OT SS going to the source

On 1/8/05 11:22 AM, in article ,
"Karen C - California" wrote:

In article , Cheryl Isaak
writes:

Too bad this guy didn't set up a
limited trust or other vehicle to protect his wife.

He thought he had a reputable stockbroker, who'd protect his wife.

Ahh, dirt bags are us!
Of course,
when he was alive, he told the broker what trades to make and when, so the guy
didn't have the opportunity to do anything underhanded. Unsupervised, his
true
colors showed, and here he had the perfect combination of extremely distraught
widow who didn't understand the statements, and had no clue what the account
balance should be, so she didn't know anything was wrong until she gave the
statements to her tax preparer the following spring.

The moral of the story, even if your spouse handles the investments, you need
to know how to decipher the statements and an approximate balance so you'll
know when you're being fleeced. Yes, the market goes up and down, but if
*several* zeroes drop off the end, it's probably not just the economy.

Amen to that!

Cheryl

Cheryl Isaak wrote:
On 1/7/05 6:46 PM, in article
, "Dr. Brat"
wrote:


Cheryl Isaak wrote:

On 1/7/05 2:19 PM, in article
1, "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.

The interest on all that money has to come from somewhere.

Yes, but since Social Security is designed to produce a fixed payout
based on my eligibility and other factors having nothing to do with
interest, the question of whether the government can make better
investment decisions is irrelevant to my preference for Social Security
over a private fund that I have to manage. One provides me a guaranteed
income with little risk. The other may provide me with more income, but
the risk and time involved in managing it are significantly more.

With the money that SHOULD be in the Social Security fund, even very
safe investments would have secured the income needed. The issue really
isn't whether the government could invest that money wisely, but whether
it could be trusted to leave it alone, isn't it?

I also think that whether the government could manage it better is an
irrelevant question because at the time of its inception the idea was
that many people weren't saving for retirement and Social Security was
forced retirement savings. For someone who would save on their own,
perhaps the government couldn't manage it better, but for someone who
would have no savings at all, just forcing them to save is better
management, no?

Do you have any idea how many 30 year olds have no retirement savings at
all?

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
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

escape wrote:

On 08 Jan 2005 06:20:40 GMT, S (Karen C - California) opined:


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.


That's illegal and I don't believe you.

You don't believe that someone would do something illegal? Wow.

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
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

On 1/8/05 1:32 PM, in article
, "Dr. Brat"
wrote:

escape wrote:

On 08 Jan 2005 06:20:40 GMT, S (Karen C - California)
opined:


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.


That's illegal and I don't believe you.

You don't believe that someone would do something illegal? Wow.

Elizabeth

Sputter!

You little devil brat you!

Cheryl Isaak wrote:


You little devil brat you!


And you had to ask how I got my name. *grin*

Elizabeth (earned it, I did)
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~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
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

On 1/8/05 4:33 PM, in article
, "Dr. Brat"
wrote:

Cheryl Isaak wrote:


You little devil brat you!


And you had to ask how I got my name. *grin*

Elizabeth (earned it, I did)

See my off list email to you!

Barbara Hass verbositized:


But it still started out paying retirement benefits to people who had
never paid into the system, correct?

Correct!


And why don't I trust the gov't with my money?

From what I understand, they (the government) DID pay back the
principle, under duress by the people.


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.

They MAY easily RUN OUT OF MONEY, because THEY are PAYING OUT on other
programs besides SS retirement, as mandated by the government.
Essentially, the government is dipping their hands into the retirement
funds AGAIN.

TTUL
Gary

Hi Barbara

I really doubt they will ever decrease SS benefits, regardless of what
they are claiming.

It would probably cause the largest class action lawsuit in history!
Retired Citizens of the United States vs The Federal Government
Immediately followed by SS Contributors vs The Federal Government

First BASIS for a lawsuit, SS Funds are INSURED.
Second BASIS for a lawsuit, SS Funds were balanced in 1974.
Third BASIS for a lawsuit, SS Funds Contributed Since 1974 Belong to
the Contributors for the PURPOSE INTENDED, Retirement Income.
Fourth BASIS for a lawsuit, the 1935 LAW enacting SS did not allow for
any other use of SS Funds other than as a Retirement Fund.

The Government can give away Billions of Dollars to Other Countries in
FREE AID, but they can't cover their own withdrawals from Insured
Funds. Don't believe it for a second!

TTUL
Gary

"escape" wrote.

That's illegal and I don't believe you.

It is illegal, and it does happen--there was a "financial advisor" here
disciplined last year by his licensing body (he was actually licensed as an
insurance broker) who did something similar the investments of an elderly
widow. The trades certaintly weren't "every half hour", but he did move
money in and out of accounts unnecessarily in order to make commissions for
himself. Since her only child had died, and she was in a nursing home, he
apparently thought no one would ever know. And no one did, until her
daughter's widower thought the estate that was left seemed smaller than he
expected, and most was in highrisk investments, which seemed odd given his
MILs frugal habits.
These people can be disciplined, barred from their profession, and charged
criminally, but this kind of dishonesty is often a signal of an
out-of-control financial life, (very few people start out intending to
steal from clients) and restitution is very rare.
Dawne

X-No-Archive: yes
"escape" wrote in message
...
However, I
don't know that anyone would ever sign power of attorney to someone
outside
their family. I guess there are people that out of the loop, but where is
the
family?

Not everyone has relatives.Some people are quite alone in that regard,
though they may have "chosen" family, aka close friends.
Also, some people don't want to give their friends (what they would regard
as) an extra burden to carry.

emerald