> Jerry wrote:
> What does Social Security have to do with Medicaid anyway?
In short:
1.) Spending trillions to fix a program with long term problems when
the country is already in huge debt is not smart when you have many
more near term problems that may require those funds.
2.) Due to time and
I think it's 82 or 84... but yeah, it's in that flavor
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:39:43 -0600, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Cameron wrote:
> > Currently an amount equivalent to 12.4% of every American's annual
> > income is being given to the government as Social Security.
>
> Only up
>Gruss wrote:
>Fantastic writeup!!
Thanks!
>One question though: how urgent of a problem do you think it is? I
>would use an analogy:
>
>You're on a road trip and heading across Death Valley. You're down to
>1/4 tank of gas and your coolant temp is almost in the red zone.
>
>Question: is gas
> Cameron wrote:
> Enron screwed up and everyone got screwed. Social Security puts all
> the eggs in a different basket, but it's still one basket, and the
> return on that investment is guaranteed to be horrible. It's
> historical return is horrible, and it's projected return is horrible.
>
W
> Cameron wrote:
> Currently an amount equivalent to 12.4% of every American's annual
> income is being given to the government as Social Security.
Only up to approx $90,000 - the rest is yours SS free.
~|
Discover CFTicket - T
Jerry
I understand it just fine thank you. I understand that it is a tax I
pay so old folks who have more money than I do can get a check they
don't need. I understand that my chances of ever getting my money out
of it are piss-poor to none. Yes, in theory you get out what you put
in but if you be
You obviously do not understand Social Security. If they ever tried to change
it into another welfare program, I would rather it be completely and utterly
scrapped. It is not Socialist Security after all.
The only requirement is you PAID INTO it. What you get out is directly related
to what you
I don't know about you, but I mind paying for vaccines for poor
children a lot less than I mind subsidizing San Tropez for someone who
has four times my annual income and ten times my net worth.
Yes yes it is currently an entitlement program, where the only
requirement is that you be over a certai
It is not wrong that they are taking out. The system was set up so that if you
put in, you take out.
It is not meant to take from one person and give freely to another.
If you want to remove eligibility, you need to remove the need to pay in.
What does Social Security have to do with Medicaid a
I agree with the means testing. It really frosts me off that I am
paying social security taxes to benefit people who are far more
affluent than I. I mean, ok, set the bar high if you want, but people
with an income of a million a year and assts in the billions are
entitled to social security and th
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:26:55 -0600, Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's one view:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/magazine/16SOCIAL.html
>
> The basic gist of the article is that SS is in less danger than it's
> been made out to be.
Regardless of whether or not it's gonna run out
> One question though: how urgent of a problem do you think it is? I
> would use an analogy:
>
> You're on a road trip and heading across Death Valley. You're down to
> 1/4 tank of gas and your coolant temp is almost in the red zone.
>
> Question: is gas a problem?
>
> My view would be that ye
Here's one view:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/magazine/16SOCIAL.html
The basic gist of the article is that SS is in less danger than it's
been made out to be.
-Kevin
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:09:48 -0600, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One question though: how urgent of a problem do
> Robert wrote:
> Boy, I'm sorry I missed out on this discussion earlier!
> Too many things going on...
Fantastic writeup!!
I would agree with 100% of your analysis and 98% of your
recommendations although I could be convinced further. This email is
a great primer on the issue with good fact bas
Boy, I'm sorry I missed out on this discussion earlier! Too many things going
on...
I agree with Gruss on the broad points here. American do not save. We need to
save more. And $100K by age 30 may seem like a lot to you (and me), but bring
an aspiring professional from a poor country to the U.S
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:38:11 -0600, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I realize the mistake I made here: per married couple, 100K by 30ish
> (less than 35).
I still don't buy it. Not for the majority of people.
Median household income in the U.S. is only $45k. Population between
age 25-35
> Kevin wrote:
> Just calculating how ridiculous it was.
>
I realize the mistake I made here: per married couple, 100K by 30ish
(less than 35).
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble
Ticket applicat
I don't think anyone thinks it's fine the way it is -- just
questioning whether this isnt going to be one of those solutions that
is worse than the problem.
Dana
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:27:30 -0800, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the price is 1 trillion dollars. The problem is we have t
Jerry Johnson wrote:
> First, that was mandatory insurance in CT, not MA. Which I couldn't afford,
> so I rode my bike to work for 2.5 years. 8.6 miles each way, each day. 6
> miles each way to the grocery store once per week. Riding 10 miles a day in
> weather like this SUCKED.
>
> Before the
Kevin Graeme wrote:
>>Actually I take that back. It's not too hard. I did the math wrong in
>>my head. 14K a year is very doable. I didn't realize how easy it would
>>be to get to 100K. I have to admit that I was a bit skeptical when
>>Gruss wrote 100K by age 30. But I think that is a realist
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:13:17 -0600, Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just calculating how ridiculous it was.
Ok, I guess I should consider the initial poorly formed assertions to
be outta gas. Back to work!
-Cameron
--
Cameron Childress
Sumo Consulting Inc
http://www.sumoc.com
---
ce
First, that was mandatory insurance in CT, not MA. Which I couldn't afford, so
I rode my bike to work for 2.5 years. 8.6 miles each way, each day. 6 miles
each way to the grocery store once per week. Riding 10 miles a day in weather
like this SUCKED.
Before the age of thirty, if I saved 100% of
Just calculating how ridiculous it was.
-Kevin
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:01:59 -0800, Cameron Childress
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I fail to see why everyone is suddenly fixated on this number of $100k
> by age 30. It's really a meaningless number unless you plan on
> retiring at 30. One person'
> Actually I take that back. It's not too hard. I did the math wrong in
> my head. 14K a year is very doable. I didn't realize how easy it would
> be to get to 100K. I have to admit that I was a bit skeptical when
> Gruss wrote 100K by age 30. But I think that is a realistic goal as
> long as
Jerry Johnson wrote:
> Add $100-$250/month for car insurance. (or the $390 I was expected to pay for
> a few years in my 20s)
>
Ahh. Boston the only place in the US where car insurance is more
expensive then NJ. I feel your pain. But if you think about it for a
second. If you need to save
> Actually I take that back. It's not too hard. I did the math wrong in
> my head. 14K a year is very doable. I didn't realize how easy it would
> be to get to 100K. I have to admit that I was a bit skeptical when
> Gruss wrote 100K by age 30. But I think that is a realistic goal as
> long as
Should be, yes. But I see kids in college driving 30K leases. My first
car out of college cost $5k. I paid cash in full and I drove it for 10
years.
-Kevin
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:46:32 -0500, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Car payment should be 3000 a year which gets you a 15K POS. I driv
Add $100-$250/month for car insurance. (or the $390 I was expected to pay for a
few years in my 20s)
Jerry Johnson
Web Developer
Dolan Media Company
~|
Purchase Dreamweaver with Homesite Plus from House of Fusion, a Macromedi
Won Lee wrote:
> Won Lee wrote:
>
>>Kevin Graeme wrote:
>>
>>
Let's get some parameteres first.
Avg age when graduating from college?
22 or 23?
Avg starting salary in an avg city? So this strikes out place like NY?
>>>
>>>
>>>$20k
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
Avg college loan?
>>
It looks like:
4 years of high school
84%
4 years of college
27%
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/tabA-2.pdf
Jerry Johnson
Web Developer
Dolan Media Company
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/18/05 04:42PM >>>
Jerry Johnson wrote:
> First question. What percentage of people do you th
Won Lee wrote:
> Kevin Graeme wrote:
>
>>>Let's get some parameteres first.
>>>
>>>Avg age when graduating from college?
>>>22 or 23?
>>>
>>>Avg starting salary in an avg city? So this strikes out place like NY?
>>
>>
>>$20k
>>
>>
>>
>>>Avg college loan?
>>
>>
>>$20k
>>
>>
>>
>>>Avg cost of livin
Jerry Johnson wrote:
> First question. What percentage of people do you think are graduating from
> college? 2 year? 4 year? graduate?
>
>
I thought the avg was now 5.
> Jerry Johnson
> Web Developer
> Dolan Media Company
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/18/05 04:02PM >>>
>
> Avg age when gradu
Kevin Graeme wrote:
>>Let's get some parameteres first.
>>
>>Avg age when graduating from college?
>>22 or 23?
>>
>>Avg starting salary in an avg city? So this strikes out place like NY?
>
>
> $20k
>
>
>>Avg college loan?
>
>
> $20k
>
>
>>Avg cost of living in an avg city? So this strikes
And if you don't save, they cane your ass.
-Kevin
> There isn't much of substance there. But since it is not customary to let the
> lack of facts get in the way of a good argument I will add some fuel to the
> flames :-:
>
> I like the model they use in Singapore. In short, savings are compuls
First question. What percentage of people do you think are graduating from
college? 2 year? 4 year? graduate?
Jerry Johnson
Web Developer
Dolan Media Company
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/18/05 04:02PM >>>
Avg age when graduating from college?
Won Lee wrote:
> Jochem van Dieten wrote:
>> It would help if you gave a link to the actual plan.
>
> Everything is speculation now. The only thing concreate is that he
> favors making accounts private. There seems to be certain risk
> management controls as well.
>
> http://www.whitehouse.go
http://houseandhome.msn.com/pickaplace/comparecities.aspx
> Let's calculate this for someone NOT working and living in NY
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble
Ticket application
http://www.houseof
I think you'd be suprised at how much you could save without the
government's "help". You currently give 6.2% of your income to Social
Security. Your employer is required to match that with another 6.2%
for a total of 12.4%. Assuming you've make an average of 30,000/yr
for 40 years, and the annu
> Let's get some parameteres first.
>
> Avg age when graduating from college?
> 22 or 23?
>
> Avg starting salary in an avg city? So this strikes out place like NY?
$20k
> Avg college loan?
$20k
> Avg cost of living in an avg city? So this strikes out place like NY.
$1000/month apartment
$
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:16:27 -0500, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cameron Childress wrote:
> >>>The market in that 10 year period has a return of 10% but you actually
> >>>lost money because you have to weight it.
> >>
> >>Well said - the point is if, over the 10 years, you're also drawing
>
>
> Let's calculate this for someone working and living in NY
>
Let's calculate this for someone NOT working and living in NY
--
2004 - The year $184M couldn't buy a pennant.
Ron Artest: Extremely flawed, very accidental, semi-martyr
Wayne Putterill wrote:
> Most people I know would be lucky to have 1% of that in free cash.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 18 January 2005 20:48
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: 3 Reason Why Bush's Social S
Most people I know would be lucky to have 1% of that in free cash.
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 18 January 2005 20:48
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: 3 Reason Why Bush's Social Security Proposal Is Stupid
How much money do you think people
How much money do you think people make?
-Kevin
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:15:28 -0600, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is purely rhetorical, but how much do you have saved and how old
> are you? If you're 30 - 35 you should have at least $100,000 IMO and
> that's cash money; not pensi
r you want with it.
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 3:31 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: 3 Reason Why Bush's Social Security Proposal Is Stupid
If Mr. Bush, or anyone, wants US citizens to have more money during
retirement, th
Jochem van Dieten wrote:
> It would help if you gave a link to the actual plan.
>
> Jochem
>
Everything is speculation now. The only thing concreate is that he
favors making accounts private. There seems to be certain risk
management controls as well.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/soci
Being and staying in debt, it is the American way of life :/
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:35:26 -0600, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're probably right though - there's a lot of people close to broke
> or living pay check to pay check.
>
>
~
Jerry wrote:
> That's insane. You must have absolutely no idea how close-to-broke most
> people are.
>
> Age 30 with $100,000 in savings? Nuts.
>
Maybe that's a little high, but you better be on your way there or you
can forget about retiring early or using those golden years to travel
the worl
> Won wrote:
> That is not true and you know it.
Look guys, the point is this:
Social Security was invented to keep old people from winding up
penniless when they can longer work. It's not supposed to be a
primary source of retirement income or even a secondary source. It's
the failsafe.
If M
It would help if you gave a link to the actual plan.
Jochem
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble
Ticket application
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48
Message: http://www.h
Bah..but why should we 20% who know what we are doing be forced to pay
into the system to support the other 80%? You 80% want your social security?
Great, you pay into it. I should be able to opt out and keep that percentage
of my money for myself.
Incidentally, the word "Social" in Social
> So it would seem that, yes, the gov't saves for retirement better than
> 80% of the US population.
>
Gruss,
That is not true and you know it. SS is a crutch. And people tend to
under perform when they have a crutch. Plus the government is really
saving. They are taking my money and givi
That's insane. You must have absolutely no idea how close-to-broke most people
are.
Age 30 with $100,000 in savings? Nuts.
Jerry Johnson
Web Developer
Dolan Media Company
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/18/05 03:15PM >>>
This is purely rhetorical, but how much do you have saved and how old
are you?
Cameron Childress wrote:
>>>The market in that 10 year period has a return of 10% but you actually
>>>lost money because you have to weight it.
>>
>>Well said - the point is if, over the 10 years, you're also drawing
>>down that money to live off of, you have less and less to invest at
>>the same t
> Cam Wrote:
> And besides, who actually WANTS to government investing their money?
> Do you REALLY think that the govt can so a better job managing your
> money that you can?
This is purely rhetorical, but how much do you have saved and how old
are you? If you're 30 - 35 you should have at lea
Cameron Childress wrote:
>>I wasn't really too clear, but I'm for the private accounts if the
>>government can spell out all the cost before hand. Cameron makes a very
>>very good point. If this is done correctly, it would be a major anomaly.
>
>
> I'm glad someone here can do math. :)
I sho
> > The market in that 10 year period has a return of 10% but you actually
> > lost money because you have to weight it.
>
> Well said - the point is if, over the 10 years, you're also drawing
> down that money to live off of, you have less and less to invest at
> the same time you have to start t
> The point is if you were full up in the market and retired in 1963 by
> 1974 you were broke. Of course the market provides great returns over
> time but:
This would only be possible if during that time you took out the 65%
of your money that the decrease in interest didn't take. Also,
virtuall
>Won wrote:
>
> The market in that 10 year period has a return of 10% but you actually
> lost money because you have to weight it.
Well said - the point is if, over the 10 years, you're also drawing
down that money to live off of, you have less and less to invest at
the same time you have to star
> Cameron wrote:
> I think this shows a great ignorance of the real problem. Just
> because it not in your face doesn't mean it's a huge problem.
>
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
Fully funded social security is not a problem unless you favor raiding
the SSTF for pork. If th
> I wasn't really too clear, but I'm for the private accounts if the
> government can spell out all the cost before hand. Cameron makes a very
> very good point. If this is done correctly, it would be a major anomaly.
I'm glad someone here can do math. :)
It's also worth pointing out that we a
> You show be someone who retires after 10 years and I will show you the
> tooth fairy. Stocks are a long term investment. Show me the worst
> historical return over 40 years, the current expected working livetime
> of an American paying into SS, and I will show you a rate of return
> MUCH better
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:18:59 -0600, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1.) Of the financial crises we face, this is far from the top one -
> Medicare, Medicaid, and health insurance is.
I think this shows a great ignorance of the real problem. Just
because it not in your face doesn't mean it
> Sam wrote:
> Odd thing is the Democrats always run on the platform that the GOP is
> raiding SS and it'll be broke soon. [snip] Now that someone is finally
> willing
> to fix it, they suddenly pretend it's fine the way it is.
That's definitely true - there's a lot of politicking going on here.
I'm no economist, so I generally stay out of this kind of discussion.
But I wanted to point out that the commercial you reference was not
Clinton's it was the DNC's.
-Kevin
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:27:30 -0800, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Odd thing is the Democrats always run on the platform
I think the price is 1 trillion dollars. The problem is we have to
borrow all that now to get the program started and it will save many
trillions in twenty years and on.
I'm not sure it's worth the gamble at this time. Maybe Bush needs to
prove he can be financially conservative before we can trust
> I hate paying into social security. I really do. Speaking only on a
purely
> personal bases, the less money that goes "out there", and the more that
> stays with me, the better. I want every single dollar I earned under my
> control. So for me, I don't see why this is such a terrible thing.
ming from above.
Read it, you will be surprised at how much has already been done.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1586482297/002-5649831-3582444
-Original Message-
From: Won Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 12:28 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: 3
> 1.) Of the financial crises we face, this is far from the top one -
> Medicare, Medicaid, and health insurance is.
Why not tackle all three?
> 2.) The reason we have an issue with social security is because Mr.
> Bush and his republican congress have been raiding the fund at record
> levels for
> Won wrote:
>The initial numbers, I've been told, look like
> this will not be profitable for the account custodians.
That's your first indication that it will be extremely profitable!
When people start talking about why more customers won't benefit them,
you can bet their secret numbers show bi
>
> As usual, Mr. Bush is trying to prove the triumph of marketing over
> good policy; but based on the election, he'll get it passed. Invest
> in the financial sector now!
Woo! More work for me. But that said, it's even worse. The financial
companies are going to ask for a government subsid
1.) Of the financial crises we face, this is far from the top one -
Medicare, Medicaid, and health insurance is.
2.) The reason we have an issue with social security is because Mr.
Bush and his republican congress have been raiding the fund at record
levels for 4 years. His "CRISIS!" scream is li
72 matches
Mail list logo
