OT - Social Security

People should go up 7 posts to the one from Al Reid. I couldn't post it
here. This tells you exactly where your Social Security $$ has gone.
Down the democrat party Social Engineering sinkhole!

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "todd" wrote in message
>
> > I didn't say they were wealthy before getting into Congress (although
I'd
> > like to see the numbers). But they're wealthy before leaving to take a
> > retirement income. The point is, it isn't as if they leave Congress and
> now
> > have to rely soley on their retirement income.
>
> Nope, the "point" is that, while they pay into SS and Federal Employees
> Retirement System, they don't play by the same rules:
>
> As of 1999, the average SS retiree received $804 per month, or $9,648
> annually after retiring at age 65.
>
> From the Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress on the
> Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress (updated September, 2002).
> "As of October 1, 2000, 409 retired Members of Congress were receiving
> federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. Of
> this number, 356 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average
annual
> pension of $52,464. Fifty-three Members had retired either with service
> under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average
> annual pension was $46,932 in 2000."
>
> An example was given for a Rep. or Senator retiring after Dec., 2002, with
> 26 years of service (7 under CSRS, 19 under FERS). With an ending "high-3"
> salary of $138,233, their annual pension would be $72,442 per year.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 2/28/04

Well, you're free to make whatever point you want. The assertion that I was
responding to was that if we just got Congress folks off of their pension
and strictly onto SS, everything would be fine. My point was that most of
these guys have a net worth (at least by the time they leave) such that what
they receive from their pension is just a cherry on top. Putting them on SS
isn't going to cramp their lifestyle.

todd

"todd" wrote in message
> You talk pretty big for someone who likes to make a lot of assumptions
about
> my situation.

LOL ... and that from someone whose retorts seem to begin with "I guess
..."?

... go back and look.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/05/04

"Charlie Self"
> Rich Chamberlain writes:
>
> >Regardless of what that article says about the growth of the economy,
> >the real reason for the crisis is the number of workers per retiree.
> >Back in the 30s, it was close to 300 workers paying for the SS of one
> >retiree. Today, it's at 3 and heading to 2 with a bullet.
>
> And most of the money paid in has been stolen. Whoops. Pols don't steal. They
> simply take and use for other purposes.
>
> By the way, when in the '30s was it 300 to 1?
>
> >That tells me one thing - I need to pump up my 401k and other savings,
> >because I'm not counting on SS.
>
> SS was never intended, or, rather, was not originally intended, as a complete
> retirement program. It was to be a supplement for those who couldn't make
> enough money to save on their own, but was never intended to be all the income
> anyone had. Of course, now it often is and in some areas, for some people, it
> is more than adequate.


Also, it was designed to be distributed to the recipient for maybe 5 years.
People are living much longer these days.

If I am not mistaken, the average life expectancy was 62 when the original eligibility was set at 65. I could be wrong, though.

--
Al Reid

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so." --- Mark Twain

"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Charlie Self"
> > Rich Chamberlain writes:
> >
> > >Regardless of what that article says about the growth of the economy,
> > >the real reason for the crisis is the number of workers per retiree.
> > >Back in the 30s, it was close to 300 workers paying for the SS of one
> > >retiree. Today, it's at 3 and heading to 2 with a bullet.
> >
> > And most of the money paid in has been stolen. Whoops. Pols don't steal. They
> > simply take and use for other purposes.
> >
> > By the way, when in the '30s was it 300 to 1?
> >
> > >That tells me one thing - I need to pump up my 401k and other savings,
> > >because I'm not counting on SS.
> >
> > SS was never intended, or, rather, was not originally intended, as a complete
> > retirement program. It was to be a supplement for those who couldn't make
> > enough money to save on their own, but was never intended to be all the income
> > anyone had. Of course, now it often is and in some areas, for some people, it
> > is more than adequate.
>
>
> Also, it was designed to be distributed to the recipient for maybe 5 years.
> People are living much longer these days.
>
>
>
>

There are 40 of 100 US Senators who are Millionaires. Just for grins:

Of the top 5 wealthiest Senators, how Many are Ds and how many are Rs?

Answer: D's - 5 R's - 0

Of the top 10 wealthiest Senators, , how Many are Ds and how many are Rs?

Answer: D's - 8 R's - 2

The richest is John Kerry at $163,626,399.

I assume we are to believe that they are really looking out for the "Working families" of Americas, who ever they are.

--
Al Reid

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so." --- Mark Twain

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "todd" wrote in message
> > "Swingman" wrote in message
>
> > > As the old saw goes, put the pols on SS and it would be "fixed"
> tomorrow.
>
> > Right. I'm sure John Kerry is really counting on his retirement money.
> > Most of these politicians are wealthy already. Putting them on SS isn't
> > going to change anything.
> >
> > todd
>
> You're wrong. "Most" politicians aren't "wealthy"... until they get into
> Congress.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 2/28/04
>
>

"Drew Eckhardt"

> Social Security isn't about "Social Security" or safety. It's about an
> additional 12.4% tax.


But if we repeal it we are giving money to the rich, starving children,
turning pristine lakes into bubbling cesspools, burning holes in the
ozone, risking the criticism of France, Cuba and every good person
on earth.

"Kevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Charly got it right on the actual policy. It was/is meant
> as a supplemental in old age. As far as theft, well...
> There is no SS fund. All the money goes into the general fund
> kinda like petty cash account.
> Fletis hits spot on with the # of years one was expected to draw
> on it before they were off to join the choir invisible (shamelessly
> stolen from Monty)
> The fix? well it the 3s bear any resemblance to reality, I see about 5
> ways. 1. Raise taxes. 2. Reduce benefits. 3. Raise retirement age.
> 4. Remove the death tax - completely. 5. Triple at least, limits on
> IRA contributions
>
>
> "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Charlie Self"
> > > Rich Chamberlain writes:
> > >
> > > >Regardless of what that article says about the growth of the economy,
> > > >the real reason for the crisis is the number of workers per retiree.
> > > >Back in the 30s, it was close to 300 workers paying for the SS of one
> > > >retiree. Today, it's at 3 and heading to 2 with a bullet.
> > >
> > > And most of the money paid in has been stolen. Whoops. Pols don't
steal.
> They
> > > simply take and use for other purposes.
> > >
> > > By the way, when in the '30s was it 300 to 1?
> > >
> > > >That tells me one thing - I need to pump up my 401k and other
savings,
> > > >because I'm not counting on SS.
> > >
> > > SS was never intended, or, rather, was not originally intended, as a
> complete
> > > retirement program. It was to be a supplement for those who couldn't
> make
> > > enough money to save on their own, but was never intended to be all
the
> income
> > > anyone had. Of course, now it often is and in some areas, for some
> people, it
> > > is more than adequate.
> >
> >
> > Also, it was designed to be distributed to the recipient for maybe 5
> years.
> > People are living much longer these days.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Umm # 3 has already been done. At least half way. Those of us born in the
60"s and after won't get full retirement bene's until age 67.

D. Mo

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:22:01 +0000, George E. Cawthon wrote:

> Don't get tied up in the life expectancy of 65 years since that was
> based on 0 Years and lots of babies and children died. There person
> that reach 65 years old had a life expectancy of several more years.

The point is the demographics have changed radically, and something will
have to to be changed - radically.

--
-Doug

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "todd" wrote in message
>
> > It's a figure of speech. You want me to come right out and state it?
> > Anyone who let a fund decline by 70% either a) didn't know what they
were
> > doing or b) were willing to ride it out. For crying out loud, was it
all
> in
> > QQQ?
>
> For an absolute fact, Todd, you simply have not been thinking clearly. You
> immediately, and wrongly, assumed that I had personal control over an
> investment brought up to illustrate a point, and your "guesses" and
> assumptions since have had you ignorantly barking up the wrong tree ...
all
> of which nicely proves my original point
>
> That being the absolute folly of privatizing SS for a dumbed down society
in
> a stock market where the "rules" are ignored by a cult of greed and
> subjected to the bureaucratic bungling of the government vis-à-vis
> regulatory oversight.
>
> Many of you would do well to go talk, and more importantly, listen, to
> someone who lived through a little period of our history called "the Great
> Depression".
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 3/05/04

You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. I've never said you
were in personal control of the investment. In fact, based on your earlier
statement, I inferred that it was being managed by someone else. My point,
which still stands, is that whoever let an investment (I infer we're talking
about money invested in the stock market, since that is how this part of the
thread started)decline 70% in value wasn't doing a professional job. And
heck, while we're talking about it, this 70% decline is based on what? The
value in the 1st quarter of 2001? If so, the high point would be based on a
number that was driven up on the same greed you're lambasting now. Was it
OK as long as it was making money for you?

But now you've got me confused. If the government isn't qualified to
provide oversight to the stock market, what makes you think they're
qualified to manage the retirement funds of the citizenry?

You can have the last word on the topic. I've got a table to put together.

todd

"todd" wrote in message

> But now you've got me confused. If the government isn't qualified to
> provide oversight to the stock market, what makes you think they're
> qualified to manage the retirement funds of the citizenry?

... and who said they were?

> You can have the last word on the topic. I've got a table to put
together.

Good luck on the table ... if I don't get these tomato plants in the ground
my SS ain't gonna stretch.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/05/04

Rich Chamberlain writes:

>Regardless of what that article says about the growth of the economy,
>the real reason for the crisis is the number of workers per retiree.
>Back in the 30s, it was close to 300 workers paying for the SS of one
>retiree. Today, it's at 3 and heading to 2 with a bullet.

And most of the money paid in has been stolen. Whoops. Pols don't steal. They
simply take and use for other purposes.

By the way, when in the '30s was it 300 to 1?

>That tells me one thing - I need to pump up my 401k and other savings,
>because I'm not counting on SS.

SS was never intended, or, rather, was not originally intended, as a complete
retirement program. It was to be a supplement for those who couldn't make
enough money to save on their own, but was never intended to be all the income
anyone had. Of course, now it often is and in some areas, for some people, it
is more than adequate.

Charlie Self
In a New Hampshire Jewelry store: "Ears pierced while you wait."

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "todd" wrote in message
> > You talk pretty big for someone who likes to make a lot of assumptions
> about
> > my situation.
>
> LOL ... and that from someone whose retorts seem to begin with "I guess
> ..."?
>
> ... go back and look.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 3/05/04

It's a figure of speech. You want me to come right out and state it?
Anyone who let a fund decline by 70% either a) didn't know what they were
doing or b) were willing to ride it out. For crying out loud, was it all in
QQQ? I wasn't willing to ride it out, which is why I got out of the market
at Dow 11,000 and back in at Dow 7800. Doesn't make me a financial
genius...I just took advice that was available to anyone else who wanted to
listen.

todd

"todd" wrote in message
> "Swingman" wrote in message

> > As the old saw goes, put the pols on SS and it would be "fixed"
tomorrow.

> Right. I'm sure John Kerry is really counting on his retirement money.
> Most of these politicians are wealthy already. Putting them on SS isn't
> going to change anything.
>
> todd

You're wrong. "Most" politicians aren't "wealthy"... until they get into
Congress.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 18:50:36 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:
>
> > And most of the money paid in has been stolen. Whoops. Pols don't steal. They
> > simply take and use for other purposes.
>
> It's supposed to be a pay as you go program, but for at least 3 decades,
> excess is collected and put in the "trust" fund. Since hiding cash for
> long periods of time is a good way to see it evaporate through inflation,
> the govmint "invests" the trust fund money in govmint IOU's to be paid
> back with a small interest rate in the future using govmint profits (more
> taxes for future generations). Meanwhile, the current excess SS taxes are
> spent on us, now. And all this by folks who talk about all the things we
> must do "for the children". Worst of all, the debt in this and 40 or so
> other "trust" funds is counted as an asset rather than a liability! Some
> estimates place the amount of these "assets" at $40 _trillion_ in the
> next3 or 4 decades. Makes the national debt look miniscule.
>
> > By the way, when in the '30s was it 300 to 1?
>
> It was more like 30-something to one, and the average lifespan at the time
> was 65, meaning the program didn't have to pay out for long.
>
> > SS was never intended, or, rather, was not originally intended, as a
> > complete retirement program. It was to be a supplement for those who
> > couldn't make enough money to save on their own, but was never intended
> > to be all the income anyone had. Of course, now it often is and in some
> > areas, for some people, it is more than adequate.
>
> The sad part is many otherwise intelligent folks think SS will take care
> of them and forego any planning/savings on their own.
>
> If you want to go through an interesting exercise, look for your next
> statement from SS listing the years and amounts you have paid in. Then
> apply a reasonable return of say 6% for the first year, add the next years
> contribution, apply 6%, etc. You'll discover you could retire at 55 with
> about double the money SS will pay you, and never reduce the current
> value. Compound interest is wonderful! And if we had all done this on
> our own, not only would we be better off, but wouldn't be leaving
> trillions of debt to be paid by future generations.
>
> All this is why I put 10% of gross away as untouchable starting about 30
> years ago and have my kids doing the same. Talk about a safety net...
>
> --
> -Doug

Don't get tied up in the life expectancy of 65 years since that was
based on 0 Years and lots of babies and children died. There person
that reach 65 years old had a life expectancy of several more years.

todd wrote:
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Kevin" wrote in message
> >
> > > The fix? well it the 3s bear any resemblance to reality, I see about 5
> > > ways. 1. Raise taxes. 2. Reduce benefits. 3. Raise retirement age.
> > > 4. Remove the death tax - completely. 5. Triple at least, limits on
> > > IRA contributions
> >
> >
> > As the old saw goes, put the pols on SS and it would be "fixed" tomorrow.
> >
> > --
> > www.e-woodshop.net
> > Last update: 2/28/04
>
> Right. I'm sure John Kerry is really counting on his retirement money.
> Most of these politicians are wealthy already. Putting them on SS isn't
> going to change anything.
>
> todd

In the case of Kerry, "wealthy" is a bit of an understatment!

Swingman wrote:
>
> "todd" wrote in message
>
> > Then I guess you're missing the point.
>
> Welp, you guess wrong ... you missed the first point, and haven't been
> anywhere near it yet.
>
> > Most of the congress types will end
> > up not having to count on their retirement plan or SS to be a major source
> > of retirement income because it will represent a small portion of their
> net
> > worth.
>
> You can't back that contention up with figures. "Most" of the 535 in
> congress aren't "wealthy" and will gladly receive their pensions ... a much
> better deal than you will get with SS..
>
> > There's only one thing they respond to, and that's getting re-elected.
> Make
> > them think they won't get re-elected if they don't modify SS, and then it
> > will change.
>
> We been doing it your way for forty years ... hasn't worked yet. Make them
> eat their own dog food and the menu will change.
>
> > Absent that, I have a deal to make with the gubmint. I'm 36 years old and
> > have been paying (along with my employers), SS taxes for roughly 20 years
> > now. OK, gubmint, you keep all of that money and just let me off this
> > merry-go-round. Let me keep my 7.65% or whatever the percentage is that
> > comes (directly) out of my paycheck each month. I'll add that to my other
> > investments and you'll never hear from me again.
>
> Until you show up at the emergency room without the means to pay because
> your "investments" didn't pan out, then my property tax dollars will have to
> pay the bill.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 2/28/04

What makes you say it is a better deal than SS? Did you compare
figures for the amount they contribute and receive as compared to SS.
SS and Federal retirement are not direct alternatives, they are
completely different. Federal retirement is similar to what a
corporation pays as a retirement, it is not intended as a back up
system like SS is.

Swingman wrote:
>
> "George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
>
> > What makes you say it is a better deal than SS?
>
> Read my previouse message with the statistics from the Congressional Reseach
> Office, then tell me it is NOT a "better deal"
>
> >Did you compare
> > figures for the amount they contribute and receive as compared to SS.
> > SS and Federal retirement are not direct alternatives, they are
> > completely different. Federal retirement is similar to what a
> > corporation pays as a retirement, it is not intended as a back up
> > system like SS is.
>
> Congress critters got BOTH CSRS and SS.
>
> Again, quoting the CRO:
>
> 1. Full coverage under SS and CSRS 2. The "CSRS Offset" plan, which includes
> both CSRS and SS, but with CSRS contributions and benefits reduced by SS
> contributions and benefits.
>
> 3. FERS plus SS
>
> 4. SS alone
>
> "All members pay SS payroll taxes equal to 6.2% of the SS taxable wage base
> of ($84,900 in 2002). Members covered by FERS pay 1.3% of full salary to the
> Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. [Congress kicks in 11% of the
> Members' salary as its contribution]. Members covered by CSRS Offset pay
> 1.8% of the first $84,900 of salary and 8.0% of salary above this amount
> into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 2/28/04

Some do and some don't. It's not simple. CSRS is just about over
since there was a switch to FERS in 1984. Since the retirement change
is still in transition it get pretty complicated but all congressmen
pay Social Security payroll tax regardless of the retirment plan,i.e.,
they have 6.2 percent of pay up to 87,900 (2004 maximum)deducted from
wages and 1.45 percent deducted for medicare. Since CSRS is 8 percent,
if they have CSRS they end up having 14.2 percent deducted for the
first $87,900 and 8% on salary above 87,900. That's a lot.

The other percents you stated are correct. Which means that all
members are paying at least 1.3 percent more than regular ss for the
first 87,900 plus above 87,900 they 8 percent if CSRS offset and 1.3
percent if FERS. FERS also has a 402 plan where the first 5 percent
is matched; CSRS also has a 402 but no employer matching.

The numbers you gave are mostly for CSRS retirements, and those
Congressmen were contributing a lot of money. The average guy would
really scream if he had to contribute 15.65% of his salary; 6.2% for
SS, 8% for CSRS, 1.45% for medicare.

The law limits retirements to 80 percent of the high 3 (that's for
people that think Congressmen retire at their last salary). This
confusion is increase when the term "full retirement" is used. It
means that a percon retired at the age and with the number of years
served to qualify for the full amount calculated for the number of
years served. If a person doesn't meet that qualification then they
get a deferred retirement (wait till they are older before the pension
starts), or a reduced pension, or both a deferred and reduced pension.

The best site I've seen on this subject is:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf

And yeah, Congressmen and Judges seem to get a pretty good deal, a lot
better than the regular federal workers.

"Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If I am not mistaken, the average life expectancy was 62 when the original
eligibility was set at 65. I could be wrong, though.
>
The average life expectancy is not the average age that a person over 50
dies at. It is an average age that people live overall, which includes death
of childhood diseases. If you think of it an average age of death would have
to include a whole bunch of people of all ages (down to newborns) to come up
with an average. These children did not contribute to the S/S.

People have always lived long lives if they survived childhood, childbirth
or workplace accidents. This brings to mind a headstone I saw in my town.
The person was born in 1799 and died in 1901 -- 101 years old. A good old
life, especially for the age, imagine the person lived through the entire
19th century!


> --
> Al Reid
>
> "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you
know
> for sure that just ain't so." --- Mark Twain
>
> "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Charlie Self"
> > > Rich Chamberlain writes:
> > >
> > > >Regardless of what that article says about the growth of the economy,
> > > >the real reason for the crisis is the number of workers per retiree.
> > > >Back in the 30s, it was close to 300 workers paying for the SS of one
> > > >retiree. Today, it's at 3 and heading to 2 with a bullet.
> > >
> > > And most of the money paid in has been stolen. Whoops. Pols don't
steal. They
> > > simply take and use for other purposes.
> > >
> > > By the way, when in the '30s was it 300 to 1?
> > >
> > > >That tells me one thing - I need to pump up my 401k and other
savings,
> > > >because I'm not counting on SS.
> > >
> > > SS was never intended, or, rather, was not originally intended, as a
complete
> > > retirement program. It was to be a supplement for those who couldn't
make
> > > enough money to save on their own, but was never intended to be all
the income
> > > anyone had. Of course, now it often is and in some areas, for some
people, it
> > > is more than adequate.
> >
> >
> > Also, it was designed to be distributed to the recipient for maybe 5
years.
> > People are living much longer these days.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

C'mon, that's market 090, not even 101. Out of growth, into income as the
time of need grows close. Sounds like you got into greed versus need
mentality.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Judging by naivete exhibited in the remarks above, I wouldn't hold out a
lot
> of hope for you investing successfully for your retirement.
>

I can see why you had problems listening to your financial advisor.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Only a pompous ASS would jump to such an erroneous conclusion.
>

Not to worry. This non-expert is comfortably retired though he's unqualified
to quote standard assumptions.

Ignorance is an acute condition cured by knowledge. Stupidity is chronic,
because it rejects the efficacy of knowledge.

"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > "Swingman" wrote in message
> > >
> > > > Only a pompous ASS would jump to such an erroneous conclusion.
> >
> > "George" wrote in message
> > > I can see why you had problems listening to your financial advisor.
> >
> > You just keep validating the above with every ill informed conjecture.
> >
> > George, the FACT is that, even were you qualified, you have absolutely
NO
> > idea of what the situation is/was and, as a result, you are inarguably,
> and
> > patently, talking through your ass.
> >
> > ... nuff said.
> >
> > --
> > www.e-woodshop.net
> > Last update: 2/28/04
>
> You talk pretty big for someone who likes to make a lot of assumptions
about
> my situation.
>
> todd
>
>

"Al Reid" wrote in message

> There are 40 of 100 US Senators who are Millionaires.

There's 535 members of congress ...26% are millionaires. While that is
certainly a disproportionate percentage compared to the general population,
it is not "most", as has been stated as fact.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "todd" wrote in message
> >

There was a MAJOR revision of the Social Security Act in the mid-80's.
Indexing of earnings, inclusion of federal employees under coverage, gradual
increase of the retirement age from 65 to 67, reduction of child's benefits
from 21 to18........ it was extensive. It was believed then that the
revisions would carry the Act through 2010 to 2040 depending on a multitude
of factors, mostly to do with the performance of the economy and population
demographics.

Actually, IMHO, those old estimates proved reasonable accurate. However,
2010 is now six years, away. Currently, the estimates are that somewhere
between 2010 and 2013, the monthly SSA expediture will, for the first time,
ever, exceed the monthly income. Somewhere around 2030, the "Trust Fund"
will be completely empty.

The monies collected in FICA taxes/contributions has ALWAYS gone directly
into the US Treasury. It's not like they were put into a bank, somewhere.
The collected funds were spent to pay for programs of the Federal
government. (The Social Security Administration does not collect FICA, the
IRS does. SSA operates on Congressional approved appropriations just like
every other federal agency).

The Trust Fund(s), (there's a couple of them), are accounting fictions to
keep track of the FICA taxes/contributions separate from common taxes. And
they always have been.

Analogy. You, and your family, agree to a retirement plan. You have ten
kids. Ten percent of everyone's earnings are sent to a designated to a
"trust" fund, except the monies are really put into a general household
account. When you reach retirement age, you start collecting money from the
"trust" fund, except it really comes from the general household account.
However, by now, your ten kids have a total of 100 grandkids who are
contributing to the "trust fund", too, so you're withdrawals are not
noticeable. Your 100 grandkids, produce ten kids each and contribution
grows dramatically as 1000 great-grandkids add their contributions to the
"trust fund". However, the 1000 great-grandkids, instead of ten kids each,
only have three kids each. Now those three thousand great-great grandkids
are forced to support well over a thousand retired relatives.

Did that help explain the problems?

The performance of the economy as a whole isn't as important as the sheer
number of people paying into the system. Because of the caps on covered
earnings, few people paying ever larger contributions isn't the same as many
people paying smaller contributions.

The SS Act, is like many federal programs, a monsterous glob. For instance,
from the original act with a single beneficiary type...

A- Covered wage earner
B- Spouse of a covered wage earner
C- Child of a covered wage earner
D-Widow of a covered wage earner
F-Parent/Grandparent of a covered wage earner
HA-Disable covered wage earner
DAC- Disabled "adult" child of a covered wage earner
W-Disabled widow of a covered wage earner
J-Special Payment and coverage provisions

"Wage earner" is a traditional term. The modern term is "beneficiary"
Disability payments used to constitute about 1/2 of the monthly SSA
disbursment. With the aging "baby boomers", I expect that percentage will
decrease and I have no idea what it is currently. However, I do know that
18 months seems to be the disability "magic number" The people that have
drawn disability for 18 months and ever get back to work, drops
dramatically.

BTW, originally, the Act was specifically targeted for wage earners. Self
employed people were not covered. Most, if not all state and federal people
were not covered. Over the decades, practically every working (and some
non-working) people have been covered by the Act. (See vow-of-poverty cases
and the concept of wages-in-kind that extended coverage to various religious
orders)

The original intention of the Act was to provide ADDITIONAL funding to lower
end wage earners to make their retirements, if not confortable, at least
bearable. That's why, all the computations are heavily weighted so that the
lower end wage earner receiveds proportionally a greater return on
contributions than the higher wage earners. High end earners, really have a
poor "return on investment", at least compared to lower income earners.
(The benefit computations are convoluted as hell, but basically, the higher
a beneficiary's "average monthy wage" over their working life, the lower the
percentage of the wage they are likely to collect in monthly benefits. Let's
say your Average Monthly Wage, was was 1000 dollars. (Indexed, adjusted
for inflation, yada, yada, yada). The compution has "bend" points. You
might receive 75% of the first 500 dollars of an "average monthly wage",
then 60% of an AMW between 500 and 750 dollars, and the 40% of anything over
750 dollars in AMW.

Modern private pension plans, normally incorporate and anticipate a SS
covered entitlement as part of the plan. In other words, the SS Act is so
interwoven in the fabric of America, that ANY adjustments, corrections,
reforms have to be very carefully considered, least dire and completely
unintentional consequences result.

As a knee-jerk conservative, I have a natural inclination towards
privatization of Social Secuity...UNTIL one considers the mechanics of such
a process. Somewhere along the line, BILLIONS of dollars in investment
funds PER MONTH, would end up under the directions of a relatively few
bureaucrats/investment counselers. The potentional for corruption
internally, and scams externally, will be immense.

My predictions, and IMHO, they are not as wild as they might seem at first
glance....are

SS benfits will be "means tested". If you a lottery winner, or a successful
and frugal wage earner, you'll never collect a dime in SS benefits.

The covered retirment age will (again) be raised, probably ending up,
somewhere around 71 or 72.

The reductions assessed for "early retirment" will be increased.

Some classes of beneficiaries (dependent grandparents????) will be
restricted and eventually de-entitled. (De-entitled?? Is there such a
word?)

Cost-of-living formulas, (that currently determine rate increases every
year) will be re-computed to reflect proportionally smaller increases (Such
things as new-housing costs will be excluded from the formula, under the
belief that very few 72 year old people buy new houses.)
Some portion of an individual's (probably less than 10%) will be
"privatized" via 401K-type plans. NOTE: While taxes maybe be delayed,
eventually the government WILL collect taxes on those "earnings".

Full-blown, stay at home and never-lift-a-finger retirements, are already
decreasing as a percentage of the total population. The trend to part-time
and reduced income work for seniors, will continue to increase.

And for a really big prediction.
How many people will be able to guess where I worked for 30 years? <Grin>

James...
BTW, Civil Service Retirements, Veteran's Retirements (etc) are all in the
same catagory.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > "Swingman" wrote in message
> >
> > > Only a pompous ASS would jump to such an erroneous conclusion.
>
> "George" wrote in message
> > I can see why you had problems listening to your financial advisor.
>
> You just keep validating the above with every ill informed conjecture.
>
> George, the FACT is that, even were you qualified, you have absolutely NO
> idea of what the situation is/was and, as a result, you are inarguably,
and
> patently, talking through your ass.
>
> ... nuff said.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 2/28/04

You talk pretty big for someone who likes to make a lot of assumptions about
my situation.

todd

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 22:26:01 -0600, todd wrote:


> The plane was mine. I purchased it for the class. It's an ECE Primus
> Reform Smooth Plane #711. It has a lignum vitae sole and a fruitwood body.
> I looked hard at Steve Knight's planes, but being a plane dummy, I thought
> I'd have better luck adjusting the ECE. I haven't used a plane since junior
> high and have never chopped mortises or cut tenons, which is the main reason
> I took the class. I have all the main power tools at home, and chopping all
> those mortises makes me appreciate my mortising machine a bunch. Once I
> really got going, I could cut a pretty good mortise in about 30 minutes.
> I'm pretty sure I could have done them all in an hour on my mortiser. And
> cutting all the cheeks of the tenons wasn't exactly child's play. After a
> few, I was ready to call the bullpen and have them send in a lefty.

Just did the tenons for a dining table, and the RAS does make cutting the
shoulders and cheeks childs play. You make the shoulder cuts first
using a stop block.Rotate the bevel to 0 degrees (horizontal and place the
work on an aux table with fence aligned with the cutting depth of the
blade. raise the top edge of the blade to exactly the shoulder depth
above the aux table. Align the shoulder cut just shy of the aux table
left edge and pull the saw through. The waste falls off to the main
table. I have an eight foot table on each side of the RAS, so tenons on
any size stock are no problem. All I had to do was some very slight
paring in the individual mortices for a perfect snug but not tight fit.

--
-Doug

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Kevin" wrote in message
>
> > The fix? well it the 3s bear any resemblance to reality, I see about 5
> > ways. 1. Raise taxes. 2. Reduce benefits. 3. Raise retirement age.
> > 4. Remove the death tax - completely. 5. Triple at least, limits on
> > IRA contributions
>
>
> As the old saw goes, put the pols on SS and it would be "fixed" tomorrow.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 2/28/04

Right. I'm sure John Kerry is really counting on his retirement money.
Most of these politicians are wealthy already. Putting them on SS isn't
going to change anything.

todd

"Kevin" wrote in message

> The fix? well it the 3s bear any resemblance to reality, I see about 5
> ways. 1. Raise taxes. 2. Reduce benefits. 3. Raise retirement age.
> 4. Remove the death tax - completely. 5. Triple at least, limits on
> IRA contributions


As the old saw goes, put the pols on SS and it would be "fixed" tomorrow.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "todd" wrote in message
>
> > Well, you're free to make whatever point you want. The assertion that I
> was
> > responding to was that if we just got Congress folks off of their
pension
> > and strictly onto SS, everything would be fine.
>
> No one said that things would be "fine" ... the assertion was that if the
> congress critters had to live by the same rules the rest of us do, that
the
> much needed "fix" to SS would be more forthcoming.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 2/28/04

Then I guess you're missing the point. Most of the congress types will end
up not having to count on their retirement plan or SS to be a major source
of retirement income because it will represent a small portion of their net
worth. So "making them play by our rules" isn't going to change anything.
There's only one thing they respond to, and that's getting re-elected. Make
them think they won't get re-elected if they don't modify SS, and then it
will change.
Absent that, I have a deal to make with the gubmint. I'm 36 years old and
have been paying (along with my employers), SS taxes for roughly 20 years
now. OK, gubmint, you keep all of that money and just let me off this
merry-go-round. Let me keep my 7.65% or whatever the percentage is that
comes (directly) out of my paycheck each month. I'll add that to my other
investments and you'll never hear from me again.

todd

Swingman wrote:

> When a party, in complete and TOTAL ignorance of a situation,
> continues to spout assumptions based on that ignorance, pointing out
> said ignorance is not necessarily an "argument".

I can, however, be as useful as trying to teach a pig to sing. ;-) Not
only are you wasting your time, the pig becomes annoyed...

-- Mark

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "todd" wrote in message
> > "Swingman" wrote in message
>
> > > As the old saw goes, put the pols on SS and it would be "fixed"
> tomorrow.
>
> > Right. I'm sure John Kerry is really counting on his retirement money.
> > Most of these politicians are wealthy already. Putting them on SS isn't
> > going to change anything.
> >
> > todd
>
> You're wrong. "Most" politicians aren't "wealthy"... until they get into
> Congress.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 2/28/04

I didn't say they were wealthy before getting into Congress (although I'd
like to see the numbers). But they're wealthy before leaving to take a
retirement income. The point is, it isn't as if they leave Congress and now
have to rely soley on their retirement income.

todd

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "todd" wrote in message
>
> > Then I guess you're missing the point.
>
> Welp, you guess wrong ... you missed the first point, and haven't been
> anywhere near it yet.

Just because I'm not responding to whatever point you are, doesn't mean I've
missed the one I'm referring to.

> > Most of the congress types will end
> > up not having to count on their retirement plan or SS to be a major
source
> > of retirement income because it will represent a small portion of their
> net
> > worth.
>
> You can't back that contention up with figures. "Most" of the 535 in
> congress aren't "wealthy" and will gladly receive their pensions ... a
much
> better deal than you will get with SS..

Fine. You show me the stats on the net worth of congress people when they
leave office and then we'll talk. And I never said they wouldn't be happy
to get it. I'd be happy if you gave me $1000, but it represents a very
small portion of my net worth. If I didn't get it, it wouldn't change my
lifestyle.

> > There's only one thing they respond to, and that's getting re-elected.
> Make
> > them think they won't get re-elected if they don't modify SS, and then
it
> > will change.
>
> We been doing it your way for forty years ... hasn't worked yet. Make them
> eat their own dog food and the menu will change.

BS. There hasn't been an outcry to change SS in the past 40 years because
the seasoned citizens are the most disciplined voting group in the country.
You go talking about making sweeping changes to SS as an elected
representative and see where that gets you. You tell me when there was a
major voter push to modify SS in a substantial way that would bring the cost
of the program under control.

> > Absent that, I have a deal to make with the gubmint. I'm 36 years old
and
> > have been paying (along with my employers), SS taxes for roughly 20
years
> > now. OK, gubmint, you keep all of that money and just let me off this
> > merry-go-round. Let me keep my 7.65% or whatever the percentage is that
> > comes (directly) out of my paycheck each month. I'll add that to my
other
> > investments and you'll never hear from me again.
>
> Until you show up at the emergency room without the means to pay because
> your "investments" didn't pan out, then my property tax dollars will have
to
> pay the bill.

Well, I figure about $100,000 has been put in on my behalf so far, so I'll
charge my emergency room stay to that. And I tell you what...don't worry
about me. Maybe you need a nanny state, but I don't.

todd

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snip>
> I am with you 100% on all the above. My youngest daughter's college fund,
> despite careful and professional attention, lost almost 70% of its value
in
> the last four years, just as she needed it ... surprise, surprise!

Well, I guess your daughter's college fund wasn't handled very carefully or
professionally. Anybody who knew what they were doing with money that was
needed within 4 years would have begun moving it into less-volatile
investments. Of course, unless they were then a total moron and sold at the
bottom, the funds would very likely now be about back to where they were.

todd

> "Swingman" wrote in message
>
> > Only a pompous ASS would jump to such an erroneous conclusion.

"George" wrote in message
> I can see why you had problems listening to your financial advisor.

You just keep validating the above with every ill informed conjecture.

George, the FACT is that, even were you qualified, you have absolutely NO
idea of what the situation is/was and, as a result, you are inarguably, and
patently, talking through your ass.

... nuff said.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

"James" wrote in message

> The monies collected in FICA taxes/contributions has ALWAYS gone directly
> into the US Treasury. It's not like they were put into a bank, somewhere.
> The collected funds were spent to pay for programs of the Federal
> government. (The Social Security Administration does not collect FICA,
the
> IRS does. SSA operates on Congressional approved appropriations just like
> every other federal agency).

We debated this very practice 42 years ago, in High School government class.
:)

> Did that help explain the problems?

Just like most forms of "insurance", a merry-go-round you can't stop, or get
off of.

> As a knee-jerk conservative, I have a natural inclination towards
> privatization of Social Secuity...UNTIL one considers the mechanics of
such
> a process. Somewhere along the line, BILLIONS of dollars in investment
> funds PER MONTH, would end up under the directions of a relatively few
> bureaucrats/investment counselers. The potentional for corruption
> internally, and scams externally, will be immense.

I am with you 100% on all the above. My youngest daughter's college fund,
despite careful and professional attention, lost almost 70% of its value in
the last four years, just as she needed it ... surprise, surprise!

> My predictions, and IMHO, they are not as wild as they might seem at first
> glance....are
>
> SS benfits will be "means tested". If you a lottery winner, or a
successful
> and frugal wage earner, you'll never collect a dime in SS benefits.
>
> The covered retirment age will (again) be raised, probably ending up,
> somewhere around 71 or 72.
>
> The reductions assessed for "early retirment" will be increased.
>
> Some classes of beneficiaries (dependent grandparents????) will be
> restricted and eventually de-entitled. (De-entitled?? Is there such a
> word?)
>
> Cost-of-living formulas, (that currently determine rate increases every
> year) will be re-computed to reflect proportionally smaller increases
(Such
> things as new-housing costs will be excluded from the formula, under the
> belief that very few 72 year old people buy new houses.)
> Some portion of an individual's (probably less than 10%) will be
> "privatized" via 401K-type plans. NOTE: While taxes maybe be delayed,
> eventually the government WILL collect taxes on those "earnings".
>
> Full-blown, stay at home and never-lift-a-finger retirements, are already
> decreasing as a percentage of the total population. The trend to
part-time
> and reduced income work for seniors, will continue to increase.

None of which will likely apply to congress critters, Todd. :)

Having been self-employed my entire life, I will continue to "work" until I
drop ... but I would do it anyway because my work is, and always has been,
things that I take a passionate interest in.

> And for a really big prediction.
> How many people will be able to guess where I worked for 30 years? <Grin>
>
> James...
> BTW, Civil Service Retirements, Veteran's Retirements (etc) are all in the
> same catagory.

Excellent post! Thank you!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

"George" wrote in message
> Not to worry. This non-expert is comfortably retired though he's
unqualified
> to quote standard assumptions.
>
> Ignorance is an acute condition cured by knowledge. Stupidity is chronic,
> because it rejects the efficacy of knowledge.

George, once again your pompous BS, as above, is exceeded only by your
incorrect assumptions.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/05/04

"todd" wrote in message

> It's a figure of speech. You want me to come right out and state it?
> Anyone who let a fund decline by 70% either a) didn't know what they were
> doing or b) were willing to ride it out. For crying out loud, was it all
in
> QQQ?

For an absolute fact, Todd, you simply have not been thinking clearly. You
immediately, and wrongly, assumed that I had personal control over an
investment brought up to illustrate a point, and your "guesses" and
assumptions since have had you ignorantly barking up the wrong tree ... all
of which nicely proves my original point

That being the absolute folly of privatizing SS for a dumbed down society in
a stock market where the "rules" are ignored by a cult of greed and
subjected to the bureaucratic bungling of the government vis-à-vis
regulatory oversight.

Many of you would do well to go talk, and more importantly, listen, to
someone who lived through a little period of our history called "the Great
Depression".

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/05/04

Working Family = any one making minimum wage.
Wealthy = any one making MORE than minimum wage.

That's the million dollar question!

I say flat tax and don't worry about defining wealthy.

A friend of ours thinks he's NOT wealthy at $55k. His idea of broke
(poor) is that he can't make the payment on his Escalade AND buy a $250k
house AND go clubbing every weekend. We believe his perception of wealthy is
skewed.

We (a family of four) think the same $55 we made last year is wealthy. And
evidently the government does too.

I grew up in a farm house with no glass in the windows up stairs and a
mentally disturbed chicken running around the yard. Now, I have the joy of
being able to buy groceries at will. Truly. I can't buy groceries without
thinking about a time when my free lunch at school was my nutrition for the
day. It took my wife 3 years to get me to buy chips and cookies from time to
time. I refused to. It was meats and veggies. I still don't eat half the
meals I cook, from habit.

It nice to point out from time to time that we have the wealthiest "poor"
people in the world.

I'd argued with a neighbor that said "Because of Bush, she couldn't afford
to buy her child clothes." I pointed out that evidently clothes we're the
worry when she got that fancy Weave, purchased that dime bag and put those
$500 rims on her Sequoia (Sp?). Her response was "Well my boyfriend bought
those". To which my response was "Sell them and buy clothes!". The rims are
still on the suv 6 months later.

It's all in perception.

Now if we're talking stinking ass rich, that's a different story. BUT, I
still think a flat tax is the only fair tax. The tax system as it stands now
punishes achievement and gives a false appearance of who is wealthy and who
is not.







"Kevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Certainly not picking a fight here but what is meant by the term wealthy
or
> rich? I hear and read this term quite a bit and, given it is an election
> year, have no doubt that its frequency of use will increase.
>
> So, what is meant by it? Ideally I'd like to know the meaning or
definition
> in terms of both total net assets and annual net income
>
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > You're wrong. "Most" politicians aren't "wealthy"... until they get into
> > Congress.
> >
> > --
> > www.e-woodshop.net
> > Last update: 2/28/04
> >
> >
>
>

"Mark Jerde" wrote in message
> Swingman wrote:
>
> > When a party, in complete and TOTAL ignorance of a situation,
> > continues to spout assumptions based on that ignorance, pointing out
> > said ignorance is not necessarily an "argument".
>
> I can, however, be as useful as trying to teach a pig to sing. ;-) Not
> only are you wasting your time, the pig becomes annoyed...

LOL ... you got that right! ;>)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/05/04

"todd" wrote in message

> Well, you're free to make whatever point you want. The assertion that I
was
> responding to was that if we just got Congress folks off of their pension
> and strictly onto SS, everything would be fine.

No one said that things would be "fine" ... the assertion was that if the
congress critters had to live by the same rules the rest of us do, that the
much needed "fix" to SS would be more forthcoming.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

"todd" wrote in message

> I didn't say they were wealthy before getting into Congress (although I'd
> like to see the numbers). But they're wealthy before leaving to take a
> retirement income. The point is, it isn't as if they leave Congress and
now
> have to rely soley on their retirement income.

Nope, the "point" is that, while they pay into SS and Federal Employees
Retirement System, they don't play by the same rules:

As of 1999, the average SS retiree received $804 per month, or $9,648
annually after retiring at age 65.

From the Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress on the
Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress (updated September, 2002).
“As of October 1, 2000, 409 retired Members of Congress were receiving
federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. Of
this number, 356 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual
pension of $52,464. Fifty-three Members had retired either with service
under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average
annual pension was $46,932 in 2000.”

An example was given for a Rep. or Senator retiring after Dec., 2002, with
26 years of service (7 under CSRS, 19 under FERS). With an ending “high-3”
salary of $138,233, their annual pension would be $72,442 per year.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 18:50:36 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:

> And most of the money paid in has been stolen. Whoops. Pols don't steal. They
> simply take and use for other purposes.

It's supposed to be a pay as you go program, but for at least 3 decades,
excess is collected and put in the "trust" fund. Since hiding cash for
long periods of time is a good way to see it evaporate through inflation,
the govmint "invests" the trust fund money in govmint IOU's to be paid
back with a small interest rate in the future using govmint profits (more
taxes for future generations). Meanwhile, the current excess SS taxes are
spent on us, now. And all this by folks who talk about all the things we
must do "for the children". Worst of all, the debt in this and 40 or so
other "trust" funds is counted as an asset rather than a liability! Some
estimates place the amount of these "assets" at $40 _trillion_ in the
next3 or 4 decades. Makes the national debt look miniscule.

> By the way, when in the '30s was it 300 to 1?

It was more like 30-something to one, and the average lifespan at the time
was 65, meaning the program didn't have to pay out for long.

> SS was never intended, or, rather, was not originally intended, as a
> complete retirement program. It was to be a supplement for those who
> couldn't make enough money to save on their own, but was never intended
> to be all the income anyone had. Of course, now it often is and in some
> areas, for some people, it is more than adequate.

The sad part is many otherwise intelligent folks think SS will take care
of them and forego any planning/savings on their own.

If you want to go through an interesting exercise, look for your next
statement from SS listing the years and amounts you have paid in. Then
apply a reasonable return of say 6% for the first year, add the next years
contribution, apply 6%, etc. You'll discover you could retire at 55 with
about double the money SS will pay you, and never reduce the current
value. Compound interest is wonderful! And if we had all done this on
our own, not only would we be better off, but wouldn't be leaving
trillions of debt to be paid by future generations.

All this is why I put 10% of gross away as untouchable starting about 30
years ago and have my kids doing the same. Talk about a safety net...

--
-Doug

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
> "Swingman" wrote in message
> > "George" wrote in message
> > > Not to worry. This non-expert is comfortably retired though he's
> > unqualified
> > > to quote standard assumptions.
> > >
> > > Ignorance is an acute condition cured by knowledge. Stupidity is
chronic,
> > > because it rejects the efficacy of knowledge.
> >
> > George, once again your pompous BS, as above, is exceeded only by your
> > incorrect assumptions.
>
> A discussion is an exchange of knowledge, as opposed to an argument,
> which is an exchange of ignorance.

Despite the fact that quaint little homily has been around longer than I can
remember, and really should be in quotes, it ain't necessarily the whole
enchilada.

When a party, in complete and TOTAL ignorance of a situation, continues to
spout assumptions based on that ignorance, pointing out said ignorance is
not necessarily an "argument".

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/05/04

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Certainly not picking a fight here but what is meant by the term wealthy or
> rich? I hear and read this term quite a bit and, given it is an election
> year, have no doubt that its frequency of use will increase.

That's simple: "wealthy" is someone who has more than you do (when
the term is being uttered by a politician to "regular folks"). The
"rich" are those who make more than you do. Of course this means that
anybody who makes more than you do, or has more than you do should be
taxed heavily in order to make sure that they eventually are equal to
you -- regardless of how hard they have worked. Of course this doesn't
apply to the person on the podium who more than likely makes their
definition of "rich" (often now referred to as someone making more than
$100k per year) look like the poor house. Thus you have one candidate
who made money the old fashioned way (he married it) and another who is
a multi-hundred millionaire by nature of sueing for the "oppressed" and
keeping 60% of their winnings telling those who make more than $100k how
they should suck it up and "pay their fair share".

>
> So, what is meant by it? Ideally I'd like to know the meaning or definition
> in terms of both total net assets and annual net income
>
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > You're wrong. "Most" politicians aren't "wealthy"... until they get into
> > Congress.
> >
> > --
> > www.e-woodshop.net
> > Last update: 2/28/04
> >
> >
>
>
>

Charly got it right on the actual policy. It was/is meant
as a supplemental in old age. As far as theft, well...
There is no SS fund. All the money goes into the general fund
kinda like petty cash account.
Fletis hits spot on with the # of years one was expected to draw
on it before they were off to join the choir invisible (shamelessly
stolen from Monty)
The fix? well it the 3s bear any resemblance to reality, I see about 5
ways. 1. Raise taxes. 2. Reduce benefits. 3. Raise retirement age.
4. Remove the death tax - completely. 5. Triple at least, limits on
IRA contributions


"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Charlie Self"
> > Rich Chamberlain writes:
> >
> > >Regardless of what that article says about the growth of the economy,
> > >the real reason for the crisis is the number of workers per retiree.
> > >Back in the 30s, it was close to 300 workers paying for the SS of one
> > >retiree. Today, it's at 3 and heading to 2 with a bullet.
> >
> > And most of the money paid in has been stolen. Whoops. Pols don't steal.
They
> > simply take and use for other purposes.
> >
> > By the way, when in the '30s was it 300 to 1?
> >
> > >That tells me one thing - I need to pump up my 401k and other savings,
> > >because I'm not counting on SS.
> >
> > SS was never intended, or, rather, was not originally intended, as a
complete
> > retirement program. It was to be a supplement for those who couldn't
make
> > enough money to save on their own, but was never intended to be all the
income
> > anyone had. Of course, now it often is and in some areas, for some
people, it
> > is more than adequate.
>
>
> Also, it was designed to be distributed to the recipient for maybe 5
years.
> People are living much longer these days.
>
>
>
>

Certainly not picking a fight here but what is meant by the term wealthy or
rich? I hear and read this term quite a bit and, given it is an election
year, have no doubt that its frequency of use will increase.

So, what is meant by it? Ideally I'd like to know the meaning or definition
in terms of both total net assets and annual net income


"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> You're wrong. "Most" politicians aren't "wealthy"... until they get into
> Congress.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 2/28/04
>
>

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "George" wrote in message
> > Not to worry. This non-expert is comfortably retired though he's
> unqualified
> > to quote standard assumptions.
> >
> > Ignorance is an acute condition cured by knowledge. Stupidity is chronic,
> > because it rejects the efficacy of knowledge.
>
> George, once again your pompous BS, as above, is exceeded only by your
> incorrect assumptions.

A discussion is an exchange of knowledge, as opposed to an argument,
which is an exchange of ignorance.

--

FF

"Kevin" wrote in message
> Certainly not picking a fight here but what is meant by the term wealthy
or
> rich? I hear and read this term quite a bit and, given it is an election
> year, have no doubt that its frequency of use will increase.
>
> So, what is meant by it? Ideally I'd like to know the meaning or
definition
> in terms of both total net assets and annual net income
>
>
> "Swingman" wrote in message
> > >
> >
> > You're wrong. "Most" politicians aren't "wealthy"... until they get into
> > Congress.
> >
> > --
> > www.e-woodshop.net
> > Last update: 2/28/04
>

Pick your own definition ... I've been putting the tern in quotes because it
was NOT a term I used in my original statement.

That said, what would it take for me to consider myself "wealthy"? How about
being able to live the lifestyle I am accustomed to, without having to work
... that would be pretty damn close to my sense of being "wealthy", or close
enough.

You can be "rich" in a lot of things ... right now I wish we weren't so damn
rich in rain so I could spray some shellac!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

"todd" wrote in message

> Then I guess you're missing the point.

Welp, you guess wrong ... you missed the first point, and haven't been
anywhere near it yet.

> Most of the congress types will end
> up not having to count on their retirement plan or SS to be a major source
> of retirement income because it will represent a small portion of their
net
> worth.

You can't back that contention up with figures. "Most" of the 535 in
congress aren't "wealthy" and will gladly receive their pensions ... a much
better deal than you will get with SS..

> There's only one thing they respond to, and that's getting re-elected.
Make
> them think they won't get re-elected if they don't modify SS, and then it
> will change.

We been doing it your way for forty years ... hasn't worked yet. Make them
eat their own dog food and the menu will change.

> Absent that, I have a deal to make with the gubmint. I'm 36 years old and
> have been paying (along with my employers), SS taxes for roughly 20 years
> now. OK, gubmint, you keep all of that money and just let me off this
> merry-go-round. Let me keep my 7.65% or whatever the percentage is that
> comes (directly) out of my paycheck each month. I'll add that to my other
> investments and you'll never hear from me again.

Until you show up at the emergency room without the means to pay because
your "investments" didn't pan out, then my property tax dollars will have to
pay the bill.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

"todd" wrote in message
>
> "Swingman" wrote in message
>
> >
> > "todd" wrote in message
> >
> > > Then I guess you're missing the point.
> >
> > Welp, you guess wrong ... you missed the first point, and haven't been
> > anywhere near it yet.
>
> Just because I'm not responding to whatever point you are, doesn't mean
I've
> missed the one I'm referring to.

LOL ... say what?

Simply try addressing the point in the thread that _you_ originally jumped
in to.

> > > Most of the congress types will end
> > > up not having to count on their retirement plan or SS to be a major
> source
> > > of retirement income because it will represent a small portion of
their
> > net
> > > worth.
> >
> > You can't back that contention up with figures. "Most" of the 535 in
> > congress aren't "wealthy" and will gladly receive their pensions ... a
> much
> > better deal than you will get with SS..
>
> Fine. You show me the stats on the net worth of congress people when they
> leave office and then we'll talk.

Don't look now, but _you_ brought up "net worth" of congressmen, _you_ back
up what you brought up.

> > > There's only one thing they respond to, and that's getting re-elected.
> > Make
> > > them think they won't get re-elected if they don't modify SS, and then
> it
> > > will change.
> >
> > We been doing it your way for forty years ... hasn't worked yet. Make
them
> > eat their own dog food and the menu will change.
>
> BS. There hasn't been an outcry to change SS in the past 40 years because
> the seasoned citizens are the most disciplined voting group in the
country.
> You go talking about making sweeping changes to SS as an elected
> representative and see where that gets you. You tell me when there was a
> major voter push to modify SS in a substantial way that would bring the
cost
> of the program under control.

You just missed it, dude ... you were obviously too young to have noticed.
There has been an outcry about the SS fund for years and it has been an
issue in almost every local campaign for congress since I was in High School
... I even debated it in HS in 1961 ... before you were born.
.
> > > Absent that, I have a deal to make with the gubmint. I'm 36 years old
> and
> > > have been paying (along with my employers), SS taxes for roughly 20
> years
> > > now. OK, gubmint, you keep all of that money and just let me off this
> > > merry-go-round. Let me keep my 7.65% or whatever the percentage is
that
> > > comes (directly) out of my paycheck each month. I'll add that to my
> other
> > > investments and you'll never hear from me again.
> >
> > Until you show up at the emergency room without the means to pay because
> > your "investments" didn't pan out, then my property tax dollars will
have
> to
> > pay the bill.
>
> Well, I figure about $100,000 has been put in on my behalf so far, so I'll
> charge my emergency room stay to that. And I tell you what...don't worry
> about me. Maybe you need a nanny state, but I don't.

With an attitude like that, live long enough and you _will_ get one.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

"Kevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Charly got it right on the actual policy. It was/is meant
> as a supplemental in old age. As far as theft, well...
> There is no SS fund. All the money goes into the general fund
> kinda like petty cash account.

This wasn't the case until about a dozen years ago. The Social Security fund
was off-budget, meaning that the politicians couldn't touch it. It had
accumulated a huge surplus in anticipation of the baby boomer retirement
bulge that's beginning now. However, the national debt became so severe in
the 80s that the Congress passed a law putting SS on the budget so the pols
could tap into the excess funds. That surplus has now been drawn down to the
point where they talk about a crisis--but it was their own fault. Social
Security IMHO should be removed from the budget. For too many people it is
the prime source of income in retirement: the poor, the self-employed, those
without company benefits, etc. Yes, it's easy to say that private investment
returns more, but millions can't afford to invest.

But why not eliminate Social Security and allow people to invest the money
they save? Because it's a welfare program. Like everyone else I'll draw out
all of my investment and interest in less than 5 years. If I draw SS for
more than that, it's welfare. Dirty word in these parts, eh? I'd rather have
at least some income sheltered from the greedheads running private
investments, and from the fluctuations in the market brought on by
short-term profit seekers. And when your invested funds run out, you're left
with nothing. At least SS gives you an income you can count on.

Congress knows that touching SS is a political third rail. It's what
Jefferson said (in another context) was like holding a wolf by the tail. You
don't like it, but you don't dare let go.

Bob

In article <[email protected]>,
Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>If I draw SS for
>more than that, it's welfare. Dirty word in these parts, eh? I'd rather have
>at least some income sheltered from the greedheads running private
>investments,

By investing directly in the US Treasury I'd have guaranteed retirement
benefits 13-16X what Social Security could give me with more safety.

The last time I checked Social Security will yield a .3 percent rate of
return for me assuming the government stays solvent, benefits are adjusted
for the cost of living, and I'm allowed to claim my benefit.

30 year T-bonds are currently returning 4.9% and 10 year notes 4%. Those
are guaranteed as long as the government stays solvent which makes them a
safer investment than Social Security.

>and from the fluctuations in the market brought on by
>short-term profit seekers. And when your invested funds run out, you're left
>with nothing. At least SS gives you an income you can count on.

Social Security isn't about "Social Security" or safety. It's about an
additional 12.4% tax.

--
<a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/">Home Page</a>
Life is a terminal sexually transmitted disease.

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> > Certainly not picking a fight here but what is meant by the term wealthy
or
> > rich? I hear and read this term quite a bit and, given it is an election
> > year, have no doubt that its frequency of use will increase.
>
> That's simple: "wealthy" is someone who has more than you do (when
> the term is being uttered by a politician to "regular folks"). The
> "rich" are those who make more than you do.

That's pretty much it. You can be rich but you accumulate wealth. Rich
people have a high income and tend to spend it, but wealthy people may spend
a lot, but have assets such as real estate, bank deposits, large stock
portfolios.
Ed

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Al Reid" wrote in message
>
> > There are 40 of 100 US Senators who are Millionaires.
>
> There's 535 members of congress ...26% are millionaires. While that is
> certainly a disproportionate percentage compared to the general
population,
> it is not "most", as has been stated as fact.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 2/28/04

OK, Swingman, let's start back here. Since you're so fond of asking for
references for statistics, what is your source for the above? Keep in mind
that the 40 senators being millionaires is a minimum number. Because of the
way the numbers are reported, the actual net worth could be understated
considerably. Take Hillary Clinton, for example. Guess what, she didn't
make the list of the 40 senators who are millionaires. Her net worth is
estimated to be between $352,000 and $3.8 million. Take a guess which
number is used as the basis of determining whether or not she's a
millionaire. I'll be damned if I can find a link to the raw data on all the
senators, but keep the following in mind. 1) The net worth is based on data
provided by the congress folks themselves and 2) The number used as the
basis could be low by a factor of at least 10.

todd

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "todd" wrote in message
>
> > But now you've got me confused. If the government isn't qualified to
> > provide oversight to the stock market, what makes you think they're
> > qualified to manage the retirement funds of the citizenry?
>
> ... and who said they were?
>
> > You can have the last word on the topic. I've got a table to put
> together.
>
> Good luck on the table ... if I don't get these tomato plants in the
ground
> my SS ain't gonna stretch.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 3/05/04

On a kindler, gentler note...I'll post a pic when the table is complete.
I've been taking a class here in Chicago on hand tools. The instructors did
the cutting of the legs and aprons to size, but we chopped all 16 mortises,
cut all of the tenons, and skimmed the pieces with a smoothing plane. I can
see where one can get carried away using a plane. You make a really nice,
long, thin cut and that just makes you want to make another and another.

todd

"todd" wrote in message
> "Swingman" wrote in message

> <snip>
> > I am with you 100% on all the above. My youngest daughter's college
fund,
> > despite careful and professional attention, lost almost 70% of its value
> in
> > the last four years, just as she needed it ... surprise, surprise!
>
> Well, I guess your daughter's college fund wasn't handled very carefully
or
> professionally.

Once again you guess wrong.

>Anybody who knew what they were doing with money that was
> needed within 4 years would have begun moving it into less-volatile
> investments. Of course, unless they were then a total moron and sold at
the
> bottom, the funds would very likely now be about back to where they were.

Most investors have not recouped their losses, many have lost them entirely,
many of them because of the slick greed of others, which will not disappear
and will always be a looming possibliity for "investors" of any type.

Judging by naivete exhibited in the remarks above, I wouldn't hold out a lot
of hope for you investing successfully for your retirement.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

Not to make this a partisan issue but:
Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in
the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic party.

Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

Oh well, I guess I just did.

--

Al Reid

"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Kevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Charly got it right on the actual policy. It was/is meant
> > as a supplemental in old age. As far as theft, well...
> > There is no SS fund. All the money goes into the general fund
> > kinda like petty cash account.
>
> This wasn't the case until about a dozen years ago. The Social Security
fund
> was off-budget, meaning that the politicians couldn't touch it. It had
> accumulated a huge surplus in anticipation of the baby boomer retirement
> bulge that's beginning now. However, the national debt became so severe in
> the 80s that the Congress passed a law putting SS on the budget so the
pols
> could tap into the excess funds. That surplus has now been drawn down to
the
> point where they talk about a crisis--but it was their own fault. Social
> Security IMHO should be removed from the budget. For too many people it is
> the prime source of income in retirement: the poor, the self-employed,
those
> without company benefits, etc. Yes, it's easy to say that private
investment
> returns more, but millions can't afford to invest.
>
> But why not eliminate Social Security and allow people to invest the money
> they save? Because it's a welfare program. Like everyone else I'll draw
out
> all of my investment and interest in less than 5 years. If I draw SS for
> more than that, it's welfare. Dirty word in these parts, eh? I'd rather
have
> at least some income sheltered from the greedheads running private
> investments, and from the fluctuations in the market brought on by
> short-term profit seekers. And when your invested funds run out, you're
left
> with nothing. At least SS gives you an income you can count on.
>
> Congress knows that touching SS is a political third rail. It's what
> Jefferson said (in another context) was like holding a wolf by the tail.
You
> don't like it, but you don't dare let go.
>
> Bob
>
>