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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
No problem. I knew when I wrote it I wasn't saying it the way I meant
but was a bit foggy at the time (DH put Return of the King into the DVD player after 10 last night and I'm a credidiot...). I didn't mean privatizing, but the creation of personal accounts. While changing won't be mandatory, you know people who really don't even understand how simple interest works will be under a lot of pressure to change. The government may only approve a few investments but crooks will count on people being unaware of this or they will charge people for an "information kit" to tell them the same stuff the government could tell them for free. Think of all the additional junk mail, SPAM, and trash faxes... In any case, since I no longer contribute to the system I'm only interested in a guaranteed return with essentially no risk. JiminyCricket wrote: Great discussion of human behavior and some of the ongoing studies -- but... the policy discussion ISN'T about PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY, it's about allowing people under some age limit (current talk is 50 yrs old) invest some portion (current talk is less than 10%) of their SS contribution into federally approved investment vehicles (a limited number of these too). It wouldn't be mandatory -- so you wouldn't be forced to change from the current scheme if you didn't want to. (not arguing with Brenda -- just trying to add some clarity) -- Brenda |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I have been threatening (because of so many conversations here on RCTN)
to start writing down the companies involved in fraud as I read about them. It goes back before Enron to Cendant (one at Cendant got hung, the other a hung jury). There is hardly a month that goes by that another bank, fund, broker, corporate giant, isn't being investigated or charged. Many end up settling and it never gets to trial. And the general "you" wants me to invest for my future???? Is there anyplace one can trust, anymore? Certainly not my government, which raided social security. Dianne - with a wink/wink, grin. escape wrote: I don't know about get rich schemes, but even if people buy shares in stock which has performed beautifully over the decades, this money will result in many broker fees associated with making a stock purchase. The discount houses like Fidelity and such are frothing at the mouth for this privatization. Many companies which are on the cusp now will be deep into overvalued after this percentage of SS funds are put into the private sector. Hey, I hope I'm wrong. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
JiminyCricket wrote:
Great discussion of human behavior and some of the ongoing studies -- but... the policy discussion ISN'T about PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY, it's about allowing people under some age limit (current talk is 50 yrs old) invest some portion (current talk is less than 10%) of their SS contribution into federally approved investment vehicles (a limited number of these too). It wouldn't be mandatory -- so you wouldn't be forced to change from the current scheme if you didn't want to. Ahhh, but SS benefits will be reduced in all these plans-- that's the whole point--including reductions for those who do not use the personal investment accounts. So, whatever percentage is available for the personal account, it increases the overall risk. It may also increase the return...but it may not, hence the risk. Best wishes, Ericka |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Cheryl Isaak wrote:
On 1/7/05 2:19 PM, in article , "K" wrote: That's my primary reason for not believing in privatization of Social Security, that people won't make good decisions about the investment. In addition to the time and sophistication required, how is someone who is worried about putting food on the table tomorrow going to make reasoned judgments of how to invest money to ensure there is food on the table 30 years from now? The scam artists, the governmental lack of responsibility, and the false growth of the economy are all others. Just a bad idea all around as far as I'm concerned. But is the government making decisions that are any better? If my understanding of how Social Security works is correct, that question is irrelevant. 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 *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Brenda
writes: While changing won't be mandatory, you know people who really don't even understand how simple interest works will be under a lot of pressure to change. Yep. And if they're working with a stockbroker who gets paid for every trade, the naive may end up broke. Mom's neighbor didn't understand the market the way her late husband did, so she signed something giving the broker the right to make any trade that he deemed acceptable, thinking he'd make better decisions than she could. He apparently made a trade every half-hour until most of her account had been drained by those per-trade fees. When we got a 401k plan, the company brought in a financial advisor who met with each of us individually. The less-sophisticated were steered toward the guaranteed interest fund (at that time, paying much less than the skyrocketing stock funds, but they have not lost a cent of their principal, which some of the stock funds did). To get into the riskier emerging markets fund, I had to discuss international politics and international economics to prove I understood what I was doing. If only all financial advisors were that honest. -- Finished 12/8/04 -- Army bear ornament WIP: Fireman's Prayer (#2), Amid Amish Life, Angel of Autumn, Calif Sampler, Holiday Snowglobe Paralegal - Writer - Editor - Researcher http://hometown.aol.com/kmc528/KMC.html |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On 1/7/05 6:46 PM, in article
, "Dr. Brat" wrote: Cheryl Isaak wrote: On 1/7/05 2:19 PM, in article , "K" wrote: That's my primary reason for not believing in privatization of Social Security, that people won't make good decisions about the investment. In addition to the time and sophistication required, how is someone who is worried about putting food on the table tomorrow going to make reasoned judgments of how to invest money to ensure there is food on the table 30 years from now? The scam artists, the governmental lack of responsibility, and the false growth of the economy are all others. Just a bad idea all around as far as I'm concerned. But is the government making decisions that are any better? If my understanding of how Social Security works is correct, that question is irrelevant. Elizabeth The interest on all that money has to come from somewhere. Cheryl |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr. wrote:
Hi Barbara Perhaps I should post some FACTS concerning Social Security, since there are so many MISCONCEPTIONS about it floating around. ORIGINALLY: Social Security WAS just a retirement program under 1935 Law. But it still started out paying retirement benefits to people who had never paid into the system, correct? 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. Interesting, did not know that. 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. And why don't I trust the gov't with my 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. But according to my most recent mailing from SSA they are estimating running out of money before I reach retirement age. Even if that's not the case, I still wouldn't mind having the option to invest some of that money on my own. Thanks for the figures, Barbara |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
More info:
http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm In summary, I was incorrect in that I might receive *something* by the time I retire. However, current retirees/near-retirees are receiving benefits at the same rate/increase with inflation, with no current plans to decrease benefits for those people. (Which would be a bad move from a political standpoint - this is a huge % of voters). Yet by the time I retire, my benefits will start out reduced minimum 27% of current benefits and decreasing, if there are no changes to the program. Which I am projecting will probably translate to very little money, definitely nothing near what will be required for retirement. According to the last question, other countries are prefunding and establishing versions of personal accounts in order to ensure future benefits. I guess no matter what investing money is risky. Something could always happen to shake up the economy, change interest rates, whatever that would affect any investment, whether SS fund or private. But I'd like the option of something a little better, like a mutual fund, than a retirement plan that's a guaranteed (at this time) to lose money. Barbara |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |