Futurecasting. How will the Social Security problem be solved?

[Legend]

I'm beginning not to give a ******. I'd like a individual account system with some price matching for low income people with a variety of options to invest in. Everyone would retire wealthy because the government wouldn't be able to "borrow" money. Gore's lockbox isn't such a bad idea.

But the I don't trust the government to make progress. Quick fixes. It's the American way. Irradiate meat to kill bad bacteria...who cares about the essential good bacteria that's being killed. Heart disease? Take Crestor. Nevermind that the average american consumes 750 doughnuts per year, gallons of soda and hundreds of lbs of sugar. That's not the problem, take your pills. It's genetic for everyone. Corporate short term profits by cutting product quality? Hell yeah. Who cares if Asian countries are making better profits in the long term and taking our marketshare. I want it now! *late 1990s* Huge growth in Large Cap growth stocks? Put all my money in it, I want it now!

/rant
I should be able to invest through IRA/401k/etc using portfolio theory and make a nice 12-14% average annualized average interest. I'm 22 years old, and I started last year. I should have millions in today's money by retirement.

You don't have to have to have an enormous income or win the lottery to get rich. Let the masses be worried about their promised magical SS beans, when their ignorance in investing is stopping them from a wealthy retirment.

 

[TGS]

SS is fine, the government just needs to stop raiding it for deficit spending.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: charrison
You at least need be honest here.

I am honest. Both parties overspend. They overspend in different ways, in different amounts, in different areas, but they both overspend. Look at federal outlays under different presidents. To make it fair, look at outlays as a percent of GDP (since that eliminates inflation effects and somewhat eliminates population growth effects). Under every president since the early 1906s, there is a pattern. What is that pattern? Nearly consistant drops when a democratic president signs the budgets. Nearly consistant increases when a republican president signs the budgets. That trend cannot be ignored. That trend shows almost no change when congress changes hands from one party to another.

The president has the last say. If he didn't like a budget, he can veto it. Before Bush Jr., they actually vetoed budgets. How many times did our government come to a crawl when Clinton came at odds with the Republican controlled congress? Multiple times. So, presidents get to be blamed for the final budget.

Of course spending should increase with each bill. Inflation adds to costs and population grows. That is just a simple fact of life as we know it. Luckilly tax receipts grow in the same fashion.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: charrison
I dont recall there being a hard push on SS reford during that time period. I do recall the lockbox being mentioned, but there ware no details on what that lockbox looked like.

If I recall correctly 1993 had a small SS tax increase. Then there was nothing done for many years. In 1998 Clinton and Gore started paying attention to SS again and attended some forums on the issue.

You mention no details: link

In his 1999 State of the Union address, the President laid out his proposal to ?Save Social Security First.? He proposed transferring 62 percent of the unified budget surpluses ($2.8 trillion) to Social Security over the next 15 years; saving 15 percent of the surpluses to shore up Medicare; and investing 12 percent of the surpluses into new Universal Savings Accounts. The remaining 11 percent was for defense and other domestic priorities. This would extend solvency an additional 23 years, from 2032 to 2055.
...
In his 2000 State of the Union message, President Clinton modified his proposal in an effort to achieve bipartisan consensus. He called for locking away the entire Social Security surplus; paying down the national debt; and dedicating the interest savings to Social Security, which would extend solvency from 2037 to 2054.

Sure they failed at getting these changes. They didn't have control of congress and got nowhere. But I don't agree with claims that they didn't try and that there weren't details.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Legend
I'd like a individual account system with some price matching for low income people with a variety of options to invest in.

Hmm, we have SS which is guaranteed benefits to basically pay for the minimum needs to live. We have many forms of tax deferred IRAs, 401ks, etc. with the ability for price matching and a variety of investment options. And we have the ability to invest whatever we want wherever we want in a taxed account. We already have all those options.

I should be able to invest through IRA/401k/etc using portfolio theory and make a nice 12-14% average annualized average interest.

You can't find ANY sane analyst that thinks 12-14% returns are going to happen anymore. The historical average is lower than that. Plus, dividends have been slashed in half compared to most of history. Net result, ~7% is a very good estimate (historical average minus the dividend cut that has occured). Sure, we could get more. But we could get less.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Legend
I'm beginning not to give a ******. I'd like a individual account system with some price matching for low income people with a variety of options to invest in. Everyone would retire wealthy because the government wouldn't be able to "borrow" money. Gore's lockbox isn't such a bad idea.

But the I don't trust the government to make progress. Quick fixes. It's the American way. Irradiate meat to kill bad bacteria...who cares about the essential good bacteria that's being killed. Heart disease? Take Crestor. Nevermind that the average american consumes 750 doughnuts per year, gallons of soda and hundreds of lbs of sugar. That's not the problem, take your pills. It's genetic for everyone. Corporate short term profits by cutting product quality? Hell yeah. Who cares if Asian countries are making better profits in the long term and taking our marketshare. I want it now! *late 1990s* Huge growth in Large Cap growth stocks? Put all my money in it, I want it now!

/rant
I should be able to invest through IRA/401k/etc using portfolio theory and make a nice 12-14% average annualized average interest. I'm 22 years old, and I started last year. I should have millions in today's money by retirement.

You don't have to have to have an enormous income or win the lottery to get rich. Let the masses be worried about their promised magical SS beans, when their ignorance in investing is stopping them from a wealthy retirment.

I should be able to invest through IRA/401k/etc using portfolio theory and make a nice 12-14% average annualized average interest.
I just showed this statement to my investment counselor friend (MBA from Columbia University). Her words "This person has absolutely no idea of anything when it comes to finance. They are just what unethical investment counselors look for. A nice 12-14 percent interest? On planet Mars maybe"
I laughed my *ss off. She really has you pegged.
As I have proven the average American can't even save enough for their retirement and you are going to be rich? Hah!

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Legend
I'd like a individual account system with some price matching for low income people with a variety of options to invest in.

Hmm, we have SS which is guaranteed benefits to basically pay for the minimum needs to live. We have many forms of tax deferred IRAs, 401ks, etc. with the ability for price matching and a variety of investment options. And we have the ability to invest whatever we want wherever we want in a taxed account. We already have all those options.

I should be able to invest through IRA/401k/etc using portfolio theory and make a nice 12-14% average annualized average interest.

You can't find ANY sane analyst that thinks 12-14% returns are going to happen anymore. The historical average is lower than that. Plus, dividends have been slashed in half compared to most of history. Net result, ~7% is a very good estimate (historical average minus the dividend cut that has occured). Sure, we could get more. But we could get less.

Analyst? No one can predict the market. These people are a waste of money. Invest in stuff like Vanguard so you don't have to pay them. Don't waste your money. Anyone that thinks they can is fooling themselves. Go back to just before the crash of 1929. Or go back to the mid 90s when vocal analysts thought that the rules were changing and that you could put all of your money into growth stocks. Great advice...

Those people got burned. However, people that had balanced portfolios took a very small hit during the bear market, and in 2003-4 have made huge returns in the international market and small cap stocks.

12-14% is easily obtainable through portfolio theory. It has happened in the past and it continues to happen. I'd suggest you read "The Intelligent Asset Allocator" by William Bernstein or "All About Asset Allocation" by Richard A. Ferri. Bernstein has detailed historical data and shows that through a balanced portfolio, you can acheive those returns.

In case you don't understand what the portfolio theory is, it's when you diversify your portfolio such that you attempt to get uncorrelated funds. Every year you rebalance it so that you have the same allocation % that you started with. This effectively buys low and sells high. It increases return and reduces risk.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Legend
I'm beginning not to give a ******. I'd like a individual account system with some price matching for low income people with a variety of options to invest in. Everyone would retire wealthy because the government wouldn't be able to "borrow" money. Gore's lockbox isn't such a bad idea.

But the I don't trust the government to make progress. Quick fixes. It's the American way. Irradiate meat to kill bad bacteria...who cares about the essential good bacteria that's being killed. Heart disease? Take Crestor. Nevermind that the average american consumes 750 doughnuts per year, gallons of soda and hundreds of lbs of sugar. That's not the problem, take your pills. It's genetic for everyone. Corporate short term profits by cutting product quality? Hell yeah. Who cares if Asian countries are making better profits in the long term and taking our marketshare. I want it now! *late 1990s* Huge growth in Large Cap growth stocks? Put all my money in it, I want it now!

/rant
I should be able to invest through IRA/401k/etc using portfolio theory and make a nice 12-14% average annualized average interest. I'm 22 years old, and I started last year. I should have millions in today's money by retirement.

You don't have to have to have an enormous income or win the lottery to get rich. Let the masses be worried about their promised magical SS beans, when their ignorance in investing is stopping them from a wealthy retirment.

I should be able to invest through IRA/401k/etc using portfolio theory and make a nice 12-14% average annualized average interest.
I just showed this statement to my investment counselor friend (MBA from Columbia University). Her words "This person has absolutely no idea of anything when it comes to finance. They are just what unethical investment counselors look for. A nice 12-14 percent interest? On planet Mars maybe"
I laughed my *ss off. She really has you pegged.
As I have proven the average American can't even save enough for their retirement and you are going to be rich? Hah!

That really shows what her degree is worth. Historical data disagrees with her. My father just showed me his portfolio's returns a few days ago. He started in the mid 90s and he's averaged 11% annualized. That's through a bear market.

Investment counselors are useless.

 

[shortylickens]

I agree with some folks that SS is a joke. I'd much rather save my own money and be accountable for my own future.
Instead, my responsibility and accountability will make me suffer in the end. I'll end up paying for the lazy, dumb bastards who didnt manage their lives well. And because they will be below the poverty line, the government will give them everyting they need to survive and I'll get about 10% of what I need to live.

I think it may be wise for me to start putting money in a Swiss bank account now. By the time I retire America might not be a great place to live.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Legend
I'd like a individual account system with some price matching for low income people with a variety of options to invest in.

Hmm, we have SS which is guaranteed benefits to basically pay for the minimum needs to live. We have many forms of tax deferred IRAs, 401ks, etc. with the ability for price matching and a variety of investment options. And we have the ability to invest whatever we want wherever we want in a taxed account. We already have all those options.
[

You do NOT have guaranteed benefits. The government can increase age and decrease the benefits value. You do not have ownership in anything.

Even if you blindly invested in a balanced mutual fund with that SS money, say Vanguard Wellington, you'd make 9% annualized interest. Considering inflation at 3%, you'd make 6% avg annualized. Anyone above the 30k income line would beat SS. And that's if you invest blindly. There's very little risk because they combine large cap value stocks and 35% bonds. That substantially decreases risk with very little sacrifice in return. Looking at it's performance in the last 80 years demonstartes that.

http://flagship5.vanguard.com/VGApp/hnw...1&FundIntExt=INT&DisplayBarChart=false

Remember that late 98-2003 bear market? Almost no impact on Wellington. In fact, the fund has been doing so well that Vanguard is beginning to take measures to protect current investors by increasing initial purchasing requirements.

What if US stocks don't return as much in the future? That's why you have a complete portofolio that includes international/emerging/small cap/large cap/various bonds, etc. There hasn't been a period of 20 years that people with diversified portfolios haven't made considerable money. You want to generally go for value stocks because they've always returns slightly more historically. But diversifying with growth isn't a bad idea.

The idea with portfolio theory is that you end up buying the poor performing funds with the profit from the best performing funds. This effectively buys low, sells high. Thos poor performing funds, if the management is worth a damn, will rebound, and you'll make more than that 9% with portfolio theory.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Legend
I'm beginning not to give a ******. I'd like a individual account system with some price matching for low income people with a variety of options to invest in. Everyone would retire wealthy because the government wouldn't be able to "borrow" money. Gore's lockbox isn't such a bad idea.

But the I don't trust the government to make progress. Quick fixes. It's the American way. Irradiate meat to kill bad bacteria...who cares about the essential good bacteria that's being killed. Heart disease? Take Crestor. Nevermind that the average american consumes 750 doughnuts per year, gallons of soda and hundreds of lbs of sugar. That's not the problem, take your pills. It's genetic for everyone. Corporate short term profits by cutting product quality? Hell yeah. Who cares if Asian countries are making better profits in the long term and taking our marketshare. I want it now! *late 1990s* Huge growth in Large Cap growth stocks? Put all my money in it, I want it now!

/rant
I should be able to invest through IRA/401k/etc using portfolio theory and make a nice 12-14% average annualized average interest. I'm 22 years old, and I started last year. I should have millions in today's money by retirement.

You don't have to have to have an enormous income or win the lottery to get rich. Let the masses be worried about their promised magical SS beans, when their ignorance in investing is stopping them from a wealthy retirment.

I should be able to invest through IRA/401k/etc using portfolio theory and make a nice 12-14% average annualized average interest.
I just showed this statement to my investment counselor friend (MBA from Columbia University). Her words "This person has absolutely no idea of anything when it comes to finance. They are just what unethical investment counselors look for. A nice 12-14 percent interest? On planet Mars maybe"
I laughed my *ss off. She really has you pegged.
As I have proven the average American can't even save enough for their retirement and you are going to be rich? Hah!

That really shows what her degree is worth. Historical data disagrees with her. My father just showed me his portfolio's returns a few days ago. He started in the mid 90s and he's averaged 11% annualized. That's through a bear market.

Investment counselors are useless.

Since the market reached its high in 1998 then if your father just equalled the market he made at least 115 percent in 3 years. At least as far as the market goes.(starting in 1995 and getting three years of growth til the market peaked in 1998 and then taking until just this year to get back near what it was in 1998). At least 115 percent in three years to get an 11 percent per year average .
And even if your father beat the market, someone else had to lose that much.
And "historical" rates are b.s. The market for a developing country (the US form 1890 to 1940 is very high) and the market went up a huge amount from the US winning WW2 and getting the entire worlds industrial base except for the US destroyed. So forget about 1945 toa abut 1975 also.
"Historically" developed countries grow at a much lower rate. Between 3-5 percent at best long term.
If you really think you can invest enough to guarantee your retirement ask an investment counselor to sell you a plan that will pay you 40 percent of your salary for your highest 5 earning years that will start paying at 72 and cover you as long as you live(adjusting for inflation). You can't do it. If it WERE possible insurance companies would be clamoring to sell you such a policy. And then SS would be dead. But it can't be done with investments.

 

[Legend]

Ugh, you don't understand the market at all. You seem to keep referencing tech stock crash we had recently. But not all funds behave the same.

I strongly suggest you read "The Intelligent Asset Allocator" by William Berstein, because he has historical data that backs up the portfolio theory. His argument is based on that you cannot predict the market, but diversifying your portfolio with lowly correlated funds you can reduce the risk and increase the return.

But I'll try to walk you through it with a simple example. Someone has a portfolio with Vanguard Wellington, a balanced mutual fund with ~65% large cap value, and Vanguard Growth Index Fund, which is a large-cap growth fund. Large cap basically meaning large companies. Growth generally means that the company is growing very quickly, like google, while value would be something like Kmart. Value funds do return more in the long run. This is factual, and it's because companies that aren't growing have to give investors more dividends to give them incentive to hold stock. Anway. So someone has these two funds:

Vanguard Wellington Fund Investor Shares (VWELX)
http://flagship5.vanguard.com/VGApp/hnw...1&FundIntExt=INT&DisplayBarChart=false

Vanguard Growth Index Fund Investor Shares (VIGRX):
http://flagship5.vanguard.com/VGApp/hnw...9&FundIntExt=INT&DisplayBarChart=false

The investor does not have these two funds by luck or chance. He has them because they are somewhat uncorrelated. Because he cannot predict the market, you buys these funds and rebalances it each year so that he has 50% of his money in each one.

Now look at the performance graphs. You'll see VIGRX making a huge spike upward between 1997 and 2000. What does the investor do? Does he buy more? No. He rebalances it according to the portfolio theory. So from 1997-2000 he transfers his profit from VIGRX to VWELX. Now look at VWELX's performance plot. Almost a linear curve. So by transfering the earnings to wellingon, when the crash hit in 2000, he's done well. What does he do in 2001-3? He buys more VIGRX with his Wellington earnings. And the VIGRX (growth) will begin to rebound.

Consequently he has increased return and decreased risk. This is how you can get 12% interest from a diversified portfolio, but not have a single fund that gets 12% within the portofolio. It's not a complicated idea, and it's not new. It was developed in the 1950s.

That friend you have with that degree should have read "Portfolio Selection: Efficient Diversification of Investments" by Harry Markowitz and know *exactly* what I'm talking about.

Here's the math behind it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Portfolio_Theory

 

[Legend]

Here's the first two chapters of "Intelligent Asset Allocator":

http://www.efficientfrontier.com/BOOK/chapter1.htm
http://www.efficientfrontier.com/BOOK/chapter2.htm
http://www.efficientfrontier.com/BOOK/foreword.htm

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: charrison
You at least need be honest here.

I am honest. Both parties overspend. They overspend in different ways, in different amounts, in different areas, but they both overspend. Look at federal outlays under different presidents. To make it fair, look at outlays as a percent of GDP (since that eliminates inflation effects and somewhat eliminates population growth effects). Under every president since the early 1906s, there is a pattern. What is that pattern? Nearly consistant drops when a democratic president signs the budgets. Nearly consistant increases when a republican president signs the budgets. That trend cannot be ignored. That trend shows almost no change when congress changes hands from one party to another.

The president has the last say. If he didn't like a budget, he can veto it. Before Bush Jr., they actually vetoed budgets. How many times did our government come to a crawl when Clinton came at odds with the Republican controlled congress? Multiple times. So, presidents get to be blamed for the final budget.

Of course spending should increase with each bill. Inflation adds to costs and population grows. That is just a simple fact of life as we know it. Luckilly tax receipts grow in the same fashion.

I dont disagree that both parties overspend, but you cant lay the 50 years of overspending on the republicans feet as a significant portion of those 50 the democrats enjoyed huge majorities in the congress and senate. It has really been only the past 15 years that the republican have broken the democratic strangle hold on house and senate. And as I said the repubs are doing a poor job with their slim majority.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison
I dont disagree that both parties overspend, but you cant lay the 50 years of overspending on the republicans feet as a significant portion of those 50 the democrats enjoyed huge majorities in the congress and senate. It has really been only the past 15 years that the republican have broken the democratic strangle hold on house and senate. And as I said the repubs are doing a poor job with their slim majority.

While the 50 year thing might be true, the current GOP group has doubled "foreign" borrowing from 1 trillion to over 2 trillion and added almost 60% on top of the total debt when they took office...just FIVE years ago. Throw in the endless spending and ZERO veto attempts and you've got about as piss poor financial group that we've had in a long time. Not to mention the growth of debt has outpaced GDP growth in all but one year (2005) and doesn't exactly look good for this year.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Legend
Here's the first two chapters of "Intelligent Asset Allocator":

http://www.efficientfrontier.com/BOOK/chapter1.htm
http://www.efficientfrontier.com/BOOK/chapter2.htm
http://www.efficientfrontier.com/BOOK/foreword.htm

Well that was worthless. Outside of the amusement that your Uncle Fred will flip a coin to decide how much return to give you on investment each year.
It even gets wackier when it assumes you will earn an investment income equal to the income from 1926-1998.
And it still doesn't explain how you can save enugh for retirement.
Since you have to subtract the increase in the cost of living from your investment increase each year.
Once again voodo economics from a right wing radical who wants to end SS and is trying to trick people into thinking they can save for their own retirement of up to 25 years by working for only 50 years.
Nonsense.
No insurance plan nor investment plan can come close to guaranteeing that.
Oh yeah, and every year you will need to purchase disability insurance that will cover you for anywhere from 78 years (at age 21) down to 1 year(at age 71).
And of course if you used the years form 1935 to 2005 you would have lost money the last 7 years as investment income would not have kept up with 7 years of inflation.

 

[Legend]

Well that was worthless. Outside of the amusement that your Uncle Fred will flip a coin to decide how much return to give you on investment each year.

It's not the entire book. It's a basic analogy saying that the market is random, and the analogy is expanded in the book to show you have you can use diversification to increase your chances of greater return with reduced risk.

It even gets wackier when it assumes you will earn an investment income equal to the income from 1926-1998.

It does not assume this. The book repeatidly says that you cannot predict the market and that you must diversify. What it does get at a few times is that Value stocks earn slightly more than Growth. That small-caps traditionally make more but recently have not. He says that you may get more with small cap, but no guarantees.

Deversification goes beyond domestic. He talks about how Japan soared in the 1980s, and that the US market boomed in the early 1990s. You can't predict this stuff. If you think people can, please list analysts the predicted the crash of 1929, etc.

And it still doesn't explain how you can save enugh for retirement.

A balanced portfolio making 12% will make you very wealthy. Take the money you spend on SS now with some additional more retirement funds and put it into a balanced portofolio and you'll beat SS so ****** much. But oh, yeah, the stock market is scary and it's impossible to invest. LOL.

http://www.bloomberg.com/analysis/calculators/retire.html

Starting at age 20, investing $4000/yr with 3% inflation, you'll have over 2 million dollars in today's money.

Since you have to subtract the increase in the cost of living from your investment increase each year.

What? So with increased cost of living you pay less SS now? We're talking about putting money that we're already paying to SS into a diversified portfolio.

Once again voodo economics from a right wing radical who wants to end SS and is trying to trick people into thinking they can save for their own retirement of up to 25 years by working for only 50 years.
Nonsense.

Your partisan namecalling has absolutely no grounds, just like your ignorance on the stock market. I'm advocating a individual retirement account system in which the highest income pay a certain percentage to price match the poverty's SS contributions to bring their investment up. I'm a moderate/Libertarian.

No insurance plan nor investment plan can come close to guaranteeing that.

Read the entire book. Understand portfolio theory or at least try to make a counter argument because all I see you is babbling without any sources.

Did you even attempt to understand the small demonstration between the two Vanguard funds I showed? That's just 2 funds. A typical portfolio would include many more funds, such as US small cap value, international stocks, various bonds, etc.

I'm going to assume that because you didn't reply to it, that you simply don't understand it and want to continue to babble "Nobody can save for retirement." "The Stock market won't return as much because Analysts say so." "I hate Republicans and that's somehow relevant to the conversation."

Oh yeah, and every year you will need to purchase disability insurance that will cover you for anywhere from 78 years (at age 21) down to 1 year(at age 71).
And of course if you used the years form 1935 to 2005 you would have lost money the last 7 years as investment income would not have kept up with 7 years of inflation.

Once you retire a multimillionaire, insurance isn't really an issue.


Keep bitching and let the ignorance keep you from building wealth. Your loss, not mine. Hopefully someone else will benefit from this conversation, because it's very apparent that you will continue to ignore portfolio theory without any supporting evidence.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Genx87
I would suggest looking at the SS trustee estimates for 2040, a 1 trillion dollar SS deficit. Where does the money needed to make this up come from?

The general fund! You think our deficits are crazy now, wait until we have to drag that anchor along.

So what is your opinion of the SS surplus now going to the general fund? Are you implying that it is ok for it to go in but not back out?

And are you finally admitting that we have some problems with this economy? Ie we are ignoring future problems to make today's numbers look good.

No, I certainly do not agree with the politicians skimming off the top the SS surplus, and that should definitely go into some kind of fund that can only be used for SS payments. I think the SS program is fine if they stop raping it. Unfortunately, for politicians the SS program is their Goose that lays the golden egg, and they are loath to give up the billions they get from it.

Ultimately I think a major tightening of the belts is in store for America, but overall I am in favor of one of the most successful government programs this country has come up with.

the SS surplus, and that should definitely go into some kind of fund that can only be used for SS payments
We could call this a "locked box"
Oh wait, that was Al Gores plan.

Yeah, it was. Your point?

 

[Jadow]

This whole mess is because in 197X they decided to index SS benefits on wages instead of inflation. Which means, if the SS trust fund was an infinite pool, every successive generation would get richer and richer benefits adjusted for inflation than their parents.

I have finally come to the conclusion that we are a country of retards, run by retards who are elected by retarted voters.

I think earth needs a giant asteroid collision and a restart.

 

[ericlp]

It is pointless to talk about SS I figure it as a TAX I will never see....

The chance of anyone of today making it to 70 is pretty slim. I mean the odds are not stacked in your favor and even if you did make it to 70 and could collect I don't think it will be any funds left in it. So I pretty much don't care. It's just a tax and why get upset about it ... There is nothing you or I can do. You won't get a dime back. I wish they would at least give you like 2-3 Grand for getting cremated... The 50 bucks they give you after you die is friggen joke... I think they should just turn it into a death tax. They should take the average cost and give it to that person.... That is of course only if that person had enough into SS to cover the bill... I also don't think that if you didn't put any $$ in then you shouldn't be able to collect anything... That's pretty stupid.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Legend
12-14% is easily obtainable through portfolio theory. It has happened in the past and it continues to happen. I'd suggest you read "The Intelligent Asset Allocator" by William Bernstein or "All About Asset Allocation" by Richard A. Ferri. Bernstein has detailed historical data and shows that through a balanced portfolio, you can acheive those returns.

I have read all of Bernstein's books. Heck, if you search through posts of mine, I've recommended his books to many people in Off Topic who want to start learning about the stock market. Even HE now says (in later writings) that >8% returns are very unlikely from now on.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Legend
12-14% is easily obtainable through portfolio theory. It has happened in the past and it continues to happen. I'd suggest you read "The Intelligent Asset Allocator" by William Bernstein or "All About Asset Allocation" by Richard A. Ferri. Bernstein has detailed historical data and shows that through a balanced portfolio, you can acheive those returns.

I have read all of Bernstein's books. Heck, if you search through posts of mine, I've recommended his books to many people in Off Topic who want to start learning about the stock market. Even HE now says (in later writings) that >8% returns are very unlikely from now on.

Where did he say that, and what is he referring to with 8%. Like is that a portfolio or a single fund? Before or after inflation?

It would be hypocritical of him to predict the market like that. His foreword in "All About Asset Allocation" By Rick Ferri (2006) seems to still push the idea that you can't predict the market. He lashes out against people that predict the market, comparing them to horoscopes.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Legend
12-14% is easily obtainable through portfolio theory. It has happened in the past and it continues to happen. I'd suggest you read "The Intelligent Asset Allocator" by William Bernstein or "All About Asset Allocation" by Richard A. Ferri. Bernstein has detailed historical data and shows that through a balanced portfolio, you can acheive those returns.

I have read all of Bernstein's books. Heck, if you search through posts of mine, I've recommended his books to many people in Off Topic who want to start learning about the stock market. Even HE now says (in later writings) that >8% returns are very unlikely from now on.

Even 8% runs rings around Social Security.

 

[MonkeyK]

copied from the last SS thread:

Social security is not a wealth accumulation tool, it is a risk management tool


Every time there is a thread on SS, it is compared to stocks and retirement accounts. Apples and Oranges. Learn what SS is before saying that it does not have good enough returns.
SS needs some change, no doubt about it. But until those proposing changes, understand what they are changing, I cannot take the suggestions seriously.

This post was written by a 37 year old man with two children under 3yrs old, and who, along with his wife max out their 401Ks and Roth IRAs. I am very financially responsible, and SS still has an important role in my financial plan.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: zendari
Even 8% runs rings around Social Security.

That is why we have multiple programs to give you ~8% returns. SS is not meant to be one of them. It is a very low risk program that so far has been giving decent returns. Maybe now it just matches inflation, so be it. SS is just a very small portion of a good retirement plan anyways. It certainly helps minimize risk without having much of an impact on your overall portfolio gains.