I know people don't like to hear it but there are a lot of Americans who worked hard but didn't save or save enough to retire. These people would be destitute if they picked the wrong investments or social security was cut or eliminated. The government would picking up a check either way IMO.
OT: Why is Warren Buffet always ahead of the game?
- Thread starter itseasyas1-2-3
- Start date
Okay, I'll play.Only $30K ?? They way you talk, I am shocked it is not more. so you must still be down from investing in BC early and then it crashed ? people like you never talk about how much they lost when it crashed....just like people who play pickle cards and gamble, only bragg when they win, never about the losses
I've never sold any bitcoin since the first time I started buying in 2009.
The last time I purchased, was 2012, for my grandsons, at that time BTC was $ 1,200.00 each.
The day I joined this site on Sep 2021, BTC was $ 42,600 and the day I posted this earlier post it was at $ 72,854, so the value had increased $ 30,254.00 each.
All total, I have $7,000.00 invested in all my BTC, so you think I'm ever gonna get hurt?
I could sell 1/10th of a BTC today and be completely whole.
Take off your sunglasses smartass.
IF, and its an unlikely IF, the goverment wanted to make Social Security more fair for all, they would do something like this:
The withholding on SS is 6.2% for employees and 12.4% for self employed, and SS is capped when the individual makes $ 160,200.00 for the year. For example, if you had a job, as an employee, and you made $160,201.00 for the year, you would have had that 6.2% withdrawn each pay perios.
A total of $ 9,992.00 of your wages would have been withhelf for SS.
At a MINIMUM, the rate should be changed to $ 174,000.00 since that is what US Senators and Congressman make. Seems reasonable to me, those who make the laws, be fully taxed on those laws.
This would never happen, BUT, what if they eliminated the top rate and everyone was taxed at 6.2% regard;ess of how much money they made during the year?
Let's use an example of an Executive making $ 1.6 Million a year, he would have withheld
$ 99,324 in SS for that year. Instead of his SS contribution on the year being $9K, it would be $99K.
Then take that example and start looking at those CEO types who are earning $ 20 MIl to
$ 100M a year. It would not rescue a bankrupt system, but it would make it "fair" and would make a helluva difference for many to at least have a chance to withdraw it at a certain age point.
A plain old millionaire is now done having SS withdrawn from his/her salary by the 3rd week in January every year, and no more withdrawn the entire year. And that's looking at it as if they are all employees at the lower 6.2% rate. Does that seem fair?
Last edited:
That’s why it’s a bad idea to get rid of it and why they won’t. Nobody wants a bunch of homeless older people. Politicians don’t want a bunch of homeless older voters.
The challenge to that is their payments out will never match what they paid in. An indefinite 6% tax would piss me off because I can invest my own dollars much better than the government.
At my age I would be willing to forego my social security to avoid paying in. I know that’s not an option but that’s how much I’m frustrated by the program personally.
What you say is true, however, how about the men/women who pay in for 30-40 years and expire before they reach retirement age? Of course the spouse gets money, but likely she's just about the same age as he is. And I "think" kids get a scaled down amount till they're maybe 23 or so and college students.
The system is broken and out of control, but there are measures that can be taken to mitigate the potential devastation in future years. A little band aid here and there won't make any difference.
Real problems call for hard solutions, and those solutions rest at the feet of those who are making a ton of money but being let off the involuntry withdrawal plan early each year.
The time will likely come when Universal Basic Income is put into play, then we have a whole new bag of things to contend with, primarily, how the hell do we pay for it? We won't, we will just continue to print money and kick the can down the road.
You know there is talk about taking people's 401K's/IRA's and having them nationalized and put into US Treasuries, right?
Last edited:
That's the problem. It would probably work for you, but a lot of people would opt out and then be broke on welfare. Or invest in something and lose a bunch if that were an option.
This is why I married (and left but did not divorce) a 79 year old lady. Cha-Ching
I have not heard that … appreciate the insight- do you have a source for me to read up on?
Wrong. We changed that policy a few years ago, you must have missed the meeting.
LOL, there's no source for that...except twitter and places like the Freedom Foundation. It's a ridiculous troll to scare you into doing something...like getting involved in buying gold on late night tv.
Most of us shouldn't pick individual stock and should just pile money into index funds.
Huh? My three year return sucks in real terms. Do you understand the difference between nominal and real?
Yes I understand the market fluctuates, but my retirement goals require at least a 8% return in real terms which is certainly normal over the past 50 years, so not sure why you’re attempting to lecture me.
Anyone practical knows 25% return not realistic. 8-10% perfectly reasonable over the long term. Not sure what his point was.
They keep advertising yrefy at 10.25 return. Never looked seriously at it except I know it's financing student loans
To turn it into as much as possible in 10-15 years. Ok with moderate risk as I have the basics covered with no risk.
This concept has been vollleyed around since 2008 when Obama was in office and we were about to get a wake uo call on the real financial health of the economy.
Just because something is introduced, but not acted upon, doesn't mean it went away.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Go fvck yourself.
I've never told anyone what to do with their money, I only say what I've done with mine.
Year to date, Gold up 35%. Year to date, silver up 43%.
And by the way, I own it, it can't be bankrupted and there is ZERO counter-party risk.
Yeah, I'm quite the ridiculous troll.
That's exactly my point. You aren't going to get 8% over every 3 year period. Expecting that you will seems to indicate you either haven't experienced real down periods or choose to ignore them, because it can get worse then 20% down and worse then one down year.
Using a 3 year period in itself is arbitrary. Why 3? Because it's the lowest return you can calculate on your investment?
If you look at historical gold prices, even during the Great Depression, I think I'll be okay.
1929 20.63 an oz
1930 20.65 "
1931 17.06 "
1932 20.69 "
1933 26.33 "
1934 through 1939 -- 34.07 and constantly in the 34.00+ range.
That includes rampant inflation and deflation cycles.
Speaking of gold…
If you haven’t watched the movie Sisu yet, I don’t know what to tell you…you might be geigh.
If you haven’t watched the movie Sisu yet, I don’t know what to tell you…you might be geigh.
There have always been buyers for over 5,000 years, so I say, yes.
If this country still exists, not everyone is gonna be broke.
REAL money doesn't just disappear into money heaven.
Last night's winner, who has a ton of holdings in gold, and his publicly stated positions, its not out of the realm of possibility that whatever currency we wind up with will be pegged once again to gold.
At that point, like back during the Depression, the price of gold would be pegged to the dollar. Please remember, on the Federal Reserve ledger, there is an empty line titled "Gold Revaluation".
In the event of a "formal" USA bankruptcy, gold will necessarily have to be revalued.
I really don't lose any sleep over it, regardless of how things unwind.
Pelini, please give me a "snapshot" cause I don't movies.
(You may have typoed something here, but what does geigh mean??)
My underground bunker is constructed of gold bars. Check and mate crypto bros.
Thanks. I actually read the Wikipedia version to get the idea. I'm gonna be 71 years old next month, so I've traded in my horse and I don't have a dog.
Anything is possible in the future. The advantage I have over many, I have my eyes open to recurring events that are likely to happen. Two of my good friends survived the economic collapse of both Argentina and Venezuela, so I may have a leg up on most people.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. (Not directed at anyone in particular)
My first house was via a low interest first time home owner program. 19.3%. Yeah. 1984 during the aftermath of Carter’s and O’Neill’s failures.
In 1983 they weren’t. I didn’t have a dime to put in a CD after buying that house. Then a large local business folded a few months after I bought it. 3 years later I felt very blessed to sell it for the original purchase price without a realtor after we had put up a couple of thousand dollars of curtains and I had established a yard and landscaped it. My neighbor took a 40K hit on his but he bought a bigger house a block away at a huge discount. He was an ophthalmologist and didn’t have to finance the new one.
BTC hit an all time high today. More and more ETF's being bought. More and more institutions are buying now that T is in the WH.
Do you think it might do what it has always done, that is cycle on a high then drop, now that a crypto friendly prez is walking about?
dingle, my wife and I had our home built in 1984 also, but I "think" we got into some 13% interest rate due to my being a veteran, so it was a Veterans Home Loan.
EIther way, it wasn't cheap, but of course, the cost of building a home was peanuts compared to now.
