EVs - New Hampshire gets it right

[BodeMiller1]

A couple of the key issues that have certainly affected SS over time, is when it was 1st implemented. the average lifespans were much shorter, and as such, the amount of time people were drawing from SS was less on average than it is today, Essentially more people were paying more into it than they ultimately were receiving, so the numbers worked.

Now 1 of the things that has happened is that people are living longer on average, and as such drawing from SS for a greater amount of time, which means that more people are receiving more $$ for SS than they paid into it.

Another issue, and it is an issue, is that it is now much "easier" to be granted SS payments for a medical disability than it was in the past, and as such, that it putting more people on SS, and even at a much younger age, than used to be, which often creates more people drawing more from SS than they ever paid in. That is just a fact, and not an emotionally based observation, and with the financial hardship that SS is facing, some albeit tough, adult, factual based decisions need to be made, and done soon, and frankly the biggest impetus to that is emotionally based, ideologically driven politicians who seem to think that the monies that we pay in in various forms of taxes is just their slush fund to use to get re-elected and not something that they truthfully have to exercise fiduciary responsibility over

It is way too easy to get medical Social Security payments. This was supposed to be for people who COULD NOT work. Now it's more like well... I always kind of like sitting home and watching cartoons. If you trick your way into getting paid early, you're committing yourself to a lifetime of poverty.

At the end of the day, you snooze you lose.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Entirely False according to who?

If there's any downward trend for support, it's minimal and far from the majority public disapproval needed to abolish the program

You're conflating people saying "dont get rid of it" with people "liking it", which are totally different things. Nobody wants to get rid of it because they'd be screwing themselves out of a lifetime of earnings they worked hard for. That doesn't mean they "like" it or even think it's a rational program.

 

[BenedictGomez]

If the Social Security money was put in the S&P500 basket in the mid-80s like some wanted, the Social Security trust would have more than twice the money in it as it does today & not nearly be the disaster it currently is.

 

[BodeMiller1]

If the Social Security money was put in the S&P500 basket in the mid-80s like some wanted, the Social Security trust would have more than twice the money in it as it does today & not nearly be the disaster it currently is.

It would skew the markets. This would give the Government too much power.

Open an I.R.A. convert to a ROTH at year-end. Go happily on your way TAX FREE.

It has to be earned income. Limits, not hard to follow the rules. Easy Peesy

Meow

 

[Harvey]

twice the money

Maybe more. With that steady stream of stock buying I have to believe the index would be higher. Overvalued? Maybe. But certainly higher.

I agree with the idea that the individual would probably had more.

Can someone do the math? Say $4500 per year into the SP500 for 40 years?

 

[1dog]

THEY PREFER THE ISSUE, RATHER THAN A SOLUTION

Sadly, used to be one side, now it’s both sides. Unfortunately, that’ll preach.

 

[deadheadskier]

You're conflating people saying "dont get rid of it" with people "liking it", which are totally different things. Nobody wants to get rid of it because they'd be screwing themselves out of a lifetime of earnings they worked hard for. That doesn't mean they "like" it or even think it's a rational program.

Then provide your source for this opinion. I provided polling data that doesn't jive with your view.

 

[icecoast1]

Maybe more. With that steady stream of stock buying I have to believe the index would be higher. Overvalued? Maybe. But certainly higher.

I agree with the idea that the individual would probably had more.

Can someone do the math? Say $4500 per year into the SP500 for 40 years?

Over 3 million. Something that would actually allow you to live comfortably and not below the poverty line

 

[BodeMiller1]

Maybe more. With that steady stream of stock buying I have to believe the index would be higher. Overvalued? Maybe. But certainly higher.

I agree with the idea that the individual would probably had more.

Can someone do the math? Say $4500 per year into the SP500 for 40 years?

Okay, the Standard and Poor index started in 1957 and has seen a gain of 2,538%.

So, if you invested $4,500 at the inception. It would be impossible to calculate because the fees (even in a no-load fund, yes there are fees).

If I tried to use AI, they couldn't come close. Let's assume it's compounded monthly with no fees.


43 years
12 months
792 total months

X = $4,500
Y = WTF AVG monthly return for S&P500 = 3.200000 %

So, $4,500 compounded monthly at .032 = WTF

It's a lot. This is a non linear LOG Rythem

Meow

 

[BodeMiller1]

S&P has been around since 1957.
$4,500 compounded monthly

You're looking at around $37K. Before taxes, your time thinking about it and those kinds of things.

Pepperdog

OUT
Woof

 

[Harvey]

S&P has been around since 1957.
$4,500 compounded monthly

You're looking at around $37K. Before taxes, your time thinking about it and those kinds of things.

Pepperdog

OUT
Woof

I was estimating 4500 a year. It was just a guess how much social costs per year. Even with no growth it's way more than 37k.

 

[BodeMiller1]

Here's a better way:

5 years S&P 500


$2,632.56 $4,347.35
$4,500 X X

4,500 X 4,347.35 / / 2,632.56 = $7,431.98

An old chemistry trick ratio. The units are all USD which makes it easy.

So, if you had $4,500 5 years ago you would now have $7,431.98.

 

[joshua segal]

I suggest you take a look at https://www.officialdata.org/us/stocks/s-p-500/1960. Every time a stock in the index goes ex-dividend, the index goes down because the representative stock loses the value of the dividend. If you don't reinvest the dividend, the return is pretty bad.

 

[Harvey]

Here's a better way:

5 years S&P 500


$2,632.56 $4,347.35
$4,500 X X

4,500 X 4,347.35 / / 2,632.56 = $7,431.98

An old chemistry trick ratio. The units are all USD which makes it easy.

So, if you had $4,500 5 years ago you would now have $7,431.98.

I have no idea what you are doing.

 

[skiur]

I have no idea what you are doing.

Don't worry, nobody else has any idea either.

 

[BodeMiller1]

I have no idea what you are doing.

If you have three known quantities, the fourth is easily know. If you work 5 hours and make $100. How much will you earn if you work 6 hours next week?


5hrs * $100

6 = X solve for X 100 / 6 * 5 = $120


In chemistry it's more complicated. When you think you're in a hole always go by way of mole. Is there a doctor in the house?

Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Salley

()EXX/+-

 

[BodeMiller1]

I suggest you take a look at https://www.officialdata.org/us/stocks/s-p-500/1960. Every time a stock in the index goes ex-dividend, the index goes down because the representative stock loses the value of the dividend. If you don't reinvest the dividend, the return is pretty bad.

There are several saliant dates:

X date
Pay Date

There are others, butt paydate is key.

You have to know the cusip #. For example Ford has corporate paper and different classes of stock. Class A B and so forth....

These are straight forward Coporate Actions.

 

[BodeMiller1]

If you think everything is on the WWW you are wrong. This is how Bloomberg made his $. Bloomberg machines cost like $5,0000 a friggin month.


edit: he's from New Hampshire not NY

 

[1dog]

It would skew the markets. This would give the Government too much power.

Open an I.R.A. convert to a ROTH at year-end. Go happily on your way TAX FREE.

It has to be earned income. Limits, not hard to follow the rules. Easy Peesy

Meow

The concept is a 'blue ribbon' panel of rotating investors who had become very successful because of the free-market the US provided them. Every changing and un-paid ( entire Congress used to be that way and it worked so much better than these paid sloughs )

If some in treasuries or government bonds, and as they get close to retirement age same as traditional advisors do- more towards fixed income, less towards risk.

Congress raided the funds in the 80's and there is no pile of money gaining/growing interest. Start w under 40. rest of us get what we were promised ( don't hold your breath if you are 40, or even 50)

Boston College did a deep dive on this a while back, Here is Cato Institute findings: https://www.cato.org/commentary/social-security-vs-stock-returns-no-contest

Here is one more with Cliff Notes: ( they claim it wouldn't be so)

For example, if a 25-year-old invested $1,000 per year over 40 years at Social Security's 2 percent rate of return, in 40 years she would have over $61,000. But if she invested the money in the stock market, earning even its lowest historical rate of return, she would earn more than double that amount — $160,000. If the individual earned the average historical stock market rate of return, she would have more than $225,000 — or nearly four times the amount to be expected from Social Security.” [3] Cato, the Heritage Foundation and a number of other organizations that support private accounts also routinely make such comparisons.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/would-private-accounts-provide-a-higher-rate-of-return-than-social-security

 

[BodeMiller1]

Above nice citations. Very nice.

This kid can hunt,