Calling gene, catfish, well, alum61, ...
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
guest

Steele, MO

#63 Dec 8, 2013
Blah,Blah,Blah...
tiger high

Shreveport, LA

#64 Dec 9, 2013
1961 Alumni Rolla MO wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Good Lord,
Don't you realize I'm just being sarcastic with you when I say you are in the upper 2% income?
The reason for this is you never-ending allengience to the right-wing idea that you could have invested the money you paid into SS and made more money than you will receive back from SS.
Yes, a lot of the young hot-shot (know-nothing) right-wingers claim they could make more money by investing their own money.
This is doubtful!
Because, if you will check the facts & figures the poster used when showing he could invest his SS money & earn over a million dollars. It showed that a person making $50.000. per year would only be drawing $1200. per month in SS benefits. If a person is making $50,000 per year - depending on how long he's worked - he would be drawing about $1500-$1600 per month in SS benefits.
But, if a YOUNG person is making $50.000. per year now - he will no doubt be making more than that when he retires. So, the amount of SS benefits would have to be raised to probably close to $2000 $2500. per month.
Now, we have to figure that his wife (even if she's never worked) would be able to draw at least $1000.(or more) per month from his SS. That would mean that this couple would be bringing in $3000.(or more) per month just in SS benefits (GUARANTEED). This would not take into account any retirment or employee savings plans the employee had.
You may be right - SOME PEOPLE (very few people) might be able to get a better deal from investing their money in the stock market that he would receive back from SS - but theirs a lot of IF'S involved in gambling you money on the stock market. Look what happened in 1929 and then again in 2007-2008...
Now, if a person had had the bad luck to have retired in 2007-2008 he would have LOST HALF OF HIS SAVINGS!!!
I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT - BECAUSE MY HUSBAND & I LOST ONE HALF THE VALUE OF OUR STOCK IN 2007-2008. Yes, we earned this money back - but it took several years to earn it back...
It's never good to have all your eggs in one basket (THE STOCK MARKET). But, the bright side for those people who lost half their savings in 2007-2008 is they also had GUARANTEED SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS TO DEPEND ON....
BUT, WHAT IF REPUBLICANS PRIVITIZED ALL OF OUR SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY...???
i could have saved more investing myself - i have no more allegiance to the far right than you do for the far left - i just do not care for big government - i guess you could also call it states rights - and yes i am one who calls it "The War of Northern Agression" - Federal Government is involved in way too much and fuc ks up everything it touches - reason - too damn big - you can't govern new york the way you do louisiana - let the states resolve the issues and let big government guide and protect without having to dictate everything that is going on -
Common Sense

Oklahoma City, OK

#65 Dec 9, 2013
If you are going to dispute my post, why don't you respond directly to me?

"It showed that a person making $50.000. per year would only be drawing $1200. per month in SS benefits"

I used the average household income and the average social security benefit.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/hi...

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detai...

"But, if a YOUNG person is making $50.000. per year now - he will no doubt be making more than that when he retires. So, the amount of SS benefits would have to be raised to probably close to $2000 $2500. per month"

The more one makes, the more they can invest. Even at the $50,000 income range, you will have more disposable income than $2000 to $2500 per month when you retire.

"Now, we have to figure that his wife (even if she's never worked) would be able to draw at least $1000"

You are proving my point. This is the reason "young hotshots" worry about the solvency of social security and invest for their own retirement.

"That would mean that this couple would be bringing in $3000.(or more) per month just in SS benefits (GUARANTEED)"

Guaranteed until you die. If you are unlucky enough to die at 67, all the money you paid goes back to Uncle Sam.

"Now, if a person had had the bad luck to have retired in 2007-2008 he would have LOST HALF OF HIS SAVINGS!!!"

If a social security receipient had the bad luck to die in 2007, they would forfeit ALL of their savings. Losing half is better than losing all. My kids would rather inherit half of something than all of nothing.

"I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT - BECAUSE MY HUSBAND & I LOST ONE HALF THE VALUE OF OUR STOCK IN 2007-2008. Yes, we earned this money back - but it took several years to earn it back..."

Again, you are proving my point. You took a 50% loss in 2007 and gained it all back in 6 years! How much did your social security check go up in the last 6 years?

"But, the bright side for those people who lost half their savings in 2007-2008 is they also had GUARANTEED SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS TO DEPEND ON...."

That's what Detroit used to think.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/...
tiger high

Shreveport, LA

#66 Dec 9, 2013
without throwing numbers around, my financial advisor told me that if i had been able to invest my ss deposits as i had my other investments, i would be worth more today - sadly, some can't save and ss may be the best solution for them - making ss optional is not the answer, unless there are mandatory requirements and restrictions - those who can't save would spend their monies and we would end up paying for them on welfare - one who shows the ability to invest and save x percent per year should be allowed to invest their own ss - those who can't, tough shit, draw your ss and shut up -
Walrus

Steele, MO

#67 Dec 16, 2013
My 401k over the last 3 years has averaged an 18% return. It's not in a high risk portfolio that has just been lucky. It's in a very safe mutual fund. I don't have to keep track daily, or constantly switch stuff from one place to another. It has been in the same place since the day I opened it. Just as common sense said, the difference between my 401k and my SS is where MY money goes once I die. With my 401K, the beneficiary is whoever I choose for it to be. With SS, the beneficiary is Uncle Sam, whether I like it or not.
wakjob

Mount Vernon, AR

#68 Dec 18, 2013
LOON LOON LOON LOOOOOOOONSSSSSSS!!!!!!! wakjobs kooks nutjobs YES WE CAN!!!!!!!!! NO WE DIDNT!!!!!!!! HOPE AND CHANGE!!!!!!! DOOM AND GLOOM!!!!!! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA yall goofy liberal misinformed democratic wakjob lefthand loon wakjobs!!!!!! yall outa be ashamed!!!!!!!!

“Radical Racist Radical Liar”

Since: Dec 13

Location hidden

#69 Dec 20, 2013
I once stood in line for 7 hours on Black Friday at "Lions Den" in Steele. I was devastated to find out that there were no black men there that would need my services. Am I clear?
guest

Steele, MO

#70 Dec 20, 2013
Comrade Wineston wrote:
I once stood in line for 7 hours on Black Friday at "Lions Den" in Steele. I was devastated to find out that there were no black men there that would need my services. Am I clear?
Gene, it's obvious your looking for love in all the wrong places.

“Radical Racist Radical Liar”

Since: Dec 13

Location hidden

#71 Dec 20, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>Gene, it's obvious your looking for love in all the wrong places.
I'm starting to get in the holiday spirit. Deck the halls with balls of truckers. FA LA LA LA LA, LA LA LA LAHHHHHH!!!! Just wanted to share that with you before I snort a few lines of viagra and lithium and head over to the BP Travel Center for tall beers with my shine box. Am I clear? Happy Kwanza! Do you read Ebony magazine or just stare at the pictures of black men?

<--------Stare at my avatar.....BURP.....have you seen my horse lately? Pinto...Oh Pinto come here boy....my Pinto are you happy to see me? Put that away

“Radical Racist Radical Liar”

Since: Dec 13

Location hidden

#72 Dec 20, 2013
911 Whats your emergency?

Obama is raping me and I hate that negro because hes black and makes more money than my mommy and daddy told I would.

Sir are you from Cooter?

CLICK.........DIAL TONE HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
and with that said

Apo, AE

#73 Jan 16, 2014
1961 Alumni Rolla MO wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Good Lord,
Don't you realize I'm just being sarcastic with you when I say you are in the upper 2% income?
The reason for this is you never-ending allengience to the right-wing idea that you could have invested the money you paid into SS and made more money than you will receive back from SS.
Yes, a lot of the young hot-shot (know-nothing) right-wingers claim they could make more money by investing their own money.
This is doubtful!
Because, if you will check the facts & figures the poster used when showing he could invest his SS money & earn over a million dollars. It showed that a person making $50.000. per year would only be drawing $1200. per month in SS benefits. If a person is making $50,000 per year - depending on how long he's worked - he would be drawing about $1500-$1600 per month in SS benefits.
But, if a YOUNG person is making $50.000. per year now - he will no doubt be making more than that when he retires. So, the amount of SS benefits would have to be raised to probably close to $2000 $2500. per month.
Now, we have to figure that his wife (even if she's never worked) would be able to draw at least $1000.(or more) per month from his SS. That would mean that this couple would be bringing in $3000.(or more) per month just in SS benefits (GUARANTEED). This would not take into account any retirment or employee savings plans the employee had.
You may be right - SOME PEOPLE (very few people) might be able to get a better deal from investing their money in the stock market that he would receive back from SS - but theirs a lot of IF'S involved in gambling you money on the stock market. Look what happened in 1929 and then again in 2007-2008...
Now, if a person had had the bad luck to have retired in 2007-2008 he would have LOST HALF OF HIS SAVINGS!!!
I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT - BECAUSE MY HUSBAND & I LOST ONE HALF THE VALUE OF OUR STOCK IN 2007-2008. Yes, we earned this money back - but it took several years to earn it back...
It's never good to have all your eggs in one basket (THE STOCK MARKET). But, the bright side for those people who lost half their savings in 2007-2008 is they also had GUARANTEED SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS TO DEPEND ON....
BUT, WHAT IF REPUBLICANS PRIVITIZED ALL OF OUR SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY...???
Unlike your allegiance to the left-wing.....right?
and with that said

Apo, AE

#74 Jan 16, 2014
Common Sense wrote:
If you are going to dispute my post, why don't you respond directly to me?
"It showed that a person making $50.000. per year would only be drawing $1200. per month in SS benefits"
I used the average household income and the average social security benefit.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/hi...
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detai...
"But, if a YOUNG person is making $50.000. per year now - he will no doubt be making more than that when he retires. So, the amount of SS benefits would have to be raised to probably close to $2000 $2500. per month"
The more one makes, the more they can invest. Even at the $50,000 income range, you will have more disposable income than $2000 to $2500 per month when you retire.
"Now, we have to figure that his wife (even if she's never worked) would be able to draw at least $1000"
You are proving my point. This is the reason "young hotshots" worry about the solvency of social security and invest for their own retirement.
"That would mean that this couple would be bringing in $3000.(or more) per month just in SS benefits (GUARANTEED)"
Guaranteed until you die. If you are unlucky enough to die at 67, all the money you paid goes back to Uncle Sam.
"Now, if a person had had the bad luck to have retired in 2007-2008 he would have LOST HALF OF HIS SAVINGS!!!"
If a social security receipient had the bad luck to die in 2007, they would forfeit ALL of their savings. Losing half is better than losing all. My kids would rather inherit half of something than all of nothing.
"I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT - BECAUSE MY HUSBAND & I LOST ONE HALF THE VALUE OF OUR STOCK IN 2007-2008. Yes, we earned this money back -k.a but it took several years to earn it back..."
Again, you are proving my point. You took a 50% loss in 2007 and gained it all back in 6 years! How much did your social security check go up in the last 6 years?
"But, the bright side for those people who lost half their savings in 2007-2008 is they also had GUARANTEED SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS TO DEPEND...."
That's what Detroit used to think.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/...
Whoah.....What are you considering disposable income? Are you saying that the income SS beneficiaries get are disposable? Must remember these folks have bills too..aka. gas bills, electric bills, rent (if applicable), water/sewage bills, and etc. Disposable in the true context is money available after expenses. I really don't think the disposable income is as good as you say.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Caruthersville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
amber g (Dec '14) 4 min guest 15
CPD hates visitors 4 hr fun 2
Anyone know a Betty Johnson in Caruthersville? 12 hr The other Betty J... 9
Lisa tosh 13 hr chubby chaser 3
Higher gas prices in C'ville and Hayti 13 hr NaF 6
Mowing the graveyard 13 hr poor job 7
meth 16 hr meth 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Caruthersville Mortgages