T1B

Mikey wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 11:53 pm.

Biden didn’t invent the 401(k) BTW. It was started by the American business community as a way to dump the responsibility of maintaining the previously traditional defined benefits system and putting all of the risk on the workers instead of the company retirement programs.

This.

Mikey wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 11:53 pm

Carson wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 5:19 am Stock markets are higher.
Not according to my retirement accounts.

Sudden Sam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 8:44 pm My wife’s 401K may never recover from Biden’s economic policies. She’s already anticipating working longer than she had intended. She’s 10 years younger than me, but won’t be able to retire at the age I did.

Don’t you have choices for how to invest in your retirement accounts? Maybe you should have paid closer attention instead of sitting back and blaming someone else your miserable failure to keep track of your own money.

Sam, how much is your wife putting away? If she’s not withholding the maximum allowed then you’re not doing everything you can to get her to retirement.

Biden didn’t invent the 401(k) BTW. It was started by the American business community as a way to dump the responsibility of maintaining the previously traditional defined benefits system and putting all of the risk on the workers instead of the company retirement programs.

My wife’s is managed by an investment firm. When the economy goes to shit, she loses money.

She was going gangbusters until Biden went into the WH.

She’s more comfortable with her money being handled by people she doesn’t know. I would not be doing what she’s doing, but we keep some aspects of our finances separated.

So your wife is dumber than you. That’s really saying something.

And you blame Biden for that?

Bill in Houston wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 3:49 am So your wife is dumber than you. That’s really saying something.

And you blame Biden for that?

She married me. She obviously ain’t overly bright.

So the libs who think government workers will take care of them are calling us stupid for paying financial experts to take care of our retirement accounts.

Carson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 7:58 am So the libs who think government workers will take care of them are calling us stupid for paying financial experts to take care of our retirement accounts.

So it's acceptable to take action based on the advice of experts in the financial field but it's not acceptable to take action based on the advice in the medical field.

Got it.

Carson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 7:58 am So the libs who think government workers will take care of them are calling us stupid for paying financial experts to take care of our retirement accounts.

I don’t expect government workers to “take care of me.” But you absolutely are stupid if you’re paying a “financial expert” to take care your retirement accounts if you don’t know who they are, what their qualifications are, exactly what they are doing with your money and how they are compensated. Which I suspect is a completely accurate description in your case.

Mikey wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 1:24 pm

Carson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 7:58 am So the libs who think government workers will take care of them are calling us stupid for paying financial experts to take care of our retirement accounts.

I don’t expect government workers to “take care of me.” But you absolutely are stupid if you’re paying a “financial expert” to take care your retirement accounts if you don’t know who they are, what their qualifications are, exactly what they are doing with your money and how they are compensated. Which I suspect is a completely accurate description in your case.

My wife knows who handles her money. I don’t.

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 12:43 pm

Carson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 7:58 am So the libs who think government workers will take care of them are calling us stupid for paying financial experts to take care of our retirement accounts.

So it's acceptable to take action based on the advice of experts in the financial field but it's not acceptable to take action based on the advice in the medical field.

Got it.

When medical persons reveal themselves to be liars and to be benefiting financially from their deceptive behavior, yeah, I ignore their bullshit.

Mikey wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 11:53 pm

Carson wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 5:19 am Stock markets are higher.
Not according to my retirement accounts.

Sudden Sam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 8:44 pm My wife’s 401K may never recover from Biden’s economic policies. She’s already anticipating working longer than she had intended. She’s 10 years younger than me, but won’t be able to retire at the age I did.

Don’t you have choices for how to invest in your retirement accounts? Maybe you should have paid closer attention instead of sitting back and blaming someone else your miserable failure to keep track of your own money.

Sam, how much is your wife putting away? If she’s not withholding the maximum allowed then you’re not doing everything you can to get her to retirement.

Biden didn’t invent the 401(k) BTW. It was started by the American business community as a way to dump the responsibility of maintaining the previously traditional defined benefits system and putting all of the risk on the workers instead of the company retirement programs.

Guess who STILL get defined benefit plans, aka, pensions? Yes, gubmint workers, which is backed by us, the taxpayers.

So we get to bear the risk of the markets for ourselves, AND, for the retirement plans for government workers.

insane, and unsustainable BTW.

And if you are a gubmint worker? You're welcome.

Sven Golly wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 3:54 pm

Mikey wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 11:53 pm

Carson wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 5:19 am Stock markets are higher.
Not according to my retirement accounts.

Sudden Sam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 8:44 pm My wife’s 401K may never recover from Biden’s economic policies. She’s already anticipating working longer than she had intended. She’s 10 years younger than me, but won’t be able to retire at the age I did.

Don’t you have choices for how to invest in your retirement accounts? Maybe you should have paid closer attention instead of sitting back and blaming someone else your miserable failure to keep track of your own money.

Sam, how much is your wife putting away? If she’s not withholding the maximum allowed then you’re not doing everything you can to get her to retirement.

Biden didn’t invent the 401(k) BTW. It was started by the American business community as a way to dump the responsibility of maintaining the previously traditional defined benefits system and putting all of the risk on the workers instead of the company retirement programs.

Guess who STILL get defined benefit plans, aka, pensions? Yes, gubmint workers, which is backed by us, the taxpayers.

So we get to bear the risk of the markets for ourselves, AND, for the retirement plans for government workers.

insane, and unsustainable BTW.

And if you are a gubmint worker? You're welcome.

That's not correct, and hasn't been for decades. Nice try, though.

Still as dumb as a pile of bricks, I see. These things don't change, I guess.

https://www.tsp.gov/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrift_Savings_Plan

Mikey wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 5:07 pm

Sven Golly wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 3:54 pm

Mikey wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 11:53 pm



Don’t you have choices for how to invest in your retirement accounts? Maybe you should have paid closer attention instead of sitting back and blaming someone else your miserable failure to keep track of your own money.

Sam, how much is your wife putting away? If she’s not withholding the maximum allowed then you’re not doing everything you can to get her to retirement.

Biden didn’t invent the 401(k) BTW. It was started by the American business community as a way to dump the responsibility of maintaining the previously traditional defined benefits system and putting all of the risk on the workers instead of the company retirement programs.

Guess who STILL get defined benefit plans, aka, pensions? Yes, gubmint workers, which is backed by us, the taxpayers.

So we get to bear the risk of the markets for ourselves, AND, for the retirement plans for government workers.

insane, and unsustainable BTW.

And if you are a gubmint worker? You're welcome.

That's not correct, and hasn't been for decades. Nice try, though.

Still as dumb as a pile of bricks, I see. These things don't change, I guess.

https://www.tsp.gov/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrift_Savings_Plan

You really aren't that bright.

The Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) is a defined benefit plan that provides a guaranteed income stream for life to eligible federal employees, when they retire.

Let me know, and I'll post the link to this shitstain.

Sven Golly wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 5:44 pm

Mikey wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 5:07 pm

Sven Golly wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 3:54 pm

Guess who STILL get defined benefit plans, aka, pensions? Yes, gubmint workers, which is backed by us, the taxpayers.

So we get to bear the risk of the markets for ourselves, AND, for the retirement plans for government workers.

insane, and unsustainable BTW.

And if you are a gubmint worker? You're welcome.

That's not correct, and hasn't been for decades. Nice try, though.

Still as dumb as a pile of bricks, I see. These things don't change, I guess.

https://www.tsp.gov/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrift_Savings_Plan

Please point out for us what is incorrect.

Try looking at the links. The federal TSP program is not a defined benefit plan, but a defined contribution plan, with all of the risk on the worker.

Do you even know the difference?

Mikey wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 5:50 pm

Sven Golly wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 5:44 pm

Mikey wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 5:07 pm
That's not correct, and hasn't been for decades. Nice try, though.

Still as dumb as a pile of bricks, I see. These things don't change, I guess.

https://www.tsp.gov/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrift_Savings_Plan

Please point out for us what is incorrect.

Try looking at the links. The federal TSP program is not a defined benefit plan, but a defined contribution plan, with all of the risk on the worker.

Do you even know the difference?

OK, clearly you need a little help.
https://stwserve.com/tag/fers/#:~:text= ... y%20retire.

The TSP is optional if the employee wants to invest in that.

The tax payer is on the hook to guarantee the defined benefit numbnuts.

So, the Federal system is a combination of the two. The defined benefit portion is like an extension of Social Security in that employees are required to contribute portion of their salary. The TSP portion is definitely a defined contribution plan and probably makes up a larger portion of their retirement. When I was working at the EPA in the 90s there was no FERS option. The average FERS annuity is about $1,800 per month. Nobody is living large on that amount.

And I don't have any problem with government workers being on a defined benefit plan. At one time, most of private industry worked the same way.

Mikey wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 5:58 pm So, the Federal system is a combination of the two. The defined benefit portion is like an extension of Social Security in that employees are required to contribute portion of their salary. The TSP portion is definitely a defined contribution plan and probably makes up a larger portion of their retirement. When I was working at the EPA in the 90s there was no FERS option. The average FERS annuity is about $1,800 per month. Nobody is living large on that amount.

And I don't have any problem with government workers being on a defined benefit plan. At one time, most of private industry worked the same way.

OK - fair enough.

I just wish our beloved politicians would stop spending money - GOP and Dems - so that at least we'll have Social Security for the foreseeable future.

Mikey wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 5:58 pmSo, the Federal system is a combination of the two.

Fed retirement specialists will tell you that FERS is a 3-part system: pension, TSP, and Social Security.

The defined benefit portion is like an extension of Social Security in that employees are required to contribute portion of their salary. The TSP portion is definitely a defined contribution plan and probably makes up a larger portion of their retirement. When I was working at the EPA in the 90s there was no FERS option. The average FERS annuity is about $1,800 per month. Nobody is living large on that amount.

FERS came into existence in the mid-80s, replacing the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), which most employees agree was better than FERS. I just missed the cutoff for being able to participate in CSRS. My net monthly annuity from just the pension is >double the $1,800 you cite, but I retired as a GS-15. Saved >$1M in TSP combined with the spousal unit's 401(k), and don't plan to start drawing SS until we're 67, at which point the projections currently show that we'd get >$6K/mo combined. So I can't complain too loudly about FERS.

Sounds like you're doing good Smackie. Not sure why I didn't get FERS, my memory banks aren't too good at bringing up the 90s. I know that I had a TSP account. Maybe I wasn't with the EPA long enough (~5 years) to vest with FERS, or maybe I got a small lump sum payout. GS15 is pretty high up, most people don't get to that level. I went in at GS13 and applied for a new GS14 position (managing the team I worked with) when it came up. I was the only qualified applicant (I had filled the position for six months prior) but I "wasn't the person they were looking for," according to the boss, and they left the position open. In other words, not female or minority. They couldn't say that, but it was fairly obvious. I was all for affirmative action if there was an equally qualified applicant, but to not hire anybody? Fuck that. They had almost assured me that I would be GS14 in a few years when I hired on. I told them to shove it, got a better job and moved back to California. Less than a year later they hired a guy I had worked with, who was junior to me but fit the unstated quals. Oh well, I learned a lot while I was there and probably better off now for leaving.

Sudden Sam wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 1:39 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 12:43 pm

Carson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 7:58 am So the libs who think government workers will take care of them are calling us stupid for paying financial experts to take care of our retirement accounts.

So it's acceptable to take action based on the advice of experts in the financial field but it's not acceptable to take action based on the advice in the medical field.

Got it.

When medical persons reveal themselves to be liars and to be benefiting financially from their deceptive behavior, yeah, I ignore their bullshit.

1) Prove that all medical experts who called for masks & social distancing were profiting from such advice.

2) So financial experts have never revealed themselves to liars & benefiting from deception? That's a relief!

Sincerely,
Jerry David Dominelli

Sven Golly wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 6:33 pm

Mikey wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 5:58 pm So, the Federal system is a combination of the two. The defined benefit portion is like an extension of Social Security in that employees are required to contribute portion of their salary. The TSP portion is definitely a defined contribution plan and probably makes up a larger portion of their retirement. When I was working at the EPA in the 90s there was no FERS option. The average FERS annuity is about $1,800 per month. Nobody is living large on that amount.

And I don't have any problem with government workers being on a defined benefit plan. At one time, most of private industry worked the same way.

OK - fair enough.

I just wish our beloved politicians would stop spending money - GOP and Dems - so that at least we'll have Social Security for the foreseeable future.

So, you are very stupid. We knew this, but thanks for the confirmation.

We’ll have SS for the foreseeable future, unless the GOP is somehow successful in eliminating it. I’m confident they don’t have what it would take.

Because you don’t understand how any of this works (likely your handlers haven’t sent the memo) you can slink away without responding. Or not and keep getting your ass handed to you.

Bill in Houston wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 11:52 pm

Sven Golly wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 6:33 pm

Mikey wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 5:58 pm So, the Federal system is a combination of the two. The defined benefit portion is like an extension of Social Security in that employees are required to contribute portion of their salary. The TSP portion is definitely a defined contribution plan and probably makes up a larger portion of their retirement. When I was working at the EPA in the 90s there was no FERS option. The average FERS annuity is about $1,800 per month. Nobody is living large on that amount.

And I don't have any problem with government workers being on a defined benefit plan. At one time, most of private industry worked the same way.

OK - fair enough.

I just wish our beloved politicians would stop spending money - GOP and Dems - so that at least we'll have Social Security for the foreseeable future.

So, you are very stupid. We knew this, but thanks for the confirmation.

We’ll have SS for the foreseeable future, unless the GOP is somehow successful in eliminating it. I’m confident they don’t have what it would take.

Because you don’t understand how any of this works (likely your handlers haven’t sent the memo) you can slink away without responding. Or not and keep getting your ass handed to you.

We'll have SS for the foreseeable future professor?

The system is a Ponzi scheme.

It was put in place when there were many more workers that supported paying in versus those taking payments.

Also, the life expectancy was much lower as well.

How is this sustainable?

Clearly math isn't your forte.

Bill is a good little lefty bot. To them, Social Security is a political football. Whether the program is solvent or insolvent, sustainable or doomed to fail, they don't care. The important part is blaming bad stuff on the other team. Period. They'll fuck senior citizens at the speed of light as long as they can make some political capital in the process.

Social Security would be solvent if politicians from BOTH SIDES fixed it. But until that happens, I only hear GQPers talk of eliminating it.

It's easy. Just increase the maximum salary subject to the payroll tax for SS. That would fix it tomorrow but unfortunately a no-go with the Clown Show Party. HighPlainsBullshitter's crap about "lefties" wanting to hurt senior citizens is typical projectionism.

Mikey wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 10:48 pm HighPlainsBullshitter's crap about "lefties" wanting to hurt senior citizens is typical projectionism.

Never said that. You're the one projecting.

HighPlainsGrifter wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2023 3:17 am

Mikey wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 10:48 pm HighPlainsBullshitter's crap about "lefties" wanting to hurt senior citizens is typical projectionism.

Never said that. You're the one projecting.

Says the poster who just projected.

Typical right-wing hypocrite.

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 10:09 pm I only hear GQPers talk of eliminating it.

Name one.

mvscal wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 11:13 pm Name one.

How about three? Mike Lee, Ron Johnson and Rick Scott.

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 11:48 pm

mvscal wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 11:13 pm Name one.

How about three? Mike Lee, Ron Johnson and Rick Scott.

Quotes

I highlighted the fuck parts for you

In 2022, Scott proposed a "Rescue America" plan that would include sunsetting all federal legislation, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, after five years.

"If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again," Scott's plan says.

Lee, who appeared distraught over Biden's claim that some Republicans wanted to cut entitlements, has previously denied ever supporting such an idea. But the White House and others on Wednesday resurfaced an old clip of Lee appearing to advocate for cuts.

"It will be my objective to phase out Social Security — to pull it up by the roots and get rid of it," Lee could be heard saying in a clip taken during his first campaign in 2010, adding that political advisors have told him it was a "dangerous" thing to advocated for.

"That's why I'm doing this. To get rid of that," Lee continued. "Medicare and Medicaid are of the same sort."

Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin has proposed changing Social Security from mandatory spending, where Congress can't change it, and it essentially operates on autopilot, to discretionary spending, which would subject the program to annual congressional spending bills where lawmakers could make changes to it.

https://www.businessinsider.com/republi ... 023-2?op=1