Fifty percent of people CANNOT save enough for retirement.

[techs]

Lets clear up a misconception. Half of Americans cannot save and invest enough for their retirement even accounting for the average retirement age.
Here's how it works.
Assuming the SS level (40 percent of your working salary) and Medicare is the amount you need to keep a roof over your head, food and medical care.
First off can you expect to get the level of growth in your investments Americans achieved over the last 60 years? Certainly not. World War 2 saw the destruction of the entire industrial capacity of industrialized nations. It left all the european countries in huge debt to the US. Countries with low wage labor had no money nor expertise to build factories. Plus the US has gone from a developing nation of higher growth to a developed nation of lower growth. So the US has enjoyed an unprecedented period of growth over the last 60 years.
Even if that were NOT true and growth were the same as it has been the last 40 years over the next 40 years you can't save enough for retirement.
Its simple.
How many years of retirement do you save for? 10? 20? What if you live to 95 and retire at 72? Thats 23 years. At 40 percent that number cannot be reached unless the average American saves somethingl like 80 percent of their income during their entire working life.
But say you save for the average life expectancy. Retire at 72 and live til 80. But what will be the life expectancy even 20 years from now? Unknown.
And if you only save for the AVERAGE life span than what happens if you live even one more year? You are broke.
When you add the ridiculous notion of saving for an indeterminate number of years of retirement to the absolute necessity of never going broke since you would be unable to work you come up with the only answer. You must save for the lifespan of, say 90 percent of the highest age people live. Which puts you into the 90's. And only millionaires can save that much. And that leaves 10 percent of the retired population, those in their 90's broke.

And what happens if we do indeed destroy SS? We would have tens of millions of elderly with no more money. And then the government would have to step in and help them.
Unless seniors living and dying in the streets will acceptable to our "Christian" Nation.

 

[Genx87]

So your theory is based on the historical growth of the stock market will be impossible to keep going. Thus instead of even trying we will stick it into a program that earns an automatic negative rate of growth because it is backed by the govt, it must be safe?

If our life expectancys suddenly jump 20 years in the next 50 years, why shouldnt we be expected to work longer? If my life is going to on avg jump to 95 years then why would I want to sit around for 30 of it twiddling my thumbs?

You know when SS was created I am pretty sure the avg life expectancy of people was about 65-70 years of age tops. Thus nearly 50% of the people were automatically excluded from the program. Maybe we should get back to the roots of the program and push the benefits age out to 76 years of age, which is what the designers of the program obviosuly intended to do.

Demographics change, if the program cant change with it, then it is destined to ruin.

 

[piasabird]

Either SS will disappear in the future, or our taxes will be significantly increased.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Genx87
So your theory is based on the historical growth of the stock market will be impossible to keep going. Thus instead of even trying we will stick it into a program that earns an automatic negative rate of growth because it is backed by the govt, it must be safe?

If our life expectancys suddenly jump 20 years in the next 50 years, why shouldnt we be expected to work longer? If my life is going to on avg jump to 95 years then why would I want to sit around for 30 of it twiddling my thumbs?

You know when SS was created I am pretty sure the avg life expectancy of people was about 65-70 years of age tops. Thus nearly 50% of the people were automatically excluded from the program. Maybe we should get back to the roots of the program and push the benefits age out to 76 years of age, which is what the designers of the program obviosuly intended to do.

Demographics change, if the program cant change with it, then it is destined to ruin.

Stop with all the logic, my head hurts.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Genx87
So your theory is based on the historical growth of the stock market will be impossible to keep going. Thus instead of even trying we will stick it into a program that earns an automatic negative rate of growth because it is backed by the govt, it must be safe?

If our life expectancys suddenly jump 20 years in the next 50 years, why shouldnt we be expected to work longer? If my life is going to on avg jump to 95 years then why would I want to sit around for 30 of it twiddling my thumbs?

You know when SS was created I am pretty sure the avg life expectancy of people was about 65-70 years of age tops. Thus nearly 50% of the people were automatically excluded from the program. Maybe we should get back to the roots of the program and push the benefits age out to 76 years of age, which is what the designers of the program obviosuly intended to do.

Demographics change, if the program cant change with it, then it is destined to ruin.

Nah, let's just pass a law getting rid of all retirement programs, 401k's, IRA's, trusts, etc. and let everyone work until they drop. When you die the goverment takes everything to pay off the national debt.

If you weren't smart enough to do something for yourself, then that's just tough sh1t.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Genx87
So your theory is based on the historical growth of the stock market will be impossible to keep going. Thus instead of even trying we will stick it into a program that earns an automatic negative rate of growth because it is backed by the govt, it must be safe?

If our life expectancys suddenly jump 20 years in the next 50 years, why shouldnt we be expected to work longer? If my life is going to on avg jump to 95 years then why would I want to sit around for 30 of it twiddling my thumbs?

You know when SS was created I am pretty sure the avg life expectancy of people was about 65-70 years of age tops. Thus nearly 50% of the people were automatically excluded from the program. Maybe we should get back to the roots of the program and push the benefits age out to 76 years of age, which is what the designers of the program obviosuly intended to do.

Demographics change, if the program cant change with it, then it is destined to ruin.

Wow. A reasoned argument. And part of which I agree with. We do need to raise the retirement age. In fact the retirement age should be pegged to the average life expectancy and rise in tandem.
You're first part about the stock market is completely, totally WRONG.
As I said even if we get the same growth as we did over the last 40 years we still can't pay for retirement.
And your RIDICULOUS statement that SS is program of "negative" growth is so false as to be ludicrous. SS is pegged to salaries. When salaries grow, the SS fund increases.
SS is tied to the ACTUAL incomes of Americans. And the cost of living is actually very closely tied to what people actually earn. You have to love the beauty of SS. It eliminates the risky and artificial linkage of retirement money to investment growth and ties it to workers salaries which are for more reliably linked to actual cost of living.

 

[techs]

I forgot to add to my original post the following:
You can have really have a secure retirement if your savings is so high that you can live on the interest alone.
And that is what is impossible for 93 percent of Americans.
Any amount of savings that doesn't provide for 40 percent of your working salary for at least 99 percent of the life expectancy leaves millions of people with no income.
Even 1 percent is a lot, but probably manageable by the government.
Which is why I didn't use the argument that everyone needs to save enought to live off interest alone.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: techs
Lets clear up a misconception. Half of Americans cannot save and invest enough for their retirement.
Here's how it works.
Assuming the SS level (40 percent of your working salary) and Medicare is the amount you need to keep a roof over your head, food and medical care.

There is already a negative savings rate. Many people are drowning in debt and aren't saving anything. I really don't think one can depend solely on SS/MediCare to maintain their financial retirement. The government should be educating people that retirement planning should consist of three parts: 1). personal accounts like IRAs, 401k, pensions. 2). other investments like stocks/bonds/real estate 3). and at the very is SS. Social Security was devised to be a safety net. It wasn't designed to be the single most important component of one's retirement strategy.

With all the wasteful spending, tax cuts and debts the federal government is running up and with the increase in the aging population, I don't plan on relying at all on social security. I hope to be pleasantly surprised but wouldn't bank my retirement on any of it to last.

Edit: a relatively simple adjustment to greatly increase the solvency of SS would be to uncap the wage limit for the SS tax.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Genx87
So your theory is based on the historical growth of the stock market will be impossible to keep going. Thus instead of even trying we will stick it into a program that earns an automatic negative rate of growth because it is backed by the govt, it must be safe?

If our life expectancys suddenly jump 20 years in the next 50 years, why shouldnt we be expected to work longer? If my life is going to on avg jump to 95 years then why would I want to sit around for 30 of it twiddling my thumbs?

You know when SS was created I am pretty sure the avg life expectancy of people was about 65-70 years of age tops. Thus nearly 50% of the people were automatically excluded from the program. Maybe we should get back to the roots of the program and push the benefits age out to 76 years of age, which is what the designers of the program obviosuly intended to do.

Demographics change, if the program cant change with it, then it is destined to ruin.

Why would you want to work for so long? Isn't working for 50+ years long enough?

 

[Thump553]

The ONLY reason the elderly are doing relatively well as a class now is because of the rapid increase in home values. Home appreciation, not actual savings, makes up the bulk of most people's net worth.

People that are in their 70's and older, and are homeowners, usually have a house paid off that is worth a couple hundred thousand.

This cushion is rapidly disappearing though. In addition to the current slowdown/impending downturn in the real estate market, my experience with clients in their 50s and 60s is that they are hooked on the same refinancing craze as much of America is. These days it's coomon to have a 65 yo with 80% of their home's value borrowed out already.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Genx87
So your theory is based on the historical growth of the stock market will be impossible to keep going. Thus instead of even trying we will stick it into a program that earns an automatic negative rate of growth because it is backed by the govt, it must be safe?

If our life expectancys suddenly jump 20 years in the next 50 years, why shouldnt we be expected to work longer? If my life is going to on avg jump to 95 years then why would I want to sit around for 30 of it twiddling my thumbs?

You know when SS was created I am pretty sure the avg life expectancy of people was about 65-70 years of age tops. Thus nearly 50% of the people were automatically excluded from the program. Maybe we should get back to the roots of the program and push the benefits age out to 76 years of age, which is what the designers of the program obviosuly intended to do.

Demographics change, if the program cant change with it, then it is destined to ruin.

Stop with all the logic, my head hurts.

or lack of, i certainly know i wont live to 76

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Genx87
So your theory is based on the historical growth of the stock market will be impossible to keep going. Thus instead of even trying we will stick it into a program that earns an automatic negative rate of growth because it is backed by the govt, it must be safe?

If our life expectancys suddenly jump 20 years in the next 50 years, why shouldnt we be expected to work longer? If my life is going to on avg jump to 95 years then why would I want to sit around for 30 of it twiddling my thumbs?

You know when SS was created I am pretty sure the avg life expectancy of people was about 65-70 years of age tops. Thus nearly 50% of the people were automatically excluded from the program. Maybe we should get back to the roots of the program and push the benefits age out to 76 years of age, which is what the designers of the program obviosuly intended to do.

Demographics change, if the program cant change with it, then it is destined to ruin.

Stop with all the logic, my head hurts.

Yeah, the people against SS only want you to hear their cannily crafted sound bites. When you actually look at SS it is a beautifully designed, completely logical and necessary program.
When you look at, say, the Bushies retirement accounts idea in detail you see it does nothing to save SS, destroys the American economy, and fails to provide for retirement for tens of millions of Americans. And would cause a fiscal and social disaster of unprecedented proportions.

 

[techs]

Anyone notice that this thread on SS which consists of actual arguments, facts and logic is getting less replies to than the other thread where people are outright lying and presenting opinions that have been proved to be false?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87
So your theory is based on the historical growth of the stock market will be impossible to keep going. Thus instead of even trying we will stick it into a program that earns an automatic negative rate of growth because it is backed by the govt, it must be safe?

If our life expectancys suddenly jump 20 years in the next 50 years, why shouldnt we be expected to work longer? If my life is going to on avg jump to 95 years then why would I want to sit around for 30 of it twiddling my thumbs?

You know when SS was created I am pretty sure the avg life expectancy of people was about 65-70 years of age tops. Thus nearly 50% of the people were automatically excluded from the program. Maybe we should get back to the roots of the program and push the benefits age out to 76 years of age, which is what the designers of the program obviosuly intended to do.

Demographics change, if the program cant change with it, then it is destined to ruin.

Wow. A reasoned argument. And part of which I agree with. We do need to raise the retirement age. In fact the retirement age should be pegged to the average life expectancy and rise in tandem.
You're first part about the stock market is completely, totally WRONG.
As I said even if we get the same growth as we did over the last 40 years we still can't pay for retirement.
And your RIDICULOUS statement that SS is program of "negative" growth is so false as to be ludicrous. SS is pegged to salaries. When salaries grow, the SS fund increases.
SS is tied to the ACTUAL incomes of Americans. And the cost of living is actually very closely tied to what people actually earn. You have to love the beauty of SS. It eliminates the risky and artificial linkage of retirement money to investment growth and ties it to workers salaries which are for more reliably linked to actual cost of living.

I'd like you to show me how investing 14.6% of my income into an account that has an avg annual return of 10% wont be enough to retire on over a 40 year span.

What are the avg yield on the bonds SS uses? And is that an accurate picture to paint of the system? The govt borrowing from itself, and paying interest to itself is a return?

About the best you come up with is you lost to inflation.

And the simple fact the system cant sustain itself should be reason enough to understand it is seeing a negative return.

Why would you want to work for so long? Isn't working for 50+ years long enough?

What else am I going to do? Sit around waiting to die? Maybe I am different from you, but when I take a day off, usually by the end of the day I am bored out of my mind. Multiply that by 30 years and you get my drift. You can only take so many vacations before that loses its luster.

Yeah, the people against SS only want you to hear their cannily crafted sound bites. When you actually look at SS it is a beautifully designed, completely logical and necessary program.
When you look at, say, the Bushies retirement accounts idea in detail you see it does nothing to save SS, destroys the American economy, and fails to provide for retirement for tens of millions of Americans. And would cause a fiscal and social disaster of unprecedented proportions.

What is so beautiful about it? It was a ponzi scheme setup to tax Americans to pay for things under the guise of a social program. If you think that is beautiful as in a perfect scam, I agree with you.

Are the thrift savings programs federal and congress gets an utter disaster as you paint them out to be? Your fearmongering over individual accounts is pure ignorance.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87
So your theory is based on the historical growth of the stock market will be impossible to keep going. Thus instead of even trying we will stick it into a program that earns an automatic negative rate of growth because it is backed by the govt, it must be safe?

If our life expectancys suddenly jump 20 years in the next 50 years, why shouldnt we be expected to work longer? If my life is going to on avg jump to 95 years then why would I want to sit around for 30 of it twiddling my thumbs?

You know when SS was created I am pretty sure the avg life expectancy of people was about 65-70 years of age tops. Thus nearly 50% of the people were automatically excluded from the program. Maybe we should get back to the roots of the program and push the benefits age out to 76 years of age, which is what the designers of the program obviosuly intended to do.

Demographics change, if the program cant change with it, then it is destined to ruin.

Wow. A reasoned argument. And part of which I agree with. We do need to raise the retirement age. In fact the retirement age should be pegged to the average life expectancy and rise in tandem.
You're first part about the stock market is completely, totally WRONG.
As I said even if we get the same growth as we did over the last 40 years we still can't pay for retirement.
And your RIDICULOUS statement that SS is program of "negative" growth is so false as to be ludicrous. SS is pegged to salaries. When salaries grow, the SS fund increases.
SS is tied to the ACTUAL incomes of Americans. And the cost of living is actually very closely tied to what people actually earn. You have to love the beauty of SS. It eliminates the risky and artificial linkage of retirement money to investment growth and ties it to workers salaries which are for more reliably linked to actual cost of living.

I'd like you to show me how investing 14.6% of my income into an account that has an avg annual return of 10% wont be enough to retire on over a 40 year span.

What are the avg yield on the bonds SS uses? And is that an accurate picture to paint of the system? The govt borrowing from itself, and paying interest to itself is a return?

About the best you come up with is you lost to inflation.

And the simple fact the system cant sustain itself should be reason enough to understand it is seeing a negative return.

Why would you want to work for so long? Isn't working for 50+ years long enough?

What else am I going to do? Sit around waiting to die? Maybe I am different from you, but when I take a day off, usually by the end of the day I am bored out of my mind. Multiply that by 30 years and you get my drift. You can only take so many vacations before that loses its luster.

Yeah, the people against SS only want you to hear their cannily crafted sound bites. When you actually look at SS it is a beautifully designed, completely logical and necessary program.
When you look at, say, the Bushies retirement accounts idea in detail you see it does nothing to save SS, destroys the American economy, and fails to provide for retirement for tens of millions of Americans. And would cause a fiscal and social disaster of unprecedented proportions.

What is so beautiful about it? It was a ponzi scheme setup to tax Americans to pay for things under the guise of a social program. If you think that is beautiful as in a perfect scam, I agree with you.

Are the thrift savings programs federal and congress gets an utter disaster as you paint them out to be? Your fearmongering over individual accounts is pure ignorance.

I'd like you to show me how investing 14.6% of my income into an account that has an avg annual return of 10% wont be enough to retire on over a 40 year span.
Just taking your most onerous point, 10 percent? What type of drugs are you taking?
And even at 10 percent you can't save for maybe 40 years of retirement.
Why would anyone post something like you did? Its clearly impossible.
Oh yeah, why would you think employers will give you THEIR share of the SS payments if SS were stopped? They haven't and they wouldn't. Inf act in most cases they won't continue to give you your share either.

 

[Slew Foot]

Interest calculator

Start at 25 and invest 4000 every year until you retire at 65. Assuming a 7% return annually, youll have 850K at retirement (a 10% annual return lends you nearly 2 million).

Place this 850K into a municipal bond (~5% tax free return) and take home 45K(beats the crap out of the 2100x12~25K that SS would pay) a year to live on. Assuming you dont touch the principal, return the 850K as an inheritance to your kids. Done.

techs=owned.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87
So your theory is based on the historical growth of the stock market will be impossible to keep going. Thus instead of even trying we will stick it into a program that earns an automatic negative rate of growth because it is backed by the govt, it must be safe?

If our life expectancys suddenly jump 20 years in the next 50 years, why shouldnt we be expected to work longer? If my life is going to on avg jump to 95 years then why would I want to sit around for 30 of it twiddling my thumbs?

You know when SS was created I am pretty sure the avg life expectancy of people was about 65-70 years of age tops. Thus nearly 50% of the people were automatically excluded from the program. Maybe we should get back to the roots of the program and push the benefits age out to 76 years of age, which is what the designers of the program obviosuly intended to do.

Demographics change, if the program cant change with it, then it is destined to ruin.

Wow. A reasoned argument. And part of which I agree with. We do need to raise the retirement age. In fact the retirement age should be pegged to the average life expectancy and rise in tandem.
You're first part about the stock market is completely, totally WRONG.
As I said even if we get the same growth as we did over the last 40 years we still can't pay for retirement.
And your RIDICULOUS statement that SS is program of "negative" growth is so false as to be ludicrous. SS is pegged to salaries. When salaries grow, the SS fund increases.
SS is tied to the ACTUAL incomes of Americans. And the cost of living is actually very closely tied to what people actually earn. You have to love the beauty of SS. It eliminates the risky and artificial linkage of retirement money to investment growth and ties it to workers salaries which are for more reliably linked to actual cost of living.

I'd like you to show me how investing 14.6% of my income into an account that has an avg annual return of 10% wont be enough to retire on over a 40 year span.

What are the avg yield on the bonds SS uses? And is that an accurate picture to paint of the system? The govt borrowing from itself, and paying interest to itself is a return?

About the best you come up with is you lost to inflation.

And the simple fact the system cant sustain itself should be reason enough to understand it is seeing a negative return.

Why would you want to work for so long? Isn't working for 50+ years long enough?

What else am I going to do? Sit around waiting to die? Maybe I am different from you, but when I take a day off, usually by the end of the day I am bored out of my mind. Multiply that by 30 years and you get my drift. You can only take so many vacations before that loses its luster.

Yeah, the people against SS only want you to hear their cannily crafted sound bites. When you actually look at SS it is a beautifully designed, completely logical and necessary program.
When you look at, say, the Bushies retirement accounts idea in detail you see it does nothing to save SS, destroys the American economy, and fails to provide for retirement for tens of millions of Americans. And would cause a fiscal and social disaster of unprecedented proportions.

What is so beautiful about it? It was a ponzi scheme setup to tax Americans to pay for things under the guise of a social program. If you think that is beautiful as in a perfect scam, I agree with you.

Are the thrift savings programs federal and congress gets an utter disaster as you paint them out to be? Your fearmongering over individual accounts is pure ignorance.

I'd like you to show me how investing 14.6% of my income into an account that has an avg annual return of 10% wont be enough to retire on over a 40 year span.
Just taking your most onerous point, 10 percent? What type of drugs are you taking?
And even at 10 percent you can't save for maybe 40 years of retirement.
Why would anyone post something like you did? Its clearly impossible.
Oh yeah, why would you think employers will give you THEIR share of the SS payments if SS were stopped? They haven't and they wouldn't. Inf act in most cases they won't continue to give you your share either.

You could be one of the most obtuse people I have seen on this msgboard lately, and that is really saying something.

10% is the avg annual return of the stock market for the past 80+ years. 10% a year is where I am getting my "avg" return for the next 40 years from.

Your inability to understand that we are talking about SS vs private accounts is amazing. Obviously the 14.6% which magically matches what SS costs, is already taken out of your salary, thus I am saying taking that and investing it in the stock market will give a better retirement than SS.

btw if I made 50,000 a year for the next 40 years with a 10% annual return put into an individual account.

I would retire with 3.9 million dollars. If I live for 30 years after that the minimum assuming I never see a single cent in appreciation on that investment, I would live off a 10,800 dollar a month retirement plan.

Do you think I can expect to see an 11,000 a month check from SS? And if so, what is the tax rate going to be to support such a lifestyle?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Interest calculator

Start at 25 and invest 4000 every year until you retire at 65. Assuming a 7% return annually, youll have 850K at retirement (a 10% annual return lends you nearly 2 million).

Place this 850K into a municipal bond (~5% tax free return) and take home 45K(beats the crap out of the 2100x12~25K that SS would pay) a year to live on. Assuming you dont touch the principal, return the 850K as an inheritance to your kids. Done.

techs=owned.

Or be like some of us and place nearly 25k per year in there for as many years and retire nicely!

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Interest calculator

Start at 25 and invest 4000 every year until you retire at 65. Assuming a 7% return annually, youll have 850K at retirement (a 10% annual return lends you nearly 2 million).

Place this 850K into a municipal bond (~5% tax free return) and take home 45K(beats the crap out of the 2100x12~25K that SS would pay) a year to live on. Assuming you dont touch the principal, return the 850K as an inheritance to your kids. Done.

techs=owned.

What's $850K and $45K when inflation is taken into account?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Or be like some of us and place nearly 25k per year in there for as many years and retire nicely!

Damn straight. The $4k I put in last year is up to around $4.3k, tax free.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Interest calculator

Start at 25 and invest 4000 every year until you retire at 65. Assuming a 7% return annually, youll have 850K at retirement (a 10% annual return lends you nearly 2 million).

Place this 850K into a municipal bond (~5% tax free return) and take home 45K(beats the crap out of the 2100x12~25K that SS would pay) a year to live on. Assuming you dont touch the principal, return the 850K as an inheritance to your kids. Done.

techs=owned.

What's $850K and $45K when inflation is taken into account?

10% return - 3% inflation gives the 7% figure.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87
So your theory is based on the historical growth of the stock market will be impossible to keep going. Thus instead of even trying we will stick it into a program that earns an automatic negative rate of growth because it is backed by the govt, it must be safe?

If our life expectancys suddenly jump 20 years in the next 50 years, why shouldnt we be expected to work longer? If my life is going to on avg jump to 95 years then why would I want to sit around for 30 of it twiddling my thumbs?

You know when SS was created I am pretty sure the avg life expectancy of people was about 65-70 years of age tops. Thus nearly 50% of the people were automatically excluded from the program. Maybe we should get back to the roots of the program and push the benefits age out to 76 years of age, which is what the designers of the program obviosuly intended to do.

Demographics change, if the program cant change with it, then it is destined to ruin.

Wow. A reasoned argument. And part of which I agree with. We do need to raise the retirement age. In fact the retirement age should be pegged to the average life expectancy and rise in tandem.
You're first part about the stock market is completely, totally WRONG.
As I said even if we get the same growth as we did over the last 40 years we still can't pay for retirement.
And your RIDICULOUS statement that SS is program of "negative" growth is so false as to be ludicrous. SS is pegged to salaries. When salaries grow, the SS fund increases.
SS is tied to the ACTUAL incomes of Americans. And the cost of living is actually very closely tied to what people actually earn. You have to love the beauty of SS. It eliminates the risky and artificial linkage of retirement money to investment growth and ties it to workers salaries which are for more reliably linked to actual cost of living.

I'd like you to show me how investing 14.6% of my income into an account that has an avg annual return of 10% wont be enough to retire on over a 40 year span.

What are the avg yield on the bonds SS uses? And is that an accurate picture to paint of the system? The govt borrowing from itself, and paying interest to itself is a return?

About the best you come up with is you lost to inflation.

And the simple fact the system cant sustain itself should be reason enough to understand it is seeing a negative return.

Why would you want to work for so long? Isn't working for 50+ years long enough?

What else am I going to do? Sit around waiting to die? Maybe I am different from you, but when I take a day off, usually by the end of the day I am bored out of my mind. Multiply that by 30 years and you get my drift. You can only take so many vacations before that loses its luster.

Yeah, the people against SS only want you to hear their cannily crafted sound bites. When you actually look at SS it is a beautifully designed, completely logical and necessary program.
When you look at, say, the Bushies retirement accounts idea in detail you see it does nothing to save SS, destroys the American economy, and fails to provide for retirement for tens of millions of Americans. And would cause a fiscal and social disaster of unprecedented proportions.

What is so beautiful about it? It was a ponzi scheme setup to tax Americans to pay for things under the guise of a social program. If you think that is beautiful as in a perfect scam, I agree with you.

Are the thrift savings programs federal and congress gets an utter disaster as you paint them out to be? Your fearmongering over individual accounts is pure ignorance.

I'd like you to show me how investing 14.6% of my income into an account that has an avg annual return of 10% wont be enough to retire on over a 40 year span.
Just taking your most onerous point, 10 percent? What type of drugs are you taking?
And even at 10 percent you can't save for maybe 40 years of retirement.
Why would anyone post something like you did? Its clearly impossible.
Oh yeah, why would you think employers will give you THEIR share of the SS payments if SS were stopped? They haven't and they wouldn't. Inf act in most cases they won't continue to give you your share either.

You could be one of the most obtuse people I have seen on this msgboard lately, and that is really saying something.

10% is the avg annual return of the stock market for the past 80+ years. 10% a year is where I am getting my "avg" return for the next 40 years from.

Your inability to understand that we are talking about SS vs private accounts is amazing. Obviously the 14.6% which magically matches what SS costs, is already taken out of your salary, thus I am saying taking that and investing it in the stock market will give a better retirement than SS.

btw if I made 50,000 a year for the next 40 years with a 10% annual return put into an individual account.

I would retire with 3.9 million dollars. If I live for 30 years after that the minimum assuming I never see a single cent in appreciation on that investment, I would live off a 10,800 dollar a month retirement plan.

Do you think I can expect to see an 11,000 a month check from SS? And if so, what is the tax rate going to be to support such a lifestyle?

I am going to rain on your parade. Damn near 70% of stock market investors loose money. An amazing 5% are big money investors that make so much, that it knocks the average back to the plus side.

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Interest calculator

Start at 25 and invest 4000 every year until you retire at 65. Assuming a 7% return annually, youll have 850K at retirement (a 10% annual return lends you nearly 2 million).

Place this 850K into a municipal bond (~5% tax free return) and take home 45K(beats the crap out of the 2100x12~25K that SS would pay) a year to live on. Assuming you dont touch the principal, return the 850K as an inheritance to your kids. Done.

techs=owned.

Or be like some of us and place nearly 25k per year in there for as many years and retire nicely!

Or like me and place 250K a year and return >100% over the last 3 years and retire REAL early

Heck, I made 5K today just shorting Toll Brothers (TOL)

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
I am going to rain on your parade. Damn near 70% of stock market investors loose money. An amazing 5% are big money investors that make so much, that it knocks the average back to the plus side.

Is there any statistical proof of this? My accounts seem to be growing very nicely (up 7% this year so far). Up 9% last year. Roth's up more than that. Just investing in an indexed S&P 500 fund would net you nearly 10% over the last quarter century.

Any links?

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Why would you want to work for so long? Isn't working for 50+ years long enough?

It's the price we pay for longer life expectancies.
Just think, there was a time when you'd be lucky to even live 50 years. For example, Midieval times - life expectancy for women was 24, and 30 for men. How long could they work then? A little over 20 years? Does that mean that we should all retire by the time we're 45?

Live healthy, and you can remain quite functional. My grandmother is 77, and she still participates in road runs, half marathons, and bike trips. Maybe 10 years ago, she and some friends bicycled around the perimeter of Pennsylvania, approximately 1,000 miles. No, it wasn't continuous, obviously, but it was done nonetheless. Granted, she is retired (used to work as a nurse at a hospital), but regularly volunteers at some kind of daycare center, and takes part in other charitable events.

Or be like some of us and place nearly 25k per year in there for as many years and retire nicely!

:Q
Assuming you even earn $25K in the first place.