged it. Are you counting on SS after age 65, or passing on to the next world? Seems you have the disability part covered well, how about the retirement income -- and income for your family should you not make it to 65? |
"Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "DSK" wrote in message t... Fits wrote: Accepting the guvmint check returning the money that has essentially been stolen from you every year of your working life....more or less at gun point.......does NOT negate the complaint against socialism....... Sure it does. Accepting a Social Security benefits check... which is socialism... while complaining about socialism, especially saying that socialists ought to be killed... is just outright hypocrisy. I'd happily forgo my Social Security check later in life as long as I am exempt from paying FICA today. Remember that SS is for more than retirement. Should you get hit by a truck tomorrow, and are unable to work, you get to collect. I buy personal disability insurance for that kind of thing. If the truck kills you, your wife and kids (assuming you have any) also collect. That's why my life policy is for. And I'll bet you have less coverage, and pay more than SS. Max SS for 1995 is $1939/month -- indexed to cost of living. Go price an annuity that will give you that, then price life insurance that will give you the cost of the annuity. Then do the same for disability, and add the 2 -- unless you can find a policy that covers both. I could buy a really nice insurance policy for the money. My SS statement just came the other day. I paid $77,596 and my employers have paid $80,737 over the years. Since I am not yet 62, the amount could be increased. A a present day single premium $25,000 annuity will pay you about $235 / month. So if the money had gone in over the years, the annuity would be a lot greater. Medicare started in 1966. We have been paying 1.5% of total earnings with no limit on amount of earnings. And this is excess to the above named amounts for SS. You could buy a nice long term disability plan for these moneys. And If I wait to 66 can collect $1945 month. And payments were on only the first $7800 in 1970-1971. Increasing to $82,514 with a bigger percentage 31 years later. Seems as if this is not that good of investment for someone 30 years old. Currently it is 6.2% up to $87,900 and the employer matches the payments. $10,899 /year not including medicare can buy you a really nice annuity. |
Calif Bill wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "DSK" wrote in message . net... Fits wrote: Accepting the guvmint check returning the money that has essentially been stolen from you every year of your working life....more or less at gun point.......does NOT negate the complaint against socialism....... Sure it does. Accepting a Social Security benefits check... which is socialism... while complaining about socialism, especially saying that socialists ought to be killed... is just outright hypocrisy. I'd happily forgo my Social Security check later in life as long as I am exempt from paying FICA today. Remember that SS is for more than retirement. Should you get hit by a truck tomorrow, and are unable to work, you get to collect. I buy personal disability insurance for that kind of thing. If the truck kills you, your wife and kids (assuming you have any) also collect. That's why my life policy is for. And I'll bet you have less coverage, and pay more than SS. Max SS for 1995 is $1939/month -- indexed to cost of living. Go price an annuity that will give you that, then price life insurance that will give you the cost of the annuity. Then do the same for disability, and add the 2 -- unless you can find a policy that covers both. I could buy a really nice insurance policy for the money. My SS statement just came the other day. I paid $77,596 and my employers have paid $80,737 over the years. Since I am not yet 62, the amount could be increased. A a present day single premium $25,000 annuity will pay you about $235 / month. So if the money had gone in over the years, the annuity would be a lot greater. Medicare started in 1966. We have been paying 1.5% of total earnings with no limit on amount of earnings. And this is excess to the above named amounts for SS. You could buy a nice long term disability plan for these moneys. And If I wait to 66 can collect $1945 month. And payments were on only the first $7800 in 1970-1971. Increasing to $82,514 with a bigger percentage 31 years later. Seems as if this is not that good of investment for someone 30 years old. Currently it is 6.2% up to $87,900 and the employer matches the payments. $10,899 /year not including medicare can buy you a really nice annuity. Now figure disability |
"Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "DSK" wrote in message .net... Fits wrote: Accepting the guvmint check returning the money that has essentially been stolen from you every year of your working life....more or less at gun point.......does NOT negate the complaint against socialism....... Sure it does. Accepting a Social Security benefits check... which is socialism... while complaining about socialism, especially saying that socialists ought to be killed... is just outright hypocrisy. I'd happily forgo my Social Security check later in life as long as I am exempt from paying FICA today. Remember that SS is for more than retirement. Should you get hit by a truck tomorrow, and are unable to work, you get to collect. I buy personal disability insurance for that kind of thing. If the truck kills you, your wife and kids (assuming you have any) also collect. That's why my life policy is for. And I'll bet you have less coverage, and pay more than SS. Max SS for 1995 is $1939/month -- indexed to cost of living My policy is $8400/month, tax-free, payable to age 65, and also indexed to cost of living. It ain't cheap, but I know it will be there when I need it. And I don't have to worry about the government monkeying around with it and paying me a few cents on the dollar because they mismanaged it. May I ask who is your policy with, and what is the cost (compared to SS) I had a Berkshire policy and two Guardian policies, but the two companies have since merged. I'll have to get back to you on the cost. Most of it's paid quarterly through auto-debit, but one of the policies is paid monthly. I'll add them up and let you know. My life policy is for $1.5m...and the premium is about thousand/year. I also have a business overhead expense policy that costs me about $320/quarter...but that only pays out for a couple of months in the event of a disability. |
"Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "DSK" wrote in message .net... Fits wrote: Accepting the guvmint check returning the money that has essentially been stolen from you every year of your working life....more or less at gun point.......does NOT negate the complaint against socialism....... Sure it does. Accepting a Social Security benefits check... which is socialism... while complaining about socialism, especially saying that socialists ought to be killed... is just outright hypocrisy. I'd happily forgo my Social Security check later in life as long as I am exempt from paying FICA today. Remember that SS is for more than retirement. Should you get hit by a truck tomorrow, and are unable to work, you get to collect. I buy personal disability insurance for that kind of thing. If the truck kills you, your wife and kids (assuming you have any) also collect. That's why my life policy is for. And I'll bet you have less coverage, and pay more than SS. Max SS for 1995 is $1939/month -- indexed to cost of living My policy is $8400/month, tax-free, payable to age 65, and also indexed to cost of living. It ain't cheap, but I know it will be there when I need it. And I don't have to worry about the government monkeying around with it and paying me a few cents on the dollar because they mismanaged it. Are you counting on SS after age 65, or passing on to the next world? The disability pays out until age 65. Hopefully I'll never need it though. Seems you have the disability part covered well, how about the retirement income -- and income for your family should you not make it to 65? Life policy is $1.5million (which seemed like plenty at the time, but 75% of that would go to retiring all of my debt right now). Of course, if all my debt was paid off, my wife would have zero expenses...and could sell my practice for a decent price. And she could live quite comfortably on that money, especially with no house mortgage or car payment. My wife and I also contribute about $25k/year to a pension plan. |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "DSK" wrote in message h.net... Fits wrote: Accepting the guvmint check returning the money that has essentially been stolen from you every year of your working life....more or less at gun point.......does NOT negate the complaint against socialism....... Sure it does. Accepting a Social Security benefits check... which is socialism... while complaining about socialism, especially saying that socialists ought to be killed... is just outright hypocrisy. I'd happily forgo my Social Security check later in life as long as I am exempt from paying FICA today. Remember that SS is for more than retirement. Should you get hit by a truck tomorrow, and are unable to work, you get to collect. I buy personal disability insurance for that kind of thing. If the truck kills you, your wife and kids (assuming you have any) also collect. That's why my life policy is for. And I'll bet you have less coverage, and pay more than SS. Max SS for 1995 is $1939/month -- indexed to cost of living My policy is $8400/month, tax-free, payable to age 65, and also indexed to cost of living. It ain't cheap, but I know it will be there when I need it. And I don't have to worry about the government monkeying around with it and paying me a few cents on the dollar because they mismanaged it. Are you counting on SS after age 65, or passing on to the next world? The disability pays out until age 65. Hopefully I'll never need it though. Seems you have the disability part covered well, how about the retirement income -- and income for your family should you not make it to 65? Life policy is $1.5million (which seemed like plenty at the time, but 75% of that would go to retiring all of my debt right now). Of course, if all my debt was paid off, my wife would have zero expenses...and could sell my practice for a decent price. And she could live quite comfortably on that money, especially with no house mortgage or car payment. My wife and I also contribute about $25k/year to a pension plan. And it could be 40-50 k if not for the guvmint theft for SS |
|
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 10:06:49 -0500, DSK wrote:
Fits wrote: Accepting the guvmint check returning the money that has essentially been stolen from you every year of your working life....more or less at gun point.......does NOT negate the complaint against socialism....... Sure it does. Accepting a Social Security benefits check... which is socialism... while complaining about socialism, especially saying that socialists ought to be killed... is just outright hypocrisy. Hey Bert Robo-tard, if you want to kill a Socialist maybe you should start with P.Fritz? ... AND 'proceeds'...........a 2% return on the stolen money....and chuck wants to call it proceeds? You're right, it's not "proceeds", it's money taken from those that are currently wo rking. You are confusing Social Security with an investment plan. wrote: Today's standard: "Socialism is OK when it directly benefits me. I will justify my suck on the government teat by pointing out that I was forced, through taxation, to contribute to the government during my working years and that because I am special I now deserve to get my money back. Socialism in not OK when it benefits somebody else. The only good Socialist is a dead socialist, but hands off the socialist who signs the monthly check for my little piece of the socialist security system, please." Too many words, Chuck. DSK I would have been much happier putting my FICA into a plan of my choice. The government picked the plan I had to use. The fact that I get back money that I put in sure doesn't make me a socialist. But, if your idea of socialism is accepting a social security check, what do you call liberals who do so? Extremist Socialists? Wow! John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:52:37 -0500, DSK wrote:
I'd happily forgo my Social Security check later in life as long as I am exempt from paying FICA today. P.Fritz wrote: Exactly...... In the mean time, I consider it getting stolen money back, not accepting socialism, nor is it hypocrisy. Well, whatever you "consider" it, you are accepting benefits from a socialist program. I could retire years ahead, or pass money on to others, if it were not being stolen from me. Nah, you'd have frittered it away like you did your take-home pay. If you weren't already saving & investing wisely, increasing your take-home by the amount taken for Social Security would not have changed your financial status. DSK And since so few can exercise personal responsibility, the government must do it for them. You've just nailed the liberal credo on the head! John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:52:37 -0500, DSK wrote: I'd happily forgo my Social Security check later in life as long as I am exempt from paying FICA today. P.Fritz wrote: Exactly...... In the mean time, I consider it getting stolen money back, not accepting socialism, nor is it hypocrisy. Well, whatever you "consider" it, you are accepting benefits from a socialist program. I could retire years ahead, or pass money on to others, if it were not being stolen from me. Nah, you'd have frittered it away like you did your take-home pay. If you weren't already saving & investing wisely, increasing your take-home by the amount taken for Social Security would not have changed your financial status. DSK And since so few can exercise personal responsibility, the government must do it for them. You've just nailed the liberal credo on the head! That is it to a tee........the guvmint knows better than the individual. It is all about power and control. The guvmint has already frittered it away instead of saving it........just more liebral hypocrisy. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:01:01 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
NOYB wrote: "DSK" wrote in message .. . Fits wrote: Accepting the guvmint check returning the money that has essentially been stolen from you every year of your working life....more or less at gun point.......does NOT negate the complaint against socialism....... Sure it does. Accepting a Social Security benefits check... which is socialism... while complaining about socialism, especially saying that socialists ought to be killed... is just outright hypocrisy. I'd happily forgo my Social Security check later in life as long as I am exempt from paying FICA today. Remember that SS is for more than retirement. Should you get hit by a truck tomorrow, and are unable to work, you get to collect. If the truck kills you, your wife and kids (assuming you have any) also collect. The widow must be at full retirement age or disabled and age 50, or she must be caring for a child of the deceased. The children must be under 18, or 22 if disabled. If I had put the money into a Roth IRA, or the equivalent, they would get *everything* without all the qualifications. Personal savings accounts are the way to go! John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:01:01 GMT, "Jim," wrote: NOYB wrote: "DSK" wrote in message .. . Fits wrote: Accepting the guvmint check returning the money that has essentially been stolen from you every year of your working life....more or less at gun point.......does NOT negate the complaint against socialism....... Sure it does. Accepting a Social Security benefits check... which is socialism... while complaining about socialism, especially saying that socialists ought to be killed... is just outright hypocrisy. I'd happily forgo my Social Security check later in life as long as I am exempt from paying FICA today. Remember that SS is for more than retirement. Should you get hit by a truck tomorrow, and are unable to work, you get to collect. If the truck kills you, your wife and kids (assuming you have any) also collect. The widow must be at full retirement age or disabled and age 50, or she must be caring for a child of the deceased. The children must be under 18, or 22 if disabled. If I had put the money into a Roth IRA, or the equivalent, they would get *everything* without all the qualifications. Personal savings accounts are the way to go! Yes, they conviently ignore the fact. If I were to get hit my a truck the day after my daughter turned 18, she would get nothing, if the same money was in my own account, she would get would have received a couple hundred thousand. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
John H wrote:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:01:01 GMT, "Jim," wrote: NOYB wrote: "DSK" wrote in message t... Fits wrote: Accepting the guvmint check returning the money that has essentially been stolen from you every year of your working life....more or less at gun point.......does NOT negate the complaint against socialism....... Sure it does. Accepting a Social Security benefits check... which is socialism... while complaining about socialism, especially saying that socialists ought to be killed... is just outright hypocrisy. I'd happily forgo my Social Security check later in life as long as I am exempt from paying FICA today. Remember that SS is for more than retirement. Should you get hit by a truck tomorrow, and are unable to work, you get to collect. If the truck kills you, your wife and kids (assuming you have any) also collect. The widow must be at full retirement age or disabled and age 50, or she must be caring for a child of the deceased. The children must be under 18, or 22 if disabled. If I had put the money into a Roth IRA, or the equivalent, they would get *everything* without all the qualifications. Personal savings accounts are the way to go! John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." I've posted this before, but given the discussion, you might find it worth reading again http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p01s03-cogn.html One man's retirement math: Social Security wins By David R. Francis | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor At the heart of President Bush's plan to sell Social Security private accounts is a simple notion: You're always better off investing your retirement money than letting the government do it. By doing it yourself, you can stow some money in the stock market, and over the long run will get a better return on that investment than today's Social Security system offers. The idea is broadly accepted. That's why the administration's plan to partially privatize the system sounds appealing to many. But that better return won't always happen. Just ask Stanley Logue of San Diego. For 45 years, the defense-industry analyst paid into the system until his retirement in 1994. But with all the recent hoopla over reform, Mr. Logue, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate, decided to go back and check his own records. Would he have done better investing his money than the bureaucrats at the Social Security Administration? 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). To his surprise, the Social Security investment won out: $261,372 versus $255,499, a difference of $5,873. It's an astonishing finding. The DJIA represents blue-chip stocks. Social Security invests in US Treasury bonds. Over long periods of time, stocks have consistently outperformed bonds. So, you would think that Logue's theoretical stock investments from 1950 to 1994 would have surely outpaced the return on government bonds. The fact that they didn't illustrates one of the hard truths about stock investing: Timing matters. Although Logue started pouring money into Social Security in the 1950s and early 1960s, some of the best years for stocks, he hadn't accumulated a lot of money. So the gains of his theoretical stock portfolio would have been limited. By the time he had substantial sums, the market swooned for long periods. From 1965 to 1982, for instance, the DJIA made no progress. Logue retired before the real run-up in stocks in the latter half of the late 1990s. So the real lesson from his analysis is that any pension plan based on stock investments carries extra risks. Advocates of privatization point out - correctly - that Logue's analysis compares theoretical stock returns with what the Social Security Trust Fund earned - not what he himself would get from the system. From that perspective, the investment approach looks better, they argue. Over the long run, a typical worker can expect to earn 4.6 percent a year (after administrative costs) on a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds and only about 2 percent or less from Social Security, according to federal estimates reported by Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute, long a proponent of privatization. Hypothetically, someone earning $30,000 annually would at the end of a 40-year career receive nearly twice as much under the investment approach ($344,000) than with Social Security ($185,000). Who's right: Logue or Mr. Tanner? The debate hinges considerably on what people want their retirement system to be. Social Security has always been an insurance program. It was never intended as an investment scheme. So everyone - retirees, the disabled, widows, and orphans - receive guaranteed monthly income. The "return" on their Social Security contributions depends largely on how long they live. Those in their 90s have enjoyed superb returns. Those who don't live as long benefit less. Private accounts, by contrast, involve far more variability, both sides agree. Individuals who enter and exit the market at the right times would undoubtedly do better under privatization. But under Britain's privatized pension system, so many retirees are doing so poorly at this moment that a commission warned this fall that widespread poverty among the elderly may be returning, which could require massive new government spending. Presumably, President Bush's plan would offer the choice to meld insurance and private investment: much less guaranteed income in return for the opportunity - and risk - of earning more in the markets. "Because financial asset returns are volatile, benefits under a personal account system would fluctuate," notes Bill Dudley, an economist at Goldman, Sachs & Co., a New York investment bank. "On a risk-adjusted basis, the privatized account ... becomes much less compelling." There are other problems with private accounts. Administration expenses of the present Social Security system are minuscule compared with the size of the benefits provided. The Bush administration so far has provided no details on its private accounts plan. But if these are handled by Wall Street, the fees could be sizable, dissipating some of the return from investing in stocks. Logue takes no account of such expenses in his analysis. Further, administrative costs and difficulties for private business could be large as companies, big and small, try to deduct the right amount from a payroll and put it into a private account in a timely fashion. A study by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) notes some complexities: 650,000 employers go out of business or start new businesses each year. More than 4 million employers have 10 or fewer employees, often having record-keeping problems and errors. About 12 million to 15 million individuals are self-employed and presumably would have to send money directly to a private account. So the complexities of change are substantial. If the extra return from privatization is not very advantageous, "why even consider changes that all agree would be very disruptive?" asks Logue. |
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:23:13 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "DSK" wrote in message .. . Fits wrote: Accepting the guvmint check returning the money that has essentially been stolen from you every year of your working life....more or less at gun point.......does NOT negate the complaint against socialism....... Sure it does. Accepting a Social Security benefits check... which is socialism... while complaining about socialism, especially saying that socialists ought to be killed... is just outright hypocrisy. I'd happily forgo my Social Security check later in life as long as I am exempt from paying FICA today. Remember that SS is for more than retirement. Should you get hit by a truck tomorrow, and are unable to work, you get to collect. I buy personal disability insurance for that kind of thing. Remember, jim is from the "the guvmint has to do it for you, you are to dumb to take care of yourself" liebral mindset. He's sure as hell not the only one. My God, I can't believe the bull**** I'm seeing in *this* thread! I just heard an ad on the radio saying private accounts would dismantle social security. What garbage. But, there are actually people who believe that. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
|
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "DSK" wrote in message et... NOYB wrote: I'd happily forgo my Social Security check later in life as long as I am exempt from paying FICA today. Same here, and I'm a lot closer to collecting than you are. If Bush & Cheney were seriously interested in reforming or fixing Social Security (instead of their plan being a subterfuge to harvest campaign contributions from Wall St), they'd offer that option. They can't. That's the fundamental flaw of the system. We're not putting money away for our retirement. We're paying for the retirement of those who are now retired. Those who are now retired made it possible for you. No, we have a "Trust Fund" of money. It is a "lock box" of money. Sorry, I'm talking here about the opportunities created for today's generations by those those who came before. Isn't that what every preceeding generation does for the next throught the whole of history? |
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... elections. Still, a good commie is a dead commie! Bert...most of us have left the 50's far behind. We don't mind a little '50s rock & roll on occasion...but that's it! Communism is still bad and should be stamped out wherever it is and whenever it rears its ugly head again. |
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." |
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. |
"John H" wrote in message ... 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. And it still does NOT account for the fact that you cannot spend the money the way you see fit, and may not get any of it. For example, if it is your won retirement account, and at age 72, you find that you a a disease that will take you life in 2 years, if it is your own money, you can enjoy life for the next 2 years as you see fit, with SS, you are stuck with the meager monthly check. If you die at age 59, and your kids areover 18, the guvmint keeps everything. If there was no SS at the current time.....no sane preosn would agree to a system like there is now, where current workers pay for those that are already retired. In any other industry, it would be called a pyramid scheme and be illegal. The fact that the liebrals wish to bury their heads in the sand and pretend everything is just dandy is mind boggling. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 22:22:54 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
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. Go here and read up: http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/inde... &sitemapid=20 I'm wondering what happened to the other twenty companies that made up the Dow Jones Industrial Average up to about 10 minutes ago. Your investment beliefs may not be all that wise. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:24:51 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . 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. And it still does NOT account for the fact that you cannot spend the money the way you see fit, and may not get any of it. For example, if it is your won retirement account, and at age 72, you find that you a a disease that will take you life in 2 years, if it is your own money, you can enjoy life for the next 2 years as you see fit, with SS, you are stuck with the meager monthly check. If you die at age 59, and your kids areover 18, the guvmint keeps everything. If there was no SS at the current time.....no sane preosn would agree to a system like there is now, where current workers pay for those that are already retired. In any other industry, it would be called a pyramid scheme and be illegal. The fact that the liebrals wish to bury their heads in the sand and pretend everything is just dandy is mind boggling. They do seem to enjoy skipping over that part. There seems to be an inclination amongst many of them to tell only 'part' of the story. I think they get that from ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
John H wrote:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 22:22:54 GMT, "Jim," wrote: 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. Go here and read up: http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/inde... &sitemapid=20 I'm wondering what happened to the other twenty companies that made up the Dow Jones Industrial Average up to about 10 minutes ago. Your investment beliefs may not be all that wise. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." Yes I mistyped -- Dow 30 (in the beginning it was 12)-- BUT how many companies have been represented since 1950? Find a list here http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/down..._Hist_Comp.pdf Some of the companies no longer exist, but were the strong companies of their time. All in all I'd consider them reasonably good investments for the long haul. See http://www.finfacts.com/Private/cure...erformance.htm For the returns from 1939 to 2004 The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... But you think shopping at Wal-Mart is ok... Apparently. it's ok to love commies if you can save a buck or two on a new toaster. |
Jim, wrote:
John H wrote: On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 22:22:54 GMT, "Jim," wrote: 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. Go here and read up: http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/inde... &sitemapid=20 I'm wondering what happened to the other twenty companies that made up the Dow Jones Industrial Average up to about 10 minutes ago. Your investment beliefs may not be all that wise. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." Yes I mistyped -- Dow 30 (in the beginning it was 12)-- BUT how many companies have been represented since 1950? Find a list here http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/down..._Hist_Comp.pdf Some of the companies no longer exist, but were the strong companies of their time. All in all I'd consider them reasonably good investments for the long haul. See http://www.finfacts.com/Private/cure...erformance.htm For the returns from 1939 to 2004 The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940. Of possible interest are the charts at http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/inde...t=showAverages Which overlay a graph of the Dow with historical events |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "DSK" wrote in message .net... NOYB wrote: I'd happily forgo my Social Security check later in life as long as I am exempt from paying FICA today. Same here, and I'm a lot closer to collecting than you are. If Bush & Cheney were seriously interested in reforming or fixing Social Security (instead of their plan being a subterfuge to harvest campaign contributions from Wall St), they'd offer that option. They can't. That's the fundamental flaw of the system. We're not putting money away for our retirement. We're paying for the retirement of those who are now retired. Those who are now retired made it possible for you. No, we have a "Trust Fund" of money. It is a "lock box" of money. Sorry, I'm talking here about the opportunities created for today's generations by those those who came before. Isn't that what every preceeding generation does for the next throught the whole of history? It was until recently. Social Security is part of that legacy. Social Security is a waste of money. If we get private accounts then people will be able to retire at an earlier age freeing up positions for the next generation to move up. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: "Don White" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... elections. Still, a good commie is a dead commie! Bert...most of us have left the 50's far behind. We don't mind a little '50s rock & roll on occasion...but that's it! Communism is still bad and should be stamped out wherever it is and whenever it rears its ugly head again. But you think shopping at Wal-Mart is ok... Didn't we go over this last night? China is an oligarchy. |
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... But you think shopping at Wal-Mart is ok... Apparently. it's ok to love commies if you can save a buck or two on a new toaster. Don, I see that you still can't think for yourself. |
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... Don, I see that you still can't think for yourself. Maybe I'd be a good candidate for your army. Would you vouch for me? |
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 23:20:30 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
John H wrote: On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 22:22:54 GMT, "Jim," wrote: 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. Go here and read up: http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/inde... &sitemapid=20 I'm wondering what happened to the other twenty companies that made up the Dow Jones Industrial Average up to about 10 minutes ago. Your investment beliefs may not be all that wise. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." Yes I mistyped -- Dow 30 (in the beginning it was 12)-- BUT how many companies have been represented since 1950? Find a list here http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/down..._Hist_Comp.pdf Some of the companies no longer exist, but were the strong companies of their time. All in all I'd consider them reasonably good investments for the long haul. See http://www.finfacts.com/Private/cure...erformance.htm For the returns from 1939 to 2004 The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940. You just made the point that the Dow was *not* a good investment. Now you're saying it was. Something in all this doesn't track for me. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 18:34:57 -0500, "Bert Robbins" wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "DSK" wrote in message h.net... NOYB wrote: I'd happily forgo my Social Security check later in life as long as I am exempt from paying FICA today. Same here, and I'm a lot closer to collecting than you are. If Bush & Cheney were seriously interested in reforming or fixing Social Security (instead of their plan being a subterfuge to harvest campaign contributions from Wall St), they'd offer that option. They can't. That's the fundamental flaw of the system. We're not putting money away for our retirement. We're paying for the retirement of those who are now retired. Those who are now retired made it possible for you. No, we have a "Trust Fund" of money. It is a "lock box" of money. Sorry, I'm talking here about the opportunities created for today's generations by those those who came before. Isn't that what every preceeding generation does for the next throught the whole of history? It was until recently. Social Security is part of that legacy. Social Security is a waste of money. If we get private accounts then people will be able to retire at an earlier age freeing up positions for the next generation to move up. And, as people will be getting a bigger check, they'll be paying more taxes. Seems like the liberals would *love* that idea! John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
John H wrote:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 23:20:30 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 22:22:54 GMT, "Jim," wrote: 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. Go here and read up: http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/inde... &sitemapid=20 I'm wondering what happened to the other twenty companies that made up the Dow Jones Industrial Average up to about 10 minutes ago. Your investment beliefs may not be all that wise. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." Yes I mistyped -- Dow 30 (in the beginning it was 12)-- BUT how many companies have been represented since 1950? Find a list here http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/down..._Hist_Comp.pdf Some of the companies no longer exist, but were the strong companies of their time. All in all I'd consider them reasonably good investments for the long haul. See http://www.finfacts.com/Private/cure...erformance.htm For the returns from 1939 to 2004 The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940. You just made the point that the Dow was *not* a good investment. Now you're saying it was. Something in all this doesn't track for me. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." As the article stated it depends on timing. Sometimes you win; sometimes you lose. Think you can predict where the market will be 30-40 years from now? The SS "trust" fund is backed by by bonds insured by the "full faith and credit of the United States" (not sure just how much that's worth these days.) |
"Jim," wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "DSK" wrote in message . net... Fits wrote: Accepting the guvmint check returning the money that has essentially been stolen from you every year of your working life....more or less at gun point.......does NOT negate the complaint against socialism....... Sure it does. Accepting a Social Security benefits check... which is socialism... while complaining about socialism, especially saying that socialists ought to be killed... is just outright hypocrisy. I'd happily forgo my Social Security check later in life as long as I am exempt from paying FICA today. Remember that SS is for more than retirement. Should you get hit by a truck tomorrow, and are unable to work, you get to collect. I buy personal disability insurance for that kind of thing. If the truck kills you, your wife and kids (assuming you have any) also collect. That's why my life policy is for. And I'll bet you have less coverage, and pay more than SS. Max SS for 1995 is $1939/month -- indexed to cost of living. Go price an annuity that will give you that, then price life insurance that will give you the cost of the annuity. Then do the same for disability, and add the 2 -- unless you can find a policy that covers both. I could buy a really nice insurance policy for the money. My SS statement just came the other day. I paid $77,596 and my employers have paid $80,737 over the years. Since I am not yet 62, the amount could be increased. A a present day single premium $25,000 annuity will pay you about $235 / month. So if the money had gone in over the years, the annuity would be a lot greater. Medicare started in 1966. We have been paying 1.5% of total earnings with no limit on amount of earnings. And this is excess to the above named amounts for SS. You could buy a nice long term disability plan for these moneys. And If I wait to 66 can collect $1945 month. And payments were on only the first $7800 in 1970-1971. Increasing to $82,514 with a bigger percentage 31 years later. Seems as if this is not that good of investment for someone 30 years old. Currently it is 6.2% up to $87,900 and the employer matches the payments. $10,899 /year not including medicare can buy you a really nice annuity. Now figure disability This will buy you a nice plan with disability included. |
"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. |
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... Don, I see that you still can't think for yourself. Maybe I'd be a good candidate for your army. Would you vouch for me? No, the US model is to encourage and develop leadership at all levels of the military. It is one of the principles that makes the US military second to none in the world. You might want to try the Canadian Forces but, they most likely still have your original records and you are still unqualified. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... Don, I see that you still can't think for yourself. Maybe I'd be a good candidate for your army. Would you vouch for me? Bert is again making nasty comments about fellow posters? What's your point, asshole! |
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. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... Don, I see that you still can't think for yourself. Maybe I'd be a good candidate for your army. Would you vouch for me? Bert is again making nasty comments about fellow posters? What's your point, asshole! Some people cannot behave? Some of us aren't puppets like you are a puppet. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: "Don White" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... Don, I see that you still can't think for yourself. Maybe I'd be a good candidate for your army. Would you vouch for me? No, the US model is to encourage and develop leadership at all levels of the military. It is one of the principles that makes the US military second to none in the world. Really? The U.S. military has not "won" a shooting war against a signifant enemy since WW II. Thanks to the pussification of our military. I suspect that the "rules of engagement" were quite a bit different when Patton was sweeping through Germany than when our troops were operating in Vietnam (even *if* a certain US Senator/Former patrol boat captain *did* shoot wounded unarmed Vietnamese). |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: "Don White" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... Don, I see that you still can't think for yourself. Maybe I'd be a good candidate for your army. Would you vouch for me? No, the US model is to encourage and develop leadership at all levels of the military. It is one of the principles that makes the US military second to none in the world. Really? The U.S. military has not "won" a shooting war against a signifant enemy since WW II. It fought to a draw in Korea, and got its ass kicked in Vietnam. It has been victorious fighting third, fourth, and fifth rate powers like Panama, Iraq, and, of course, Grenada. The military is civillian controlled. Nobody won Korea it ain't over yet, there is a cease fire and that cease fire is going on 50+ years. Vietnam was run by Johnson during his Tuesday lunches where he and his lunch guest decided military objectives and truly ****ed things up. The US lost the will to kill the enemy and we pulled out leaving the South Vietnamese to fend for themselves. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com