Re: Bush Administration Unraveling - this from an idiot who doesn't even know how to spell Rumsfeld's name.
- From: Jeff Davis <jd_home@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 11:32:46 -0500
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:02:34 GMT, Trevor Zion Bauknight <trev@xxxxxx> wrote:
In article <b1be3$438f6f9f$80a32844$5542@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jeff Davis <jd_home@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sullivan your imaginary millions that you could have had were it not for Social Security is a ludicrous number.
It might be ludicrous for mathematically challenged people. But the fact is that sensible investments return at least 3 times what SS ever will. And investment dollars can be left as estate.
I'd say a man who worked for 35-45 years and never made more than $75,000 could draw at least $25,000 more per year from investing than SS and could leave an estate valued at $750m-$1 mil. This assumes he invests 10% of his income to be matched 50% by the company. I know at least 100 people who did that well and better. The figures will vary depending on how much was withdrawn early for college kids, big houses, Cadillacs and Country Club dues.
The fact that you don't have the mental competence to understand that doesn't change the facts.
You're not harmless. You liberals buy into any idiocy.
An imaginary worker who paid the maximum from 1937 to the present would have ponied up, at the end of this year, around $200,000.
Until 1972, the maximum a worker could have contributed to Social Security was never over $1000 per year. It was under $100 until 1951.
You are, according to your story, 78. If you retired at 65 in 1993, the maximum you could have paid into Social Security would have been, ~$89,000. As for the miracle of compound interest, the bulk of your contributions came in the last decade of your working life. ($61,000)
Your story is that you could have parlayed your $89,000 into plural millions. You would have never been beset by any of the multiple downturns or hazards of the stock market. And, you would have avoided taxes, too.
Remember, your total contributions to Social Security, until 1972, would have been $8,096. So, you've got 20 years to turn the bulk of your contribution past the shoals of 4 recessions (74, 80, 82, 92) and a crippling downturn in the market (87) and a tax plan that treated all income at the same rate.
Quick, Ma! The Flit.
GAAAAAA! FACTS!!!!!
-- Trev
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
Perhaps you should check to see what the stock market was in the late 30s and what it is now.
I had one stock for 10 years and another for about 25 years and they more than quadrupled. In 19 years of retirement, the income plus the value of my IRA has more than tripled. Example: if I had a $100,000 IRA I drew $500 per month from it for 19 years and it is now worth $250,000. That's almost quadrupling in only 25 years.
My sole point is that conservative investment from the late 30s until I retired in the late 80s would have generated a lot more income than SS and IMO would enable me to leave an estate in excess of $1 mil from SS equivalent investment alone. Suppose I had been smart enough to invest in Coca Cola and switch to Wal-Mart and MS - or countless other stocks. I almost bought Wal-Mart stock in 1978 but I thought it was too risky. What have they done in 27 years including splits?
If you are worried about whether SS will be around when you retire, you should favor private investment even more than I do.
The reasons for SS are two: (1) some people are unfortunate enough that they can't generate sufficient retirement income (2) some people are too stupid to invest wisely so liberals want a socialized government to protect them.
Regardless, your story ignored several facts. Mostly, the minimal amount of money that was actually involved. Your total Social Security contribution from 1945, when you got out of the army, to your retirement in 1986 couldn't have been more than $46,000. And that's assuming that you paid in the maximum each year. A compounded modest 6% return on that money, missing all the downturns of the stock market AND taxes, would be ~$81,000. A wanton compounded 10% return (avoiding all downturns and taxes) would have been ~$140,000. Your original plural millions scenario is beyond ludicrous. To get to a single million figure would have required a 20% annual return, from 1945 to 1986, year in, year out, no downturns, no taxes.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: Bush Administration Unraveling - this from an idiot who doesn't even know how to spell Rumsfeld's name.
- From: Jeff Davis
- Re: Bush Administration Unraveling - this from an idiot who doesn't even know how to spell Rumsfeld's name.
- From: J. Hugh Sullivan
- Re: Bush Administration Unraveling - this from an idiot who doesn't even know how to spell Rumsfeld's name.
- From: Jeff Davis
- Re: Bush Administration Unraveling - this from an idiot who doesn't even know how to spell Rumsfeld's name.
- From: Trevor Zion Bauknight
- Re: Bush Administration Unraveling - this from an idiot who doesn't even know how to spell Rumsfeld's name.
- From: J. Hugh Sullivan
- Re: Bush Administration Unraveling - this from an idiot who doesn't even know how to spell Rumsfeld's name.
- Prev by Date: Re: MERRY CHRISTMAS.. it's okay to say it!
- Next by Date: Re: What happens if Texas and USC lose?
- Previous by thread: Re: Bush Administration Unraveling - this from an idiot who doesn't even know how to spell Rumsfeld's name.
- Next by thread: Re: Bush Administration Unraveling - this from an idiot who doesn't even know how to spell Rumsfeld's name.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
