Does Tramp want to slash payroll employment tax for a year, believe me it will never come back

[Meister]

The author of that article makes a fatal assumption.

He is asasuming that employers will add their cost back into the paychecks of employees so that they will receive 15.3% more pay but employers are not going to be forced to do that so people will see only a 7.65% increase

NO one is "assuming" that the employer is going to pay the employee what they usually pay to the government unless the government relieves the employer of the obligation to the government.

Politicians from both parties have borrowed (raided) from SS several times, and have not repaid it.
Are you this much of a hack that you can't even admit to the truth, Penny? WELL, ARE YOU?

This myth, "Politicians from both parties have borrowed (raided) from SS several times, and have not repaid it.", has been proven false for decades. I guess it never got around to you and the other intentionally ignorant Progressives.

Are you this much of a hack that you can't even admit to the truth, Meister? WELL, ARE YOU?

"Somewhere between Social Security going "on-budget" in 1969 and today, Americans believe the program's spare cash was raided, used to fund wars, and never repaid, leaving seniors high and dry. However, this isn't the case.

Here's the truth: Social Security's asset reserves have been borrowed by the federal government, but this borrowing is required by law. The Social Security Administration invests the program's asset reserves into special-issue bonds and, to a lesser extent, certificates of indebtedness. In turn, the federal government utilizes this cash to fund all types of budget line items. This might include defense spending, but it may also include social programs, education, and healthcare. Money borrowed from Social Security isn't earmarked for any federal spending program, in particular, so suggesting that the borrowing was done solely to fund wars isn't correct."

[...]

"In addition, what most folks are probably overlooking is that Social Security is being paid interest on what it's lent to Congress. The combination of various maturities and yields on its special-issue bonds worked out to an average interest rate of 2.844% at the end of April. In 2018, interest income led to just over $83 billion in revenue collection, or a little more than 8% of all the money Social Security collected last year."

The Fallacy of the "Government Raid" on Social Security | The Motley Fool

Did Congress really steal your hard-earned money?

www.fool.com

Damn......I hate it when I'm wrong.

 

[healthmyths]

Is this tramps way to dismember SS and Medicare, the republicans have been trying to do it for eons. They want people to put their money in the stock market instead of putting in it in SS and Medicare.

How low can he be. It he takes that away , it will never come back. We need to make sure the Democrats control the house and the Senate and elect a Democratic Potus.
------------------------------------
Trump Wants to Slash Payroll Taxes: What It Means for You
Find out what the White House proposal would do to your paycheck.

Trump Wants to Slash Payroll Taxes: What It Means for You | The Motley Fool

Find out what the White House proposal would do to your paycheck.

www.fool.com

And you know that is such a GREAT idea! I've been proposing for years that individuals have the FREEDOM to tell
HHS (SS/Medicare) where the 12.4% tax goes (6.2% by employer and 6.2% employee...which dummies like you have had no idea.)!
IT is a totally proven fact that if a person when age 25 starting to work paid into a self directed mutual fund, savings account, bonds, etc. that the HHS complies with the wishes.
Since its inception on May 26, 1896, the Dow Jones average rate of return each year has been 5.42 percent, but the market has changed significantly during those 122 years

The Average Return on the Dow Jones During Its Lifetime

Calculating Dow Jones yearly returns can be tricky because so many factors influence how the stock market performs from one year to the next. Still monitoring overall performance data can help you get an idea for where you want your money to go. It can also help to watch individual stocks.

finance.zacks.com

So consider these facts:
Using the S&P 500 Index as a benchmark, stocks have had an average annual return of nearly 13% over the past 10 years and about 9% over the past 15 years.

What Is the Average Mutual Fund Return?

Before investing in mutual funds, consider the annual returns. Compare your potential return on investment to stocks, bonds, and other securities.

www.thebalance.com

Now these average salary information from this site: The Average Salary by Age for Americans - SmartAsset

So HELL YES anyone who has seen the value of investing in stocks over the last 50 years why not
tell HHS where to put the money?
View attachment 322253

Did you include the 35% loss I incurred during the month of March?

ONE F...king TIME you dumb shit! I showed you 50 years! 50 years and are aware that there are MORE ups than downs? Dummy!
Right you lost 35% in March? What were you invested in? I bet it was some front end loaded mutual fund like I use to sell!
ONE time... ONE time!
When I first had my securities license we were all concerned... There was a prediction the DJIA would fall 50% the next year!
50%!!! Think about that! Oh did I mention that the DJIA was at that time in 1972 was 889.30?
Right and he was wrong! Today 23,719... over 26 times higher 48 years ago!

I had finally recovered from 2008 and was actually making money again. It took 8 years to start back where it was in 2008. How many years do I have to wait this time? Since I could retire next month, but because of these losses, does that mean I have to wait until 2028 when I am dead and gone to retire?

Well you were stupid to leave it in the market then!
The whole point is when you are younger invest in risky but longer term growth.
THEN when you get about 60 start moving into bonds, treasuries, savings accounts etc... obviously where you are more secure.
But you stupidly then kept ALL your assets in equities with appreciation potential versus moving into revenue potentials, ie. bonds, etc.
Smart people dependent on their investments realize this...evidently you didn't! Dummy!

Who said I had it all in stocks? Uh, you ASSUMED like a dumbass would!

So what other kind of equity investment with interest payments ALSO have depreciation? Unless you were buying junk bonds, then the only way B grade bombs lose value if you can't redeem at face value? Then you are dumber yet if at 12 years from next month
you were still buying equity... you need some financial advisor to straighten you out as any one knows that the closer you get to retirement the fewer chances for your equity to be lost you would be invested in.

The Vanguard funds move from a 90/10 mix of stocks and bonds at age 40 to a
50/50 mix by age 65.
They end up at 30/70 allocation at age 72.
“We’re balancing three key risks — market risk, longevity risk and inflation risk —
and we want a portfolio that works across different markets,” said Brancato.

Elders and equities: How much stock should retirees own?

Moving from riskier to safer investments as you age remains a valid savings approach, but modern lifestyle changes do require some tweaking over time.

www.cnbc.com

So how in the hell were you in the equities market so deep that just one month from retirement you lost 35% of your equities?
GEEZ....

I am 59 1/2 next month dumbass! I have done exactly as you said. Now, don't you feel stupid?

Then you statement..."35% loss I incurred during the month of March?" and then you said:
Since I could retire next month, but because of these losses, does that mean I have to wait until 2028 when I am dead and gone to retire?
A) You said lost 35% in one month
B) You said "....have to wait to 2028"
So which of your statements should WE believe...
A) You said lost 35% in one month
B) You said "....have to wait to 2028"
OR
I have done exactly as you said"

So if you did as I said ... YOU wouldn't have lost 35% in March!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Is this tramps way to dismember SS and Medicare, the republicans have been trying to do it for eons. They want people to put their money in the stock market instead of putting in it in SS and Medicare.

How low can he be. It he takes that away , it will never come back. We need to make sure the Democrats control the house and the Senate and elect a Democratic Potus.
------------------------------------
Trump Wants to Slash Payroll Taxes: What It Means for You
Find out what the White House proposal would do to your paycheck.

Trump Wants to Slash Payroll Taxes: What It Means for You | The Motley Fool

Find out what the White House proposal would do to your paycheck.

www.fool.com

TDS thread 1,355.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Is this tramps way to dismember SS and Medicare, the republicans have been trying to do it for eons. They want people to put their money in the stock market instead of putting in it in SS and Medicare.

How low can he be. It he takes that away , it will never come back. We need to make sure the Democrats control the house and the Senate and elect a Democratic Potus.
------------------------------------
Trump Wants to Slash Payroll Taxes: What It Means for You
Find out what the White House proposal would do to your paycheck.

Trump Wants to Slash Payroll Taxes: What It Means for You | The Motley Fool

Find out what the White House proposal would do to your paycheck.

www.fool.com

And you know that is such a GREAT idea! I've been proposing for years that individuals have the FREEDOM to tell
HHS (SS/Medicare) where the 12.4% tax goes (6.2% by employer and 6.2% employee...which dummies like you have had no idea.)!
IT is a totally proven fact that if a person when age 25 starting to work paid into a self directed mutual fund, savings account, bonds, etc. that the HHS complies with the wishes.
Since its inception on May 26, 1896, the Dow Jones average rate of return each year has been 5.42 percent, but the market has changed significantly during those 122 years

The Average Return on the Dow Jones During Its Lifetime

Calculating Dow Jones yearly returns can be tricky because so many factors influence how the stock market performs from one year to the next. Still monitoring overall performance data can help you get an idea for where you want your money to go. It can also help to watch individual stocks.

finance.zacks.com

So consider these facts:
Using the S&P 500 Index as a benchmark, stocks have had an average annual return of nearly 13% over the past 10 years and about 9% over the past 15 years.

What Is the Average Mutual Fund Return?

Before investing in mutual funds, consider the annual returns. Compare your potential return on investment to stocks, bonds, and other securities.

www.thebalance.com

Now these average salary information from this site: The Average Salary by Age for Americans - SmartAsset

So HELL YES anyone who has seen the value of investing in stocks over the last 50 years why not
tell HHS where to put the money?
View attachment 322253

Did you include the 35% loss I incurred during the month of March?

ONE F...king TIME you dumb shit! I showed you 50 years! 50 years and are aware that there are MORE ups than downs? Dummy!
Right you lost 35% in March? What were you invested in? I bet it was some front end loaded mutual fund like I use to sell!
ONE time... ONE time!
When I first had my securities license we were all concerned... There was a prediction the DJIA would fall 50% the next year!
50%!!! Think about that! Oh did I mention that the DJIA was at that time in 1972 was 889.30?
Right and he was wrong! Today 23,719... over 26 times higher 48 years ago!

I had finally recovered from 2008 and was actually making money again. It took 8 years to start back where it was in 2008. How many years do I have to wait this time? Since I could retire next month, but because of these losses, does that mean I have to wait until 2028 when I am dead and gone to retire?

Well you were stupid to leave it in the market then!
The whole point is when you are younger invest in risky but longer term growth.
THEN when you get about 60 start moving into bonds, treasuries, savings accounts etc... obviously where you are more secure.
But you stupidly then kept ALL your assets in equities with appreciation potential versus moving into revenue potentials, ie. bonds, etc.
Smart people dependent on their investments realize this...evidently you didn't! Dummy!

Who said I had it all in stocks? Uh, you ASSUMED like a dumbass would!

So what other kind of equity investment with interest payments ALSO have depreciation? Unless you were buying junk bonds, then the only way B grade bombs lose value if you can't redeem at face value? Then you are dumber yet if at 12 years from next month
you were still buying equity... you need some financial advisor to straighten you out as any one knows that the closer you get to retirement the fewer chances for your equity to be lost you would be invested in.

The Vanguard funds move from a 90/10 mix of stocks and bonds at age 40 to a
50/50 mix by age 65.
They end up at 30/70 allocation at age 72.
“We’re balancing three key risks — market risk, longevity risk and inflation risk —
and we want a portfolio that works across different markets,” said Brancato.

Elders and equities: How much stock should retirees own?

Moving from riskier to safer investments as you age remains a valid savings approach, but modern lifestyle changes do require some tweaking over time.

www.cnbc.com

So how in the hell were you in the equities market so deep that just one month from retirement you lost 35% of your equities?
GEEZ....

I am 59 1/2 next month dumbass! I have done exactly as you said. Now, don't you feel stupid?

Then you statement..."35% loss I incurred during the month of March?" and then you said:
Since I could retire next month, but because of these losses, does that mean I have to wait until 2028 when I am dead and gone to retire?
A) You said lost 35% in one month
B) You said "....have to wait to 2028"
So which of your statements should WE believe...
A) You said lost 35% in one month
B) You said "....have to wait to 2028"
OR
I have done exactly as you said"

So if you did as I said ... YOU wouldn't have lost 35% in March!

You just proved you have poor reading skills. Try again.

 

[Blues Man]

The author of that article makes a fatal assumption.

He is asasuming that employers will add their cost back into the paychecks of employees so that they will receive 15.3% more pay but employers are not going to be forced to do that so people will see only a 7.65% increase

NO one is "assuming" that the employer is going to pay the employee what they usually pay to the government unless the government relieves the employer of the obligation to the government.

Politicians from both parties have borrowed (raided) from SS several times, and have not repaid it.
Are you this much of a hack that you can't even admit to the truth, Penny? WELL, ARE YOU?

This myth, "Politicians from both parties have borrowed (raided) from SS several times, and have not repaid it.", has been proven false for decades. I guess it never got around to you and the other intentionally ignorant Progressives.

Are you this much of a hack that you can't even admit to the truth, Meister? WELL, ARE YOU?

"Somewhere between Social Security going "on-budget" in 1969 and today, Americans believe the program's spare cash was raided, used to fund wars, and never repaid, leaving seniors high and dry. However, this isn't the case.

Here's the truth: Social Security's asset reserves have been borrowed by the federal government, but this borrowing is required by law. The Social Security Administration invests the program's asset reserves into special-issue bonds and, to a lesser extent, certificates of indebtedness. In turn, the federal government utilizes this cash to fund all types of budget line items. This might include defense spending, but it may also include social programs, education, and healthcare. Money borrowed from Social Security isn't earmarked for any federal spending program, in particular, so suggesting that the borrowing was done solely to fund wars isn't correct."

[...]

"In addition, what most folks are probably overlooking is that Social Security is being paid interest on what it's lent to Congress. The combination of various maturities and yields on its special-issue bonds worked out to an average interest rate of 2.844% at the end of April. In 2018, interest income led to just over $83 billion in revenue collection, or a little more than 8% of all the money Social Security collected last year."

The Fallacy of the "Government Raid" on Social Security | The Motley Fool

Did Congress really steal your hard-earned money?

www.fool.com

Did you read the article?

In it the author stated that people would see a 15.3% increase in their pay

The only way to get that number is if it is assumed the employer paid portion of payroll taxes are added to a person's salary.

FYI it's not going to happen so if this temporary payroll tax waiver does pass all people will see is a 7.65% increase in salary

 

[mikegriffith1]

Uh, I guess you don't know, or don't remember, that Obama cut the payroll tax as part of his stimulus measures to revive the economy in 2009. After about a year, the payroll tax went back to its regular rate.

If you want to help low- and middle-income folks, cutting the payroll tax is one of the best, most immediate and direct ways to do so.

 

[Norman]

The author of that article makes a fatal assumption.

He is asasuming that employers will add their cost back into the paychecks of employees so that they will receive 15.3% more pay but employers are not going to be forced to do that so people will see only a 7.65% increase

NO one is "assuming" that the employer is going to pay the employee what they usually pay to the government unless the government relieves the employer of the obligation to the government.

Politicians from both parties have borrowed (raided) from SS several times, and have not repaid it.
Are you this much of a hack that you can't even admit to the truth, Penny? WELL, ARE YOU?

This myth, "Politicians from both parties have borrowed (raided) from SS several times, and have not repaid it.", has been proven false for decades. I guess it never got around to you and the other intentionally ignorant Progressives.

Are you this much of a hack that you can't even admit to the truth, Meister? WELL, ARE YOU?

"Somewhere between Social Security going "on-budget" in 1969 and today, Americans believe the program's spare cash was raided, used to fund wars, and never repaid, leaving seniors high and dry. However, this isn't the case.

Here's the truth: Social Security's asset reserves have been borrowed by the federal government, but this borrowing is required by law. The Social Security Administration invests the program's asset reserves into special-issue bonds and, to a lesser extent, certificates of indebtedness. In turn, the federal government utilizes this cash to fund all types of budget line items. This might include defense spending, but it may also include social programs, education, and healthcare. Money borrowed from Social Security isn't earmarked for any federal spending program, in particular, so suggesting that the borrowing was done solely to fund wars isn't correct."

[...]

"In addition, what most folks are probably overlooking is that Social Security is being paid interest on what it's lent to Congress. The combination of various maturities and yields on its special-issue bonds worked out to an average interest rate of 2.844% at the end of April. In 2018, interest income led to just over $83 billion in revenue collection, or a little more than 8% of all the money Social Security collected last year."

The Fallacy of the "Government Raid" on Social Security | The Motley Fool

Did Congress really steal your hard-earned money?

www.fool.com

Damn......I hate it when I'm wrong.

Social security is funded like a ponzi scheme.

The boomers just happened to vote themselves the money of other people again. Now that we saved the boomers by shutting down the economy, I will be happy to hear that they will accept absorbing some of the costs in the form of social security cuts.

 

[basquebromance]

He is the commander in chief, we are his foot soldiers, our patriotic duty is to obey him, and the entire planet is his battleground

 

[Markle]

The author of that article makes a fatal assumption.

He is asasuming that employers will add their cost back into the paychecks of employees so that they will receive 15.3% more pay but employers are not going to be forced to do that so people will see only a 7.65% increase

NO one is "assuming" that the employer is going to pay the employee what they usually pay to the government unless the government relieves the employer of the obligation to the government.

Politicians from both parties have borrowed (raided) from SS several times, and have not repaid it.
Are you this much of a hack that you can't even admit to the truth, Penny? WELL, ARE YOU?

This myth, "Politicians from both parties have borrowed (raided) from SS several times, and have not repaid it.", has been proven false for decades. I guess it never got around to you and the other intentionally ignorant Progressives.

Are you this much of a hack that you can't even admit to the truth, Meister? WELL, ARE YOU?

"Somewhere between Social Security going "on-budget" in 1969 and today, Americans believe the program's spare cash was raided, used to fund wars, and never repaid, leaving seniors high and dry. However, this isn't the case.

Here's the truth: Social Security's asset reserves have been borrowed by the federal government, but this borrowing is required by law. The Social Security Administration invests the program's asset reserves into special-issue bonds and, to a lesser extent, certificates of indebtedness. In turn, the federal government utilizes this cash to fund all types of budget line items. This might include defense spending, but it may also include social programs, education, and healthcare. Money borrowed from Social Security isn't earmarked for any federal spending program, in particular, so suggesting that the borrowing was done solely to fund wars isn't correct."

[...]

"In addition, what most folks are probably overlooking is that Social Security is being paid interest on what it's lent to Congress. The combination of various maturities and yields on its special-issue bonds worked out to an average interest rate of 2.844% at the end of April. In 2018, interest income led to just over $83 billion in revenue collection, or a little more than 8% of all the money Social Security collected last year."

The Fallacy of the "Government Raid" on Social Security | The Motley Fool

Did Congress really steal your hard-earned money?

www.fool.com

Did you read the article?

In it the author stated that people would see a 15.3% increase in their pay

The only way to get that number is if it is assumed the employer paid portion of payroll taxes are added to a person's salary.

FYI it's not going to happen so if this temporary payroll tax waiver does pass all people will see is a 7.65% increase in salary

Yes, I read the article. I did not see the part where you claim that President Trump promised that the payroll tax cut would increase workers take-home pay by 15.3%.

The Motley Fool usually is a reliable source. Please copy and paste for my convenience.

Thank you!

 

[Blues Man]

The author of that article makes a fatal assumption.

He is asasuming that employers will add their cost back into the paychecks of employees so that they will receive 15.3% more pay but employers are not going to be forced to do that so people will see only a 7.65% increase

NO one is "assuming" that the employer is going to pay the employee what they usually pay to the government unless the government relieves the employer of the obligation to the government.

Politicians from both parties have borrowed (raided) from SS several times, and have not repaid it.
Are you this much of a hack that you can't even admit to the truth, Penny? WELL, ARE YOU?

This myth, "Politicians from both parties have borrowed (raided) from SS several times, and have not repaid it.", has been proven false for decades. I guess it never got around to you and the other intentionally ignorant Progressives.

Are you this much of a hack that you can't even admit to the truth, Meister? WELL, ARE YOU?

"Somewhere between Social Security going "on-budget" in 1969 and today, Americans believe the program's spare cash was raided, used to fund wars, and never repaid, leaving seniors high and dry. However, this isn't the case.

Here's the truth: Social Security's asset reserves have been borrowed by the federal government, but this borrowing is required by law. The Social Security Administration invests the program's asset reserves into special-issue bonds and, to a lesser extent, certificates of indebtedness. In turn, the federal government utilizes this cash to fund all types of budget line items. This might include defense spending, but it may also include social programs, education, and healthcare. Money borrowed from Social Security isn't earmarked for any federal spending program, in particular, so suggesting that the borrowing was done solely to fund wars isn't correct."

[...]

"In addition, what most folks are probably overlooking is that Social Security is being paid interest on what it's lent to Congress. The combination of various maturities and yields on its special-issue bonds worked out to an average interest rate of 2.844% at the end of April. In 2018, interest income led to just over $83 billion in revenue collection, or a little more than 8% of all the money Social Security collected last year."

The Fallacy of the "Government Raid" on Social Security | The Motley Fool

Did Congress really steal your hard-earned money?

www.fool.com

Did you read the article?

In it the author stated that people would see a 15.3% increase in their pay

The only way to get that number is if it is assumed the employer paid portion of payroll taxes are added to a person's salary.

FYI it's not going to happen so if this temporary payroll tax waiver does pass all people will see is a 7.65% increase in salary

Yes, I read the article. I did not see the part where you claim that President Trump promised that the payroll tax cut would increase workers take-home pay by 15.3%.

The Motley Fool usually is a reliable source. Please copy and paste for my convenience.

Thank you!

OK Dipshit where did I say Trump said that?

I said the author of the article said that

Maybe you should slow down when you read.

If you need to follow along with your finger and move your lips I won't judge you

 

[healthmyths]

Is this tramps way to dismember SS and Medicare, the republicans have been trying to do it for eons. They want people to put their money in the stock market instead of putting in it in SS and Medicare.

How low can he be. It he takes that away , it will never come back. We need to make sure the Democrats control the house and the Senate and elect a Democratic Potus.
------------------------------------
Trump Wants to Slash Payroll Taxes: What It Means for You
Find out what the White House proposal would do to your paycheck.

Trump Wants to Slash Payroll Taxes: What It Means for You | The Motley Fool

Find out what the White House proposal would do to your paycheck.

www.fool.com

And you know that is such a GREAT idea! I've been proposing for years that individuals have the FREEDOM to tell
HHS (SS/Medicare) where the 12.4% tax goes (6.2% by employer and 6.2% employee...which dummies like you have had no idea.)!
IT is a totally proven fact that if a person when age 25 starting to work paid into a self directed mutual fund, savings account, bonds, etc. that the HHS complies with the wishes.
Since its inception on May 26, 1896, the Dow Jones average rate of return each year has been 5.42 percent, but the market has changed significantly during those 122 years

The Average Return on the Dow Jones During Its Lifetime

Calculating Dow Jones yearly returns can be tricky because so many factors influence how the stock market performs from one year to the next. Still monitoring overall performance data can help you get an idea for where you want your money to go. It can also help to watch individual stocks.

finance.zacks.com

So consider these facts:
Using the S&P 500 Index as a benchmark, stocks have had an average annual return of nearly 13% over the past 10 years and about 9% over the past 15 years.

What Is the Average Mutual Fund Return?

Before investing in mutual funds, consider the annual returns. Compare your potential return on investment to stocks, bonds, and other securities.

www.thebalance.com

Now these average salary information from this site: The Average Salary by Age for Americans - SmartAsset

So HELL YES anyone who has seen the value of investing in stocks over the last 50 years why not
tell HHS where to put the money?
View attachment 322253

Did you include the 35% loss I incurred during the month of March?

ONE F...king TIME you dumb shit! I showed you 50 years! 50 years and are aware that there are MORE ups than downs? Dummy!
Right you lost 35% in March? What were you invested in? I bet it was some front end loaded mutual fund like I use to sell!
ONE time... ONE time!
When I first had my securities license we were all concerned... There was a prediction the DJIA would fall 50% the next year!
50%!!! Think about that! Oh did I mention that the DJIA was at that time in 1972 was 889.30?
Right and he was wrong! Today 23,719... over 26 times higher 48 years ago!

I had finally recovered from 2008 and was actually making money again. It took 8 years to start back where it was in 2008. How many years do I have to wait this time? Since I could retire next month, but because of these losses, does that mean I have to wait until 2028 when I am dead and gone to retire?

Well you were stupid to leave it in the market then!
The whole point is when you are younger invest in risky but longer term growth.
THEN when you get about 60 start moving into bonds, treasuries, savings accounts etc... obviously where you are more secure.
But you stupidly then kept ALL your assets in equities with appreciation potential versus moving into revenue potentials, ie. bonds, etc.
Smart people dependent on their investments realize this...evidently you didn't! Dummy!

Who said I had it all in stocks? Uh, you ASSUMED like a dumbass would!

So what other kind of equity investment with interest payments ALSO have depreciation? Unless you were buying junk bonds, then the only way B grade bombs lose value if you can't redeem at face value? Then you are dumber yet if at 12 years from next month
you were still buying equity... you need some financial advisor to straighten you out as any one knows that the closer you get to retirement the fewer chances for your equity to be lost you would be invested in.

The Vanguard funds move from a 90/10 mix of stocks and bonds at age 40 to a
50/50 mix by age 65.
They end up at 30/70 allocation at age 72.
“We’re balancing three key risks — market risk, longevity risk and inflation risk —
and we want a portfolio that works across different markets,” said Brancato.

Elders and equities: How much stock should retirees own?

Moving from riskier to safer investments as you age remains a valid savings approach, but modern lifestyle changes do require some tweaking over time.

www.cnbc.com

So how in the hell were you in the equities market so deep that just one month from retirement you lost 35% of your equities?
GEEZ....

I am 59 1/2 next month dumbass! I have done exactly as you said. Now, don't you feel stupid?

Then you statement..."35% loss I incurred during the month of March?" and then you said:
Since I could retire next month, but because of these losses, does that mean I have to wait until 2028 when I am dead and gone to retire?
A) You said lost 35% in one month
B) You said "....have to wait to 2028"
So which of your statements should WE believe...
A) You said lost 35% in one month
B) You said "....have to wait to 2028"
OR
I have done exactly as you said"

So if you did as I said ... YOU wouldn't have lost 35% in March!

You just proved you have poor reading skills. Try again.

A) You said you lost 35% in March... DID YOU NOT?
B) You said "have to wait for 2028 to retire"... DID YOU NOT?
C) Then you said:"I have done exactly as you said."
Therefore which is it? Did you balance your investments as the experts suggest? "50/50 mix by age 65."
If you had balanced they you would not have lost 35% in March and jeopardize retirement the next month!
You are truly confused.
Did you balance i.e. not have all your assets in the market or you did NOT balance and lost 35% of your retirement in March?

 

[Markle]

OK Dipshit where did I say Trump said that?

I said the author of the article said that

Maybe you should slow down when you read.

If you need to follow along with your finger and move your lips I won't judge you

Okay, show us all where the author of the article said that was the intent. That workers would be taking home an additional 15.3% by the cut in payroll taxes.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Is this tramps way to dismember SS and Medicare, the republicans have been trying to do it for eons. They want people to put their money in the stock market instead of putting in it in SS and Medicare.

How low can he be. It he takes that away , it will never come back. We need to make sure the Democrats control the house and the Senate and elect a Democratic Potus.
------------------------------------
Trump Wants to Slash Payroll Taxes: What It Means for You
Find out what the White House proposal would do to your paycheck.

Trump Wants to Slash Payroll Taxes: What It Means for You | The Motley Fool

Find out what the White House proposal would do to your paycheck.

www.fool.com

Social Security is a regressive tax which hurts to poor. And libtardos have never found a regressive tax they didn't like.

How many people save for the future now, its a lifesaver for the maj of US citizens.

It would have been a much better retirement for up and coming retirees if
the damn politicians hadn't kept raiding it and using it as their slush fund.

Its the republican agenda.

SS is a giant ponzi scheme. There should be an opt in/out. If you know that you cant be responsible and save then you should probably opt in and let the govt give you a small pittance while they keep all your money and draw interest on your money. And, not only that, its your money, yet when you die, you can't even hand it off to your relatives.

 

[Lesh]

Just when the stock market has tanked AGAIN

Republicans are telling us to put our retirement into it.

Are ya kidding?

 

[healthmyths]

Just when the stock market has tanked AGAIN

Republicans are telling us to put our retirement into it.

Are ya kidding?719

OK... stock market tanked again...
So how did the "stock market", i.e. you dumb people's ignorance is so embarrassing "tank again"???
I guess you are way too young to know the following...probably you just are too f...kin dumb!

When I had my securities license in the 1970s... geez we thought it would NEVER break 1,000.
Guess what idiot!!!
President Nixon Nov. 14, 1972, was not so long ago chronologically, hmmm 1,000! wow!
Then Clinton, March 1999 – The once-unthinkable 10,000 is reached. 10,000!
Then under President Trump JAN 25 2017 The once-unthinkable 20,000 is reached. 20,000!
Today under President Trump April 9 2020 The once-unthinkable 23,719 is reached. 23,000!
So let's see 2020 - 1972 is 48 years. 23,000 is 23 times what is was in 1972... an average growth rate:9.97%
Out of 45 years..33 years ending with average growth per year of 16.94%
Out of 45 years..12 years ending with average negative closing rate of -9.17%
So basically 7 out of 10 years are positive average growth--16.94%.. and 3 years out of 10 a negative closing rate.

Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) Yearly Returns

So "tanking again"????

 

[SmokeALib]

Is this tramps way to dismember SS and Medicare, the republicans have been trying to do it for eons. They want people to put their money in the stock market instead of putting in it in SS and Medicare.

How low can he be. It he takes that away , it will never come back. We need to make sure the Democrats control the house and the Senate and elect a Democratic Potus.
------------------------------------
Trump Wants to Slash Payroll Taxes: What It Means for You
Find out what the White House proposal would do to your paycheck.

Trump Wants to Slash Payroll Taxes: What It Means for You | The Motley Fool

Find out what the White House proposal would do to your paycheck.

www.fool.com

Government check?

 

[Lesh]

So how did the "stock market", i.e. you dumb people's ignorance is so embarrassing "tank again"???
I guess you are way too young to know the following...probably you just are too f...kin dumb!

Who cares...it did.

AGAIN.

And poof...there went the retirements for a LOT of people.

Thank God they have at least Social Security

 

[Markle]

Just when the stock market has tanked AGAIN

Republicans are telling us to put our retirement into it.

Are ya kidding?

Are you kidding?

Has the ever failed over the long haul? Nope. Never.

Democrats attempt to win arguments by using all or nothing. If you support privatizing Social Security, it means that nothing is paid to the government and everything is up to the individual. That is a false argument.

For instance:

For how well a completely privatized SS plan works, see Galveston Texas. They took advantage of a short loophole and opted out of SS in 1980.

The result of privatization?

•Workers making $17,000 a year receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]

•making $26,000 a year make almost double Social Security's return - $1,500 instead of $853.

•making $51,000 a year get $3,103 instead of $1,368.

•making $75,000 or more nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.

PLUS death benefits equal to 4 times their annual salary up to $215,000

That’s a bad thing?

Galveston County: A Model for Social Security Reform

http://debtdiagnosis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/BOSSGalvestonCountyLifeInsurance.pdf

Does Galveston Offer a Model For Social Security Reform?

How Galveston Opted out of Social Security (long, but good)