Reply With Quote
And if it's posted on the internets it must be true, for anyone can do so, therefore you are receiving the best possible information.
"Don't let them privatise Social Security.
I am an Australian and we have a compulsory privatized social security program here called 'superannuation' which is proving a complete disaster. Huge management fees get ripped out of our savings each year by the private 'wealth management' companies that run the schemes. Also, the bulk of the funds get invested in the stock market which has resulted in almost everyone in the country losing money in their retirement savings for the last few years - which in turn has resulted in most people having to delay their planned retirement. Oh - and the 'management fees' still get ripped out each year - no matter how badly the investments perform.
So let the Australian experience be a warning to you."
http://community.nytimes.com/comment...16krugman.html
That's exactly how hedge/private equity funds work. No matter how badly the fund performs, the fund mgmt takes their fees, on which they pay only 15% income tax, as if their fees were capital gains.
And if it's posted on the internets it must be true, for anyone can do so, therefore you are receiving the best possible information.
yes the gov is doing such a good job taking care of social security and is in debt deeper then the ocean. the gov should not be respsopnsible for your retirement. but keep thinking that way boutons because that makes you look like a idiot
why would we not assume that the bloody scent of forced privatization wouldn't bring the sharks out from the deep?
To be completely clear, the forced privatization you speak of is legislation that would "force" our compulsory contributions to social insurance, back into our own pockets. There is little doubt there will be some tangible benefit to the class of rentiers created by the law to manage private retirement accounts, should one ever be passed.
BTW, how did that go the last time around, Parker2112?
Seems to me seniors were the shark, GWB was the swimmer and it was his own political blood in the water. What's changed since then?
The reason all industrial economies have mandatory retirement/unemployment schemes is that they know most people won't save, and won't save enough. So these non-savers get to the end of their earning period, and would fall into total poverty and end up on humanitarian govt dole anyway, without having paid in to the govt in the first place.
MB, there is no doubt that donating SocSec funds to Wall St, would lose 100 of $Bs to Wall St fees, etc. I don't need Internet to tell me that's true. We already heard how Wall St rips off "dumb" investors like private and public pension funds.
"oops. our investment fund lost $10B, sorry. We'll take $200M in fund mgmt fees, thank you very much. We'll try to do better"
"seniors were the shark, GWB was the swimmer"
no, dubya was the dumb turkey, and walked right into the seniors' firefight.
dubya wasn't dumb, but taking on SS was like pissing into a hurricane. It probably still would be.
That's odd. Fees get ripped out of my paycheck by "managers" every time as well here in America.
Boutons, you are right but the current forced application blows as well. Like you said, no one wants to make any sacrifices and save their own gd money for a 40 year period of never touching it.
Last edited by EmptyMan; 08-17-2010 at 10:40 AM.
Kinda sounds like our government. No matter how badly the government handles our money, they get to keep running up debt on our taxpayer credit card.
CG, get your straight.
Nearly all of the current and future deficit is Repug misgovernance, not "govt" in general.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036
i like how your chart predicts that obama and the democrats aren't going to do much of anything about the bush tax cuts, iraq/afghanistan, or the economic downturn. i guess there's enough misgovernance to go around.
VERY hard to turn the Good Ship of Repug around.
What's great about the dubya tax cuts is that not doing anything means the tax cuts end ACCORDING TO THE REPUGS' TAX PLAN.
What you should really like how the Repugs handed down megatons of to Dems and now trash the Dems for causing the Repug
According to your chart the democrats aren't even trying. They've taken the helm and given the order for full speed ahead.
So either your chart is bull because the Bush tax cuts go away after 2010, or the Bush tax cuts become the Obama tax cuts because Obama and the democrats will have deliberately acted to continue them. Which is it?What's great about the dubya tax cuts is that not doing anything means the tax cuts end ACCORDING TO THE REPUGS' TAX PLAN.
Actually what I like is how I hold both parties equally responsible for the we're in.What you should really like how the Repugs handed down megatons of to Dems and now trash the Dems for causing the Repug
That chart is bull . Made in some lib s wetdream.CG, get your straight.
Nearly all of the current and future deficit is Repug misgovernance, not "govt" in general.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036
Another ignorant liberal post. Try researching before throwing out this garbage. Take a look at what you are paying into social security assuming you aren't sucking the government and then look at your 401k assuming you have a job. Your 401k and/or IRA allow options that include money managers but also include either stable value portfolios in the 401k or CD's in the IRA. Neither carry fees. If you want market participation you can self manage and pick your own stocks in an IRA or use ETF's which cost as low as .14% per year. You want to make your post meaningful calculate the rate of return generated by SSI. Here's a hint. Take your annual SSI statement that provides the benefit at retirement. That is your future value calc. the money you have payed in is your series of cash flows. Retirement age on the statement minus your age is the number of years. That data will generate a rate of return. The solution is your a dumb ass.
^^^Not out of sequence it would seem.
Last edited by Winehole23; 08-18-2010 at 02:48 AM.
...
Last edited by Winehole23; 08-18-2010 at 04:44 AM.
...
Last edited by Winehole23; 08-18-2010 at 04:44 AM.
Great post.
For most people, that rate of return on their social security "investment" is 1.5% or lower. And that's without taking into account any future benefit cuts or payroll tax increases which are inevitable. Even if you're completely petrified over the concept of the stock market you could still put your SS money in treasury bonds and absolutely blow away the returns the current ponzi scheme system will produce for you. Even with interest rates at historic lows 30yr treasuries are still fetching rates in the high 3's%.
Last edited by coyotes_geek; 08-18-2010 at 08:20 AM.
For most private savings funds, they lost %30 in the Banksters' Great Depression. What the ROI there?
20yr return on the S&P 500 is still around 6% even after all the crap that's happened over the last 2 years. Still far and above the ponzi scheme ROR.
The long term appreciation is meaningless if your pension account is down 30%, or 10%, on the date you would have liked to retire.
it is the repubilcans fault though your pension is down because you made the wrong choice in which to invest right boutons
I'm impressed with your knowledge of what people lost during the Great Depression. Did you ask them? The Great Depression also produced the FDIC. If the alternative to SSI is an IRA style account you can place your money in FDIC insured CD's up to 250k today. Eventually that will drop back to 100k. If you have more money than that you can open multiple IRA's to cover all of it. coyotes_geek mentioned treasury bonds on the investment side. Both a FDIC insured deposit and a treasury bond are guaranteed by our government. The guarantee is good as long as the US stays solvent. If that doesn't happen SSI is gone too.
The reality is you would be a fool to use either of the above options but in both cases they will grow your money quicker than SSI and provide you your guarantee.
Your statement on Pensions is wrong as well. Pensions don't lose value. The companies that used them years ago were required to fund to meet the set benefit. 401k's came along to give individual investors the option to take more risk if they chose. These are the accounts that fluctuate. By the way 401k's didn't exist during the Great Depression.
lol boutons
I'd rather be in my 60's w/ 2+ mil in a roth when the market gives you 10% that year. Compound interest is glorious.
Last edited by EmptyMan; 08-19-2010 at 07:23 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
