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.