"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
That's just about what my SS check is after deductions ---- THANK YOU!


Bill McKee wrote:
My checks start next month. I will get more than you! HA-HA

So, you're in favor of socialism as long as you personally benefit?

DSK


I am going to take the money. But for the over $160k that I have paid in
for 42 years, I could have got a bigger payout. And the younger people, in
their 20's to 40's are going to pay a whole lot more in than I did. I paid
in the max of $330 / year and the company matched it for some of those
years.

So, you're in favor of socialism as long as you personally benefit?


Bill McKee wrote:
I am going to take the money.

So your principles are for sale to the high bidder? Please tell me you
don't consider yourself "conservative."


... But for the over $160k that I have paid in
for 42 years, I could have got a bigger payout.

Sure.

... And the younger people, in
their 20's to 40's are going to pay a whole lot more in than I did.

That depends.


... I paid
in the max of $330 / year and the company matched it for some of those
years.


And your point is?

Oh wait, I know... you're PO'd because it's the gummint. Somebody lied
and told you that Social Security was an investment program, then lied
again and told you that you could get insurance cheaper.

It didn't ever occur to you that Social Security shouldn't be your main
retirement plan, that it is neither an investment program nor insurance,
and yet you try to make pinheaded comparisons to "prove" that Social
Security is somehow bad.

No wonder the country is in such a mess, with politics based on such
stupidity.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
So, you're in favor of socialism as long as you personally benefit?


Bill McKee wrote:
I am going to take the money.

So your principles are for sale to the high bidder? Please tell me you
don't consider yourself "conservative."


... But for the over $160k that I have paid in for 42 years, I could have
got a bigger payout.

Sure.

... And the younger people, in their 20's to 40's are going to pay a
whole lot more in than I did.

That depends.


... I paid in the max of $330 / year and the company matched it for
some of those years.

And your point is?

Oh wait, I know... you're PO'd because it's the gummint. Somebody lied and
told you that Social Security was an investment program, then lied again
and told you that you could get insurance cheaper.

It didn't ever occur to you that Social Security shouldn't be your main
retirement plan, that it is neither an investment program nor insurance,
and yet you try to make pinheaded comparisons to "prove" that Social
Security is somehow bad.

No wonder the country is in such a mess, with politics based on such
stupidity.

DSK


You must not comprehend what you read. I have argued for a long time that
SS is not a retirement plan. But lots here think it is the national
retirement plan. Keep the old living large. My retirement plan outside of
SS is very adequate. I am going to take the money. Just like I would take
lottery winnings.

It didn't ever occur to you that Social Security shouldn't be your main
retirement plan, that it is neither an investment program nor insurance,
and yet you try to make pinheaded comparisons to "prove" that Social
Security is somehow bad.

No wonder the country is in such a mess, with politics based on such
stupidity.


Bill McKee wrote:
You must not comprehend what you read.

No, I comprehend quite well.

You have made false claims, and made several misrepresentations about
what Social Security is, and what SS does. Then, having ranted against
the evils of socialism, you announce that you'll accept socialism quite
happily when it puts money in your pocket even when you don't need it.


... I have argued for a long time that
SS is not a retirement plan. But lots here think it is the national
retirement plan. Keep the old living large.

???

Who exactly is "living large" on Social Security?


DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
It didn't ever occur to you that Social Security shouldn't be your main
retirement plan, that it is neither an investment program nor insurance,
and yet you try to make pinheaded comparisons to "prove" that Social
Security is somehow bad.

No wonder the country is in such a mess, with politics based on such
stupidity.


Bill McKee wrote:
You must not comprehend what you read.

No, I comprehend quite well.


You lie.

You have made false claims, and made several misrepresentations about what
Social Security is, and what SS does. Then, having ranted against the
evils of socialism, you announce that you'll accept socialism quite
happily when it puts money in your pocket even when you don't need it.



I made no false claims. You lie again. I paid in, I will take the money.
and then the Goverment will take back some via taxation.

... I have argued for a long time that SS is not a retirement plan. But
lots here think it is the national retirement plan. Keep the old living
large.

???

Who exactly is "living large" on Social Security?


DSK

Bill McKee wrote:
You lie.


Let me get this straight- you've stated that one can buy a private
insurance policy that will cover everything Social Security offers,
cheaper... and you say that I lie.

You claim that Social Security is an investment program that should
offer better retirement income... and you say that I lie.


I made no false claims. You lie again.

Apparently, your idea of "truth" could be better defined as "any fact
which makes me uncomfortable.

And you have no better way of grasping reality than to call others names.

Getting back to Social Security:
... I paid in, I will take the money.

But it's not your money that you're taking. It's an entitlement that
comes straight from other's tax payments. No better, morally, than welfare.



Who exactly is "living large" on Social Security?


And you apparently can't answer this question, either.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Bill McKee wrote:
You lie.


Let me get this straight- you've stated that one can buy a private
insurance policy that will cover everything Social Security offers,
cheaper... and you say that I lie.


You can buy and invest the annual amount of SS contributions and get a much
better return. SS has an annual return of -0.1%. Pretty easy to beat that
return.

You claim that Social Security is an investment program that should offer
better retirement income... and you say that I lie.


Never said that. I said SS is a poor return on the money contributed.
There is no investment to SS.

I made no false claims. You lie again.

Apparently, your idea of "truth" could be better defined as "any fact
which makes me uncomfortable.

And you have no better way of grasping reality than to call others names.

Getting back to Social Security:
... I paid in, I will take the money.

But it's not your money that you're taking. It's an entitlement that comes
straight from other's tax payments. No better, morally, than welfare.



Who exactly is "living large" on Social Security?


And you apparently can't answer this question, either.

DSK


You are beyond comprehending. Go back to the first person who retired on
SS. She paid in about $26.30 and got back thousands. She is one of the
last people to get this big a return. Figure someone 80 years old. SS pays
them about $1600 a month and the wife gets 70% of her husband. That person
and their employer paid $660 a year until about 1964, They get a very good
return on their minimum contributions. Now lets jump forward to the 25 year
old making $85k a year. Also maximum payments into SS. They (and the
employer) are paying about 16%+ of the that $85k about $14,000 a year. They
reach 70 and they collect maybe $1700 a month ignoring inflation (which is
also ignored on the contribution side. They live 15 years and get a return
of $306,000 but they have paid in 45*18,000=$810,000 And you say they could
not get a better insurance policy for this much money. You better get a
better financial advisor.