Vickie - 2016-06-24 2:00 PM

I have money in a savings account and I make one tenth of one percent interest.  The people getting screwed are the people who save money and get nothing because the Feds keep the interest rate at nothing to help businesses loan our money at an 18% profit.

Vickie - 2016-06-24 3:00 PM I have money in a savings account and I make one tenth of one percent interest.  The people getting screwed are the people who save money and get nothing because the Feds keep the interest rate at nothing to help businesses loan our money at an 18% profit.

1DSoon - 2016-06-24 2:06 PM  I know I should never bite on your fishing expeditions. 





But that statement is one of the more insanely idiotic claims that I may have ever read on this site. 



Savings accounts are not investment vehicles. You want you money to work for you, put it to work. Don't stash it. 





 

1DSoon - 2016-06-24 2:06 PM


 I know I should never bite on your fishing expeditions. 


But that statement is one of the more insanely idiotic claims that I may have ever read on this site. 

Savings accounts are not investment vehicles. You want you money to work for you, put it to work. Don't stash it. 


 

MS2011 - 2016-06-24 2:12 PM


^^THANK YOU 

foundation horse - 2016-06-24 2:03 PM Want to see a economy completely grind to a halt? Raise the interest rates! History tells that high interest rates i.e. Carter Administration have long lasting consequences! Twas the mid to late '80s before the economy actually recovered from high interest rates!

prober - 2016-06-25 6:00 AM

Social security was always mean to "help supplement seniors" not be the sole source of support/income!!

Don't depend on someone else to take care of you! Do what you can now to make sure that your retirement is secure!

Bear - 2016-06-25 7:33 AM Don't get me started on Social Security. There's no earthly reason why the program should continue indefinitely. I'm waiting for a courageous politician to come out and put forth a sensible argument in favor of transitioning to a privatized system. As 1D Soon suggested, if you want to save for retirement, the best way to accomplish that is to put your money where it will work for you and grow. Allowing the fed government to confiscate it from you for your entire life won't get you there. Social Security is just as bad as a Ponzi scheme. Bank savings accounts are not money gardens, and the federal government is even worse. Politicians for decades have used criminal scare tactics to convince the unthinking that privatization is somehow dangerous. No matter where you put your money, there will always be risk. At the top of the list of lousy vehicles, in terms of investing for retirement, is social security. It's already failing. Consider this scenario. If you start contributing 12.4% of your income at age 20 to retirement, you retire at age 60, and you average an annual income of $40K per year, assuming an average annual rate of growth of 7% over those 40 years, how much would your nest egg be worth? Answer: about $1.2 Million. Don't believe me? Figure it out for yourself. Go back and look up the average rate of growth of equities over the last 100 years. If you start with the stock market crash of 1929 until present day, the average rate of growth in the market is roughly 8.5%. If you start in 1932, when the economy started to recover, the rate of growth was roughly 11%. I used a very conservative 7% figure. If I used that 11% figure, then in the above scenario, your nest egg would be worth about $3.5 million. Let's assume the less optimistic scenario of 7% - that means if you draw 5% off that nest egg to live on, your retirement income would be $60K per year for the rest of your life.....when you were used to living on much less during your working years. Your nest egg probably wouldn't change much through your retirement. That would remain as your "money tree" which could be passed on in your estate when you pass away. If you die before reaching retirement, the government can tear up that IOU, if you have no dependents. In a privatized system, it goes wherever you designate. Here's another huge, albeit less appreciated, advantage of privatization. All that money in privatized retirement would amount to an annual infusion into the economy. We're talking about hundreds and hundreds of billions of "stimulus" dollars into the private sector. That's REAL money, not borrowed money like the 2009 stimulus bill. That creates jobs. But here's another beautiful bonus, for those of you fearing that the government would be left out: all that money and those jobs generate incomes, and hence tax revenues to the fed. You want to eliminate the federal debt? Privatize social security! You want to be able to afford to provide some aid to indigents WITHOUT borrowing money or raising taxes? Privatize social security! You want to provide INCENTIVE to work? Privatize social security and it won't be long before even lazy people realize that they want in on the game. Of course maybe that is "too risky". Maybe it's too good to be true. Well, that's what our elected officials tell us anyway. After all, they are so much smarter than the rest of us........aren't they?

Frodo - 2016-06-25 9:35 AM Bear, when you talk about privatization, does that still stem from money the Govt took from your paycheck or  a voluntary program, because most people would just simply spend the money.  It would never go into savings.



 

Frodo - 2016-06-25 8:35 AM

Bear, when you talk about privatization, does that still stem from money the Govt took from your paycheck or  a voluntary program, because most people would just simply spend the money.  It would never go into savings.

 

Frodo - 2016-06-25 8:35 AM

Bear, when you talk about privatization, does that still stem from money the Govt took from your paycheck or  a voluntary program, because most people would just simply spend the money.  It would never go into savings.

 

Bear - 2016-06-25 9:32 AM Just in case anyone has been wondering if this plan has been put to the test, consider the Galveston county workers retirement plan. Back in 1983, a social security reform bill was passed, and one aspect of that law made it illegal for state and local governments to opt out of SS. Just before that, however, the Galveston county workers managed to slip in the door and opt out, in favor of their own privatized plan. This article compares and contrasts the payout of their plan versus SS, and the result is almost mind blowing. Keep in mind, their plan is very conservative, from an investing standpoint. There are some differences between what I'm suggesting versus Galveston.....mine is better. Still, they get the right idea. This is from USA Today...not exactly a conservative think tank, mind you: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-03-15-benefits-ref... Scott and I have discussed this option at length over the past few years. I have a cousin who is enrolled in the Galveston program and seems to be very satisfied. I would have to doublecheck but I am certain that it is mandatory for them to be enrolled (just like Social Security).   

Edited by NJJ 2016-06-25 1:10 PM

rodeoveteran - 2016-06-25 10:46 AM

While I somewhat agree with Scott, I cannot put any money back in the stock market. What is a person to trust for shorter term? We bought a couple of Mutual funds of different risk levels starting maybe 20 years ago?? They rose like crazy and were worth 2 1/2 times what we invested....then less than what we invested, then 1 1/2 times what we invested then less, then we got out and put our money into a guaranteed no loss annuity. Our financial planner took our annuity OUT of the stock market this last round so that we would see at least some kind of gain.

The stock market can be a great thing, but if you need your money at the bottom of a crash you are SOL. We have a little money that I would like to invest in "something" but there is nothing left. Used to have the mutual funds and a few CDs but at less than 1% (last time I checked) I am not willing to tie it up for long periods of time.

Hubby "should" be retired by now but besides getting crabby if home for long periods of time, we can't afford it. Need to keep what we have safe but sure would LIKE to put it to work for us. Right now bonds, CDs are not very viable, gold, silver etc are very volatile, the stock market just dropped like a stone thanks to Brexit (tho it would be a good time to get IN).....there seems to be no safe place to put your money anymore, especially shorter term investments.

rodeoveteran - 2016-06-25 10:46 AM

While I somewhat agree with Scott, I cannot put any money back in the stock market. What is a person to trust for shorter term? We bought a couple of Mutual funds of different risk levels starting maybe 20 years ago?? They rose like crazy and were worth 2 1/2 times what we invested....then less than what we invested, then 1 1/2 times what we invested then less, then we got out and put our money into a guaranteed no loss annuity. Our financial planner took our annuity OUT of the stock market this last round so that we would see at least some kind of gain.

The stock market can be a great thing, but if you need your money at the bottom of a crash you are SOL. We have a little money that I would like to invest in "something" but there is nothing left. Used to have the mutual funds and a few CDs but at less than 1% (last time I checked) I am not willing to tie it up for long periods of time.

Hubby "should" be retired by now but besides getting crabby if home for long periods of time, we can't afford it. Need to keep what we have safe but sure would LIKE to put it to work for us. Right now bonds, CDs are not very viable, gold, silver etc are very volatile, the stock market just dropped like a stone thanks to Brexit (tho it would be a good time to get IN).....there seems to be no safe place to put your money anymore, especially shorter term investments.

1DSoon - 2016-06-25 8:42 AM Dumb should hurt, it's not the Gov. job to take care of the individual. 





 

Frodo - 2016-06-25 12:03 PM Folks working their hearts out just to make a living with no extra to save don't necessarily fit in the "dumb" category.

 

Frodo - 2016-06-24 1:35 PM You know how for 2016 the administration decided recipients didn't need a raise in Social Security, even though many senior citizens totally depend on it.  Well, for 2017 the raise will be.. (drumroll).. two-tenths of one percent, or about $3 per recipient.  Why bother?  The real kick in the teeth is when I see illegals interviewed on TV counting their numerous blessings from U.S. taxpayers and including Social Security in the mix.  





 

Bear - 2016-06-25 6:33 AM Don't get me started on Social Security. There's no earthly reason why the program should continue indefinitely. I'm waiting for a courageous politician to come out and put forth a sensible argument in favor of transitioning to a privatized system. As 1D Soon suggested, if you want to save for retirement, the best way to accomplish that is to put your money where it will work for you and grow. Allowing the fed government to confiscate it from you for your entire life won't get you there. Social Security is just as bad as a Ponzi scheme. Bank savings accounts are not money gardens, and the federal government is even worse. Politicians for decades have used criminal scare tactics to convince the unthinking that privatization is somehow dangerous. No matter where you put your money, there will always be risk. At the top of the list of lousy vehicles, in terms of investing for retirement, is social security. It's already failing. Consider this scenario. If you start contributing 12.4% of your income at age 20 to retirement, you retire at age 60, and you average an annual income of $40K per year, assuming an average annual rate of growth of 7% over those 40 years, how much would your nest egg be worth? Answer: about $1.2 Million. Don't believe me? Figure it out for yourself. Go back and look up the average rate of growth of equities over the last 100 years. If you start with the stock market crash of 1929 until present day, the average rate of growth in the market is roughly 8.5%. If you start in 1932, when the economy started to recover, the rate of growth was roughly 11%. I used a very conservative 7% figure. If I used that 11% figure, then in the above scenario, your nest egg would be worth about $3.5 million. Let's assume the less optimistic scenario of 7% - that means if you draw 5% off that nest egg to live on, your retirement income would be $60K per year for the rest of your life.....when you were used to living on much less during your working years. Your nest egg probably wouldn't change much through your retirement. That would remain as your "money tree" which could be passed on in your estate when you pass away. If you die before reaching retirement, the government can tear up that IOU, if you have no dependents. In a privatized system, it goes wherever you designate. Here's another huge, albeit less appreciated, advantage of privatization. All that money in privatized retirement would amount to an annual infusion into the economy. We're talking about hundreds and hundreds of billions of "stimulus" dollars into the private sector. That's REAL money, not borrowed money like the 2009 stimulus bill. That creates jobs. But here's another beautiful bonus, for those of you fearing that the government would be left out: all that money and those jobs generate incomes, and hence tax revenues to the fed. You want to eliminate the federal debt? Privatize social security! You want to be able to afford to provide some aid to indigents WITHOUT borrowing money or raising taxes? Privatize social security! You want to provide INCENTIVE to work? Privatize social security and it won't be long before even lazy people realize that they want in on the game. Of course maybe that is "too risky". Maybe it's too good to be true. Well, that's what our elected officials tell us anyway. After all, they are so much smarter than the rest of us........aren't they?

Bear - 2016-06-25 11:42 AM


You really need to do some very fundamental basic homework, Rodeoveteran. We're talking long term here. Read up on the long term gains over decades. There's always some risk no matter where you put your money.

rodeoveteran - 2016-06-26 9:50 PM Did you not see where I said that I somewhat greed with you? I am not entirely stupid or unaware of the stock market's trends. But if you are the unfortunate soul who needs their money at the bottom of a bear market, you are SOL. Just wasn't raised to be a big risk taker when it comes to money. lol I have had financial advisors show me all the charts and those dips just scare the pants off me, especially short term, which is what I SPECIFICALLY questioned about. We don't have decades to ride out the market. And all of those trends are assuming that you invest in the correct stocks, which they showed years ago that a literal monkey could choose as successfully or better than a human, studied and educated in the market. Now if my truck driver hubby applied himself to Wall Street like he has the trucking industry, I would bet on him. He has a knack for seeing trends, laws and other things that affect his industry that have kept us from losing money when others lost their butts. I think if he had a will and passion to apply that to the stock market he could be a great investor and manager of our funds. Since I am waiting for hyper inflation and a true Depression (I have to laugh when the last little recession we have not yet emerged from) to hit in the near future and I want my funds no where near the market (until it bottoms out, then I might dip my toes back in the water). The market has been held up artificially for at least this POTUS' term by the printing of money which is then funneled in to the stock market. There will be a BIG price to pay for that.