• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

poppy

Banned
Sep 10, 2008
2,854
928
Miramar Beach
All men are created equal and should be treated equally, remember? That won't cut it for me.

I knew it wouldn't but you ask for a solution. Yes all men are created equal but as our history proves they aren't always treated equally.
 
Last edited:

30ashopper

SoWal Insider
Apr 30, 2008
6,845
3,471
59
Right here!
I knew it wouldn't but you ask for a solution. Yes all men are created equal but as our history proves they aren't always treated equally.

Well at least my positions have me standing on the *right* side of the Constitution. What's your excuse? :cool:
 
You have lost me, please explain.


"Social Security is a mandated supplemental retirement system in the US that was established in 1935 as part of Roosevelt's New Deal. It was motivated largely by the events of the Great Depression, which saw many Americans out of work and the nation's retired elderly often left in the direst of poverty. The intent of the Social Security program is to ensure a threshold subsistence level below which any worker who had paid into the program cannot fall."

The program was never intended to be the sole source of retirement funds. In 1930 the life expectancy was 59.2 and the life expectancy of someone age 65 was 12.2 years. This means a large percentage of the population would never make it to draw a single check and those who made it would draw an average of 12 years. In 1997 the life expectancy of someone born in America was 76.5 and those who reached 65 could expect to live and additional 17.7 years.
(Source: National Vital Statistics System.)

So, in order to maintain the status quo of the system you would need to add 5 years to the retirement age or age 70. If you base the age totally on life expectancy you would need to add 17 years to the age or age 82 to maintain the original concept.

The system is failing and will be a huge burden to our children and grandchildren. This is the primary threat to the system and was anticipated by FDR:

"It is overwhelmingly important to avoid any danger of permanently discrediting the sound and necessary policy of Federal legislation for economic security by attempting to apply it on too ambitious a scale before actual experience has provided guidance for the permanently safe direction of such efforts. The place of such a fundamental in our future civilization is too precious to be jeopardized now by extravagant action."-Franklin D. Roosevelt from his address to Congress regarding Social Security. ( emphasis added)
 

Bob

SoWal Insider
Nov 16, 2004
10,366
1,391
O'Wal
"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.....this is the real issue. everyone is fighting over the ever shrinking crumbs.
 

LuciferSam

Banned
Apr 26, 2008
4,749
1,069
Sowal
I'm not talking about waiting until your 50's, I am saying that saving 33% of your gross income every year will NOT get you 10-15 years of your ending average of your last 10 years of earning, because your earnings are so much lower in your 20's and 30's. You would have to increase your savings rate in your 50's to 40-50% of your gross to get there.

I know, in that imaginary world where we all sat down in our 30's and figured out how much we would need to save each year, we imagined that what we saved in our 30's and 40's would actually GROW, not SHRINK, as it has for the last 15 years. We had scenarios where you had a return of 3-5% average each year. After the dot-com bomb and the real estate bomb (even though my funds weren't in tech or real estate), I've seen zero growth over the last 15 years.

I think it's wiser to do what our parents did, and to plan on seriously curtailing your expenses upon retirement - have your mortgage paid off, stop buying new cars, have budget travel plans.

Don't forget that when you retire, in order to live to your standard, you only need current earnings minus current savings. Once you retire, you don't need to sock away money any more. The only reason you do that is for retirement. [Edit] You have to worry about inflation too.
 
Last edited:

poppy

Banned
Sep 10, 2008
2,854
928
Miramar Beach
Well at least my positions have me standing on the *right* side of the Constitution. What's your excuse? :cool:

Well then you can sleep soundly tonight knowing you are "right" and you will get your full share.
 

futurebeachbum

Beach Fanatic
Jul 11, 2005
1,100
375
70
Snellsburg, GA
www.myfloridacottage.com
"Social Security is a mandated supplemental retirement system in the US

Unfortunately many people view it as their primary retirement plan. This survey from 2004 during the privatization discussions says:

No one doubts Social Security income is important to retired senior citizens, but a survey says an astonishing 94 percent expect it to be their primary source of income during retirement.

It certainly helps explain why so many seniors are concerned with proposals to allow younger people to invest part of their Social Security payment in the stock market. Most seniors know that would put their primary source of income at risk, since current collections by Social Security fund current payouts.

The research, 2004 Senior Sentiment Survey by Financial Freedom, earlier this year questioned seniors between the ages of 62 and 75.

I doubt its changed much since then.
 

AlphaCrab

Beach Fanatic
Sep 25, 2008
981
182
Inlet Beach
Boehner..eh! He smokes too much, he drinks too much, he lays in tanning booths way to long.....and now, according to Conservative Republican Joe Scarborough, he is one of the laziest guys in the Senate......


...someone needs to force HIM to work til he is seventy..or, at least until 5 PM!!

Boozy Boehner? - Swampland - TIME.com
 
Last edited:

poppy

Banned
Sep 10, 2008
2,854
928
Miramar Beach
I'm entitled to my full share.

Everyone does and in the time frame promised. Football comes to mind, you see the goal, you have your play, you're physically and mentally tired and all you wish to do is rest yet every time you get near the goal it moves back ten yards and you wonder if you will survive long enough to reach it.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter