Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantRutgersfan
"The specter of downward mobility in retirement..."
|
That right there tells me the articles is heavily slanted sensationalism not worth reading.
There's never been any such thing as upward mobility in retirement. That should be obvious by the fact that people eliminate a huge source of income....the second they retire.
Avoiding propaganda...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1
The days of multi-generational homes will have to make a comeback as the younger generation will have to help support their aging parents. That part of it is not necessarily a totally bad thing.
|
And what's wrong with that? That's the way it is on Earth outside of America.
Wondering....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg_IA
Couldn't the federal government just impose a tax on people that don't save for retirement. Same as they will for health insurance. Because we will all end up paying for people that don't save. Isn't that the rationale behind the tax for not having health insurance?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by andywire
This government sissy nanny state crap is exactly the problem. It's not the governments job to save for their retirement, or their job to tax them for bad behaviors. If you want to punish them, just come out and do it instead of doing stupid piddly taxes. If you want to encourage savings, you let the people deal with their own retirement. When the younger generation is stuck dealing with their parents, who have nothing saved for retirement, maybe it will encourage them to start saving.
|
I take it neither of you understands the meaning of "consumer economy."
Your economy revolves entirely around spending, especially around deficit spending -- HELOCs, credit cards and such.
Save money, and you increase the unemployment rate. This is mostly a life-style choice by Americans and has nothing to do with anything else.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a growing economy and simultaneously save money.
Economically...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
How many of these people were "saving" the equity in their houses instead of at really low interest rates? The crash in housing prices both impoverished a high number of near retirement folks also produced bargains for young families.
|
Housing prices did not crash. Housing prices were grotesquely over-inflated and are merely returning to their
actual true market values.
If people don't understand economics, that's not my fault, and they ought not be buying an house in the first place. And if they insist upon buying one, then they ought not burn up the equity with their HELOC and getting 2nd and 3rd Mortgages to consolidate their credit card debt.
The reason to buy an house is not to have an asset, or equity or as an investment.
You buy an house to fix your living expenses. People who buy an house for any other reason are just plain wrong, and I should not be on the hook using my tax-dollars to guarantee their mortgage through the government.
The reason to purchase home is easily understood here. My parents' mortgage was $79/month. When I rented my first apartment 15 years later at $150/month, my parents were still paying $79/month. When I returned to the US 10 years later, I was paying $350/month for an apartment, but my parents were still paying $79/month. I left the US and came back and I rented a place for $400/month and my parents? They paid nothing -- since they had paid off their mortgage.
That's the reason people bought homes in the US, to fix their living expenses.
Financially...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
We already do that. It's called social security and we all know how well that's working out. And yes, it's the same as Obamacare.... more big Nanny State. We need to eliminate the Nanny State, not expand it.
|
There's nothing wrong with Social Security, other than the way it is administered.
It is an insurance plan. That is why it's called Old Age and Survivor's
Insurance (OASI).
It is not a retirement plan; not a pension plan; not a money market account; not an hedge fund; not a 401(k) account; and not savings plan. It is a basic maintenance plan, and nothing more.
The concept is wholly consistent with ultra-conservative philosophy, which focuses heavily on family and community. If you do a Cost-Benefit Analysis, the cost of not having such an insurance plan is far greater than having such a plan; and having such a plan provides benefits that outweigh not having such a plan.
The error is having the pseudo-federal government involved in the plan. There is no Constitutional basis for the pseudo-federal government to be involved, and even if someone gets ignorant with the misinterpreted "General Welfare" [sic] clause, it totally defies logic and reason.
Two persons, both receiving $1,175/month in Social Security benefits, yet one is having the time of their life, and the other is in totally misery -- because of the difference in cost-of-living around the US.
That is appalling, but *******s think that is really funny, that one person is enjoying their retirement, while the other suffers, but then *******s aren't that bright and they enjoy people suffering, because they think they get votes for it.
If the States each administered their own Social Security plan, then the States could set the premium relative to the cost-of-living. And yes, that might result in someone getting $1,800 while a person in another State gets $900/month....
yet both are enjoying the same quality of life.
*******s are, well, retarded and they can't see that...all they see is that someone is "
getting more" than someone else -- you know, the typical Penis Envy and Butt-implant Envy *******s have. *******s are just way too stupid to understand that $1,800 there = $900 here.
Also note that if States managed it, you could have a basic plan, and then a mid-level plan and also a Cadillac plan for those who choose that.
Even so, ideally, the State should do nothing more than mandate a minimum percentage deduction, have it deposited into the financial institution of the employee's choice, and then let the employee manipulate it as they see fit, while simultaneously protecting that account from seizure by tax agencies, creditors, judgments, alimony, child-support and others.
Life is a gamble, and the best way to hedge your bet against a gamble is through insurance.
Constitutionally...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain
But, as the article stated, older employees are often laid off and when that happens they can not get jobs and if they do manage to get employment, it is usually at a much lower salary.
|
And that just started happening yesterday, right?
Quizzically...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Another sad fact is that Americans got thrown into 401Ks with very little education. "Here's your brochure. We picked out some funds. Go forth and invest for your future."
|
Couldn't rep you for that, but you hit on a very important point that is over-looked. It is absurd to expect someone who doesn't understand investments to actually do something with their 401(k) and manipulate it to their advantage.
Not buying stocks....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn
In the Southeast and Middle America, 2 bedroom rents are easiuly available for $800-$1,000.
You were saying?
|
What? They are $550/month here. Maybe $650 in the Gaslight District (which is quite nice).
Low-renting....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
How much would you save if you had a minimum wage job and did not own your home?
|
Why can't you buy an home on minimum wage?
If you cannot buy an home on minimum wage, then you need to move to someplace in the US where you can buy an home on minimum wage, and there are many, many places. Cincinnati is one of them.
Sensibly....
Mircea
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.
