My smartest investment so far was my DSLR. I get so much joy out of photography and it has really helped my confidence grow. Im usually very shy, but I come out of my shell with my camera.
So a crippling economic recession isnt a natural disaster? Back in college we used to call that place the armpit of America. It's almost a shame that this place isn't in the way of a hurricane, earthquake, and flood because they really need to just start over...
When eBay began I was a huge user. They lost me when they began butting in to my transactions with the sellers -- which were 100% problem free. And when they cut off all payment options save the one they own, that was it. I would agree that most of these changes are positive, but they needed to make them since eBay sellers are abandoning the site in droves. But as a buyer, I'm not going back until they change the demand that I use PayPal.
An easy way to cut down on calories when dining out is to have an early dinner and eat off the lunch menu. Some restaurants, Olive Garden is one, will even let you order from the lunch menu during dinner hours.
Hang on there. Moving towards a 401k-type plan would introduce even more uncertainty into a basic social safety net for workers. 401k plans rely on investments made in the stock market and Wall Street's recent fluctuations don't make for a whole lot of confidence. Social security instead leverages the millions of workers and incomes in the US to provide for decades of stability.
A better way to think of Social Security is insurance. I don't pay an insurance company so that I can profit, I pay them to hedge against something happening that would hurt my ability to earn and support myself. With Social Security, I know that when I'm not able to work, I have some minimum financial support.
SS was initially established as a safety net and over the years it has morphed into a retirement plan. It should not be compared to other investment/retirement plans because it does not generate a return.
Our current dollars are used to fund current retirees - again there is no lock box and for those who say "just give me back my money and let me do as I please with it" I say you do not understand SS.
Sure. But that's the sort of shift that makes it impossible to just set a tax rate and set some payout rules and then brush off your hands and say, "Done!" Instead, we have to accept that both payout and tax rules will evolve over time. It doesn't mean that the system is broken, it just means that nobody knows the future.
Buddha and Gandhi have established a method of austerity and the self control of mind, body, and soul to reduce the need for money. This is a solution at the individual level.
But the money-less economy is not an austerity program. It gives you whatever you want and all for free. In return you give your services for free.
So, you work free and get everything free. No money in the society. The economy runs juts the way it is doing now.
A Ponzi scheme relies on new receipts to pay promised returns to its previous investors.
Seniors today receive promised returns from the government after paying into the system for, presumably, 40+ years. There are claims of a trust fund, even found on the SSA's website, but that was raided long ago. Currently, payments are funded entirely through payroll tax receipts. How is this not a Ponzi scheme again?
Rather than responding individually, let me just say two things.
First, there's a principled argument to make along the lines of, "Social Security is a transfer payment; transfer payments are bad; therefor Social Security should be abolished." But that's a losing argument politically. (Evidence: people have been making it for as long as there's been Social Security and it hasn't been abolished.) That leads some people to call Social Security a Ponzi scheme—it's an argument that gets some traction politically. But it's not a principled argument. Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme.
Second, if you view Social Security as a transfer payment, then the arguments about whether it's viable or not become a lot more tractable. Social Security taxes bring in a certain amount of money and Social Security retirement benefits pay out a certain amount of money. Over time, those amounts have always been roughly equal (except for the period from 1983 until the baby boomers die off—as described, we had to make a special provision for them). Over time, those amounts will have to be kept roughly equal, which will not be hard, because both the tax rates and the benefit levels are set by law. Congress will just change the law as necessary to keep payments and receipts in balance.
In fact, it's instructive to look at why the levels aren't in balance right now. After all, the 1983 changes to the law were supposed to put Social Security on a sound footing for 75 years, but current projections show that we'll have to adjust things no later than 2036: we only got 53 years out of the last batch of changes, not the 75 we'd been promised. The reason has to do with the way wages have stagnated. If working-class and middle-class earned as much of the national income now as they did in 1983, Social Security would be in fine shape. But since so much more of the national income goes to rich folks (where it isn't taxed above about $100,000), we have the imbalance we've observed.
That imbalance will be easy to fix. It could be fixed a lot of different ways. Benefits could be cut slightly, such as by raising the retirement age a little or changing the way cost-of-living adjustments are made. Taxes could be increased slightly, such as by raising (or abolishing) the ceiling on the income subject to tax. I have no doubt that, sometime in the next decade or two, Congress will tweak the parameters a little bit and bring things back into balance.
Phil, you look like an older guy, so maybe that's why you're not understanding the injustice many of your younger readers feel. Whatever you call Social Security, it's forcibly taking money from younger generations to pay older generations, and the way things are, will not return all of that money to them (only 76%). Whatever the reasons (slowing economic growth, smaller retiree/worker ratio), it's simply unfair and infuriating. I'd rather have control of the money so I can set it aside and invest in it myself. Even with the rates TIPS have now, at least I wouldn't be losing money!
The smartest investment I have made was in a move from Georgia to Texas. Opportunities were extremely limited in my hometown and by making a move to a much larger city in Texas in which I had more access to GOOD jobs (one of which I was able to be hired), more entertainment choices, more networking opportunities which all increased a greater happiness with life.
i've been paying into social security since i was 17. it has been a significant amount from every pay check i've ever received. while the inter-generational transfer sounds a little iffy, social security is definitely no ponzi scheme. social security continues to be a great idea, though if you want to end it just give me back what i've put in over the past 40 years and i won't complain.
Why is it that when you see articles like this one that it only speaks of people who have a high income and a 401k savings, etc., and do not take into consideration the people working for much, much lower wages and don't have the ability to have this or any other type of savings. Could it be because those who make less than 25,000 to 80,000 are unimportant or could it be that the country doesn't really care about these people. They would like to retire just like everyone else, but they are the ones you see, old, grey and crippled still having to work the rest of their lives. Where is their help or suggestions on what to do?
These are all great ideas. While I do end up buying some Groupons that end up sitting for a while, a lot of times, I'll try to redeem them right away. Particularly lately, there have been Groupon (or Facebook or Living Social) deals for football tickets, and I try to use those as quickly as possible.
My smartest investment so far was my DSLR. I get so much joy out of photography and it has really helped my confidence grow. Im usually very shy, but I come out of my shell with my camera.
So a crippling economic recession isnt a natural disaster? Back in college we used to call that place the armpit of America. It's almost a shame that this place isn't in the way of a hurricane, earthquake, and flood because they really need to just start over...
When eBay began I was a huge user. They lost me when they began butting in to my transactions with the sellers -- which were 100% problem free. And when they cut off all payment options save the one they own, that was it. I would agree that most of these changes are positive, but they needed to make them since eBay sellers are abandoning the site in droves. But as a buyer, I'm not going back until they change the demand that I use PayPal.
An easy way to cut down on calories when dining out is to have an early dinner and eat off the lunch menu. Some restaurants, Olive Garden is one, will even let you order from the lunch menu during dinner hours.
Hang on there. Moving towards a 401k-type plan would introduce even more uncertainty into a basic social safety net for workers. 401k plans rely on investments made in the stock market and Wall Street's recent fluctuations don't make for a whole lot of confidence. Social security instead leverages the millions of workers and incomes in the US to provide for decades of stability.
A better way to think of Social Security is insurance. I don't pay an insurance company so that I can profit, I pay them to hedge against something happening that would hurt my ability to earn and support myself. With Social Security, I know that when I'm not able to work, I have some minimum financial support.
This year I have been packing my lunch. It's cheaper and I can make healthier choices than the bad cafeteria food they offer on campus!
I eat at work about 3 days a week and pack the other too. This can vary depending on the availability of supper leftovers.
SS was initially established as a safety net and over the years it has morphed into a retirement plan. It should not be compared to other investment/retirement plans because it does not generate a return.
Our current dollars are used to fund current retirees - again there is no lock box and for those who say "just give me back my money and let me do as I please with it" I say you do not understand SS.
Responded on Twitter. http://twitter.com/#!/1bets1/status/114454268232204288
I liked you and your post on Facebook.
I pack my lunch and always did. It saves a ton of money, but also controls your diet. When I go out to eat, I tend to order more fattening fare!
Agreed. Nobody knows the future. Isn't that all the more reason to move away from this system and into a 401k-type system though?
Sure. But that's the sort of shift that makes it impossible to just set a tax rate and set some payout rules and then brush off your hands and say, "Done!" Instead, we have to accept that both payout and tax rules will evolve over time. It doesn't mean that the system is broken, it just means that nobody knows the future.
"If working-class and middle-class earned as much of the national income now as they did in 1983"
That's a pretty big conditional, no?
Buddha and Gandhi have established a method of austerity and the self control of mind, body, and soul to reduce the need for money. This is a solution at the individual level.
But the money-less economy is not an austerity program. It gives you whatever you want and all for free. In return you give your services for free.
So, you work free and get everything free. No money in the society. The economy runs juts the way it is doing now.
A Ponzi scheme relies on new receipts to pay promised returns to its previous investors.
Seniors today receive promised returns from the government after paying into the system for, presumably, 40+ years. There are claims of a trust fund, even found on the SSA's website, but that was raided long ago. Currently, payments are funded entirely through payroll tax receipts. How is this not a Ponzi scheme again?
Thanks, everyone, for all the great comments!
Rather than responding individually, let me just say two things.
First, there's a principled argument to make along the lines of, "Social Security is a transfer payment; transfer payments are bad; therefor Social Security should be abolished." But that's a losing argument politically. (Evidence: people have been making it for as long as there's been Social Security and it hasn't been abolished.) That leads some people to call Social Security a Ponzi scheme—it's an argument that gets some traction politically. But it's not a principled argument. Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme.
Second, if you view Social Security as a transfer payment, then the arguments about whether it's viable or not become a lot more tractable. Social Security taxes bring in a certain amount of money and Social Security retirement benefits pay out a certain amount of money. Over time, those amounts have always been roughly equal (except for the period from 1983 until the baby boomers die off—as described, we had to make a special provision for them). Over time, those amounts will have to be kept roughly equal, which will not be hard, because both the tax rates and the benefit levels are set by law. Congress will just change the law as necessary to keep payments and receipts in balance.
In fact, it's instructive to look at why the levels aren't in balance right now. After all, the 1983 changes to the law were supposed to put Social Security on a sound footing for 75 years, but current projections show that we'll have to adjust things no later than 2036: we only got 53 years out of the last batch of changes, not the 75 we'd been promised. The reason has to do with the way wages have stagnated. If working-class and middle-class earned as much of the national income now as they did in 1983, Social Security would be in fine shape. But since so much more of the national income goes to rich folks (where it isn't taxed above about $100,000), we have the imbalance we've observed.
That imbalance will be easy to fix. It could be fixed a lot of different ways. Benefits could be cut slightly, such as by raising the retirement age a little or changing the way cost-of-living adjustments are made. Taxes could be increased slightly, such as by raising (or abolishing) the ceiling on the income subject to tax. I have no doubt that, sometime in the next decade or two, Congress will tweak the parameters a little bit and bring things back into balance.
Phil, you look like an older guy, so maybe that's why you're not understanding the injustice many of your younger readers feel. Whatever you call Social Security, it's forcibly taking money from younger generations to pay older generations, and the way things are, will not return all of that money to them (only 76%). Whatever the reasons (slowing economic growth, smaller retiree/worker ratio), it's simply unfair and infuriating. I'd rather have control of the money so I can set it aside and invest in it myself. Even with the rates TIPS have now, at least I wouldn't be losing money!
The smartest investment I have made was in a move from Georgia to Texas. Opportunities were extremely limited in my hometown and by making a move to a much larger city in Texas in which I had more access to GOOD jobs (one of which I was able to be hired), more entertainment choices, more networking opportunities which all increased a greater happiness with life.
"social security continues to be a great idea"
By what definition?
"if you want to end it just give me back what i've put in over the past 40 years and i won't complain."
That's the problem--your money isn't there. It's been given to current retirees and any surplus was already spent by the USG.
i've been paying into social security since i was 17. it has been a significant amount from every pay check i've ever received. while the inter-generational transfer sounds a little iffy, social security is definitely no ponzi scheme. social security continues to be a great idea, though if you want to end it just give me back what i've put in over the past 40 years and i won't complain.
Why is it that when you see articles like this one that it only speaks of people who have a high income and a 401k savings, etc., and do not take into consideration the people working for much, much lower wages and don't have the ability to have this or any other type of savings. Could it be because those who make less than 25,000 to 80,000 are unimportant or could it be that the country doesn't really care about these people. They would like to retire just like everyone else, but they are the ones you see, old, grey and crippled still having to work the rest of their lives. Where is their help or suggestions on what to do?
So glad I can now combine two of my favorite things: reality TV and learning how to save money! Thanks for the post!
http://blog.impulsesave.com/
These are all great ideas. While I do end up buying some Groupons that end up sitting for a while, a lot of times, I'll try to redeem them right away. Particularly lately, there have been Groupon (or Facebook or Living Social) deals for football tickets, and I try to use those as quickly as possible.
Much of what you have to say is probably correct.
However, I do not think the first sentence is - that its a Ponzi Scheme.
It does need to be changed.
However, do you know what really needs to be changed - Medicare and Medicaid.