How many votes has Trump lost the last two weeks?

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by whell

While I don't disagree that the decline of defined benefit plans complicate the scenario of retirement funding, I don't agree that SS is THE only solution.

There is no other solution.

401K's and similar plans do not cut the mustard for middle and lower income people.

And the private sector has made it clear that they want disposable employees that they can discard when they are no longer useful.

Originally Posted by whell

While I don't disagree that the decline of defined benefit plans complicate the scenario of retirement funding, I don't agree that SS is THE only solution.

The current SS system has been looted by the Fed Gov't already to the tune of a $2.7 trillion Special Issues of the Treasury. The gov't willingness and ability to repay that "IOU" is suspect. I would not want to put any additional funds in the hands of the current case of criminals and idiots if Congress where it would be subject to similar raids.

They raided that money and then in turn gave tax cuts to the uber rich.

So if you are looking for the money that was taken, just go to those secret offshore accounts. That's where it resides. The answer is to take back was was stolen via higher taxes on the rich.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

There is no other solution.

401K's and similar plans do not cut the mustard for middle and lower income people.

And the private sector has made it clear that they want disposable employees that they can discard when they are no longer useful.




They raided that money and then in turn gave tax cuts to the uber rich.

So if you are looking for the money that was taken, just go to those secret offshore accounts. That's where it resides. The answer is to take back was was stolen via higher taxes on the rich.

Exactly right.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

There is no other solution.

There are plenty of other solutions.

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

They raided that money and then in turn gave tax cuts to the uber rich.

So if you are looking for the money that was taken, just go to those secret offshore accounts. That's where it resides. The answer is to take back was was stolen via higher taxes on the rich.

No, the standard lefty talk tracks on this don't work. The practice has been going on for years...think pre-WWII if memory serves. The problem is that the government's definition of fiscal discipline has become far too fickle. The special issue treasury bonds would need to be paid for at some point, but these are not like other bonds that can be sold on the bond market. They would need to be paid back out of current budgeted Federal dollars and no one is planning to do that.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by whell

There are plenty of other solutions.

Good. I look forward to you listing them.

Originally Posted by whell

No, the standard lefty talk tracks on this don't work. The practice has been going on for years...think pre-WWII if memory serves. The problem is that the government's definition of fiscal discipline has become far too fickle. The special issue treasury bonds would need to be paid for at some point, but these are not like other bonds that can be sold on the bond market. They would need to be paid back out of current budgeted Federal dollars and no one is planning to do that.

One part of the problem is priorities.

Right Wing priorities to be exact.

How many trillions did we piss away in Iraq and Afghanistan?

How many trillions on the Department of Homeland Security?

How many trillions for weapons system that the Military neither wants nor needs?

The other problem is revenue.

We should have a 90% top bracket on anything over 5 million a year.

We should have a tax on Wall Street Speculation.

Why does a single mom have to pay sales tax when she buys a box of pampers but a big Wall Street Casino player can buy a million shares of stock tax free?

The list goes on and on and on.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Good. I look forward to you listing them.

Easy. Gov't support for individuals taking responsibility for their own retirement.

I completely disagree with your characterization of 401K plans. I'm certainly "middle income" (probably in the middle of middle income), and have been able to build significant savings in my account, and know plenty of other folks able to do the very same.

Uncle Sam places annual limits on employer / employer contributions to these plans. Get rid of them and provide additional tax incentives for folks to save.

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

One part of the problem is priorities.

Right Wing priorities to be exact.

How many trillions did we piss away in Iraq and Afghanistan?

How many trillions on the Department of Homeland Security?

How many trillions for weapons system that the Military neither wants nor needs?

You do realize that these are issues that largely cropped up longer after the gov't started using the Soc Sec Trust Fund as a piggy bank, right?

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

We should have a tax on Wall Street Speculation.

Why does a single mom have to pay sales tax when she buys a box of pampers but a big Wall Street Casino player can buy a million shares of stock tax free?

The list goes on and on and on.

We do have a tax on speculation. Its called the risk of loss, and becomes particularly noticeable during economic downturns.

A "Wall Street Casino Player" has already paid income tax on the funds used to invest money, just like mom had to pay income tax on the funds used to buy the Pampers. He/she then pays a tax on the funds invested assuming those funds produce any capital gains.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

Uncle Sam places annual limits on employer / employer contributions to these plans. Get rid of them and provide additional tax incentives for folks to save.

I completely agree with you one this. Have an artificial ceiling on how much I can put away on the 401K plan.

[/QUOTE] He/she then pays a tax on the funds invested assuming those funds produce any capital gains.[/QUOTE]

At 50% rate of ordinary income?

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by whell

I completely disagree with your characterization of 401K plans. I'm certainly "middle income" (probably in the middle of middle income), and have been able to build significant savings in my account, and know plenty of other folks able to do the very same.

I strongly suspect that's because you don't have a fucking clue what you are going to need for retirement.

I'm not going to ask you what you have saved. That would be uncouth of me.

However, I will say this.

If you don't have a defined benefit plan, you are going to need, at a minimum, $750,000 in a 401K by the time you are 65 if you want to retire then. That's in today's, 2016 dollars. And that's assuming that you will also have Social Security and Medicare. That's for a bare bones, no frills retirement in an average cost of living location in the US.

And that's if you live about 20 years after retirement, say to 85.

If you fuck up and live to 90 and beyond, well then you'll need over a million, or you'll be fucked.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

I strongly suspect that's because you don't have a fucking clue what you are going to need for retirement.

I'm not going to ask you what you have saved. That would be uncouth of me.

However, I will say this.

If you don't have a defined benefit plan, you are going to need, at a minimum, $750,000 in a 401K by the time you are 65 if you want to retire then. That's in today's, 2016 dollars. And that's assuming that you will also have Social Security and Medicare. That's for a bare bones, no frills retirement in an average cost of living location in the US.

And that's if you live about 20 years after retirement, say to 85.

If you fuck up and live to 90 and beyond, well then you'll need over a million, or you'll be fucked.

My clues are just fine, thanks. And I think your $750k number is a bit low.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by whell

My clues are just fine, thanks. And I think your $750k number is a bit low.

I said it was a minimum for a bare bones, no frills retirement.

And It is based on going into retirement debt free. No mortgage, no car payments, no credit card balances, no nuthin in the way of debt.

How many people making average wages of $50,000 a year can put away that much?

http://www.financialsamurai.com/the-...y-its-too-low/

Here's a chart I found that gives a low end estimate of $743,000.

Jesus Christ! I came up with an estimate of $750,000 on my own off the cuff. I'm a fucking genius. You should be bowing down to my superior intellect.



And here's a chart showing what the average schmuck has managed to put away. As you can see, nowhere near enough.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by whell

...

No, the standard lefty talk tracks on this don't work. The practice has been going on for years...think pre-WWII if memory serves. The problem is that the government's definition of fiscal discipline has become far too fickle. The special issue treasury bonds would need to be paid for at some point, but these are not like other bonds that can be sold on the bond market. They would need to be paid back out of current budgeted Federal dollars and no one is planning to do that.

Congress determines fiscal discipline. Both sides of the isle have been playing the same game since Reagan was elected.

As to the SS treasuries, they will begin to be repaid when SS tax inflow cannot meet the SS payments. This is how they will be sold on the bond market. You know, borrow money to fund the SS tax shortfall.