Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Gowen on October 17, 2009, 10:09:48 PM
-
The top paragraph is ridiculous! First off they are not getting a cut, just no increase. If they could afford it yesterday, what makes them think that tomorrow they can't? Besides, I didn't know SS made one independently wealthy. I can't afford the junk on QVC. She should buy her clothes at K-Mart, India's sweat-shops are better than China's.
http://www.rgj.com/article/20091016/NEWS12/91016013/-1/news1802
Social Security freeze means seniors must scrimp
*
PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. (AP) — If her check were bigger, 76-year-old Agnes Conti might be able to spring for a better cut of meat for her pot roast. She could afford to send her nine grandchildren more than $20 for their birthdays and Christmas. She'd be able to buy some nice new clothes, like she sees on QVC, not what she settles for at Walmart.
If only. The government has said the Social Security checks Conti and tens of millions of other seniors rely on as their primary source of income will not increase next year as consumer prices have fallen overall. And while the retired hospital clerk will get by, she'll be watching her spending even closer, knowing she can't expect the annual raise she's been accustomed to.
"We were good citizens all our lives. We went to work, we lived by the book, we weren't on welfare, we didn't ask the city for anything," Conti said while taking a break from crafts at a senior center here. "And what do we get?"
At the Southwest Focal Point Senior Center in this Fort Lauderdale suburb, seniors lamented the cost-of-living freeze and praised a White House plan for $250 checks to soften the blow. But they took all of the news in stride, saying they've had a lifetime of experience living on a fixed income and would manage with the money they currently receive.
Frank Ferreira sits in the center's lobby, near a decorative fireplace and an autumn centerpiece. The 90-year-old retired truck driver loves to sing, even practicing on a karaoke machine at home, and loves to dance even more. He gets about $890 a month from Social Security, most of which he hands over to his daughter to help pay his share of the bills.
The money isn't the biggest issue, Ferreira said. It's the message the government is sending about caring for seniors.
"I could use a little more, but that's all right, I get along," he said. "But I think that we deserve it, the elderly. You can't just discard them. You've got to help them."
Nearby, 89-year-old Miriam Danzinger is shuffling along with a walker. She gets about $1,300 monthly in Social Security, and after rent and other expenses, including a MediGap plan, she has little to spare. Her daughter helps pay her bills.
Page 1
-
She'd be able to buy some nice new clothes, like she sees on QVC, not what she settles for at Walmart.
I do not understand this. I'm supposed to feel sorry for someone because they are forced to buy new clothing that costs less?
-
She'd be able to buy some nice new clothes, like she sees on QVC, not what she settles for at Walmart.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
She probably has to settle for Wal-Mart knives....not the high-quality stuff advertised on the Knife Show.... ;/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_Show (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_Show)
http://www.cutlerycorner.net/ (http://www.cutlerycorner.net/)
-
"We were good citizens all our lives. We went to work, we lived by the book, we weren't on welfare, we didn't ask the city for anything," Conti said while taking a break from crafts at a senior center here. "And what do we get?"
While I am not saying a senior center is a bad thing, I must chuckle at someone claiming that they are not on welfare and not asking the government for anything while relying on SS and using a government supplied entertainment establishment. Said entertainment venture is administrated and supported by the City of Pembroke Pines, and directly says so on the sign in front of the place.
I'd drop social security in a heartbeat if I was allowed. Instead, I am forced to pay for Ms. Agnes Conti's retirement as well as my own. I put my life in the government's hands before and therefore am disinclined to do so again. Instead I am saving and investing prudently. AFTER shelling out 40-50% or more of my wages to various taxes, 15.30% alone for Social Security and Medicare.
-
So.... the lady living on the dole is whining about not being able to buy useless crap on QVC? Really?!?! I just.. I...this... God, I can't even snark at this level of stupidity.
Here's a clue Grandma: Ponzi schemes are bad ideas. When I think of how much money I'm pissing away because the options are give to a ponzi scheme or goto jail (or get appointed to the Cabinet, either way). Suck it up woman, at least you're getting something back. More than I'll ever see.
-
Roosevelt, the founder this nonsense (and a very talented liar) even said that Social Security wasn't supposed to be a primary means of retirement....
This woman is just as dumb as the rest of the boomer generation. She oughta just be happy the check is there at all, because in time, it won't be. And I won't be going out of my way charitably to make sure she eats, either.
-
She'd be able to buy some nice new clothes, like she sees on QVC, not what she settles for at Walmart.
I buy most of my clothes at THRIFT STORES! THRIFT STORES! Used clothing! And I am still in the work force!
Where do they find these clueless rubes?
Sorry, I had to take another crack at that.
-
Where do they find these clueless rubes?
"Rubes" is a highly underutilized word.
Also no sympathy here for them having to buy clothes at (gasp!) Wal-mart. I've worn plenty of thrift store clothes myself, and probably will again.
-
Which rube has the least clue? The old broad, or the alleged journalist that fell for her sob story?
-
ummm... yes?
-
Which rube has the least clue? The old broad, or the alleged journalist that fell for her sob story?
Neither.
The conservative sophisticates and wealthy technology moguls who voted for Obama because he would govern as a centrist.
I put my life in the government's hands before and therefore am disinclined to do so again.
This.
-
I don't consider SS recipients to be "living on the dole". They paid into a faulty system which got progressively worse, and are trying to at least recoup some of their investment. It ain't a handout, not by a long stretch - see how much Monkeyleg has estimated he paid into it over his working lifetime so far in the now-closed thread in Politics Place.
Will SS go insolvent in the next decade or so? Very likely.
Is it the fault of people who had SS deducted from their paychecks by their employers and the Fed Gov? Not hardly. Don't deduct, and see how well that works for you when the IRS finds out. They paid, and paid through the nose. It would have been better were they allowed to invest the same sums into a private retirement fund, but hey, what do I know?
This thread reminds me way too much of the closed one. We've got senior APS members here who are already receiving their SS benefits. Keep that in mind...
-
I don't consider SS recipients to be "living on the dole". They paid into a faulty system which got progressively worse, and are trying to at least recoup some of their investment. It ain't a handout, not by a long stretch - see how much Monkeyleg has estimated he paid into it over his working lifetime so far in the now-closed thread in Politics Place.
Will SS go insolvent in the next decade or so? Very likely.
Is it the fault of people who had SS deducted from their paychecks by their employers and the Fed Gov? Not hardly. Don't deduct, and see how well that works for you when the IRS finds out. They paid, and paid through the nose. It would have been better were they allowed to invest the same sums into a private retirement fund, but hey, what do I know?
I wouldn't say it's the fault of the people who paid into the system individually (assuming they opposed the mess whenever they had the chance). But I will say that as a whole, as an electorate, they bear responsibility for the government they created for themselves.
If boomers had wanted to have a system they could depend on for their retirement, then they had a burden to make sure a sensible system was set up, and that it was maintained properly over the years. They didn't. They may have intended for a usable retirement system to exist, but there's a difference between intentions and results. In this case the difference is pretty striking. It may prove to be the difference between being able to feed oneself and going hungry.
Don't confuse this with a moral judgment. It's not a right-vs-wrong or a they-deserve-it kinda thing. This is just a basic, practical reality. If you want to depend on a system, that system's got to be dependable.
We've got senior APS members here who are already receiving their SS benefits. Keep that in mind...
We also have young workers suffering under this system. I wish everyone would keep that in mind too.
:|
-
It would have been better were they allowed to invest the same sums into a private retirement fund, but hey, what do I know?
Based upon the gyrations of my 401(k) over the years, I am not sure that this is a panacea either. Being a baby boomer myself (49 years old), I have never worked in a job that offered a traditional pension. I am paying a keen interest to the stories in the media of people older than I who have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in their 401(k) only to have lost much of the money in the market turndowns. It is fine to invest for the long-term, but if the market dumps just as you are retiring or have retired, that money is gone.
And as I have discovered, putting the money in bonds, government securities and money market funds is no guarantee against loss, either.
-
While I am not saying a senior center is a bad thing, I must chuckle at someone claiming that they are not on welfare and not asking the government for anything while relying on SS and using a government supplied entertainment establishment.
I find it far more annoying that the various levels of government will provide the elderly with entertainment while complaining that teenagers are vandalizing and generally getting into trouble because they have nothing to do. Senior citizens tend toward low overhead, (card tables are pretty cheap) low impact (neighbors aren't likely to complain about the noise) activities, and many have their own homes where they can stay up late, fart a lot, and be unsupervised with the opposite sex. Why not turn the senior centers into supervised teen entertainment and let the elderly hang out at each other's homes to play dominoes and watch TV?
And as I have discovered, putting the money in bonds, government securities and money market funds is no guarantee against loss, either.
They key is being able to make the decision, though. Living with one's own bad decisions is at least less demeaning than suffering the consequences of others' misuse of the fruits of one's labor. Besides, the good old solution of stuffing it under the mattress will reap a better return than SS.
-
Based upon the gyrations of my 401(k) over the years, I am not sure that this is a panacea either. Being a baby boomer myself (49 years old), I have never worked in a job that offered a traditional pension. I am paying a keen interest to the stories in the media of people older than I who have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in their 401(k) only to have lost much of the money in the market turndowns. It is fine to invest for the long-term, but if the market dumps just as you are retiring or have retired, that money is gone.
And as I have discovered, putting the money in bonds, government securities and money market funds is no guarantee against loss, either.
Not all investments went down during the recent market crash. Many bonds, and all treasuries, went way up. Cash and cash equivalents like gold are up, too.
Bush's '06 plan for privatizing SS (it was '06, wasn't it?) would have limited private investment options to extremely safe investments, mostly the sort that did well last year. Under that system, SS would be stronger today after the crash. Instead, the existing tax-funded system is now worse off because of the downturn, due to lower tax revenues.
This oughtta be a wake up call, too. Taxes go way down every time there's a downturn. If SS is funded by taxes, it too will go way down whenever there's a recession. And I suspect recessions are going to become more common as boomers retire. You can't have the largest and most productive segment of the workforce go from producers to mostly idle without there being serious economic consequences.
-
My 401 (k) just recently started offering TIPS (treasury inflation protected securities) as an option, and I may likely move some money over there. I have read good things about TIPS. I am guessing that the deflation will not last forever, and TIPS and a lot of the bonds are not doing all that well currently.
-
If boomers had wanted to have a system they could depend on for their retirement, then they had a burden to make sure a sensible system was set up, and that it was maintained properly over the years. They didn't. They may have intended for a usable retirement system to exist, but there's a difference between intentions and results. In this case the difference is pretty striking. It may prove to be the difference between being able to feed oneself and going hungry.
Who is this fictitious "they" you speak of? Because as far as I know, when I started watching my SS deductions going into Uncle Sam's coffers at the tender age of 18, I was of the opinion that SS was going to be safe, secure, and happy come age 65 when I could start using it. I had no real desire to change it, because it wasn't broken at the time. I'd wager the majority of us thought it was secure and solvent as we plodded along with our McLives. Fast-forward another 30 years, and it's a different story, but just like everybody else, I've already committed a big chunk of change, and I kinda doubt Uncle Sam will give it back to me because I'm pissed at how they managed the fund. Am I one of those "they" who failed to see the oncoming train wreck?
HTG, you act like baby boomers are at fault for what happened with SS. You act like they should've lobbied to get SS laws changed to invest in government securities, T-Bills, bonds, etc.-and because they didn't, they should now reap what they've sown. I really don't see where that mindset comes from, and even though I've plunked away a good sum under threat of law towards SS, I don't expect to see it coming back to me down the road. However, last I heard, just try to stop your SS deductions from one's paycheck without the IRS getting a bit uppity - let me know how that works out.
In the meantime, I haven't seen your name on the CNN headlines lobbying for drastic change in how FedGov handles both Medicare and SS administration, either. I would think as morally outraged as you are regarding this, you'd be on the pointy end of the spear. I understand, I wasn't clairvoyant enough to figure out the scope of the current recession, and how badly it would've slammed SS and Medicare, either:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/us/politics/13health.html
-
I don't consider SS recipients to be "living on the dole". They paid into a faulty system which got progressively worse, and are trying to at least recoup some of their investment. It ain't a handout, not by a long stretch - see how much Monkeyleg has estimated he paid into it over his working lifetime so far in the now-closed thread in Politics Place.
Will SS go insolvent in the next decade or so? Very likely.
Is it the fault of people who had SS deducted from their paychecks by their employers and the Fed Gov? Not hardly. Don't deduct, and see how well that works for you when the IRS finds out. They paid, and paid through the nose. It would have been better were they allowed to invest the same sums into a private retirement fund, but hey, what do I know?
I'm aware that participation in SS is involuntary from a payment perspective, and I don't fault folks for using SS. Obviously, except for those using it on fraudulent basis, of which are many, have a look at a SS waiting room sometime. I do fault people for being dependent on SS if they could have made other provisions but did not.
If I was allowed to invest 15.3% of my pay in a private retirement fund, I'd probably retire with millions.
This thread reminds me way too much of the closed one. We've got senior APS members here who are already receiving their SS benefits. Keep that in mind...
Both of us paid. They are lucky. I will likely not be lucky. That is how life often is, inherently unfair.
I have nothing against seniors individually. But as a group, they have promoted, lobbied and received the largest socialist aspects of our current spending. Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid made up 44% of the US 2008 budget. Entitlement programs are growing at a much faster pace than the economy, even during the better economic times.
Assuming that few if any senior APS members are champions of socialism and whatnot, they are not the problem. Not by a long shot. However, they are a responsible minority.
Based upon the gyrations of my 401(k) over the years, I am not sure that this is a panacea either. Being a baby boomer myself (49 years old), I have never worked in a job that offered a traditional pension. I am paying a keen interest to the stories in the media of people older than I who have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in their 401(k) only to have lost much of the money in the market turndowns. It is fine to invest for the long-term, but if the market dumps just as you are retiring or have retired, that money is gone.
And as I have discovered, putting the money in bonds, government securities and money market funds is no guarantee against loss, either.
Those gyrations are a boon to prudent investors, MillCreek. Properly exploited, they'll make you a ton of money. Stock prices always going up is a bad thing, in reality. It means they become vastly overpriced. Corrections are a healthy part of capitalism, they're like a monsoon or forest fire. Bad if you're slammed by one, but overall good because they clean up the land and promote future growth.
When times are good and people are proclaiming "buy buy buy, stocks will always go up", sell. Slowly, but regularly. When times are bad and people are proclaiming "it's the end of the world", buy. Slowly, but regularly. (This assumes you're financially prudent, disciplined and have a relatively steady income outside of investments.)
My 401 (k) just recently started offering TIPS (treasury inflation protected securities) as an option, and I may likely move some money over there. I have read good things about TIPS. I am guessing that the deflation will not last forever, and TIPS and a lot of the bonds are not doing all that well currently.
One minor note. TIPS are not tax exempt, even the inflation included portion. You must pay taxes even on your "paper gains". Also, TIPS rely on the official inflation index, which is rigged beyond the realm of sanity. Not even a mafia casino would rig an index to the extent the CPI is rigged.
-
When times are good and people are proclaiming "buy buy buy, stocks will always go up", sell. Slowly, but regularly. When times are bad and people are proclaiming "it's the end of the world", buy. Slowly, but regularly. (This assumes you're financially prudent, disciplined and have a relatively steady income outside of investments.)
I suspect most 401(k) plans offered through your employment follow the same 'dollar cost averaging' philosophy: a steady amount is contributed every month. I must admit that I do not use the 'day trader' approach of frequently changing my investment mix. I look at my results every quarter and ponder making any necessary changes then in view of past performance, the current economics and future predictions.
Currently, I am 55% in bonds/securities, 35% stock and 10% cash. Given my time left in the work force to make up losses, I am moving to a more conservative posture to balance both gains and the possibility of losses.
-
I suspect most 401(k) plans offered through your employment follow the same 'dollar cost averaging' philosophy: a steady amount is contributed every month. I must admit that I do not use the 'day trader' approach of frequently changing my investment mix. I look at my results every quarter and ponder making any necessary changes then in view of past performance, the current economics and future predictions.
Currently, I am 55% in bonds/securities, 35% stock and 10% cash. Given my time left in the work force to make up losses, I am moving to a more conservative posture to balance both gains and the possibility of losses.
You are correct. I do the same thing re quarterly ponderings. I just adjust my mix to roughly opposite of what everyone else is doing, in a general sense. The master key to all of this is a secret unknown to most investors. I shall share this ancient secret... "Buy low, sell high". That's it, no more, no less.
Mind you, I'm a youngin. If I was a decade or so out from retirement, I'd be heavily moving to bonds myself.
-
She'd be able to buy some nice new clothes, like she sees on QVC, not what she settles for at Walmart.
Walmart actually has some decent quality clothes nowadays. Probably better than the ripoff crap QVC is selling to the suckers.
She could afford to send her nine grandchildren more than $20 for their birthdays and Christmas.
LOL! I don't ever remember getting more than $5 from my grandparents.. and that wasn't that long ago. My grandfather used to give me boxes of BBs or .22lr... that was the most expensive thing I got from my grandparents.
Arrghh sooo angggry!! What do people want from their lives? Why does everyone think they are entitled to crap. I am thrilled that I have food, a place to live, and clothes.
If I was allowed to invest 15.3% of my pay in a private retirement fund, I'd probably retire with millions.
I just did a quick estimate.. I'm 26... if I had that 15.3 I've made since I started working 10 years ago I'd have enough money to buy a small house in my area.
-
SS was known to be on an insolvent track from day one by folks who had any sort of clue. The opposition at the time pointed it out, but too many folks were willing to drink the FDR kool-aid.
Over time, it has not gotten any better. I recall in the early 1980s of another SS crisis they solved by the expedient of raising SS taxes, reducing exemptions, etc. It was a big deal at the time. That was what, 25+ years ago? I was in the 3rd or 4th grade, IIRC. I was no prodigy and I couldn't do the math, but I could listen to the news on the radio or TV as my folks tuned in, so I had some idea that "Social Security" wasn't all that secure.
Claiming ignorance don't wash. Willful ignorance, more like.
-
Both of us paid. They are lucky. I will likely not be lucky. That is how life often is, inherently unfair.
I have nothing against seniors individually. But as a group, they have promoted, lobbied and received the largest socialist aspects of our current spending. Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid made up 44% of the US 2008 budget. Entitlement programs are growing at a much faster pace than the economy, even during the better economic times.
Assuming that few if any senior APS members are champions of socialism and whatnot, they are not the problem. Not by a long shot. However, they are a responsible minority.
What he said.
In the meantime, I haven't seen your name on the CNN headlines lobbying for drastic change in how FedGov handles both Medicare and SS administration, either. I would think as morally outraged as you are regarding this, you'd be on the pointy end of the spear. I understand, I wasn't clairvoyant enough to figure out the scope of the current recession, and how badly it would've slammed SS and Medicare, either:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/us/politics/13health.html
Don't assume that CNN defines the front lines of this battle. This isn't something the political elites are going to fix for us. This particular fight will be fought in thousands and thousands of small conversations all across the country, by routine people who don't want to see their country destroyed by socialism.
The first step in this fight is to begin to see SS for what it really is. What we have is a pyramid scheme based on tax revenues that has now grown so large that it threatens everyone in society. We need to recognize that SS isn't now, and never has been, any sort of savings or investment or insurance plan or trust. We need to understand that SS represents no true underlying economic resources, just paper promises that were bound to fail from the start. And we need to start thinking critically about the various arguments in favor of the system, such as the two-wrongs-make-a-right fallacy, the that's-the-way-it's-always-been fallacy, the need-justifies-theft fallacy, and decide if this is sort of logic is a sound foundation to rest each of our our futures on.
It's an ugly mess, no doubt about it. But only if we can look it squarely in the eye without flinching can we begin to make any real progress on it. And progress must be made on this problem, because without it we're all going to suffer in the coming decades.
Both of us will suffer in this mess, Gewehr, you and me both, old and young alike, unless we can untangle this mess. Stubbornly dragging your heels on this will hurt me and my generation deeply, and I certainly don't like that. But make no mistake, Gewehr, it'll also hurt you, too.
-
1300 is more than I make in a month working. Grrr.
-
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
There are millions of Americans who have saved nothing for retirement like the person in the article. They never put a penny aside for a rainy day or retirement. Everybody thinks that the government will have to provide for all needs and wants. In the next few decades, we will see millions of people who will have no retirement income other than Social Security.
-
There are some who wisely put money aside, and watched their 401(k) turn into a 201(k), also. ;)
-
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
There are millions of Americans who have saved nothing for retirement like the person in the article. They never put a penny aside for a rainy day or retirement. Everybody thinks that the government will have to provide for all needs and wants. In the next few decades, we will see millions of people who will have no retirement income other than Social Security.
This. Right or wrong, most people dislike starving. Smart or stupid, many many boomers put their trust in fed.gov and squandered their money on toys and living beyond their means. To quote my favorite Pinocchio line, "You've had your fun, now you pay."
Sadly, even the smart and responsible people had so much of their income siphoned off at gun point that what they saved may not be enough.
In the end, many millions of people are going to call in debts fed.gov can't pay. When that happens, I am not optimistic about the stability of our political and economic system.
-
While SS is a problem, the costs pale in comparison to health care. I'd hazard to guess that one visit to the hospital by most Senior Citizens costs taxpayers more than a year of SS. if anyone thinks we don't already have socialized medicine, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell. Maybe I could retire then.
-
While SS is a problem, the costs pale in comparison to health care. I'd hazard to guess that one visit to the hospital by most Senior Citizens costs taxpayers more than a year of SS. if anyone thinks we don't already have socialized medicine, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell. Maybe I could retire then.
This too.
-
Inflation is supposed to be nonexistent, so there's no COLA this year for social security, right?
If that's the case, then why did Congress just find it necessary to vote itself an 8% increase in their office operating budget allowance?
-
I doubt necessity played any part in the recent congressional raise.
-
There are some who wisely put money aside, and watched their 401(k) turn into a 201(k), also. ;)
Amen to that. Plus I was out of work for five months this year and my new job pays 48% less than my old job. Fortunately I have always lived well within my means so I am doing OK.
-
Who is this fictitious "they" you speak of? Because as far as I know, when I started watching my SS deductions going into Uncle Sam's coffers at the tender age of 18, I was of the opinion that SS was going to be safe, secure, and happy come age 65 when I could start using it. I had no real desire to change it, because it wasn't broken at the time. I'd wager the majority of us thought it was secure and solvent as we plodded along with our McLives. Fast-forward another 30 years, and it's a different story, but just like everybody else, I've already committed a big chunk of change, and I kinda doubt Uncle Sam will give it back to me because I'm pissed at how they managed the fund. Am I one of those "they" who failed to see the oncoming train wreck?
It is a pyramid scheme that does not take advantage of compound interest over time, it was bound to fail from the beginning. I am 27, and I have been campaigning against it since I was about 18 years old. To be fair I have had the internet since before then and thus a bit more easy access to information that is important to my future. I have also had people tell me in junior high and high school that it would probably not be there for me when I retire.
There is nothing that has happened in the last x number of decades that could not have been seen in the beginning. Of course more and more people would get on SS as they got older, and thus benefits would have to be adjusted downward. It is not like we just recently discovered that 18 year olds eventually morph into 65 year olds, mortality and birth rates are easily predicted and calculated as well.
The lady in the story got what she asked for with SS, at the expense of people like myself who will get nothing. She has no right to complain, she could have figured out at any point in her life what SS was going to give her without much trouble at all. It is no one's fault but hers (and maybe Fistful's) that she neglected to even once in her life do the math for something that is so important to her and then plan accordingly.
-
Another thing about your SS "contributions" . . . above a certain, fairly low base level, the additional taxes you and your employer pay add very little to your expected benefit when you retire . . . e.g., someone who pays 2x the tax today as the next guy, will not get anything near 2x the benefit when he retires.
And the taxation of benefits that Reagan started and Clinton expanded? Guess what - that doesn't go back into the SS trust fund - it's just general revenue. That's a way of .gov pilfering SS funds without even having to leave an IOU behind. :mad:
-
Another thing about your SS "contributions" . . . above a certain, fairly low base level, the additional taxes you and your employer pay add very little to your expected benefit when you retire . . . e.g., someone who pays 2x the tax today as the next guy, will not get anything near 2x the benefit when he retires.
And the taxation of benefits that Reagan started and Clinton expanded? Guess what - that doesn't go back into the SS trust fund - it's just general revenue. That's a way of .gov pilfering SS funds without even having to leave an IOU behind. :mad:
Well, they have the most guns and manpower, so they are obviously in their right to do so!
-
Well, they have the most guns and manpower, so they are obviously in their right to do so!
Unfortunately, in 99% of human history, might does make right.
Interestingly, in this case, it is not not merely the police and army that provides might. Legally speaking, the US government has formed the opinion that it enjoys sovereign immunity. In other words, it cannot be sued unless it consents to said lawsuit. Generously, the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Tucker Act waive some specific instances. Having read the 11th amendment, I'm not sure how it grants sovereign immunity or how that notion is squared with "petition the Government for a redress of grievances". I suppose one could consider the ability to file a lawsuit as an act of petitioning, even if you will automatically lose that petition in any area where sovereign immunity is not waved.
-
This. Right or wrong, most people dislike starving. Smart or stupid, many many boomers put their trust in fed.gov and squandered their money on toys and living beyond their means. To quote my favorite Pinocchio line, "You've had your fun, now you pay."
Sadly, even the smart and responsible people had so much of their income siphoned off at gun point that what they saved may not be enough.
In the end, many millions of people are going to call in debts fed.gov can't pay. When that happens, I am not optimistic about the stability of our political and economic system.
I tragically know many folks about to retire who have nothing saved. I'm serious. Many of these folks worked good jobs earning good money. They spent everything they earned and lived beyond their means for decades. Many are retiring soon and are not even close to paying off their house or their debt. These folks will be coming out of the woodwork demanding that the government fund their retirement lifestyle.
-
I tragically know many folks about to retire who have nothing saved. I'm serious. Many of these folks worked good jobs earning good money. They spent everything they earned and lived beyond their means for decades. Many are retiring soon and are not even close to paying off their house or their debt. These folks will be coming out of the woodwork demanding that the government fund their retirement lifestyle.
Debt can be a good thing. But it's generally not, and when it becomes a lifestyle you're pretty much hosed.
-
Debt can be a good thing. But it's generally not, and when it becomes a lifestyle you're pretty much hosed.
To quote Dave Ramsey, "I can find nowhere in the Bible where God has used debt to bless someone." To the contrary, the Bible goes on to say, "the borrower is servant (aka slave) to the lender." The only thing I am in debt on is my house and I have come to realize that I spent all those years and money on something that I don't like anymore. Don't spend your life chasing things. You spend all that time away from the people who love you, doing something that nine times out of ten you hate doing. It's never worth it.
-
I have come to realize that I spent all those years and money on something that I don't like anymore.
You have an ex-wife, too? =D
-
You have an ex-wife, too? =D
Bwahahahahahaha =D
Unfortunately...I can relate...
Sawdust
-
From an article in today's (10/21/09) USAToday:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/2009-10-19-401k-savings-retirement_N.htm
Others — nearly one-third of American households — don't have any retirement savings, according to a McKinsey & Co. report. And only 4% of middle-income married couples who don't have a pension and are nearing retirement are likely to have enough money to last their lifetime, according to a new report by Ernst & Young.
I am surprised that only 4% of middle-income married couples have enough retirement savings to last their lifetimes. I am surprised it is that low.
-
From an article in today's (10/21/09) USAToday:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/2009-10-19-401k-savings-retirement_N.htm
Others — nearly one-third of American households — don't have any retirement savings, according to a McKinsey & Co. report. And only 4% of middle-income married couples who don't have a pension and are nearing retirement are likely to have enough money to last their lifetime, according to a new report by Ernst & Young.
I am surprised that only 4% of middle-income married couples have enough retirement savings to last their lifetimes. I am surprised it is that low.
I'm not. Our culture demands perpetual car payments, credit card payments etc. Being in debt is an accepted lifestyle these days. :(
To quote Dave Ramsey, "I can find nowhere in the Bible where God has used debt to bless someone." To the contrary, the Bible goes on to say, "the borrower is servant (aka slave) to the lender." The only thing I am in debt on is my house and I have come to realize that I spent all those years and money on something that I don't like anymore. Don't spend your life chasing things. You spend all that time away from the people who love you, doing something that nine times out of ten you hate doing. It's never worth it.
Which is still being in debt. But it's a good thing, because if no one went into debt for a house the market would crash way way harder than our current lil "bubble." Debt for depreciating assets is a bad idea, and most non-depreciating one as well, to be honest.
-
Which is still being in debt.
Technically, yes, but you have to live somewhere. You either pay rent forever, or a mortgage payment for some period of time. If you never pay off the mortgage (keep refinancing, etc), are you any worse off than if you rent for your entire life?
Granted, my goal is to pay my mortgage off before I retire, but I'm not bothered by the mere fact I have a mortgage. If I didn't have one at this point in my life, I'd probably be renting, which means a monthly payment to someone else.
Chris
-
I'm not. Our culture demands perpetual car payments, credit card payments etc. Being in debt is an accepted lifestyle these days. :(
Which is still being in debt. But it's a good thing, because if no one went into debt for a house the market would crash way way harder than our current lil "bubble." Debt for depreciating assets is a bad idea, and most non-depreciating one as well, to be honest.
Looking back, I don't necessarily agree. 18 years ago, before my wife and I got house hungry, we lived in a mobile home, $95/mo space rent with only electricity and propane for expenses. If we had been smart, we would have socked ton of money away for a few years and paid cash for a home. As it stands right now, if we had put the money away that we paid into our mortgage, we would have saved as much or more money than our house is currently worth. The only benefit to having my house I can see is that we know what we both want and living in the city isn't part of it. Our next house is going to be purchased without debt.
You have an ex-wife, too? =D
LOL, nope. Just celebrated 20th anniversary with my wife.
-
I think you missed my point mtnbkr. Scanr started by saying all debt is always bad, then saying he had a mortgage. I merely used that to point out that not all debt is always bad.
Looking back, I don't necessarily agree. 18 years ago, before my wife and I got house hungry, we lived in a mobile home, $95/mo space rent with only electricity and propane for expenses. If we had been smart, we would have socked ton of money away for a few years and paid cash for a home. As it stands right now, if we had put the money away that we paid into our mortgage, we would have saved as much or more money than our house is currently worth. The only benefit to having my house I can see is that we know what we both want and living in the city isn't part of it. Our next house is going to be purchased without debt.
It's hard to find a non-tiny/scary/seedy place where I live for <$1k a month. And in the places with super low rents, the average salaries are generally too low to be able to accumulate a house payment in a few years. If you can live with family or get a sweetheart deal while both people work, and you live in a place with crappy real estate values then sure save up and pay cash. But even if I put every dollar of my salary into saving for a house and had zero expenses, it'd take me over 4 years to afford a small place. And that's not factoring in the increasing house prices.
-
It'd be tough to save up to buy a house in 5 years, but it'd be entirely doable if you're willing to save for a decade or more. It's a matter of letting compound interest work its magic for you. If you do that, interest pays a big chunk of your house for you, instead of you having to pay for the house plus an even bigger pile of interest. You'd come out way ahead.
Not saying it's for everyone, or that it's right or wrong. Just saying it has some serious advantages for those willing to make the sacrifice.
-
It'd be tough to save up to buy a house in 5 years, but it'd be entirely doable if you're willing to save for a decade or more. It's a matter of letting compound interest work its magic for you. If you do that, interest pays a big chunk of your house for you, instead of you having to pay for the house plus an even bigger pile of interest. You'd come out way ahead.
Not saying it's for everyone, or that it's right or wrong. Just saying it has some serious advantages for those willing to make the sacrifice.
I thought about that. Still tough for average income ($50kish) when houses are ~$220-250k, but yeah it's doable. I also considered that having kids would throw a major monkey wrench into those austere plans. I might be willing to rent for a decade, but there is no way in hell I'm putting off kids that long. No comments on others who make their own choices, but it's not worth it to me.
Also, one needs to factor in the rent one pays and subtract that from the compounding interest.
-
It'd be tough to save up to buy a house in 5 years, but it'd be entirely doable if you're willing to save for a decade or more. It's a matter of letting compound interest work its magic for you. If you do that, interest pays a big chunk of your house for you, instead of you having to pay for the house plus an even bigger pile of interest. You'd come out way ahead.
At this time, it is appropriate to say what compound interest? With the current rates being paid on savings accounts, CDs or money markets by banks that are not at risk of imminent failure, I almost think it would be better to put it under the mattress.