Jeb Bush: Next president should privatize Social Security

[OohPooPahDoo]

hey Moron you don't keep the lion's share of your money in stocks when you're retired.

I've only told you that about a hundred times in this thread.

Now you're missing a lot of info on your projections

How long is "the rest of their lives"?
What is the rate of return on the 1 million?

Rule of thumb

150K earning 5% will allow you to withdraw 1000 a month for 20 years

For example for that 1 million held at 5% you could withdraw 15000 a quarter and after 20 years still have 640K left

Hey I fell for the annuities are great sales pitch when I was young and uninformed.

I used to sell fixed and variable annuities and made a lot of money doing it.

But I continued my education and realized they were a complete rip off. But hey go ahead and buy them if you want IDGAF what you do with your money

You keep saying that you shouldn't hold many stocks in retirement and then turn around and say you should have that money invested in something that returns 5%. What investment, today, 1) returns 5% and 2) is not a stock 3) is low risk and 4) isn't a promotional offer from a bank? Seriously, I would love to know, I wanna put some money there.

Further - what way is there to guarantee 5% returns are available 20 years from now when you might be reinvesting your remaining principal?

You've got to base your arguments in reality, man! Not only are 5% returns not available TODAY - there's no guarantee they will be available in the FUTURE - either! The only way to guarantee a fixed income of a certain amount for the rest of your life is to either a) have much much more money than you actually need for retirement b) buy an annuity.

Where did I ever say to have no stocks in retirement?

I said you hold a smaller percentage of your money in stocks

And who says 5% is not attainable today?

And I don't look for guarantees because in reality a guaranteed return is a guaranteed loss.

But go ahead and get ripped off buying an annuity because its guaranteed like I said IDGAF what you do

But if you must know the Vanguard VTINX fund has averaged 5.4% over the last 10 years

and many other income funds have averages 6 or more over the same time frame

I'm still a ways away from retirement so I don't spend a lot of time researching income funds

VTINX is 30% invested in stock ,took a 20% hit in the last downturn before coming around. It does not satisfy your requirement that such a fund be able to "weather any market turbulence", further, it guarantees no particular return for the future, like an annuity would. And if course you are just.picking the winners after the fact and falling prey yet again to survivorship bias.

It was an example and downturns are temporary the long term average is what matters.

And no one fund will do it all or haven't you learned that yet?

Seriously you have to learn how not to boil everything down to just one choice. Do you do that with all decisions you have to make?

Tell you what you go buy your annuities and make your insurance broker a lot of money and I'll worry about my own money

Sound good?

How much will he make?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Diversified investors had losses exceeding 90% after the 29 crash.

False.

The overall market lost nearly 90% of its value. Sorry that's historical fact.

But despite your exaggeration, those who held their stocks saw not only recovery, but solid gains by the end of WWII.

Those who could afford to hold their stocks, yes. But judging by all the selling going on, I'd say very few people fell into that category. This is why the dollar-averged and buy-and-hold as long term strategies are mythical - almost by definition, the average investor has less to invest when stock prices are low and more to invest when they are high. Like everyone who looks back and calculates historical returns based on indexes, you are presuming the investor exists in a vacuum, himself not subject to the same economy in which he is investing. The history of actual investors tells a different story - this is why on average, people cannot beat index returns, because there is more more available to invest when stock prices are high and less when they are low.

But not ALL stocks lost 90% of their value some lost more some less.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Diversification is useful but its utility is overrated. U.S. stocks tend to go up and down together. Nor did I ever equate "investing" with "day traders".

Of course insurance companies sell policies to make money off of them. They have to be compensated for the service they perform. Yet they also provide fixed income rates higher than the 5% you claimed to need for retirement - without the risk that you will outlive them.

For $1,000,000, a married couple of two 67 year olds can get paid $4850/mo. for the rest of their lives. To guarantee the same income for life using U.S. Treasuries, at the current return of 3.10% for 30 year obligations, requires an investment of $1,900,000 - but this assuming treasury rates don't go down when you go to reinvest.

Insurance companies are able to provide the better deal and still make money because instead of someone having to ensure they have enough capital to live off of for an arbitrary amount of time (i.e. never dipping into principal) - they only need enough to last the average length of retirement - the insurance risk pool takes care of the rest, with those who live shorter than expected "losing" the insurance bet and those who live longer "winning". You used to sell annuities but you don't get this?

hey Moron you don't keep the lion's share of your money in stocks when you're retired.

I've only told you that about a hundred times in this thread.

Now you're missing a lot of info on your projections

How long is "the rest of their lives"?
What is the rate of return on the 1 million?

Rule of thumb

150K earning 5% will allow you to withdraw 1000 a month for 20 years

For example for that 1 million held at 5% you could withdraw 15000 a quarter and after 20 years still have 640K left

Hey I fell for the annuities are great sales pitch when I was young and uninformed.

I used to sell fixed and variable annuities and made a lot of money doing it.

But I continued my education and realized they were a complete rip off. But hey go ahead and buy them if you want IDGAF what you do with your money

You keep saying that you shouldn't hold many stocks in retirement and then turn around and say you should have that money invested in something that returns 5%. What investment, today, 1) returns 5% and 2) is not a stock 3) is low risk and 4) isn't a promotional offer from a bank? Seriously, I would love to know, I wanna put some money there.

Further - what way is there to guarantee 5% returns are available 20 years from now when you might be reinvesting your remaining principal?

You've got to base your arguments in reality, man! Not only are 5% returns not available TODAY - there's no guarantee they will be available in the FUTURE - either! The only way to guarantee a fixed income of a certain amount for the rest of your life is to either a) have much much more money than you actually need for retirement b) buy an annuity.

Where did I ever say to have no stocks in retirement?

I said you hold a smaller percentage of your money in stocks

And who says 5% is not attainable today?

And I don't look for guarantees because in reality a guaranteed return is a guaranteed loss.

But go ahead and get ripped off buying an annuity because its guaranteed like I said IDGAF what you do

But if you must know the Vanguard VTINX fund has averaged 5.4% over the last 10 years

and many other income funds have averages 6 or more over the same time frame

I'm still a ways away from retirement so I don't spend a lot of time researching income funds

VTINX is 30% invested in stock ,took a 20% hit in the last downturn before coming around. It does not satisfy your requirement that such a fund be able to "weather any market turbulence", further, it guarantees no particular return for the future, like an annuity would. And if course you are just.picking the winners after the fact and falling prey yet again to survivorship bias.

Let me ask you something

If you have a stock and the price dips do you panic and see only the drop even if that stock has performed well for years?

it really depends on the particulars of the actual underlying corporation. There is no general rule of thumb. However, if the drop in price is due to the actual economy going sour, then such an investor might be forced to sell that stock at low prices, to pay their house note or otherwise make up for lost income - thus pushing its price even lower.

So what if a fund drops below 5% for a time? If in the long term that fund averages 5% then you do realize that there are periods when it returns more than 5% don't you?[/QUOTE]

1. It really depends on the particulars of the actual underlying corporation. There is no general rule of thumb. However, if the drop in price is due to the actual economy going sour, then such an investor might be forced to sell that stock at low prices, to pay their house note or otherwise make up for lost income - thus pushing its price even lower.

2. Again, you're just presuming it will average 5% over the long term, and presuming the holder of said investment exists in an economic vacuum, with his or her fortune tied in no way to the health of the overall economy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You keep saying that you shouldn't hold many stocks in retirement and then turn around and say you should have that money invested in something that returns 5%. What investment, today, 1) returns 5% and 2) is not a stock 3) is low risk and 4) isn't a promotional offer from a bank? Seriously, I would love to know, I wanna put some money there.

Further - what way is there to guarantee 5% returns are available 20 years from now when you might be reinvesting your remaining principal?

You've got to base your arguments in reality, man! Not only are 5% returns not available TODAY - there's no guarantee they will be available in the FUTURE - either! The only way to guarantee a fixed income of a certain amount for the rest of your life is to either a) have much much more money than you actually need for retirement b) buy an annuity.

Where did I ever say to have no stocks in retirement?

I said you hold a smaller percentage of your money in stocks

And who says 5% is not attainable today?

And I don't look for guarantees because in reality a guaranteed return is a guaranteed loss.

But go ahead and get ripped off buying an annuity because its guaranteed like I said IDGAF what you do

But if you must know the Vanguard VTINX fund has averaged 5.4% over the last 10 years

and many other income funds have averages 6 or more over the same time frame

I'm still a ways away from retirement so I don't spend a lot of time researching income funds

VTINX is 30% invested in stock ,took a 20% hit in the last downturn before coming around. It does not satisfy your requirement that such a fund be able to "weather any market turbulence", further, it guarantees no particular return for the future, like an annuity would. And if course you are just.picking the winners after the fact and falling prey yet again to survivorship bias.

It was an example and downturns are temporary the long term average is what matters.

And no one fund will do it all or haven't you learned that yet?

Seriously you have to learn how not to boil everything down to just one choice. Do you do that with all decisions you have to make?

Tell you what you go buy your annuities and make your insurance broker a lot of money and I'll worry about my own money

Sound good?

How much will he make?

How much are you buying?

I used to get 10% on some fixed annuities.
The longer the surrender charges the higher the commission.

Variable annuities paid even better

You see the insurance company guarantees you 4% but they make 10% on your money

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Diversified investors had losses exceeding 90% after the 29 crash.

False.

The overall market lost nearly 90% of its value. Sorry that's historical fact.

But despite your exaggeration, those who held their stocks saw not only recovery, but solid gains by the end of WWII.

Those who could afford to hold their stocks, yes. But judging by all the selling going on, I'd say very few people fell into that category. This is why the dollar-averged and buy-and-hold as long term strategies are mythical - almost by definition, the average investor has less to invest when stock prices are low and more to invest when they are high. Like everyone who looks back and calculates historical returns based on indexes, you are presuming the investor exists in a vacuum, himself not subject to the same economy in which he is investing. The history of actual investors tells a different story - this is why on average, people cannot beat index returns, because there is more more available to invest when stock prices are high and less when they are low.

But not ALL stocks lost 90% of their value some lost more some less.

There is a story, told by author Nassim Taleb, of a new manager at company who looked at the history of futures trades done by the firms trading department. He noticed some made quite a bit of money, some lost quite a bit of money. He realized that if the firm only invested in winning trades, they could make a lot more money. He instructed his traders to only engage in trades that would make money henceforth.

You remind me of that guy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The overall market lost nearly 90% of its value. Sorry that's historical fact.

The overall market lost 36.6%

{The crash followed a speculative boom that had taken hold in the late 1920s. During the later half of the 1920s, steel production, building construction, retail turnover, automobiles registered, even railway receipts advanced from record to record. The combined net profits of 536 manufacturing and trading companies showed an increase, in fact for the first six months of 1929, of 36.6% over 1928, itself a record half-year. Iron and steel led the way with doubled gains.[21] Such figures set up a crescendo of stock-exchange speculation which had led hundreds of thousands of Americans to invest heavily in the stock market. A significant number of them were borrowing money to buy more stocks. By August 1929, brokers were routinely lending small investors more than two-thirds of the face value of the stocks they were buying. Over $8.5 billion was out on loan,[22] more than the entire amount of currency circulating in the U.S. at the time.[17][23]}

Wall Street Crash of 1929 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Those who could afford to hold their stocks, yes. But judging by all the selling going on, I'd say very few people fell into that category. This is why the dollar-averged and buy-and-hold as long term strategies are mythical - almost by definition, the average investor has less to invest when stock prices are low and more to invest when they are high. Like everyone who looks back and calculates historical returns based on indexes, you are presuming the investor exists in a vacuum, himself not subject to the same economy in which he is investing. The history of actual investors tells a different story - this is why on average, people cannot beat index returns, because there is more more available to invest when stock prices are high and less when they are low.

Those who were poor didn't have stock in the first place - there were no 401K's at that time.

 

[Skull Pilot]

hey Moron you don't keep the lion's share of your money in stocks when you're retired.

I've only told you that about a hundred times in this thread.

Now you're missing a lot of info on your projections

How long is "the rest of their lives"?
What is the rate of return on the 1 million?

Rule of thumb

150K earning 5% will allow you to withdraw 1000 a month for 20 years

For example for that 1 million held at 5% you could withdraw 15000 a quarter and after 20 years still have 640K left

Hey I fell for the annuities are great sales pitch when I was young and uninformed.

I used to sell fixed and variable annuities and made a lot of money doing it.

But I continued my education and realized they were a complete rip off. But hey go ahead and buy them if you want IDGAF what you do with your money

You keep saying that you shouldn't hold many stocks in retirement and then turn around and say you should have that money invested in something that returns 5%. What investment, today, 1) returns 5% and 2) is not a stock 3) is low risk and 4) isn't a promotional offer from a bank? Seriously, I would love to know, I wanna put some money there.

Further - what way is there to guarantee 5% returns are available 20 years from now when you might be reinvesting your remaining principal?

You've got to base your arguments in reality, man! Not only are 5% returns not available TODAY - there's no guarantee they will be available in the FUTURE - either! The only way to guarantee a fixed income of a certain amount for the rest of your life is to either a) have much much more money than you actually need for retirement b) buy an annuity.

Where did I ever say to have no stocks in retirement?

I said you hold a smaller percentage of your money in stocks

And who says 5% is not attainable today?

And I don't look for guarantees because in reality a guaranteed return is a guaranteed loss.

But go ahead and get ripped off buying an annuity because its guaranteed like I said IDGAF what you do

But if you must know the Vanguard VTINX fund has averaged 5.4% over the last 10 years

and many other income funds have averages 6 or more over the same time frame

I'm still a ways away from retirement so I don't spend a lot of time researching income funds

VTINX is 30% invested in stock ,took a 20% hit in the last downturn before coming around. It does not satisfy your requirement that such a fund be able to "weather any market turbulence", further, it guarantees no particular return for the future, like an annuity would. And if course you are just.picking the winners after the fact and falling prey yet again to survivorship bias.

Let me ask you something

If you have a stock and the price dips do you panic and see only the drop even if that stock has performed well for years?

it really depends on the particulars of the actual underlying corporation. There is no general rule of thumb. However, if the drop in price is due to the actual economy going sour, then such an investor might be forced to sell that stock at low prices, to pay their house note or otherwise make up for lost income - thus pushing its price even lower.

So what if a fund drops below 5% for a time? If in the long term that fund averages 5% then you do realize that there are periods when it returns more than 5% don't you?

1. It really depends on the particulars of the actual underlying corporation. There is no general rule of thumb. However, if the drop in price is due to the actual economy going sour, then such an investor might be forced to sell that stock at low prices, to pay their house note or otherwise make up for lost income - thus pushing its price even lower.

2. Again, you're just presuming it will average 5% over the long term, and presuming the holder of said investment exists in an economic vacuum, with his or her fortune tied in no way to the health of the overall economy.[/QUOTE]

The past performance of a fund is an indicator as to how it holds up in the overall economy.

If a fund can pay 5+ % over the past ten years you can see how it performs in a market downturn and how it recovers can't you?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Where did I ever say to have no stocks in retirement?

I said you hold a smaller percentage of your money in stocks

And who says 5% is not attainable today?

And I don't look for guarantees because in reality a guaranteed return is a guaranteed loss.

But go ahead and get ripped off buying an annuity because its guaranteed like I said IDGAF what you do

But if you must know the Vanguard VTINX fund has averaged 5.4% over the last 10 years

and many other income funds have averages 6 or more over the same time frame

I'm still a ways away from retirement so I don't spend a lot of time researching income funds

VTINX is 30% invested in stock ,took a 20% hit in the last downturn before coming around. It does not satisfy your requirement that such a fund be able to "weather any market turbulence", further, it guarantees no particular return for the future, like an annuity would. And if course you are just.picking the winners after the fact and falling prey yet again to survivorship bias.

It was an example and downturns are temporary the long term average is what matters.

And no one fund will do it all or haven't you learned that yet?

Seriously you have to learn how not to boil everything down to just one choice. Do you do that with all decisions you have to make?

Tell you what you go buy your annuities and make your insurance broker a lot of money and I'll worry about my own money

Sound good?

How much will he make?

How much are you buying?

I used to get 10% on some fixed annuities.
The longer the surrender charges the higher the commission.

Variable annuities paid even better

You see the insurance company guarantees you 4% but they make 10% on your money

Suppose a $1,000,000 policy, what is the total take of you and the company?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Diversified investors had losses exceeding 90% after the 29 crash.

False.

The overall market lost nearly 90% of its value. Sorry that's historical fact.

But despite your exaggeration, those who held their stocks saw not only recovery, but solid gains by the end of WWII.

Those who could afford to hold their stocks, yes. But judging by all the selling going on, I'd say very few people fell into that category. This is why the dollar-averged and buy-and-hold as long term strategies are mythical - almost by definition, the average investor has less to invest when stock prices are low and more to invest when they are high. Like everyone who looks back and calculates historical returns based on indexes, you are presuming the investor exists in a vacuum, himself not subject to the same economy in which he is investing. The history of actual investors tells a different story - this is why on average, people cannot beat index returns, because there is more more available to invest when stock prices are high and less when they are low.

But not ALL stocks lost 90% of their value some lost more some less.

There is a story, told by author Nassim Taleb, of a new manager at company who looked at the history of futures trades done by the firms trading department. He noticed some made quite a bit of money, some lost quite a bit of money. He realized that if the firm only invested in winning trades, they could make a lot more money. He instructed his traders to only engage in trades that would make money henceforth.

You remind me of that guy.

I don't buy futures

 

[Skull Pilot]

VTINX is 30% invested in stock ,took a 20% hit in the last downturn before coming around. It does not satisfy your requirement that such a fund be able to "weather any market turbulence", further, it guarantees no particular return for the future, like an annuity would. And if course you are just.picking the winners after the fact and falling prey yet again to survivorship bias.

It was an example and downturns are temporary the long term average is what matters.

And no one fund will do it all or haven't you learned that yet?

Seriously you have to learn how not to boil everything down to just one choice. Do you do that with all decisions you have to make?

Tell you what you go buy your annuities and make your insurance broker a lot of money and I'll worry about my own money

Sound good?

How much will he make?

How much are you buying?

I used to get 10% on some fixed annuities.
The longer the surrender charges the higher the commission.

Variable annuities paid even better

You see the insurance company guarantees you 4% but they make 10% on your money

Suppose a $1,000,000 policy, what is the total take of you and the company?

You can't figure out 10% of a million?

I can't tell you exactly how much the insurance company would make but I guarantee you it's at least twice the return they guarantee you

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The past performance of a fund is an indicator as to how it holds up in the overall economy.

No, it is not. The aggregate past performance of all funds of that particular type - included those that have gone defunct - might be a better indicator, but still, not a very good one.

If a fund can pay 5+ % over the past ten years you can see how it performs in a market downturn and how it recovers can't you?

You can see how it performed in a single past market downturn - a sample of one.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It was an example and downturns are temporary the long term average is what matters.

And no one fund will do it all or haven't you learned that yet?

Seriously you have to learn how not to boil everything down to just one choice. Do you do that with all decisions you have to make?

Tell you what you go buy your annuities and make your insurance broker a lot of money and I'll worry about my own money

Sound good?

How much will he make?

How much are you buying?

I used to get 10% on some fixed annuities.
The longer the surrender charges the higher the commission.

Variable annuities paid even better

You see the insurance company guarantees you 4% but they make 10% on your money

Suppose a $1,000,000 policy, what is the total take of you and the company?

You can't figure out 10% of a million?

I can't tell you exactly how much the insurance company would make but I guarantee you it's at least twice the return they guarantee you

You asked how much I was buying.

I answered.


Even at 10%, it is cheaper for a 67 year old to save up only the amount required to live for 17 years more (the expectancy) + 10%, than it is for them to save up the amount to live to be 110.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The past performance of a fund is an indicator as to how it holds up in the overall economy.

No, it is not. The aggregate past performance of all funds of that particular type - included those that have gone defunct - might be a better indicator, but still, not a very good one.

If a fund can pay 5+ % over the past ten years you can see how it performs in a market downturn and how it recovers can't you?

You can see how it performed in a single past market downturn - a sample of one.

So what?

When has the market dropped and not recovered?

We're beating a dead horse here

We will never agree so like I said you go buy your annuities and I'll worry about my own money OK?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Tell you what you go buy your annuities and make your insurance broker a lot of money and I'll worry about my own money

Sound good?

How much will he make?

How much are you buying?

I used to get 10% on some fixed annuities.
The longer the surrender charges the higher the commission.

Variable annuities paid even better

You see the insurance company guarantees you 4% but they make 10% on your money

Suppose a $1,000,000 policy, what is the total take of you and the company?

You can't figure out 10% of a million?

I can't tell you exactly how much the insurance company would make but I guarantee you it's at least twice the return they guarantee you

You asked how much I was buying.

I answered.


Even at 10%, it is cheaper for a 67 year old to save up only the amount required to live for 17 years more (the expectancy) + 10%, than it is for them to save up the amount to live to be 110.

Give away your money if you want.

Did you ever wonder why annuities are the favorite product of insurance companies?

Think about it for a while.

Annuities Are Not Bought They re Sold - Forbes

 

[Toro]

There is no money ... anywhere. You can't loan yourself money and call it an asset. Name anyone else who even tries to do that and call it an asset.

The idea that when government does it somehow then it is an asset is retarded and you know better than that with what you do for a living

The money is being loaned to you. The asset is an asset of the trust. You have a claim on the assets of the trust.

The asset is NOT an asset of the US government. It is an asset of the trust, which is run by the government. It is no different than if PIMCO ran it for you. It is not an asset of the government.

It is a liability of the government. The liability is a liability of the US Treasury.

 

[Toro]

All stocks are risky in that you stand to lose your entire investment.

I hold index funds. I used to have individual stocks but I no longer have the time to do the homework necessary for that.

You can lose your entire investment in government bonds also.

A professionally run pension fund with investments in publicly traded equity in lieu of the current SS system would be invested mostly in index funds, or managers that mimic index funds. Practically, there is no other way.

 

[Toro]

Diversified investors had losses exceeding 90% after the 29 crash.

False.

The overall market lost nearly 90% of its value. Sorry that's historical fact.

But despite your exaggeration, those who held their stocks saw not only recovery, but solid gains by the end of WWII.

Those who could afford to hold their stocks, yes. But judging by all the selling going on, I'd say very few people fell into that category. This is why the dollar-averged and buy-and-hold as long term strategies are mythical - almost by definition, the average investor has less to invest when stock prices are low and more to invest when they are high. Like everyone who looks back and calculates historical returns based on indexes, you are presuming the investor exists in a vacuum, himself not subject to the same economy in which he is investing. The history of actual investors tells a different story - this is why on average, people cannot beat index returns, because there is more more available to invest when stock prices are high and less when they are low.

The reason why the average investor cannot beat the indices is NOT because they have less to invest during bear markets. The reason why the average investor does not beat the indices is because individuals chase performance. Instead of buying as prices fall and selling as prices rise, individuals sell when prices fall and buy as prices rise.

There are several studies that measure the dollar-weighted returns of mutual funds. Dollar-weighted returns of mutual funds lag time-weighted returns, meaning that individual investors pour money into mutual funds AFTER they've beaten the market. But because performance is mean-reverting, even for funds that outperform over time, the average investor loses out.

Many professionals do this too. Sadly.

 

[Toro]

FTR, if one dollar-cost averaged and reinvested dividends through the Depression, one would have broken even on a real-return basis by June 1933. One would have then made no money over the next nine years, then participated in one of the biggest booms of all time.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

How much will he make?

How much are you buying?

I used to get 10% on some fixed annuities.
The longer the surrender charges the higher the commission.

Variable annuities paid even better

You see the insurance company guarantees you 4% but they make 10% on your money

Suppose a $1,000,000 policy, what is the total take of you and the company?

You can't figure out 10% of a million?

I can't tell you exactly how much the insurance company would make but I guarantee you it's at least twice the return they guarantee you

You asked how much I was buying.

I answered.


Even at 10%, it is cheaper for a 67 year old to save up only the amount required to live for 17 years more (the expectancy) + 10%, than it is for them to save up the amount to live to be 110.

Give away your money if you want.

Did you ever wonder why annuities are the favorite product of insurance companies?

Think about it for a while.

Annuities Are Not Bought They re Sold - Forbes

Probably because they get paid a lot up front.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How much are you buying?

I used to get 10% on some fixed annuities.
The longer the surrender charges the higher the commission.

Variable annuities paid even better

You see the insurance company guarantees you 4% but they make 10% on your money

Suppose a $1,000,000 policy, what is the total take of you and the company?

You can't figure out 10% of a million?

I can't tell you exactly how much the insurance company would make but I guarantee you it's at least twice the return they guarantee you

You asked how much I was buying.

I answered.


Even at 10%, it is cheaper for a 67 year old to save up only the amount required to live for 17 years more (the expectancy) + 10%, than it is for them to save up the amount to live to be 110.

Give away your money if you want.

Did you ever wonder why annuities are the favorite product of insurance companies?

Think about it for a while.

Annuities Are Not Bought They re Sold - Forbes

Probably because they get paid a lot up front.

and they make far more than they pay out

it's a win win for the insurance companies