Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again

Page 5 of 7  
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:55:51 +0000, Baxter wrote:

Sure you did. If you paid the max into SS all your life and die before you hit 80-something. Medicare? Fat chance. Compare what you're getting and what you're paying, including supplement, against what a private plan would cost you.
Try doing the arithmetic before you make wild claims like that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

As I said (relative to medicare), " Now, not so much, costs have just gotten way out of hand". For social security, absolutely. I know because I DID do the math.
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:15:32 -0400, dadiOH wrote:

On the SS, I should have said *after* 80-something, not *before*. Sorry.
I figured mine out quite a few years ago. IIRC, retiring at 62 and living to 80+, I got back what I paid for. If I last till 90, no way.
But the average recipient gets back considerably more than they paid in and yes, I'm including the employer contribution.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/17/2015 06:54 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:

Then why is it that I put 10% away of gross my working life where my employer and myself contributed 12.4% to SS, yet I have been taking out twice out of my savings compared to what SS pays and my savings are still growing?
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/17/2015 07:58 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:

BTW, I retired at 55.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:58:30 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:

What's the fact that you made good investments and were lucky got to do with the original discussion?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And then there's the insurance aspect of SS.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 18:30:55 +0000 (UTC), Baxter

Which is completely irrelevant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/18/2015 10:32 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:

It has to do with the fact that SS as an investment is a poor one. People could do much better investing that 12.4% themselves for a retirement fund. The fact that you claim most people will take out more than they contributed only underscores how poor an investment SS is. I had no insider knowledge in my investments, only the standard mutual funds, bonds, reits, etc - all done by my financial advisor with my permission. I also didn't make a huge amount of money, although I usually maxed out on SS contributions before the end of the year. Luck had absolutely nothing to do with it, unless you consider planning ahead to be luck.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

1. That would probably be true IF the amount paid in laid fallow al those years
2. The dollars paid out are worth a tiny fraction of those paid in.
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 07:50:39 -0400, dadiOH wrote:

Gimme some credit. I added up contributions converted to todays dollars. That is, in many years, more than they would have earned in interest.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 01:54:27 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard

Interest over 40 or 50 years?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:55:51 +0000 (UTC), Baxter

Nonsense. Anyone with the most basic of math skills could see that it was a loser, from day 1.

SSI is a *completely* different program. It has *nothing* to do with SS, other than it is administered by the same dysfunctional organization.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
krw wrote:

Right. Plus, assuming only a modest rate of return on the capital, one could withdraw as much or more than SS doles out and leave the capital untouched or minimally reduced. Enter the inheritance tax for all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You got that right!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/16/2015 11:42 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:

That's all covered in economics 101, Larry.
Rich people invest their money (to make MORE money!)
Poor people don't.
Go figure.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well, the rich are rich *because* they've invested their money to make more money. The poor are poor because they've invested nothing, even their time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 16:42:53 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard

The death tax is the worst possible tax. It taxe money that has already been taxed. It kill businesses and the jobs that go with them. It is nothing but a leftist's dream of "redistribution", or more precisely "retrobution".

Social Security is forced on us. If I could have avoided it, I certainly would have. I certainly intend to take what's owed (your children be damned) because it was forced on me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, yes, and yes. I couldn't afford a large color television (or any television, for that matter), cable, or many other *luxuries* that are considered "necessities" today.

Ok, it would save money if the unemployable were cut off from the perks of employment. Raising the minimum wage would only increase prices and lose those jobs the entry workers need.

Minimum wage was *never* expected to be a comfortable wage, yet people thing it should be. It's an entry wage (which should be zero).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/16/2015 10:15 PM, krw wrote:

We should be talking "fair wage", not a minimum. The job should pay according to the skills and knowledge required. It has to be higher in NYC than in Podunk, Ohio too.
If some companies offered only minimum wage, no one would show up for work. If they do, however, they must deem it fair as they do go to work.
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.