2/3+ of Americans favor 2% wealth tax!

[twenty02]

It's like this..... I found a calculator on the internet that tells you what a dollar invested in the S&P 500 would be worth today if it had been invested in 19XX or 20XX (insert the year for XX) so I took my wife's earning report (what she's paid into SS) and calculated how much each year's payments would be worth at the end of 2016 (as far as calculator calculated when I did it). When you summed all that up she would have had $992,000 and that's just her part (remember her employer had to match that).It's not hard to see that if she had gotten all the money that she and her employer had paid in she would have well over 2 million dollars today and even at the paltry 2% that CDs pay today she would get a lot more that she would get if she filed for SS. Using the old rule of thumb for investments where you can take out 4% the first year and then adjust it for in future years you can see that she would get $80,000 the first year if figured on 2 million and that is more than 3 times she would get today if she filed for SS so yes it is a bad investment for the average person.

I realize there's a type of insurance built into SS so the people that use that do come out way ahead but the average person today will never get even get the interest off what they put in.

There are major bend points in the SS system....I once did an analysis of this, but can't recall the details.... other than the best returns go to the lowest income workers by far.... with the caveat that they don't die early. Now that's the tricky part.... as we know higher income levels are positively correlated with longer life expectancies... for a multitude of reasons.

Like any pension system..... we don't really know ones true ROI until after they die.... and the benefits stop (or are curtailed, or stop when the spouse dies, etc....)

It could end up a terrible, terrible, deal... in that they die 1 day after being eligible for benefits.... or it could end up being just ok if they end up living an average life expectancy.... to possibly pretty decent if they live to be 104.

Comparing its internal rate of return to the SP500 isn't a very proper comparison (though certainly frustrating in hindsight)..... because it's not an equivalent risk adjusted return. There is no market risk in the SS system. The proper comparison would be if all the SS contributions were invested in a basket of Treasury bonds (which is what the SS trust fund does) . This makes the deal quite a bit less "ugly".

I'd personally (as it seems you would).... be willing to take the market risk myself over a working lifetime.... and would happily sign up for this idea. But my years of interacting with the general public on their finances in different manners has lead me to believe that this would be a disaster for most.

 

[NPT]

There are major bend points in the SS system....I once did an analysis of this, but can't recall the details.... other than the best returns go to the lowest income workers by far.... with the caveat that they don't die early. Now that's the tricky part.... as we know higher income levels are positively correlated with longer life expectancies... for a multitude of reasons.

Like any pension system..... we don't really know ones true ROI until after they die.... and the benefits stop (or are curtailed, or stop when the spouse dies, etc....)

It could end up a terrible, terrible, deal... in that they die 1 day after being eligible for benefits.... or it could end up being just ok if they end up living an average life expectancy.... to possibly pretty decent if they live to be 104.

Comparing its internal rate of return to the SP500 isn't a very proper comparison (though certainly frustrating in hindsight)..... because it's not an equivalent risk adjusted return. There is no market risk in the SS system. The proper comparison would be if all the SS contributions were invested in a basket of Treasury bonds (which is what the SS trust fund does) . This makes the deal quite a bit less "ugly".

I'd personally (as it seems you would).... be willing to take the market risk myself over a working lifetime.... and would happily sign up for this idea. But my years of interacting with the general public on their finances in different manners has lead me to believe that this would be a disaster for most.

That's a good summary. Like you said I would have gladly given up my SS in return for letting me invest it especially if I got what my employer put in. I would have given up any claim to it when half of my career was over. I do think there are risks however with the SS system such as means testing for higher income people and lets face the fact that it can't keep going like it is so there's a possibility that it will be cut.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

There are major bend points in the SS system....I once did an analysis of this, but can't recall the details.... other than the best returns go to the lowest income workers by far.... with the caveat that they don't die early. Now that's the tricky part.... as we know higher income levels are positively correlated with longer life expectancies... for a multitude of reasons.

Like any pension system..... we don't really know ones true ROI until after they die.... and the benefits stop (or are curtailed, or stop when the spouse dies, etc....)

It could end up a terrible, terrible, deal... in that they die 1 day after being eligible for benefits.... or it could end up being just ok if they end up living an average life expectancy.... to possibly pretty decent if they live to be 104.

Comparing its internal rate of return to the SP500 isn't a very proper comparison (though certainly frustrating in hindsight)..... because it's not an equivalent risk adjusted return. There is no market risk in the SS system. The proper comparison would be if all the SS contributions were invested in a basket of Treasury bonds (which is what the SS trust fund does) . This makes the deal quite a bit less "ugly".

I'd personally (as it seems you would).... be willing to take the market risk myself over a working lifetime.... and would happily sign up for this idea. But my years of interacting with the general public on their finances in different manners has lead me to believe that this would be a disaster for most.

Not that much of a risk if they let everyone into the Thrift Savings Plan that federal government workers and military invest in. Everyone should read up on it as I’ve recommended many times. A SS system built around that would be good for nearly everyone.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Not that much of a risk if they let everyone into the Thrift Savings Plan that federal government workers and military invest in. Everyone should read up on it as I’ve recommended many times. A SS system built around that would be good for nearly everyone.

How would moving work? Since we really have not accumulated money in social security, I am assuming people just cannot transfer anything of value to TSP. That means for anyone at least down to 50, staying in social security as is makes sense. But if everyone younger moves to TSP, there is no money coming into social security. As bleak as the future of social security may be, imagine if revenue were reduced by 60% or more.

 

[NPT]

How would moving work? Since we really have not accumulated money in social security, I am assuming people just cannot transfer anything of value to TSP. That means for anyone at least down to 50, staying in social security as is makes sense. But if everyone younger moves to TSP, there is no money coming into social security. As bleak as the future of social security may be, imagine if revenue were reduced by 60% or more.

So true since we really don't have any SS funds.... nothing to transfer except a bunch of IOUs.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That's a good summary. Like you said I would have gladly given up my SS in return for letting me invest it especially if I got what my employer put in. I would have given up any claim to it when half of my career was over. I do think there are risks however with the SS system such as means testing for higher income people and lets face the fact that it can't keep going like it is so there's a possibility that it will be cut.

The Democrats significantly cut Social Security benefits in the early 90’s. Except they didn’t call it a cut, they taxed the benefits. The end result was moving Social Security trust funds into the general fund of the US treasury through our individual tax returns. The Social Security trust fund saved no money with this cut. Given our progressive rates, and income floor where no taxes are levied, the taxes on Social Security benefits introduces means testing into the system. Of course, the politicians were and are dishonest about what they have done with Social Security.

 

[twenty02]

Not that much of a risk if they let everyone into the Thrift Savings Plan that federal government workers and military invest in. Everyone should read up on it as I’ve recommended many times. A SS system built around that would be good for nearly everyone.

As long as they are blocked off from touching it and messing around with it...then it would behave more like a very simplified managed pension plan, of years gone by.

Basically everyone's contributions would go into the "L" funds (which are target date funds of funds) ... which starts out with a high equity exposure when young and slowly shifts into bonds each year.... until in almost all bonds at retirement. This is what has become a default option for many 401k plans... and I've come to believe this is probably the best plan for most.... .... then a simple life annuity is purchased at retirement age.... and presto.... you've basically recreated what a pension plan for 1 would look like.

There becomes much bigger issues if you allow individuals to fool around with their investment allocations, as they will almost assuredly sell low and buy high, get terrible returns, etc.......

Then do they have access to the lump sum at retirement age.... because if they do, inevitably a decent % will withdrawal it and blow it all within years... then they are completely destitute.

A lot of complicated questions when it comes to creating/ managing an income insurance program.

 

[NPT]

As long as they are blocked off from touching it and messing around with it...then it would behave more like a very simplified managed pension plan, of years gone by.

Basically everyone's contributions would go into the "L" funds (which are target date funds of funds) ... which starts out with a high equity exposure when young and slowly shifts into bonds each year.... until in almost all bonds at retirement. This is what has become a default option for many 401k plans... and I've come to believe this is probably the best plan for most.... .... then a simple life annuity is purchased at retirement age.... and presto.... you've basically recreated what a pension plan for 1 would look like.

There becomes much bigger issues if you allow individuals to fool around with their investment allocations, as they will almost assuredly sell low and buy high, get terrible returns, etc.......

Then do they have access to the lump sum at retirement age.... because if they do, inevitably a decent % will withdrawal it and blow it all within years... then they are completely destitute.

A lot of complicated questions when it comes to creating/ managing an income insurance program.

I agree with all of that. If individuals are allowed to fool around with their investments then the investment pool available has to be very limited and like you say they can't withdraw it in a lump sum. I've never been much of a fan of annuities but it would probably be a good option in this case since a lot of people simple don't know how to manage money.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

The Democrats significantly cut Social Security benefits in the early 90’s. Except they didn’t call it a cut, they taxed the benefits. The end result was moving Social Security trust funds into the general fund of the US treasury through our individual tax returns. The Social Security trust fund saved no money with this cut. Given our progressive rates, and income floor where no taxes are levied, the taxes on Social Security benefits introduces means testing into the system. Of course, the politicians were and are dishonest about what they have done with Social Security.

Dems once represented the mass majority working class on economic issues, but that hasn't been the case since before Bill Clinton.

Dem legislators and prezes for a generation have been libs only on social issues, not economic ones.

today's Dem legislator and the last 2 Dem prezes are way right of Eisenhower and Nixon on everything economic.

that's not by accident, or a shift in the country's economic ideology.

it's been engineered by capitalism the force.

when money can buy govt on both sides of the isle, and all media regardless of having a D or an R affiliation, this was an inevitable reality short of a voter uprising.

which can't happen no matter how many more decades of investor class rule, by and for the investor class, and how much ground the working class loses every yr, as long as voters keep voting social issues, not economic ones, and when voters on both sides make a deal with the devil to give up the economic best interests of the country's working class, in return for backing on their social issue interests.

progressives Bernie and Liz and Yang are trying to reverse this, but the DNC, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS, will fight them on it just as hard, or even harder, than the GOP and Fox will.

it's not personal. it's just business.

 

[ButHerEmails]

The Democrats significantly cut Social Security benefits in the early 90’s. Except they didn’t call it a cut, they taxed the benefits. The end result was moving Social Security trust funds into the general fund of the US treasury through our individual tax returns. The Social Security trust fund saved no money with this cut. Given our progressive rates, and income floor where no taxes are levied, the taxes on Social Security benefits introduces means testing into the system. Of course, the politicians were and are dishonest about what they have done with Social Security.

Nuance isn’t your strong suit, although that’s one of the longer oversimplifications I’ve read recently. Good on you.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

There are major bend points in the SS system....I once did an analysis of this, but can't recall the details.... other than the best returns go to the lowest income workers by far.... with the caveat that they don't die early. Now that's the tricky part.... as we know higher income levels are positively correlated with longer life expectancies... for a multitude of reasons.

Like any pension system..... we don't really know ones true ROI until after they die.... and the benefits stop (or are curtailed, or stop when the spouse dies, etc....)

It could end up a terrible, terrible, deal... in that they die 1 day after being eligible for benefits.... or it could end up being just ok if they end up living an average life expectancy.... to possibly pretty decent if they live to be 104.

Comparing its internal rate of return to the SP500 isn't a very proper comparison (though certainly frustrating in hindsight)..... because it's not an equivalent risk adjusted return. There is no market risk in the SS system. The proper comparison would be if all the SS contributions were invested in a basket of Treasury bonds (which is what the SS trust fund does) . This makes the deal quite a bit less "ugly".

I'd personally (as it seems you would).... be willing to take the market risk myself over a working lifetime.... and would happily sign up for this idea. But my years of interacting with the general public on their finances in different manners has lead me to believe that this would be a disaster for most.

good points, but we're comparing a rigged system for the plus side with one that's been sabotaged for the negative.

what would the market be at today were it not for the 08 bailout, quantitative easing, capital gains tax inequities, 40 yrs of political policies that are directly geared for the purpose of benefitting Wall St and raising the Dow, and then again throwing another billion in tax cuts for Wall St and the investor class at the market with Trump's/GOP tax cut.

that trillion didn't go under investor's mattresses, it got plowed into the market, benefiting the small minority investor class because of an extra trillion chasing the same stocks..

even a pyramid scheme will keep showing gains, if someone keeps throwing money at it.

on the other side, 40 yrs of DC engineered stagnant to regressing working class wages has drastically hurt the SS revenue pool, especially with the ceiling on FICA taxable incomes.

literally every cent that has been shifted from the working class to the investor class over the decades, and literally every cent of increased wealth disparity, has been removed from FICA generated revenues.

and how much has just been raided from the fund?

all that said, plowing FICA revenues into the market would again drastically drive up the market, regardless of not improving the actual earnings or multiples of the business entities that comprise it.

it would also even further affect public economic policy coming out of DC.

lowering the min wage to $6.50 hr, open immigration, corp tax benefits to offshore even more, and any other such policy decisions that drive up the market, could be sold as in the interests of the SS fund.

fact is, the market isn't driven by earnings or multiples, it's driven by the amount of money chasing the stocks.

so when the market keeps going up due to more and more money chasing it, and the metrics of the publicly traded stocks that comprise the market don't keep up with higher and higher stock value, how does that not become a ponzi scheme, and what happens when the spigot gets turned off.

and what happens when raising the retirement age higher and higher and higher, becomes the mechanism to keep the spigot from being turned off.

plowing FICA money into the market sounds great even to me just looking at the grossly manipulated market today in hindsight, and not taking into consideration it's impact on future short term economic policy out of DC, and not taking into consideration the sabotage to the FICA revenues on the other side, but what about for whatever generation doesn't time it right.

and what about all the other generations starting today, that have to work into their mid seventies to retire, then 80, then mid 80s, to keep the spigot open and the pyramid from collapsing.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

How would moving work? Since we really have not accumulated money in social security, I am assuming people just cannot transfer anything of value to TSP. That means for anyone at least down to 50, staying in social security as is makes sense. But if everyone younger moves to TSP, there is no money coming into social security. As bleak as the future of social security may be, imagine if revenue were reduced by 60% or more.

It would have to be phased in, but I have no doubt that it could be done.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I agree with all of that. If individuals are allowed to fool around with their investments then the investment pool available has to be very limited and like you say they can't withdraw it in a lump sum. I've never been much of a fan of annuities but it would probably be a good option in this case since a lot of people simple don't know how to manage money.

There’d have to be restrictions, but the point of TSP is that it would allow more Americans to build actual wealth which they can use during their lifetimes or pass on to heirs. I wouldn’t force holders to buy annuities. I’m certainly not going to do that with mine.

 

[NPT]

There’d have to be restrictions, but the point of TSP is that it would allow more Americans to build actual wealth which they can use during their lifetimes or pass on to heirs. I wouldn’t force holders to buy annuities. I’m certainly not going to do that with mine.

I wouldn't necessarily for them to buy annuities but I would limit how much they could take out per year. I don't know what that would would like but I think you have to protect a lot of people from themselves.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I wouldn't necessarily for them to buy annuities but I would limit how much they could take out per year. I don't know what that would would like but I think you have to protect a lot of people from themselves.

I’d trust people to handle their assets with as little government interference as possible, but yes, we’d need to work it out to prevent people making themselves destitute through irresponsible decisions.

 

[IUAPEX]

Go watch the special on Bill Gates (I think it is called “Inside Bill’s Brain), and tell me that you think all he is do is hoarding his wealth. He, along with Buffett, are donating virtually their entire estate, to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. What they are doing within that organization to improve lives everywhere is far greater than what the govt could even begin to think about with the same dollars.

This is one of my biggest issues with a wealth tax. It seems to indicate that the money would be more efficiently or equitably distributed and I am not confident of that.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

This is one of my biggest issues with a wealth tax. It seems to indicate that the money would be more efficiently or equitably distributed and I am not confident of that.

is the current distribution not inequitable enough for you????

3 people have more wealth than half the country put together, and one tenth of 1% probably more than 90% of the country put together.

just how inequitable does it need to be, before you think a push in the other direction is needed????

 

[IUAPEX]

is the current distribution not inequitable enough for you????

3 people have more wealth than half the country put together, and one tenth of 1% probably more than 90% of the country put together.

just how inequitable does it need to be, before you think a push in the other direction is needed????

Did not say it was equitable now ... I just think that there are other steps that would be better than trying to redistribute through a wealth tax.

In my humble opinion the effects of a wealth tax are not long term. But there are a few things I would like to see adjusted:

1. I am in favor of a sales tax ... and stronger sales tax on “luxury” goods (specific home goods, vehicles, art, etc.).

2. I would advocate a tiered capital gains tax as well ... lower income savers should benefit greater from saving/investing their money than higher income earners.

3. Social Security - I know this will never happen, but those with retirement incomes (including interest and capital gains) above a certain level should not receive Social Security.

4. If we can’t go to a sales tax (which is likely the case) then I would advocate for adding tiers and increasing the top tax rate to 45-50%.

5. I also think we need to do a better job of capturing wealth that has left the country than we do currently.

 

[toastedbread]

The usual argument is that Social Security is a bad investment, if you believe that then isn't the person trading more of their current income for the future actually getting ripped off more.

It's like this..... I found a calculator on the internet that tells you what a dollar invested in the S&P 500 would be worth today if it had been invested in 19XX or 20XX (insert the year for XX) so I took my wife's earning report (what she's paid into SS) and calculated how much each year's payments would be worth at the end of 2016 (as far as calculator calculated when I did it). When you summed all that up she would have had $992,000 and that's just her part (remember her employer had to match that).It's not hard to see that if she had gotten all the money that she and her employer had paid in she would have well over 2 million dollars today and even at the paltry 2% that CDs pay today she would get a lot more that she would get if she filed for SS. Using the old rule of thumb for investments where you can take out 4% the first year and then adjust it for in future years you can see that she would get $80,000 the first year if figured on 2 million and that is more than 3 times she would get today if she filed for SS so yes it is a bad investment for the average person.

I realize there's a type of insurance built into SS so the people that use that do come out way ahead but the average person today will never get even get the interest off what they put in.

Social security is about protecting people from themselves. Something like half the country is not currently invested in the stock market. That's a fairly strong argument in favor of SS.

Keep in mind that it also includes Disability Insurance.

 

[twenty02]

I’d trust people to handle their assets with as little government interference as possible, but yes, we’d need to work it out to prevent people making themselves destitute through irresponsible decisions.

For you and me.... yes. We are smart enough to know what to do with big chunks of money ..... and it clouds our judgment.

I used to think like you did too.... went doesn't everyone understand how to do this.

Then I actually spent time with the general public.... and hopefully not even the "true" general public
... just people that had pro level jobs.

What I've come to find our that is literally nobody but people in finance, accounting, etc has the dirtiest clue how to most efficiently invest in anything.

We've basically thrown people to the wolves and say you should know how to do this. It's absurd.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

For you and me.... yes. We are smart enough to know what to do with big chunks of money ..... and it clouds our judgment.

I used to think like you did too.... went doesn't everyone understand how to do this.

Then I actually spent time with the general public.... and hopefully not even the "true" general public
... just people that had pro level jobs.

What I've come to find our that is literally nobody but people in finance, accounting, etc has the dirtiest clue how to most efficiently invest in anything.

We've basically thrown people to the wolves and say you should know how to do this. It's absurd.

I know people can be clueless in financial matters. There is a reason I made personal finance training mandatory for all my Sailors. We would need reasonable controls, education, and eventually some trust in Americans to make it work. It’s not like even Social Security and Medicare are idiot proof. People have the opportunity to make the best or less than best choice for those too.

 

[toastedbread]

For you and me.... yes. We are smart enough to know what to do with big chunks of money ..... and it clouds our judgment.

I used to think like you did too.... went doesn't everyone understand how to do this.

Then I actually spent time with the general public.... and hopefully not even the "true" general public
... just people that had pro level jobs.

What I've come to find our that is literally nobody but people in finance, accounting, etc has the dirtiest clue how to most efficiently invest in anything.

We've basically thrown people to the wolves and say you should know how to do this. It's absurd.

There are people who do not take advantage of 401k/tsp match. Just...

 

[stollcpa]

There are people who do not take advantage of 401k/tsp match. Just...

Truly might be the number one idiot thing I see, not at least deferring enough to get the employee match.

Thankfully all of my employee defer enough to get my 3% Simple IRA match. Besides other bonuses I pay employees a bonus that equals 2 percent of their pay that I defer the whole amount. That gets them to a 5% employer match.

 

[NPT]

For you and me.... yes. We are smart enough to know what to do with big chunks of money ..... and it clouds our judgment.

I'm not sure about Aloha.

But you're correct about the general public and it's scattered across the whole spectrum. I actually think there are people who don't realize that if you bring in $2000/month and spend $2500/month that you're gonna eventually sink. The problem with a lot of people in today's society is that everyone thinks they need all the gadgets that everyone else has. We volunteer at a food bank and see people coming in there to get food and their 10 year old will have a smartphone. If times got slim for my family I know plenty of things that I could cut. We spend a lot of money on things that are NOT necessities and are just things that we want.

 

[toastedbread]

Truly might be the number one idiot thing I see, not at least deferring enough to get the employee match.

Thankfully all of my employee defer enough to get my 3% Simple IRA match. Besides other bonuses I pay employees a bonus that equals 2 percent of their pay that I defer the whole amount. That gets them to a 5% employer match.

I have a colleague who claims to be unable to afford the 5% match, yet has money for happy hour... go figure...

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Truly might be the number one idiot thing I see, not at least deferring enough to get the employee match.

Thankfully all of my employee defer enough to get my 3% Simple IRA match. Besides other bonuses I pay employees a bonus that equals 2 percent of their pay that I defer the whole amount. That gets them to a 5% employer match.

TSP for federal civilian workers has a 5 percent match. TSP for military doesn't have any match - we get a retirement pension (technically it kind of a retainer for officers as we could be recalled until we reach a certain age - obviously unlikely). For it to work for all Americans, people would need be required to invest like they're required to pay Social Security taxes. In fact, it would need to be taken out like taxes are. Employers would probably have a match of some percent. It could be more than 5 percent. Americans would have the option of investing more. Self-employed or voluntarily unemployed shoud have the option to contribute/continue to contribute. As they saw it grow, and knowing all of it is theirs when they get to a certain age (possibly with some reasonable restrictions - and there are restrictions for military and government workers too), they very likely would do so. I know federal workers that have well over a million bucks in their accounts. I couldn't even invest in TSP until the last years of my military career and the value of it now is over $250K and it's continuing to grow.

 

[stollcpa]

TSP for federal civilian workers has a 5 percent match. TSP for military doesn't have any match - we get a retirement pension (technically it kind of a retainer for officers as we could be recalled until we reach a certain age - obviously unlikely). For it to work for all Americans, people would need be required to invest like they're required to pay Social Security taxes. In fact, it would need to be taken out like taxes are. Employers would probably have a match of some percent. It could be more than 5 percent. Americans would have the option of investing more. Self-employed or voluntarily unemployed shoud have the option to contribute/continue to contribute. As they saw it grow, and knowing all of it is theirs when they get to a certain age (possibly with some reasonable restrictions - and there are restrictions for military and government workers too), they very likely would do so. I know federal workers that have well over a million bucks in their accounts. I couldn't even invest in TSP until the last years of my military career and the value of it now is over $250K and it's continuing to grow.

My son just got out of College and works for the government, I’ve pushed him to invest at least 10% of his gross wages in the retirement.

When my son was 6 years old I made him do odd jobs in my office in order to pay him enough wages to get to whatever the maximum ROTH IRA was each year. I then contributed the wages to his ROTH. I did that through his junior year of high school. He just turned 24 and he has over 6 figures in his account. I told him I can’t keep him from touching it but I’d be extremely disappointed if he didn’t leave it alone until retirement. I hope he listens.

 

[toastedbread]

My son just got out of College and works for the government

Commie!

 

[UncleMark]

For it to work for all Americans, people would need be required to invest like they're required to pay Social Security taxes. In fact, it would need to be taken out like taxes are.

That's the only way it's going to work for many. For the lowest paid workers, expecting them to voluntarily give up as little as $10/wk is expecting too much.

This could essentially replace current voluntary plans like 401K. It would be a long term answer to long term financial security for the shockingly large percentage of people who have no savings and don't have the discipline to do it on their own. It would take time, but eventually people would see how it's paying off for older friends and family.

Me personally, I got a late start and haven't had a large enough income to be able to max out my options. Regardless, when the time comes, between both our Social Security checks and the savings/investments I've been able to pull together, I'll be able to have the same or better take home income during retirement that we have now, and that should hold for at least twenty years. Any lame part time thing I do to bring in a few bucks will just be gravy.

Let's just say I'm going to be in better shape than most of the old fxcks in the trailer park.

 

[toastedbread]

That's the only way it's going to work for many. For the lowest paid workers, expecting them to voluntarily give up as little as $10/wk is expecting too much.

This could essentially replace current voluntary plans like 401K. It would be a long term answer to long term financial security for the shockingly large percentage of people who have no savings and don't have the discipline to do it on their own. It would take time, but eventually people would see how it's paying off for older friends and family.

Me personally, I got a late start and haven't had a large enough income to be able to max out my options. Regardless, when the time comes, between both our Social Security checks and the savings/investments I've been able to pull together, I'll be able to have the same or better take home income during retirement that we have now, and that should hold for at least twenty years. Any lame part time thing I do to bring in a few bucks will just be gravy.

Let's just say I'm going to be in better shape than most of the old fxcks in the trailer park.

Isn't it basically the same as Social Security, except they would be investing in riskier assets? You could do the same thing with social security.

 

[UncleMark]

Isn't it basically the same as Social Security, except they would be investing in riskier assets? You could do the same thing with social security.

Social Security is a generational transfer of wealth that's been disguised and sold as a pension plan based on the individual's (and employers') contributions. What Aloha is discussing and that I commented on would be an actual investment plan for individuals, not a charade.

 

[stollcpa]

Commie!

I figure all the Dem taxes I’ve paid, I am still paying his wages.

He’s smarter than me. He didn’t want anything to do with my office. He will be retired at 55. Lol.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

TSP for federal civilian workers has a 5 percent match. TSP for military doesn't have any match - we get a retirement pension (technically it kind of a retainer for officers as we could be recalled until we reach a certain age - obviously unlikely). For it to work for all Americans, people would need be required to invest like they're required to pay Social Security taxes. In fact, it would need to be taken out like taxes are. Employers would probably have a match of some percent. It could be more than 5 percent. Americans would have the option of investing more. Self-employed or voluntarily unemployed shoud have the option to contribute/continue to contribute. As they saw it grow, and knowing all of it is theirs when they get to a certain age (possibly with some reasonable restrictions - and there are restrictions for military and government workers too), they very likely would do so. I know federal workers that have well over a million bucks in their accounts. I couldn't even invest in TSP until the last years of my military career and the value of it now is over $250K and it's continuing to grow.

Man, some of you guys do well. I have been doing 12% since 93 or so, 8% from 87-93, and it is painfully clear I can never retire. I have been in various "growth" funds that underperform the moment I switch to them.

 

[UncleMark]

Man, some of you guys do well. I have been doing 12% since 93 or so, 8% from 87-93, and it is painfully clear I can never retire. I have been in various "growth" funds that underperform the moment I switch to them.

Downgrade. There are several vacancies here in the trailer park.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Man, some of you guys do well. I have been doing 12% since 93 or so, 8% from 87-93, and it is painfully clear I can never retire. I have been in various "growth" funds that underperform the moment I switch to them.

Funds in TSP are index funds and are less risky. The expenses for TSP are the lowest possible and that makes a difference over time.

 

[stollcpa]

Funds in TSP are index funds and are less risky. The expenses for TSP are the lowest possible and that makes a difference over time.

I made couple really stupid mistakes in my early 30s. I hit really big on couple tech stocks and a penny stock that went from $10,000 to $145,000 in less than 20 days. Only played 2 penny stocks my entire life. Second one wasn’t good. My wife got new pool and Escalade out of my hits. She didn’t have to give them back when I got my ass kicked with Enron and a few others. LOL. Learned my lesson and stayed mostly in mutual funds except for few individual stocks since then. Have done really well with Apple but rest hit and miss. Wish I would diversified into farm land and didn’t. Farm Land now selling for $10,000-$15,000 per acre in our county. If I had followed my fathers 8th grade educated advice I wouldn’t be here at the office today.

 

[toastedbread]

I made couple really stupid mistakes in my early 30s. I hit really big on couple tech stocks and a penny stock that went from $10,000 to $145,000 in less than 20 days. Only played 2 penny stocks my entire life. Second one wasn’t good. My wife got new pool and Escalade out of my hits. She didn’t have to give them back when I got my ass kicked with Enron and a few others. LOL. Learned my lesson and stayed mostly in mutual funds except for few individual stocks since then. Have done really well with Apple but rest hit and miss. Wish I would diversified into farm land and didn’t. Farm Land now selling for $10,000-$15,000 per acre in our county. If I had followed my fathers 8th grade educated advice I wouldn’t be here at the office today.

You were tipped off on those penny stocks? Otherwise geesh man.

Are you really a CPA? Everyone knows that real CPAs only drive used corollas!

 

[NPT]

My son just got out of College and works for the government, I’ve pushed him to invest at least 10% of his gross wages in the retirement.

When my son was 6 years old I made him do odd jobs in my office in order to pay him enough wages to get to whatever the maximum ROTH IRA was each year. I then contributed the wages to his ROTH. I did that through his junior year of high school. He just turned 24 and he has over 6 figures in his account. I told him I can’t keep him from touching it but I’d be extremely disappointed if he didn’t leave it alone until retirement. I hope he listens.

As long as those 6 figures are to the left of the decimal that's good.

 

[NPT]

Man, some of you guys do well. I have been doing 12% since 93 or so, 8% from 87-93, and it is painfully clear I can never retire. I have been in various "growth" funds that underperform the moment I switch to them.

Can you start posting what funds you're investing in so we on the cooler can avoid them?

 

[rocket_knight]

Dems once represented the mass majority working class on economic issues, but that hasn't been the case since before Bill Clinton.

Dem legislators and prezes for a generation have been libs only on social issues, not economic ones.

today's Dem legislator and the last 2 Dem prezes are way right of Eisenhower and Nixon on everything economic.

that's not by accident, or a shift in the country's economic ideology.

it's been engineered by capitalism the force.

when money can buy govt on both sides of the isle, and all media regardless of having a D or an R affiliation, this was an inevitable reality short of a voter uprising.

which can't happen no matter how many more decades of investor class rule, by and for the investor class, and how much ground the working class loses every yr, as long as voters keep voting social issues, not economic ones, and when voters on both sides make a deal with the devil to give up the economic best interests of the country's working class, in return for backing on their social issue interests.

progressives Bernie and Liz and Yang are trying to reverse this, but the DNC, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS, will fight them on it just as hard, or even harder, than the GOP and Fox will.

it's not personal. it's just business.

I see Yangs' UBI as different. It props up your 'capitalism the force'. Bernie and Liz's M4A is more the political thing. With Yangs' UBI, Capitalism never reaches the point where Marx predicted revolution.