How should retirements be funded?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:04:34 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Economics (Moderator: Torie)
  How should retirements be funded?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Author Topic: How should retirements be funded?  (Read 4806 times)
Torie
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: February 26, 2013, 01:10:40 PM »

Opebo my man, inbetween your trysts (yes they come first and should!), you might check out the median income figures for both countries. That way, the numbers will not be skewed by the "massive" of wealth of the Tories of this world. Smiley

Get your figures right, and then go off on your riffs, is my best advice. I'm just trying to help you out here buddy. You know that I care about you, right? 
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: February 26, 2013, 01:13:35 PM »

Opebo my man, inbetween your trysts (yes they come first and should!), you might check out the median income figures for both countries. That way, the numbers will not be skewed by the "massive" of wealth of the Tories of this world. Smiley

I never claimed it was a median nor a per capita income, Torie, so don't try to put up a straw man.  I observed that it is the income of the toiling masses at the bottom of society - who cannot save.
Logged
Torie
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: February 26, 2013, 01:18:14 PM »

Opebo my man, inbetween your trysts (yes they come first and should!), you might check out the median income figures for both countries. That way, the numbers will not be skewed by the "massive" of wealth of the Tories of this world. Smiley

I never claimed it was a median nor a per capita income, Torie, so don't try to put up a straw man.  I observed that it is the income of the toiling masses at the bottom of society - who cannot save.

OK, but your definition, as you try to slither away here, puts the percentage of the "toiling masses" at about 10% of the US population maybe, and that is before they get their income tax credit, and food stamps, and the like. Most people don't use the term "masses" when referring to 10% of the whole.

You are doing a lot better on the monogamy thread. Tongue
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: February 26, 2013, 01:32:07 PM »
« Edited: February 26, 2013, 03:46:16 PM by opebo »

Opebo.. you might check out the median income figures for both countries. That way, the numbers will not be skewed by the "massive" of wealth of the Tories of this world. Smiley

I never claimed it was a median nor a per capita income, Torie, so don't try to put up a straw man.  I observed that it is the income of the toiling masses at the bottom of society - who cannot save.

OK, but your definition, as you try to slither away here, puts the percentage of the "toiling masses" at about 10% of the US population maybe, and that is before they get their income tax credit, and food stamps, and the like. Most people don't use the term "masses" when referring to 10% of the whole.

My dear sir, we must always and ever consider the test case of any program or policy to be the most vulnerable!  It does no good to say 'well it isn't the majority who are starving to death'.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: February 26, 2013, 05:44:45 PM »

Let's see how the math would actually work out...

Suppose we have a married couple and they have two dependent children under the age of 18. Let's say their gross income is $53,000 per year, which is roughly the median income.

They pay 6.2% of that in Social Security taxes, or $3,286.
They pay 1.45% of that in Medicare taxes, or $768.50.

Leaving federal withholding out of the equation for now, that means $48,945.50 in take-home pay, or roughly $4,079 a month.

Now let's suppose they live in Texas.

Housing is relatively inexpensive here. Whether they're making a mortgage payment or a rent check, let's suppose 25% of their monthly income is spent on housing ($1,019.75).

Both parents work. They need to be able to drive themselves there and back. Gas and insurance, all adds up to let's say $600 a month. (I'll be optimistic and assume their cars are paid for).

Groceries for a couple with two kids, let's say their food bill clocks in around $700 a month.

Mom works part time so she's able to pick the kids up from school, so she doesn't get health insurance from her job. Dad has health coverage for himself and his kids through his job, but he has to pay for his wife to be on the plan too. $250 a month in premiums for her, and let's say they spent about $100 a month on copays and miscellaneous.

And then let's give them $500 a month for miscellanea - clothing, cell phone bills, fees for the kids' after school activities, whatnot

4,079 gross pay
(338) payroll/FICA taxes
(1,020) housing
(600) transportation
(700) food
(350) healthcare
(500) miscellaneous
===========
That leaves $571 a month. Before taxes. Assuming they've done everything right, are living quite frugally, all the stars have aligned, and nothing goes wrong (i.e. a trip to the ER, a broken refrigerator that needs to be replaced).

So, again, in the best of times, they will have $571 a month left over pretax. They could put that entire $571 into retirement savings. But they wouldn't be saving any money for emergencies. They wouldn't be able to save money for their children to go to college. No family vacation in the summer.

So I'm just not sure what people like Politico expect this family to do. I'm not sure where they expect them to magically get all this money to retire with.

IIRC, Politico wants to abolish SS. The 6% in payroll taxes would go a long way towards retirement savings.

If the hypothetical couple wants to retire well, they'll need about 25 times their annual spending, or 300 times their monthly spending. In today's dollars, Social Security will pay out about $2000/mo. If the couple spent everything they made, and continued to spend everything they made, they'd need another $1700/mo or so in income. However, if they decided to save, the amount they would need to save would drop because of their reduced spending.

If the couple's mortgage was say $700/mo (Based off an average 3 bedroom house in Dallas-Fort Worth bought today with 20% down, with a 15 year fixed mortgage), they could pay it off by 45, and invest the payments until 67. This would give them about $385 000 in savings or about $1280 in a monthly income stream.

Yes, federal taxes would come into play, but my point is that with some small sacrfices, that couple's retirement is definitely achievable.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: February 26, 2013, 08:29:49 PM »

Opebo.. you might check out the median income figures for both countries. That way, the numbers will not be skewed by the "massive" of wealth of the Tories of this world. Smiley

I never claimed it was a median nor a per capita income, Torie, so don't try to put up a straw man.  I observed that it is the income of the toiling masses at the bottom of society - who cannot save.

OK, but your definition, as you try to slither away here, puts the percentage of the "toiling masses" at about 10% of the US population maybe, and that is before they get their income tax credit, and food stamps, and the like. Most people don't use the term "masses" when referring to 10% of the whole.

My dear sir, we must always and ever consider the test case of any program or policy to be the most vulnerable!  It does no good to say 'well it isn't the majority who are starving to death'.

Well in a democracy (as opposed to, say, the Soviet Union), there is a general goal of enacting policies that benefit more people than they harm. I'm not in favor of skewing public policy to disproportionately benefit the 10% or so at the top of society. I'm also not in favor of skewing public policy to disproportionately benefit the 10% or so at the bottom of society. Your "toiling masses" make up the bottom 20% of society at best. Why do you think the other 80% of society matters less than they do?
Logged
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,322
Thailand


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: February 27, 2013, 02:02:43 AM »

http://blog.ourfuture.org/20130219/40-of-americans-now-under-former-minimum-wage

Rescuing this thread and opebo.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: February 27, 2013, 04:38:33 AM »

My dear sir, we must always and ever consider the test case of any program or policy to be the most vulnerable!  It does no good to say 'well it isn't the majority who are starving to death'.

Well in a democracy (as opposed to, say, the Soviet Union), there is a general goal of enacting policies that benefit more people than they harm. I'm not in favor of skewing public policy to disproportionately benefit the 10% or so at the top of society. I'm also not in favor of skewing public policy to disproportionately benefit the 10% or so at the bottom of society. Your "toiling masses" make up the bottom 20% of society at best. Why do you think the other 80% of society matters less than they do?

Yes, obviously, because my friend those at the bottom are the victims of those above them.  All policy must be an attempt to ameliorate the overriding policy (capitalism), which cannibalizes those at the bottom.  Unless you accept to see them dying in droves as is now the case - in that case there is no problem.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: February 27, 2013, 04:20:24 PM »

Yes, obviously, because my friend those at the bottom are the victims of those above them.  All policy must be an attempt to ameliorate the overriding policy (capitalism), which cannibalizes those at the bottom.  Unless you accept to see them dying in droves as is now the case - in that case there is no problem.

Sometimes I think you're really a Tea Partier posting as a strawman caricature of what they think everyone who has ever voted Democratic is like.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: February 27, 2013, 04:34:56 PM »

Yes, obviously, because my friend those at the bottom are the victims of those above them.  All policy must be an attempt to ameliorate the overriding policy (capitalism), which cannibalizes those at the bottom.  Unless you accept to see them dying in droves as is now the case - in that case there is no problem.

Sometimes I think you're really a Tea Partier posting as a strawman caricature of what they think everyone who has ever voted Democratic is like.

Come on, loads of poors die off - they're sent to prison, they get diseases and no medical care, they're worked to death during very short lifespans, kill in accidents or by drugs due to poverty lifestyle..  Really the condition of the lower orders is horrific in the USA.
Logged
Knives
solopop
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,460
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: February 28, 2013, 05:48:12 AM »

If you earn under X amount per week, then you qualify for pension. Should be that simple.
Logged
Torie
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: February 28, 2013, 01:10:39 PM »

Yes, obviously, because my friend those at the bottom are the victims of those above them.  All policy must be an attempt to ameliorate the overriding policy (capitalism), which cannibalizes those at the bottom.  Unless you accept to see them dying in droves as is now the case - in that case there is no problem.

Sometimes I think you're really a Tea Partier posting as a strawman caricature of what they think everyone who has ever voted Democratic is like.

Come on, loads of poors die off - they're sent to prison, they get diseases and no medical care, they're worked to death during very short lifespans, kill in accidents or by drugs due to poverty lifestyle..  Really the condition of the lower orders is horrific in the USA.

You know what I suspect the bulk of forumites think of this very common genre of posts by you opebo? White noise. That is why you don't get much of a reaction over them. They are just a part of the landscape - like billboards.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: March 01, 2013, 01:48:39 PM »

Come on, loads of poors die off - they're sent to prison, they get diseases and no medical care, they're worked to death during very short lifespans, kill in accidents or by drugs due to poverty lifestyle..  Really the condition of the lower orders is horrific in the USA.

You know what I suspect the bulk of forumites think of this very common genre of posts by you opebo? White noise. That is why you don't get much of a reaction over them. They are just a part of the landscape - like billboards.

Yeah.  I post two kinds of things - witticisms, and my political views.  They're not always in the same posts.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.037 seconds with 12 queries.