The compromise on SS that both sides should be able to agree on.

[Lisa558]

It's still cheaper to buy your own disability insurance AND private disability insurance pays better benefits.

So let people control all of the 12.4% of their lifetime income and they'll be better off

You’re ignoring one BIG fact: half the people in this country are live-for-today types who would arrive at retirement penniless if you let them have complete control of their money. And then we’d end up supporting them - with libs insisting responsible savers build luxury-like subsidized retirement homes.

We still need forced saving. Let the government handle their half, but let us choose from among several ETFs and mutual funds for our half. (As a longtime business owner, I had to pay both halves, so I would be able to control both halves.)

This would be accomplished through payroll deduction for employees, and via tax reporting statements for business owners showing they made the deposits.

 

[berg80]

Allowing people to control the 12.4% of their lifetime income will actually result in people having far more to retire on.

You really think the poor, living paycheck to paycheck, are going to set up personal retirement accounts? And if they do that they won't tap those accounts when they desperately need the money? It's easy to say "let them sleep in the bed they made" until we experience social unrest with millions of people who have nothing going in to their elder years. Bush floated this idea, a boon for investment companies, but the public rightly rejected it.

 

[berg80]

You’re ignoring one BIG fact: half the people in this country are live-for-today types

Largely because they don't earn enough money to establish a retirement account voluntarily.

 

[Lisa558]

True financial independence comes from nothing less than 6 figures starting out. From square one.

Absolutely NOT true. You are such a liberal. You have very simplistic and wrong ideas: you think need to start off rich to be independent. WRONG!!

If you average around $50, 000 a year and invest 12% over 40 years, at a below-average return of 8%, you end up with $1.5 million.

[You have to do the calculation in two steps, since it only goes up to 30 years. The the number you get at 30 years (about $800,000) and load it again for the last 10 years, where compounding REALLY does it’s magic. It doubles to around $1.5 million.

Compound Interest Calculator | Investor.gov

Determine how much your money can grow using the power of compound interest.

www.investor.gov

 

[Stormy Daniels]

It's still cheaper to buy your own disability insurance AND private disability insurance pays better benefits.

So let people control all of the 12.4% of their lifetime income and they'll be better off

That is not going to be feasible for people who are disabled by congenital causes.

 

[Lisa558]

Largely because they don't earn enough money to establish a retirement account voluntarily.

Uh-huh. So all that means is that they have to lower their lifestyle so they CAN afford a voluntary account. I have two friends who are in the cusp of retirement with NO savings at all: one has rented a two-bedroom apartment her entire life, and the other has rented a 3-bedroom townhouse. If they had been willing to downsize into a 1-bedroom, they could have put the difference into a retirement account. But both have said, over the years, that they “need” more space than a 1-bedroom.

Same calculator below: if they had downsized and put the $400 difference into savings, they’d have $500,000+ in retirement. At a SWR rate of 4%, that’s an additional $20,000 a year to $25,000 a year or so in SS. As it stands now, no way can either live on $25,000 in SS but they could have gotten by, very modestly, on $45,000.

Compound Interest Calculator | Investor.gov

Determine how much your money can grow using the power of compound interest.

www.investor.gov

 

[Lisa558]

Or, continuing…..they could have moved into a one-bedroom for 10 years and saved a down payment for a modest home. It’s what I did, although it took me 13 years to save.

THEN, they would have paid off the mortgage over the next 30 years, and arrive in retirement with an almost paid-for house, worth 3x what they paid for it. Then they could sell the house for cash and have a really nice nest egg.

But they both had a live-for-today attitude and didn’t want to downsize. ow they have nothing. Both are planning to depend on their siblings for financial assistance, which of course is unfair to the siblings who saved and did the right thing.

It‘s sort of like the ant and the grasshopper fable.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Largely because they don't earn enough money to establish a retirement account voluntarily.

They earn enough money to have social security taxes taken out of their paychecks. My proposal would merely redirect that payroll deduction into a private investment that they could better control and would yield better returns in the long run.

 

[Blues Man]

True financial independence comes from nothing less than 6 figures starting out. From square one.

And if people who even make the average income on the US had control of that 12.4% of their lifetime income they could easily have well over a million dollars saved by retirement

 

[Blues Man]

You’re ignoring one BIG fact: half the people in this country are live-for-today types who would arrive at retirement penniless if you let them have complete control of their money. And then we’d end up supporting them - with libs insisting responsible savers build luxury-like subsidized retirement homes.

We still need forced saving. Let the government handle their half, but let us choose from among several ETFs and mutual funds for our half. (As a longtime business owner, I had to pay both halves, so I would be able to control both halves.)

This would be accomplished through payroll deduction for employees, and via tax reporting statements for business owners showing they made the deposits.

And all those people STILL have 12.4% of their lifetime income taken from them by the government.

And all you have to do is make it mandatory that people save that same 12.4% you just give them the option of investing it rather than leaving it in the hands of the idiots in the government

 

[Blues Man]

You really think the poor, living paycheck to paycheck, are going to set up personal retirement accounts? And if they do that they won't tap those accounts when they desperately need the money? It's easy to say "let them sleep in the bed they made" until we experience social unrest with millions of people who have nothing going in to their elder years. Bush floated this idea, a boon for investment companies, but the public rightly rejected it.

MAke it mandatory.

Anyone can open an IRA

 

[Blues Man]

Uh-huh. So all that means is that they have to lower their lifestyle so they CAN afford a voluntary account. I have two friends who are in the cusp of retirement with NO savings at all: one has rented a two-bedroom apartment her entire life, and the other has rented a 3-bedroom townhouse. If they had been willing to downsize into a 1-bedroom, they could have put the difference into a retirement account. But both have said, over the years, that they “need” more space than a 1-bedroom.

Same calculator below: if they had downsized and put the $400 difference into savings, they’d have $500,000+ in retirement. At a SWR rate of 4%, that’s an additional $20,000 a year to $25,000 a year or so in SS. As it stands now, no way can either live on $25,000 in SS but they could have gotten by, very modestly, on $45,000.

Compound Interest Calculator | Investor.gov

Determine how much your money can grow using the power of compound interest.

www.investor.gov

They don;t have to lower their lifestyle at all.

They are already having that 12.4% of their lifetime income taken from them.

All we have to do is allow people to choose where that 12.4% is invested

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

True financial independence comes from nothing less than 6 figures starting out. From square one.

What is it with you and your inability to come to grips with reality? For some people, $100K is 4 years salary.

 

[Mr Natural]

And if people who even make the average income on the US had control of that 12.4% of their lifetime income they could easily have well over a million dollars saved by retirement

Assuming they saved it and didn’t piss it away on $50,000 pickup trucks and big screen TVs.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They earn enough money to have social security taxes taken out of their paychecks. My proposal would merely redirect that payroll deduction into a private investment that they could better control and would yield better returns in the long run.

Yes, and those of us drawing SS will simply be left to starve.

 

[Blues Man]

What is it with you and your inability to come to grips with reality? For some people, $100K is 4 years salary.

The definition of financial independence is being able to support your monetary needs from a combination of the growth of your assets and their planned distribution.

Some people can do that on a portfolio of less than a million dollars some can't because the lifestyle choices made are too variable

My wife and I retired and since we have no debt at all we can actually live quite nicely on less than 50K a year

Our portfolio generates more than that annually so if we stick to our lifestyle we will never run out of money

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Absolutely NOT true. You are such a liberal. You have very simplistic and wrong ideas: you think need to start off rich to be independent. WRONG!!

If you average around $50, 000 a year and invest 12% over 40 years, at a below-average return of 8%, you end up with $1.5 million.

[You have to do the calculation in two steps, since it only goes up to 30 years. The the number you get at 30 years (about $800,000) and load it again for the last 10 years, where compounding REALLY does it’s magic. It doubles to around $1.5 million.

Compound Interest Calculator | Investor.gov

Determine how much your money can grow using the power of compound interest.

www.investor.gov

I am sorry! What color is the sky on your planet?

 

[Blues Man]

Assuming they saved it and didn’t piss it away on $50,000 pickup trucks and big screen TVs.

MAke it mandatory like it is now just allow people to have control over where it is invested

 

[Blues Man]

Yes, and those of us drawing SS will simply be left to starve.

The government would still have its obligation to you.

Younger generations do not have an obligation to fund your retirement

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Assuming they saved it and didn’t piss it away on $50,000 pickup trucks and big screen TVs.

And that is the strength of my proposal. I'm not saying that we simply kiss the whole thing good bye and keep our fingers crossed that people do the smart thing on their own. I'm still saving stupid people from themselves because my proposal is still based on a mandatory payroll deduction. They don't have the option to not save and invest in their retirement. The deduction is simply redirected into a real retirement account that will yield better results in the long term.