Retirement Crisis: Impoverished Seniors on the Horizon

[SteadyMercury]

You still have said which investment vehicle gives the guaranteed return to reach your 1.4 million.

Lets say it would be more guaranteed than SS. Stocks would be an investment vehicle, for example.

Social security has never missed a payment, whereas stocks have lost value or even gone to zero. If someone had a large portion of their retirement savings in stocks in 2008 and retired, they'd have lost a big chunk of net worth. How many people didn't get their social security checks during the depths of the recession? Zero.

You also continue to do everything you can to explain how you arrived at this magic 1.4 million number, so I guess at this point we'll just dismiss that as yet another voice in your heard Biamonte-Fact that has no basis in reality and that you lack the depth of understanding to even attempt to explain it if it was true.

Over your head????

Nope, nothing you've said is over my head since most of it isn't true.

It is quite clear you believe making an argument consists of just stating whatever pops into your head as fact, and worry about being able to back it up or prove it as needed at which point you just throw more distraction and pile more manufactured facts as needed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Social security has never missed a payment,

dear, neither has the stock market

whereas stocks have lost value or even gone to zero.

dear, the stock market had returned about 6% a year and that is enough to make the average American rich at retiremnent

If someone had a large portion of their retirement savings in stocks in 2008 and retired, they'd have lost a big chunk of net worth.

too stupid they did not have to liquidate their entire portfolio in 2008 and they only had to get 10% of it out to be equal too SS!!

How many people didn't get their social security checks during the depths of the recession? Zero.

too stupid stocks did not disappear either or go to zero. Those that bought during those years would retire with 2 million rather than 1.4

You also continue to do everything you can to explain how you arrived at this magic 1.4 million number,

too stupid take 15% of an average Americans income in stocks and see what you get!!

 

[SteadyMercury]

dear, neither has the stock market

Lol hello someone who doesn't understand what the stock market is. You really don't have any investments do you? Seriously it is like talking to a 6 year old, you really believe nobody has invested in stocks that went to zero? You're an idiot.

dear, the stock market had returned about 6% a year and that is enough to make the average American rich at retiremnent

You're wrong, historically the stock market has returned more than 6% a year.

However you are too much of a simpleton to understand that average historical returns do not qualify your statement that the average american would have 1.4 million upon retirement. They might, they might not.

too stupid they did not have to liquidate their entire portfolio in 2008 and they only had to get 10% of it out to be equal too SS!!

I never said they had to liquidate their portfolio, try to keep up I'll try to speak more slowly. Early large losses usually have a devastating impact on the survivability of portfolio and their maximum safe withdrawal rate is impacted.

too stupid stocks did not disappear either or go to zero. Those that bought during those years would retire with 2 million rather than 1.4

Yo've never even explained your 1.4 million dollar number so given your reputation as a compulsive liar you don't mind if we dismiss your further calculations upon previous pathological liar claim.

too stupid take 15% of an average Americans income in stocks and see what you get!!

Ok show me. Remember stated as an absolute as you do that people will have x you need to show something like CDs that have a guaranteed rate of return. Speculative investment like the stocks don't account for a statement that someone will have x after so many years.

 

[jasonnfree]

I'm with you all the way until the end there, that this problem I've been reading about for decades of fewer companies offering pensions and people generally not saving enough for retirement, can somehow be attributed to someone who has been president for five years.

Higher taxes, obamacare, lower wages, are all a direct result of Obama policies.

Low wages a direct result of Obama? Americans have suffered low wages since the early 80's at least when adjusted for inflation, even though productivity has increased. And the wealth distribution has favored the wealthy more and more. We probably have to blame Congress and the big 5 , reagan, bush bush, clinton, obama.

 

[jasonnfree]

Social security has never missed a payment,

dear, neither has the stock market

whereas stocks have lost value or even gone to zero.

dear, the stock market had returned about 6% a year and that is enough to make the average American rich at retiremnent




too stupid they did not have to liquidate their entire portfolio in 2008 and they only had to get 10% of it out to be equal too SS!!

How many people didn't get their social security checks during the depths of the recession? Zero.

too stupid stocks did not disappear either or go to zero. Those that bought during those years would retire with 2 million rather than 1.4

You also continue to do everything you can to explain how you arrived at this magic 1.4 million number,

too stupid take 15% of an average Americans income in stocks and see what you get!!

Every thing too stupid with you Edward. Where's those figures you were going to post? You know, the IQ breakdown of liberals and conservatives.

 

[jasonnfree]

You still have said which investment vehicle gives the guaranteed return to reach your 1.4 million.

Lets say it would be more guaranteed than SS. Stocks would be an investment vehicle, for example.

Social security has never missed a payment, whereas stocks have lost value or even gone to zero. If someone had a large portion of their retirement savings in stocks in 2008 and retired, they'd have lost a big chunk of net worth. How many people didn't get their social security checks during the depths of the recession? Zero.

You also continue to do everything you can to explain how you arrived at this magic 1.4 million number, so I guess at this point we'll just dismiss that as yet another voice in your heard Biamonte-Fact that has no basis in reality and that you lack the depth of understanding to even attempt to explain it if it was true.

Over your head????

Nope, nothing you've said is over my head since most of it isn't true.

It is quite clear you believe making an argument consists of just stating whatever pops into your head as fact, and worry about being able to back it up or prove it as needed at which point you just throw more distraction and pile more manufactured facts as needed.

What I don't like about stocks for the average guy is that he doesn't have too much income beyond what he needs for everyday living and having something on the side for emergencies. Americans are more maxed out on making enough to get by than 40 years ago, even though more family members are working. If the average guy has some money in stocks and the market takes a big dip, sometimes he can't weather the storm over the long term like the very wealthy.

 

[SteadyMercury]

This is true, and bottom line most adults don't even understand the basics of investing (see Special Ed's posts for an example) so you'd have people investing in stupid things to chase gains, people investing far too conservatively for retirement, people invested far too aggressively so they lose a lot right before retiring. All these things can happen, yet we have this dullard in here who looks at the world thru a child's eyes and thinks it is so simple just let people have private accounts they'd all be rich by the time they retired.

Ironically Special Ed is exactly who social security protects the most, those who don't understand how saving and investing works so make all sorts of stupid assumptions and claims that just aren't true. He'll be the happiest of all of us some day when his ss checks are all he has.

 

[Nova78]

I'm with you all the way until the end there, that this problem I've been reading about for decades of fewer companies offering pensions and people generally not saving enough for retirement, can somehow be attributed to someone who has been president for five years.

Higher taxes, obamacare, lower wages, are all a direct result of Obama policies.

Low wages a direct result of Obama? Americans have suffered low wages since the early 80's at least when adjusted for inflation, even though productivity has increased. And the wealth distribution has favored the wealthy more and more. We probably have to blame Congress and the big 5 , reagan, bush bush, clinton, obama.

I agree, they have all played a hand ........

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

just let people have private accounts they'd all be rich by the time they retired.

most private account schemes limit investments to A rated investments that essentially follow major markets indexes. Such a strategy means that an average investor will do as well as the major indexes after having invested 15% of his lifetime income. That would yield a $1.4 million estate at retirement for the acerage investor as opposed to the monthly dog food money and no estate from liberal Social Security.

Its simple enough for a child to grasp, just not a liberal.

 

[SteadyMercury]

most private account schemes limit investments to A rated investments that essentially follow major markets indexes.

Go look what the S&P 500 index did in 2008. Look what S&P 500 index was in 2000 versus today when you consider inflation. Clearly a major market index can underperform over time or take massive losses in a very short period of time.

Such a strategy means that an average investor will do as well as the major indexes after having invested 15% of his lifetime income.

As demonstrated above, the major indexes might take a dump right before they retire or return virtually nothing for the first decade of their retirement. You keep saying it as an absolute, when the stock market is anything but and your previous babbling about being protected by FDIC demonstrates how far you are from grasping how risk/returns work.

That would yield a $1.4 million estate at retirement for the acerage investor as opposed to the monthly dog food money and no estate from liberal Social Security.

It might yield $1.4 million, and it might not. Regardless you'll have social security someday, and reading your simpleton posts it is exactly who it is designed for people who don't have the understanding of basic financial skills to manage their own retirement. Irony eh? That which your are critical of will some day feed you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As demonstrated above, the major indexes might take a dump right before they retire or return virtually nothing for the first decade of their retirement.

what ever they return on average it will be 10 times more than SS which returns little more than dog food money in the best case and is likely to return even less in the future given that SS just went negative in terms of cash flow just as the baby boom is retiring and government hits $17 trillion in debt!!

 

[lynn63]

Our government has been dipping into those pension funds and so has state governments been dipping into theirs which are creating shortages in those accounts. It is a matter of time before they say they do not have the funds to pay for all those pensions.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It might yield $1.4 million, and it might not. Regardless you'll have social security someday,

Yes the government guarantees it right even when they have $100 trillion in unfunded liabilites? Ask 100 people and 100 will say they will take a private account over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities from a libturd government!!

Six in 10 Workers Hold No Hope of Receiving Social Security
Jul 20, 2010 ... Do You Think the Social Security System Will Be Able to Pay You a ... likely to
believe they will receive Social Security benefits when they retire.
Six in 10 Workers Hold No Hope of Receiving Social Security

 

[lynn63]

Yup.

EXcept blaming ALL of this on Obama is rather silly.

The problems facing my generation as they come into retirement have a loooooooooooooooooooog history involving bad policy decisions of both parties over the last 60+ years.

You have to be willfully ignorant to miss that obvious fact.

The Republicans have been marching towards the retirement cliff, but the Democrats have been running towards it. Realistically, our only solution is to increase the number of tax paying immigrants in this country in order to finance Social Security and Medicare.

If you review the outlay history of the U.S. government, the cost goes up slightly each year over a long period of time except for the last decade, costs is accelerating at a much higher pace. Inflation is outpacing revenue collected plus recession means trouble for social programs.

Social security revenue has always been higher in revenue which has allowed many years of surpluses and will continue with the baby boomers. The reason why the government is pleading poverty is because they got used to larger surpluses in the past and now have to adjust to much smaller surpluses.

Instead of reducing spending in government they want to reduce payouts to beneficiaries which people should stand up and fight this. They are currently discussing this in Congress so seniors better get out and fight them.

 

[SteadyMercury]

what ever they return on average it will be 10 times more than SS which returns

Yawn, poor Special Ed just making up more statistics again. Sorry but given your issues with chronic lying you're going to have to show us the numbers to back up any claim you make.

You never back up anything you claim, just make up more facts and figures to add to previous ones.

 

[Oddball]

what ever they return on average it will be 10 times more than SS which returns

Yawn, poor Special Ed just making up more statistics again. Sorry but given your issues with chronic lying you're going to have to show us the numbers to back up any claim you make.

You never back up anything you claim, just make up more facts and figures to add to previous ones.

It'd return at least `10 times what SS does in the most conservative of indexed mutual funds.

Nobody needs so much as a slide rule to figure out that one, you economically illiterate pinko tool.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

what ever they return on average it will be 10 times more than SS which returns

Yawn, poor Special Ed just making up more statistics again. Sorry but given your issues with chronic lying you're going to have to show us the numbers to back up any claim you make.

You never back up anything you claim, just make up more facts and figures to add to previous ones.

It'd return at least `10 times what SS does in the most conservative of indexed mutual funds.

Nobody needs so much as a slide rule to figure out that one, you economically illiterate pinko tool.

it so hard to believe isn't it? the liberal lacks the brains and curiosity to figure it out himself?? He knows in his heart personal attack is the liberals only weapon.

 

[lynn63]

Retirement Crisis: Impoverished Seniors on the Horizon

The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) has published its annual Retirement Confidence Survey which confirms what virtually all such surveys have concluded: 1) that Americans are living longer; and 2) that they do not have anywhere near enough saved for retirement.

The sad truth is, Americans do almost no thinking about what kind of retirement they want. They mistakenly assume that Social Security is a retirement program, when in fact it is a supplemental retirement program. The three legs of the retirement "stool"—Social Security, a pension, and private savings—have all seen some shrinkage in the past few years.

For Social Security, all baby boomers know the truth: We are going to be working longer, into our 70s, paying more and getting less. Pensions are going away: International Business Machines stopped providing pensions to new employees a couple years ago, and many are facing reductions in their benefits.


And private savings? Let me quote from the EBRI survey: 57 report having less than $25,000 in household savings and investments (excluding their home and pension benefits). This is for all workers, so older workers would have more money, but other surveys show the results are equally paltry.

Welcome to Obama World

And the rape of the American worker started with Obama? LOL Who knew!

People nearing retirement lost 40-50 % in the market in 2008 when the economy crashed under Bush the lesser's regime. But don't let the facts get in the way of your uneducated opinion.

That is interesting since 2008 was the first year of the baby boomers entering retirement.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

People nearing retirement lost 40-50 % in the market in 2008 when the economy crashed under Bush the lesser's regime.

yes but it was only temporary while the average return from private accounts remains 9 times what it is under Social Security. Does that simple fact make you a conservative libertarian???