some people don't want workers to accumulate $400,000 or more!

[healthmyths]

There are MORE democrat/liberal/progressives that are violently against the average USA worker accumulating a retirement nest egg of $400,000 or more!

An average worker grossing $30,000 a year at age 23 after college entering the workforce with the salary increasing by 20% every 10 years for 42 years would have along with employer had $331,715 deducted.

If the worker HAD the freedom to direct the accumulation into a simple savings account that paid over 42 years 2% interest would accumulate $628,077!
Why is there ANYONE against the worker accumulating this?

And if the worker using tried and true financial planning where at young age more growth oriented assets moving to balance at middle age and almost all secured assets nearing retirement the average accumulation at 6% for 42 years would be: $1,985,897!

So why did ALL democrats/liberals/progressives all scare seniors thinking their social security was when Bush proposed privatization going to be at the hands of Wall street!
Gambling with their social security!
LIED through their teeth and seniors NEVER heard Bush's plan and now Ryan's plan
would HAVE NO CHANGES for over 55 years old!
No they showed Ryan pushing grandma over a cliff!

Isn't it just amazing the power of compound interest that could make the average worker at $30,000 a year accumulate almost $2 million!
Never again depending on anyone but at 5% interest earnings have $100K/year for ever!
Never having to depend on Medicare! Or the Government!
WHY folks are liberals/progressives against the ordinary person accumulating millions?
Ignorance is the ONLY reason I can think is why they are against it!

 

[blastoff]

Of course they don't want workers to do something like this. It would negate their Rule # 1, What's Theirs is Ours!!!. If they can't get their crubby hands on someone's money they can't spend it or otherwise redistribute it. There'd be no need for them anymore. Gosh, isn't that a wonderful prospect!

 

[snjmom]

That worker could just as easily directed 15% of their gross to private savings. What happens when that worker becomes disabled at 30? Or laid off and back to minimum wage for 4 years while retraining? Ask the Enron employees how they feel about it.

 

[healthmyths]

you wrote"That worker could just as easily directed 15% of their gross to private savings. What happens when that worker becomes disabled at 30? Or laid off and back to minimum wage for 4 years while retraining? Ask the Enron employees how they feel about it.
__________________
You are making the very common mistake of using EXCEPTIONS and that becomes the RULE!
How many times have we heard Obama use anecdotal stories about health care horrors! YET they are single cases! Isolated. Exceptions and NOT the rule!
If we used your logic we would NEVER have electricity! The Internet .. because using your one isolated illustration is the same thing as saying if any one is electrocuted while working at a electric utility plant .. shut the plant down! You see that's how dumb it is to take exceptions and make it the rule!
MY whole point is 90% of people working at age 23 generally now retire at 65!
If they had been given the choice and you evidently don't think the majority of people are smart enough( like most liberal/progressives) to have freedom of choice.. they could put into simple forced savings and accumulate $400,000 that is THEIRS! NOT the government!
Also.. my illustration includes 10% deducted by the govt for situations like you alluded to!
The privatization plan we intelligent, compassionate people suggested was 90% let worker determine 10% set aside by govt for just such exigencies!

 

[Wry Catcher]

There are MORE democrat/liberal/progressives that are violently against the average USA worker accumulating a retirement nest egg of $400,000 or more!

An average worker grossing $30,000 a year at age 23 after college entering the workforce with the salary increasing by 20% every 10 years for 42 years would have along with employer had $331,715 deducted.

If the worker HAD the freedom to direct the accumulation into a simple savings account that paid over 42 years 2% interest would accumulate $628,077!
Why is there ANYONE against the worker accumulating this?

And if the worker using tried and true financial planning where at young age more growth oriented assets moving to balance at middle age and almost all secured assets nearing retirement the average accumulation at 6% for 42 years would be: $1,985,897!

So why did ALL democrats/liberals/progressives all scare seniors thinking their social security was when Bush proposed privatization going to be at the hands of Wall street!
Gambling with their social security!
LIED through their teeth and seniors NEVER heard Bush's plan and now Ryan's plan
would HAVE NO CHANGES for over 55 years old!
No they showed Ryan pushing grandma over a cliff!

Isn't it just amazing the power of compound interest that could make the average worker at $30,000 a year accumulate almost $2 million!
Never again depending on anyone but at 5% interest earnings have $100K/year for ever!
Never having to depend on Medicare! Or the Government!
WHY folks are liberals/progressives against the ordinary person accumulating millions?
Ignorance is the ONLY reason I can think is why they are against it!

In what specific vehicle should this worker place his money? And how much will this investor pay in fees to banks and other financial 'services' businesses? Is the income guaranteed? And what happens when a week or two before this investors retirement his nest egg disappears, the value of his home drops below what s/he owes, and the usual medical issues begin to surface?

One item Bush never discussed was how much profit the financial services industry would earn by allowing the average American worker to invest a portion of his or her SS and how much this would reduce his or her benefits. This idea is not about helping the American worker, it's all about a new revenue source for 'Wall Street'.

The best advice I recieved was from an older co-worker. He suggested taking 1/2 of every COLA and saving it for a rainy day.

 

[healthmyths]

you wrote"One item Bush never discussed was how much profit the financial services industry would earn by allowing the average American worker to invest a portion of his or her SS and how much this would reduce his or her benefits. This idea is not about helping the American worker, it's all about a new revenue source for 'Wall Street'.

WOW!! You really are totally IGNORANT about businesses!
A) There is NO REASON for the govt. to have ANY say in how much profit a company makes!
1) Because it is the individual's MONEY deducted from the paycheck NOT the govt! Do you disagree?
B) It is Profit that drives the rate of return!
You have NO idea what "profit" is do you? Profit comes after selling expenses like salaries, wages, cost of goods utilities,etc. are deducted! THEN that which is left over is TAXED by the government! That which is left OVER is Profit! A portion of the already TAXED left over maybe distributed as "DIVIDENDS" which are again TAXED by the Federal Govt!
It is this which is "Profit" in your very uneducated mind that should be regulated???

 

[Sallow]

you wrote"One item Bush never discussed was how much profit the financial services industry would earn by allowing the average American worker to invest a portion of his or her SS and how much this would reduce his or her benefits. This idea is not about helping the American worker, it's all about a new revenue source for 'Wall Street'.

WOW!! You really are totally IGNORANT about businesses!
A) There is NO REASON for the govt. to have ANY say in how much profit a company makes!
1) Because it is the individual's MONEY deducted from the paycheck NOT the govt! Do you disagree?
B) It is Profit that drives the rate of return!
You have NO idea what "profit" is do you? Profit comes after selling expenses like salaries, wages, cost of goods utilities,etc. are deducted! THEN that which is left over is TAXED by the government! That which is left OVER is Profit! A portion of the already TAXED left over maybe distributed as "DIVIDENDS" which are again TAXED by the Federal Govt!
It is this which is "Profit" in your very uneducated mind that should be regulated???

How ridiculous.

Of course government has a say in how a corporation makes it's money. If that corporation is violating laws..it's in trouble.

Everything else is babble.

Nothing..no mechanism stops anyone from saving money.

It's circumstance that thwarts the efforts of many to secure a nest egg.

Which is why we have a social safety net.

 

[rightwinger]

401ks and IRAs are available for employees to accumulate a retirement nest egg tax free. Very few companies offer an annuity that an employee can count on once they retire. The employee is better off having social security annuity, 401k and a paid off house than putting all his eggs into one basket

 

[editec]

When you invest in those 401Ks, make damned sure not too much in government bonds goes into their portfolios.

Because let's face it, if social security is in trouble, then those bonds must ALSO be in trouble.