Obama '08?

No.

It would have been more interesting if it were a sexual reference.

Cycloptichorn

If it was a sexual reference it would suggest a trend which I am sure would be extremely detrimental to the feminine interest were it to reach the limit of its possibilities. Art would cease at that point.

Aaah, REMOVE the sun-shade first! I KNEW it!

I'll, uh, be back later

Cycloptichorn

WHAT IF OUR SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES PLUS OUR EMPLOYER'S MATCHING SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES HAD BEEN INVESTED IN 3% US SAVINGS BONDS, INSTEAD OF BEING PUT IN THE FED'S GENERAL FUND?

Assume:

(1) Social Security taxes at 15% of your income.

(2) Your annual income is $50,000 from age 21 to 65 = 44 years.

Then the total value of your accumulated US Bonds at age 65 would be = $ 667,863.07.

Assume:

(1) The dividends from thos bonds are paid after 65.

(2) Those dividends are calculared to be paid to you or your heirs from age 66 to 100 years.

Then the dividend paid per year to you or your heirs would be = $ 31,081.87

Sure beats social security!

ican, Who made $50k thirty years ago? Your starting from a falsehood, then extend that into more imaginary returns on investment.

FACT: Over 43% of Americans have less than $10,000 in savings.

Try to figure out why?

Ah, yes, Tak. I graduated college in 1968. Despite being headed to VN within months, I got 3 offers from CPA firms. $7,500 was the won I chose. Not the highest but the company I felt most comfortable with. I thought I was wealthy.

False assumption #1... SS is NOT 15% of your income even today.
FICA is 15.3 but Medicare makes up 2.9 of that. SS is only 12.4% of current income. (Currently less with the 1 year reduction.)
So you use a figure that is too high today.
But you can't even use 12.4% for your 44 years of work.

The 12.4% includes disability insurance as well as SS.
The actual rate for SS is 10.6% with Disability Ins at 1.8%
And that is only the rate since 2000. Before that it varied and 44 years ago in 1966 was at 7%.


False assumption #2. The $50,000 income wouldn't be paying SS on the entire amount for much of those 44 years.
In fact it isn't until 1992 that someone making $55,000 would pay SS on every dollar they earned.
In 1966 you would have only paid SS on the first $6,600 you earned so you would have paid a whopping $462 dollars into SS.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/COLA/cbb.html#Series


If you retired in 2007 and earned the max under SS every year from 21 to 65 and got 3% interest on that amount, you would only have $299,666.17 total in savings when you retired.



And it looks like I calculated you working from the age of 20 - 65.
I don't know of too many 20 year olds that would have been making $4800 in 1966. The minimum wage was $1.25.

rjb, I never wanted to work for a CPA firm, because I didn't want to compete with 100 other new grads. Also knew that those who took jobs with CPA firms rarely had time for themselves or family. Many who were married ended up divorced. I took the job with Florsheim Shoe Company in the early sixties as a field auditor, and was promoted to Audit Manager after 3.5 years working the seven western states. Worked in management ever since with other firms/organizations.

Not bad for a guy who almost flunked high school.

parados, I used to know all that stuff when I worked, because I worked in management and was usually responsible for budgets. I do remember how they changed from time to time, but as you say, it was never fixed over those years ican seems to believe by his calculations.

CPA work was cool for a few years for me, Tak. I not only got to see the financial stuff, but I also was able to get into the heads of the managers.
There was a pickle producing company, family owned, that realized they had to grow or wither. They chose the former. It turned out well for them.
I did the audit of a Savings and Loan in Alabama, before that industry crumbled.
I worked 4 10-hour days so I could head home to Atlanta early on Friday. The president of the S&L, who looked a bit like James Stewart, pulled out a bottle of bourbon on Thursday night. We talked, or rather he talked and I listened, for several hours. He, a southerner, had some very progressive ideas.
He ended up driving me to my room at the Holiday Inn. I was too trashed to get in my car.
I got out of CPA stuff because it was no fun looking at what other people had done with their money last year.

I doubt that little splash has much formal education.

Gosh, ican, perhaps, you should have invested in a grammar book.

I just wonder if those children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are as imaginary as your Obama-is-a-socialist scenario.

You should worry more that people like the Koch Brothers have made certain that wages flattened for 80% of the working force a generation ago. Your imaginary grandchildren will think Bangladesh is a paradise compared to the way the United States will look in a few years.

DO you even know what you're prattling about?

Are you referring to Clarence History from Dubuque? Or Marlene History from Cedar Rapids?

I graduated the year after you. Your salary quote seems consistent with the sorts of salaries that were paid in Michigan at the time when it was still possible to rent an apartment for $100/month.

You have been brain dead for years.

Proof of that is all the criminals in jail, george. And prostitutes and child abusers, what respect do they get? When is cyclops going to start defending those unfortunates that suffer terrible bigotry?

Both prostitutes and child-abusers, after they do their time for their crimes, have a clean slate in our society and enjoy the same rights as everyone else. They can vote and marry other people and engage in business. In what way do they suffer 'terrible bigotry?'

Your attempt to Appeal to Extremes fails, badly. I remind you again: you don't know how to make an analogy OR a metaphor, at all, and you should refrain from even attempting. It never ends well.

Cycloptichorn