Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not at all. I know what I am risking and I never risked the Farm. I was making income from WORK for all the years I was investing and also owned Real Estate and other diverse investments.
Try to stay on topic. The OP is lamenting that the top 10% (folks like me) own most of the stocks...BUT, the suggestion is that poor people (the other 90%) would do better if they invested....WHAT THEY DON'T HAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I'm honestly amazed you don't know the difference. People like myself yawned when the Great Recession gave us a 30% haircut or when the 80's crashes or S&L did the same thing because we knew we have earning power and time.
Let me repeat - the average American Hispanic and AA has about zero in net worth. A large majority of even the White folks have well less than 100K, even including home equity (note - obviously we are discussing people 30-40 because that would be when one would invest SS).....
This is yet another "conservative" idea of how poor people can somehow make money from thin air. It's simply not possible.
I do advice my working friends that have net worth to invest in the markets and always will.
Oh, let's check another market - the S&P. 20 years.
1400 20 years ago.
2995 today
That is LESS than 4% compounded...please correct me if I am wrong (did this quickly).
Oh! You say since we are in the tech era, let's look at the Nasdaq! OK.....
2700 20 years ago
8216 today
That's a bit better - less than 6% (about the same as long term T-Bills at that time)....
And so, we have the average of the DOW, SP and Nasdaq being maybe 5% or less.
What "market" are you talking about that did great? It can only be a cherry picked one looked at AFTER the fact.
Most of my gains were in the 1986 to 2006 time period which, my guess is, had higher returns. Also, I am somewhat of a stock or sector picker so tend to beat the market in my real "Casino" account (stocks like Apple, etc. etc.).
What is it about "conservatives" that they cannot understand that investing isn't the same for someone like myself (one of the 10%) and for someone with no equity?
It's really quite simple. If I walk into a Casino with $100 and start playing I might leave in 5 minutes when I hit zero. If I walk in with 10's of thousands and place the same size bets I can likely play all night and still have some money (even if I lost 5 or 10% of it) left over.
If you support privatization of SS, what you are really supporting is more privatization of profits but socialization of losses...because "we" are going to have to take care of those whose investments in the Casino don't work out.
I read until I got to your first factual error (which wasn't far, see in red), which I don't know if is just hubris or pure ignorance. The "other 90%" are not poor, not even close. MAYBE if you had said that the bottom 30-40% were "poor" you would have a case, but you aren't even close.
Just consider the next bracket after 10%, which is 20%, in order to hit that you need to have a net worth of ~$500K, and the top 30% would need a net worth of $280K. You really consider people with $280,000 to $500,000 net worth to be poor? Your grasp on reality or math (or both) is out of wack, I don't have time to fact check the rest of your incoherent ramblings.
Whom shall we blame, then. After all, they were the ones who responsible for their preparations for adulthood and career. They are the ones who entered the workforce and choose the job they did, and the employer they did. They are the ones who failed to continue enahancing their merchant-ability by continued study, applying for more responsibility etc. They are in the driver's seat, so who would you blame?
We should blame the rich who has never paid their fair share.
Love it when the GOP is in control and the old kill Social Security comes flying out of the key boards.
SS is the best run system in the country. Based on Treasury's with the Federal Govt being the guarantee. That debt owed to the people when they retire will always be paid.
Now SS is not the main source of income for a lot of retiree's. We have pension's and 401K's.
The GOP and their Corporate masters have been working to kill those items (SS, Medicare, Pension's, 401K's).
The GOP handed a huge tax decrease to Corp and the 1%. What happened was lower wages, fake bonus (1 year for a few lucky people) and loss of pension and 401K match or the 401K completely.
Not at all. I know what I am risking and I never risked the Farm. I was making income from WORK for all the years I was investing and also owned Real Estate and other diverse investments.
Try to stay on topic. The OP is lamenting that the top 10% (folks like me) own most of the stocks...BUT, the suggestion is that poor people (the other 90%) would do better if they invested....WHAT THEY DON'T HAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Hi, astronaut.
What every worker has is an amount equivalent to 12.4% of their income going to SS away from their bank account.
It was Bill Clinton who first brought this up. Democrats lament the poor not building wealth and the various wealth gaps. My plan helps address this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
I do advice my working friends that have net worth to invest in the markets and always will.
Oh, let's check another market - the S&P. 20 years.
1400 20 years ago.
2995 today
That is LESS than 4% compounded...please correct me if I am wrong (did this quickly).
Once again, you are proving that you are financially illiterate or a liar distorting reality.
You are ignoring dividends. During your highly selective timeframe to include right before a stock market drop to minimize the number lower you further distort by leaving out dividends reinvested.
The S&P 500 is up 5.871% annualized the past 20 years or 213% overall.
That is if you invested in the S&P 500 index fund 20 years ago - you'd be up 3 times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
It might not be a great investment, but it is a great Straw Man.
Social Security is insurance, not an investment.
Annuities are essentially insurance products that often fluctuate based on the market - similar premise here.
What is so wrong with closing the wealth gap by building up the wealth of the poor?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
You'd make a great spokesperson for Corporate America.
No one should be compelled to give money to corporations and the government has an appallingly poor track record of picking winners and losers.
Why don't you tell us about your Solyndra portfolio?
#1 If you read my post no one would be forced to put their SS money into the Total US Stock Index, they would have the option to put a portion of it in there.
#2 The Government wouldn't pick the companies - it would buy all companies in the US in proportion to their size, see index fund.
#3 You can bash on Obama's Solyndra all you want.
You bash the government and then you go ahead an say hey let them run with 100% of your SS money!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Actually, that's not why.
Stocks and bonds are only about 30% of the wealth in the US. The other 60% is real estate and tangible goods.
Also, most of the wealthy didn't buy their stocks. Bill Gates, like all the others was given stocks as part of their compensation, so they didn't actually buy them.
Most tangible goods go down in value. Look at your car.
I said the rich get richer by owning stocks...how can you take exception with that? What does your citationless claim on how the rich acquire their stocks say about their wealth? Yes, as I've already stated in this thread you can build wealth via real estate, etc too.
Not at all. I know what I am risking and I never risked the Farm. I was making income from WORK for all the years I was investing and also owned Real Estate and other diverse investments.
Try to stay on topic. The OP is lamenting that the top 10% (folks like me) own most of the stocks...BUT, the suggestion is that poor people (the other 90%) would do better if they invested....WHAT THEY DON'T HAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I'm honestly amazed you don't know the difference. People like myself yawned when the Great Recession gave us a 30% haircut or when the 80's crashes or S&L did the same thing because we knew we have earning power and time.
Let me repeat - the average American Hispanic and AA has about zero in net worth. A large majority of even the White folks have well less than 100K, even including home equity (note - obviously we are discussing people 30-40 because that would be when one would invest SS).....
This is yet another "conservative" idea of how poor people can somehow make money from thin air. It's simply not possible.
I do advice my working friends that have net worth to invest in the markets and always will.
Oh, let's check another market - the S&P. 20 years.
1400 20 years ago.
2995 today
That is LESS than 4% compounded...please correct me if I am wrong (did this quickly).
Oh! You say since we are in the tech era, let's look at the Nasdaq! OK.....
2700 20 years ago
8216 today
That's a bit better - less than 6% (about the same as long term T-Bills at that time)....
And so, we have the average of the DOW, SP and Nasdaq being maybe 5% or less.
What "market" are you talking about that did great? It can only be a cherry picked one looked at AFTER the fact.
Most of my gains were in the 1986 to 2006 time period which, my guess is, had higher returns. Also, I am somewhat of a stock or sector picker so tend to beat the market in my real "Casino" account (stocks like Apple, etc. etc.).
What is it about "conservatives" that they cannot understand that investing isn't the same for someone like myself (one of the 10%) and for someone with no equity?
It's really quite simple. If I walk into a Casino with $100 and start playing I might leave in 5 minutes when I hit zero. If I walk in with 10's of thousands and place the same size bets I can likely play all night and still have some money (even if I lost 5 or 10% of it) left over.
If you support privatization of SS, what you are really supporting is more privatization of profits but socialization of losses...because "we" are going to have to take care of those whose investments in the Casino don't work out.
There are no poor people in America.
Being poor is a relative term. The poorest Americans are still fabulously rich according every world standard on poverty.
Workers work for decades putting in their 6.2% and their employers hire them knowing that they have to match that 6.2%. Both the employee's 6.2% and the employer's 6.2% match are earned as compensation by the worker for working. Counting both 6.2%s into the equation that is a lot of money added in over time.
The money gets put into government bonds - IOUs - not a great investment. If the worker then dies a year into retirement - tough crap.
Social Security should have:
1) Individual Accounts with your name on it that you own and can tap into by retirement age. As it is yours once you choose to retire you can keep it in the SS fund or roll it over into an annuity.
2) You own your account. If you die 1 month into retirement but had accrued hundreds of thousands of dollars in this account you can pass the wealth on to your heirs. In current social security there is no wealth passed on to heirs.
3) A portion, but not all of the account should be allowed to be invested in a total US Stock index fund. Perhaps up to one half of the money should be allowed to be invested into stocks with the remainder in US government bonds. More conservative investors wouldn't have to go as high into stocks.
This would achieve lots of liberal goals.
1) It would help reduce wealth inequality as many people don't have actual wealth to pass onto their families, but this system would enable the bottom half to accrue actual wealth as the account is individualized. One study showed that the current social security system non-intentionally penalized black workers as they were more likely to die before collecting a lot of benefits compared to some of the other races. If they switched to this plan their social security funds if someone died early would simply go to family.
(This is one of the advantages of a 401K individual account over a pension - you die early in retirement and your family simply pockets your 401K money, while if you die early in retirement with a pension your family has an empty paper bag with most pensions)
2) The rich get richer from doing things like owning stocks. Yes stocks can fall, they also go up more than fall when talking about generationally. To allow people to invest a portion of their social security accounts into the stock market will let them tap into one of the greatest wealth builders in US history. Therefore this will also enable the bottom half to accrue more wealth.
And it is a poorly run insurance plan. Why not allow people to opt up to half of their SS money into a total US stock index fund? Statistically speaking people would come out way ahead the vast majority of the time.
The government already takes 12.4% of our paycheck equivalent, which reduces people's ability to invest in a 401K. 12.4% for a crappy plan, mathematically speaking SS is crappy, isn't a good deal.
Why not individualize it as wealth?
Bill Clinton wanted this until his own party started fear mongering over evil wall street types...meanwhile wall street keeps getting richer.
Sounds good in theory but the time to do this was 20 years ago, not now with the market at all time highs. SS will never be a great deal but it keeps people who have worked for a living out of poverty.
Social Security benefits should be means tested. Any retired person with an annual income of $75K or more from investments and/or other sources shouldn't get Social Security. For many people who never even made $75K a year in their lives, so never had extra money to invest, SS benefits are probably all they have.
The wealthy mix with the wealthy that’s where their insider trading comes in to each other.
This post wins the dumb award of the day. So wealthy people are all inside trading? Geez.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
