Dems Release Social Security Privitization Calculator

[Stevendsmith]

Give a whirl!

http://democrats.senate.gov/ss/calc.html

[NMDemDist2]

1. born 1955, loss is 7% n/t

[Skidmore]

10. 1954, loss is 6%.

[Inland]

2. Born 1960, lose 13%

[ohioliberal]

3. Me too!

The sixties babies are in the worst shape.

[Stevendsmith]

4. Born 1968, lose 21%

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. 10% cut for me but 28% if I were born in 76

sorry I misread it the first time

[Walt Starr]

6. Born 1963 loss 16%

:(

[GreenPoet64]

7. Born 1964 Loss = 17%

I'm unemployed now, but based it on my expected income. Wow!

[Hugin]

25. Yeek!

Ditto here GreenPoet64.

I'm sure there's lots of assumptions included in this
calculation. (There always is with investment forecasting/
fortune telling.)

I heard something awhile back which is my touchstone when
talking about Soc. Sec.

If Soc. Sec. *was* (In it's current unfugatubled configuration.)
a pension fund. EVERYONE would buy it. It's great... Much better
than anything else out there even remotely resembles. Even
better than investment. Because it *guarantees* a return.
Investments don't.

The more I hear the more I'm convinced this is a move to keep
labor costs down when the boomers retire. As always, the *ies
are looking out for the interests of the corporations and not
for labor.

[intheflow]

49. Another '64 baby, another 17% loss.

<big sigh>

[MsTryska]

8. Born in '71 - lose 24%

wah wah wah.....

[strategery blunder]

9. Born 1985, loss 36%

Of course, as the only wages I earn are from summer jobs at such a young age, I'm gonna have to take this with many a grain of salt, but I get the point.

[bugslsu9]

11. Born in 78, lose 30%

[WeRQ4U]

28. Same Here

Born in 78, lose 30%.

Strangly enough, our signature lines are ALSO the same. (Cue X Files Music.)

[progressiveBadger]

30. 78 30% too.....

30%?!?!?! I guess I won't need AC or Heat anyway. Thanks for "saving" me money Bush!

[ClintonTyree]

37. Hey, but you'll be part of the "ownership society"..............

that's GOT to count for SOMETHING!

[progressiveBadger]

51. Unfortunately, most of us will have to rent our own coffin :) n/t

[imenja]

12. There are reasons why it could be even worse

For me, 1961, it's a 14% loss. Still, the calculations are dubious since there are too many future variables that are unknowable, such as the return of the market. One point I heard raised is that a huge infusion of new equity investments could drive down the stock market and decrease returns, even over the long run. It probably isn't accurate to assume returns over the next thirty years or so will equal those of the last thirty years.

Also, for the Brits, the charges on private retirement accounts have severely eaten into their returns. Chile's has been more successful, but it had an undervalued equity market helped greatly by private retirement investments. The American equity market is overvalued if anything. Talk of the Nation had a good show on this a couple of weeks ago.

[Az_lefty]

13. Wow, looks like everyone loses. Who would have thought?

:puke:

[ailsagirl]

15. Unless you were born before 1950...

[RaleighNCDUer]

43. Not quite --

the corporations handling the private accounts will clean up.

[ailsagirl]

14. Great website!! Frightening information, though

I'm so GLAD the Dems put this together-- let's pass it on to everyone we know...

[ailsagirl]

16. Thanks for posting this!! Question, though...

If the House and the Senate are the ones to vote on it, why try to convince us that it's a bad idea?? Aren't THEY the ones who need to know it's a bad idea??

[FlyingIrishman]

24. Not really...there are

a few wavering Republicans I guess. The Dems won't budge. I think that the reason this was produced was to counter what will soon be an onslaught of ads from the right about the benefits of Bush's plan. I think what the Dems are concerned about is millions of constituents clamoring for privatization because they don't know the facts. If your district, state, etc. is begging for reform because the Chimperor has insisted that private accounts will turn them into rich badass mofos and you vote nay, it could be curtains come election time. Best to educate the masses.

[ailsagirl]

41. Well, I'm pretty lucky, as BOXER is my Senator!!!

:kick: :bounce:

[RaleighNCDUer]

44. Working on the education --

talking to a 20something co-worker who liked the idea of being able to invest. She thought that it meant she could pick the investment option. Had no idea that the 'investment' plan meant choosing from a pre-selected slate of specific plans. She also thought she would be able to change her investment once she had made it, if she didn't like what her chosen investment was doing.

She doesn't have any idea how uninformed she is. I advised her to make a liberal use of google.

[Desert Liberal]

17. Born 1975-loss 27%

[Deja Q]

18. I lose $6000+, but that's okay - the transnition will cost the US over $2T

T = TRILLION

[Skinner]

19. This is great!

We people need to spread this around.

[LynneSin]

20. 19% for me

:cry:

[lizerdbits]

21. 1974 is a 26% loss

$6249 less per year. What flavor Purina is best for seniors?

[Chovexani]

22. 1981 - 32%!

This should be sent to every shithead freeper college student. If mine's this bad I only imagine how much worse for kids younger than me.

[TwoHandedLayup]

23. 1968 - 21% loss

But I am ok with it..........................

[malmapus]

26. 1974 and yup its 26% loss too

...

[proudbluestater]

27. What an ingenious idea!!

I'm looking at a 5% cut. Is that the norm? I have no plans to retire anyway. Who can live on that amount of money? The Repukes forget, or never knew that many companies have done away with retirement plans. So SS is IT, along with any private savings you've been lucky enough to accumulate.

[etherealtruth]

29. Big loser in 1962

OK, 15% loss for me. That is not even my biggest concern...

If my parents can't take care of themselves it WILL be up to me (and to all of you with parents). I love my folks so I will do whatever it takes...

But my percentage "lost" taking that into consideration will be a hell of a lot more that 15%!

[Straight Shooter]

40. Excellent point, etherealtruth. You have a compassionate heart.

Your parents must be very proud of you. :thumbsup:

bush and his cronies assume that everyone has the IGMFU attitude, like they do. ("I got mine, F you.")

Also, if people get concerned about their future and their need to save more money, what makes bush think we're all going to be running around and buying nonessential material goods? Nope. We'll be putting the money away for a rainy day. Because with bush's legacy, when it rains it pours.

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. They are absolutely counting on IGMFU --

that's why they keep insisting that the changes won't affect today's seniors -- those who know the benefits of SS, who have long voting records, and remember the first trickle down of the Reagan era. They are hoping that the seniors will let it slide, while the kids are scared that they will lose out if they don't buy the * plan.

dumbshits can't seem to figure out that the seniors are the demographic least likely to buy the IGMFU and let it slide, while the twenty-somethings are the demographic least likely to be worried about their own retirement.

Only the rich worry about being poor. The rest of us just deal with it.

[GardeningGal]

31. 1956 loss is 8% n/t

[kcass1954]

32. One important thing to remember...

Those percentages are based on what you are "projected" to receive from your personal account. If the market tanks, you're screwed!

If I get nothing from my personal account, that percentage is slightly more than double.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Samurai_Writer]

34. Born in 1960, 13% loss

I always thought I'd have to work until I died. Now it is a certainty.

[Festivito]

35. not including DEBT INTEREST effect of say $3500 ea yr ea American.

We currently pay about 7% and owe about 7.5 T$ for 293M Americans we each owe $25000 and we each pay about $1800 in interest each year.

Bush wants to double our debt in a few years, i.e., we'll owe fifty-grand and pay $3500 in interest. Providing we are stupid enough to pay no extra for repaying the debt.

Oh well, stupid is as stupid does.

[ClintonTyree]

36. I sent it to my bushbot brother......................

he was born in 1967 and stands to lose A TON of money. Of course he won't belive me anyway, it will be "Liberal propaganda". Not that bush ever uses propaganda mind you. :eyes:

[King Coal]

38. Born 1952 Loss = 4%

[rndmprsn]

39. Born 1973 and with bushco's privatization scheme i lose 25% n/t

[Callboy]

42. calculator is sweet

and what is the point of this again? Take the 2 trillion needed for the program and put it in the general ss fund. What would that do for solvency?

[jdj]

45. under my part-time in school salary right now I lose 21%

this is a bigger cut than other people have said, so it looks like the poorer you are the worse you get screwed.

[K-W]

46. 32% loss for me, being young and poor is apparently not good.

[Mr.Green93]

47. How come

the unemployed get nothing?

[ulTRAX]

50. Does It Calculate Paying Extra Taxes To Cover Transition Costs?

I don't think this calculator covers the extra taxes needed to pay that 1-4 Trillion in transition costs.

[Selteri]

52. Born 1975

Kiss 27% goodbye. What a nice 30th birthday present.

[AmyDeLune]

53. 1969 lose 22%

It looks like the younger you are, the more money you lose. *wah!*

[Sandpiper]

54. Born in 1976 - 28% loss

I'm looking forward to being part of the ownership society!

My employer will own my ass till the day I die.