A crafts forum. CraftBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CraftBanter forum » Textiles newsgroups » Needlework
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

OT SS going to the source



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 6th 05, 06:32 PM
Cheryl Isaak
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT SS going to the source



http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/index.htm


Quoting here
Your Social Security benefits are the foundation on which you can build a
secure retirement. Most financial advisors say you'll need about 70 percent
of your pre-retirement earnings to comfortably maintain your pre-retirement
standard of living. Under current law, if you have average earnings, your
Social Security retirement benefits will replace only about 40 percent, so
you'll need to supplement your benefits with a pension, savings or
investments.


Ads
  #2  
Old January 6th 05, 09:05 PM
Barbara Hass
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cheryl Isaak wrote:

Quoting here
Your Social Security benefits are the foundation on which you can build a
secure retirement.


Or, if you are like me, you can kiss that money good-bye permanently and
hope there's something extra to save somewhere for retirement, as
current projections are that all of my hard-earned "retirement" money
will have been spent on other people with nothing left for me/my kids as
of 2-5 years (depending on source of calculations) before my retirement
- and that's assuming I'm allowed to retire at age 65.

Not against SS in theory, but very resentful of those who put the
program into place as it is without thinking things through in the first
place, leading to massive problems we have now. Also tired of
politicians who seem to be concerned only with keeping it solvent
through *their* retirement, no matter what the cost to those of us who
are younger. (And I hope there are exceptions to that statement!)

Barbara HJ

  #3  
Old January 6th 05, 09:16 PM
Cheryl Isaak
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 1/6/05 3:05 PM, in article ,
"Barbara Hass" wrote:

Cheryl Isaak wrote:

Quoting here
Your Social Security benefits are the foundation on which you can build a
secure retirement.


Or, if you are like me, you can kiss that money good-bye permanently and
hope there's something extra to save somewhere for retirement, as
current projections are that all of my hard-earned "retirement" money
will have been spent on other people with nothing left for me/my kids as
of 2-5 years (depending on source of calculations) before my retirement
- and that's assuming I'm allowed to retire at age 65.

Not against SS in theory, but very resentful of those who put the
program into place as it is without thinking things through in the first
place, leading to massive problems we have now. Also tired of
politicians who seem to be concerned only with keeping it solvent
through *their* retirement, no matter what the cost to those of us who
are younger. (And I hope there are exceptions to that statement!)

Barbara HJ



I fully expect to be denied SS by the time I reach 65 - less that 20 years
from now. Ditto DH. We have 401k's and savings and despite pouring in
dollars, will get nothing.

Cheryl

  #4  
Old January 6th 05, 09:52 PM
Lucille
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks Cheryl,
This is what I remembered reading way back when. I think this information,
or similar messages, have been known for many years and as I mentioned
before, as far back as the mid 70's when my parents retired.

I think the last person I knew that truly depended on SS for all her income
was my Grandmother, who got $50 per month some time in late 40's or very
early 50's and was thrilled to get it. She thought the United States was
like living in heaven on earth and that it was wonderful that they were
giving her back some of her tax money. Of course coming from a little
anti-Semitic town in Russia she had every right to think that.

Lucille

"Cheryl Isaak" wrote in message
...


http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/index.htm


Quoting here
Your Social Security benefits are the foundation on which you can build a
secure retirement. Most financial advisors say you'll need about 70
percent
of your pre-retirement earnings to comfortably maintain your
pre-retirement
standard of living. Under current law, if you have average earnings, your
Social Security retirement benefits will replace only about 40 percent, so
you'll need to supplement your benefits with a pension, savings or
investments.




  #5  
Old January 6th 05, 10:25 PM
K
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cheryl Isaak wrote in
:

On 1/6/05 3:05 PM, in article ,
"Barbara Hass" wrote:

Cheryl Isaak wrote:

Quoting here
Your Social Security benefits are the foundation on which you can
build a secure retirement.


Or, if you are like me, you can kiss that money good-bye permanently
and hope there's something extra to save somewhere for retirement,


[snip]

I fully expect to be denied SS by the time I reach 65 - less that 20
years from now. Ditto DH. We have 401k's and savings and despite
pouring in dollars, will get nothing.


If our present administration does nothing, you will get something back.
The latest reports have Social Security solvent until 2042, and after that,
reduced benefits can still be paid because of money still coming in.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/II_p....html#wp105057

I read elsewhere that the amount of money need to keep the SS trust solvent
past 2042 is a small fraction of the tax cut afforded by the Bush
Administration to the top 1% of Americans. I'll refrain from further
comment on that since I can't find the source. :-)

K
  #6  
Old January 7th 05, 12:32 PM
Cheryl Isaak
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 1/6/05 11:13 PM, in article ,
"escape" wrote:

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:25:23 GMT, K opined:

Cheryl Isaak wrote in
:

On 1/6/05 3:05 PM, in article ,
"Barbara Hass" wrote:

Cheryl Isaak wrote:

Quoting here
Your Social Security benefits are the foundation on which you can
build a secure retirement.

Or, if you are like me, you can kiss that money good-bye permanently
and hope there's something extra to save somewhere for retirement,


[snip]

I fully expect to be denied SS by the time I reach 65 - less that 20
years from now. Ditto DH. We have 401k's and savings and despite
pouring in dollars, will get nothing.


If our present administration does nothing, you will get something back.
The latest reports have Social Security solvent until 2042, and after that,
reduced benefits can still be paid because of money still coming in.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/II_p....html#wp105057

I read elsewhere that the amount of money need to keep the SS trust solvent
past 2042 is a small fraction of the tax cut afforded by the Bush
Administration to the top 1% of Americans. I'll refrain from further
comment on that since I can't find the source. :-)

K


...and people better hope he doesn't privatize it or the only people getting
rich in this country will be the brokerage houses and brokers, which will
create
a false economy (more false than it already is now) and eventually there
will
be a bubble ten times the size of the dot com bubble in the 90s.





I suspect you're wrong there. More people are conservative about money than
you think they are. I think we'll see a new type of growth in the banking
industry, interest deferred accounts and other new savings vehicles.

Cheryl

  #7  
Old January 7th 05, 04:59 PM
Brenda
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think scam artists will make a killing. People might be conservative
about money but too many will buy into get rich quick schemes.

Cheryl Isaak wrote:
I suspect you're wrong there. More people are conservative about money than
you think they are. I think we'll see a new type of growth in the banking
industry, interest deferred accounts and other new savings vehicles.


--
Brenda
  #8  
Old January 7th 05, 06:03 PM
Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Barbara

Perhaps I should post some FACTS concerning Social Security, since
there are so many MISCONCEPTIONS about it floating around.

The Social Security ACT was signed into Law by FDR on 8/14/35.
The First Taxes collected to fuel the SSA started on Jan. 1937, with a
few LUMP SUM Payments made in that month. The first lump sum payment
was 17 cents.
Regular monthly benefits did not start until January of 1940.

As an aside: Medicare passed into law July 30, 1965, but
beneficiaries could not sign up for the program until July 1, 1966.

ORIGINALLY: Social Security WAS just a retirement program under 1935
Law.

Social Security was designed to be totally self-supporting.
At the time of inception, it was estimated that by 1980 there would be
over 47 Billion Dollars in Reserve Funds. They reached this Goal 6
years faster than expected, in 1974 they were well ahead of schedule.

However, the government dipped into these reserves reducing them to
ONLY 26 billion in 1980, they also lost the 6.9% current interest they
would have earned on that money.

TODAY 2005: The Social Security Reserve Fund is Over 1 Trillion
Dollars.

From 1937 to 2002:
The SSA has taken in 8.7 Trillion Dollars.
They have only paid back out 7.4 Trillion Dollars.

The Reserve Funds held in Trust by the SSA are invested in INSURED
investments, no chance of loss of the principle. By Law the Reserve
Funds held in Trust by the SSA, MUST DRAW INTEREST.

Since 1974, when the SSA met its Reserve Trust of 47 Billion dollars,
it was in perfect Balance. It had the funds to pay all current
retirees and those who had paid into the system, if the SSA was shut
down. Meaning the money coming into the SSA after that date could be
held in Trust for the person paying it into the system. The excess
collected, plus the interest collected on the Reserves, was more than
sufficient to cover the operating costs of the Social Security system.

Source: SSA.gov/History

TTUL
Gary

  #9  
Old January 7th 05, 06:44 PM
Dr. Brat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cheryl Isaak wrote:



I suspect you're wrong there. More people are conservative about money than
you think they are. I think we'll see a new type of growth in the banking
industry, interest deferred accounts and other new savings vehicles.


I'm gonna sound lazy here, but my issue with privatising Social Security
is that it makes too much work for the employee. I don't have Social
Security, I have State Retirement. When I was hired, I opted for an
account that I could manage myself. And I simply don't have time. I'm
sure my funds could be better handled, but frankly, there are other
things I would rather do than research my fund options. When I lived in
Ohio, all my retirement money went into a state managed account and,
although that took away my options, it also took away my burden. I'd
rather have a lower guaranteed return with less risk and less
baby-sitting. But that is absolutely an opinion, nothing more.

Elizabeth
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate
and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
  #10  
Old January 7th 05, 07:46 PM
Cheryl Isaak
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

As a general issue, how do "we" shut down scam artists? No matter how much
you (the general you) tell "people" that if is sounds too good to be true,
it isn't, people still fall for it. It is a critical thinking issue and
ought to be "instinctive" or at least teachable, but, well you get my drift.
Cheryl

On 1/7/05 10:59 AM, in article ,
"Brenda" wrote:

I think scam artists will make a killing. People might be conservative
about money but too many will buy into get rich quick schemes.

Cheryl Isaak wrote:
I suspect you're wrong there. More people are conservative about money than
you think they are. I think we'll see a new type of growth in the banking
industry, interest deferred accounts and other new savings vehicles.


--
Brenda


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Glass Source Michele Blank Glass 12 July 17th 12 04:39 PM
FS Machine Knitter's Source, MacKnit Magazines ellbee Marketplace 0 April 30th 04 10:21 AM
Great new source for quilt books Betty in Wi Quilting 2 September 19th 03 12:27 PM
coconut fibre source? ms. brookes Jewelry 1 July 26th 03 06:34 PM
Source for jade Peter W. Rowe Jewelry 0 July 13th 03 06:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CraftBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.