[hormel26c]

hwacker hwacker:

Lowest % on rrsp in the last 5 years is 12% in my portfolio.

Bullshit.

[Scape]

Privatization Bombed in Britain

$1:

BTW what's wrong with more Private investment?

Your theory is valid but it does not go into play until years down the road and the cost to overhaul to private investment will cost in the trillions. In effect it is a gamble, what if the markets drop? The UK lost 30% because of the cost of the transition.

[Regina]

hormel26c hormel26c:

hwacker hwacker:

Lowest % on rrsp in the last 5 years is 12% in my portfolio.

Bullshit.

I second that!!!!

Name the fund.....or maybe it's possible your "money guy" is massaging the numbers.

[Scape]

AARP Claims Bush's Plan Is A Homewrecker

$1:

Understating the Problem

Comparing Social Security's problems to a clogged sink understates matters considerably. In fact, as we've often noted, the current Social Security tax structure can't support all the benefits that have been promised. According to Social Security's chief actuary, the current level of Social Security taxes will be able to support only 73 percent of the currently promised level of benefits when the systems trust funds become exhausted. That's currently projected to happen in the year 2042. A new report is due out later this week, which may revise those numbers up or down slightly. Either way, that's more serious than a clogged drain.

The ad further claims that the current system "can be fixed with just a few moderate changes." In fact, fixing the current system will require some fairly sizeable tax increases, cuts in future benefit levels, or some combination of the two.

We explore just how "moderate" these reforms are, and what exactly they do to solve the system's long-term deficit.

$1:

Here are a few of the proposals:

*
Make all earnings subject to the payroll tax. Currently, earnings above $90,000 aren't taxed. Eliminating that cap would hit only the highest-earning 6% of the population. This would bring in enough to close 93% of the gap over the next 75 years, but only 33% of the gap at the end. One reason is that high-income taxpayers would draw increased benefits in the future based on their higher taxable wages.
*
Make all earnings subject to the payroll tax and deny high-income earners the benefit of that change when calculating their future benefits. This would close 116% of the gap for the 75-year period -- actually putting it in surplus. But it wouldn't be a permanent fix, closing just under 50% of the gap at the end.
*
Cover newly hired State and local government employees beginning in 2005, four years sooner than Ball proposes. This would close 11% of the gap over 75 years, but leave things virtually unchanged after that -- a miniscule two-tenths of one percent improvement at the end.
*
Invest 40% of the Trust Fund in equities over the next 15 years. Since stocks usually bring a better return than the federal debt securities now held by the trust fund, this proposal is estimated to close some of the gap over the next 75 years. If stocks rise an average of 6.5 percent a year faster than inflation (in line with historical averages) it would close 48 percent of the gap. If stocks rose more slowly -- 5.5 percent per year above inflation -- it would close only 34 percent of the gap. Either way, the trust funds eventually become depleted, leaving nothing to invest. And so this proposal by itself closes zero percent of the gap at the end.
*
Reduce benefits across the board by 3 percent for those newly eligible for benefits in 2005 and later. Trimming promised benefits for all future retirees (and disabled workers and surviving spouses and children, too) would close only 20% of the gap for the 75-year period, and 9% of the gap at the end.

There is two sides of the debate and both are wrong here. On the one hand we have AARP saying the house needs a new paint job but it's not falling down and thus no changes are needed and Bush saying that the system will be bankrupt since 1988.

The solution would be to have the system that serves the best interest of all and be self sustaining. To do that there is some fat that can be trimmed from the benefits and more money now into the system will make the system more sustainable with long term investments that should not be re-routed to other programs or be privatized. Privatization on something like this would be similar to having the trans Canada a toll road. Social security does work, the demographics to fund it are changing and thus more money should go into it to maintain longterm stability but overall the system is a winner it is the long term deficit that is the problem not the system itself.

[Antoine]

Godz, you wrote, "That's because the more money that gets pumped into education ends up with no results. No matter how much money is put in, grades decrease, the dropout rate increased, kids are dumber and the infrastructure is collapsing. I tend to blame this not on lack of funding (as it has been proven that it creates no resulsts) but the widespread corruption among you teachers and your unions."

Let's see, my local union is renegotiating a new contract, but the Board is proposing a wonderful 1.1% increase in pay. The lowest proposal in the past decade, that's for sure. Why? Lack of funds from State and Federal governments. Guess what else, I have to work bartending and serving tables because I don't make enough, and I am a teacher. Time I could spend preparing better lesson plans, grading, taking classes to improve my teaching is now compromised by my need to make ends. And, I am not alone, not an anomoly.

Please tell me where the corruption is in this? I'm offended you would write about the people raising America's future in such a way.

[hwacker]

Antoine Antoine:

usababe usababe:

I'm undecided on this issue. I don't like the risk involved with the stock market....but I also know that SS won't last forever as the system stands now.....I think that voluntary privatization might be the answer...definitely not mandatory. I don't feel I'm educated enough on the topic to make a solid argument for either side right now....how do IRA's play into this?

Privatization of Social Security is a sham, it is a method that Bush and company have devised to put more money into his buddies on Wall Street.

Putting money in stocks adds unnecessary risk to one's retirement.
Again, people posting here need to talk to people currenty receiving Social Security.

The thing of it is, we live in a democracy, supposedly. A clear majority of the American people have expressed their distaste for privatizing Social Security, even voluntarily. What does Bush do? Instead of being a responsible leader of the great democracy of the USA he schedules a continuous sixty day tour of America to convince people that his plan to privatize is a good one. That's not what democracy is about, that is Bush trying to manipulate the masses as opposed to listening to them. It sickens me.

Truth is that yes, Social Security will start having problems in forty some years. There are other possible solutions other than privatizing. But quite frankly, there is an oil crisis that will peak way before we run out of money in social security. Global warming will effect us dramatically in that time, and our sources of fresh water are diminishing at a rapid rate. Instead of spending sixty days shoving a bad idea down our throats, perhaps Bush should be working on more pressing matters.

Bill (SlickWilly) Clinton


February 2, 1998 -- "We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system."


February 9, 1998 -- "every one of you know that the Social Security system is not sound for the long-term, so that all of these achievements ... are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security."


February 9, 1998 -- "This fiscal crisis in Social Security affects every generation. ... That would be unconscionable, especially since, if you move now, we can do less and have a bigger impact..."


April 7, 1998 -- "Today the system is sound, but the demographic crisis looming is clear."


April 7, 1998 -- "All these trends will impose heavy strains on the system. Let's look at the next chart here. You can see that in 1960, which wasn't so long ago, there were over five people working for every person drawing Social Security. In 1997, last year, there were over three people --3.3 people -- working for every person drawing. But by 2030, because of the increasing average age, if present birthrates and immigration rates and retirement rates continue, there will be only two people working for every person drawing Social Security."


April 7, 1998 -- "If we act now, we can ensure strong retirement benefits for the baby boom generation without placing an undue burden on our children and grandchildren. And we can do it, if we act now, with changes that will be far simpler and easier than if we wait until the problem is closer at hand."


October 24, 1998 -- "Unfortunately, some in Congress already may be backing away from this historic opportunity. Just last week, the Senate Majority Leader said he may not be willing to join me in our efforts to save Social Security. That would be a grave mistake. As with so many other long-term challenges, if we act now, it will be far, far easier to resolve the problem than if we wait until a crisis is close at hand. I believe we must save Social Security and do it next year."


February 17, 1999 -- "the evident financial crisis which will be imposed on Social Security when the baby boomers retire"


March 12, 1999 -- "Now, if we do what I'm suggesting, not only can we deal with the financial crisis in Social Security and Medicare..."


August 6, 1998 -- "I don't want us to run right out and spend [the surplus] before we take care of the crisis in Social Security that is looming when the baby boomers retire."



AL (BORE) GORE

September 25, 2000 -- Gore has said he would secure the Social Security Trust Fund by using the current budget surplus to pay down the national debt, freeing up money that would have gone to interest payments. Then he goes beyond that, calling for a national, supplemental retirement savings program he calls "Social Security plus."

Like Bush, Gore's private accounts would allow savers to invest in the stock market through mutual funds -- and investments could grow tax-free. But unlike Bush's proposal, Gore's accounts would be in addition to Social Security benefits.

Under Gore's proposal, the government could match low-income workers' efforts at a rate of $3 for every $1 saved. The plan is estimated to cost about $35 billion a year. Participation would be voluntary, and limited to households earning less than $100,000 a year. Workers could use the money toward retirement, college, home-buying or medical costs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I guess Bush was the only person that had this thought, and knows how imminent the problem is. You need to fix this before it bites you in the ass. Unlike Canada, we will only know when the cheque doesn’t show up and somebody says ooops (Ottawa we have a problem).

Here we will just get the taxes raised to the point where your working for the Gov't. Not far off that now, BTW.

[hwacker]

hormel26c hormel26c:

hwacker hwacker:

Lowest % on rrsp in the last 5 years is 12% in my portfolio.

Bullshit.

Would you like my funds i invest in. ?

Only problem is the funds are not concan, so you need to offset your portfolio with some Canadian gic and such. Just don’t make the mistake of contributing over your allowable amount like I did one year. Assholes nailed me with a huge fine for putting too much money in my account. So if you want and know the problem is going to happen and you plan for it, you get penalized for your knowledge.

There is more then one way to skin a cat.

[hormel26c]

hwacker hwacker:

hormel26c hormel26c:

hwacker hwacker:

Lowest % on rrsp in the last 5 years is 12% in my portfolio.

Bullshit.

Would you like my funds i invest in. ?

Only problem is the funds are not concan, so you need to offset your portfolio with some Canadian gic and such. Just don’t make the mistake of contributing over your allowable amount like I did one year. Assholes nailed me with a huge fine for putting too much money in my account. So if you want and know the problem is going to happen and you plan for it, you get penalized for your knowledge.

There is more then one way to skin a cat.

Pure bovine scatology.

[hwacker]

hormel26c hormel26c:

hwacker hwacker:

hormel26c hormel26c:

hwacker hwacker:

Lowest % on rrsp in the last 5 years is 12% in my portfolio.

Bullshit.

Would you like my funds i invest in. ?

Only problem is the funds are not concan, so you need to offset your portfolio with some Canadian gic and such. Just don’t make the mistake of contributing over your allowable amount like I did one year. Assholes nailed me with a huge fine for putting too much money in my account. So if you want and know the problem is going to happen and you plan for it, you get penalized for your knowledge.

There is more then one way to skin a cat.

Pure bovine scatology.

Yeah whatever ?

I offered , you loose.

[hormel26c]

hwacker hwacker:

hormel26c hormel26c:

hwacker hwacker:

hormel26c hormel26c:

hwacker hwacker:

Lowest % on rrsp in the last 5 years is 12% in my portfolio.

Bullshit.

Would you like my funds i invest in. ?

Only problem is the funds are not concan, so you need to offset your portfolio with some Canadian gic and such. Just don’t make the mistake of contributing over your allowable amount like I did one year. Assholes nailed me with a huge fine for putting too much money in my account. So if you want and know the problem is going to happen and you plan for it, you get penalized for your knowledge.

There is more then one way to skin a cat.

Pure bovine scatology.

Yeah whatever ?

I offered , you loose.

I don't think so, sport. You exposed yourself rather badly with that whopper. Now I can't trust anything you say.

[hwacker]

hormel26c hormel26c:

hwacker hwacker:

hormel26c hormel26c:

hwacker hwacker:

hormel26c hormel26c:

hwacker hwacker:

Lowest % on rrsp in the last 5 years is 12% in my portfolio.

Bullshit.

Would you like my funds i invest in. ?

Only problem is the funds are not concan, so you need to offset your portfolio with some Canadian gic and such. Just don’t make the mistake of contributing over your allowable amount like I did one year. Assholes nailed me with a huge fine for putting too much money in my account. So if you want and know the problem is going to happen and you plan for it, you get penalized for your knowledge.

There is more then one way to skin a cat.

Pure bovine scatology.

Yeah whatever ?

I offered , you loose.

I don't think so, sport. You exposed yourself rather badly with that whopper. Now I can't trust anything you say.

yeah ok DS

http://www.bmo.com/cgi-bin/t3bmo.cgi/mu ... fund_ID=21

invest in that and see if you make any $$$.

Not smart enough to have your money make money. sad.

that maybe a little steep @ $37.4263 a share, but you need money to make money right?

[hormel26c]

You need to re-read the investment information.