Are Old People the ruin of this country?

notquiteright said:

Which sort of personal savings do you think would work? Not the stock market, it can fluctuate too much and that isn't what retirement accounts to which should be subject. A home? by the time you finish paying for it, you have bought it 2 or three times over give or take a few interest points and years on the note. depending on inflation it is most likely a push and you'd need to buy a new place to live.

I don't know why you think SS will not be there for you, true some on the extreme right are doing their best to keep reform from stabilizing the program, but the problem is not unlike the egg passing through a snake. The Baby Boomer generation came about by a very rare occurrence, the end of WWII with millions of service men coming home- unlike Germany, England and the USSR. Like gas, once the Baby Boomers pass through the system a far more normal pattern will be set in place.

Click to expand...

Post #47.

You assume that SS will survive the baby boomer rush.

To address your first point, you're wrong. Stocks are an excellent place to put your money (including mutual funds, ETFs, etc.). Your savings account interest rate is usually somewhere around .1 to .3 % return these days depending on how much you have in it and who it's with. CDs are around 1 to 3% depending on the year (and that is for 7 year investment that you can't touch). Bonds which are low return but stable. Stocks and their derivative products historically return about 7-8% on average. Last year alone saw 30%+ returns. So over time, stocks are the best choice. The saying goes, poor and low middle class invest in savings accounts and CDs, high middle class and rich invest in stocks...and there's a reason why they do. If you're not invested in stocks in some way, you are shooting yourself and your retirement in the foot.

Home...generally it's not a super awesome investment (unless there's a bubble). You're right there. However, the alternative is that you rent and get nothing out of it, so I would rather own a home. I bought at the bottom of the market when interest rates were 3.25%. It happened to be an awesome investment for me, but you're right that it is market dependent.

I think that the Gov't, under all administrations, has mismanaged the Social Security funds. They've borrowed the funds and not actually paid them back, except with an I.O.U. There is most certainly abuse of the system by some persons, but it is minimal compared to management incompetence and criminality.

SBu said:

Post #47.

You assume that SS will survive the baby boomer rush. To address your first point, you're wrong. Stocks are an excellent place to put your money (including mutual funds, ETFs, etc.). Your savings account interest rate is usually somewhere around .1 to .3 % return these days depending on how much you have in it and who it's with. CDs are around 1 to 3% depending on the year (and that is for 7 year investment that you can't touch). Bonds which are low return but stable. Stocks and their derivative products historically return about 7-8% on average. Last year alone saw 30%+ returns. So over time, stocks are the best choice. The saying goes, poor and low middle class invest in savings accounts and CDs, high middle class and rich invest in stocks...and there's a reason why they do. If you're not invested in stocks in some way, you are shooting yourself and your retirement in the foot. Home...generally it's not a super awesome investment (unless there's a bubble). You're right there. However, the alternative is that you rent and get nothing out of it, so I would rather own a home. I bought at the bottom of the market when interest rates were 3.25%. It happened to be an awesome investment for me, but you're right that it is market dependent.

Click to expand...

Oh 'they' have known about the Boomer Bubble for years and some who hate SS have been trying to force the end of SS by trying to ramp up the crisis. Fact is SS can be saved and is worth being saved, all CON rants to the contrary.

Stocks have not been stable, last year's 'return' is after a massive crash- imagine if you were already retired and you lost 75% of your retirement income because of the 2008 crash?

Stocks return hinges on the rate of inflation, a booming market accompanied by inflation, a very 'traditional' occurrence.

CDs and savings accounts are not even close to keeping up with inflation.

As far as homes go, for the long term- 30 to 40 years it doesn't matter what quirky happenstance you hit to get a 'bottom of the market' home. After decades inflation will even everyone out. Now home ownership is better than renting, but it isn't a retirement maker.

notquiteright said:

Oh 'they' have known about the Boomer Bubble for years and some who hate SS have been trying to force the end of SS by trying to ramp up the crisis. Fact is SS can be saved and is worth being saved, all CON rants to the contrary.

Stocks have not been stable, last year's 'return' is after a massive crash- imagine if you were already retired and you lost 75% of your retirement income because of the 2008 crash?

Stocks return hinges on the rate of inflation, a booming market accompanied by inflation, a very 'traditional' occurrence.

CDs and savings accounts are not even close to keeping up with inflation.

As far as homes go, for the long term- 30 to 40 years it doesn't matter what quirky happenstance you hit to get a 'bottom of the market' home. After decades inflation will even everyone out. Now home ownership is better than renting, but it isn't a retirement maker.

Click to expand...

If being worth saving means that it is significantly scaled back in scope and expectation now, then ok. If being worth saving means that we have to significantly raise taxes on my generation (and other non-boomer generations) to pay for it, no thanks. Right now, I would prefer that the government tells the truth to my generation, which is: 'This program will probably not be available to you either totally or as it exists today, so start saving and investing your butts off for retirement.' I'm operating under the FACT that it is only projected to last, in its current form, until 2033. Which is to say, I don't trust any BS that politicians, pundits, or armchair quarterbacks tell me, and I don't expect or want access to this ponzi scheme of a program, nor do I want those kids graduating and being born today to pay for my financial well being.

Carousel.

notquiteright said:

Which sort of personal savings do you think would work? Not the stock market, it can fluctuate too much and that isn't what retirement accounts to which should be subject. A home? by the time you finish paying for it, you have bought it 2 or three times over give or take a few interest points and years on the note. depending on inflation it is most likely a push and you'd need to buy a new place to live.

I don't know why you think SS will not be there for you, true some on the extreme right are doing their best to keep reform from stabilizing the program, but the problem is not unlike the egg passing through a snake. The Baby Boomer generation came about by a very rare occurrence, the end of WWII with millions of service men coming home- unlike Germany, England and the USSR. Like gas, once the Baby Boomers pass through the system a far more normal pattern will be set in place.

Click to expand...

Why would you ever buy a home you couldn't pay off in ten years? Why would you want to be forced into a substandard rate of return the money going into social security?

SBu said:

If being worth saving means that it is significantly scaled back in scope and expectation now, then ok. If being worth saving means that we have to significantly raise taxes on my generation (and other non-boomer generations) to pay for it, no thanks. Right now, I would prefer that the government tells the truth to my generation, which is: 'This program will probably not be available to you either totally or as it exists today, so start saving and investing your butts off for retirement.' I'm operating under the FACT that it is only projected to last, in its current form, until 2033. Which is to say, I don't trust any BS that politicians, pundits, or armchair quarterbacks tell me, and I don't expect or want access to this ponzi scheme of a program, nor do I want those kids graduating and being born today to pay for my financial well being.

Click to expand...

Actually it is the disability side that is shaky, the SS account side just needs the cap lifted on taxable income, unless you are making over $117,000 in TAXABLE income you will see no difference. A few tweeks in the adjustments...

The FACT is SS is is still paying out and IF the right wing stops it's silliness the program has many more years ahead of it.

Again I pointed out savings, stocks, and your home don't do well against inflation and interest paid in a home mortgage. For most middle class Americans the SS program is a true life saver.

Fascinating. I never ran across such creative Ageism before.

I had to laugh at the 'most old people suck' option. :lol:

notquiteright said:

Actually it is the disability side that is shaky, the SS account side just needs the cap lifted on taxable income, unless you are making over $117,000 in TAXABLE income you will see no difference. A few tweeks in the adjustments...

Click to expand...

Oh, that's it? Well there you go, problem solved. :roll:

notquiteright said:

The FACT is SS is is still paying out and IF the right wing stops it's silliness the program has many more years ahead of it.

Click to expand...

I never argued that the it's not still paying out. This is not a discussion about near term solvency. That's the problem with short sighted views.

notquiteright said:

Again I pointed out savings, stocks, and your home don't do well against inflation and interest paid in a home mortgage. For most middle class Americans the SS program is a true life saver.

Click to expand...

Until it runs out. If SS was significantly less than the monster it is today, then people would save and invest significantly more...like people used to do.

Personal savings, 1950-2011 | pgpf.org

Dear anti-old people people: If the world's lucky...you won't live to be old. In all likelihood, you'll wind up being more of a burden on your families and society than all of the previous generations of "old people". Why? Because you'll never prepare to be old. After all...your the "anti-old people people.

SBu said:

You should be asking yourself if it's moral to outsource monetary care of your aging parents to the federal government and tax payer, rather than taking care of your family yourself. Additionally, you should ask yourself if SS is preferred over personal savings.

Click to expand...

Half a dozen in one. Six in another.

PirateMk1 said:

Why would you ever buy a home you couldn't pay off in ten years? Why would you want to be forced into a substandard rate of return the money going into social security?

Click to expand...

fact is most Middle Class Americans can't afford the payments on a house that can be paid off in 10 years, example a $150,000 home would be a monthly payment of $1,590.98 per month at 5%. You'd have to be a rather high income earner to swing that, and if IIRC I doubt you will get back your fire code improvements you made on your home.

Most Americans get back more money than they paid into SS AND few if any investments do more than keep pace with inflation, and heaven help you if another market crash happens once you retire. The long term stock market trends are meaningless if the bottom falls out on you.

SBu said:

Oh, that's it? Well there you go, problem solved. I never argued that the it's not still paying out. This is not a discussion about near term solvency. That's the problem with short sighted views. Until it runs out. If SS was significantly less than the monster it is today, then people would save and invest significantly more...like people used to do.

Personal savings, 1950-2011 | pgpf.org

Click to expand...

Ummm social security was around in 1950, personal savings isn't affected by Social Security.

The problem CAN be solved once everyone quits demanding it be ended so more money gets dumped into very rich and looking to get richer fund manager's hands. The short sighted view is to see Baby Boomers as the forever trend and not something temporary.

What 'monster'??? You just seem to be rolling out vague opinion. Fact is there is no real sound investment for the middle class that is as stable or dependable as Social Security- it isn't a wealth generator, it is a social safeguard. The stock market and housing market is not stable or a social safety net.

Fact is your financial future isn't hindered by Social Security and to make any real wealth you need to invest far more, and should be able to- unless the employment market collapses, you have kids, they get sick.... yanno what we tend to call LIFE happens....

notquiteright said:

Ummm social security was around in 1950, personal savings isn't affected by Social Security.

The problem CAN be solved once everyone quits demanding it be ended so more money gets dumped into very rich and looking to get richer fund manager's hands. The short sighted view is to see Baby Boomers as the forever trend and not something temporary.

What 'monster'??? You just seem to be rolling out vague opinion. Fact is there is no real sound investment for the middle class that is as stable or dependable as Social Security- it isn't a wealth generator, it is a social safeguard. The stock market and housing market is not stable or a social safety net.

Fact is your financial future isn't hindered by Social Security and to make any real wealth you need to invest far more, and should be able to- unless the employment market collapses, you have kids, they get sick.... yanno what we tend to call LIFE happens....

Click to expand...

Funny, you haven't supported a single thing you've said with facts, and somehow I'm the one rolling out vague opinion. Priceless.

My financial future is hindered by SS because if socialist leaning liberals get the better of the argument then extraordinary measures will have to be taken at my financial expense to help pay for the boomer generation. I really don't expect this 'benefit' to go away because it will be political suicide to try it. I hope it is gutted vice robbing my generation to pay for the necessary funds to keep it running in its current state.

Until you qualify your statements about SS being a better investment than stocks (what a load of BS, what you really mean is 'SS is a better investment than stocks if you don't want to save for retirement yourself), all I hear is "blah blah blah, opinion, blah blah, emotional talking points."

What we should do is make participation in this program voluntary starting at the age of 30ish. That way, socialist leaning liberals can have 8-10 years of robbing from the young, and then that person can decide whether they want the ponzi scheme to continue hoping it will benefit the at some point, or get out and keep that money to save and invest themselves. (You're probably shuddering with anger at the thought someone might choose personal financial accountability over 'shared sacrifice.')

lizzie said:

Actually, many people get back far more than they ever paid in.

Click to expand...

Kinda, sorta ... if you do straight math, you're right ... but if you do an economic analysis, and consider buying power, you will never get even. The dollar you put in when you were 21 will never grow enough to be worth a dollar today.

I blame the persons responsible for starting the social security system the way that is was not the people who had no choice but to be involved in the system.

Higgins86 said:

what was that film where they secretly killed old people and fed them to society?

Click to expand...

"Soylent Green is people!" - Charlton Heston

Another "solution" is from Logan's Run - kill them before they get old.

DA60 said:

Carousel.

Click to expand...

Bingo

SBu said:

Funny, you haven't supported a single thing you've said with facts, and somehow I'm the one rolling out vague opinion. Priceless. My financial future is hindered by SS because if socialist leaning liberals get the better of the argument then extraordinary measures will have to be taken at my financial expense to help pay for the boomer generation. I really don't expect this 'benefit' to go away because it will be political suicide to try it. I hope it is gutted vice robbing my generation to pay for the necessary funds to keep it running in its current state. Until you qualify your statements about SS being a better investment than stocks (what a load of BS, what you really mean is 'SS is a better investment than stocks if you don't want to save for retirement yourself), all I hear is "blah blah blah, opinion, blah blah, emotional talking points." What we should do is make participation in this program voluntary starting at the age of 30ish. That way, socialist leaning liberals can have 8-10 years of robbing from the young, and then that person can decide whether they want the ponzi scheme to continue hoping it will benefit the at some point, or get out and keep that money to save and invest themselves. (You're probably shuddering with anger at the thought someone might choose personal financial accountability over 'shared sacrifice.')

Click to expand...

Actually I have used facts, such as the big stock market rise is because of a HUGE stock market collapse. :roll:

I point out if you are retired, depending on stocks for your income the crash would have wiped you out.

I point out there is a cap on how much payroll can be taxed in SS, and SS is solvent and fixable, no matter the whine some right wingers try and sell us.

I point out inflation eats up most of the average stock market gain, and the average mortgage is paying triple for the home, a one-off situation where a very few can buy extremely low doesn't make a very universal retirement plan.

I point out the Baby Boomers is a very rare and unique part of our history not likely to be repeated so the 'crisis' is a temporary one at best.

Social Security isn't for wealth generation, it is a social safety net, some income during retirement. I don't use emotional talking points, you seem to be the one getting into a lather. As far as shared vs every man for himself. One the one hand we have CONs decrying 'separatism' in a Coke ad but then demanding it in the social safety net... :roll:

NO ONE is stopping you from investing a similar amount as the Social security payroll tax in 'investments'. However adjusting for inflation most investment vehicles are not going to secure the same pay out as Social Security.

Just an FYI, if you do the math on retirement payments through Social Security most of us who are working toward a comfortable retirement see the fund as half our retirement income, and that's AT BEST. So rest easy, you are not paying for any luxury condos in Boca.... :2wave: