Page 90 of 91 FirstFirst ... 408088899091 LastLast
Results 1,069 to 1,080 of 1087

Thread: Boghies Account Talk

  1. #1069

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    33

    Default Re: Bulls Make Money, Bears Make Money, Pigs Get Slaughtered

    Quote Originally Posted by Boghie View Post
    Well, I believe we have a new President in 'Merica!!! Congratulations Mr. Biden.

    Likely, the very first thing he will have to do is reinstate the Social Security tax. He has been selling Social Security as the greatest thing since sliced bread for fifty years. He has been 'investing' the contributions with wisdom and skill for for that same fifty years. Any new investment ideas or other reforms were just attempts to starve the grandparents. Social Security is safe and in a lock box. It should be easy to sell a 30 year old on the value of Social Security. You will have to sell them on it - I think they will notice a take home pay cut of $200+ every month. Just guessing. Everybody believes that the politicians have 'invested' the Social Security tax well and that they will get a great benefit in 30 years.

    Should be an easy sell.

    Good Luck

    Hahaha.......

  2.  
  3. #1070

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boiled Peanut, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    64,109

    Default Re: Bulls Make Money, Bears Make Money, Pigs Get Slaughtered

    Someone in DC has been smoking too much Wacko Tobacco!smoking.gif
    1/13/2021
    LS CRUDE Oil
    =$52.91 a Barrel, Daily Status -$.30

  4.  
  5. #1071

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    3,139

    Default Social Security - And, the Numerically Illiterate...

    Re(1): 'Big Changes Likely for Social Security, Medicare Under a Biden Presidency', Kiplinger, Catherine Siskos
    Re(2): 'The Social Security 2100 Act', Representative John Larson

    Ok, this is not intended to be a political screed. You all know where I stand. However, I have been seeing articles pop up regarding President Elect Biden's plan to save Social Security. I have an inherent distrust of failed lawyers who became smiling politicians that offer financial solutions to problems they created by poorly investing assets for over 50 years. So, I obviously read the Kiplinger article with a jaundiced eye.

    To summarize,
    1. President Elect Biden's plan would initiate the Social Security tax on every dollar made over $400K. Obviously, that would raise income.
    2. However, he wants to dramatically increase the 'benefit' - that is, the cost - of Social Security as well.
    3. You know the gig. Been there, done that...

    Not exactly certain how that makes Social Security more solvent, but here is a doozy in the Kiplinger article:

    Proposed legislation from Rep. John Larson, a Democrat, would secure the program’s funding for 75 years. In addition to the increase on those earning more than $400,000 that Biden has proposed, Larson’s bill calls for raising the payroll tax for everyone, with employees and employers each contributing an additional 1.2%, or roughly 50 cents more per week. The increase would be phased in gradually between now and 2043.
    Remember, this is a Kiplinger article - supposedly a well informed source on finances.

    Maybe I'm the ignit. If so, mea-culpa. Drop the hammer on me. But, I also read the <sarcasm>well informed Representative's</sarcasm> actual summary and bill. The summary does follow the bill in at least this discussion, so here it is:

    50 cents per week to keep the system solvent – Gradually phase in an increase in the contribution rate beginning in 2020 so that by 2043, workers and employers would pay 7.4% instead of 6.2% today. For the average worker this would mean paying an additional 50 cents per week every year to keep the system solvent. [Sec. 203]
    I guess the slug who wrote the Kiplinger article actually realized during a proof read that Biden's plan did not balance. Here is the key element of Biden's plan that does not balance if we consider Social Security a benefit:
    • Rush Limbaugh currently earns north of $27 million/year.
    • His Social Security contribution is on about $132K/year.
    • His Social Security benefit is based on $132K/year

    • Under the Biden plan, Rush Limbaugh will pay the Social Security contribution on $26.5 million/year
    • His Social Security benefit will be based on paying $26.5 million/year
    • Thus, absolutely NO financial improvement to Social Security
    • His plan unbalances rapidly for the nouveau riche


    Or, are we talking about selling Social Security purely as a tax and not an old-age pension program? Just asking. At that point it would no longer be protected spending - so, be careful what you ask for... Also, making it a tax will require massive change to the legislature behind it. This will require much more than a simple payment plan change...

    Ok, obviously Ms. Siskos needed to find a way to financially balance President Elect Biden's promises with a revenue stream. Heck, this brilliant 'Social Security 2100 Act' fits the bill. All it takes is a small contribution increase from everybody and bingo, everything is in balance. Just increase the contribution by 0.50/week on everybody and everybody goes on spending and taking for the next 75 years!!! Does that stupidity raise any red flag? Sure does. I pay Social Security/Medicare. My contribution is 6.2%. If 6.2% is hundreds of dollars a month how is 1.2% two dollars a month? Just asking. But, maybe. Let us do the math. Maybe the secret is in the "average worker salary"? Maybe I'm a 1%er.

    $0.50/week is $26/year. So $26/year is 1.2% of Average Joe's salary.
    Now, back in the day when I was in calculus figuring out Average Joe's salary was easy. Here Goes
    1. (0.012) * X = $26/year
    2. X = $26/0.012
    3. X= 2,166
    4. Thus, Ms. Siskos and our brilliant politician think that the average salary in 'Merica is $2,600/year?


    I guess she has a reading comprehension issue. Maybe she thinks the plan increases the Social Security contribution by 1.2%. That is, from 6.2% to 6.2744%. Read the bill. It increases the withholding from 6.2% to 7.4%. Reading hard.

    Don't listen to politicians. At best they are ignorant louts. At worst, let us not go there.
    Don't listen to the media. The media doesn't have to be corrupt to be wrong - they can just be stoopid.
    Lookin' up at the 'G Fund'!!!


  6.  
  7. #1072

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    370

    Default Re: Boghies Account Talk

    “Read my lips...”


    Sent from my iPhone using TSP Talk Forums
    Scott Harrison
    Senatobia, MS

  8.  
  9. #1073

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Posts
    10,611

    Default Re: Boghies Account Talk

    Everyone that works or earns X amount of money (CEO's, etc.) should pay into social security. But as an example: after you retire and your retirement income is $300K a year why should you get Social Security?
    May the force be with us.

  10.  
  11. #1074

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    3,139

    Default Re: Boghies Account Talk

    Quote Originally Posted by nasa1974 View Post
    Everyone that works or earns X amount of money (CEO's, etc.) should pay into social security. But as an example: after you retire and your retirement income is $300K a year why should you get Social Security?
    For the following reasons:
    1. It was sold as an insurance policy - an old age pension.
    2. It is written into law as a benefit, not a tax.
    3. That is why it is mandatory spending.
    4. Do you want to change that?


    Why have the cutoff at $300K? Why not $50K - which is significantly higher than the median income of Americans?
    Lookin' up at the 'G Fund'!!!

  12.  
  13. #1075

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    2,790
    Blog Entries
    45

    Default Re: Boghies Account Talk

    Nobody in DC cares about this because it's not a problem this election cycle - or the next, but SS can't be allowed to go bankrupt for the reasons you said. It's the only savings some people will ever have.

    It's a mystery to me why this money isn't somehow invested in a massive sovereign wealth fund. It would be a lot of work, but don't politicians like building empires?

  14.  
  15. #1076

    Default Re: Boghies Account Talk

    They liked using it to offset the Deficit better.
    Allocations as of COB Dec 28 : 100% S. | Retirement Date:Dec 2022
    Past Returns:
    2019 27.97%, 2018 -3.36%, 2017 13.10%, 2016 -1.79%, 2015 8.71%,5Yr Avg 8.35%

  16.  
  17. #1077

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    3,139

    Exclamation Social Security - And, the Numerically Illiterate...

    Re(1): 'With Biden in Office, Prepare for a Smaller Paycheck in Early 2021', The Motley Fool, Maurie Backman

    Well folks, some are figuring out what is about to happen with our paychecks in 2021. I differ from the author by a few points:
    • I don't believe Trump will reinstate the Social Security contribution during his remaining time.
    • I do believe that President Biden will reinstate the contribution requirement.
    • I also believe that the claw back will occur in 2021
    • However, it will be over a longer timeframe.


    Why?
    • President Trump has no reason to accept the pain and anger that will happen when the personal contribution to Social Security is reestablished. The cut was by executive fiat. Executive fiat is executive fiat - otherwise known as bread and circuses. He will let President Biden deal with that bit of leadership.
    • President Biden will have to reinstate the contribution. He actually wants to expand Social Security. He needs the revenue stream.
    • Social Security was only about $10 Billion in surplus for FY2020. It needs everything it can get just to ensure hand-to-mouth financing RIGHT NOW.
    • I don't think there is any timeframe requirement for the claw back. Why does the author think we have to basically double the contribution over a short timeframe.


    And, now for the financial advice from a Motley Fool author:
    Adjust your budget accordingly
    From the beginning, Trump's payroll tax deferral was only temporary, and while he said he'd try to get those taxes forgiven, that was never a guarantee. Now that we know Trump hasn't been reelected, you can start taking a look at your expenses and figuring out how you'll cope with a lower paycheck in early 2021. You may need to plan to cut back on certain bills once your earnings go down, but the good news is that you have a heads-up about it, so it shouldn't come as a surprise. Furthermore, while your paychecks may go down as you pay back your deferred taxes, if you snag a high enough raise at your job, you may find that things even out, or that you even come out ahead paycheck-wise, so don't assume you're in for a difficult start to 2021.
    Oh dear god, I hope this advice is in jest. If you have been spending that 6.2% take home pay increase for necessities than things are going to be rough if the claw back is actually 12.4% of take home pay. That is a lot of coffee.

    Plus, anything that cuts TAKE HOME PAY by even 6.2% will have to be EXPLAINED and SOLD to the wage earner. This is NOT a $0.50/week increase in some payroll deduction hidden partially by a 2% increase in pay (see above topic and note that math is hard for Kiplinger journalists and US Representatives). This is a cut of $150+ a month in TAKE HOME PAY - double that if there is a short duration claw back.

    Finally, everybody knows/believes that Social Security is 'going broke' and that only the Baby Boomers will get their mullah. I think Trump was going to use his 'Financial Genius (note quotes)' reputation and his post election Political Capital to sell us on repaying into the system concurrently with the system being sensibly reformed. Social Security is going to have to be SOLD to everybody who is not a Baby Boomer (or, perhaps a late GenXer) - say anyone under the age of 50. This is going to be a very difficult sell when presented by a chap that has be spending the 'trust fund' for five decades. A very difficult sell.

    We live in interesting times.
    Lookin' up at the 'G Fund'!!!

  18.  
  19. #1078

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    2,790
    Blog Entries
    45

    Default Re: Social Security - And, the Numerically Illiterate...

    The age group of Millenial and younger blame all their financial woes on the baby boomers. "The reason I can't buy a house is I have to pay social security. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" Reality is when they turn 60, they are going to hope it's there for them too.

    Funny how some generations that pride themselves nowadays on claiming they care for everyone but can quickly become hostile when it comes to paying social security. I thought they were all about taking care of their fellow man?

    -

    The past two weeks have seen an unprecedented level of sales by insiders. They know taxes are going up in a big way so best to take those capital gains at the lower bracket while they can. Lifestyles of the rich and famous.

    -

    Get ready for this headline in a city near you as remote working becomes more widespread. Where one lives in retirement could be the difference between doing what you want to do or being miserable. As a New Yorker, I have some difficult decisions to contend with in the future.

    Richest New Yorkers Will Devastate City If They Leave With $133 Billion

    An elite group of 38,700 people paid 42.5% of the city’s income tax collections, and the top 5% of residents earned more than the bottom 95%.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-if-they-leave

  20.  
  21. #1079

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    3,139

    Red face TSP Allocation

    Tis the season and the market is recovering from the Black Plague. This is listed as my 'Normal' Allocation, but I actually consider it fairly conservative.

    • G: 10%
    • F: 30%
    • C: 27%
    • S: 23%
    • I: 10%

    Expected Annual Return: 8%
    Expected Risk: 8%

    I left a lot of gains on the table during the Obama years. I never had confidence in him 'managing' the market. I really don't have confidence in Biden either, however I should not allow politics to interfere with my TSP allocations. Moving from a very conservative allocation to a conservative/normalish allocation.
    Lookin' up at the 'G Fund'!!!

  22.  
  23. #1080

    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    17

    Default Re: TSP Allocation

    Quote Originally Posted by Boghie View Post
    Tis the season and the market is recovering from the Black Plague. This is listed as my 'Normal' Allocation, but I actually consider it fairly conservative.

    • G: 10%
    • F: 30%
    • C: 27%
    • S: 23%
    • I: 10%

    Expected Annual Return: 8%
    Expected Risk: 8%

    .
    Your allocation is almost identical to what I just set mine to after hearing the presidential transition news. I’ve been waiting in a more conservative one until we got past the election stuff and I think this was the news I needed. Good luck to us all!


  24.  
Page 90 of 91 FirstFirst ... 408088899091 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
SPY (C Fund) (delayed)
Boghies Account Talk
(Stockcharts.com Real-time)
DWCPF (S Fund) (delayed)
Boghies Account Talk
(Stockcharts.com Real-time)
EFA (I Fund) (delayed)
Boghies Account Talk
(Stockcharts.com Real-time)
BND (F Fund) (delayed)
Boghies Account Talk
(Stockcharts.com Real-time)

Yahoo Finance Realtime TSP Fund Tracking Index Quotes