OT: Shut down the %#@*& government

Page 3 of 4  
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:05:30 -0500, Frank

One of my work mates managed to duck all the layoffs and stayed until 2007 (Paying in a whole lot more) His check is almost the same as mine but he did start drawing at 62.
The people who get a lot more than they paid are our parents who put in pennies a paycheck.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

They may not have paid much but they didn't receive much either. Not in today's valueless dollars; keep in mind that a dollar in 1950 was worth 9.14 times what it is today.
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

My bad. I should have said "some of my money". If I got it all back, and at any decent rate of return, I could go on an endless cruise. Some retirees do that, as living on a cruise ship is cheaper than a nursing home. I wouldn't do that, but I sure could cruise a little, spend time in my favorite places, and if I got bored, or the furniture got dusty, I'd be off to find a new one.
I think the creators of SS must be spinning in their graves, but I secretly think they knew what would REALLY happen. Like trusting your child NOT to get into the piggie bank or cookie jar.
SteveB
Heart surgery pending? Read up and prepare. Download the book $10 http://cabgbypasssurgery.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

I think you don't. I once figured (when I was 50?) that SS could keep all the money I had paid in previously and never pay me a dime if I could establish my own, personal account until I retired. IIRC, at a reasonable growth rate, that would have paid me as much as SS would and I'd still have the principal for my heirs when I died. Having no heirs, I would have paid myself much more than would SS :)
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob F wrote:

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. For those who don't care to venture, there are always CDs. Or government bonds (now *there* is a venture...buy now, get paid back in the future with $$ worth a fraction).
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And most of the "at least they have SS'ers" put an added burden on the stock market that they don't on SS. For all those who lost 2/3 or more of their savings, they got much of it back. Also, even at the worst, I still had almost 75% more in my IRA than I had put into it (compounding is your friend, especially if you start early). There still hasn't been a 20-year period since WWII where the S&P did not make at least 8% per year average over the timeframe. I have always wondered why the Dems are so sold on SS since even the report of the trustees show that minorities have a negative return on investment on SS since they tend to die earlier. (Tip, I learned in the early 60s to stay with dividend paying stocks for the most part. They are relatively more stable most of the time and nobody has figured out a way to restate a dividend.)
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or the libs legislate it to the unions, themselves, or the lazy. Not saying that could happen, of course ........................
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That is why I said "CD".
BTW most of those paper "losses" in the stock market have recovered. My 401k is still up from what it was in 2004. I know, if you believed the numbers in 2006-7, you lost money but retirement savings are a long term investment. I guarantee you, if I had put my SS money in a Dow index fund, over my working life, it would be more like a million dollars now.
When the government is broke, that SS is not going to be that wonderful either. Look at the Greeks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Hmmm, One question is, is today's dollar as much as a dollar then(2004)? One reason people lose money is too much greed. Today's economic situation in U.S. is long time coming isnce Nixon days with Greenspan. Way, way TOO MUCH deregulation created way, way TOO MANY crooks in the financial industry.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tony Hwang wrote:

It's worth 86% of a 2004 dollar. Check it out.... http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1.00&year1 11&year2 04
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The main reason for the collapse isn't that so much. That is an ongoing pendulum thingy. Hardly the first banking problem we have had since the Great Depression. What was different this time is that EVERYONE was screwed. Banks, government, companies, even (maybe especially) individuals were so far in hock that nobody had the wherewithal to lead us out. Also the reason it is taking so long.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

SS had been taken off budget years before. It still is. So, while part of your assertion is technically correct (there was the illusion of a surplus) the financial slight of hand had been put in place years before.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You have that backward. SS was always off budget until LBJ put it on budget in 1968 to help finance his war. That is how Nixon got a surplus in 1969. That didn't last long.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

The SSA would tend to disagree, "In the 1983 Social Security Amendments a provision was included mandating that Social Security be taken "off-budget" starting in FY 1993. " It got further complicated by the Graham-Rudman-Hollings Act, which is the real source of the weird bookkeeping on the subject. "The import of this provision was that when the federal budget exceeded the Gramm-Rudman targets, automatic across-the-board sequestration of spending kicked in. So including Social Security in the triggering calculations made the sequestration less likely (since the Trust Funds were running surpluses after 1983). So while the Social Security program was off-budget, and immune from sequestration or other generalized budget cuts, its surpluses were still being used to reduce the size of the budget deficit." (Editor's Note: Surplus which were, by long-standing law, only able to be invested in treasury securities. THus the sleight of hand that turned a long-term liability (the securities) into a short-term asset.) Never being one to leave well enough alone: "n the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990 the law was changed to stop the use of the Trust Funds for any function in the unified budget, including calculations of the deficit. One sub-part of OBRA 1990 was called the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA), and it was this sub-part that specified this change in the law. "The BEA budget treatment of Social Security basically remains the law to the present day. Specifically, present law mandates that the two Social Security Trust Funds, and the operations of the Postal Service, are formally considered to be "off-budget" and no longer part of the unified federal budget. (The Medicare Trust Funds, by contrast, are once again part of the unified budget.) So where matters stand presently is that the transactions to the Social Security Trust Funds and the operations of the Postal Service are "off-budget" and everything else is "on-budget." However, nothing is that easy: "those involved in budget matters often produce two sets of numbers, one without Social Security included in the budget totals and one with Social Security included. Thus, Social Security is still frequently treated as though it were part of the unified federal budget even though, technically, it no longer is." http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The last sentence says it all. When they talk about "deficit or surplus" they include SS ... well they did when SS was a surplus. Now I suppose they want to sequester it again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

I liked that, too. The translation is: SS is treated as though it were a part of the budget, except when it isn't." (grin).
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The 50 billion dollar short fall has made it less attractive as a budget item.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stormin Mormon wrote:

Uh, the top 1% of wage-earners are responsible for about 40% of federal revenues.
The top 5% generate 60% of federal revenue.
The top 10% "contribute" 70% of federal revenue.
The bottom 50% of the slugs, slackers, malcontents, and wealth-destroyers contribute less than 3%.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
-snip-
I'm to tired to look this up for you again & the only number that sticks in my head is this one-

And make 75% of the money- [plus their capital gains which nobody knows what those numbers are] - so they are getting a pretty good deal, if you ask me.
Jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They still pay in %age of taxes more than their %age of income, at least according to the 2008 figures from the IRS. Probably not wealth, but this is an income tax and not a wealth tax, so that is sorta a given.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.