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.
...it seems that you are assuming the 50% are the same people year after year.
I don't think that is true.
In an absolute sense? It doesn't matter (though they all have been wet from that pool)
In the statistical sense it's completely accurate.
Quote:
Why shouldn't we include them in retirement savings statistics?
Because your example aren't the folks being referred to.
The 50% include all who have never had enough earned income to really do for themselves
as well as those who have had enough here and there but not consistently so and even some
(like the gold playing 40yo above) who really have had enough but didn't demonstrate the
maturity and responsibility to act in their own best interests.
These are the folks who get to 65 and realize they have to get by on SS and Medicare.
Which were never (NEVER!) meant to carry the whole load.
It's completely unreasonable to group them with those who have planned for retirement
and taken reasonable measures to know that they'll be able to weather the storms.
The gradations of quality/comfort within these planned retirements are a distracting side show.
iow: You don't NEED a new BMW every 4 years and a private golf course to be comfortable.
But if you can't afford a 10yo Chevy and public course green fees for a round now and then...
a bit of digging will show it's entirely your own fault.
Last edited by MrRational; 09-05-2014 at 10:41 AM..
From the time I started working, I've always had a good amount of money automatically electronically transferred from my checking account to my savings account and from my paycheck to my thrift savings plan. Since I never saw it, it was like I never had it. Once it was initially set up, I didn't have to do anything proactively to save money, except to increase the amount debited as I earned more. It never even dawned on me that I was living on less than I could have lived on but what it did accomplish was send me into retirement and less money in a pension than my paycheck, seamlessly. To this day, I still have a good amount automatically electronically transferred from checking to savings. I'm all for automatic electronic transfers to savings accounts for folks who need help in not touching their money.
Of course, I never had kids so whatever I did with my money only impacted me. I don't know if I would have been able to stick to the course if I had to deal with the unpredictable expenses associated with them.
In an absolute sense? It doesn't matter (though they all have been wet from that pool)
In the statistical sense it's completely accurate.
Because your example aren't the folks being referred to.
The 50% include all who have never had enough earned income to really do for themselves
as well as those who have had enough here and there but not consistently so and even some
(like the gold playing 40yo above) who really have had enough but didn't demonstrate the
maturity and responsibility to act in their own best interests.
These are the folks who get to 65 and realize they have to get by on SS and Medicare.
Which were never (NEVER!) meant to carry the whole load.
It's completely unreasonable to group them with those who have planned for retirement
and taken reasonable measures to know that they'll be able to weather the storms.
The gradations of quality/comfort within these planned retirements are a distracting side show.
iow: You don't NEED a new BMW every 4 years and a private golf course to be comfortable.
But if you can't afford a 10yo Chevy and public course green fees for a round now and then...
a bit of digging will show it's entirely your own fault.
What I am saying is...that 50% statistic includes people who do not stay in the group their entire lives. Therefore, it is entirely likely they do save for retirement at some point.
How many truly NEVER pay income taxes in their entire lives? I don't know, and do not expect anyone here to know. But it must be less than 50%.
Part of the reason is because it is a topic that will not die and is only in its infancy as the Boomers hit retirement and those without resources begin to compete with the poor especially children for a dwindling social net. Again the Medicaid that many are counting on for nursing home care is the same Medicare that the poor especially children count on. Hmmm same food stamp program also and housing and etc etc etc
I guess what I'm trying to say is you have chosen the wrong audience to spread your message. In the grand scheme of things, the opinions of the retirement forum participants are irrelevant in determining how national policy will eventually play out.
So what you're saying is that if we who post here don't agree with you and/or those whose views you obviously espouse we're irrelevant. Both my wife and I wrote, dealt with, testified on and sponsored senior program and protection legislation for the better part of a decade. Not all of us are stupid, uneducated and unknowing and such comments as the above tend appear to say we are.
One nice thing about chat boards, if not their best quality, is the free exchange of ideas which should not be discouraged or minimized. We all have much to learn and sites like C-D can be of great assistance in that endeavor. I hate to see that discouraged by belittling those efforts on the parts of others.
PS. I rather like the real world I live in!
Last edited by Curmudgeon; 09-05-2014 at 05:15 PM..
And we're back to the generalized callous disregard for others that is the main barrier to a substantive solution to the problem identified in the article cited in the OP.
What would be YOUR solution?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Says the tree. If the only people in the thread you consider are those who are part of your echo chamber, Wolfpacker, then you'll end up with the ridiculously tunnel vision you're exhibiting now.
Stop making excuses or state your true intention for those people who don't fall within the confines of your presumption about what is and is not sustainable. Stop pussyfooting around it - please do make crystal clear what your view of the world holds for those folks you don't care about.
Every other poster here seems to understand, and respect, what I'm saying-even if they don't agree with it. I don't write in pseudo-intellectual babble, so it doesn't take a PhD to decode.
What I am saying is...that 50% statistic includes people who do not stay in the group their entire lives. Therefore, it is entirely likely they do save for retirement at some point.
How many truly NEVER pay income taxes in their entire lives? I don't know, and do not expect anyone here to know. But it must be less than 50%.
they don't have to be the same people statistically. only the way they dilute the efforts of those who save counts.
it is like a life expectancy stat, life insurers can tell you how many people will die but they can't tell you who and each year it is different people..
There comes a time when you need to accept that you're beating a dead horse.
When we give up on the humanity of those who behave inhumane, then we're essentially ratifying their corruption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenora
I agree with everything you have written on this thread, but, until now, have refrained from commenting. There is no need to respond to every childish remark.
I don't. There have been dozens of childish remarks, a number of them aimed directly at me personally, which I have ignored, and will continue to ignore. You are correct that some posters are so juvenile that dignifying their comments with even the slightest consideration is silly, but evidently you and I have a different threshold for who's comments we'll afford respect and who's comments we'll not. And that's okay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenora
I learned a long time ago that you don't "win" an argument by having the last word.
I learned a long time ago that there is no point in trying to get someone you're having an argument with to admit that you've won the argument. The point of arguing on the Internet (if there could be such a thing) is to make clear to those who aren't sure just how morally corrupt or otherwise perverse are excessively self-motivated perspectives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
So what you're saying is that if we who post here don't agree with you and/or those whose views you obviously espouse we're irrelevant.
To be fair, there are a number of comments posted by folks who fundamentally disagree with Lenora, which are irrelevant because the comments are either so incredibly childish or so incredibly beholden to abject self-centeredness that the only people who would give such comments credence are two who are afflicted by that malady themselves. Lenora and I may disagree about where that line of irrelevancy gets drawn, but there is surely a line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
One nice thing about chat boards, if not their best quality, is the free exchange of ideas which should not be discouraged or minimized. We all have much to learn and sites like C-D can be of great assistance in that endeavor. I hate to see that discouraged by belittling those efforts on the parts of others.
Perhaps I should post that quote of yours in response to every inane reply posted to a comment I post. Many people do indeed have much to learn about caring about the needs of others and about how the needs of others is, on a moral basis, higher in priority in society than their own personal comfort and luxury.
Many people do indeed have much to learn about caring about the needs of others
and about how the needs of others is, on a moral basis, higher in priority in society
than their own personal comfort and luxury.
Your particular notion of "morality" aside...
Is this intention meant to be taken in the abstract or in the specific?
In the abstract... I and most others will consider it a noble goal.
Such is why we have SS and Medicare and Sec8 and all the other help programs for the needy
both tax based by way of government or charity based.
In the specific... it's absurd and probably counterproductive to the basic goal to expect
anyone to consider the needs of another ahead of let alone a higher priority than their own needs.
That's even before considering the situations where their need is self inflicted.
The sanctimonious tone used is probably your least appealing trait...
and the one that keeps the larger message from getting through.
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.
