OK, I cringe at starting another offtopic thread, but this one
should be of interest to many on this group.

According to an article in my morning paper, the dire warnings
about Social Security going broke in a few decades are based on
the economy growing at a rate of 1.6% a year. For the last 75
years, the economy, according to the article, has grown at an
average rate of 3.6%.

The economics professor quoted in the article is of the opinion
that the "crisis" has been manufactured by the mutual funds and
other investment types to tout privatizing of Social Security.
That's a big pile of money they'd love to get their hands on.

Please don't let this degenerate into yet another philosophy
harangue. The only question to be debated is whether the
article is accurate or not.

It appears to me that even if the average rate is halved, it's
about 10% higher (1.8% vs 1.6%) than the crisis estimates used.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article ,
says...
OK, I cringe at starting another offtopic thread, but this one
should be of interest to many on this group.

According to an article in my morning paper, the dire warnings
about Social Security going broke in a few decades are based on
the economy growing at a rate of 1.6% a year. For the last 75
years, the economy, according to the article, has grown at an
average rate of 3.6%.

The economics professor quoted in the article is of the opinion
that the "crisis" has been manufactured by the mutual funds and
other investment types to tout privatizing of Social Security.
That's a big pile of money they'd love to get their hands on.

Please don't let this degenerate into yet another philosophy
harangue. The only question to be debated is whether the
article is accurate or not.

It appears to me that even if the average rate is halved, it's
about 10% higher (1.8% vs 1.6%) than the crisis estimates used.

Regardless of what that article says about the growth of the economy,
the real reason for the crisis is the number of workers per retiree.
Back in the 30s, it was close to 300 workers paying for the SS of one
retiree. Today, it's at 3 and heading to 2 with a bullet.

That tells me one thing - I need to pump up my 401k and other savings,
because I'm not counting on SS.
--
Regards,

Rick

(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)

Rich Chamberlain writes:

Regardless of what that article says about the growth of the economy,
the real reason for the crisis is the number of workers per retiree.
Back in the 30s, it was close to 300 workers paying for the SS of one
retiree. Today, it's at 3 and heading to 2 with a bullet.

And most of the money paid in has been stolen. Whoops. Pols don't steal. They
simply take and use for other purposes.

By the way, when in the '30s was it 300 to 1?

That tells me one thing - I need to pump up my 401k and other savings,
because I'm not counting on SS.

SS was never intended, or, rather, was not originally intended, as a complete
retirement program. It was to be a supplement for those who couldn't make
enough money to save on their own, but was never intended to be all the income
anyone had. Of course, now it often is and in some areas, for some people, it
is more than adequate.

Charlie Self
In a New Hampshire Jewelry sto "Ears pierced while you wait."

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

Well, based on past history and your whining tag line, you're probably not
reading unbiased sources. However, if you care to check, did the article
talk about projections on benefit growth?

That, and demographics, is the problem. Only someone with an irresponsible
axe to grind would neglect to mention them. Judge your article accordingly.

Ideology is what destroys, not the weapons ideologues wield. How many were
killed by machete in Rwanda?

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
OK, I cringe at starting another offtopic thread, but this one
should be of interest to many on this group.

According to an article in my morning paper, the dire warnings
about Social Security going broke in a few decades are based on
the economy growing at a rate of 1.6% a year. For the last 75
years, the economy, according to the article, has grown at an
average rate of 3.6%.

The economics professor quoted in the article is of the opinion
that the "crisis" has been manufactured by the mutual funds and
other investment types to tout privatizing of Social Security.
That's a big pile of money they'd love to get their hands on.

Please don't let this degenerate into yet another philosophy
harangue. The only question to be debated is whether the
article is accurate or not.

It appears to me that even if the average rate is halved, it's
about 10% higher (1.8% vs 1.6%) than the crisis estimates used.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

"Charlie Self"
Rich Chamberlain writes:

Regardless of what that article says about the growth of the economy,
the real reason for the crisis is the number of workers per retiree.
Back in the 30s, it was close to 300 workers paying for the SS of one
retiree. Today, it's at 3 and heading to 2 with a bullet.

And most of the money paid in has been stolen. Whoops. Pols don't steal. They
simply take and use for other purposes.

By the way, when in the '30s was it 300 to 1?

That tells me one thing - I need to pump up my 401k and other savings,
because I'm not counting on SS.

SS was never intended, or, rather, was not originally intended, as a complete
retirement program. It was to be a supplement for those who couldn't make
enough money to save on their own, but was never intended to be all the income
anyone had. Of course, now it often is and in some areas, for some people, it
is more than adequate.


Also, it was designed to be distributed to the recipient for maybe 5 years.
People are living much longer these days.

If I am not mistaken, the average life expectancy was 62 when the original eligibility was set at 65. I could be wrong, though.

--
Al Reid

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so." --- Mark Twain

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message ...

"Charlie Self"
Rich Chamberlain writes:

Regardless of what that article says about the growth of the economy,
the real reason for the crisis is the number of workers per retiree.
Back in the 30s, it was close to 300 workers paying for the SS of one
retiree. Today, it's at 3 and heading to 2 with a bullet.

And most of the money paid in has been stolen. Whoops. Pols don't steal. They
simply take and use for other purposes.

By the way, when in the '30s was it 300 to 1?

That tells me one thing - I need to pump up my 401k and other savings,
because I'm not counting on SS.

SS was never intended, or, rather, was not originally intended, as a complete
retirement program. It was to be a supplement for those who couldn't make
enough money to save on their own, but was never intended to be all the income
anyone had. Of course, now it often is and in some areas, for some people, it
is more than adequate.


Also, it was designed to be distributed to the recipient for maybe 5 years.
People are living much longer these days.

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 18:50:36 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:

And most of the money paid in has been stolen. Whoops. Pols don't steal. They
simply take and use for other purposes.

It's supposed to be a pay as you go program, but for at least 3 decades,
excess is collected and put in the "trust" fund. Since hiding cash for
long periods of time is a good way to see it evaporate through inflation,
the govmint "invests" the trust fund money in govmint IOU's to be paid
back with a small interest rate in the future using govmint profits (more
taxes for future generations). Meanwhile, the current excess SS taxes are
spent on us, now. And all this by folks who talk about all the things we
must do "for the children". Worst of all, the debt in this and 40 or so
other "trust" funds is counted as an asset rather than a liability! Some
estimates place the amount of these "assets" at $40 _trillion_ in the
next3 or 4 decades. Makes the national debt look miniscule.

By the way, when in the '30s was it 300 to 1?

It was more like 30-something to one, and the average lifespan at the time
was 65, meaning the program didn't have to pay out for long.

SS was never intended, or, rather, was not originally intended, as a
complete retirement program. It was to be a supplement for those who
couldn't make enough money to save on their own, but was never intended
to be all the income anyone had. Of course, now it often is and in some
areas, for some people, it is more than adequate.

The sad part is many otherwise intelligent folks think SS will take care
of them and forego any planning/savings on their own.

If you want to go through an interesting exercise, look for your next
statement from SS listing the years and amounts you have paid in. Then
apply a reasonable return of say 6% for the first year, add the next years
contribution, apply 6%, etc. You'll discover you could retire at 55 with
about double the money SS will pay you, and never reduce the current
value. Compound interest is wonderful! And if we had all done this on
our own, not only would we be better off, but wouldn't be leaving
trillions of debt to be paid by future generations.

All this is why I put 10% of gross away as untouchable starting about 30
years ago and have my kids doing the same. Talk about a safety net...

--
-Doug

Easy fix for SS. Raise the cap.

SS deductions stop at a income of 72,600

As a republican, I am against raising taxes. But that's because of a
complete lack of control on politicians parts. I can't see FEDERAL funding a
lot of what the fed funds now. Most things should be handled by the
state\local taxes. Let the taxes be collected at the state\local level where
the politicians are close enough for me to slap!

Example, we're pumping more into education than we have in US history and
the children are getting dumber by the minute. That's why we homeschool. The
average VA locality (with funds from local\state\and fed) spends well over
$6000 per year to teach per pupil. I homeschool my daughter for $900 per
year and have better results. She's 6 years old, is writing cursive better
than I, is adding double digit number (46+87 and such that require her to
carry over a number) and can name you the top Bush administration officials!
She also doesn't like Al Gore, she says he's talks mean (even children can
pick up on deconstructive speech). Is this because of curriculum, no. It's
because I'm INVOLVED in her education. Most parents are more concerned about
that new Suburban, boat or second house than they are about actually going
to find out WHO their child's teachers are and WHAT their child needs help
with. In addition, any attempt to enforce discipline in school is met by the
ACLU and the aforementioned parents. It seems these parents don't want
anyone doing a better job than they are. What happened to responsibility?

What does this mean? We're throwing money at a problem that money won't fix.

There IS NO SS savings account, so the whole "No Money by 2035" is
misleading at best.

As is the "National Debt". National Debt is a forecast based primarily on
FUTURE payments and entitlements. National debt is composed of different
types of debt: debt by federal, state and local governments, international
debt, and house-hold, business, and financial sector debt plus un-funded
social security, Medicare and government pension contingent liabilities. It
includes what we are GOING TO owe without mentioning how much we will have
generated in the same time frame! Remember the PROJECTED $Trillion +
surplus we had that was PROJECTED in a vacuum without consideration of the
inevitable 10-12 year recession? If I rated my own debt on what I was going
to spend in the next 60 years, Then I'd have a Personal debt that would
invite suicide. However, if I rated my PROJECTED surplus on the rates of
increase in pay I had during my BEST years, I'll be dining with Bill Gates
this evening! I doubt that will happen.

The Nation Deficit is only relative when referrer to as a percentage of GDP.
GDP has more than quad-drupled in the last 20 years With out that info, a
$550 million deficit seems outrageous on it's face. But when viewed next to
the GDP and deficit from 20 years ago, it's actually quite benign
comparatively. Regardless of the National debt being BIG as a dollar figure,
as a percentage of what we produce, it's less than MANY MANY MANY
instances in our history. It is no where NEAR what it was in 1946 (a 1.28
ration, debt was 269 and GNP was 210). It then when down over the next ~35
years and worked up to another peak ( a ratio of .72) during '94-'96. Then
started down again.

Lower federal income taxes and raise the cap for SS. You'll encourage the
economy and increase government revenues. Revenue is made when money is
SPENT by consumers (be it business or consumer), not when money is taken by
the government. If most people would sit down and realize just how many
taxes are paid when they BUY something, they'd realize why. You INJECT money
into the economic cycle.

I still don't see how anyone can possibly think that the government is even
QUALIFIED to spend money effectively! Too much overhead and pork (on BOTH
side of the aisle).

That's it for me, I've ranted myself out...

SS and Medicare increases, fine. I have no problem with that.


"Rick Chamberlain" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
OK, I cringe at starting another offtopic thread, but this one
should be of interest to many on this group.

According to an article in my morning paper, the dire warnings
about Social Security going broke in a few decades are based on
the economy growing at a rate of 1.6% a year. For the last 75
years, the economy, according to the article, has grown at an
average rate of 3.6%.

The economics professor quoted in the article is of the opinion
that the "crisis" has been manufactured by the mutual funds and
other investment types to tout privatizing of Social Security.
That's a big pile of money they'd love to get their hands on.

Please don't let this degenerate into yet another philosophy
harangue. The only question to be debated is whether the
article is accurate or not.

It appears to me that even if the average rate is halved, it's
about 10% higher (1.8% vs 1.6%) than the crisis estimates used.

Regardless of what that article says about the growth of the economy,
the real reason for the crisis is the number of workers per retiree.
Back in the 30s, it was close to 300 workers paying for the SS of one
retiree. Today, it's at 3 and heading to 2 with a bullet.

That tells me one thing - I need to pump up my 401k and other savings,
because I'm not counting on SS.
--
Regards,

Rick

(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)

Tue, Mar 2, 2004, 9:49am (EST-3) (Larry=A0Blanchard)
claims:
OK, I cringe snip

From what I understand, once a congressman/woman or senator gets in
office, even if for just one term, they're covered, with a healthy
income for life (I was told 100% of their salary, but don't know if
that's true or not - given their past records tho, probably is). Same
with health care. So, they really aren't concerned about it, they've
already got theirs.

A politician's number one priority is getting into office. Once
in, their number one priority is staying in office.


JOAT
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people
always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to
use them.
- Richard Henry Lee, 1788

Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
Web Page Update 28 Feb 2004.
Some tunes I like.
http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofal...ESILIKEVOCALS/

Bill writes:

the children are getting dumber by the minute. That's why we homeschool. The
average VA locality (with funds from local\state\and fed) spends well over
$6000 per year to teach per pupil. I homeschool my daughter for $900 per
year and have better results.

These figures fascinate me. Have you figured in your time, your wife's time,
the physical plant and similar stuff?

She also doesn't like Al Gore, she says he's talks mean (even children can
pick up on deconstructive speech). Is this because of curriculum, no. It's
because I'm INVOLVED in her education

You got it. The last time Gore was around much she was what, 3? She's picked up
your feelings.

addition, any attempt to enforce discipline in school is met by the
ACLU and the aforementioned parents. It seems these parents don't want
anyone doing a better job than they are. What happened to responsibility?

Where do you get this? Discipline is undercut in schools because of parents,
not the ACLU.



Charlie Self
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in
America." William J. Clinton

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

Fletis Humlebacker writes:

the income
anyone had. Of course, now it often is and in some areas, for some people,
it
is more than adequate.


Also, it was designed to be distributed to the recipient for maybe 5 years.
People are living much longer these days.


I don't know if 5 years was the expected lifetime, but I had a paternal aunt
who started drawing the minimum (about 88 bucks a month, IIRC) some time in the
late '50s, after paying in for maybe 6-8 years, and drew it until she died at
about 88, so 23 years. Not much money, but one helluva lot more than she'd paid
in. Her husband was a design machinist who didn't opt for SS until he was 70
because his boss needed his work. I think he kept working until he was about
80, but only part-time, as back then SS limited earnings. That may have been
until he was 70, now I think of it. He couldn't earn over xxx bucks per month
or he'd lose his SS check, or at least part of it.

It's still over-complicated all to hell. I start paying Medicare part A or B
(one is free, one is paid, and I'll be dipped if I can ever recall which). And
I haven't got a clue as to what it covers. You'd think going to the site would
help, but it's more confusing than asking my granddaughter about it. At 13 she
knows it all and is not ashamed to tell you what it all is. Of course, she's
wrong 99.97% of the time, but what the hell...

Drives her aunt up the wall, but the granddaughter is a clone of the aunt, at
least in that respect. In the 8th grade, there was NOTHING she didn't know. She
doesn't remember that today.

Charlie Self
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in
America." William J. Clinton

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

"Bill" wrote in message
...
Easy fix for SS. Raise the cap.

SS deductions stop at a income of 72,600

Not anymore. Does anybody know what it is up to this year? I wish my
salary went up as fast as this!

2002 - 84900
2000 - 76200
1999 - 72600
1998 - 68400
1997 - 65400
1996 - 62700
1995 - 61200
1994 - 60600

Charly got it right on the actual policy. It was/is meant
as a supplemental in old age. As far as theft, well...
There is no SS fund. All the money goes into the general fund
kinda like petty cash account.
Fletis hits spot on with the # of years one was expected to draw
on it before they were off to join the choir invisible (shamelessly
stolen from Monty)
The fix? well it the 3s bear any resemblance to reality, I see about 5
ways. 1. Raise taxes. 2. Reduce benefits. 3. Raise retirement age.
4. Remove the death tax - completely. 5. Triple at least, limits on
IRA contributions


"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message
...

"Charlie Self"
Rich Chamberlain writes:

Regardless of what that article says about the growth of the economy,
the real reason for the crisis is the number of workers per retiree.
Back in the 30s, it was close to 300 workers paying for the SS of one
retiree. Today, it's at 3 and heading to 2 with a bullet.

And most of the money paid in has been stolen. Whoops. Pols don't steal.
They
simply take and use for other purposes.

By the way, when in the '30s was it 300 to 1?

That tells me one thing - I need to pump up my 401k and other savings,
because I'm not counting on SS.

SS was never intended, or, rather, was not originally intended, as a
complete
retirement program. It was to be a supplement for those who couldn't
make
enough money to save on their own, but was never intended to be all the
income
anyone had. Of course, now it often is and in some areas, for some
people, it
is more than adequate.


Also, it was designed to be distributed to the recipient for maybe 5
years.
People are living much longer these days.

"Kevin" wrote in message

The fix? well it the 3s bear any resemblance to reality, I see about 5
ways. 1. Raise taxes. 2. Reduce benefits. 3. Raise retirement age.
4. Remove the death tax - completely. 5. Triple at least, limits on
IRA contributions


As the old saw goes, put the pols on SS and it would be "fixed" tomorrow.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 15:25:13 -0500, Mike Schwarz wrote:

SS deductions stop at a income of 72,600

Not anymore. Does anybody know what it is up to this year? I wish my
salary went up as fast as this!

2002 - 84900
2000 - 76200
1999 - 72600
1998 - 68400
1997 - 65400
1996 - 62700
1995 - 61200
1994 - 60600

and for 2003 - 87,000

--
-Doug

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 09:49:27 -0800, Larry Blanchard wrote:

The economics professor quoted in the article is of the opinion
that the "crisis" has been manufactured by the mutual funds and
other investment types to tout privatizing of Social Security.
That's a big pile of money they'd love to get their hands on.

The easiest way to find out is to google on "+trust +funds".

The first entry I got was:

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/cur-yea...cit-trusts.htm

You can find many more with the same basic analysis, and if after
considering the info, you don't think there's a problem, I can't help it.

BTW, you will also discover the vaunted budget surplusses of the previous
administration were pure fiction.

--
-Doug

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 15:09:11 -0500 (EST), (J
T) wrote:

Tue, Mar 2, 2004, 9:49am (EST-3) (Larry*Blanchard)
claims:
OK, I cringe snip

From what I understand, once a congressman/woman or senator gets in
office, even if for just one term, they're covered, with a healthy
income for life (I was told 100% of their salary, but don't know if
that's true or not - given their past records tho, probably is). Same
with health care. So, they really aren't concerned about it, they've
already got theirs.

A politician's number one priority is getting into office. Once
in, their number one priority is staying in office.

You know, if I could get in for one term and retire with a living
pension I'd be all for the in and out approach. No way I'd want to
spend any more time hanging around those types than was absolutely
necessary.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

"Kevin" wrote in message
...
Charly got it right on the actual policy. It was/is meant
as a supplemental in old age. As far as theft, well...
There is no SS fund. All the money goes into the general fund
kinda like petty cash account.

This wasn't the case until about a dozen years ago. The Social Security fund
was off-budget, meaning that the politicians couldn't touch it. It had
accumulated a huge surplus in anticipation of the baby boomer retirement
bulge that's beginning now. However, the national debt became so severe in
the 80s that the Congress passed a law putting SS on the budget so the pols
could tap into the excess funds. That surplus has now been drawn down to the
point where they talk about a crisis--but it was their own fault. Social
Security IMHO should be removed from the budget. For too many people it is
the prime source of income in retirement: the poor, the self-employed, those
without company benefits, etc. Yes, it's easy to say that private investment
returns more, but millions can't afford to invest.

But why not eliminate Social Security and allow people to invest the money
they save? Because it's a welfare program. Like everyone else I'll draw out
all of my investment and interest in less than 5 years. If I draw SS for
more than that, it's welfare. Dirty word in these parts, eh? I'd rather have
at least some income sheltered from the greedheads running private
investments, and from the fluctuations in the market brought on by
short-term profit seekers. And when your invested funds run out, you're left
with nothing. At least SS gives you an income you can count on.

Congress knows that touching SS is a political third rail. It's what
Jefferson said (in another context) was like holding a wolf by the tail. You
don't like it, but you don't dare let go.

Bob

Kevin writes:

The fix? well it the 3s bear any resemblance to reality, I see about 5
ways. 1. Raise taxes. 2. Reduce benefits. 3. Raise retirement age.
4. Remove the death tax - completely. 5. Triple at least, limits on
IRA contributions

Taxes have consistently gone up on SS. Benefits also have risen, but supposedly
as a COLA, which I have a feeling reduces the raise in taxes considerably.
Retirement age has risen, though probably not enough. I'm not at all sure what
the death tax has to do with SS. While larger limits on IRAs make sense for
many, the people SS is actually aimed at will get no benefit at all. If you
haven't got the money to save one way, you don't have enough to save another
way.

Charlie Self
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in
America." William J. Clinton

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

Swingman responds:

The fix? well it the 3s bear any resemblance to reality, I see about 5
ways. 1. Raise taxes. 2. Reduce benefits. 3. Raise retirement age.
4. Remove the death tax - completely. 5. Triple at least, limits on
IRA contributions


As the old saw goes, put the pols on SS and it would be "fixed" tomorrow.


YES!

I'm looking for a job I can do for 6 years, after which I am able to retire at
full salary. Have to get elected to do it, though.

Charlie Self
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in
America." William J. Clinton

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Bill writes:

the children are getting dumber by the minute. That's why we homeschool.
The
average VA locality (with funds from local\state\and fed) spends well
over
$6000 per year to teach per pupil. I homeschool my daughter for $900 per
year and have better results.

These figures fascinate me. Have you figured in your time, your wife's
time,
the physical plant and similar stuff?


Our time? So I have to compare it to a paying job? You seem to view it as
loosing an income! We view it as living reasonably. AND we save YOU federal,
state and local dollars!

Our cost is offset because we DON'T (want) need the extras that
some seek. Out priorities are on our children! So we make the choice to live
in a $100k house (instead of a $200k house) and drive two used cars (instead
of two newer cars).

I think the cost of my childrens future is as they say...Priceless?

Cost of home schooling


You got it. The last time Gore was around much she was what, 3? She's
picked up
your feelings.



No, she picked up on his moveon.org speech a few weeks back. I haven't said
a thing about Gore. He's never been a factor in my life. If we were talking
Bill Clinton, that'd be a different story.


Where do you get this? Discipline is undercut in schools because of
parents,
not the ACLU.



Excuse me? Calling teachers every word in the book was deemed a "First
Ammendment Right" because of an ACLU law suit!



Charlie Self
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is
right in
America." William J. Clinton

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

I stand corrected!
Thank You


"Mike Schwarz" wrote in message
. ..

"Bill" wrote in message
...
Easy fix for SS. Raise the cap.

SS deductions stop at a income of 72,600

Not anymore. Does anybody know what it is up to this year? I wish my
salary went up as fast as this!

2002 - 84900
2000 - 76200
1999 - 72600
1998 - 68400
1997 - 65400
1996 - 62700
1995 - 61200
1994 - 60600

Wanna see outsourcing take a nosedive? Start outsourcing the
Congresscritters.
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Swingman responds:

The fix? well it the 3s bear any resemblance to reality, I see about 5
ways. 1. Raise taxes. 2. Reduce benefits. 3. Raise retirement age.
4. Remove the death tax - completely. 5. Triple at least, limits on
IRA contributions


As the old saw goes, put the pols on SS and it would be "fixed" tomorrow.


YES!

I'm looking for a job I can do for 6 years, after which I am able to
retire at
full salary. Have to get elected to do it, though.

Charlie Self
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is
right in
America." William J. Clinton

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

Bill stutters:

The
average VA locality (with funds from local\state\and fed) spends well
over
$6000 per year to teach per pupil. I homeschool my daughter for $900 per
year and have better results.

These figures fascinate me. Have you figured in your time, your wife's
time,
the physical plant and similar stuff?


Our time? So I have to compare it to a paying job? You seem to view it as
loosing an income! We view it as living reasonably. AND we save YOU federal,
state and local dollars!

If you're comparing costs, you must compare all costs to reach a reasonable
basis for comparison. No one said anything about you considering it a paying
job or losing time from your own work, but...ah, fergit it!


Where do you get this? Discipline is undercut in schools because of
parents,
not the ACLU.



Excuse me? Calling teachers every word in the book was deemed a "First
Ammendment Right" because of an ACLU law suit!

Who raised the little turds? The ACLU?

Charlie Self
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in
America." William J. Clinton

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 09:49:27 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

OK, I cringe at starting another offtopic thread, but this one
should be of interest to many on this group.

My financial planning is based on the concept that what I get back
from SS will pay for my various taxes and that, if I would like to
continue to eat, wear clothes and buy gas - I'll have to take care of
that myself.



Thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
(Real Email is tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Bill stutters:

Not funny. I AM a stutterer.



If you're comparing costs, you must compare all costs to reach a
reasonable
basis for comparison. No one said anything about you considering it a
paying
job or losing time from your own work, but...ah, fergit it!


Then I made a good comparison.



Who raised the little turds? The ACLU?

Point Taken, but who stopped the disciplinary action?

ACLU and the parents.

Hence this reinforces my point, no matter HOW MUCH MONEY you throw at the
school system, you will never overcome parents that don't care to be
involved. Even more so when you take away the schools ability to show any
guidance and discipline in school.

Was this instance REALLY a first ammendment problem?

Do we think this is what the founders meant to become of free speech?





Charlie Self
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is
right in
America." William J. Clinton

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

"Kevin" wrote in message
...
Charly got it right on the actual policy. It was/is meant
as a supplemental in old age. As far as theft, well...
There is no SS fund. All the money goes into the general fund
kinda like petty cash account.
Fletis hits spot on with the # of years one was expected to draw
on it before they were off to join the choir invisible (shamelessly
stolen from Monty)
The fix? well it the 3s bear any resemblance to reality, I see about 5
ways. 1. Raise taxes. 2. Reduce benefits. 3. Raise retirement age.
4. Remove the death tax - completely. 5. Triple at least, limits on
IRA contributions


"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message
...

"Charlie Self"
Rich Chamberlain writes:

Regardless of what that article says about the growth of the economy,
the real reason for the crisis is the number of workers per retiree.
Back in the 30s, it was close to 300 workers paying for the SS of one
retiree. Today, it's at 3 and heading to 2 with a bullet.

And most of the money paid in has been stolen. Whoops. Pols don't
steal.
They
simply take and use for other purposes.

By the way, when in the '30s was it 300 to 1?

That tells me one thing - I need to pump up my 401k and other
savings,
because I'm not counting on SS.

SS was never intended, or, rather, was not originally intended, as a
complete
retirement program. It was to be a supplement for those who couldn't
make
enough money to save on their own, but was never intended to be all
the
income
anyone had. Of course, now it often is and in some areas, for some
people, it
is more than adequate.


Also, it was designed to be distributed to the recipient for maybe 5
years.
People are living much longer these days.







Umm # 3 has already been done. At least half way. Those of us born in the
60"s and after won't get full retirement bene's until age 67.

D. Mo

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 09:49:27 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

OK, I cringe at starting another offtopic thread, but this one
should be of interest to many on this group.

My financial planning is based on the concept that what I get back
from SS will pay for my various taxes and that, if I would like to
continue to eat, wear clothes and buy gas - I'll have to take care of
that myself.

I was afraid this would happen. Many responses and not one
addressed the question I asked. Are the percentages quoted
correct?

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Remember SS was split into Medicare vs SS. the medicare side has no upper
limit.

Mike Schwarz wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message
...
Easy fix for SS. Raise the cap.

SS deductions stop at a income of 72,600

Not anymore. Does anybody know what it is up to this year? I wish my
salary went up as fast as this!

2002 - 84900
2000 - 76200
1999 - 72600
1998 - 68400
1997 - 65400
1996 - 62700
1995 - 61200
1994 - 60600

"Bill" wrote in message .. .

As a republican, I am against raising taxes.

Being a republican has nothing to do with taxes but only with being
against royalty and for democracy.

That's why we homeschool.
I homeschool my daughter for $900 per year and have better
results. She's 6 years old, is writing cursive better than I,

That should be "better than me."

I hope she doesn't pick up those deficiencies of yours.

Not to make this a partisan issue but:
Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in
the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic party.

Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

Oh well, I guess I just did.

--

Al Reid

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...

"Kevin" wrote in message
...
Charly got it right on the actual policy. It was/is meant
as a supplemental in old age. As far as theft, well...
There is no SS fund. All the money goes into the general fund
kinda like petty cash account.

This wasn't the case until about a dozen years ago. The Social Security
fund
was off-budget, meaning that the politicians couldn't touch it. It had
accumulated a huge surplus in anticipation of the baby boomer retirement
bulge that's beginning now. However, the national debt became so severe in
the 80s that the Congress passed a law putting SS on the budget so the
pols
could tap into the excess funds. That surplus has now been drawn down to
the
point where they talk about a crisis--but it was their own fault. Social
Security IMHO should be removed from the budget. For too many people it is
the prime source of income in retirement: the poor, the self-employed,
those
without company benefits, etc. Yes, it's easy to say that private
investment
returns more, but millions can't afford to invest.

But why not eliminate Social Security and allow people to invest the money
they save? Because it's a welfare program. Like everyone else I'll draw
out
all of my investment and interest in less than 5 years. If I draw SS for
more than that, it's welfare. Dirty word in these parts, eh? I'd rather
have
at least some income sheltered from the greedheads running private
investments, and from the fluctuations in the market brought on by
short-term profit seekers. And when your invested funds run out, you're
left
with nothing. At least SS gives you an income you can count on.

Congress knows that touching SS is a political third rail. It's what
Jefferson said (in another context) was like holding a wolf by the tail.
You
don't like it, but you don't dare let go.

Bob

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:08:22 -0800, Larry Blanchard wrote:

I was afraid this would happen. Many responses and not one
addressed the question I asked. Are the percentages quoted
correct?

The rate of growth of the economy has nothing to do with the underlying
problems with the SS or any other trust fund. Perhaps that is why no one
has responded in the manner you would like.

--
-Doug

It isn't true. And it is easy to o a google under federal
retirement. I don't remember the site but it had the formula for
figuring out the retirement.



Tue, Mar 2, 2004, 9:49am (EST-3) (Larry Blanchard)
claims:
OK, I cringe snip

From what I understand, once a congressman/woman or senator gets in
office, even if for just one term, they're covered, with a healthy
income for life (I was told 100% of their salary, but don't know if
that's true or not - given their past records tho, probably is). Same
with health care. So, they really aren't concerned about it, they've
already got theirs.

A politician's number one priority is getting into office. Once
in, their number one priority is staying in office.


JOAT
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people
always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to
use them.
- Richard Henry Lee, 1788

Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
Web Page Update 28 Feb 2004.
Some tunes I like.
http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofal...ESILIKEVOCALS/

Larry Blanchard wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 09:49:27 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

OK, I cringe at starting another offtopic thread, but this one
should be of interest to many on this group.

My financial planning is based on the concept that what I get back
from SS will pay for my various taxes and that, if I would like to
continue to eat, wear clothes and buy gas - I'll have to take care of
that myself.

I was afraid this would happen. Many responses and not one
addressed the question I asked. Are the percentages quoted
correct?

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

I don't know either, but it doesn't make any difference. In 2035 less
than 2 people will be working support one retired person. That isn't
going to result in a very good retirement no matter how you try to
fund it.

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:22:01 +0000, George E. Cawthon wrote:

Don't get tied up in the life expectancy of 65 years since that was
based on 0 Years and lots of babies and children died. There person
that reach 65 years old had a life expectancy of several more years.

The point is the demographics have changed radically, and something will
have to to be changed - radically.

--
-Doug

Doug Winterburn wrote:

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 18:50:36 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:

And most of the money paid in has been stolen. Whoops. Pols don't steal. They
simply take and use for other purposes.

It's supposed to be a pay as you go program, but for at least 3 decades,
excess is collected and put in the "trust" fund. Since hiding cash for
long periods of time is a good way to see it evaporate through inflation,
the govmint "invests" the trust fund money in govmint IOU's to be paid
back with a small interest rate in the future using govmint profits (more
taxes for future generations). Meanwhile, the current excess SS taxes are
spent on us, now. And all this by folks who talk about all the things we
must do "for the children". Worst of all, the debt in this and 40 or so
other "trust" funds is counted as an asset rather than a liability! Some
estimates place the amount of these "assets" at $40 _trillion_ in the
next3 or 4 decades. Makes the national debt look miniscule.

By the way, when in the '30s was it 300 to 1?

It was more like 30-something to one, and the average lifespan at the time
was 65, meaning the program didn't have to pay out for long.

SS was never intended, or, rather, was not originally intended, as a
complete retirement program. It was to be a supplement for those who
couldn't make enough money to save on their own, but was never intended
to be all the income anyone had. Of course, now it often is and in some
areas, for some people, it is more than adequate.

The sad part is many otherwise intelligent folks think SS will take care
of them and forego any planning/savings on their own.

If you want to go through an interesting exercise, look for your next
statement from SS listing the years and amounts you have paid in. Then
apply a reasonable return of say 6% for the first year, add the next years
contribution, apply 6%, etc. You'll discover you could retire at 55 with
about double the money SS will pay you, and never reduce the current
value. Compound interest is wonderful! And if we had all done this on
our own, not only would we be better off, but wouldn't be leaving
trillions of debt to be paid by future generations.

All this is why I put 10% of gross away as untouchable starting about 30
years ago and have my kids doing the same. Talk about a safety net...

--
-Doug

Don't get tied up in the life expectancy of 65 years since that was
based on 0 Years and lots of babies and children died. There person
that reach 65 years old had a life expectancy of several more years.

Example, we're pumping more into education than we have in US history and
the children are getting dumber by the minute. That's why we homeschool.
The
average VA locality (with funds from local\state\and fed) spends well over
$6000 per year to teach per pupil. I homeschool my daughter for $900 per
year and have better results.


I believe the number is much higher than you suggest. I read a report a few
months back that listed 30 or so nations, and ranked the quality of
education and the average amount spent by each country per student, all
referenced in US dollars.

I don't have the report in from of me, but I think it was put out by Unesco.
If I recall correctly, the US spent more than any other nation, around
$12,000 per student. The US placed 26th on the quality of education,
somewhere behind Poland, but ahead of Romania and Mexico. The top countries
were Finland, Sweden, Japan, and Canada, and the amount they spent per
student was in the $6,000 range. If anyone's interested in the actual
report, I'll see if I can dig it up and post a link.

People should go up 7 posts to the one from Al Reid. I couldn't post it
here. This tells you exactly where your Social Security $$ has gone.
Down the democrat party Social Engineering sinkhole!

Social Security funds are designed so that no politition can get their
hands on them. Just imagine what would happen if President Bush or some
other politition got their hands on SS funds thinking that they could
invest them better and lost it all. This is what an IRA is for and it
still allows the SS funds to grow.

According to the SSA, there will be plenty of funds until the year 2030
at least. No doubt long after I'm gone and maybe even you. Last year
the increase was 2.1% not the 1.6 or 1.8% you spoke of in your post.

I do believe the SSA also predicted the funds to last until 2030 with an
average 2.0% increase each year. This still=A0isn't enough money to
live on and for most, a part time job willbe needed until you die.

--


OT - Social Security

Group: rec.woodworking Date: Tue, Mar 2, 2004, 9:49am (MST-1) From:
(Larry=A0Blanchard)

OK, I cringe at starting another offtopic thread, but this one should be
of interest to many on this group.

According to an article in my morning paper, the dire warnings about
Social Security going broke in a few decades are based on the economy
growing at a rate of 1.6% a year. For the last 75 years, the economy,
according to the article, has grown at an average rate of 3.6%.

The economics professor quoted in the article is of the opinion that the
"crisis" has been manufactured by the mutual funds and other investment
types to tout privatizing of Social Security. That's a big pile of money
they'd love to get their hands on.

Please don't let this degenerate into yet another philosophy harangue.
The only question to be debated is whether the article is accurate or
not.

It appears to me that even if the average rate is halved, it's about 10%
higher (1.8% vs 1.6%) than the crisis estimates used.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

--
Woody


Check out my Web Page at:

http://community-1.webtv.net/Woodwor...workerJoesInfo

Where you will find:

******** How My Shop Works ******** 5-21-03

* * * Build a $20 DC Separator Can Lid. 1-14-03
* * * DC Relay Box Building Plans. 1-14-03
* * * The Bad Air Your Breath Everyday.1-14-03
* * * What is a Real Woodworker? 2-8-03
* * * Murphy's Woodworking Definitions. 2-8-03
* * * Murphy's Woodworking Laws. 4-6-03
* * * What is the true meaning of life? 1-14-03
* * * Woodworker Shop Signs. 2-8-03

Boy you must have had your ass up your head when you asked these
questions.

Al=A0Reid wrote

Not to make this a partisan issue but:
=A0=A0=A0=A0Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund
and put it in
the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
=A0=A0=A0=A0A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled
House and Senate.

!n 1935, social security was created. Believe it or not, people had to
be convinced that the social security number was to be used only for
social security and nothing else. Creditors can not refuse credit
because ou fail to give a SS number. According to the credit bureaus,
all they have to do is positively identify you and by using computers
that cross search age, birthdate, name and address they usually wind up
with only one name.

SS was set up and the amount that is in the SS fund, even though it may
be in the general fund can not be used for anything other than SS.

--

=A0=A0=A0=A0Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
=A0=A0A: The Democratic party.

You know I've been on SSD now for more than 12 years. Do you realize
that you have to make over $50,000 in SS (somewhere around that) in
order to have to pay taxes on it. The first thing you have to do is
divide it in half and then see if the measly $800 check you receive each
month is going to be more tan that. Some of the people I know who have
made $30-50 an hour at a job and now are on SSI don't make much more
than I do. There must be a handful that make millions of dollars each
year from the SS dept.


=A0=A0=A0=A0Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
=A0=A0A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.
=A0=A0=A0=A0Oh well, I guess I just did.

I guess you can tax everyone until their ass turns green. Where do you
get the idea tax is on SS? Is it because the State and Federal
government take a tax out when you get your paycheck? Funny thing isn't
it. Suppose I made $20,000 one year and uncle sam took his cut and SS
got their 7.35%. If this is where you think SS is taxed, boy you are
wrong. Lets see now I've worked for 25 years and when I become 42 I
become disabled and can no longer work. (Or I could have an illness and
never work in my life) Now I am getting SSD and all that 7.35% that was
taken out of my check is being returned to me. When I was 36, my SS
account showed $12,000 in it. I've been on SSD now for 12 years at a
price of $9,600 a year ($115,200) so far and this will continue until I
die at a non taxable increase each year.

Do you think a few small taxes are too much to pay when the return is
tax free. I don't even have to file taxes because the amount that I
make (taxable income) is zero on line 32. Although there are times I do
file and receive a $3500 EIC credit. (check sent to me)
=A0=A0=A0=A0--
=A0=A0=A0=A0Al Reid
=A0=A0=A0=A0

--
Woody


Check out my Web Page at:

http://community-1.webtv.net/Woodwor...workerJoesInfo

Where you will find:

******** How My Shop Works ******** 5-21-03

* * * Build a $20 DC Separator Can Lid. 1-14-03
* * * DC Relay Box Building Plans. 1-14-03
* * * The Bad Air Your Breath Everyday.1-14-03
* * * What is a Real Woodworker? 2-8-03
* * * Murphy's Woodworking Definitions. 2-8-03
* * * Murphy's Woodworking Laws. 4-6-03
* * * What is the true meaning of life? 1-14-03
* * * Woodworker Shop Signs. 2-8-03