MattyT Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 If people don't save on their own then SS isn't going to be the half of it. Very true. What are your 401K investment options? I tried an online retirement plan "wizard" that basically told me that if I want to be on target for my goals when I am 65 (I'm 30 now) that I need to work a part time job till I'm 70 (@ 15000k a year) and contribute 12% of my annual income to the 401k. I have a hard enough time contributing 4% as it is (with no company match). Time to look into a Roth IRA.
Johnny Coli Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 But it's more realistic to give the a really big and arrogant government a half a trillion dollars a year to redistribute for this purpose? Uh, OK.With the all too powerful and rich government leading the way. You know, the one you seem to trust to make the right decision more often than the individual. Yeah, I hate freedom of choice too. 366657[/snapback] I'm not completely disagreeing with what you are saying about government, but the "fug'em if they can't do it for themselves" approach will create a very large problem in the long run, would it not? I am just saying that ignoring people's ignorance could actually cost us more in the future.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 I'm not completely disagreeing with what you are saying about government, but the "fug'em if they can't do it for themselves" approach will create a very large problem in the long run, would it not? I am just saying that ignoring people's ignorance could actually cost us more in the future. 366807[/snapback] Again, you seem to be advocating Social Security along the principle that it's necessary to keep all the unemployed/retired from rioting and being a public nuisance. Yet in 'Creationism/Evolution' threads you're a big advocate of Evolution/Darwinism. Why the inconsistency? If all the people who were 'ignorant' and made poor retirement decisions suddenly find themselves poor and destitute 'can't do for themselves' then under your evolution philosophy they should be made to sink or swim for the betterment of mankind as a whole, right?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 Again, you seem to be advocating Social Security along the principle that it's necessary to keep all the unemployed/retired from rioting and being a public nuisance. Yet in 'Creationism/Evolution' threads you're a big advocate of Evolution/Darwinism. Why the inconsistency? If all the people who were 'ignorant' and made poor retirement decisions suddenly find themselves poor and destitute 'can't do for themselves' then under your evolution philosophy they should be made to sink or swim for the betterment of mankind as a whole, right? 366834[/snapback] That's certainly MY viewpoint.
MattyT Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 Again, you seem to be advocating Social Security along the principle that it's necessary to keep all the unemployed/retired from rioting and being a public nuisance. Yet in 'Creationism/Evolution' threads you're a big advocate of Evolution/Darwinism. Why the inconsistency? If all the people who were 'ignorant' and made poor retirement decisions suddenly find themselves poor and destitute 'can't do for themselves' then under your evolution philosophy they should be made to sink or swim for the betterment of mankind as a whole, right? 366834[/snapback] Not to speak for Johnny, but I'm not sure he's as worried about rioting and and public nuisances as he is about the collective financial burden that all of these people will create. Following your example, "sinking" in this case means welfare and/or homelessness. We're not talking about thirtysomethings that can go back to school or whatever and pull themselves up by their collective bootstraps....these are senior citizens, who minimally want to be able to wind down their lives with some dignity and basic comfort. They don't just go away to die in a cave somewhere...they become everyone else's responsibility. I'm not saying its right...its just reality.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 That's certainly MY viewpoint. 366861[/snapback] Indeed. It seems most social programs could be lumped under a category called "It's the Government's Responsibility To Help People Live As Long As They Possibly Can". Why is this noble or something to aspire to? More people only increases demand on infrastructures/resources which in turn hasten their deterioration. Seems the government should get out of the 'helping people live longer' business. It only fugs things up worse.
brihs2005 Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 Again, you seem to be advocating Social Security along the principle that it's necessary to keep all the unemployed/retired from rioting and being a public nuisance. Yet in 'Creationism/Evolution' threads you're a big advocate of Evolution/Darwinism. Why the inconsistency? If all the people who were 'ignorant' and made poor retirement decisions suddenly find themselves poor and destitute 'can't do for themselves' then under your evolution philosophy they should be made to sink or swim for the betterment of mankind as a whole, right? 366834[/snapback] This sucks. As a moderate-liberal it blows to admit that there is a lot of validity to that statement. The Left and the Right really need to figure out that problems such as this can't be seperated by mere politics. People don't deserve to be thrown under the bus because they can't take care of themselves, but at the same time some people just digging themselves deeper and deeper. It is very hard for an open mind looking at the problem with a non-partisan perspective to fully grasp such a problem.
Johnny Coli Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 Again, you seem to be advocating Social Security along the principle that it's necessary to keep all the unemployed/retired from rioting and being a public nuisance. Yet in 'Creationism/Evolution' threads you're a big advocate of Evolution/Darwinism. Why the inconsistency? If all the people who were 'ignorant' and made poor retirement decisions suddenly find themselves poor and destitute 'can't do for themselves' then under your evolution philosophy they should be made to sink or swim for the betterment of mankind as a whole, right? 366834[/snapback] Yes, I believe that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection explains evolution and how species evolve. But Man, the species, has evolved to the point where we don't have to let weaker (or stupider) members of society just wander off and die because we don't have any use for them. And for the record, I'm certainly not worried about senior citizen's rioting in the streets and overturning bowls of mashed apples (as funny as that image is). I'm more worried about the next generation having the burden of using their savings to bail out the previous generation. If your Grandparents made poor choices regarding retirement, what would you do? Would you let them starve to death because "It's just natural selection." I doubt it. We haven't even mentioned how health care would impact all of this.
Johnny Coli Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 Not to speak for Johnny, but I'm not sure he's as worried about rioting and and public nuisances as he is about the collective financial burden that all of these people will create. Following your example, "sinking" in this case means welfare and/or homelessness. We're not talking about thirtysomethings that can go back to school or whatever and pull themselves up by their collective bootstraps....these are senior citizens, who minimally want to be able to wind down their lives with some dignity and basic comfort. They don't just go away to die in a cave somewhere...they become everyone else's responsibility. I'm not saying its right...its just reality. 366880[/snapback] You beat me to it.
MattyT Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 You beat me to it. 366915[/snapback] Perhaps, but the imagery you provided with the mashed apples gives you more style points.
Alaska Darin Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 Very true.I tried an online retirement plan "wizard" that basically told me that if I want to be on target for my goals when I am 65 (I'm 30 now) that I need to work a part time job till I'm 70 (@ 15000k a year) and contribute 12% of my annual income to the 401k. I have a hard enough time contributing 4% as it is (with no company match). Time to look into a Roth IRA. 366720[/snapback] I'm not sure I'd even bother with a company 401K that didn't have a match. Instead, I'd contribute that money into a Roth. Reason being, you're not limited to the investment choices your company provides for you with your Roth and there are a variety of ways to get at Roth money without penalty if you find yourself needing it. About the only reasons to contribute to a 401K is the company match and associated tax advantage. I'm not sure that's enough of a reason for you to continue down that road. Let me know if you have any specific questions.
MattyT Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 I'm not sure I'd even bother with a company 401K that didn't have a match. Instead, I'd contribute that money into a Roth. Reason being, you're not limited to the investment choices your company provides for you with your Roth and there are a variety of ways to get at Roth money without penalty if you find yourself needing it. About the only reasons to contribute to a 401K is the company match and associated tax advantage. I'm not sure that's enough of a reason for you to continue down that road. Let me know if you have any specific questions. 366985[/snapback] Much appreciated.
Alaska Darin Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 I'm not completely disagreeing with what you are saying about government, but the "fug'em if they can't do it for themselves" approach will create a very large problem in the long run, would it not? I am just saying that ignoring people's ignorance could actually cost us more in the future. 366807[/snapback] I think in the short term you may be right but in the long term people will adapt accordingly and motherment will lose a large vestige of its power. Sometimes there is pain associated with change. I fully understand your point but as a society we've lost one of the things that made the "Greatest Generation" so great - the ability to sacrifice for the sake of a better tomorrow. I firmly believe that government programs are largely responsible for this.
Johnny Coli Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 The rioting has begun.... Nursing home bloodbath “I did it and I’d do it again!” Lena Driskell yelled to officers who arrived at the home June 10, according to testimony. Police said she was wearing a bathrobe and slippers, waving an antique handgun with her finger still on the trigger.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 The rioting has begun.... Nursing home bloodbath “I did it and I’d do it again!” Lena Driskell yelled to officers who arrived at the home June 10, according to testimony. Police said she was wearing a bathrobe and slippers, waving an antique handgun with her finger still on the trigger. 367154[/snapback] Such a shame, if only we'd given her more social security this senseless tragedy could have been averted...
Johnny Coli Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 Such a shame, if only we'd given her more social security this senseless tragedy could have been averted... 367164[/snapback] Without a doubt. We're going to see more of this when the money run's out because we're going to have to arm them all so they can hunt for their own food. God (or who ever) help us all.
Chef Jim Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 I'm not sure I'd even bother with a company 401K that didn't have a match. Instead, I'd contribute that money into a Roth. Reason being, you're not limited to the investment choices your company provides for you with your Roth and there are a variety of ways to get at Roth money without penalty if you find yourself needing it. About the only reasons to contribute to a 401K is the company match and associated tax advantage. I'm not sure that's enough of a reason for you to continue down that road. Let me know if you have any specific questions. 366985[/snapback] I agree however the limitations on the Roth are the max contributions ($4,000 per year for people under 50) and the income levels ($95-$110k for single people and $150-$160k for married couples). However is all you can afford is $4,000 per year and you're under those income limits it's a Roth all the way. But if you can only afford to put $4,000 a year aside you may need to seek a better paying job or cut your expenses, because that won't be enough.
GG Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 Figures, the lefty germ scientist takes the easy approach to rehash a topic that's been covered already in this thread. (Didn't we see someone asking for a return of NJSue) The sick part is that I agree with germ boy. I think US would be foolish to ignore the examples of privatizing retirement savings that other countries went through. All examples showed that a good percentage of people are either stupid or lazy in making savings decisions. The UK example is the most glaring abuse of the "voluntary" contribution option and what happens when people's investments don't go their way. Sweden is the opposite, where people were offered too many choices. It's not that Coli's rioting grandmas are going to be the outcome, it's the pissed off grandmas that vote that will be the outcome. I'd like to be pragmatic in designing a massive overhaul of a retirement plan. That's why I know that left to their own devices, many people will flub their investment choices, and will have a huge voting block to attract enough politicos to enact a massive retirement bailout.
EC-Bills Posted June 25, 2005 Posted June 25, 2005 Figures, the lefty germ scientist takes the easy approach to rehash a topic that's been covered already in this thread. (Didn't we see someone asking for a return of NJSue) The sick part is that I agree with germ boy. I think US would be foolish to ignore the examples of privatizing retirement savings that other countries went through. All examples showed that a good percentage of people are either stupid or lazy in making savings decisions. The UK example is the most glaring abuse of the "voluntary" contribution option and what happens when people's investments don't go their way. Sweden is the opposite, where people were offered too many choices. It's not that Coli's rioting grandmas are going to be the outcome, it's the pissed off grandmas that vote that will be the outcome. I'd like to be pragmatic in designing a massive overhaul of a retirement plan. That's why I know that left to their own devices, many people will flub their investment choices, and will have a huge voting block to attract enough politicos to enact a massive retirement bailout. 367298[/snapback] I concurr. Unfortunately I can't see progress being made with the current group of numbnutss that are in office. They are far less concerned about looking out for their constituents as they are themselves.
Ghost of BiB Posted June 25, 2005 Posted June 25, 2005 I concurr. Unfortunately I can't see progress being made with the current group of numbnutss that are in office. They are far less concerned about looking out for their constituents as they are themselves. 367468[/snapback] So, what numbnuts would you recommend? Pelosi and Kennedy?
Recommended Posts