Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not planning my retirement around social security. I would rather get whatever i put in back. I am 35

I'd like my homeowners insurance premiums back now that my house had not burned down. But it ain't happening.

That doesn't make sense because you never intend to burn down your house and collect the money at the end.

What good is paying off bonds and obligations with printed and drastically devalued money. Bernie madoff would be perfectly capable of paying back with worthless iou's

15:18 again. Just to be clear, I'm not 15:09, even though we seem to be on the same page. She's totally correct about the bad effects of a decade or more of low returns, particularly when you're young and starting to save.

I don't think our answer, as a society, should be "My account did well, also I was able to save lots. So I'm not concerned about other seniors, and if their accounts are doing badly they should just keep working."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:14:50 - what would have happened if you had to retire in 2008, when the stock market was sucking eggs, because you were laid off in that bad economy, or you had health problems? And yet lots of people did have to retire then, and many of them undoubtedly had lower incomes than you, and so they could have saved less than you. THAT's the problem.

What are you talking about? If you willingly chose to retire in 2008, can we at least agree that they were in the position to.

Are you presuming that they made a FULL withdrawel of the retirement accounts prior to the crash?

In terms of Roth, 401K, etc., their share quantity remained the same, save for their periodic withdrawels. Again, it should have been high enough to allow them to retire, yes, the value dropped, but by and large, many are back up again.

Why do you refuse to see that:
1. Lots of people are forced to retire in a given year because they lost jobs or have serious health problems. Retirement isn't always a choice.
2. If you buy an annuity with your IRA, then you do have to sell all of it, or at least a big chunk. And if there's no Social Security annuity, most people are going to want to buy an annuity with their IRAs to insure against longevity risk.
3. If you follow a strategy of drawing down your IRA assets instead, you would have sold pieces of it for low prices in 2008.. It's irrelevant that you own the same number of shares; what matters is the price you get for each share, which thanks to the Bush Crash was low in 2008.
4. You still haven't answered the question about what happens to low-income people who can't afford to contribute much to an IRA.

Sorry, but I'm willing to bet I know way, way more about financial markets than you do. You will lose this argument.

The whole government budget is a ponzi scheme way worse than Bernie madoff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. Ever hear of a Roth IRA? Just curious....far more reliable and efficient than SS...and it actually GROWS!

I was literally yelling at the TV to Joe to STFU and stop "protecting" my social security, but then I remembered that I voted for Romney on Tuesday and then encouraged him to keep on it.

Between that and his and BO's definition of what a small business is, I honestly cringe for them sometimes.

What is your basis for concluding that an IRA is more "reliable and efficient" that SS?! SSA's administrative costs for the entire SS system are about .6%-- which is better than most mutual fund companies. Also, an investment in the stock market is certainly not "more reliable" than SS-- unless you have suffered complete amnesia about what the market's done for the last 5 or 10 years.

Just to be clear, we'll not hear from the left on how the stock market is at all time highs during these last three weeks correct? Because that has become a staple talking point on how the market is just roaring these days, and to your thinking, the economy is supposedly booming.

I realize you can't speek for that particular movement, but just would like your opinion. And my Roth and 401K have returned as have most that didn't cash out four years ago, so I guess I'm just a bit more risk tolerant.

Personally, I think the level of the stock market has only a loose correlation to whether the fundamentals of the economy are strong, and there is likewise a loose correlation between any given president and whether the fundamentals of the economy are strong, so I certainly would never suggest that you should vote for or against a given candidate based on what the Dow is at. Are you planning to vote for Romney because you believe his tax cuts will get us to 4% growth and pay for themselves?

Also, one reason why SS is more reliable is that the payment is guaranteed whether the market is in an up cycle or a down cycle. Bully for you that your savings "have returned" but if you had been recently laid off/retired you might never get the chance to make that $ up. One of the dirty secrets relying on 401(k) and other personal savings is that a disproportionately huge portion of the income is attributable to compound returns in the last decade of work, so if you happen to get stuck with a decade of poor returns you will be screwed.

No, it's not a Ponzi scheme, the trust fund is invested in govt bonds. The govt cannot reneg on these bonds, legally. So the govt has to pay Social Security back. By the 2030s the trust fund will be exhausted, then it becomes fully pay as you go. But lots of systems around the world are pay as you go, and nobody is calling them ponzi schemes.

Anonymous wrote:14:50 - what would have happened if you had to retire in 2008, when the stock market was sucking eggs, because you were laid off in that bad economy, or you had health problems? And yet lots of people did have to retire then, and many of them undoubtedly had lower incomes than you, and so they could have saved less than you. THAT's the problem.

What are you talking about? If you willingly chose to retire in 2008, can we at least agree that they were in the position to.

Are you presuming that they made a FULL withdrawel of the retirement accounts prior to the crash?

In terms of Roth, 401K, etc., their share quantity remained the same, save for their periodic withdrawels. Again, it should have been high enough to allow them to retire, yes, the value dropped, but by and large, many are back up again.

Anonymous wrote:14:32 is right. If you watch Faux News you will hear Social Security is "bankrupt". And yet, it's still paying full benefits, and it can pay 3/4 of benefits for the next 75 years, so how could it be bankrupt? It can be fixed with some tweaks.

Fox and the Repubs won't tell you what they think the real problem is: Social Security is "socialism". So we should let rich people stop contributing and invest in IRAs instead (like a PP is saying). And if your house cleaners can't afford to save in an IRA, well it sucks to be them, doesn't it. YOYO.

It's a giant PONZI scheme. The money I pay in isn't sitting in some trust fund for me. It is sitting in a trust fund for my parents. Under this system, my kids' FICA will pay for me when I retire. Thanks, kids. That is why it WORKS.

However, if we have fewer kids or those kids don't get jobs.......

14:50 - what would have happened if you had to retire in 2008, when the stock market was sucking eggs, because you were laid off in that bad economy, or you had health problems? And yet lots of people did have to retire then, and many of them undoubtedly had lower incomes than you, and so they could have saved less than you. THAT's the problem.

14:32 is right. If you watch Faux News you will hear Social Security is "bankrupt". And yet, it's still paying full benefits, and it can pay 3/4 of benefits for the next 75 years, so how could it be bankrupt? It can be fixed with some tweaks.

Fox and the Repubs won't tell you what they think the real problem is: Social Security is "socialism". So we should let rich people stop contributing and invest in IRAs instead (like a PP is saying). And if your house cleaners can't afford to save in an IRA, well it sucks to be them, doesn't it. YOYO.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. Ever hear of a Roth IRA? Just curious....far more reliable and efficient than SS...and it actually GROWS!

I was literally yelling at the TV to Joe to STFU and stop "protecting" my social security, but then I remembered that I voted for Romney on Tuesday and then encouraged him to keep on it.

Between that and his and BO's definition of what a small business is, I honestly cringe for them sometimes.

What is your basis for concluding that an IRA is more "reliable and efficient" that SS?! SSA's administrative costs for the entire SS system are about .6%-- which is better than most mutual fund companies. Also, an investment in the stock market is certainly not "more reliable" than SS-- unless you have suffered complete amnesia about what the market's done for the last 5 or 10 years.

Just to be clear, we'll not hear from the left on how the stock market is at all time highs during these last three weeks correct? Because that has become a staple talking point on how the market is just roaring these days, and to your thinking, the economy is supposedly booming.

I realize you can't speek for that particular movement, but just would like your opinion. And my Roth and 401K have returned as have most that didn't cash out four years ago, so I guess I'm just a bit more risk tolerant.

Anonymous wrote:OP. Ever hear of a Roth IRA? Just curious....far more reliable and efficient than SS...and it actually GROWS!

I was literally yelling at the TV to Joe to STFU and stop "protecting" my social security, but then I remembered that I voted for Romney on Tuesday and then encouraged him to keep on it.

Between that and his and BO's definition of what a small business is, I honestly cringe for them sometimes.

What is your basis for concluding that an IRA is more "reliable and efficient" that SS?! SSA's administrative costs for the entire SS system are about .6%-- which is better than most mutual fund companies. Also, an investment in the stock market is certainly not "more reliable" than SS-- unless you have suffered complete amnesia about what the market's done for the last 5 or 10 years.

OP. Ever hear of a Roth IRA? Just curious....far more reliable and efficient than SS...and it actually GROWS!

I was literally yelling at the TV to Joe to STFU and stop "protecting" my social security, but then I remembered that I voted for Romney on Tuesday and then encouraged him to keep on it.

Between that and his and BO's definition of what a small business is, I honestly cringe for them sometimes.

Anonymous wrote:Are you seriously expecting to have any social security around when you retire?

We just consider it to be contributions to help support our aging parents and grandparents. Our retirement is what we are putting away beyond social security.

If you are our age and expecting it to be there for your retirement, you are going to be in for a rude awakening.

Honestly, I think this is a myth spread by Republicans so that they can eliminate SS in a few years.

There is no reason that 35 year olds today can't collect at least a substantial portion, or all, of their expected benefit.