Retire early to hunt more?

[SAJ-99]

SS is costing the average employee 12.4% of their annual pre-tax income. At that savings rate in a properly balanced age-indexed fund would provide an amazing retirement nest egg for folks if they actually did the math (over a million dollars using conservative estimates for somebody making $40k a year). A balanced low-cost market fund with an eye to the future is exactly where the average person should be putting their money. Money markets, bank savings and CDs are nearly worthless in current markets. Real estate is super risky. Saving cash under the mattress loses money every year to inflation. If by markets you mean buying XYZ Co cuz your brother-in-law says it's hot, or jumping in and out of the market every month as it goes up and down I agree it is a disaster. But if the average person picks an age balanced index low-load fund and blindly saves every pay period and doesn't look at it for 30 years - it will be a winner undoubtedly.

The real driver of privatization was investing SS money in something other than US Treasuries, which is all they invest in now. I am actually for that on a conceptual basis. More risk should lead to higher return and better funding ratio. I might have and issue with paying a third party to manage it, but whatever. The problem is when the stock market drops 30% and your funding ratio gets hammered. I guess they could just print money to fund the shortfall, but inflation was always a concern under that scenario. Now, government interest rates are sub 2% on most of that debt, inflation is gaining momentum, and people are living longer. It's the trifecta of terrible news for SS. So back to broadening investment possibilities, I like the idea of investing some in broad stock indexes, but don't like the idea of letting people dictate those investments. You could make 401(k)s mandatory and transition some of that 12% tax into that fund. But then people will scream Freedom! because they can't control it and think of it as "My Money". Means test SS and it will look better.

The average savings is worse than it looks when you remember that people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates' net worth are in those numbers. Taken together they need over 1,000,000 people with zero dollars to get to "average".

America's problem is we keep addressing things from the top down. The solution has to be bottom's up. In this case, broadening education requirements for the entire population so they don't end up being waitresses and bartenders. Allow them a higher income so savings is possible.

 

[BigHornRam]

My guess is Washington will continue to kick the can as long as they can until a crisis big enough to bury the SSI program comes along and the program disappears over night. Hope I'm dead when that happens.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The average savings is worse than it looks when you remember that people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates' net worth are in those numbers. Taken together they need over 1,000,000 people with zero dollars to get to "average".

Yup - always gotta use medians when talking about American demographic/economic statistics. And often even the "median" reports are of those people with active accounts (roth, 401k, ira, etc) when they actually do median for full adult population it gets even more tragic.

I want to find ways for all (most) adults to play a role in their own financial well-being rather than just assuming all Americans are too stupid and run everything as a DC program. Not easy, but neither will be getting out of the Greece-style hole we are busy digging.

Reminds me of my old poli-sci professor's quote - "All republicans/conservatives think people are too lazy to help themselves and all democrats/progressives think people are too dumb to help themselves, and as long as we continue to act on this conceit we have no hope of actually moving society forward."

 

[Deleted member 28227]

America's problem is we keep addressing things from the top down. The solution has to be bottom's up. In this case, broadening education requirements for the entire population so they don't end up being waitresses and bartenders. Allow them a higher income so savings is possible.

I'd vote for that platform.

 

[SAJ-99]

I'd vote for that platform.

Yeah, the reality is you don't see results for 15-20yrs which is beyond the professional lifespan of most politicians. And Americans don't have the patience. The Chinese on the other hand...

 

[BigHornRam]

Yeah, the reality is you don't see results for 15-20yrs which is beyond the professional lifespan of most politicians. And Americans don't have the patience. The Chinese on the other hand...

China is top down.....

 

[SAJ-99]

China is top down.....

In political hierarchy, yes, but not in how they address and fix economic problems. They have the benefit of not having to worry about the next election cycle and pleasing the masses today. The result is cans don't get kicked like they do here. Not that I'm moving there anytime soon for the other reasons we are all familiar with, but you have to admire how take the long view on fixing economic impediments.

 

[BigHornRam]

In political hierarchy, yes, but not in how they address and fix economic problems. They have the benefit of not having to worry about the next election cycle and pleasing the masses today. The result is cans don't get kicked like they do here. Not that I'm moving there anytime soon for the other reasons we are all familiar with, but you have to admire how take the long view on fixing economic impediments.

Sorry. There is nothing about the CCP that I admire.

 

[BigHornRam]

Getting back to the topic, I don't think many Chinese Uyghurs are getting the option to retire early so they can hunt more.

Who are the Uyghurs and why is China being accused of genocide?

China has been accused by the US of genocide and crimes against humanity against the Muslim minority group.

www.bbc.com

 

[SAJ-99]

Getting back to the topic, I don't think many Chinese Uyghurs are getting the option to retire early so they can hunt more.

Who are the Uyghurs and why is China being accused of genocide?

China has been accused by the US of genocide and crimes against humanity against the Muslim minority group.

www.bbc.com

Stay focused BHR. The topic is not genocide. Try this article to make your point.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/27/world/asia/china-retirement-aging.html

I'm not saying single party, totalitarian rule is preferably (clearly it isn't) but it sure seems to operate faster. The US has known SS and Medicare programs are headed for trouble since the 70's and we have been debating talking about talking about it for 30yrs. Curse of the majority I guess. No way anyone gets elected in US talking about SS or medicare cuts.

 

[BigHornRam]

Third rail. Only a fool would touch it. Only a fool would rely on SS and Medicare for retirement as well. That's the beauty of a free country. Free to succeed and free to fail.

 

[Irrelevant]

In this case, broadening education requirements for the entire population so they don't end up being waitresses and bartenders. Allow them a higher income so savings is possible.

If everyone has more education how does that affect whether or not my wife and I occasionally like to eat out?

It sounds to me like your advocating higher min wage, which only drives inflation up. I think we would all benefit if we realized not everyone will be a lawyer, doctor, engineer, or electrician. We must have janitors and waitresses, bartenders and ditch diggers. I would support a tax on high income earners to support SS for those people who don't make enough to fully fund a 401k. It's simply a tax to live in a functional society.

 

[Irrelevant]

Free to succeed and free to fail.

Nobody supports this if it's someone they love that is failing, but sure it's a great concept.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

If everyone has more education how does that affect whether or not my wife and I occasionally like to eat out?

It sounds to me like your advocating higher min wage, which only drives inflation up. I think we would all benefit if we realized not everyone will be a lawyer, doctor, engineer, or electrician. We must have janitors and waitresses, bartenders and ditch diggers. I would support a tax on high income earners to support SS for those people who don't make enough to fully fund a 401k. It's simply a tax to live in a functional society.

I support a tax code that actually taxes the earnings of the ultra wealthy. The whole pay yourself 80k, then just borrow 50MM using your stock options as collateral, and with no intention of ever paying a cent back, and thereby not paying taxes shit is ridiculous.

I worked as a waiter for several years and have nothing but respect for those that do it as a career, those people deserve to be able to make enough to working 50 hours a week to pay for rent, groceries, and save for retirement.

 

[SAJ-99]

If everyone has more education how does that affect whether or not my wife and I occasionally like to eat out?

It sounds to me like your advocating higher min wage, which only drives inflation up. I think we would all benefit if we realized not everyone will be a lawyer, doctor, engineer, or electrician. We must have janitors and waitresses, bartenders and ditch diggers. I would support a tax on high income earners to support SS for those people who don't make enough to fully fund a 401k. It's simply a tax to live in a functional society.

Some would say it sounds like you support redistribution.
im all for higher Min wage. It might cause higher inflation. So what? We need it. The core of the problem is the top 20% of society want to maintain their lifestyle and those that make it possible, but they don’t want to pay for it. Those are low-skill jobs. We want to have a highly educated workforce and make complicated stuff. And I don’t mean more bartenders making mojitos. Not that I don’t like a mojito every so often.

 

[LWC55]

I support a tax code that actually taxes the earnings of the ultra wealthy. The whole pay yourself 80k, then just borrow 50MM using your stock options as collateral, and with no intention of every paying a cent back, and thereby not paying taxes shit is ridiculous.

I worked as a waiter for several years and have nothing but respect for those that do it as a career, those people deserve to be able to make enough to working 50 hours a week to pay for rent, groceries, and save for retirement.

Sounds noble and all. My contention is that the ultra wealthy/corporations don't "really" pay taxes on revenue/income. That most taxes get passed on to the end user/consumer. For example if the government imposes a 5% pollution tax or increased income tax on auto manufacturers, they don't eat that 5%. They pass that on to the consumer who in turn pays 5% more for his vehicle. I understand this isn't the case 100% of the time. But for the most part, taxing the rich hurts the little guy (end consumer of the product) in the end.

 

[VikingsGuy]

broadening education requirements for the entire population so they don't end up being waitresses and bartenders. Allow them a higher income so savings is possible.

Regardless of whether 12, 16 or 20 years of formal education is the right number, we still need waitresses and bartenders (and plumbers and cooks and construction workers and artists and edgy entrepreneurs and stay at home parents and and and and). Our education problem is not that we have too little education. It is that it is too untargeted, too inconsistent across different districts, too ineffective, costs far exceeding inflation, has become politicized, is now more about the adults not the kids, too often colleges are competing as vacation resorts and sports franchises rather than as effective education institutions, training doesn't align with job needs, etc., etc.

Education is fundamentally broken and identifying specific problems could go on for pages - but in short - our personal financial/retirement problem (which could have its own pages of broken approaches) is NOT that we have too many electricians/plumbers/waitresses.

 

[VikingsGuy]

In political hierarchy, yes, but not in how they address and fix economic problems. They have the benefit of not having to worry about the next election cycle and pleasing the masses today. The result is cans don't get kicked like they do here. Not that I'm moving there anytime soon for the other reasons we are all familiar with, but you have to admire how take the long view on fixing economic impediments.

I manage teams in China - an economic miracle over the last 30 years no doubt - but the picture is not nearly as rosy as you suggest - lots of spackle and duct tape hiding looming demographic, bubles, income equity, retirement and environmental gaps. There are very big "cans" being kicked down the road there - but without a free press they just aren't as visible.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Sounds noble and all. My contention is that the ultra wealthy/corporations don't "really" pay taxes on revenue/income. That most taxes get passed on to the end user/consumer. For example if the government imposes a 5% pollution tax or increased income tax on auto manufacturers, they don't eat that 5%. They pass that on to the consumer who in turn pays 5% more for his vehicle. I understand this isn't the case 100% of the time. But for the most part, taxing the rich hurts the little guy (end consumer of the product) in the end.

That's taxing corporations, not individuals.

It's also a little ridiculous because it's not how the US worked for much of our history, ultra low taxes and a spiraling genie index is a product of the last couple of decades.

I am in no way advocating for some sort of communist whatever. I'm saying, let's look at the last 200 years or so of American history. Think about the decades in which we were the most globally competitive.

Tax bracket needs to change, tax code needs to change to account for changes in how people shelter their wealth, treaties need to be made with other countries to reduce tax havens.

Someone who is making 50MM a year should be taxed (all in) at the very least at the same rate someone who is making 50k.

If you're making 50MM a year it's because you have hundreds of employees working for you, all who drive to work on public roads, were educated in public schools, who will retire with social security benefits, and will likely utilize publicly funded medical care at some point in their life.

Your not being taxed as part of some Marxist plot, your paying for the portion of the shit you used to build your business and make your money, and by doing so you are making sure your business has the infrastructure to continue.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

is now more about the adults not the kids, too often colleges are competing as vacation resorts and sports franchises rather than as effective education institutions, training doesn't align with job needs, etc., etc.

Exactly.