I explictly stated that.
" (This calculation, BTW, includes both the company and the individual contributions)"
So, the answer is yes.
>Second, and this > helps his argument, what are the historical 30 year returns since 1935? I > was to a retirement seminar last week and the speaker was using 11% ROI, > and I think that's way too high. I thought there were some very flat years > in the 50s and 70s. People are basing the ROI on just what happened from 93 > to 99 or over even shorter terms.
I looked up historical returns from, IIRC, '26 until now. This wasn't inflation adjusted...but neither is my calculation for SS. I know that I'm suppose to figure my retirement income on 6% return, but that includes allowing the nest egg to grow with inflation.
So, that's the best # I could come up with, but I certainly would be happy to have someone come up with better data.
Dan M.
Sorry. Tired.
Again, I agree that for most of the people retired now they could not do as well as they thought. It's a Ponzi scheme and the past retirees are getting much more pay out than they paid in, above and beyond any investment returns. But future retirees will not have that benefit, and the money going in now, or at least since the seventies, should be invested.
The best number I heard was the money going into SSA barely returned 1.5%. An AAA bond would return more. I'm glad the retirees are mad, even if they are wrong. They won't mind the future people changing the system.
Kevin T. - VRWLC As if
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
