Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Also I live on a farm, so unless that gets taken from me I at least have that.
Deskjobs still don't hire 80 year olds. There is a cutoff point for easily found work. The unemployment rate among seniors looking for work is exceptionally high and it's a diminishing curve the older you get. Also, good luck with that farm in 60 years. Hope you're not in the midwest.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Also I live on a farm, so unless that gets taken from me I at least have that.
Deskjobs still don't hire 80 year olds. There is a cutoff point for easily found work. The unemployment rate among seniors looking for work is exceptionally high and it's a diminishing curve the older you get. Also, good luck with that farm in 60 years. Hope you're not in the midwest.
Meh. Im a federal contractor. If I can make the jump to federal employee then as long as my faculties are still there I should be okay.
And no Im not in the midwest; east coast.
I mean, I do have a 401k going so it isnt like Im not doing anything, but I do accept the reality that short of winning the lottery or coming up with some genius invention that I wont be able to retire come 65 or whatever.
I think some of you guys are fething mental.. hoping social security will be BETTER when you are older?!
The fact is boys, we have had it far too good for far too long. There is going to be a fundamental shift in the way gak works, and this whole reliance on the government thing is going to end.
Remember, a pessimist is never disappointed, I fully expect that we will pretty much get feth all by the time I hit 70 (If I do) and I will be forced to wander off into the wilderness with a small bag of food like the Indians used to do.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
mattyrm wrote: I think some of you guys are fething mental.. hoping social security will be BETTER when you are older?!
The fact is boys, we have had it far too good for far too long. There is going to be a fundamental shift in the way gak works, and this whole reliance on the government thing is going to end.
Remember, a pessimist is never disappointed, I fully expect that we will pretty much get feth all by the time I hit 70 (If I do) and I will be forced to wander off into the wilderness with a small bag of food like the Indians used to do.
You know whats funny? Overall productivity in our economies is going up while median productivity per capita is dropping. Manufacturing labor hours per unit is dropping the world over (despite asian cheap labor) and yet manufacturing is rising. Farm hours worked is dropping yet food production is rising. In every section of every economy on earth work required is dropping while the works efficacy is increasing. Automation and computers are turning the world into one where work is becoming increasingly less required and yet we can only seemingly respond to it by observing widening rich poor gaps (the logical result of automation) the world over and cutting social programs which should see logical inceases in a functioning world.
There will be a fundamental shift in the way gak works, but I don't think it'll be how you think it'll be. Current trends point to the death of paid work. They also point to unsustainable capitalist economies in every country. gak's gonna be very different 100 years from now. Capitalism can't survive either true and universal automation or global scarcity. They're things that can't co exist with it, and they're inevitably coming. We're seeing their effects everywhere already.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
mattyrm wrote:Remember, a pessimist is never disappointed
That depends.
After all, I think this is an overly optimistic statement:
mattyrm wrote:and this whole reliance on the government thing is going to end.
Even though you think it's pessimistic.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
KalashnikovMarine wrote:So I have to admit I'm curious, does any one here trust Social Security (or your equivalent government retirement program) to be there for them once you get properly aged? If not what's your retirement plan?
I imagine Social Security will still be around when I become eligible, though I doubt it will sustain the lifestyle to which I've become accustomed.
Thankfully I work in an industry in which the most experienced people don't ever truly retire, instead you go from working regular hours to being hired as a special consultant for certain projects. This means that, barring some major health issues, I'll likely never have to worry about being on a completely fixed income.
That said, I don't have any particular plan. I don't have time to manage my own investments, and my employment status means that I would have to do so, or deal with a broker. At the moment my excess assets are divided across 3 savings accounts and a checking account, though once this election is over I'll have the time to sit down and look at plans for the future.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Can someone explain how my 401k account, which is in my name, and administered by an independent company, not my employer, is not something I can count on?
Because, short of it losing money if the market tanks, that's my money. I put it aside, and I fail to see why it won't be there when I plan to retire.
Redbeard wrote:Can someone explain how my 401k account, which is in my name, and administered by an independent company, not my employer, is not something I can count on?
Because, short of it losing money if the market tanks, that's my money. I put it aside, and I fail to see why it won't be there when I plan to retire.
You're right... the only thing you really should fear is if the market tanks.
Easy E wrote:401Ks exist at the whim of the government. There special tax status can change, their age eligibility can be changed, everything can be changed.
This too...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/16 18:42:30
Redbeard wrote:Can someone explain how my 401k account, which is in my name, and administered by an independent company, not my employer, is not something I can count on?
Because, short of it losing money if the market tanks, that's my money. I put it aside, and I fail to see why it won't be there when I plan to retire.
I am no expert, but it seems that it depends what your 401k is invested in.
When you have quite a few years left until you retire, most of your 401k is invested in stocks which have higher rate of retuns but higher risk. One person once said that over a 10 year time span the stock market has never gone down - it always goes up.
As you get closer to retirement, you want to shift your investment profile to mostly bonds, like US treasury bills which are pretty rock solid. The 401ks that I've worked with have offered to do this automagically for you as you get closer to retirement age. If it did not, and you were heavily invested in stocks 3-5 years before your retirement age you could lose it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:You're right... the only thing you really should fear is if the market tanks.
That's why your 401k should shift to bonds as you get closer to retirement age. If the stock market takes a dump in its shorts, and your only 20% invested in stocks, then your generally fine.
Bonds are bills given by either countries or corporations, guaranteeing a return on investment over a period of time. Its generally a low return on investment, but unless Walmart or the US goes bankrupt your pretty safe.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/16 18:45:47
But that's the same as any other investment. I have an IRA at my bank too (a prior 401k from a prior employer, rolled into it), and that's more stocks than bonds, but something to change as I get closer to packing it in.
So the government can change the tax status? As I understand it, I'm not taxed on that income now, but will be when I withdraw it. So if they get rid of that special status, what will happen? I'll be taxed on it now, lose the taxes once, but then how would that differ from a Roth IRA?
I guess they could change the rules on those too. But that's unlikely.
As someone else said, the best advice I ever got in terms of investing was when I just came out of college, before I had established any spending patterns, and got used to the idea of putting 10% into my 401k. Add in employer matching (most do), and you can build up quite a sum in a short amount of time, and never really even feel like you're missing anything.
I don't think pensions work the same way as 401ks. A 401k is a privately owned fund. The money in my 401k is my money that I put aside every month. Employers often match some %, but that then becomes your money (possibly not if there is a vesting period and you're not there long enough, but usually).
Pensions are more of a promise that the company will pay you money once you retire. If the company goes kaput, there's no more promise to be kept. And, unfortunately, it seems that promises can be broken. But a company, bankrupt or not, cannot go into an individual's 401k account and take money out. They're just a tax-deferred way of saving your own money.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/16 18:55:10
KalashnikovMarine wrote:That's why I have a Roth IRA instead of contributing to a 401k, better to have my retirement in my own hands then any one else's.
You say that like banks have never failed.
Well I work with a Credit Union so I'm insured by the FDIC and my money actually has a shot to make me some money instead of just stuffing it in a mattress.
*checks* and I've successfully managed to triple my starting capital in just about two years. So I'd say I'm doing nicely.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
Redbeard wrote:Can someone explain how my 401k account, which is in my name, and administered by an independent company, not my employer, is not something I can count on?
Because, short of it losing money if the market tanks, that's my money. I put it aside, and I fail to see why it won't be there when I plan to retire.
When the market tanks and half of it's gone you're going to have to readjust your spending habits. 401k retirement plans have left millions living just a smidge above the poverty line, and the market volatility of the last decade has cost tens of thousands of them their 401Ks entirely. When the market dropped a third of it's value during the recession a lot of 401Ks dropped much farther than that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:That's why I have a Roth IRA instead of contributing to a 401k, better to have my retirement in my own hands then any one else's.
You say that like banks have never failed.
Well I work with a Credit Union so I'm insured by the FDIC and my money actually has a shot to make me some money instead of just stuffing it in a mattress.
*checks* and I've successfully managed to triple my starting capital in just about two years. So I'd say I'm doing nicely.
the FDIC doesn't ensure enough for a good sized 401k should the bank fail.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/16 19:32:06
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Well, for myself the whole reliance on governance thing basically means that I believe surely things have to change, whereby people expect, nay, demand cash back off the government.
Be it for social housing, wellfare, state pensions, job seekers allowance, whatever.
Its not a right, its a privilege, surely if constantly giving money to people is at a risk of tanking the whole nation, then the government will just, you know.. give us feth all?
I expect feth all when I'm old anyway. I reckon I'm going to have to go live in the woods and steal food from bears.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
expect feth all when I'm old anyway. I reckon I'm going to have to go live in the woods and steal food from bears
you have bears in England?
Can see Matty pulling this off
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
We actually don't anymore.. we used to tie them to trees and set dogs on them for our own amusement.
Shame really...
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
mattyrm wrote: Well, for myself the whole reliance on governance thing basically means that I believe surely things have to change, whereby people expect, nay, demand cash back off the government.
Be it for social housing, wellfare, state pensions, job seekers allowance, whatever.
Its not a right, its a privilege, surely if constantly giving money to people is at a risk of tanking the whole nation, then the government will just, you know.. give us feth all?
I expect feth all when I'm old anyway. I reckon I'm going to have to go live in the woods and steal food from bears.
Read my first post in response to your assumption that the system will have to change. It will. But it'll be an acceleration of government administered care. Almost nothing about technological progression and resource scarcity works alongside a modern "work to live" capitalist scheme. There is a breaking point and we're going through the first stages of it as high wage manufacturing labor is replaced by machines that can run for weeks on end and overnight without supervision.
Well, it'll be an acceleration or it will be a growth into a truly extreme version of modern rich/poor divides where the means of production are owned by truly few extremely wealthy and most individuals have no role in society.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Well I work with a Credit Union so I'm insured by the FDIC and my money actually has a shot to make me some money instead of just stuffing it in a mattress.
*checks* and I've successfully managed to triple my starting capital in just about two years. So I'd say I'm doing nicely.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Well I work with a Credit Union so I'm insured by the FDIC and my money actually has a shot to make me some money instead of just stuffing it in a mattress.
*checks* and I've successfully managed to triple my starting capital in just about two years. So I'd say I'm doing nicely.
Lucky stock picks for the most part. That's the benefit of an IRA, that money doesn't have to sit there, you can invest and put it to work. I got in to Apple fairly cheap and walked away with just shy of double my investment. Got lucky on a mining company (my first ever stock pick) with a 280% return when I got out about a year later. That type of thing. There's strategy involved but I've made some very lucky picks/buy ins.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
I'm not expecting SS.
Frankly, I think the whole program needs to be scrapped yesterday.
Social Security was based on a population growth number that no longer exists.
The only way it could work is with a population that is expanding, and by a sizable amount too. It requires more people to put into the system then there are people taking out.
It also requires the people taking out to not take out for very long. Maybe 15-20 years.
At the time of its inception, the average Life Expectancy was between 68 and 70 depending on the source.
That meant that people would only be withdrawing from SS for 15, maybe 20, years. meanwhile, those same people would have been putting money in for 40ish years.
Thats no longer the case. Right now, the people getting Social Security are going to be withdrawing from SS for as long, or even longer, then they put money in.
Combined with the population of the US being just around 1% means that not enough people are putting into the system to support those that are withdrawing from the system.
All in all, it was a poorly thought out program that needs to die.
I think the way to impliment its destruction is as follows.
The people that are on the system right now continue to recieve benifits, but no increases are made(no cost of living or inflation adjustments). The current amount gets locked forever.
Those people who are not yet getting social security get full refunds of what they paid into the system.
And obviously, payments into the system stop and we get on with our lives.
yes, this will put the government into more debt, but at the very least it will get rid of a useless program and be better off in the long run.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
The only way it could work is with a population that is expanding, and by a sizable amount too. It requires more people to put into the system then there are people taking out.
Not necessarily, it simply requires that more money be put into the system than is being taken out, which can be accomplished with a smaller pool of contributors than recipients.
Truthfully, it would be almost impossible for there to be more recipients than contributors, because you're basically talking about anyone between the ages of 15-16 and 65-67. The problem at the moment is that there are too many people that are about become recipients (basically the baby boomers), but they will still be outnumbered by contributors.
At the time of its inception, the average Life Expectancy was between 68 and 70 depending on the source.
That meant that people would only be withdrawing from SS for 15, maybe 20, years. meanwhile, those same people would have been putting money in for 40ish years.
Average male life expectancy is ~75, average female is ~80. When social security was conceived, the average life expectancy in the US, for both sexes, was ~63; the age to be eligible for receipt was 65. Initially the program wasn't expected to be drawn on by most people. Of course, its also changed a great deal since then.
Right now, the people getting Social Security are going to be withdrawing from SS for as long, or even longer, then they put money in.
Uh, no, not at all. Partial benefits don't start until 62. Even if we assume a person didn't start working until age 32 (highly unlikely), they still paid in for 30 years and will likely only live another 18 if female, 13 if male.
Combined with the population of the US being just around 1% means that not enough people are putting into the system to support those that are withdrawing from the system.
There are myriad problems, but they aren't just limited to Social Security. Medicare is funded by the same tax (FICA) and is obviously strained by increasing healthcare costs. The presence of the Baby Boomers is another issue, though more a matter of unique circumstances than anything else. The retirement age is artificially low (in this we at least somewhat agree), and needs to be raised. There are other minor issues as well, but those are the big 3.
Either way, you can't just kill the program. It isn't politically feasible at the moment. Even the voucher system presents transition problems.
The people that are on the system right now continue to recieve benifits, but no increases are made(no cost of living or inflation adjustments). The current amount gets locked forever.
Yeah, good luck running on that platform. Old people vote more consistently than any other bloc, especially when their fixed income is threatened; and rightfully so.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
LordofHats wrote: Shuma is right. The Army and the Navy in particular are both getting ready to issue HUGE cut backs on military pensions and retirement benefits. I'm not sure how it'll effect everyone, by my dad is a Colonel, and he was complaining about how he was essentially losing half his pension under the new plan.
I don't want to say your father is wrong, so maybe you heard him wrong. Last year there was a lot of discussion about changing the retirement plan from a pension to a 401k plan. Yes, it would have resulted in major cuts to overall money we have after retirement, something on the scale of 35%. That plan was put on a screaming hault though because we went absolutely apeshit about the idea. Also, any plan would affect the entire DoD, just not just the Army and Navy. In the event that they do proceed with such a plan, those of us currently serving have been promised that the contract we signed will be honored and we'd still have access to the current plan. It'll be new recruits that will be using the 401k plan.
As of right now I have the US Government version of a 401k, as well as the pension that i'll draw. I'll be retiring from the military when I'm 37, and currently plan on immediately starting my second career. As of right now I have absolutely zero expectation of having any SS to draw on, and I'm planning for such an eventuality by working to have two pensions and the money I have in my 401k. I'm expecting to draw around $24k a year from my USAF pension, and I'm hoping for roughly the same from whatever my second career is, so I feel I'll be plenty comfortable when I truly retire.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote: Social Security? LOL!!!! I am 37, and highly doubt I will ever collect a cent from Social Security. I have an IRA, Real Estate, Art, Metals, etc..
What leads you believe this?
As has been mentioned multiple times in this thread, social security has a horrible return on investment, but all things point to the service being around in 30 years.
What makes you think that it will be removed in that time?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/20 13:55:50
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
