Here's a debate with a family relative (from Canada) in November 2008
==============================================================

It started with an email to some bureaucrat named Teresa Ghilarducci, whose "plan" is
to take our 401K plans and put them into the "Social Security" system...

From: "falcngnzx2@aol.com" <falcngnzx2@aol.com>
To: ghilarducci.1@nd.edu
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:51:17 PM
Subject: Spreading OUR Wealth via THEFT of our 401Ks...

...or as the Nazis used to say: "Arbeit Macht Frei" (Work Brings Freedom). These liberals want to take OUR
wealth, give it to their slacker voting constituents in exchange for votes, and WE will have to work until we drop
dead...
Teresa Ghilarducci - This email is TO you from a Lakeland Regional High School (Wanaque, NJ) graduate
(1982) who seems to have a better understanding of money then all of your degrees from Berkeley obtained
for you...You have been RIPPED OFF!

Ghilarducci is the woman who wants to take our 401K wealth and give it to the crooked elitists in Washington
D.C to "spread the wealth" in the fashion of Karl Marx.

http://www.nd.edu/~krocinst/faculty_staff/fellows/ghilarducci.shtml

Are you REALLY teaching at Notre Dame??!?!? Remind me not to send my children (unborn) or recommend
that my family's or friends' kids go there.... The Gipper is rolling over in his grave...

Here's a synopsis of Ghilarducci's "plan" to KEEP YOU AND YOUR FAMILY DEPENDENT ON GOVERNMENT
and unable to achieve the level of wealth YOU WISH!!!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122477680834462659.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in
New York , contains elements that are being considered. . . .

Under Ghilarducci's plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S.
government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account
administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government
bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.

The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.
I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s," Ghilarducci said in an interview. "401(k)s can continue to exist,
but they won't have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break."

(Only a Liberal would say that OUR money is "subsidizing" a "tax break" for US, the actual 401K owners ). The
tax that WOULD be paid on 401Ks under her scheme, would be an ADDITIONAL CONFISCATION of OUR
money without OUR consent!!! - BMR

Ghilarducci outlined her plan last year in a paper for the left-liberal Economic Policy Institute, in which she
acknowledges that her plan would amount to a tax increase on workers making more than
$75,000--considerably less than the $250,000 Barack Obama has said would be his tax-hike cutoff. In addition,
workers would be able to pass on only half of their account balances to their heirs; presumably the government
would seize the remaining half. (Under current law, 401(k) balances are fully heritable, although they are
subject to the income tax.)

Sounds pretty unappealing, doesn't it? But in her congressional testimony, Ghilarducci offered a sweetener:
Short-term I propose . . . that the Congress allow workers to swap out their 401(k) assets, perhaps at August
levels, for a guaranteed retirement account--just a one-time swap. . . .
How would this work? You go back to your districts and meet up with a 55-year-old who had had $50,000 in his
account last month and now has $40,000 in the account. He can swap out that $50,000, valued in August, for
that guarantee of what would become, if he retires at 62, a $500 a month addition to Social Security.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Liberals and democrats want to keep you DOWN!!!

This is once facet of the "CHANGE" that is on the way if Obama wins...

Ghilarducci, here is something to wrap that elitist Berkeley BA and PhD "education" around:

MY website:

http://www.socialsecurityisascam.com

In the last 12 years or so, I have been notifying my friends and associates about the colossal THEFT of
American Worker's money (my late father's stolen funds kicked off my interest in this fraud) and if you and your
elitist friends are seeking to CONFISCATE our 401K wealth (401Ks were invented as an alternative TO THE
SCAM of Social Security, because people actually do not own their money, receive little or no interest on their
confiscated money, and cannot leave their money to their heirs - all GROSSLY UN-AMERICAN).

You will not succeed in this marxist scheme. You liberals are on thin ice already. If Obama gets elected, and
you are seeking a position in his Administration, you had better read my website and modify those marxist
tendencies and provide counter-revolutionary balance to Obama.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here is a simple compound interest calculator for you to ponder.

Click on the website below and enter the following data:

Years = 37  (one works from 18 to 55 - NOT 67, like I must do to receive "full" Social Security "benefits")

Percent Yield = 10 (10% is the AVERAGE return of the stock market)

Initial Balance = 0  (My parents did not have any money to start me off with. Maybe yours did not either....Yeah,
right....)

Monthly Contribution = 300  ($300 per month is $3,600 per month (which is what I pay per year in Social
Security), and is 8% of an annual salary of $45,000. That is a good amount to save. If one's employer added a
match or a percentage, the amount below would be even GREATER.

http://www.math.com/students/calculators/source/compound.htm

Did you plug the numbers above into the calculator?

What is the result a person who EARNS $45,000 per year and saves ONLY 8% of their salary per month over a
37 year career (NO RAISES INCLUDED!)

The result is: $1,397,948.90

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Don't tell me you never saw that in Berkeley ...If not, you should get your money back. Unless you took
taxpayers' money via loans to fund your "education"

This scenario proves that an average paid working American can be a millionaire and retire at age 55, not
when they are too old to enjoy life, like you liberals like.

Ghilarducci, just TRY to redistribute MY wealth, you elitist, Berkeley indoctrinated, quasi-marxist.

You and your leftist social engineers are going to be routed back to your college dorms to smoke pot and write
poetry, where you belong.

I guarantee that your lifestyle is way higher than mine and that you are living far better then most Americans.

Maybe it is time for you to redistribute YOUR wealth to "the poor".

I heard you say that redistribution of wealth makes things "more equal".

WHO IN THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?

You and your power hungry minions better stay away from my physical property and my virtual property, which
includes the electronic bytes on the computers that store my bank accounts and my investments.

I am an adult and I do not need nanny-staters like you running my life. Go live in Europe or Cuba if you are
interested in that.

In conclusion, you think that you and your cronies are going to steal the wealth I have worked 22 years for and
have lost 30% of during this democrat-caused "financial crisis" during this election year in order to get Obama
in as President and then the marxists think they can take over this country and destroy capitalism?

Do you think that instead of my 401k giving me THOUSANDS of dollars MORE then Social Security does PER
MONTH, that I will accept people like YOU turning my 401k into another worthless, tax fund for the government
and handing me and EXTRA $600 per month in addition to the paltry $1,300 "promised" me by the government
(in actuality, other FICA taxpayers in the future).

Not on my watch...


An example for a working person:
============================
Social Security and Ghilarducci's plan = $2,000 per month.

A 401K valued at $400,000 as of 10/28/2008 (which at a very low level since the crash) if it attains 10% annual
growth after the market comes back until 2024 when the worker turns 60 years old = $16,667 per MONTH!!!
(no typo - $16,667 per MONTH...)

Why should the worker be FORCED from financial independence and be turned into government
dependence???

So we can all be "equal"??? All of the worker's savings, investment, risk taking, sacrifices, and luck are
disbursed to pay for people who did none of those things I just mentioned? So everyone can be miserable...

If that is the mentality of today's Americans, we do not deserve liberty and freedom. We deserve Socialism and
Obama.

The United States could have been a great country. Liberals and Democrats have ruined it.

Ghilarducci, you may try to put me Obama's enemies list. You will find I am probably already there.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It is always great to exchange ideas with you. I always respect your ideas and thoughts.

On that note:  The Debate continues!


1) You said: "though I wonder why you so hate the America that created that opportunity for you... (and you
pay less taxes than me or any of your Irish relations)."

Where do you pick up the vibe that I "hate" America?!?!? Does disagreeing with and having contempt for
liberals who obtain elective office by bribing low-income voters by taking the money from wealthier people (a
group smaller in number) and REDISTRIBUTING the money to the larger, not-as-wealthy group, in exchange for
their votes mean that I hate America?

HENCE the subject of this email notetrail:  "Spreading OUR Wealth via THEFT of our 401Ks..."

However, I am greatly CONCERNED and quite WORRIED for the future of the United States as a sovereign
nation, and not becoming part of some Euro-style governmental tyranny (Conspiracy theory (or IS IT???) alert:
"The North American Union". See the next link...).

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16058

For example: MANY intersections in big cities AND small towns across America that I have driven through have
cameras. Do they prevent accidents? NO. Do they prevent illegal aliens from standing around looking to be
exploited for their cheap labor? NO. Why are they spending my tax dollars on cameras like they have done in
London, where some BIG BROTHER voice commands you not to smoke in a non-smoking area, or whatever
else they command you to do???

I am sad that the children I see around me today, will not know the increasingly smaller amount of freedom and
the liberty that even I had, which was already on the slippery slope to socialism since the imposition of the
Federal Income Tax and Federal Reserve in 1913...

The reason that I have achieved what I have is the result of FREEDOM, CHOICE, GOALS, DREAMS, NOT
BEING SATISFIED WITH CRUMBS FROM GOVERNMENT and other values. One of the reasons you and the
Irish relatives may not have been able to achieve the same amount of prosperity (although I don't see many of
our relatives in poverty here in the US, Canada, or Ireland), is the HIGH TAXES imposed by government in
Canada and Ireland, and it is getting worse in this country. With the deficits the US government has created,
taxes will NEED to rise. That is what angers me the most. They spend our money like water, so the less the
government has, the less they can have the opportunity to bankrupt us (which is the way the United States is
headed).  

We can always pay LESS taxes. It is OUR money, not ANYBODY in the government's money. So they should be
given as little as possible.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer


2) You said: "I had a very different understanding of your family's financial situation btw..."

I don't know what you mean by this, but I can say that my parents struggled to make ends meet, and I vowed
not to struggle as much. Now, I "struggle", but it is not the same struggle that my parents had. It is at a totally
different financial level, and I am single with no kids yet. I am able to live quite a prosperous life, so my
"quasi-struggle" means that I must just earn enough cash to pay for the trips that I take, the gasoline that I use,
the mortgage and the associated bills, car payment, and the gifts for friends and their children that I give.

It is totally different then my parents who had to worry about their 3 boys growing up with the bills being tight,
but still providing a few luxuries like a trip to Ireland as a family (1971) Lake George, NY (1972), Toronto (1973)
and a trip to Disney World (1979) during the 17 years I was cared for by my parents.


3) You said: First, I'd say you're lucky to have had access to ExxonMobil shares: be thankful they're not Enron
shares - lots of people thought they had a lot of money "saved" with them...

What or should I ask, WHO, stopped you from purchasing stock from the publicly traded company on the New
York Stock Exchange known as ExxonMobil over the last 25 years? Was it the environmentalists in your circles?
Was it the anti-Exxon(Mobil) bias in the liberal media? Who or what the reason(s), you can blame them for
costing you BIG BUCKS...

With regards to Enron, that was one of THOUSANDS of companies that one can invest in. I lost $0.00 in Enron
(a rule of investing: KNOW WHAT YOU ARE INVESTING IN), as there are many RESPONSIBLE companies out
there to invest in who are still in business. Those people who had most of their money in Enron broke rule # 1
of investing, which is DIVERSITY!


4) You said: Second, you're much more frugal than most. Most people, myself included, spend pretty much
everything we make. That is a fact. Surely you've heard the "living paycheck to paycheck" line? That's a reality
for millions.

Did you ever hear of the "pay yourself first" line? This means it is your RESPONSIBILITY to invest for your
future so that you will not end up "starving" (which is very unlikely in the United States - TODAY...) or having
your house repossessed (you still could get a mobile home or live with relatives...well, you could!).

If people invested like I show here, they would OWN a few houses, IF THEY SO CHOOSE... It SHOULD NOT be
my responsibility to have MY money confiscated to pay for the irresponsible among us (such as people who
blow money on booze, drugs, women, gambling, season's tickets to sporting events, etc.)

In "You said" # 9 below, you say that your income is now in the SIX FIGURES. I find it interesting that someone
in the TOP 5% of the income bracket (in the US at least) is implying that they are "living paycheck to paycheck".
If you are, it must be those high confiscatory TAXES in Canada that reduces that six-figure income to even less
then my $68,000. That's too bad.

Lesson learned ===>  Big government = big taxes.


5) You said: "You cannot transpose your own experience onto society at large. The majority (or all?) of your
portfolio is Exxon shares... the biggest & most profitable corp. in the world. And you have an employee
matching scheme that gives you even more of an advantage than an ordinary investor buying through their
broker. Well, duh! Of course that works! But if you're attempting to formulate social policy you must look at what
most people actually do and plan around that. That's what governments do and that's why most countries have
some sort of pension system for all."

ExxonMobil = Biggest (by revenue, maybe 2nd, next to Wal-Mart), Most Profitable (Absolutely - the company is
run to profit with oil either at $10 per barrel or $140 per barrel)

Are you saying that I "cheated" because I made the personal choice to invest in Exxon(Mobil) stock? The
matching "scheme" (I like to call it "free money") is a perk, of course, but ANYONE can invest in ExxonMobil.
One just has to get past the incessantly negative labels of  "polluter", "corporate criminal", "evil oil company",
"otter-blotter", etc. that is pasted on ExxonMobil.

I have no advantage over the average investor other than my company's match. As I said in the note trail below:

I buy my ExxonMobil shares from the company, as I am an employee, and you could buy shares without
commission fees (until you buy more shares or sell shares) by signing up for a DRIP (Direct Reinvestment Plan)
account.

http://www.directinvesting.com/

You can, too. You don't need the company's match to become a millionaire. The compound interest calculators
embedded in this email bears that fact out.

I am a big boy. I do not the need the government to make me save and invest. Like I said, if Social Security was
so great, it would not be COMPULSORY, meaning that a worker MUST PARTICIPATE in the scam....

If Social Security was so great, people would be asking, "When can I begin to "contribute?"  People would be
counting down the days before they were able to join up for Social Security, if they believed that they were
getting a good deal...


6) You said: "Your experience with ExxonMobil is entirely exceptional. My stock market investments have failed
even to keep pace with inflation, I think. And I've had broad-based investments in Europe, Japan, America and
Canada, in mutual funds, and I've had financial advisers advising me. And it's all sucked. Since 1990, every
spike has been followed by an equivalent trough, this one the worst of all. I'm sure I'm down, actually.  

That is why I am my OWN financial advisor...I care about my situation MORE.

My advice: BUY ExxonMobil....and other Blue Chip stocks...for diversity's sake.

Here's a GREAT EXAMPLE (PLEASE READ THIS STORY...):

http://www.fool.com/investing/small-cap/2008/11/06/thousands-or-millions-you-choose.aspx


7) You said: "I had drinks with a friend recently who lamented her own situation: "I've been a good girl," she
said, "I did what they said & I've invested since I was 25, faithfully, every month. And I look at my portfolio now
and it's worth pretty much what I put into it." She's 41 now, btw. She also has done ok by real estate - the condo
she bought for $100,000 15 years ago is worth $350,000 today - and she's got a good executive job and a nice
car, but her stocks have failed her utterly."

The real estate gain is good, but unless she is going to move to a less expensive location anytime soon, the
other real estate properties around Toronto have also gone up at about the same rate as your friend's, I am
sure. That will payoff in the future if she decides to move.

25 is usually too late to make one-self a millionaire by 55 (or the equivalent amount in the future of what a
Million dollars buys today factoring in INFLATION), but hey, she may want to work until she is 70... She may also
be comfortable with $500,000 for retirement.
That is STILL MUCH better then Social Security.

The good thing is, she is only 41. There is PLENTY of time for her investments to recover and grow, and right
now, she should be BUYING at the cheaper prices of investments...


8) You said: "Once again Bernard, your own situation is good and you apparently have been a frugal saver.
But it's not relevant to 90% of the population (who simply won't save - they just won't), and governments have
to deal with the majority or face social unrest."

So the people who were responsible and sacrificed and invested in their future should be forced to "share" their
hard-earned money with slackers and people who try to beat the system, and figure that they can blow their
money during their lives and expect, even DEMAND, that the responsible people PAY FOR THEM otherwise
there may be "social unrest"?

Can you say extortion???

Anyway, by the time the slackers and spenders realize that they are not going to be getting more then the
basics with charity and church's help, they would be too old to put up much of a riot...


9) You said: "On another note, I dispute your view that "it's pretty much too late" for a mid-forties non-saver. I
think 20 years of making more & saving more (my income's into six figures now...) and spending less will bring it
all round for me when I retire at 67 (if not later - I like working & love my job & dread the thought of snipping
rosebushes and walking dogs and playing shuffleboard - yuck!). If I can have the equivalent of half a million of
today's $ when my modest Canada Pension Plan kicks in, I'll be fine even in the unlikely event that I make it to
80. And my lovely nieces will get a nice little payout too, with any luck."

Yes, I concede that you may be correct on this one, but ONLY because you say your INCOME is in the
SIX-FIGURES. If that lasts, which I hope it does, you should be able to stash a decent amount away every year
and if you intend to work until 67 or so, you may just well have a very comfortable retirement.

I, on the other hand, will probably never earn six-figures, and I do not know many of my friends or relatives who
do either. Many do not have a high-income job. They need the magic of compound interest along with TIME, so
that they only have to invest a small amount of money (but could be a rather high 10% of their salary) and have
the dividends, the continuing personal and maybe even the company contributions, and the market value of the
investments grow over the time period, so then they would be able to have a comfortable retirement like you
probably will, but without the high-income as you have (A six-figure income for a single person in the USA is in
the TOP 5 PERCENT of individuals...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence_in_the_United_States

Of course, with HIGHER INFLATION, we may ALL NEED to earn six-figures to be at the same level we are at
now, and you may need a quarter of a million dollar salary....


10) You said: "My Dad confessed that he didn't seriously start saving until his late 40s. He's 79 now & still has
hundreds of thousands of dollars (he actually did better on the stock mkt than me or my friend, but he's also
ultra-frugal - ie, CHEAP)"

Even if your Dad has few hundred thousand dollars, if he takes 10% of that to live each year, he would NEED to
be, uh, frugal.

10% of:
========
$750,000 = $75,000 (pretty good for a retiree)
$500,000 = $50,000 (decent for a retiree)
$250,000 = $25,000 (just above poverty - but still better then my Mother's Social Security...)


11) You said: "If you are serious about the social security issue, why not read up independent academic
analysis of it on a societal level rather than trumpet your own (exceptional) experience? The unfunded liability
of billions is a huge problem (in America and everywhere), but you need to look what actually happens at the
macro level with population groups and plan for it. Telling people off is worth less than nothing.

What makes you think that I haven't? I have studied the HERITAGE FOUNDATION

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/index.cfm

Here's a calculator:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/socialsecurity/SSCalcWelcome.asp

and the CATO INSTITUTE'S

http://www.cato.org/subtopic_display_new.php?topic_id=66&ra_id=2

positions on the Social Security scam, but like I have said. This is FIFTH GRADE MATH...I have been studying
the scam of Social Security for at least 12 years, and I only "TRUMPET" what other people may be able to
accomplish in their own lives and what the possibilities could be for my country. The Country that is being sold
out to One World Government globalists and socialists, under the ruse of the latest "crisis".


12) You said: "That's why I approve of Australia's "forced savings" program. I don't know all the details, but
apparently the gov't of Australia is now forcing its citizens to save for their retirement, and it's controversial - the
"you" equivalent in Oz is apoplectic. I can't really be bothered to look into it, but my understanding is it's their
own money, and they get to keep it, but they just can't spend it until they're 65..."

Usually when liberal media labels something "controversial", that means it is good...and I agree, as the U.S.
government FORCES me to "contribute" to Social Security, even though I do not want to (what happened to
liberals and their belief in freedom and CHOICE?). But, for those who do not save, they should be forced to
save just like Social Security, but the workers should be the OWNERS of their OWN MONEY, not having the
government confiscate it for their own politically advantageous uses. If worker's FICA TAX was actually
INVESTED in anything, as my compound interest calculators below show, all worker's would be quite well off at
retirement age, instead of government dependants...

Of course, money is power, so the government keeps the money out of people's hands and gives them back
the crumbs of their labor.


13) You said: "Back to your own experience, did your parents have any savings? Didn't think so."

My parents did not possess the financial knowledge that I do. Neither of them even graduated High School (In
NYC or Ireland), so they had NO savings. Even though as I explained in the earlier part of this note trail, my
Dad COULD have had at least $797,489.72 to retire on, if he was aware of the effects of compound interest
and had invested a small percentage of his money in mutual funds, stocks, etc.

Instead, he was lulled into the false sense of security by the government and their false "promise" of "Social
Security".

One of my dreams was that a person like me would have spoken like I do in these emails to my Dad when he
was sitting at a bar after playing softball in the streets of Manhattan (which he seemed to be ALWAYS doing,
according to his old stories, told a thousand times)when he was around 22 years old back in 1952. How
different my Dad's life would have been, if somebody had looked out for him, like I am trying to do for the
children of my friends...


14) You said: "Cheers & congrats on being so prudent. You should be happier than you are fer gawd's sake!!!"

Thanks, It has not been that difficult. I took some good advice from other friends at Exxon and with some
personal discipline, I decided to rely on the company that employed my for the last 22 years, but is under
constant criticism and attack in the government and marketplace (I can't even count how many of people who
will DRIVE OUT OF THEIR WAY in order to NOT purchase Exxon/Mobil gasoline, oil, etc. (And still we will have
sold $400 BILLION in products at the end of this year)).

I am quite happy for myself. I have lived a pretty clean life, and I try to be a good person. I just am sad for the
others my age who never realized that they were being ripped off, or the children whose taxes are going to be
sky high because of the follies of previous generations (i.e. Baby Boomers, Generation Xers)...


15) You said:  "PS: I'm off to Paris next week where I'll have fancy dinners with fine wines and friends,
champagne in cool bars & pick up a nice shirt or two before heading to London for a few days & do the same. I
will start saving more seriously... soon... but I just felt that this year's trips to Atlanta and Savannah in March,
Montreal in June, and British Columbia in July just weren't enough and I needed more."

That's very cool. It's great to be able to travel. This year, I had my share of day trips to the NJ shore,
Pennsylvania, and then some longer trips to Hilton Head, SC, St. Paul, MN, and Tampa/St. Petersburg, FL. Of
course, I had to scale back because of the move to the new house this year. Do you know that I have been to
Ireland 10 times since 1990? The relatives are probably sick of seeing me...

You can be prudent but still travel about. I enjoy both myself...


16) You said: "PPS: I'm also hoping that significant government intervention will lessen the severity of the
forthcoming recession"

Hmmm, I don't think that would be a good idea. The QUASI-government entities here in the US (Fannie
Mae/Freddie Mac) are the CAUSE of this financial crisis and are the reason we are on the precipice of
recession or worse...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To: falcngnzx2@aol.com
Sent: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 3:01 am
Subject: Re: Fwd: Spreading OUR Wealth via THEFT of our 401Ks...

Wow! Well congratulations on having all that money. I mean that sincerely - though I wonder why you so hate
the America that created that opportunity for you... (and you pay less taxes than me or any of your Irish
relations).

I had a very different understanding of your family's financial situation btw...

First, I'd say you're lucky to have had access to ExxonMobil shares: be thankful they're not Enron shares - lots
of people thought they had a lot of money "saved" with them... Second, you're much more frugal than most.
Most people, myself included, spend pretty much everything we make. That is a fact. Surely you've heard the
"living paycheck to paycheck" line? That's a reality for millions.

So what should a society do when someone who has worked hard all their lives, paid their taxes but - oops,
spent too much and is now 65, 70, 75 & has no money left? Wag its finger and say, "well starve, loser, you
shoulda saved! By the way, we're repossessing your house"?

That happened in the past & that's why every civilized country in the world has adopted government pension
plans.

You cannot transpose your own experience onto society at large. The majority (or all?) of your portfolio is
Exxon shares... the biggest & most profitable corp. in the world. And you have an employee matching scheme
that gives you even more of an advantage than an ordinary investor buying through their broker. Well, duh! Of
course that works! But if you're attempting to formulate social policy you must look at what most people actually
do and plan around that. That's what governments do and that's why most countries have some sort of pension
system for all.

Your experience with ExxonMobil is entirely exceptional. My stock market investments have failed even to keep
pace with inflation, I think. And I've had broad-based investments in Europe, Japan, America and Canada, in
mutual funds, and I've had financial advisers advising me. And it's all sucked. Since 1990, every spike has been
followed by an equivalent trough, this one the worst of all. I'm sure I'm down, actually.

I had drinks with a friend recently who lamented her own situation: "I've been a good girl," she said, "I did what
they said & I've invested since I was 25, faithfully, every month. And I look at my portfolio now and it's worth
pretty much what I put into it." She's 41 now, btw. She also has done ok by real estate - the condo she bought
for $100,000 15 years ago is worth $350,000 today - and she's got a good executive job and a nice car, but
her stocks have failed her utterly.

Once again Bernard, your own situation is good and you apparently have been a frugal saver. But it's not
relevant to 90% of the population (who simply won't save - they just won't), and governments have to deal with
the majority or face social unrest.

On another note, I dispute your view that "it's pretty much too late" for a mid-forties non-saver. I think 20 years
of making more & saving more (my income's into six figures now...) and spending less will bring it all round for
me when I retire at 67 (if not later - I like working & love my job & dread the thought of snipping rosebushes and
walking dogs and playing shuffleboard - yuck!). If I can have the equivalent of half a million of today's $ when
my modest Canada Pension Plan kicks in, I'll be fine even in the unlikely event that I make it to 80. And my
lovely nieces will get a nice little payout too, with any luck.

My Dad confessed that he didn't seriously start saving until his late 40s. He's 79 now & still has hundreds of
thousands of dollars (he actually did better on the stock mkt than me or my friend, but he's also ultra-frugal - ie,
CHEAP)

If you are serious about the social security issue, why not read up independent academic analysis of it on a
societal level rather than trumpet your own (exceptional) experience? The unfunded liability of billions is a huge
problem (in america and everywhere), but you need to look what actually happens at the macro level with
population groups and plan for it. Telling people off is worth less than nothing.

That's why I approve of Australia's "forced savings" program. I don't know all the details, but apparently the
gov't of Australia is now forcing its citizens to save for their retirement, and it's controversial - the "you"
equivalent in Oz is apoplectic. I can't really be bothered to look into it, but my understanding is it's their own
money, and they get to keep it, but they just can't spend it until they're 65...

Back to your own experience, did your parents have any savings?

Didn't think so.

Cheers & congrats on being so prudent. You should be happier than you are fer gawd's sake!!!


PS: I'm off to Paris next week where I'll have fancy dinners with fine wines and friends, champagne in cool bars
& pick up a nice shirt or two before heading to London for a few days & do the same. I will start saving more
seriously... soon... but I just felt that this year's trips to Atlanta and Savannah in March, Montreal in June, and
British Columbia in July just weren't enough and I needed more.

PPS: I'm also hoping that significant goverment intervention will lessen the severity of the forthcoming recession.


From: "falcngnzx2@aol.com" <falcngnzx2@aol.com>
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 7:28:59 PM
Subject: Fwd: Spreading OUR Wealth via THEFT of our 401Ks...

In the last segment of this debate, I said:

Let's just say that I know a "friend" who currently owns 5,019 shares of a reviled (by liberals and ignorant
people who probably own this stock in their OWN pensions and mutual funds, but seemingly are unaware of this
fact because they hate this company, so they shoot themselves in the foot because they own this stock and
need it for THEIR OWN retirement!), but very successful and profitable corporation. This friend's portfolio lost
$165,000 on two days in October, but it has since rebounded. This person is still down about 20% this year, but
in the last 4 years has earned a return of 26.5% (2004); 10.5% (2005); 38.1% (2006); and 23.6 (2007), so
even being down 20% this year, the last 5 years average a 15.7% return.

This person expects 2 more stock splits at 2:1 so by 2024, they expect to own over 25,000 shares. At $50 per
share in 2024, the portfolio will be valued at $1,250,000. With dividends rolled in, and annual contributions until
2019, it should be almost $2,000,000. With a LUMP SUM pension of about $500,000, this person should have
about $2.5 million dollars. With inflation factored in, this will have the buying power of what about $1.63 million
dollars purchases today. The person will take 10% of the $2.5 million per year to spend, so that means living on
$250,000 per year or $20,833 per month. Much better then my Mom's $1,000 per month or the $1,600 per
month the government "promises" me when I am 67 and MAY possibly live that long to collect it! I will also be
able to leave SOME of it to my family and heirs.

===>  Have you realized that "my friend" in the scenario above is ME?

After the lies democrats and liberals have used to fool intelligent people like yourself to resign yourself to
financial table scraps after the government confiscates your wealth so that they can fulfill their socialistic duty of
"wealth re-distribution", I feel it necessary to use my OWN STORY and OWN NUMBERS to illustrate the danger
everyone is in if they listen to the lies from democrats and liberals.

For people around my age, if you haven't saved much, tragically, it is pretty much too late. But, I take the time
and effort to send these emails out for my friend's CHILDREN, so that they will not believe the lies they are now
and will be told frequently in the future and basically FORCED to accept these lies as truth.

First of all, I am my OWN "financial advisor". Why should I pay some "agent" to do what I care about more then
that person ever would?

Here are the facts:

I started out with Exxon (the "reviled, but very successful and profitable corporation") in 1986 earning $18,000
per year (which would be about $32,000 in 2008 dollars - factoring in INFLATION).

With good rankings in a competitive work environment and good raises over the last 22 years, I now earn a
decent $68,000. Not exactly Obama tax-confiscation level money (that started at $250k, but after his election, it
looks to be down to maybe $150k), but not bad for a HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE.

I have sacrificed to get around the financial hole in my pocket that is Social Security (6.2% for FICA TAX and
1.4% for MEDICARE TAX = $5,168 * 2 for my employer's "match" = $10,336 (!!!) for Social Security and
Medicare CONFISCATED annually on my $68,000 salary), BUT I have managed to have SAVED between
6-15% of my income during the last 22 years..

The company (Exxon, now ExxonMobil, the "reviled, but very successful and profitable corporation") has
matched it with 7% of my salary to purchase Exxon, now ExxonMobil, the "reviled, but very successful and
profitable corporation's" stock.

That means that I have been saving between 13% to 22% of my decent, but not EXECUTIVE level salary -
EVERY YEAR since 1986.

I now OWN (not in the government's mythical "lockbox", which many Americans believe their "Social Security" is
"safely" kept, when in fact, the money is re-distributed to current retirees) 5,019 shares of Exxon, now
ExxonMobil, the "reviled, but very successful and profitable corporation's stock. Today's current price is $74.23.
I will let you do the math to obtain it's current value. In January the price was $93.68 per share. In October, the
price went down to $58.00 or so for 2 days, so I lost about 38% of my 401K, but now I am only down 20% again.
(GOOD FOR BUYING, LIKE I WILL BE FOR ANOTHER 11 YEARS...)

In the last 4 years, the stock has earned a return of 26.5% (2004); 10.5% (2005); 38.1% (2006); and 23.6
(2007), so even being down 20% this year, the last 5 years average a 15.7% return.

I also have about 60 other companies in a ROTH IRA and in a LIQUID stock account (the 401K and ROTH IRA
must remain untouched until one turns 59 1/2) and many are CURRENTLY losing money, but the amounts are
very small compared to my 401k with ExxonMobil.

It is my goal to have ExxonMobil as 50% of my retirement funds, and the other companies as the other 50%,
JUST IN CASE Obama and the fanatical environmentalists lethally damage ANOTHER great American company
- ExxonMobil.

As I said above:

I expect 2 more EXXONMOBIL stock splits at 2:1 so by 2024, so hopefully, I expect to own over 25,000 shares
at that time. At $50 per share in 2024, the portfolio will be valued at $1,250,000. With dividends rolled in,
annual contributions until 2019 (WHEN I RETIRE), and market value of the stock increasing after the splits, it
should be valued at almost $2,000,000. With a LUMP SUM pension of about $500,000, I should have about
$2.5 million dollars.

With inflation factored in, I will have the buying power of what about $1.63 million dollars purchases today. I will
take 10% of the $2.5 million per year to spend, so that means living on $250,000 per year or $20,833 per
month.

Don't you think that this is much better then my Mom's $1,000 per month from Social Security or the $1,600 per
month the government "promises" me when I am 67 and have only a decent chance of living that long to collect
it? (If the "average" males life-span is 75, some make 85, some make 65. As you can tell, I am a cynic)

Don't you believe that "low-income earning" people could benefit from more than then paltry amount paid to
them by "Social Security"??? Many of our great liberal and democrat politicians don't think so, because they
fight any reform of the scam like they fight to keep aborting "inconvenient" babies...

I will also be able to leave SOME of it to my family and heirs. UNLIKE Social Security, which the government just
KEEPS when the worker and his/her spouse dies!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You said:

"Oh, and as you're recommending saving "only" 8% of your (I assume pre-tax) income, you must be pretty well
set by now! Assuming you've earned approximately the same money and your investments have merely kept up
with inflation (ie, not actually earned anything, but retained their value) over the last 20 years, you should have
around $110,000 in the bank. Or hugely more if you got a 10% return."

As you can see from the current value of my stock, I am "pretty well set". Except, I reached $110,000 back in
1997...

Now, I have to hide this (my money and my PROPERTY) from Obama's Socialistic henchmen who are out to
punish wealth-creators like myself who have sacrificed, saved, and INVESTED for MY future and INSTEAD, in
exchange for votes and messiah-like popularity, intend to confiscate and give my money to people who partied
and wasted their time, effort, and money most of their lives THEN DEMAND to be "given" HEALTH CARE,
COLLEGE EDUCATIONS (WHICH I DON'T EVEN HAVE), CHEAP GASOLINE, LOW-INCOME HOUSING THAT IS
BRAND NEW and better than the 70 year-old house my DAD struggled to pay for, while his tax dollars sent
some other "unfortunate" person to college and he could not even afford to send his own children. Socialism
causes bitterness in society.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From your last email, you seem to utterly reject the idea that a worker who saves SIX percent (with a six percent
"match" from their company) of their $35,000 per year salary could become a millionaire with prudent investing.
This is a SIMPLE COMPOUND INTEREST calculator. It is not from Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs.
It is blatantly honest. You can GOOGLE "compound interest" and enter the same values in and the numbers will
be just about the same on EACH calculator.
There are some nominal differences in the amounts and I assume that the programmer's have slightly different
code on rounding, etc.


http://www.math.com/students/calculators/source/compound.htm


Using the calculator in the link above, input, if you will, the following:

Years = 37  (One works from age 18 to 55, with no college degree necessary)

Percent Yield = 9  (You say that the "stock market" does NOT earn 10%, so I will use 9%, but I will get you
documentation that the stock market has averaged 11% since 1926 (which includes the losses incurred during
the depression of the 1930s)). My ExxonMobil stock has AVERAGED 10.6% since 1987, when I began
purchasing shares.

Initial Balance = 0  (My parents could not give me any money to start, so I assume no one else's could either).

Monthly Contribution  = 360  (This is based on a person whose salary starts at $35,000 per year with NO
RAISES (i.e. NO INCREASES for INFLATION) for the 37 years they work with 6.2% INVESTED = $2,170 per
year divided by 12 months = $180.33 monthly Multiplied by 2 to include the employer's "match" which = $360
per month.

Hit the "Calculate Now!" button

The result is $1,276,480.51

BINGO! A worker without a college degree can work for 37 years (with NO RAISES - how unlikely is that?),
RETIRE AT AGE 55 (not 67 like the government says in order to collect their Social Security), and have $1.2
million dollars to spend at age 55...

It COULD be in America, but not while liberals are running the show, and keeping American workers in
dependence on government. Well, not ALL workers...(Such as people like me, and maybe you, who now know
better).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You said: "but Social Security is a much better deal for lower income workers."

I say that if you read my emails, one may be a "low-income worker", but one can RETIRE a millionaire easily, if
Capitalism was used in the vehicle of Private Retirement Accounts and NOT the Socialist SCAM of Social
Security...Is that so WRONG?!?

I don't believe that one should work hard all of their life, and end up with handouts from the government, when
they had the opportunity to enjoy their "golden years". That's CONSERVATISM. Liberals need victims in order
to be elected..


You said: "I've certainly saved nowhere near that (and I'm glad i'm enrolled in the Canada Pension Plan - our
version of social security) and I don't know anyone who has."

Now you do...Someone who is ON THE WAY to "beating the system" of poverty and governmental dependence
in democrat, Obama-loving NEW JERSEY (by way of that great state of Texas), United States of America in
2008.

In 20 years, I want you to tell me about how your system keeps you "comfortable". You may be able to say is
that I was wrong. But, I don't think that I will be.

The whole Social Security scam is nothing more than fifth grade math and I am going out on a limb and
explaining in detail, using my own numbers, how a working person
can overcome the theft of our wealth. I don't know how long we Americans will be "allowed" to improve our
financial situations. People just sit around and moan and groan instead of fighting for THEIR RIGHTS to
personal choice and the opportunity for improving their lives.

If you did the math from my stock value above, even with the current economic "crisis", which has caused me to
lose 20% of my wealth this year, the value of my stock EXCEEDS:

1) The $356,000 for my mortgage (In case anyone is interested, ATTACHED IS A PHOTO OF MY HOUSE,
JUST BUILT IN SEPTEMBER 2008)
2) The $30,000 for my Jeep
3) And currently $7,000 of my debts.

As the stock price goes up $1.00 per share, My value increases by $5,000, which soon covers any other debts
I have.

That is called FINANCIAL confidence and I have run my personal financial life like ExxonMobil runs their
business. Thrifty, always seeking value, keeping some debt, but at a reasonable interest rate, because the
cash used for investment will supercede the interest paid for the short-term debts.

When the government steps in to make things "equitable", it means we will all be EQUALLY MISERABLE, except
for the "elites", of whom we would be financial slaves and just cogs in the wheel of what they call "progress".

In addition to burying Social Secuirty, we need to implement the FAIR TAX, so that EVERYONE pays their fair
share, even those who are not yet citizens.

I reiterate, Socialism sucks...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-----Original Message-----
From:
To: falcngnzx2@aol.com
Sent: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:52 pm
Subject: Re: Spreading OUR Wealth via THEFT of our 401Ks...

If you think my explanation is "just like a government bureaucrat explaining Social Security", ask any financial
advisor to show what monthly contributions would be necessary to have $1.3 million after a 30-year period. And
by that I mean talk to a real adviser who earns a living organizing pension plans for individuals - pretend you're
investing for yourself or maybe a young niece or nephew so they'll take it seriously. Don't go to some website
that promises the earth.

My guess: $8,300 a year wouldn't even come close... The rich would be fine without it, but Social Security is a
much better deal for lower income workers.

Oh, and as you're recommending saving "only" 8% of your (I assume pre-tax) income, you must be pretty well
set by now! Assuming you've earned approximately the same money and your investments have merely kept up
with inflation (ie, not actually earned anything, but retained their value) over the last 20 years, you should have
around $110,000 in the bank. Or hugely more if you got a 10% return.

I've certainly saved nowhere near that (and I'm glad i'm enrolled in the Canada Pension Plan - our version of
social security) and I don't know anyone who has.

I've been invested modestly in the stock market since 1990 and I don't even think I've broken even. I have
made money in real estate though...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: "falcngnzx2@aol.com" <falcngnzx2@aol.com>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 12:40:34 AM
Subject: Re: Spreading OUR Wealth via THEFT of our 401Ks...

This is why people should be ENCOURAGED to participate in CAPITALISM, and not the quasi-socialism that is
in currently in place in Canada and the United States. Both your and my "benevolent" governments do not
believe in telling you how bad their state-run "retirement insurance" programs RIPOFF the Canadian and
American workers.

But, I do...

I am not familiar with how bad Canada's "Social Security" is, but the USA's scam is so "great", that the
government tells me that I cannot OPT OUT of it and I have my FICA TAX (6.2% of my $68,000 annual salary,
which is $4,216 and $8,432 when my employer's "match" is "contributed", involuntarily, of course) INVESTED IN
ANYTHING, and it would be better then the raw deal we have now. It is COMPULSORY to hand over our
hard-earned money to fund this scam...

Imagine asking a worker to WRITE A CHECK $8,432 a year ($702.67 MONTHLY!!!) to pay for "retirement
insurance". It is VERY EXPENSIVE "retirement insurance" in anyone's book. Especially when you end up in
poverty after "contributing" into the scam for 50 or so years...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Let's go through your statements one by one and I will correct them for you...Your comments are in RED, my
replies are in GREEN

1) One enormous problem with your calculations Bernard ... inflation.

This is the NUMBER 1 reason why Social Security is a RIPOFF. It has no provision to keep up with inflation, and
as you said, inflation happens, so that means that the higher amount of "benefits" in the future will be taken
from people who will need to pay higher taxes, or they will lower the "benefit" from the "real" amount that the
person would need with the inclusion of inflation. Confusing? The government wants it that way....

Let's just say that when the government told my Mom that she would receive $1,000 per month when she would
be a retired, non-working 76 years old in 2008 WAY back in 1971 when she was 39, that must have sounded
FANTASTIC, because my Dad was earning about $1,000 per month and he had to WORK!!!

Of course, with INFLATION, the $1,000 per month she receives today (especially in expensive New Jersey),
means she is a step above poverty.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.math.com/students/calculators/source/compound.htm


Using the calculator in the link above, input, if you will, the following:

Years = 37  (One works from age 18 to 55, with no college degree necessary)

Percent Yield = 9  (You say that the "stock market" does NOT earn 10%, so I will use 9%, but I will get you
documentation that the stock market has averaged 11% since 1926 (which includes the losses incurred during
the depression of the 1930s)). My ExxonMobil stock has AVERAGED 10.6% since 1987, when I began
purchasing shares.

Initial Balance = 0  (My parents could not give me any money to start, so I assume no one else's could either).

Monthly Contribution  = 360  (This is based on a person whose salary starts at $35,000 per year with NO
RAISES (i.e. NO INCREASES for INFLATION) for the 37 years they work with 6.2% INVESTED = $2,170 per
year divided by 12 months = $180.33 monthly Multiplied by 2 to include the employer's "match" which = $360
per month.

Hit the "Calculate Now!" button

The result is $1,276,480.51

BINGO! A worker without a college degree can work for 37 years (with NO RAISES - how unlikely is that?),
RETIRE AT AGE 55 (not 67 like the government says in order to collect their Social Security), and have $1.2
million dollars to spend at age 55...

It COULD be in America, but not while liberals are running the show, and keeping American workers in
dependence on government. Well, not ALL workers...(Such as people like me, and maybe you, who now know
better).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2) Let's look at it in reverse: starting out in 1971 & following your plan
Your $300 per month strategy would be worth just $54 dollars per month inflation-adjusted to 1971 (37 years
ago) No-one but the rich could've saved $300/mo in 1971. So try calculating what $54 per month starting in
1971 would give you in 37 years - ie, today. $54 per month would be the same relative contribution for a
working class income earner as $300 today (after all, wages for working folk in the US have been stagnant
since the 70s in real terms). Oh, and don't forget to factor in all the inflation from 1971 to today again: your
worker's $54 per month contribution would be worth the same (in terms of buying power) as just under $10 per
month. Payments per month would have to rise in line with inflation just to keep the value of the money put in.


OK, that was just like a government bureaucrat explaining Social Security, so let's take a look at my father's life.

Years = 44  (My Dad worked from age 18 to 62)

Percent Yield = 9  (You say that the "stock market" does NOT earn 10%, so I will use 9%, but I will get you
documentation that the stock market has averaged 11% since 1926 (which includes the losses incurred during
the depression of the 1930s)). My ExxonMobil stock has AVERAGED 10.6% since 1987, when I began
purchasing shares).

Initial Balance = 0  (My Dad had nothing when he started out)

Monthly Contribution  = 118  (This represents the $58 dollars per month that inflation reduces my example of
$300 per month to the value in 1950s inflation dollars multiplied by 2 for the employer's match). My dad's salary
ended up being MUCH higher in the 1980s before he retired then when he was 18 in 1948, so he would have
been able to INCREASE his contribution and his match would have increased also. Even so, with the LOWEST
contribution of $118 per month:

His result would have been $797,489.72  (Notice that my Dad would probably not have had a million dollars, but
for a man who NEVER graduated High School, when he retired in the 1990's, he would have had a decent
retirement amount of $797,489, which purchased more than it does today...That is the INFLATION factor)

My father collected what SHOULD have been his OWN money for ONLY 3 years before he passed away at 65
and my My Mother gets a few hundred dollars from his Social Security. If his money were given to her, and she
took 10% per year, she could live on $79,748 per year. Instead he received $19,000 for three years and my
Mom received a few hundred dollars a month since 1996 when he died. NOWHERE NEAR what my Dad could
EASILY have had, except the government stole his money without his consent...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3) In Canada, inflation since 1971 has averaged just over 4% a year. I believe you'll find US rates very similar.
and to make things easy for calculating this extremely important element, use this easy calculator, which works
forwards or backwards  & gives you a period average. It's not exactly the same as US rates, but our inflation
tracks US inflation very closely. There may even be a US version kicking around somewhere.


Yes, and here is one that seems quite accurate:

http://westegg.com/inflation/


4) The stock market does not average a 10% return... not even close.

Au contraire...Go to page 6 of 30 on this PDF (Page 4 on the HTML link) and you will find this statement
"The average compounded annual return for stock market over the period 1926-2000 is 10.70%". And being
that except for 2001-2002 and the last year or so, the average may have actually risen a few tenths of a
percent.
Remember, this is the Stock Market in the United States, not Canada...

http://icf.som.yale.edu/pdf/Supply(v5).pdf


5) And don't forget management and brokerage fees, which range from 1% to 3% "MER", every year, on every
dollar (hey, gotta keep the bankers rich!).

I buy my ExxonMobil shares from the company, as I am an employee, and you could buy shares without
commission fees (until you buy more shares or sell shares) by signing up for a DRIP (Direct ReInvestment Plan)
account.

http://www.directinvesting.com/


6) Your $1.3 million figure is pure fantasy, even though the figures may add up when you do your compounding
- because 37 years from now, that won't be worth very much at all.  Go on the Bank of Canada calculator &
reverse it to work out 1.3 million 2008 dollars purchasing power in 1971: it's worth about $240,000.
if you retired today on that, it just might get you from your 55 year retirement date to, say, when social security
kicks in at 65... but you'd better own your property already & be frugal. And don't forget the 10 years of inflation
chipping off from the total as well.  As for surviving till you're 75? You'd better like cat food....

I would say that with Social Security as it is in the USA today, even cat food is a delicacy for many elderly folks.

Let's just say that I know a "friend" who currently owns 5,019 shares of a reviled (by liberals and dummies who
probably own this stock in their OWN pensions and mutual funds, but seemingly are unaware of this fact
because they hate this company, so they shoot themselves in the foot because they own this stock and need it
for THEIR OWN retirement!), but very successful and profitable corporation. This friend's portfolio lost
$165,000 on two days in October, but it has since rebounded. This person is still down about 20% this year, but
in the last 4 years has earned a return of 26.5% (2004); 10.5% (2005); 38.1% (2006); and 23.6 (2007), so
even being down 20% this year, the last 5 years average a 15.7% return.

This person expects 2 more stock splits at 2:1 so by 2024, they expect to own over 25,000 shares. At $50 per
share in 2024, the portfolio will be valued at $1,250,000. With dividends rolled in, and annual contributions until
2019, it should be almost $2,000,000. With a LUMP SUM pension of about $500,000, this person should have
about $2.5 million dollars. With inflation factored in, this will have the buying power of what about $1.63 million
dollars purchases today. The person will take 10% of the $2.5 million per year to spend, so that means living on
$250,000 per year or $20,833 per month. Much better then my Mom's $1,000 per month or the $1,600 per
month the government "promises" me when I am 67 and MAY possibly live that long to collect it! I will also be
able to leave SOME of it to my family and heirs.

UNLIKE Social Security, which the government just KEEPS when one dies!


7) This is all very rudimentary economics Bernard & believe me, even the dumbest representatives know all
about inflation.

I assume that after this rebuttal, you don't believe that I am a "dumb representative on inflation" and realize that
I understand "rudimentary economics" because I can do fifth grade math!

Just think of all of the "financially challenged" (a.k.a. "poor") people of the United States who have believed
liberals and democrats for the last 73 years since 1935 when the Social Security Act of 1935 was "passed" by
FDR...and will crash the United States' economy in the very near future (around 2017).

If you think the United States has it bad now, wait until $53 TRILLION dollars in currently unfunded Social
Security and Medicare "benefits" (a.k.a ENTITLEMENTS) are demanded to be paid to Baby Boomers who spent
every dollar they had and RELY on the scam of Social Security (which means they will rely on younger workers
who will be FORCED to pay HIGHER FICA TAXES and hence, have less for them and THEIR OWN families) in
order to to pay for the baby boomers thoughtlessness and irresponsibility in the baby boomer's "misspent
youths"...

Bascially I am saying that Socialism sucks, and that anyone who votes for liberals and democrats in the United
States is an order of fries short of a Happy Meal.

Save a place in Nova Scotia for me!!!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-----Original Message-----
From:
To: falcngnzx2@aol.com
Sent: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 7:07 pm
Subject: Re: Spreading OUR Wealth via THEFT of our 401Ks...


One enormous problem with your calculations Bernard ... inflation.

Let's look at it in reverse: starting out in 1971 & following your plan
Your $300 per month strategy would be worth just $54 dollars per month inflation-adjusted to 1971 (37 years
ago) No-one but the rich could've saved $300/mo in 1971. So try calculating what $54 per month starting in
1971 would give you in 37 years - ie, today. $54 per month would be the same relative contribution for a
working class income earner as $300 today (after all, wages for working folk in the US have been stagnant
since the 70s in real terms). Oh, and don't forget to factor in all the inflation from 1971 to today again: your
worker's $54 per month contribution would be worth the same (in terms of buying power) as just under $10 per
month. Payments per month would have to rise in line with inflation just to keep the value of the money put in.

In Canada, inflation since 1971 has averaged just over 4% a year. I believe you'll find US rates very similar. and
to make things easy for calculating this extremely important element, use this easy calculator, which works
forwards or backwards  & gives you a period average. It's not exactly the same as US rates, but our inflation
tracks US inflation very closely. There may even be a US version kicking around somewhere.

http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/rates/inflation_calc.html

The stock market does not average a 10% return... not even close. And don't forget management and
brokerage fees, which range from 1% to 3% "MER", every year, on every dollar (hey, gotta keep the bankers
rich!). And of course inflation eating into the value of your stock market assets.

Your $1.3 million figure is pure fantasy, even though the figures may add up when you do your compounding -
because 37 years from now, that won't be worth very much at all.  Go on the Bank of Canada calculator &
reverse it to work out 1.3 million 2008 dollars purchasing power in 1971: it's worth about $240,000.

if you retired today on that, it just might get you from your 55 year retirement date to, say, when social security
kicks in at 65... but you'd better own your property already & be frugal. And don't forget the 10 years of inflation
chipping off from the total as well.  As for surviving till you're 75? You'd better like cat food....

This is all very rudimentary economics Bernard & believe me, even the dumbest representatives know all about
inflation.

****************************

After the Democrats/Liberals TAX Americans' money,
all we will have left is "CHANGE"!

****************************

2008 Democrat Party Slogan: "Death to America"

****************************

KNOW OBAMA / KNOW MARXISM
NO OBAMA / NO MARXISM

************************

And now a word from your friend, Bernard Russelman:

If you want to know how much the government STEALS from you and
your family via Social Security, please take a look at MY website:

http://www.socialsecurityisascam.com

**************************

Let's get RID of the IRS and the "underground economy" (Drug pushers, Prostitution, working "under the table",
etc.) by working for the FAIR TAX:

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer




Return to the LINKS page

HOME