Long Position on Silver and Gold?

[TRnCO]

problem is, and I just read a story about it again today, is that the "average" American simply is not saving near enough to even be able to retire, even with social security. Too many people live in the "today" frame of mind without thought about how they will live tomorrow.

[Irving]

I think most people can save enough to retire in their 40's if not 50's of they have the right mindset and start early. The problem is that social status is directly tired to how much stuff you have.

[kidicarus13]

problem is, and I just read a story about it again today, is that the "average" American simply is not saving near enough to even be able to retire, even with social security.

And that is why you'll continue to see older Americans greeting at Walmart and asking you to super-sized your extra value meal. The choices you make today affect you tomorrow.

[HoneyBadger]

Jhood, I don't disagree with anything you're saying. It is a mess and like any drug-dependent looter, cutting everyone off cold turkey is going to be the most painful way to do it, but sometimes it's the best way. I think anyone that has paid into the system should get back what they have paid in, with interest. The obvious problem with no easy solution is that the money simply isn't there. I would be perfectly happy surrendering my losses and being able to immediately exempt myself from the program, but I've only been paying into it for a decade, so my losses wouldn't be that great.

As Irving says, I have always assumed that social (in)security is not going to be there when I'm old enough to collect, so I've been working to create my own future instead of relying on the government (which has a fantastic track record with handling money, right? ) to take care of me when I'm older.

You guys must have missed the real investment thread a while back... (about 20-30 pages back in the PWT, Irving and I were having some really good investment discussions)

[Batteriesnare]

The obvious problem with no easy solution is that the money simply isn't there.

Respectfully, this isn't quite the case. The currency will always be there, but as Dr. Greenspan said, the Fed/.gov cannot guarantee its purchasing power. The .gov will continue to pay SS payments but the value (and faith) of and in the currency will be next to zero.

[HoneyBadger]

Respectfully, this isn't quite the case. The currency will always be there, but as Dr. Greenspan said, the Fed/.gov cannot guarantee its purchasing power. The .gov will continue to pay SS payments but the value (and faith) of and in the currency will be next to zero.

Oh sure, it's all monopoly money, but I was talking about the actual money within the social security program. The SS program as it stands right now doesn't even have enough money to sustain itself for more than a few years. That's all I meant when I said the money isn't there. The fed can always just inflate us out of national debt (and into universal poverty).

[Batteriesnare]

Gotcha, yes the SS program is balance sheet insolvent. You're right it's all monopoly money, but that's never stopped them before!

Oh sure, it's all monopoly money, but I was talking about the actual money within the social security program. The SS program as it stands right now doesn't even have enough money to sustain itself for more than a few years. That's all I meant when I said the money isn't there. The fed can always just inflate us out of national debt (and into universal poverty).

[sniper7]

Personally I wish the program would change to eventually end. People under 35 stop paying in, get nothing, no $$ back from what they invested but will have the rest of their working lives to make up for it with the extra $$ they will get each paycheck. Those over 35-40 will pay a smaller portion and get a smaller portion. And it goes up incrementally from there with folks over 50 paying in and still receiving full benefits. So in roughly 30 years the program won't exist, those entering the workforce now will have extra money to save for retirement. And a new program requiring employers to give information to new employees explaining saving and 401k and IRA options with matching options given to the employee for saving money as employers will also be saving $$ as well.

[brutal]

Personally I wish the program would change to eventually end. People under 35 stop paying in, get nothing, no $$ back from what they invested but will have the rest of their working lives to make up for it with the extra $$ they will get each paycheck. Those over 35-40 will pay a smaller portion and get a smaller portion. And it goes up incrementally from there with folks over 50 paying in and still receiving full benefits. So in roughly 30 years the program won't exist, those entering the workforce now will have extra money to save for retirement. And a new program requiring employers to give information to new employees explaining saving and 401k and IRA options with matching options given to the employee for saving money as employers will also be saving $$ as well.

Should workers be required to show proof of investing or be penalized? You know, kind of like Obamacare?

Otherwise, what happens to those non-savers that aren't Amish?

[HoneyBadger]

Otherwise, what happens to those non-savers that aren't Amish?

Then they get to wallow in their own failures for the rest of their existence instead of having having the government force other people to sustain them. Yes, I'm a heartless bastard. Don't like your situation, then do something about it. If anything, saving and investing should be one of the few components of a national education standard (like common core).