Get rid of Social Security now?

[Skull Pilot]

50% of the clients will live past median life expectancy, 50% won't make it to median life expectancy.

You aren't too smart, are you?

You think mortality tables are based solely on the median life expectancy?

Who is not too smart now , Sparky?

A life table provides more information than median life expectancy.

You, still.


Insurance companies will sell you the value of the expected risk for the cost of that risk plus a small profit. The value of an annuity is quite easy to calculate, its simply the present value of the future cash flows from each year of the annuity multiplied times the chance the buyer will be alive that year, all summed up. The insurance company will sell you that annuity for that value + whatever they can get in profit. If they ask for too much in profit, the insurance company down the street will undercut them and they go out of business.

And yet you based your annuity reasoning on median life expectancy.

The insurance companies don't measure their annuity calculations on median life expectancy you fucking simpleton.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Let's do some math. Say you're making on average $50,000 throughout your working life. 15% of that is $7500. If you work from age 18 until age 72, you'll have socked away $405,000.

Now I don't know what the interest would add up to, but I'm betting you won't have a million bucks.

Then you are just another idiot too lazy to do the math.

7500 is 625 a month

18 to 72 is a 54 year career

Based on the S&P 500

If you earned an average of 5% you would have over 2 million dollars.

If you earned an average of 6% you would have over 3 million dollars.

Now if you take the last 54 years and actually use what the stock market returned which was 9.62%

You would have had over 13.5 million

Now take a minute and think what if you added another 5000 a year or 10% of the income in your post to the 15% thew government confiscates from you?

That would be 1042 a month

Over the same time frame you would have had

at 5% 3.4 million

at 6% 5.07 million

So tell me again how SS is a good deal.

Now there are many people whose portfolios outperform the S&P but as you can see even if you were conservative with your investments you would do better than you do with SS

That's why there were so many millionaires before Social Security was enacted, or are we missing something here?

Hey little sheep there was no law requiring people to save 15% of their income was there?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Let's do some math. Say you're making on average $50,000 throughout your working life. 15% of that is $7500. If you work from age 18 until age 72, you'll have socked away $405,000.

Now I don't know what the interest would add up to, but I'm betting you won't have a million bucks.

Then you are just another idiot too lazy to do the math.

7500 is 625 a month

18 to 72 is a 54 year career

Based on the S&P 500

If you earned an average of 5% you would have over 2 million dollars.

If you earned an average of 6% you would have over 3 million dollars.

Now if you take the last 54 years and actually use what the stock market returned which was 9.62%

You would have had over 13.5 million

Now take a minute and think what if you added another 5000 a year or 10% of the income in your post to the 15% thew government confiscates from you?

That would be 1042 a month

Over the same time frame you would have had

at 5% 3.4 million

at 6% 5.07 million

So tell me again how SS is a good deal.

Now there are many people whose portfolios outperform the S&P but as you can see even if you were conservative with your investments you would do better than you do with SS

Based on the S&P 500?

Why did you select the last 54 years and why the S&P 500?

Why do you presume the future stock market would behave the same as the S&P 500 over the last 54 years? You just happened to pick a time period and place in history where the stock market did extraordinarily well compared to other time periods and places. That seems to be a shaky presumption.

Why do you entirely neglect the economic reality is that fewer (greater) contributions towards retirement are made during periods where stocks are priced low (high) ? People would have done well to invest in the stock market throughout much of the 1930's - but people didn't have much income, so they didn't do too much investing. This is (one reason) why individual investors almost always under-perform the market.

Why, also, do you treat the past stock market as if it would have been completely unaffected by the infusion of trillions in retirement contributions?



And - since Social Security is paygo, how the hell would current beneficiaries have been funded while your monies were diverted into pumping up stock prices?

I used the numbers that the other idiot gave in her post.

Do you have trouble with reading comprehension?

Why don't you slow down and follow along with your finger and if you have to move your lips that's OK we won't think your fucking stupid.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You think mortality tables are based solely on the median life expectancy?

Who is not too smart now , Sparky?

A life table provides more information than median life expectancy.

You, still.


Insurance companies will sell you the value of the expected risk for the cost of that risk plus a small profit. The value of an annuity is quite easy to calculate, its simply the present value of the future cash flows from each year of the annuity multiplied times the chance the buyer will be alive that year, all summed up. The insurance company will sell you that annuity for that value + whatever they can get in profit. If they ask for too much in profit, the insurance company down the street will undercut them and they go out of business.

And yet you based your annuity reasoning on median life expectancy.

The insurance companies don't measure their annuity calculations on median life expectancy you fucking simpleton.

I didn't say they did. I said if you make it much past median you've beaten the odds and will get more out than you put in.

You really are one of the biggest idiots on here. Your inability to comprehend simple English sentences is quite exceptional.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Then you are just another idiot too lazy to do the math.

7500 is 625 a month

18 to 72 is a 54 year career

Based on the S&P 500

If you earned an average of 5% you would have over 2 million dollars.

If you earned an average of 6% you would have over 3 million dollars.

Now if you take the last 54 years and actually use what the stock market returned which was 9.62%

You would have had over 13.5 million

Now take a minute and think what if you added another 5000 a year or 10% of the income in your post to the 15% thew government confiscates from you?

That would be 1042 a month

Over the same time frame you would have had

at 5% 3.4 million

at 6% 5.07 million

So tell me again how SS is a good deal.

Now there are many people whose portfolios outperform the S&P but as you can see even if you were conservative with your investments you would do better than you do with SS

Based on the S&P 500?

Why did you select the last 54 years and why the S&P 500?

Why do you presume the future stock market would behave the same as the S&P 500 over the last 54 years? You just happened to pick a time period and place in history where the stock market did extraordinarily well compared to other time periods and places. That seems to be a shaky presumption.

Why do you entirely neglect the economic reality is that fewer (greater) contributions towards retirement are made during periods where stocks are priced low (high) ? People would have done well to invest in the stock market throughout much of the 1930's - but people didn't have much income, so they didn't do too much investing. This is (one reason) why individual investors almost always under-perform the market.

Why, also, do you treat the past stock market as if it would have been completely unaffected by the infusion of trillions in retirement contributions?



And - since Social Security is paygo, how the hell would current beneficiaries have been funded while your monies were diverted into pumping up stock prices?

I used the numbers that the other idiot gave in her post.

OK. So you admit you get your data from an idiot.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Then you are just another idiot too lazy to do the math.

7500 is 625 a month

18 to 72 is a 54 year career

Based on the S&P 500

If you earned an average of 5% you would have over 2 million dollars.

If you earned an average of 6% you would have over 3 million dollars.

Now if you take the last 54 years and actually use what the stock market returned which was 9.62%

You would have had over 13.5 million

Now take a minute and think what if you added another 5000 a year or 10% of the income in your post to the 15% thew government confiscates from you?

That would be 1042 a month

Over the same time frame you would have had

at 5% 3.4 million

at 6% 5.07 million

So tell me again how SS is a good deal.

Now there are many people whose portfolios outperform the S&P but as you can see even if you were conservative with your investments you would do better than you do with SS

That's why there were so many millionaires before Social Security was enacted, or are we missing something here?

Hey little sheep there was no law requiring people to save 15% of their income was there?

LOL. So people become millionaires by NOT saving money. Ok.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A life table provides more information than median life expectancy.

You, still.


Insurance companies will sell you the value of the expected risk for the cost of that risk plus a small profit. The value of an annuity is quite easy to calculate, its simply the present value of the future cash flows from each year of the annuity multiplied times the chance the buyer will be alive that year, all summed up. The insurance company will sell you that annuity for that value + whatever they can get in profit. If they ask for too much in profit, the insurance company down the street will undercut them and they go out of business.

And yet you based your annuity reasoning on median life expectancy.

The insurance companies don't measure their annuity calculations on median life expectancy you fucking simpleton.

I didn't say they did. I said if you make it much past median you've beaten the odds and will get more out than you put in.

You really are one of the biggest idiots on here. Your inability to comprehend simple English sentences is quite exceptional.

Yet you think that median life expectancy is the sole measure of whether you;ll get more out than you put in. It's not.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's why there were so many millionaires before Social Security was enacted, or are we missing something here?

Hey little sheep there was no law requiring people to save 15% of their income was there?

LOL. So people become millionaires by NOT saving money. Ok.

Were people compelled by law to save 15% of their income before the depression.

No they weren't.

Did some people save and prosper before and after the depression ?

Yes.

therefore compelling everyone to save 15% of their income will create more prosperous people.

One can save the exact amount of money the government steals for SS and do much much better

So you see SS is designed to keep you from being prosperous.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And yet you based your annuity reasoning on median life expectancy.

The insurance companies don't measure their annuity calculations on median life expectancy you fucking simpleton.

I didn't say they did. I said if you make it much past median you've beaten the odds and will get more out than you put in.

You really are one of the biggest idiots on here. Your inability to comprehend simple English sentences is quite exceptional.

Yet you think that median life expectancy is the sole measure of whether you;ll get more out than you put in. It's not.

With any life annuity there is an age that if you beat, you will get out more than you put in. That is quite simply a mathematical fact.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

One can save the exact amount of money the government steals for SS and do much much better

Sure, if one can also build a time machine and go back in time to take advantage of the past market performance you've based the above statement on.

 

[Skull Pilot]

One can save the exact amount of money the government steals for SS and do much much better

Sure, if one can also build a time machine and go back in time to take advantage of the past market performance you've based the above statement on.

FYI I used very conservative figures like 5 and 6% I only included the actual return as an example of how well one could do if they were able to keep their own money rather than having the fucking government throw it in a slush fund.

But you're too fucking thick to understand that aren't you?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

One can save the exact amount of money the government steals for SS and do much much better

Sure, if one can also build a time machine and go back in time to take advantage of the past market performance you've based the above statement on.

FYI I used very conservative figures like 5 and 6% I only included the actual return as an example of how well one could do if they were able to keep their own money rather than having the fucking government throw it in a slush fund.

But you're too fucking thick to understand that aren't you?

Where did you get 5% or 6%? You just pulled them out your ass. You had to have because you do not know the future return of the stock market. You are presuming the future market will beat risk-free returns but your basis for this presumption is a past market that happens to have been an exceptionally good past market.

 

[MikeK]

Hey little sheep there was no law requiring people to save 15% of their income was there?

LOL. So people become millionaires by NOT saving money. Ok.

Were people compelled by law to save 15% of their income before the depression.

No they weren't.

Did some people save and prosper before and after the depression ?

Yes.

therefore compelling everyone to save 15% of their income will create more prosperous people.

One can save the exact amount of money the government steals for SS and do much much better

So you see SS is designed to keep you from being prosperous.

If you've read The Communist Manifesto you know that Marx had considered every possible circumstance and probability in his historic contemplation but one, that of human nature. The same critical component is missing from your presumptive notion on voluntary saving for the future.

You simply ignore the well established behavioral fact that, with few exceptions, we humans do not believe we ever will become "old" until the signs of aging begin to manifest, which usually happens at around age fifty when it's too late to begin a retirement savings program. An important part of FDR's genius was his understanding of this inherent quirk of human nature and the parental aspect of his remarkable leadership abilities. He understood why so many seniors perished in extreme poverty during the Depression era and he conceived the means of preventing its happening again -- the Social Security program.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

One can save the exact amount of money the government steals for SS and do much much better

[...]

One of the components of the brainwash you obviously have experienced is the absurd notion that FICA contributions are being stolen from us by Government. As I've mentioned before, I've been collecting from Social Security for eleven years, which I'm sure has amounted to more money than my employer and I have contributed to the program. And if I live as long as my parents and grandparents lived I'll be collecting for another ten or fifteen years.

So if that is what you mean by "stealing" I am very grateful for having endured the theft. Because my civil service pension combined with the Social Security allotment enables me to sit here transacting with you in comfort with absolutely nothing to worry about.

But I know that comfort and peace of mind wouldn't be enough for you, which I believe has less to do with the Social Security issue than with marked differences in our respective personalities.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sure, if one can also build a time machine and go back in time to take advantage of the past market performance you've based the above statement on.

FYI I used very conservative figures like 5 and 6% I only included the actual return as an example of how well one could do if they were able to keep their own money rather than having the fucking government throw it in a slush fund.

But you're too fucking thick to understand that aren't you?

Where did you get 5% or 6%? You just pulled them out your ass. You had to have because you do not know the future return of the stock market. You are presuming the future market will beat risk-free returns but your basis for this presumption is a past market that happens to have been an exceptionally good past market.

5 and 6% are not unrealistic return estimates.

I can show you hundreds of mutual funds that have returned at least that for 30 years or more.

There is no such thing as risk free returns and I never said there was but if some annuity company will guarantee you 3% and you think that's a great deal tell me how much do you think that company will make on your money?

Just because you're afraid of the future is no reason to force me or anyone else to give up 15% of our money to the fucking crooks in DC

 

[Skull Pilot]

LOL. So people become millionaires by NOT saving money. Ok.

Were people compelled by law to save 15% of their income before the depression.

No they weren't.

Did some people save and prosper before and after the depression ?

Yes.

therefore compelling everyone to save 15% of their income will create more prosperous people.

One can save the exact amount of money the government steals for SS and do much much better

So you see SS is designed to keep you from being prosperous.

If you've read The Communist Manifesto you know that Marx had considered every possible circumstance and probability in his historic contemplation but one, that of human nature. The same critical component is missing from your presumptive notion on voluntary saving for the future.

You simply ignore the well established behavioral fact that, with few exceptions, we humans do not believe we ever will become "old" until the signs of aging begin to manifest, which usually happens at around age fifty when it's too late to begin a retirement savings program. An important part of FDR's genius was his understanding of this inherent quirk of human nature and the parental aspect of his remarkable leadership abilities. He understood why so many seniors perished in extreme poverty during the Depression era and he conceived the means of preventing its happening again -- the Social Security program.

Wow so you can speak for all people now huh? And the fact that you think Marx explored "every possible circumstance" tells that you ain't too bright.
And where did I ever say that people should wait to save? I am using terms such as lifetime income and you hear income after age 50?

And if it's genius to take peoples money and give them a pittance then what would you call allowing people to save that portion of their lifetime income
in a privately held account that will allow them a better standard of living?


I knew I was going to die one day way before I turned 30.
Maybe you went through life blissfully ignorant of the natural process of aging because you never do the math.

 

[regent]

Then you are just another idiot too lazy to do the math.

7500 is 625 a month

18 to 72 is a 54 year career

Based on the S&P 500

If you earned an average of 5% you would have over 2 million dollars.

If you earned an average of 6% you would have over 3 million dollars.

Now if you take the last 54 years and actually use what the stock market returned which was 9.62%

You would have had over 13.5 million

Now take a minute and think what if you added another 5000 a year or 10% of the income in your post to the 15% thew government confiscates from you?

That would be 1042 a month

Over the same time frame you would have had

at 5% 3.4 million

at 6% 5.07 million

So tell me again how SS is a good deal.

Now there are many people whose portfolios outperform the S&P but as you can see even if you were conservative with your investments you would do better than you do with SS

That's why there were so many millionaires before Social Security was enacted, or are we missing something here?

Hey little sheep there was no law requiring people to save 15% of their income was there?

So is it your contention that there should be a mandatory savings law?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

FYI I used very conservative figures like 5 and 6% I only included the actual return as an example of how well one could do if they were able to keep their own money rather than having the fucking government throw it in a slush fund.

But you're too fucking thick to understand that aren't you?

Where did you get 5% or 6%? You just pulled them out your ass. You had to have because you do not know the future return of the stock market. You are presuming the future market will beat risk-free returns but your basis for this presumption is a past market that happens to have been an exceptionally good past market.

5 and 6% are not unrealistic return estimates.

I can show you hundreds of mutual funds that have returned at least that for 30 years or more.

There is no such thing as risk free returns and I never said there was but if some annuity company will guarantee you 3% and you think that's a great deal tell me how much do you think that company will make on your money?

Just because you're afraid of the future is no reason to force me or anyone else to give up 15% of our money to the fucking crooks in DC

Jesus fucking Christ you're hard to get too.


Look genius, here's the deal. Its great you can show me mutual funds that have performed great, in the past. Unfortunately, lacking a time machine, that fact will make neither you nor I any money whatsoever. So instead you PRESUME that PAST RETURNS are an indicator of FUTURE SUCCESS. Such a presumption is the dumbest possible mistake anyone could possible make in investing. When a person uses that sort of reasoning, its an indicator they are a horribly unsophisticated investor.

 

[MikeK]

I've read Maslow and know the hierarchy of needs. But I want more than a roof and food on the table.

And why is it that you people want to dictate what others need to live.

That is a question that can only be answered by each individual.

And only those who have resigned themselves to living less of a life than they could call those who aspire to more as greedy.

And btw I'm not talking about taking anyone's money all I am doing is trying to illustrate what one could do with the money they earn if the fucking government would leave it in our hands.

In this you are assuming every wage earner will dutifully and unfailingly deposit a weekly sum (which of course will be double the amount of a FICA deduction because of the employer's supplement) into an investment portfolio which they will skillfully monitor and maneuver -- or pay a percentage to some manager whom they are assured is diligent and honest and has their interests in mind. And, most importantly, their investment and its projected growth will be guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the Government against any failure or perfidy of the Market.

Does that adequately describe what you're proposing?

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's why there were so many millionaires before Social Security was enacted, or are we missing something here?

Hey little sheep there was no law requiring people to save 15% of their income was there?

So is it your contention that there should be a mandatory savings law?

Why not there already is now but the money doesn't actually get saved does it?