I wonder...if we were only taxed on goods we buy, maybe we would have more money to spend more goods!
-----Original Message----- From: Marlon Moyer [mailto:marlon@;mcmoyer.com] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 3:47 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: More on social security Cameron, I agree with you that social security isn't the answer to retirement. I'm only saying that you cannot guarantee that everyone who invests in the stock market comes out ahead. There are always two sides to a transaction. SS seems to be for people who can't or don't want to plan ahead. These are probably the same people who can't or won't learn about smart investing. Are you going to suggest a government funded financial planning program to teach basic investing? Anyway, the money that you "donate" to ss is just that. A donation. I could sure use the money that I pay in sales taxes. I mean, do I really have to pay for the highway system. I only use 1 major highway most of the time. And why should I pay to have my president live in such a large home. Couldn't he move into a condo and let's divey out what we save. What about schools. I send my child to a private school. Why should I have to pay school taxes.........Social security is no different than these. You're pumping money into a pool in which everyone gets a piece. SS is a tax. Not a retirement fund. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>Jeez Cameron, what kind of financial planner have you been >>talking with. >> How can you say that it's invalid to have a lower return. If I >>invested in Enron for the last 20 years, I guarantee that I'd have a >>negative portfolio now. This is definitely an extreme case, but I'm >>just illustrating that bad investing can make negative returns. >> >> > >You're argument hold no water. I'm sorry for people who choose to invest >100% of their retirement in one company. Now THAT'S something a financial >planner would NEVER suggest. Yes, I do realize that the employees at Enron >may not have had a choice in the matter of investing retirement in that >company, but we are not talking about that. We are talking about allowing >people to redirect money otherwise paid to SS into a diversified portfolio >of investments. > >In fact, you support my argument even more. If the Enron employees were >allowed to invest their SS $$ in private, diversified, mutual funds, they >wouldn't have "lost it all". They would have had quite a bit of money left >after Enron's collapse, and not only that, but it would be *their* freaking >money, not the government's. Now all those poor souls are dependant on the >government for their income. > >SS is a no win situation when considered in the long term. Coincidentally, >retirement investing is a long term consideration. > >-Cameron > >----------------- >Cameron Childress >Sumo Consulting Inc. >--- >cell: 678-637-5072 >aim: cameroncf >email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Marlon Moyer [mailto:marlon@;mcmoyer.com] >>Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 4:20 PM >>To: CF-Community >>Subject: Re: More on social security >> >> >> >> >>>It's not an easy problem to solve, but the argument that >>> >>> >>private investing >> >> >>>could somehow return a lower % than SS is invalid in every >>> >>> >>possible way. >> >> >>> >>> >>Jeez Cameron, what kind of financial planner have you been >>talking with. >> How can you say that it's invalid to have a lower return. If I >>invested in Enron for the last 20 years, I guarantee that I'd have a >>negative portfolio now. This is definitely an extreme case, but I'm >>just illustrating that bad investing can make negative returns. >> >>Marlon >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_community Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
