Quick Poll

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

If you had purchased $1,000 of shares in Delta Airlines one year ago you would have $49.00 today! If you purchased $1,000 of shares in AIG you would have $33.00 If you purchased $1,000 of shares in Lehman Brothers you would have $0.00 today. But, if you purchased $1,000 worth of beer, drank all the beer, turned in the aluminum cans for recycling, you would have $214.00.


Therefore the best current investment plan is to drink heavily & recycle. It is called the 401-Keg Plan

BRILLIANT!!!

[joeydb]

Must be a provider and not a recipient for a 401 keg plan.

[joeydb]

One recipient was brave enough to be honest.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by joeydb

One recipient was brave enough to be honest.

If you are on SS are you a recipient?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by bigrun

If you are on SS are you a recipient?

Unfortunately, yes.

I say unfortunately as all of us are forced into paying for this Ponzi scheme, which after paying for the typical 45 years from age 22 to age 67, wil not yield any gains. In fact, you will be paid a "benefit" less than you paid in, in principal only - no yield, and you will be taxed on it again. It was taxed the first time, and then it's taxed again. In addition, the original premise of "your employer pays half" is a farce. If you have a job paying $100,000 a year (just to keep the math easy), and the SS tax is 8%, you get $92,000 before all other taxes are subtracted, and your employer is presumed to pay another $8000. But the cost to your employer of retaining your labor is $108,000, not $100,000. The fact that you didn't see $108,000 as your gross pay is irrelevant.

It's also unfortunate in that this program breeds dependence, as it was designed to do. There is no trust fund, no lock box. The 22 year old young worker is paying for the guy who retired yesterday. There are many less new suckers coming into the system than the people retiring who, understandably, believe they are entitled to what has been sold to them as a benefit. Interestingly. even though most of us will not get back enough money to cover our "investment" (read that as "the amount we've been ripped off over our careers"), there are so many more retirees collecting than those paying, that the program still runs in the red all the time. This is why there are periodic calls to "fix" or "save" social security. Any fund yielding gains over the long term would not need this.

Social Security is the blurriest case, by design, in assessing recipient status because it's a social program trying to masquerade as a retirement investment. It fails on all counts.

The important part is that, as a recipient, the retiree collecting social security does have that necessarily play into his voting. This is why the Democrats love the program, and the Republicans are scared to ever mathematically get it in line so it does not run a deficit.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Unfortunately, yes.

I say unfortunately as all of us are forced into paying for this Ponzi scheme, which after paying for the typical 45 years from age 22 to age 67, wil not yield any gains. In fact, you will be paid a "benefit" less than you paid in, in principal only - no yield, and you will be taxed on it again. It was taxed the first time, and then it's taxed again. In addition, the original premise of "your employer pays half" is a farce. If you have a job paying $100,000 a year (just to keep the math easy), and the SS tax is 8%, you get $92,000 before all other taxes are subtracted, and your employer is presumed to pay another $8000. But the cost to your employer of retaining your labor is $108,000, not $100,000. The fact that you didn't see $108,000 as your gross pay is irrelevant.

It's also unfortunate in that this program breeds dependence, as it was designed to do. There is no trust fund, no lock box. The 22 year old young worker is paying for the guy who retired yesterday. There are many less new suckers coming into the system than the people retiring who, understandably, believe they are entitled to what has been sold to them as a benefit. Interestingly. even though most of us will not get back enough money to cover our "investment" (read that as "the amount we've been ripped off over our careers"), there are so many more retirees collecting than those paying, that the program still runs in the red all the time. This is why there are periodic calls to "fix" or "save" social security. Any fund yielding gains over the long term would not need this.

Social Security is the blurriest case, by design, in assessing recipient status because it's a social program trying to masquerade as a retirement investment. It fails on all counts.

The important part is that, as a recipient, the retiree collecting social security does have that necessarily play into his voting. This is why the Democrats love the program, and the Republicans are scared to ever mathematically get it in line so it does not run a deficit.

Great post joey, well written but i like dan's and riot's answers better...
My nickname in the AF was 'Joey' and i am originally from the western part of the great state of PA...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

If you are on SS are you a recipient?

no.
assuming you've paid in as an employee, and are now reaping your benefits that you paid for. you may get back all you put in, or more, or less....but you paid for it.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

no.
assuming you've paid in as an employee, and are now reaping your benefits that you paid for. you may get back all you put in, or more, or less....but you paid for it.

You were taxed, with that as the premise, to support a program destined to fail. You were lied to. One has nothing to do with the other.

We pay, as taxpayers, for a lot of stupid and useless stuff. In fact, that's a likely characterization of the majority of government expenditures.

The program will fail unless it is gracefully tapered off for future generations so they can be independently self reliant through their own investements. We do have to fulfill the promise to those retiring, but those young enough should be freed from the burden of this terrible program.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

The program will fail unless it is gracefully tapered off for future generations so they can be independently self reliant through their own investements.
.

Baloney. It won't fail at all for the next 50 years. Get a grip on effing reality. Do you have any idea how many times those that want to privatize it have said,"OMG, imminent failure!" At least 40. Wrong every time.

BTW, do you know what just happened to those "independently self-reliant through their own investments?" Thank god our Social Security funds are not in the market. What do you want to say to all those between the ages of 50 and 90, living off their investments - "Sorry, you lost up to 1/3 in the past 10 years. Good luck with that!"

Social Security is not an investment program, it is not a retirement program. It is a social safety net.

So stop treating it as if it were an investment program, or a retirement fund, because of course it will fail if you try to pretend it is something it is not, and measure it against a false standard.