COMMENTS: 57
How Wall Street Wrecked Your Retirement
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
There are no happy days for the millions of Americans who have been trying to put away some money for their retirement in tax-sheltered entities like IRAs, Roth Accounts and 401(k)s. For them, the market's downward slope has been harrowing and frightening. When will the steady erosion of their savings end? And when it does, what will be left of their future financial security?
Many of the millions suffering through these worrisome months didn't buy a house they could not afford, didn't speculate on their homes, didn't let greedy impulses lead them to the edge of foreclosure or bankruptcy. Nevertheless, the excesses of their neighbors and the criminal folly of American finance is destroying their plans for retirement. It is dragging down much of the value of their homes, on which they have never missed a payment, homes on which they were counting on selling at retirement to help finance their last years in comfort.
For years, the privatization propagandists have been telling people that when the time comes, Social Security will not be there for them. Now many are learning that it's their private savings that may not be there. They are discovering they have been forced into a system in which other people have, in effect, been allowed to gamble with their retirement savings and have lost it.
The way the private, you're-on-your-own retirement system was supposed to work had individuals, during their younger, working years, investing in stock through tax-sheltered accounts. Almost nobody who is not breaking the law can choose among individual stocks and make money, so future retirees have been encouraged to buy mutual funds run by professional managers, who are supposed to be able to pick the winners.
Most of them aren't much better at doing that than are their customers, but in a rising market, a chicken pecking at stock tables can pick winners. In boom times, it doesn't matter that the future retiree must choose among thousands of mutual funds, many of which carry ruinously high fees. The damage to people's savings goes unnoticed until the market begins to go down.
Even as the market falls, future retirees are told not to panic, to keep their money where it is, because in the long run the value of their accounts will go up and they will have many a happy sunset year traveling the globe and showering their grandchildren with presents.
As the retirement date comes near, they are advised to begin selling stocks and buying fixed-income securities -- as bonds are sometimes called -- because these pay the interest they earn on a fixed schedule, providing a regular income.
For this to work, stock prices must be high when the holdings are sold and the bonds purchased must pay high rates of interest. But what happens when the stock market is in a nosedive and interest rates are half of the inflation rate, as is the case right now? Panic and worry, no golden years of travel, no presents for the grandchildren. The energy that was to be expended on leisure activities is spent instead trying to figure out how to make ends meet.
The bright spot is Social Security. That check does come with the regularity of the calendar, whether the market is up or down, whether interest rates be high or low and if, as is the case now, the Greenspan-Bush inflation is destroying family budgets. Social Security adjusts for the rising prices.
But Social Security is too narrow a ledge to stand on through the years between retirement and death. It was designed as the base on which other retirement savings were to be built.
Those savings -- the house and the tax-sheltered retirement accounts -- are shriveling up and blowing away. The persons for whom Americans' savings have been a reliable source of income are the brokers, the lawyers, the account administrators, the whole tribe of Wall Street fee farmers. They get other people's retirement money regardless of the direction the market may be moving in.
You can't call it a broken system because it was a bad one from the start. It is failing, just as its critics said it would. And what lies ahead for those whose retirement savings are gone may be a very unpleasant old age.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 25, 2008 3:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I'm telling you. This was a RIGGED market falsely labelled as "free".
Posted by: jwverez
Comments are closed-
Posted by: socialpsych on Jul 25, 2008 4:26 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on Jul 25, 2008 4:41 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People are going to get double and triple burned. Yet, ironically, these are the very same people who support the most right-wing policies, so it does in some way seem like justice come home.
My advice? Have nothing to do with anything where some asshole with an MBA, a fancy suit, lots of smarmy charm, a coke habit, 6 prostitutes a week, manages your money for you. Think about it: could you concentrate much high on blow, while getting head from a smoking hot Eastern European prostitute? I know I couldn't really find stock tables that interesting after that.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: the filth always start from the british-all greed ,corruption and terrorism
Posted by: avatar_singh
» filthy British reply
Posted by: zipper696
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sushi on Jul 25, 2008 4:43 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sushi
"Old age comes at a bad time."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What retirement?
Posted by: kegbot1
» RE: What retirement?
Posted by: Sushi
» RE: What retirement?
Posted by: johnnyfarout
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BST on Jul 25, 2008 6:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Many of the millions suffering through these worrisome months didn't buy a house they could not afford, didn't speculate on their homes, didn't let greedy impulses lead them to the edge of foreclosure or bankruptcy. Nevertheless, the excesses of their neighbors and the criminal folly of American finance is destroying their plans for retirement."
I've listened with growing impatience and, yes, annoyance to the stories of the "victims" of predatory lenders who somehow did not understand they could not afford what they were buying. And I wondered, why didn't they understand or did they just hope for the best?
And what will all this mean to my retirement --which I financed little by little over decades of hard work, to my home ( on which I still owe) which I bought years ago after a year of study and contemplation and after years of a third-floor walk-up?
I am fairly newly retired (a decision that came only after study and conferring with several other people on benefit v risk). While I've never had more than one credit card and never grace the shopping mall (my friends and family note that I pinch pennies -- gingerale in lieu of wine -- until they beg for mercy), I am saying farewell to years I envisioned as being far more stable than they will be now.
I have a 12-year-old gas-efficient car that is dwarfed on the highway by the giants. I had hoped this year to consider a used Honda, vintage 2005 -- figured it was a good time to buy. Then along came the gas crunch and the SUV owners wailing that they need a SECOND car with good mileage. There go any bargains and, thus, my dream of this small "luxury."
My greatest assets have always been a sense of optimism and confidence in my own ability to assess situations and make decisions that take in the future. These days I am losing both.
So I would like to send thank yous to the president for an unnecessary war and to those who have let greed be their guide, believing that everyone can have everything (including credit card debts in the thousands), no matter their financial situation. Remember, I, too, have to pay health insurance and out-of-pocket expenses for health issues which may arise.
I am fortunate in so many ways and I am grateful, even on the days when I am also scared and sad.
What many fail to recognize as they admire and perhaps envy the fact that I have a sweet little home on which I did most of the heavy work are the many decisions I made along the way that they decided not to make, hoping luck would bail them out if things were to go awry.
Things have gone awry, and here come the bailouts -- but not for me and others like me.
How long before I, too, lose my home?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Thanks for a bold article
Posted by: edgeofnowhere
» It's Not That Simple
Posted by: Jim Shaw
» RE: It's Not That Simple
Posted by: BST
» RE: It's Not That Simple
Posted by: Jim Shaw
» RE: It's Not That Simple
Posted by: hagwind
» RE: It's Not That Simple
Posted by: Jim Shaw
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Israel on Jul 25, 2008 6:10 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They moved to Phoenix, Az and lived a relatively happy, secure life on their pension and social security.
That ain't happenin nomore!
It is estimated that a couple who retires today will need approximately $200,000 in cash, to cover the non reimbursed portion of their Health Care Expenses during a retirement of 20 years!
Most middle class people will find that their Social Security will be the backbone of their income, maybe 30-40% of their pre retirement income.
Where is the rest of the money to come from? Most will not have sufficient pension income because pensions are almost non existent these days. IRA's,401(k)s? The average worker will have maybe $40,000 at retirement.
Bank savings? 40% of American households do not have $1,000 in savings.
Home equity?
What home equity? Over 10% of all homes have negative equity right now and that includes 40% of homes with mortgages taken out since 2005!
What would it take to replace the missing income? Well, lets say the couple needed an additional $40,000 year to have anything resembling their pre retirement income.
That would require about $1,000,000 in the bank or a job!
The "Retirement" of the future, (now) will be a mix of social security and work. When you can no longer work, you will die in poverty; perhaps collapsing on the floor of the emergency room and dying as people step over you to pick up a magazine from the rack.
WAKE UP AMERICA!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Retirement" is no longer possible!
Posted by: jwverez
» RE: "Retirement" is no longer possible!
Posted by: Dianka
» RE: "Retirement" is no longer possible!
Posted by: Yam
» RE: "Retirement" is no longer possible!
Posted by: edgeofnowhere
» RE: "Retirement" is no longer possible!
Posted by: hagwind
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Jul 25, 2008 6:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JT
Ultimate Anonymity
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Corporate GREED
Posted by: Marlena
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Dianka on Jul 25, 2008 7:38 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's all in how you look at it. We shrug off this sort of loss because it's "business as usual". But imagine the public outrage if it was announced that same $2.5 billion had been put into direct aid for our poor.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Perception of $2.5 billion
Posted by: annavan1
» RE: Perception of $2.5 billion
Posted by: JERSEYDAN
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gravitas on Jul 25, 2008 8:17 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reelectnoone on Jul 25, 2008 9:00 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I moved...about 12 seconds after relocating the bottom fell out. Now I will probably be forced to file for bankruptcy because I can't keep paying for two places and cover my debts.
Had the real estate not crashed I would be living in a paid-for home, no mortgage and have had most of my other debts paid off and my SS and small business would carry me comfortably. That's gone now.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: avatar_singh on Jul 25, 2008 9:11 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Increase Decrease
July 24, 2008 (LPAC) This morning, Jack Blum, a lawyer with long experience in investigating money laundering, tax evasion, and similar financial crimes, provided a useful assessment when he told the Senate Finance Committee that offshore tax havens, such as those that are scattered about the British Commonwealth, have their origins in something called the "revenue rule," a common law rule that says that no government should help enforce the tax laws of other governments. This "revenue rule," Blum said, has its origins in English common law during the Napoleonic era, when English courts upheld contracts between private parties that were intended to evade French customs duties. Since the revenue rule has expanded to become a basic principle of common law, one result has been that the IRS cannot enforce tax judgments against individuals or corporations if the money at issue is being held in an offshore bank.
The revenue rule has spawned an entire industry dedicated to helping people evade taxes in their own countries, mostly in the infamous British Commonwealth offshore financial centers such as the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands, among others. Offshore banks actually sell services in the US and other countries to help people evade taxes they would otherwise have to pay their own governments. This is not unlike the British approach to terrorism, in that terrorists living in London are protected as long as they attack other countries.
Blum proposed a number of measures to deal with the problem, mostly having to do with requiring taxpayers to prove that their offshore companies are, indeed, real, rather than the shell companies usually set up to hide assets. However, Blum agreed with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) when he said that without getting agreement with other countries to combat the problem, "it's just going to stay a game." Blum replied that "the revenue rule has to be taken down as an international principle."
From---"http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/07/24/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: we have to destroy british hold on america and through america on the rest of the world .
Posted by: avatar_singh
» It is time for the British to pay global reparations
Posted by: Bobsays
» British reparations?
Posted by: zipper696
» British replies
Posted by: zipper696
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jul 25, 2008 9:17 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't you love it when you see food, gas, utilities, insurance, taxes, services and medical care skyrocket and the official inflation numbers barely change? Under Clinton, the government changed the way inflation and unemployment were calculated- otherwise they cooked the books and the Bushies have continued the practice.
It's time to clean house of not just NeoCon Republicans, bu of DLC Republican-Lite Democrats as well. Obama shows all the signs of supporting the same crap. We need to hold his feet to the fire before and after the election. The same is true of the timid, do-nothing Pelosi/Reid Congressional leadership.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: brilliantatbreakfast on Jul 25, 2008 9:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It used to be that if you played by the rules, you would at least be OK. Now if you play by the rules you are just a chump.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: badkitty on Jul 25, 2008 10:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» 401ks and taxation.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: 401ks and taxation.
Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: 401ks and taxation.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Don't ever believe what investing consultants say
Posted by: Bobsays
» Very poor investment strategy
Posted by: ReallyBearish
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ranchero42 on Jul 25, 2008 10:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Jul 25, 2008 10:49 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it's high time that we retire that "patriotic" (b.s.) litmus test- abortion, school prayer, guns, gays, etc., etc. We need to focus on issues that affect us all, irrespective of religion, sexuality, gender, or whatever else. We all want/need safe and affordable housing, food, work, safe schools for our kids, healthcare including dental, global warming, etc. these are areas that we can build on and revolve around.
Come on people - wake up. Insist that these criminals in Washington be prosecuted and jailed for their crimes (wars of choice, illegal eavesdropping, signing statements, et al. these people have committed TREASON against us all!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: scheherezade on Jul 25, 2008 11:47 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Driving down wages and opportinities for young workers.
An ideal situation for convincing young, working voters to abandon Social Security...checkmate!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Younger workers already resent older workers
Posted by: badkitty
» Younger workers already getting conned
Posted by: zipper696
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Joe on Jul 25, 2008 2:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 15delta on Jul 25, 2008 3:01 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wants to put our Social Security checks in the stock market.
This guy is just plain ole stupid.
Oh! His name is Bush.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: avatar_singh on Jul 25, 2008 5:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so when itis still above 6000 then it has not really gone down compared to real economy.
the financial sustem is bankrupt but stock market is still going strong comparativly thanks to bought up adminsitrators of sovering wealth funds and stupid russians, chinese and Indians who hold useless dollars and icurr losses.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: stock market is not down enough-so how does it affect retirment annuity?
Posted by: avatar_singh
Comments are closed-
Posted by: logansafi on Jul 25, 2008 10:59 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And then you have that other scam called Military Pensions, which has the civilians paying for the participants in The War Machine what they themselves are denied, which is a decent and secure retirement.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Melancholy Korean on Jul 26, 2008 12:31 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My comment is only useful if we can agree on the following: (a) The profit motive is ok, necessary, useful. (b) People are responsible for their actions. (c) The only guarantees in life are taxes... well, you know the rest.
With that out of the way, I have a few points and questions.
(a) Social Security. A pay as you go system, that's fine, I can agree with that, but what happens when there are more retirees than workers? Or the ratio between them falls to a level that cannot sustain current and future benefits?
(b) Over the long term (remembering of course Keynes' dictum that in the long run we are all dead), the stock market has returned about 8%, better than returns on bonds by 2-3% points.
(c) The thrust of your article is that Wall Street has screwed the little guy. If by this you mean the little guy has been duped into paying high fees for mediocre performance, then YES. But people have been saying this for a long time. There have been companies (Vanguard) explicitly set up to counter the high fee and horribly below average stock picking of most managers, and leading players in the market have also sounded off, like Bogle of Vanguard, Swensen at Yale, Warren Buffett. Information is available. You are free to buy a cheaper fund. Put your money in cash, if you can't handle too much risk. Or bonds. Or all three. Everyone is complaining now, but nary a word could be heard during the great bull run (whichever one you want to choose in the last x years.)
But if "Wall Street" is somehow responsible for the market tanking, than I have to disagree. Maybe if we expand that definition to include everyone, since most are in the market somehow, through private accts, pension funds, endowments, the now explicit guarantee of the GSEs, the 29 billion in bad debts from Bear. But if everyone is responsible, that makes it harder to write an exciting headline and to blame someone else for problems we caused ourselves.
Points (a) and (b) would seem to suggest a possible way out of the impending insolvency of our country. The beginning of a solution, at least. And yes, I agree, cut the military budget by 90% and build more schools and roads.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» A reply to your points
Posted by: magiquarian1969
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jzelensk on Jul 28, 2008 5:48 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Realize what this means. Boomers and other workers have been not only covering the SS pensions of the greatest and following generation of retirees, but have been setting aside unprecedented dollars for their own retirement, specifically so their kids & grandkids won't have to do so. That was the essence of the 1983 reforms. The Boomers may not be the "greatest" generation, but one can't accuse them of not reforming Social Security to make it essentially solvent.
Somewhere along the line the government (& both parties and both branches were complicit in this) began referring to the "unified budget" - that is, the heavily in Debt general fund, and the heavily in Surplus SS Trust fund, conveniently added together as if it were a single entity.
Then Reagan and Bush II began slashing income taxes for the rich and expanding (mostly war) spending, to force the general fund far into an unprecedented deficit position.
It was then no coincidence that Bush II began his tour proclaiming that Social Security (in fact the most solvent part of the government) was broke because all it had were these "worthless Treasury Bonds."
Well, now follow the money. The FICA tax is regressive because all wages over $102,000 (in 2008) are exempt from it, whereas all workers pay FICA from their very first dollar of earnings, no exceptions. So it comes from the pockets of working stiffs. The Bush II tax cuts, every bit of which (remember the "unified budget?") financed with these FICA dollars, overwhelmingly went to the very richest - and by the way still are.
What Bush was really saying was, "my Base - you know, the Haves and the Have Mores - have taken the Social Security balances that workers beginning in 1983 have been patiently building up (after all there were a couple of years of general fund surplus under Clinton), and we now refuse to pay it back to the source from which we borrowed it."
Accuse me of class warfare if you wish, but, again, follow who paid these taxes, and now in whose portfolios they rest. The general fund owes this money back to the Trust Fund, same as it owes US Treasury principle and interest back to ANY holder of a US Treasury bond.
How many times in US history has the government every defaulted on a US Treasury? Exactly zero times. But now that the Haves and Have Mores owe the SS Trust Fund a little debt (again, at its peak around $6 trillion in 2026), they warn that for the first time ever, the world's wealthiest nation will default on its debt, why because it owes that debt to its own retirees?
Hmmm....
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 25, 2008 3:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I'm telling you. This was a RIGGED market falsely labelled as "free".
Posted by: jwverez
Comments are closed-
Posted by: socialpsych on Jul 25, 2008 4:26 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on Jul 25, 2008 4:41 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People are going to get double and triple burned. Yet, ironically, these are the very same people who support the most right-wing policies, so it does in some way seem like justice come home.
My advice? Have nothing to do with anything where some asshole with an MBA, a fancy suit, lots of smarmy charm, a coke habit, 6 prostitutes a week, manages your money for you. Think about it: could you concentrate much high on blow, while getting head from a smoking hot Eastern European prostitute? I know I couldn't really find stock tables that interesting after that.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: the filth always start from the british-all greed ,corruption and terrorism
Posted by: avatar_singh
» filthy British reply
Posted by: zipper696
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sushi on Jul 25, 2008 4:43 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sushi
"Old age comes at a bad time."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What retirement?
Posted by: kegbot1
» RE: What retirement?
Posted by: Sushi
» RE: What retirement?
Posted by: johnnyfarout
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BST on Jul 25, 2008 6:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Many of the millions suffering through these worrisome months didn't buy a house they could not afford, didn't speculate on their homes, didn't let greedy impulses lead them to the edge of foreclosure or bankruptcy. Nevertheless, the excesses of their neighbors and the criminal folly of American finance is destroying their plans for retirement."
I've listened with growing impatience and, yes, annoyance to the stories of the "victims" of predatory lenders who somehow did not understand they could not afford what they were buying. And I wondered, why didn't they understand or did they just hope for the best?
And what will all this mean to my retirement --which I financed little by little over decades of hard work, to my home ( on which I still owe) which I bought years ago after a year of study and contemplation and after years of a third-floor walk-up?
I am fairly newly retired (a decision that came only after study and conferring with several other people on benefit v risk). While I've never had more than one credit card and never grace the shopping mall (my friends and family note that I pinch pennies -- gingerale in lieu of wine -- until they beg for mercy), I am saying farewell to years I envisioned as being far more stable than they will be now.
I have a 12-year-old gas-efficient car that is dwarfed on the highway by the giants. I had hoped this year to consider a used Honda, vintage 2005 -- figured it was a good time to buy. Then along came the gas crunch and the SUV owners wailing that they need a SECOND car with good mileage. There go any bargains and, thus, my dream of this small "luxury."
My greatest assets have always been a sense of optimism and confidence in my own ability to assess situations and make decisions that take in the future. These days I am losing both.
So I would like to send thank yous to the president for an unnecessary war and to those who have let greed be their guide, believing that everyone can have everything (including credit card debts in the thousands), no matter their financial situation. Remember, I, too, have to pay health insurance and out-of-pocket expenses for health issues which may arise.
I am fortunate in so many ways and I am grateful, even on the days when I am also scared and sad.
What many fail to recognize as they admire and perhaps envy the fact that I have a sweet little home on which I did most of the heavy work are the many decisions I made along the way that they decided not to make, hoping luck would bail them out if things were to go awry.
Things have gone awry, and here come the bailouts -- but not for me and others like me.
How long before I, too, lose my home?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Thanks for a bold article
Posted by: edgeofnowhere
» It's Not That Simple
Posted by: Jim Shaw
» RE: It's Not That Simple
Posted by: BST
» RE: It's Not That Simple
Posted by: Jim Shaw
» RE: It's Not That Simple
Posted by: hagwind
» RE: It's Not That Simple
Posted by: Jim Shaw
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Israel on Jul 25, 2008 6:10 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They moved to Phoenix, Az and lived a relatively happy, secure life on their pension and social security.
That ain't happenin nomore!
It is estimated that a couple who retires today will need approximately $200,000 in cash, to cover the non reimbursed portion of their Health Care Expenses during a retirement of 20 years!
Most middle class people will find that their Social Security will be the backbone of their income, maybe 30-40% of their pre retirement income.
Where is the rest of the money to come from? Most will not have sufficient pension income because pensions are almost non existent these days. IRA's,401(k)s? The average worker will have maybe $40,000 at retirement.
Bank savings? 40% of American households do not have $1,000 in savings.
Home equity?
What home equity? Over 10% of all homes have negative equity right now and that includes 40% of homes with mortgages taken out since 2005!
What would it take to replace the missing income? Well, lets say the couple needed an additional $40,000 year to have anything resembling their pre retirement income.
That would require about $1,000,000 in the bank or a job!
The "Retirement" of the future, (now) will be a mix of social security and work. When you can no longer work, you will die in poverty; perhaps collapsing on the floor of the emergency room and dying as people step over you to pick up a magazine from the rack.
WAKE UP AMERICA!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Retirement" is no longer possible!
Posted by: jwverez
» RE: "Retirement" is no longer possible!
Posted by: Dianka
» RE: "Retirement" is no longer possible!
Posted by: Yam
» RE: "Retirement" is no longer possible!
Posted by: edgeofnowhere
» RE: "Retirement" is no longer possible!
Posted by: hagwind
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Jul 25, 2008 6:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JT
Ultimate Anonymity
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Corporate GREED
Posted by: Marlena
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Dianka on Jul 25, 2008 7:38 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's all in how you look at it. We shrug off this sort of loss because it's "business as usual". But imagine the public outrage if it was announced that same $2.5 billion had been put into direct aid for our poor.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Perception of $2.5 billion
Posted by: annavan1
» RE: Perception of $2.5 billion
Posted by: JERSEYDAN
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gravitas on Jul 25, 2008 8:17 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reelectnoone on Jul 25, 2008 9:00 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I moved...about 12 seconds after relocating the bottom fell out. Now I will probably be forced to file for bankruptcy because I can't keep paying for two places and cover my debts.
Had the real estate not crashed I would be living in a paid-for home, no mortgage and have had most of my other debts paid off and my SS and small business would carry me comfortably. That's gone now.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: avatar_singh on Jul 25, 2008 9:11 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Increase Decrease
July 24, 2008 (LPAC) This morning, Jack Blum, a lawyer with long experience in investigating money laundering, tax evasion, and similar financial crimes, provided a useful assessment when he told the Senate Finance Committee that offshore tax havens, such as those that are scattered about the British Commonwealth, have their origins in something called the "revenue rule," a common law rule that says that no government should help enforce the tax laws of other governments. This "revenue rule," Blum said, has its origins in English common law during the Napoleonic era, when English courts upheld contracts between private parties that were intended to evade French customs duties. Since the revenue rule has expanded to become a basic principle of common law, one result has been that the IRS cannot enforce tax judgments against individuals or corporations if the money at issue is being held in an offshore bank.
The revenue rule has spawned an entire industry dedicated to helping people evade taxes in their own countries, mostly in the infamous British Commonwealth offshore financial centers such as the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands, among others. Offshore banks actually sell services in the US and other countries to help people evade taxes they would otherwise have to pay their own governments. This is not unlike the British approach to terrorism, in that terrorists living in London are protected as long as they attack other countries.
Blum proposed a number of measures to deal with the problem, mostly having to do with requiring taxpayers to prove that their offshore companies are, indeed, real, rather than the shell companies usually set up to hide assets. However, Blum agreed with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) when he said that without getting agreement with other countries to combat the problem, "it's just going to stay a game." Blum replied that "the revenue rule has to be taken down as an international principle."
From---"http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/07/24/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: we have to destroy british hold on america and through america on the rest of the world .
Posted by: avatar_singh
» It is time for the British to pay global reparations
Posted by: Bobsays
» British reparations?
Posted by: zipper696
» British replies
Posted by: zipper696
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jul 25, 2008 9:17 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't you love it when you see food, gas, utilities, insurance, taxes, services and medical care skyrocket and the official inflation numbers barely change? Under Clinton, the government changed the way inflation and unemployment were calculated- otherwise they cooked the books and the Bushies have continued the practice.
It's time to clean house of not just NeoCon Republicans, bu of DLC Republican-Lite Democrats as well. Obama shows all the signs of supporting the same crap. We need to hold his feet to the fire before and after the election. The same is true of the timid, do-nothing Pelosi/Reid Congressional leadership.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: brilliantatbreakfast on Jul 25, 2008 9:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It used to be that if you played by the rules, you would at least be OK. Now if you play by the rules you are just a chump.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: badkitty on Jul 25, 2008 10:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» 401ks and taxation.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: 401ks and taxation.
Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: 401ks and taxation.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Don't ever believe what investing consultants say
Posted by: Bobsays
» Very poor investment strategy
Posted by: ReallyBearish
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ranchero42 on Jul 25, 2008 10:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Jul 25, 2008 10:49 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it's high time that we retire that "patriotic" (b.s.) litmus test- abortion, school prayer, guns, gays, etc., etc. We need to focus on issues that affect us all, irrespective of religion, sexuality, gender, or whatever else. We all want/need safe and affordable housing, food, work, safe schools for our kids, healthcare including dental, global warming, etc. these are areas that we can build on and revolve around.
Come on people - wake up. Insist that these criminals in Washington be prosecuted and jailed for their crimes (wars of choice, illegal eavesdropping, signing statements, et al. these people have committed TREASON against us all!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: scheherezade on Jul 25, 2008 11:47 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Driving down wages and opportinities for young workers.
An ideal situation for convincing young, working voters to abandon Social Security...checkmate!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Younger workers already resent older workers
Posted by: badkitty
» Younger workers already getting conned
Posted by: zipper696
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Joe on Jul 25, 2008 2:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 15delta on Jul 25, 2008 3:01 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wants to put our Social Security checks in the stock market.
This guy is just plain ole stupid.
Oh! His name is Bush.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: avatar_singh on Jul 25, 2008 5:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so when itis still above 6000 then it has not really gone down compared to real economy.
the financial sustem is bankrupt but stock market is still going strong comparativly thanks to bought up adminsitrators of sovering wealth funds and stupid russians, chinese and Indians who hold useless dollars and icurr losses.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: stock market is not down enough-so how does it affect retirment annuity?
Posted by: avatar_singh
Comments are closed-
Posted by: logansafi on Jul 25, 2008 10:59 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And then you have that other scam called Military Pensions, which has the civilians paying for the participants in The War Machine what they themselves are denied, which is a decent and secure retirement.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Melancholy Korean on Jul 26, 2008 12:31 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My comment is only useful if we can agree on the following: (a) The profit motive is ok, necessary, useful. (b) People are responsible for their actions. (c) The only guarantees in life are taxes... well, you know the rest.
With that out of the way, I have a few points and questions.
(a) Social Security. A pay as you go system, that's fine, I can agree with that, but what happens when there are more retirees than workers? Or the ratio between them falls to a level that cannot sustain current and future benefits?
(b) Over the long term (remembering of course Keynes' dictum that in the long run we are all dead), the stock market has returned about 8%, better than returns on bonds by 2-3% points.
(c) The thrust of your article is that Wall Street has screwed the little guy. If by this you mean the little guy has been duped into paying high fees for mediocre performance, then YES. But people have been saying this for a long time. There have been companies (Vanguard) explicitly set up to counter the high fee and horribly below average stock picking of most managers, and leading players in the market have also sounded off, like Bogle of Vanguard, Swensen at Yale, Warren Buffett. Information is available. You are free to buy a cheaper fund. Put your money in cash, if you can't handle too much risk. Or bonds. Or all three. Everyone is complaining now, but nary a word could be heard during the great bull run (whichever one you want to choose in the last x years.)
But if "Wall Street" is somehow responsible for the market tanking, than I have to disagree. Maybe if we expand that definition to include everyone, since most are in the market somehow, through private accts, pension funds, endowments, the now explicit guarantee of the GSEs, the 29 billion in bad debts from Bear. But if everyone is responsible, that makes it harder to write an exciting headline and to blame someone else for problems we caused ourselves.
Points (a) and (b) would seem to suggest a possible way out of the impending insolvency of our country. The beginning of a solution, at least. And yes, I agree, cut the military budget by 90% and build more schools and roads.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» A reply to your points
Posted by: magiquarian1969
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jzelensk on Jul 28, 2008 5:48 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Realize what this means. Boomers and other workers have been not only covering the SS pensions of the greatest and following generation of retirees, but have been setting aside unprecedented dollars for their own retirement, specifically so their kids & grandkids won't have to do so. That was the essence of the 1983 reforms. The Boomers may not be the "greatest" generation, but one can't accuse them of not reforming Social Security to make it essentially solvent.
Somewhere along the line the government (& both parties and both branches were complicit in this) began referring to the "unified budget" - that is, the heavily in Debt general fund, and the heavily in Surplus SS Trust fund, conveniently added together as if it were a single entity.
Then Reagan and Bush II began slashing income taxes for the rich and expanding (mostly war) spending, to force the general fund far into an unprecedented deficit position.
It was then no coincidence that Bush II began his tour proclaiming that Social Security (in fact the most solvent part of the government) was broke because all it had were these "worthless Treasury Bonds."
Well, now follow the money. The FICA tax is regressive because all wages over $102,000 (in 2008) are exempt from it, whereas all workers pay FICA from their very first dollar of earnings, no exceptions. So it comes from the pockets of working stiffs. The Bush II tax cuts, every bit of which (remember the "unified budget?") financed with these FICA dollars, overwhelmingly went to the very richest - and by the way still are.
What Bush was really saying was, "my Base - you know, the Haves and the Have Mores - have taken the Social Security balances that workers beginning in 1983 have been patiently building up (after all there were a couple of years of general fund surplus under Clinton), and we now refuse to pay it back to the source from which we borrowed it."
Accuse me of class warfare if you wish, but, again, follow who paid these taxes, and now in whose portfolios they rest. The general fund owes this money back to the Trust Fund, same as it owes US Treasury principle and interest back to ANY holder of a US Treasury bond.
How many times in US history has the government every defaulted on a US Treasury? Exactly zero times. But now that the Haves and Have Mores owe the SS Trust Fund a little debt (again, at its peak around $6 trillion in 2026), they warn that for the first time ever, the world's wealthiest nation will default on its debt, why because it owes that debt to its own retirees?
Hmmm....
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




