Retirement funding

Well it's been predicted that the American Social Security will basically be depleted sooner or later. Within the next 15-30 years. This means any money in those accounts will be no longer available for withdrawal or lost completely. For the mean time I took the money from my 401K from the times I worked when I was younger. (401K is the standard retirement account in my location.) And placed it within a retirement funding account with the bank. (An IRA I believe.) Therefore it builds interest and what not.

For the time I worked and began putting in 401K money. I've collected about $500 over the short time I was legally able to begin. I stared putting money in it when I turned 18. Before then I was still working but was not old enough to have my own account.

My parents explained to me that if I begin putting small amounts into this account when I do work that in fortunate time when I am retiring. I will not have to work. Though I see many kids do not do this, and some parents believe it is a waste of time. I know some people whom have placed $300,000 into a 401K and spent it up all in one year.

I believe if it's managed responsibily it can be a very awesome attribute down the road. But other's have their own opinions about saving that kind of money. How do you feel about it? Do you believe in retirement funding or sticking to the government's social security?

Social Security I believe is meant to help you get by. You shouldn't completely depend on it. I have money saved and I have a small 401K started which is a start considering I am only 23. A lot of how much one can save also depends on how much they are able to make a year and what kind of debts they have.

I will admit that I have not ever though about retirement. (Thats what scratch offs are for!) Anyways, My only concers are that when you invest, you should always make sure that you invest ment will at least keep up with inflation. Like if you threw 50 bucks in a jar 30 years ago to save it for a rainy day, you just lost money. That lies my main concern. The different markets of investment all offer chance to make it big, or loose your investment. CD's and bonds are safe, but offer less of a yeild.

Retirement does worry me, but I figure as long as I do what is standard, and invest money on my own, I am sure I will have a fighting chance when I am living on the street and not able to afford any of the rediculously high medical bills. With that, I hope my kids get rich :D

Bipper

I try and avoid dealing with SoSec if I can. I'm rather hoping Bush's opt-out idea goes through, because I'd be first in line to say "screw you guys, I trust my investment strategy to help me better than self-serving politicians in need of some quick cash for a pet project."

We'd have enough social security to support this country's people for the next century, at rate of population growth, if it weren't for the government "borrowing" the money for stuff.

Ya know, if Bush and congress didn't keep looting the SS trust fund for their own idiotic purposes, we wouldn't have this problem. :mad:

pensions and social security are enshrined in the human rights act. to not provide them would be a breach of that.

Social Security needs to be abolished for all persons born after 1979.

if you don't get a pension you can go to the human rights court as it is part of the human rights atc. but forgot this if you're american because america doesn't have anything to do with that court. such a shame really.

and this is all down to the baby boomer generation and the inverted population. bird flu might help it along a little.

You don't have to collect pension from the gov't.

And could you provide a link to this human rights act.

article 25 the universal declaration of human rights 1948. comes above all other laws in all countries. comes before every government.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Quote:

---

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

---

Doesn't mean that the gov't has to provide any of these things anymore than it has to provide guns as 'enshrined' in the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. Certainly tho' the gov't can't deny anybody these things.

You mean pension is involved in the human RIGHTS act? That makes me laugh even harder. Any rational person could recognize that "security" is hardly a human right. Too bad America can't. We'll probably become socialist, anyway. (hooray for human rights, indeed)

I think actual, private investments should be considered. I have already decided that when I am older, I will not steal from the young in order to keep me alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

I have already decided that when I am older, I will not steal from the young in order to keep me alive.

---

bingo

such a shame that you just steal from africa and the rest of the world anyway.

if your going to try and keep up the pretence of these so called morals. do them the full way.

of course security is a human right. and it needs to be provided. that is simple enough. it's about acting proactivley. what is the other choice? let the poor and old starve? or provide for them? (hooray for human rights, indeed)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

such a shame that you just steal from africa and the rest of the world anyway.

if your going to try and keep up the pretence of these so called morals. do them the full way.

---

Given that Hachi and I can't actually affect our respective government's policies on Africa, how are we supposed to change it? The best we can do is stay out of systems which commit theft in our name. Which is better than not doing anything, yes? Now, kindly stop acting as though individual citizens are able to change national policy and we solely fail to do so through hypocrisy or indolence.

by refusing to by american and eu products where possible and opting for fairly traded foods and goods you can make a difference.

The sickening thing is that it actually is in there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

---

That's disgusting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

The sickening thing is that it actually is in there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

---

That's disgusting.

---

It's disgusting if you think that it's fair to abandon people just because it's too much hassle to take care of them.
Besides, collapse of the Social Security sytem, and the eventual collapse of societey, is an inevitable result of western capitalism. Ho hum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

by refusing to by american and eu products where possible and opting for fairly traded foods and goods you can make a difference.

---

And you have proof that we don't opt for third-world produced products where available from which source?

Quote:

---

It's disgusting if you think that it's fair to abandon people just because it's too much hassle to take care of them.
Besides, collapse of the Social Security sytem, and the eventual collapse of societey, is an inevitable result of western capitalism. Ho hum.

---

Nothing to do with hassle. It's disgusting to force anyone to take any action for or against any other person. Yes, letting people die or suffer is wrong. Encroaching on freedom is a far greater evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Nothing to do with hassle. It's disgusting to force anyone to take any action for or against any other person. Yes, letting people die or suffer is wrong. Encroaching on freedom is a far greater evil.

---

How is abandoning each other 'freedom'? That crosses the line from 'freedom' into pure greed. Of course, freedom is important, but you have a responsibility to others, and anyone who can't see that isn't really mature or responsible enough to deserve that freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

How is abandoning each other 'freedom'? That crosses the line from 'freedom' into pure greed. Of course, freedom is important, but you have a responsibility to others, and anyone who can't see that isn't really mature or responsible enough to deserve that freedom.

---

No. Freedom is the sole and ultimate right of every sentient being in the universe. There is nothing higher. Not even a God, if you believe in one, is more important than the sentience which allows said deity to be duly appreciated.

yeah disgusting we don't let people starve. truly horrifying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

yeah disgusting we don't let people starve. truly horrifying.

---

At the expense of personal freedom? Yes it is.

Edit: I don't know what you're arguing about. Your posts in the torture thread clearly show that you also place ideals above life.

so we would rather people starve than pay those few extra cents in the dollar? what is personal freedom? the freedom to oppress and starve? the freedom to watch other people suffer while we life in luxury?

Uh, no, the freedom to live based on your own ability, which is something I strongly advocate.

I wonder if Cloud Number Nine even works, and if he does, if he pays taxes. It's when they take more than half of what you make, that you get pissed.

What's creepy is it probably doesn't bother him that the mob in charge is taking from him. He probaly thinks its his noble cause or duty or something, and that he's doing his share for a proletarian world.

Income taxes...argh. There are so many wrong things in the world.n

You know, a small tax I wouldn't mind. But when you work your arse off, earn some money, and they take 56% of it, to support lazy-arse bastards that don't work, fund all kinds of stupid projects, etc... that is seriously wrong.

Supporting old people, cripples and other 'it's not their fault they can't work' people is the only thing I could go for. And even that, with measure. You have to work for your pension. If you're lazy as a young man\woman, you'll be a poor old man\woman too. Seems right to me.

yes i do work. and yes i did pay taxes (i now get it refunded as i am a student). if you remember correctly we went into this topic when i said i gave 10% of my earnings to charity.

and yeah i am doing my share. the nhs which i pay for saved my life. i was taught in the schools it paid for, received the dental and eye care it paid for, am going to the uni it paid for, and i'll receive the state pension it paid for too.

yes right now i am taking more than i am given. but once i have a job gave by the health care and education i receieved i will pay it back. few people make any real money out of dole scrunging. it's not the no.1 choice of profession.

in britain according to the latest figure which were in septemober 4.7% of people were unemployed. once we take out the disabled, sick, injured. then take out people out of work due to redundancy and we are left with a very small number. is this what we whine about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

and yeah i am doing my share. the nhs which i pay for saved my life. i was taught in the schools it paid for, received the dental and eye care it paid for, am going to the uni it paid for, and i'll receive the state pension it paid for too.

---

Really? You don't have to pay ANY tuition fees? Well damn, I'll have to look up your uni, that'd suit me just fine. And free dental? Free eyecare? Yeah, I'm thinking I need to get in on your racket.

Quote:

---

in britain according to the latest figure which were in septemober 4.7% of people were unemployed. once we take out the disabled, sick, injured. then take out people out of work due to redundancy and we are left with a very small number. is this what we whine about?

---

And you actually believe the government on the matter? I'm surprised. By the way, the disabled and injured are already not counted in unemployment figures. Neither are those in university.

Quote:

---

It's disgusting if you think that it's fair to abandon people just because it's too much hassle to take care of them.
Besides, collapse of the Social Security sytem, and the eventual collapse of societey, is an inevitable result of western capitalism. Ho hum.

---

Collapse of social security as it is now? Yeah, probably - good thing, too. Collapse of society? What the hell does that even mean?

And I don't think the government should be responsible for providing for "the free development of personality." It seems to me that people should develop their own personality in their own way, but that's just me.

yes being an under 18 scot i am entitled to free university education, dental care and eye care. next month my dental and eye care will just be subsidised.

it's not government figures that i quoted on unemployment rates. long term sick (over 12 months) do count on unemployment lists. as do disabled. the disabled are able to work. there's been a great push for that recently.

as to the article raistlin quotes. it grants a freedom. it makes the government responsible for the freddom not for the personality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

yes being an under 18 scot i am entitled to free university education, dental care and eye care. next month my dental and eye care will just be subsidised.

---

Big whoop about uni. How many under-18s even go? Although I don't have any particular objection to those obviously smart enough to get in early getting a break, to be honest.

i'm not granted free education because i'm under 18. it's because i'm scottish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

i'm not granted free education because i'm under 18. it's because i'm scottish.

---

So all Scots get free uni education?

Regardless, once the gov't starts providing every benefit, they can just as easily take them away.

if they get the grades then yes. we have to pay a graduation fee at the end of it. but that's all. no tuition fees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

if they get the grades then yes. we have to pay a graduation fee at the end of it. but that's all. no tuition fees.

---

Right, well, at least in Scotland (If I can infer a fairly accurate image solely from what you're saying.) it seems that help goes to those who deserve help (Ie the intelligent get aid for uni.), which isn't ideal but it is at least tolerable, and a damn sight better than some places.

are only the intelligent deserving of help?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

are only the intelligent deserving of help?

---

No; the able are deserving of more than the unable. A free market lets this happen naturally and allows the unable to find other ventuers where they will be succesful.

the able are more desrving than the unable? i do hope we are not talking about the disabled here. and even if we aren't you are on very very shaky ground. are the intelligent more desrving than the unintelligent? the strong more deserving than the weak?

there was one political party that had those ideas.

Quote:

---

are the intelligent more desrving than the unintelligent?

---

Meh, it's more of a "better able to utilize" thing. And grades are not based just on intellegence.

better able to utilize what? or is it "to be utilized"?

and grades are weighed hugely on intelligence. yes there is effort. but some people are just not capable. have talents else where.

Quote:

---

and grades are weighed hugely on intelligence. yes there is effort. but some people are just not capable. have talents else where.

---

And some people are lazy as all hell. BTW, if someone is not capable of learning, then there is no real point in sending them to college. If they have other talents, then cultivate those talents. Higher education aint for everyone.

Quote:

---

and grades are weighed hugely on intelligence.

---

I'm fairly intelligent, and I didn't do well in school. Others, that weren't as intelligent as I, but had a much better sit-down-on-your-arse-and-study capablity did far better. Just a side-note, really.

No Cloud, some people can commit things to memory better than others.

And what I'm saying is essentially yes, that the most able deserve more than the least able. Why shouldn't a doctor be better rewarded for his services than a person who works as Tescos? Why shouldn't a man working on robotics be paid more than a man who manufactures televisions? That's called a meritocracy, and it's the only fair system Humanity could possibly implement given current technology. And yes, I have said already, the system is somewhat skewed. But people get paid what society is willing to pay them. Good for Milla Jovovich, Elvis Presley, and Bobby Charlton then, I say.

because the doctor will need a man to sell him goods as much as he needs a doctor.

and any system which penalises for disability seems very wrong. some people just aren't intelligent or just aren't good at exams. this does not mean society should punish them.

but we are off topic about pensions again.

But "society" doesn't punish them; "society" doesn't do anything; "society" doesn't exist. It's a rule of reality that there will be strong and there will be weak. Free societies don't make the strong stronger or the weak weaker. It just doesn't do anything. It gives people what they deserve. That's justice.

If I am a genius, I should be paid accordingly. How is that "wrong"?

Quote:

---

and any system which penalises for disability seems very wrong. some people just aren't intelligent or just aren't good at exams. this does not mean society should punish them.

---

No one said society should punish them. To put it another way, why give someone something they can't or won't use?

"It gives people what they deserve." this does not mean the able are more desrving than the disabled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

because the doctor will need a man to sell him goods as much as he needs a doctor.

---

If I go to Wal*Mart or Tesco or wherever and get a job I will be trained for 90% of the store within a half-hour orientation session. It requires minimal thought, and in most cases action, on my part. If I go to university I will be trained for a specialised area of medicine within 7 years of tutoring. It requires immense expertise and knowledge to even diagnose things, nevermind take action for them, on my part.

Tell me how those are equitable vocations and I will support the cause to ensure they are paid the same.

Quote:

---

If I go to Wal*Mart or Tesco or wherever and get a job I will be trained for 90% of the store within a half-hour orientation session. It requires minimal thought, and in most cases action, on my part. If I go to university I will be trained for a specialised area of medicine within 7 years of tutoring. It requires immense expertise and knowledge to even diagnose things, nevermind take action for them, on my part.

---

More to the point, you can live without going to Wal*Mart.

but the problem is as a human being we deserve equality as a base. room to excel but a basic equality. so i'm gonna take this back to pensions here. it's a base. yes you can save your own. but that equal base must be provided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

but the problem is as a human being we deserve equality as a base. room to excel but a basic equality. so i'm gonna take this back to pensions here. it's a base. yes you can save your own. but that equal base must be provided.

---

At the start of life, I can agree with that idea. Though the implementation is very shoddy and needs a lot of thought and revision. At the end of life? After someone's had five decades to see to their financial security? That's their own lookout. Old people aren't created old, they were young once, and when they were young they had the responsibility to provide for their futures.

Exactly. That's why free primary and secondary education, while technically wrong, is hard to fight - it gives people the chance. Are you telling me that everyone in your high school was smart and willing to move but were held back? As I recall, very few kids cared about moving ahead. In fact, most didn't care about moving, period. They get what they deserve naturally (their lives won't be very fulfilling when they aren't trying, otherwise) and a government that steps out of it ensures that reality is the final arbiter.

That I should work hard to create what I want to create, make millions in my career, be mocked for it because somehow by my honest effort I created money that must have been stolen or ripped from the hands of the proletarian or something, and then given to these idiots from high school, now the elderly, when I'm an elder because they didn't spend their money productively? How is that even remotely justice?

why is free education wrong?

and the pension system in britain has failed and many pensioners have nothing else. and what are we to let them do? starve?

everyone needs a safety net.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

and the pension system in britain has failed and many pensioners have nothing else. and what are we to let them do? starve?

---

See, the inevitable failure of socialism is coming about in Britain. Now people who should have provided for themselves, but didn't because they didn't believe they were going to have to (Which is fair enough, if ill-advised.), are getting screwed over. Our solution? Take more money from those in work today, meaning they in turn have a harder time saving up for their own retirement.

Everyone needs a safety net? I agree. Everyone needs to provide themselves with a safety net.

by the failing system in britain i wa not talking about the welfare system. it is not the socialist system that has failed. it has been pension scheme companies going broke. and pensions from work places that have went bankrupt. the government pension scheme is still running.

and that is what i meant by what they only had left.

these are people that had saved and thought ahead. alot worse for it now as well.

I got no problem wiht a pension system if it only provides enough for a bare minimum of existance. You can affored cheap shelter and cheap meals and leave, if not heartily.

People are stupid. That isn't arguable, even the most intellegent are stupid in a sense. So I have no problem with the 'intellegent' comming up with a minimilistic safety net for the stupid. Though the best way to do it is just to do the same thing they do with auto-insurance(though I loath how that is made) where you require it to be done. Thus just have it figured in with taxes. Government automatically takes some money and drops it UNTOUCHED into an account in that persons name. People are dumb... you sometimes have to do things for them.

Thus I conclude it isn't that socialistic stuff is wrong... rather it is implemented wrong(in some cases) and in others the government screws it up in other ways. Untouched means you do not take any out of it.