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.
Because the people I am referring to are not in a profession that provides a phone. It's not an overused assumption - I am talking about folks that I have TALKED to. These folks are paying for their own phones and complaining about not making enough money for basic needs.
first I question then how'd they get the phones because a credit check usually is needed to get one unless they are plunking down cash.
Ok so I'll say in general "not the people you seem to know" it is a false overused, generalization that people are not saving because they are buying iphones.
so yeah, the old people could save for retirement if they stopped buying cell phones is pretty much an over simplified excuse right up there with the one where everyone seems to know someone who is living in a mcmansion while on food stamps
"deal with the ramifications" - does that mean let them starve? Refuse them medical care? Not help them get a roof over their heads?
If I recall correctly, that's the third time you've used the emotionally-loaded phrase "let them starve".
We've been nice. We've played along and provided information even though it's obvious you feel a mindbogglingly enormous new entitlement -- that we would pay for -- is necessary.
But when you start with the loaded accusations, I'm out of here.
Let me be as clear as possible. I've weathered financial catastrophe. I've saved. I've made prudent choices, like getting retraining to move from a $45,000/year job to a $125,000/year consulting position.
I don't owe you or your imaginary constituency a thing. Keep your hand off my wallet.
Planning for retirement means saving your money, planning for you with your funds and living at or below your means. The government is not responsible for your well-being when you are not able to work. I know of what I speak because I am retirement age. Retirement comes faster than you think and if you don't have a Plan A, the government sure isn't providing you a Plan B.
Look at all the stuff most people pay for that our parents never did!
Internet, cell phones, cable tv, hoa fees, leased cars, credit cards, eating out regularly.......My dad never paid for any of that! He was a cheapskate and enjoyed looking for angles to save money.
As a kid I had good job, 16 yrs old, made $400 a week working at a wealthy golf course (bag room, tipping) and washed cars (Porsches, Ferraris, M Benz type stuff). I was home for 10 days with my dad. He cooked some type of tuna casserole and actually ate it for 7 days straight. I didn't eat it once, it was nasty and ended up eating out that week. Probably spent $125-150 and it drove him crazy that I spent that much money yet he ate this disgusting pot of slop. We lived in an area of fantastic restaurants! I spent the money and enjoyed what I ate and he enjoyed staying home and saving money!
But all that stuff I listed adds up quickly at the end of the day.......that is money that could be saved for retirement but not too many folks want to eat the tuna casserole to make that retirement payoff later.
System works fine.......just need to save more money!
About 30 years ago, I sat in a meeting where they told us about this new program called a 401k and explained to us why we needed to participate. I would like to say I was smart enough to understand how important it was to provide for my future, but the truth is they hooked me when they explained that the matching was free money. It was probably another 15 or 20 years before I really started to see that this growing pile of cash was actually making it likely I would retire comfortably. Many coworkers who didn't have one felt like it was already too late. I might have felt that way also if I didn't have it already pretty well established. I also have had an income somewhere around the top 5% level for the last 20 years or so, so I was able to contribute the legal maximum every year. Obviously, most people aren't that lucky. They are going to have to take more from people like me and those who make even more in order to make it work for everyone. The math just doesn't work if they don't. When most of the voters are sharing under 20% of the total income, you can bet they will vote for higher taxes.
I had a buddy bragging about his kids new job (high school grad, lived at home until 26-27) and this was a desk job at a automotive supplier. He says: He even got a 401K! When I asked if he is funding it his response: No the company gives it to you! Clearly he didn't understand how the program works!
I know the kid, I'm almost certain he has not contributed $1 to the 401K.....
Originally Posted by ReachTheBeach;51261063
About 30 years ago, I sat in a meeting where they told us about this new program called a 401k and explained to us why we needed to participate. I would like to say I was smart enough to understand how important it was to provide for my future, but the truth is they hooked me when they explained that the matching was free money. It was probably another 15 or 20 years before I really started to see that this growing pile of cash was actually making it likely I would retire comfortably. Many coworkers who didn't have one felt like it was already too late. I might have felt that way also if I didn't have it already pretty well established. I also have had an income somewhere around the top 5% level for the last 20 years or so, so I was able to contribute the legal maximum every year. Obviously, most people aren't that lucky. They are going to have to take more from people like me and those who make even more in order to make it work for everyone. The math just doesn't work if they don't. [COLOR=red
When most of the voters are sharing under 20% of the total income, you can bet they will vote for higher taxes[/color].
I would be surprised if most of the lower earners would vote for higher taxes. I agree with your logic that one would expect the low earners to vote that way, but lots of observations indicate that the lowest earners vote for tax reductions!
They don't seem to fathom that their own income is too low to be taxed, and that tax reductions will dry up funding for the social programs they desperately need to survive.
I am one of the few people who don't mind paying taxes to help others - and I am not trying to sound altruistic. Rather, I may be considered selfish. I have enough destitute and near destitute family members (the result of their own long term failures to plan and/or act) that I favor social programs which help support them. I could not afford to support them if these programs did not exist.
I had a buddy bragging about his kids new job (high school grad, lived at home until 26-27) and this was a desk job at a automotive supplier. He says: He even got a 401K! When I asked if he is funding it his response: No the company gives it to you! Clearly he didn't understand how the program works!
I know the kid, I'm almost certain he has not contributed $1 to the 401K.....
Some employers do contribute automatically to their employees accounts. My employer provides an automatic 4% contribution, in addition to matching a percentage of the employee's own contribution. I contribute 8%, they match with 6%, and they give an automatic 4%. So I get 10% free money!!
I am certain there are lots of fellow employees who never contribute any of their own money and who expect the small 4% to magically morph into a sustainable pension someday
In recent history, retirement has been basically a three-legged stool - pensions, SS, and your own private savings.
I was going to post the same thing. The three-legged stool of retirement income was an analogy proposed by Social Security.
Social Security benefit
Employer-sponsored retirement plan (pension, 401k, etc.)
Personal assets (income from investment real estate, IRA, etc.)
Social Security is running out of money to pay out its projected future benefits, but it isn't likely to just go away. It'll probably be eventually adjusted by lowering the benefit and increasing the tax.
Quote:
This leg of the stool has been removed.
It hasn't been removed, but for most of us it's now in the form of a 401k. Good 401k plans do exist, especially with large companies. Job seekers should ask about it along with the salary/wage.
"deal with the ramifications" - does that mean let them starve? Refuse them medical care? Not help them get a roof over their heads?
About 30 years ago, I sat in a meeting where they told us about this new program called a 401k and explained to us why we needed to participate. I would like to say I was smart enough to understand how important it was to provide for my future, but the truth is they hooked me when they explained that the matching was free money. It was probably another 15 or 20 years before I really started to see that this growing pile of cash was actually making it likely I would retire comfortably. Many coworkers who didn't have one felt like it was already too late. I might have felt that way also if I didn't have it already pretty well established. I also have had an income somewhere around the top 5% level for the last 20 years or so, so I was able to contribute the legal maximum every year. Obviously, most people aren't that lucky. They are going to have to take more from people like me and those who make even more in order to make it work for everyone. The math just doesn't work if they don't. When most of the voters are sharing under 20% of the total income, you can bet they will vote for higher taxes.
I remember that talk. I also remember talking to coworkers who absolutely refused to open a 401K. They absolutely needed every penny of their paycheck to buy smokes and beer, and shop for crap they didn’t need.
I would be surprised if most of the lower earners would vote for higher taxes. I agree with your logic that one would expect the low earners to vote that way, but lots of observations indicate that the lowest earners vote for tax reductions!
They don't seem to fathom that their own income is too low to be taxed, and that tax reductions will dry up funding for the social programs they desperately need to survive.
I am one of the few people who don't mind paying taxes to help others - and I am not trying to sound altruistic. Rather, I may be considered selfish. I have enough destitute and near destitute family members (the result of their own long term failures to plan and/or act) that I favor social programs which help support them. I could not afford to support them if these programs did not exist.
The tax plan is unpopular with voters; I think more people understand that than it may seem. Had it been clearly spelled out as a major part of the platform, I doubt the GOP would have majorities or the WH. That's assuming that the voters could figure out which info about it is the truth. Very few people seem to believe the tax plan really helps anyone who isn't well off. The rising tide doesn't lift all boats; it just lets the sharks in to feed.
I may be altruistic, but there is also cold logic. The system is going to collapse if the need is greater than the funding and it could get really ugly. Concentration of wealth was already a problem; lowering the tax hit on the ultra wealthy is going to cut revenues dramatically and instead of pushing the taxes back up, they are talking about cutting budgets for programs that are already stretched beyond reason. We could start seeing populists inciting riots like they do in 3rd world countries. I am hopeful it won't get to that. But I really think it could if the culture of greed keeps running the country.
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.
