- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tell me why my idea is dumb - retirement nest egg for future generations
Posted on 3/1/23 at 12:34 pm to Shepherd88
Posted on 3/1/23 at 12:34 pm to Shepherd88
quote:Exactly... And does anyone need to point out the government IS a criminal enterprise?
The only reason it’s not criminal is bc it’s formed by the US Government
This whole thread has devolved into something that needs to be on the poli board. Anyone who thinks the government isn't going to absolutely screw anyone younger than say... 45, is drinking the kool aid and can't be trusted to have an intellectual conversation about it. Might as well invest the trust fund in bitcoin.
1
Posted on 3/1/23 at 12:39 pm to rattlebucket
quote:
What about the option to keep SS tax to put in your own ira but govt owes you zero at 62+?
This to me makes the most sense. They won't be able to do a lump some, but a gradual progression over time to get rid of SS and force IRAs instead of SS would be much better.
Posted on 3/1/23 at 1:02 pm to UpstairsComputer
quote:
Anyone who thinks the government isn't going to absolutely screw anyone younger than say... 45, is drinking the kool aid and can't be trusted to have an intellectual conversation about it.
My point is that 80 year olds got screwed.
70 year olds got screwed.
People retiring today are getting screwed.
Imagine working your entire life for retirement and your federal lord and savior is paying you $1,827/month for 2023 (average SSI benefit check this year). And that amount is adjusted for inflation. And that is based on the contributions from both you and your employer at 12% of your income for the last 40+ years.
Posted on 3/1/23 at 1:46 pm to LSU_historian
quote:You assume SS is actually designed primarily as a benefit for the recipient. I has certainly been sold and accepted that way.
So instead of social security the future generations would get $50,000.00
FDR needed an effective debt instrument(s) at a time where there were few counterparties. The question was how to access a large US bond purchaser. Out of that question, SS was born.
SS collections were invested in low-yield US debt instruments. Employer/employee taxation began in the late 1930's (~1937). The first eligible payouts didn't occur until 1940. Those were only prorated to contributions despite the 16:1 worker-to-retiree ratio through the 1940's.
IOW, FDR got his forced debt instrument counterparty on the cusp of WWII, and marketed the program as a wonderful benefit. That remains SS's basic structure today (albeit at a 2:1 W:R ratio).
This post was edited on 3/1/23 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 3/1/23 at 2:43 pm to meansonny
quote:
What do you think would happen if we gave the people a referendum?
What would happen if people had a choice for federally operated social security insurance or a personal account that they can manage themselves or contract a manager to oversee.
Are you afraid of such a referendum? Do you think people choosing to manage their own funds are dumb because someone else somewhere down the line could earn income for management?
I think most people would vote for such a referendum....and in a few years more and more people of retirement age, orphans and the disabled will be living below the poverty level and the rest of us will either be reaching into our wallet to subsidize them even more, stepping over their corpses or beating them away from us as they beg in the street or battling them when they come to get our stuff. One can live in a dream world where there is rainbow stew and free bubblelub but someone has to live in the real world....folks are alive and it is going to cost something for them to stay alive....there ain't but a few ways for folks to meet their nut every month. Work, be on the dole or crime or some combination. It is far better for them to work but some can't, some won't, but all are still alive and will either be subsidized by the dole or turn to criminal activity or a combination of both.
quote:
The average monthly SSI benefit check in 2022 was $1681/month.
That is far better than what? Really. Answer that question. The average person receiving social security last year got $20,172. And that was an increase over the previous year. And the increase over the previous year didn't even fully fund the difference in premium costs for Medicare supplements year over year.
Imagine starting your career in 1960 thinking $7k/yr in retirement was going to be living the dream. Well 60 years later you are getting 3 times that amount and you are considered $500/month over the poverty level.
$20K a year is INFINITELY better than $0 a year.
"We are talking about SSI and you want to change the subject to social security disability benefits.
And your example is now granting permanent disability benefits to people who go out into the workforce and work part time and full time jobs. Permanent disability benefits for "covid brain" and fybromyalgia.
I have one contact who told me how excited he was to have earned his permanent disability payments while being a full time student and working as a roadside assistance tech.
Personally, I don't care about disability benefits. Some need it and get it. It feels like a ton of people are milking the system. But God forbid those "bankers" handle the money"
SSDI is funded as part of SS. It has always been part of SS since its inception. Those who are bilking the system, and their are plenty of them, are low life scum stealing from the neediest among us because it is a finite amount of money....but again, those low life scum are going to cost us one way or another unless they are all dead, unlike the bankers who are making their nut already and looking for more. Hand them the money and you and I are still going to either subisidize the scum or facilitate their demise because as long as theya re alive they gonna eat...
Posted on 3/1/23 at 6:23 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:orphans and the disabled???
orphans and the disabled will be living below the poverty level
Yeah??
But not for the bluecollar folks who work themselves to death and die early?
Nor for their kids?
Not for minority men who live shorter lives than their lighter-skinned compatriots?
Even after they've contributed all their lives ... not a penny back?
Nothing?
That sounds very suspect.
Are you a racist?
Posted on 3/1/23 at 6:55 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
$20K a year is INFINITELY better than $0 a year.
For you to think that 12% of gross income deposits over 40 years would be $0 income at retirement tells me all I need to know.
You aren't being serious in this discussion.
For you to think that 12% of gross income deposits over 40 years would be a fair trade off at $20k annual income tells me that you are new to the MT.
Welcome.
Discussion closed.
I'm out.
Posted on 3/2/23 at 7:52 am to meansonny
quote:
For you to think that 12% of gross income deposits over 40 years would be $0 income at retirement tells me all I need to know.
You aren't being serious in this discussion.
$0 in income is what elderly people, orphans and the disabled had to live on prior to SS. Given that wages have gone down since 1970 in the United States it is not unreasonable to ask where the retirement savings are going to come from. If SS is placed into individual retirement accounts the amount of money available to the disabled and the orphaned will be reduced by whatever amount is placed aside for individual retirement accounts. The individual will have more retirement income but they will have paid more in taxes while working and in retirement to make up the subsidy of the disabled and the orphaned.
There ain't no free lunch....it takes some amount of money for a living person to survive in the US. That amount is attained one of 3 ways for most people...working, the dole, crime or some combination. Old folks, disabled folks and orphans ain't in a position to work. Old folks had a lifetime to prepare for retirement but many do not for many reasons. Disabled people and orphans do not have that luxury. Unless they simply cease to exist when they no longer have the money to survive they are going to be a burden on the rest of us one way or another. Individual retirement accounts have done little to address the shortfall for the elderly and NOTHING for the disabled and the orphaned....yet greed drives many to dream of their own future at the expense of their fellow man who will become a burden on the dreamer if he survives beyond his ability to make his nut on his own. There ain't no free lunch....
Posted on 3/2/23 at 8:01 am to shutterspeed
This post was edited on 3/20/23 at 10:07 am
Posted on 3/2/23 at 8:26 am to AwgustaDawg
quote:
There ain't no free lunch....
You keep talking at us like we don't know orphans, disabled, and the elderly are people too. That's just ridiculous. No one on this thread has said those people should just die.
Everyone but you seems to agree this is another horribly inefficiently run government program that is suspect to being taken advantage of to the detriment of all of us. It is frustrating as hell to listen to people talk about no free lunch when that wasn't the argument to begin with. Get rid of the waste, get rid of the fraud, and give those of us that don't need it the option to opt out without the obvious situation where the government fricks us.
I think we'd all be happy to contribute 1% to a fund for the elderly, orphaned, and disabled given the alternative. But that would just be wasted by big government too. It doesn't matter how much we give, the government is a horribly inefficient way to distribute our money.
Posted on 3/2/23 at 9:39 am to UpstairsComputer
quote:
Everyone but you seems to agree this is another horribly inefficiently run government program that is suspect to being taken advantage of to the detriment of all of us. It is frustrating as hell to listen to people talk about no free lunch when that wasn't the argument to begin with. Get rid of the waste, get rid of the fraud, and give those of us that don't need it the option to opt out without the obvious situation where the government fricks us.
I think we'd all be happy to contribute 1% to a fund for the elderly, orphaned, and disabled given the alternative. But that would just be wasted by big government too. It doesn't matter how much we give, the government is a horribly inefficient way to distribute our money.
You can tell who is either retired/near retirement in this thread.
I just would like control of my own money and investments. I've been working since I was 17. I can only imagine what I would have accumulated in a roth if I had gotten to take all that SS money and invest it myself.
Posted on 3/2/23 at 9:48 am to AwgustaDawg
quote:I am surprised you returned to the disabled and orphans BS. Those exceptions are totally peripheral to a thread discussion centering on retirement.
disabled folks and orphans ain't in a position to work
Let's recenter.
I believe you've noted your approx household earnings to be in the top 5% of US families. Given associated resources which should accompany that income, do you honestly contend SS is a valuable retirement program for you? Are low ROI fixed US debt instruments generally wise investments (aka valuable) for folks <45yrs old?
If the AwgustaDawg household was given the option between managing your own retirement with 11% of pay (plus a 0.7% matched (1.4%) disability and orphan program contribution to match current 12.4% payroll tax), versus the current SS program, which would be a better option for you?
Because I can tell you pointblank, I'd be way ahead, as would any poster in this forum. (well ... nearly any poster in this forum
)This post was edited on 3/2/23 at 9:50 am
Posted on 3/2/23 at 10:14 am to UpstairsComputer
quote:
You keep talking at us like we don't know orphans, disabled, and the elderly are people too. That's just ridiculous. No one on this thread has said those people should just die.
Everyone but you seems to agree this is another horribly inefficiently run government program that is suspect to being taken advantage of to the detriment of all of us. It is frustrating as hell to listen to people talk about no free lunch when that wasn't the argument to begin with. Get rid of the waste, get rid of the fraud, and give those of us that don't need it the option to opt out without the obvious situation where the government fricks us.
I think we'd all be happy to contribute 1% to a fund for the elderly, orphaned, and disabled given the alternative. But that would just be wasted by big government too. It doesn't matter how much we give, the government is a horribly inefficient way to distribute our money.
You are correct on all accounts. No one has said that elderly, disabled and orphaned folks should die but in the absence of some form of social security type program they did just that. For most of mankind's existence they died and were a burden on their family and community while suffering mightily. They are still a huge financial burden on their families and their communities (to the tune of what, 16+% of everyone's salaries) BUT they are afforded a modest existence with a modest amount of dignity which they never had before, with rare individual examples, outside of some form of social security program. Western civilization had several hundred years before the first social security type programs and have had 130 years since to come up with an alternative and did neither.
It is horribly inefficient until you consider the alternatives which have been in place (none) and then the efficiency is stellar in comparison. Could it be better> No doubt. Will turning it into an individual retirement account make it better? For some, for others it would be a disaster and would, at the end of the day, put those who found it disastrous once again at the mercy of those who it was succesful for. Many recipients today would have NO chance for it to be successful were in an individual retirement account because they were unable to work through no fault of their own. They would still be the same burden they are today and have been throughout history. The system could definitely be improved the problem is that one side of the aisle wants no changes whatsoever and the other side wants it to be all about the individual and not what it was intended to do and that is to mitigate the financial burden on the able presented by those unable to provide a living for themselves with some degree of dignity.
quote:
I think we'd all be happy to contribute 1% to a fund for the elderly, orphaned, and disabled given the alternative. But that would just be wasted by big government too. It doesn't matter how much we give, the government is a horribly inefficient way to distribute our money.
When you take away the amount of benefits recieved on average by individuals the amount contributed to social security for the security of others is about 2% over a lifetime. That is according to most research I can find. Is 2% instead of 1% acceptable? Where is the shortfall going to be made up? The recipients cost what they cost....it has to come from somewhere.
Posted on 3/2/23 at 10:35 am to Triple Bogey
quote:
You can tell who is either retired/near retirement in this thread.
I just would like control of my own money and investments. I've been working since I was 17. I can only imagine what I would have accumulated in a roth if I had gotten to take all that SS money and invest it myself.
I assume everyone has considered this at some point in their working life. I have contributed to Social Security for 43 years since I was 15 years old. It is a pile of money without any interest. It would certainly be nice to have.
Lets take a look at the numbers though. Lets say you average $50K a year in salary for 50 years. Thats $2.5 Million earned in a career. The "contribution" rate over that span of time has averaged about 10% (5 for the employee, 5 for the employer). By the way it is all EARNED by the employee, but that is another issue. That would mean that you would have paid $250K in social security in your lifetime. Thats it...you can't count the interest that money would have earned because it may have dissapeared altogether. $250 is all it has cost you....you may have made 30% a year on it, you may have lost everything. Lets assume you are lucky and your parents lived to age 75 and recieved social security for 10 years each after retirement age AND they recieved an average benefit amount of $1000 a month for 10 years. Thats $240K that they recieved. Just your parents, not you grandparents, your disabled cousin or your third cousins orphaned children. Not to mention the myriad of other people you never met who are receiving benefits. So you are $10K out of pocket assuming you'd done the right thing and saw to it that your parents had a living with a modest amount of dignity. As of today you will recoup that $50K in about 2 years after recieving benefits. That is almost guaranteed as long as the United States exists. If the US does not exist your investment accounts are going to be worthless and you will be eating dog food and selling pencils on the corner IF you are fortunate. Yes, paying social security SUCKS. It is horribly managed and way too many people are abusing the system. It is still far and away the best alternative man has come up with to mitigate the burden of those unable to fend for themselves and do so with some measure of dignity. Man had a long time to come up with an alternative and failed and has had 100+ years since Germany started a social security type system and no one has offered a viable althernative.
Posted on 3/2/23 at 12:32 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:You realize you're posting on the money board, right?
That would mean that you would have paid $250K in social security in your lifetime. Thats it...you can't count the interest that money would have earned because it may have dissapeared altogether.
So let's run real numbers using your example: $417/mo X 600 months (50yrs). SS vs Low Risk/Low Yield Private Investment
SS (1.2%) = $342,816.05
PI (4.35%) = $897,389.12
quote:Alternately, beginning with $1.5 million in a retirement account, if the account earned 2% interest, the retiree could pull $2,209/mo for 30yrs at a 15% tax rate and die at age 95y with $1,460,000 still in his account to pass on as inheritance.
Marc Perez is 23 years old and earns an average income of $60,006 per year. He will pay $547,088 in Social Security taxes (excluding disability insurance taxes) throughout his lifetime. In return, he will receive a monthly benefit of $2,209 in retirement.
If he instead invested that same amount—$547,088—in a conservative mix of stocks and bonds, he would accumulate more than $1.5 million in a retirement account and could use that to purchase a lifetime annuity that would pay him $6,185 per month, or nearly three times what Social Security will provide.
Even lower-income earners, like Ashley Martin, who generally receives higher returns from Social Security would be better off saving and investing in their own personal retirement accounts.
LINK
Posted on 3/2/23 at 3:33 pm to LSU_historian
At least half of these recipients would immediately claim a hardship withdrawal and buy either a house or a Dodge Charger.
Posted on 3/2/23 at 3:54 pm to AwgustaDawg
To your previous post, yes, 2% would be fine. 1% from me, 1% from my business, just like today. Most people in their right mind would prefer that to the 12.4% they currently pay (which will eventually increase, but I digress).
Your math continues to be fictitious to benefit your argument.
-As pointed out above, it's 12.4%, not 10%.
-Only people who 1) refuse to do due diligence and also 2) refuse to diversify have ever lost everything they've save over a 50 year period. Does it happen? Yes. But that shite is natural selection if you're this stupid and I don't want to support their retirement. This isn't orphans or people with disabilities.
How much did helping these (at least) 3 people cost? And how much did those children's parents pay into the system? You can't ignore a part of the calculation because it suits you that these expenses shouldn't be calculated. It either works or it doesn't. Should we pay 36% into social security annually so we can cover all of these people? Seems to make the most sense since this is the best we've ever come up with...
Apparently, your logic goes... "If the US exists, there is no inflation". Cause lord knows the US wouldn't print money and create it using QE out of thin air for 14 years if they found themselves in a pickle. Oh wait...
No, it's not. It is the best alternative GOVERNMENT has come up with. Man, many in this room, has already come up with 20 alternatives that would work better than this shite.
If you don't count inflation, and you don't count returns, and you don't count the expenses of the people we need to help, and you don't count that taxation is theft, you're right though, this is a shining beacon of light.
Your math continues to be fictitious to benefit your argument.
quote:
The "contribution" rate over that span of time has averaged about 10%
-As pointed out above, it's 12.4%, not 10%.
quote:
you can't count the interest that money would have earned because it may have disappeared altogether
-Only people who 1) refuse to do due diligence and also 2) refuse to diversify have ever lost everything they've save over a 50 year period. Does it happen? Yes. But that shite is natural selection if you're this stupid and I don't want to support their retirement. This isn't orphans or people with disabilities.
quote:
your disabled cousin or your third cousins orphaned children.
How much did helping these (at least) 3 people cost? And how much did those children's parents pay into the system? You can't ignore a part of the calculation because it suits you that these expenses shouldn't be calculated. It either works or it doesn't. Should we pay 36% into social security annually so we can cover all of these people? Seems to make the most sense since this is the best we've ever come up with...
quote:
That is almost guaranteed as long as the United States exists.
Apparently, your logic goes... "If the US exists, there is no inflation". Cause lord knows the US wouldn't print money and create it using QE out of thin air for 14 years if they found themselves in a pickle. Oh wait...
quote:
It is still far and away the best alternative man has come up with
No, it's not. It is the best alternative GOVERNMENT has come up with. Man, many in this room, has already come up with 20 alternatives that would work better than this shite.
If you don't count inflation, and you don't count returns, and you don't count the expenses of the people we need to help, and you don't count that taxation is theft, you're right though, this is a shining beacon of light.
Posted on 3/2/23 at 4:14 pm to UpstairsComputer
quote:11% of SS payouts, total.
How much did helping these (at least) 3 people cost?
Posted on 3/2/23 at 7:29 pm to LSU_historian
But then politicians couldn’t steal from it and give it to those that don’t contribute
Posted on 3/3/23 at 6:36 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:5 seconds with firecalc proves you wrong
With a 40 year time horizon, historically it’s almost always equaling out.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News