| Author |
Message |
    
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1667
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 1:32 pm: | 
|
Maple,
2500 a year at just 4% would give $415,000 after 50 years (assuming starting at 20 and working to 70)
Pretty good if you ask me, and 4% is low.
If you were to invest that 415,000 in an annuity at age 70, it would give you about $3000 a month. AND you still have the $415,000 in assetts.
So what does SS give you? |
Maple Man
Citizen
Username: Mapleman
Post Number: 521
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 1:37 pm: |
|
and is it to our benefit to have thousands (maybe millions) of destitute elderly people, many of whom, if not most, will be physically incapable of earningn a living?
even if many of them were too foolish to plan for retirement, are we willing to dispense tough love to elderly people in poverty? as a nation will we tell them all that it's too damn bad if they're hungry, and they should have thought of that years ago and saved something for retirement?
|
Maple Man
Citizen
Username: Mapleman
Post Number: 522
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
mj,
what would be the rate of return on that annuity that you'd be making $36K per year on a principle of $415K?
that's a pretty amazing guaranteed return. And if that's the return people can expect, why isn't Bush putting those numbers out there? |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7840
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 1:53 pm: |
|
Oddly I just got a brochure from my 401k provider indicating an annuity (terms unmentioned) would bring in about $500 per month per $100,000 "invested". Once you buy the annuity, the money you paid for it belongs to the insurance company, not you. If you but a "life certain, 20 year minimum" annuity and don't beat the actuarial tables there are payments to your heirs. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5749
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 1:55 pm: |
|
We could broaden the class of wealth transfer to include so many things that have, until now, been seen as a duty. Now they are not duties, they are crimes. Wow, words sure are powerful! |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1669
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 2:05 pm: |
|
I don't know the rate.,.. I just plugged the numbers in here:
http://www.immediateannuities.com/
They have annuities you can buy that return from 2500 to 3200 monthly.
I put in 70 year old male NJ resident. 415000 principal.
Feel free to play with it yourself.
Bob,
Thats not how annuities usually work, usually they are like CDs. You buy one, get monthly payments for a set number of years, and then get the principal back. If you die, the annuity stops and your heirs get the principal minus early termination fees (which vary from one to another).
|
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1670
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 2:13 pm: |
|
My mistake,
There are "Life Annuities" that guarantee payments until death, with some survivor benefits. There are also CD like annuities.
I guess its like life insurance reversed. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3233
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 2:14 pm: |
|
Actually dave23 -- the more recent poll in the March 3rd edition of the NY Times says Bush is winning the 'there is a problem argument.' There's plenty in the poll for democrats to be joyful for -- that private accounts lost 51 to 39 or so, but still....the argument that something has to be done is settling in. Good thing too, cuz it's true.
"Still, Mr. Bush's argument that the system is approaching bankruptcy - a contention disputed by Democrats and independent analysts - seems to be taking hold. Two-thirds of respondents say the system will be bankrupt by 2042 if nothing is done to repair it. Sixty-one percent said the program has worked well until now, but the next generation will need a different kind of program to assure that they receive benefits.
And 55 percent said the problems with Social Security were serious enough that they should be fixed now, compared to 35 percent who said they did not need to be addressed for another 10 or 15 years."
Bobk -- the less wealthy got a tax cut too, so I don't see how you get to the point where they're financing tax cuts for the rich. No money came out of their pocket.
Maple Man -- current retirees can count on the system as it stands bailing them out in their retirement. If you can force 'savings' for Social Security under penalty of law, you can force those savings into a government monitored account of save index funds as well for future generations.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7841
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 2:20 pm: |
|
OK, I will lay off the poor financing the rich for awhile. 
However, Bush's bankrupt comment is, well, an untruth. Even after the trust fund is used up, the current contributions should be able to provide something like 75% of the benefits for the foreseeable future.
I kind of like the idea of private accounts. I just don't think that they should go on the national credit card. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3235
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 2:29 pm: |
|
Bobk -- if the trust fund is used up, how will you pay for that? There's no cash there, just IOUs and you'll have to raise taxes, print money or issue more debt to cover those. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 192
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 2:31 pm: |
|
cjc, the poll you cite is all of one day 'more recent'. I guess my posting wasn't clear. Support for the idea of 'saving Social Security' has dropped significantly since the January poll.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-28-poll_x.htm
The Times poll doesn't compare a change in public opinion over a period of time, whereas the USA Today poll shows a decrese the idea that Social Security needs to be saved. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1671
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 2:43 pm: |
|
Bob,
If a company says that it can only pay 75% of its bills for the forseeable future, it is almost by definition, bankrupt.
Private accounts don't go on the national credit card, they are by their very essence a "Lock Box". Its yours, and the government can't spend it. The private accounts don't cost, keeping the benefits for those 50 and over is what costs... do you oppose borrowing to keep their benefits afloat? |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7842
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 2:48 pm: |
|
cjc, excess payments on SS, which has been going on since the Reagan initiative, are invested in debt instruments. The government would have to borrow elsewhere. I am not sure this is new debt, just a new source of funding, although I imagine it would drive up interest rates. When the SS system can no longer pay benefits out of current income, they will convert these investments into cash, or at least that is my understanding. Once this money is run through, then current contributions will still be able to pay around 3/4th of the benefits. I believe the Trust Fund collects interest and then reinvests it in the same government securities.
The last I saw SS currently collects about 20% more than what it is paying out. |
Maple Man
Citizen
Username: Mapleman
Post Number: 523
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 2:52 pm: |
|
cjc,
I was referring to mandating that businesses contribute to individuals' private accounts. Yes, govt can do that, but I just foresee that businesses would see the end of SS (or even its curtailment) as an opportunity to take back their payroll tax contributions. maybe they'd willingly transfer over their contributions to workers' private plans, but who knows if they'd try to grab that cash and take it back?
and one other thing - I know it's arguing semantics, but how can you term it "empowering" people if you then force them into a savings plan. doesn't empowering someone imply that they're free to choose? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3236
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Bobk -- convert them to cash? What cash are they going to use?
Maple Man -- I seriously doubt businesses would be able to take back SS 'contributions.' And it's vastly more empowering if you get to keep ownership of your retirement assets that the government can't take, borrow, or renig on a promise because government doesn't own it. |
Maple Man
Citizen
Username: Mapleman
Post Number: 524
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 3:15 pm: |
|
I hope you're right, but I can easily see businesses looking at changes in SS as a golden opportunity to reduce their payroll tax payments. I can easily foresee some analysts touting the bigger returns people will get with a savings account, and concluding that people can get their benefits with a lower employer contribution.
and wouldn't it be more empowering if workers had the choice between a defined benefit plan and a private savings account?
it's hardly empowering to force people to do anything. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7844
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 3:20 pm: |
|
The cash resulting from the sale of the debt instrument (bond). |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1675
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 3:53 pm: |
|
I'm all for giving people a choice of the current system or private accounts... come to think of it, so is Bush. |
Maple Man
Citizen
Username: Mapleman
Post Number: 525
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 3:56 pm: |
|
maybe you're right, but I haven't seen any Bush proposals that allow people under 55 to opt out of the private account plan and put all their contributions in a defined benefit plan.
do you have any more information on it? |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1677
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 4:05 pm: |
|
Bush has said all along that these are VOLUNTARY private accounts... Voluntary means voluntary. If you choose to invest in a private account, your defined benefit is reduced, if not, its not.
Its been this way all along. |
chocoholic
Citizen
Username: Shrink
Post Number: 262
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 4:17 pm: |
|
back to the the subject of the thread...I find it astonishing that 2 of the most popular people in the GOP are both black,: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.
It seems that the Republicans have caught on to something that the Democrats, dominated by people from the Northeast, and peope who are not religious, simply cannot fathom.
IT COULD BE that the GOP looks at a race as a tool to be used when necessary, discarded at will. It seems obvious to me that they have no problem promoting black people. If they were so afraid of alienating their base, they would not do this. In fact, their base seems to be quite taken with Dr. Rice. Maybe she wouldn't win for President, but for Vice- President. It seems that the LIBERALS and DEMOCRATS have more of problem with Rice ( and Thomas) than any body in the GOP. I mean, just look at the reactions of people on this board!
The Democrats, on the other hand seem to have a tin ear for popular culture and politics. I don't understand how they constantly misread almost every political trend, even to the point of misreading their own base.
I used to be a democrat and have recently changed my party affiliatiion to Independent. I don't think that I am that different from others of my age group, class and sex- I am probably more likely to vote republican now than at any other time. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 197
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 10:08 am: |
|
So we're finally learning something about her. She's "mildly pro-choice." A rather Kerry-ish response. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page