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, 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.

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."

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.

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

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."

"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.