OT: Why is Warren Buffet always ahead of the game?

[Huskers123456]

I don’t think it’s going away. 20 years ago or so ago they talked about folks being able to take their Social Security money and put it in investment accounts. Soon after, there was a 20% correction in the market. The idea vanished like a fart in the wind.

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.

 

[itseasyas1-2-3]

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

Okay, I'll play.

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.

 

[itseasyas1-2-3]

As long as SS is around in 2 years, I’m good

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 For example, if you had a job, as an employee, and you made $160,201.00 for the year, you would have had that 6.2% withdrawn each pay perios.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?

 

[61bigredfan]

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.

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.

 

[RBigredMax]

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?

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.

 

[itseasyas1-2-3]

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?

 

[Huskers123456]

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.

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.

 

[BTF69]

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, primarilty, 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 an IRA and having them nationalized and put into US Treasuries, right?

This is why I married (and left but did not divorce) a 79 year old lady. Cha-Ching

 

[RBigredMax]

You know there is talk about taking people's 401K's/IRA's and having them nationalized and put into US Treasuries, right?

I have not heard that … appreciate the insight- do you have a source for me to read up on?

 

[RBigredMax]

This is why I married (and left but did not divorce) a 79 year old lady. Cha-Ching

 

[redli]

rich people don't go around saying they're rich

Wrong. We changed that policy a few years ago, you must have missed the meeting.

 

[redli]

I have not heard that … appreciate the insight- do you have a source for me to read up on?

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.

 

[Streamer15]

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.

Most of us shouldn't pick individual stock and should just pile money into index funds.

 

[TampaBaySkers]

I know you'll claim different, but you sound like a pretty inexperienced investor. Did you start around 2010? There is a whole generation of investors that think the market only goes up. That isn't how it works.

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.

 

[RBigredMax]

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.