When viewing the posts on the Tulsa forum one assumes that the poster are made up of the elitist which gives the illusion that the common working poor are not represented.
Many of the poster hide behind false names and data.
Being the average pay in the city is now $20.81 dollars an hour or $832.69 per week. Many of those don't seem to be represented on this forum.
Is there any data available that show those of the working poor, not subsided directly of indirectly by goverments making under the average wage, are member on this forum?
What is your income bracket?
I know my income bracket, and attest to the fact that in your world I very well may be considered among the "working poor." Though, I hope that is a short term endeavor. When I'm rich, I promise to smugly make sur eyou know it.
Quote from: shadows on August 07, 2009, 03:29:52 PM
When viewing the posts on the Tulsa forum one assumes that the poster are made up of the elitist which gives the illusion that the common working poor are not represented.
Many of the poster hide behind false names and data.
Being the average pay in the city is now $20.81 dollars an hour or $832.69 per week. Many of those don't seem to be represented on this forum.
Is there any data available that show those of the working poor, not subsided directly of indirectly by goverments making under the average wage, are member on this forum?
Yes, but it remains to be collected.
What year of my income would you like to count? Last year, the year before that, or this year? This year I will probably make less than half what I did last year lol. My income fluctuates from well below average to well above. Makes "budgeting" rather tricky. :P
Am I and my opinions counted as elitist one year, then working poor the next, based on income?
Quote from: cannon_fodder on August 07, 2009, 03:33:54 PM
What is your income bracket?
I know my income bracket, and attest to the fact that in your world I very well may be considered among the "working poor." Though, I hope that is a short term endeavor. When I'm rich, I promise to smugly make sur eyou know it.
I started paying SS in 1938 and was to draw $160.00 a month at retirement at 65. (At the time the teachers were signing contracts for $75,00 per month and they were required to be single)
My income comes from SS, IRA's, royalties and Stock dividends. My parachute was sewed together by my own hands.
I consider the working poor as those who work by the hour five days each week trying to pay their bills. Are any of them represented on this forum? They are counted in "We the people"
Why is everything with you about wealth and class? What does it matter if a person on this forum is paid $8 or $80 an hour? Why do you always talk about the working poor as if they were somehow more honest in their opinions than someone who has financial success?
And finally, I get so tired with your attacks on government employees. Yes, there are some bad ones, just like in every work sector. But I know hundreds of city, county, state, and federal employees who work incredibly hard for low wages. They often have dangerous jobs and would give up a holiday with their family to deliver clean water, put out a fire, catch a criminal or even just make sure the traffic light works.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 07, 2009, 11:07:36 PM
Why is everything with you about wealth and class? What does it matter if a person on this forum is paid $8 or $80 an hour? Why do you always talk about the working poor as if they were somehow more honest in their opinions than someone who has financial success?
And finally, I get so tired with your attacks on government employees. Yes, there are some bad ones, just like in every work sector. But I know hundreds of city, county, state, and federal employees who work incredibly hard for low wages. They often have dangerous jobs and would give up a holiday with their family to deliver clean water, put out a fire, catch a criminal or even just make sure the traffic light works.
That last part is true and public employees should be thanked and the jobs they do respected. But the fact is the single largest employer at the national, state, country, and city level just about everywhere is the government. Nice big fat targets first of all, and secondly there is a growing realization that these 'civil servants' are our masters, many of whom will spend more time in 'retirement' than on the job.
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of God, Michael. And why is everything out of President Sotero's mouth about class and money? Why is he so obsessed with making things right in America?
I've had my feet in both camps. Like someone said, I've been poor and I've been rich. I prefer rich. However, the politics in these camps are pretty much the same. The wealthy seem better informed, and better able to effect their beliefs, but they come up with the same conclusions as the poorly informed, poorly educated hourly paid. The only difference is that the hourly paid often hold those convictions even though they work against their best interests.
I used to believe that education was the key to enlightenment. And it is, if you approach it with an open mind. Alas, most use education to bolster pre-existing beliefs rather than entertain any challenge to them. Political views seem to be more regional and religious based than education and money based.
I would think your question, "Are you receiving the average pay in private industries", would be a little more specific then are you simply paid above or below the Tulsa average.
Surely, we understand the dude at McDonald's makes below the dude running the Bank of Oklahoma.
At first, I interpreted your question to be... "are you making more then your counterpoint in private industry", to which I assumed we were comparing like jobs.
Do I make more then the flunky with no high school diploma who won't look for a job? You bet! Do I make more in the government sector compared to a similar job in the private sector? No way!
Wilbur,
You do have a retirement plan that many in the private sector would like to have.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 08, 2009, 12:43:09 PM
Wilbur,
You do have a retirement plan that many in the private sector would like to have.
Then why do so many people fight against changing social security?
Quote from: Wilbur on August 08, 2009, 12:47:53 PM
Then why do so many people fight against changing social security?
I haven't heard anyone seriously propose to change SS to allow someone to retire after 20 years and allow them to work full time at another career (while receiving full benefits from the 1st career retirement) for another 20 to build a bigger nest egg or nicer lifestyle.
I'm not against the program but it is part of your total compensation. I also have no problem with retired military double dippers for the same reason, generally lower salary than the private sector. No one is saying you'll get rich doing this but you probably won't starve living in a cardboard box under a bridge either.
Things I don't know about your Civil Service retirement:
Do you actively contribute to the fund by payroll deduction? If so, what percentage?
Are you still subject to Social Security? If so, does the city actually deposit the "employer's share" to the fund or is that an unfunded benefit?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 07, 2009, 11:07:36 PM
And finally, I get so tired with your attacks on government employees. Yes, there are some bad ones, just like in every work sector. But I know hundreds of city, county, state, and federal employees who work incredibly hard for low wages. They often have dangerous jobs and would give up a holiday with their family to deliver clean water, put out a fire, catch a criminal or even just make sure the traffic light works.
The public servants have establish a class of their own and it is growing. The class is supported by the working poor who are the major contributors to the perks that they cannot obtain or offered through the private sector of employment. In the archives of the rise and fall of nations this has been a reoccurring factor as these classes are formed. It has become goal as of a royal family which passes on to their offspring's the advantages of becoming a public servant with its flood of unattainable perks that are available to this class. Who do you consider the "We the people" under which was to establish the many freedoms of survival for all and not to any one class?
Do you not enjoy being one of the class.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 08, 2009, 01:12:31 PM
I haven't heard anyone seriously propose to change SS to allow someone to retire after 20 years and allow them to work full time at another career (while receiving full benefits from the 1st career retirement) for another 20 to build a bigger nest egg or nicer lifestyle.
I'm not against the program but it is part of your total compensation. I also have no problem with retired military double dippers for the same reason, generally lower salary than the private sector. No one is saying you'll get rich doing this but you probably won't starve living in a cardboard box under a bridge either.
Things I don't know about your Civil Service retirement:
Do you actively contribute to the fund by payroll deduction? If so, what percentage?
Are you still subject to Social Security? If so, does the city actually deposit the "employer's share" to the fund or is that an unfunded benefit?
Police officers contribute to the pension system at an 8% rate, slightly higher then the social security rate. Their employers pay into the pension system at a rate slightly higher then social security as well, but I'm not positive of the rate.
Retirement pay is based on years of service, with the minimum amount of service being 20 years and the maximum being 30 (for determining benefits - you can stay longer, but your benefits do not increase).
No, I do not pay into social security, nor, will I draw any benefits. I guess those contributions I made as a teenager are just that, free contributions. Everyone is welcome!
Because I am a pension employee, my wife, who does pay into social security, is penalized and will only be allowed to draw up to a maximum of 50% of HER benefits (could be as low as zero), even though she has been paying at the same rate as everyone else. Because her spouse is a pension employee, she is penalized. Go figure that one out.
A police officer's average life expectancy is 58-years. The average police officer lives 5-years after retirement. Not sure how that other 20-year job plays into those figures. That's probably a good reason most police pension systems are always so fiscally sound.
I find it a little strange you say it's okay for someone in the military to retire and go work someplace else, but other government employees (working for the same 'employer') can't. Many military people make more then other government employees. Their housing and many other essentials are paid for, yet.... Weird.
And, what prevents a fiscally sound person to retire early from their private sector job, draw from their own retirement funds and going out and starting a new job? Not a darn thing. But that is okay?
Quote from: shadows on August 08, 2009, 04:20:27 PM
The public servants have establish a class of their own and it is growing. The class is supported by the working poor who are the major contributors to the perks that they cannot obtain or offered through the private sector of employment.
Please list these perks.
Quote from: shadows on August 08, 2009, 04:20:27 PMIn the archives of the rise and fall of nations this has been a reoccurring factor as these classes are formed. It has become goal as of a royal family which passes on to their offspring's the advantages of becoming a public servant with its flood of unattainable perks that are available to this class.
Please provide a list of the 'flood of unattainable perks". Many of us would be curious.
Quote from: Wilbur on August 08, 2009, 05:39:44 PM
Please list these perks.
Please provide a list of the 'flood of unattainable perks". Many of us would be curious.
If you are unaware of the perks attached to public servants that are not offered in the private sector I suggest you read the conditions of employment in applying for a job in the private sector. In the years spent in the labor movement asking the employer for a weeks paid vacation for employees brought an instant reaction that would not be allowed to be printed on this forum. Then the second trip asking for 7 paid holidays #@%^&. Accumulating sick time, vacation time, insurance HAHAHA
Quote from: Wilbur on August 08, 2009, 05:33:39 PM
Police officers contribute to the pension system at an 8% rate, slightly higher then the social security rate. Their employers pay into the pension system at a rate slightly higher then social security as well, but I'm not positive of the rate.
Retirement pay is based on years of service, with the minimum amount of service being 20 years and the maximum being 30 (for determining benefits - you can stay longer, but your benefits do not increase).
No, I do not pay into social security, nor, will I draw any benefits. I guess those contributions I made as a teenager are just that, free contributions. Everyone is welcome!
Because I am a pension employee, my wife, who does pay into social security, is penalized and will only be allowed to draw up to a maximum of 50% of HER benefits (could be as low as zero), even though she has been paying at the same rate as everyone else. Because her spouse is a pension employee, she is penalized. Go figure that one out.
A police officer's average life expectancy is 58-years. The average police officer lives 5-years after retirement. Not sure how that other 20-year job plays into those figures. That's probably a good reason most police pension systems are always so fiscally sound.
I find it a little strange you say it's okay for someone in the military to retire and go work someplace else, but other government employees (working for the same 'employer') can't. Many military people make more then other government employees. Their housing and many other essentials are paid for, yet.... Weird.
And, what prevents a fiscally sound person to retire early from their private sector job, draw from their own retirement funds and going out and starting a new job? Not a darn thing. But that is okay?
You and your employer pay at a slightly higher rate than SS and can retire (min service 20 yrs) and draw benefits at age mid 40s as compared to min age 62 for SS. At age 62, I will be entitled to reduced benefits. Full benefits at age 66 for me, later for those younger. If I were to die at 58, I would get zero benefit from nearly 40 years of contributions.
As you present it, I agree that the 50% on your wife's SS appears unfair. When my dad died, my mom gave up
all of her SS benefits to get my dad's SS benefits. Mom was a stay at home mom so dad's benefits were better. Mom's benefits from dad's private sector retirement were also reduced after dad died from the level my dad got while he was still alive.
I just checked my SS benefits statement and saw:
Benefits:
"To qualify for benefits you earn "credits" through your work - up to four each year. This year for example, you earn one credit for each $1,090 of wages or self-employment income. When you've earned $4360, you've earned your four credits for the year. Most people need 40 credits, earned over their working lifetime, to receive retirement benefits. For disability and survivors benefits, young people need fewer credits to be eligible." So, most workers will be eligible for benefits after 10 years of working (but have to wait until age 62 to get them). Since most SS beneficiaries work more like 40 years, the fine folks in Congress (another story) have determined that your benefits will most likely be reduced for contributing for only a few years instead of your entire career.
"Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)". "If you receive a pension from employment in which you did not pay Social Security taxes and you also qualify for your own Social Security retirement or disability benefit, your Social Security benefit may be reduced, but not eliminated, by WEP. The amount of the reduction, if any, depends on your earnings and the number of years in jobs in which you paid Social Security taxes, and the year you are age 62 or are disabled."
"Government Pension Offset (GPO)" "If you receive a pension based on federal, state or local government work in which you did not pay Social Security taxes and you qualify, now or in the future, for Social Security benefits as a current or former spouse, widow or widower, you are likely to be affected by GPO. If GPO applies, your Social Security benefit will be reduced by an amount equal to two-thirds of your government pension, and could be reduced to zero. Even if your benefit is reduced to zero, you will be eligible for Medicare at age 65 on your spouse's record.
It sounds as though if you are still alive, your wife should be eligible for her SS benefits. When/if you die before her and she elects to take your TPD retirement, her SS benefits would be reduced then.
I was not aware that retired police officers lived an average of nearly 20 years less than the general populace. I guess my friend who is retired from the TPD is due to die soon. He appears to be in good health. I'll miss him. I got the 20 yr figure based on graduating from college at 21 or 22, another year or so to become an officer. Add 20 and you get 40 something. Retire from the force and get a "good paying job" in the private sector, pay into SS and if you live long enough you get SS too or your wife should be able to collect if she outlives you.
I don't understand your statement that you cannot work somewhere after retirement. My (retired from TPD) friend is working in the private sector and I respect his integrity enough to believe he is not violating any provisions of his retirement. I haven't kept up with military allowances or pay but when I was in (1972-76) the allowance for living off base wouldn't cover living off base without a roomie or two. Married living quarters were provided in base housing. OK but nothing special. I don't know if the allowance for married personnel would cover living off base. I got drafted and was enlisted. I believe Officer (O-1 through maybe O-3) pay at the time was still on the order of about 1/2 of what I could have earned as a beginning engineer (4 year degree). My cousin works for the US Post Office. He has indicated that he will retire after 20 yrs of Civil Service (not all at the USPS) and get another job. If the retired military can get a civil service job, then that's a benefit I am willing to pay a career military person. FWIW, I paid into SS when I was in the Navy. I don't know if that has changed.
The "thing" that prevents a fiscally sound person in the private sector from drawing from their "retirement funds" is minimum age requirements. I cannot draw on my 401K or IRA funds without penalties until age 59-1/2. Even though I have contributed 12% or more of my salary to a 401K Plan for close to 20 yrs, the present return on that would not put me above the poverty level. The only place I've worked with a legacy retirement program terminated the program after a few years when IRAs became available. I will get about $100/mo from that program but have to wait until 60+ to collect anything. A couple of employers did not match any of my 401 contributions. My present employer matches up to about 4%. If I had enough money in my savings independent of official "retirement accounts", you are correct. I could draw on them just like I could from my checking account. I am not that fortunate.
Social security was NEVER proposed to be someone's total retirement... it is a retirement supplement. Unfortunately, many people have come to rely on SS for total retirement and now wonder why they struggle living off of SS.
When social security was put in place in 1935, you couldn't draw benefits until 65, but the average life expectancy was 61.7. Sounds like a typical federal plan well thought out.
Those who contribute to SS would have made more money by putting that same amount of money into a simple savings account. Yes, a simply savings account, with its poor interest rate, makes a better return then SS. Yet, people fight any change to social security. Plus, the federal government wouldn't be able to rob your savings account to pay for some other silly ....
You mention your 401k and IRA you can't draw from until a certain age. I agree, but you can certainly contribute to any savings plan you wish that does not have this restriction. My employer, while they offer 457b plans (same as 401k), they match zero. I would love a match similar to that in the private sector, or any match for that matter.
Look, I'm certainly not complaining about my pension. I'll be glad to collect it and PRAY TO GOD I'll get to enjoy it more then the average officer does. My wife wants me to live past 58 (I think).
Quote from: Wilbur on August 09, 2009, 06:26:55 AM
Those who contribute to SS would have made more money by putting that same amount of money into a simple savings account. Yes, a simply savings account, with its poor interest rate, makes a better return then SS. Yet, people fight any change to social security. Plus, the federal government wouldn't be able to rob your savings account to pay for some other silly ....
I've never really worked the numbers to see if that's accurate, but a savings account is going to have a finite amount of money in it when you start drawing on it, Social Security is variable in nature. Let's say I saved money at a rate which assumed I'd live 20 years beyond retirement. I'd be out of money in 20 years if I took 240 equal draws even accounting for the nominal interest accrual at that point. If I wound up living another 10 years, I'd have nothing left to live on, whereas SS would continue to pay me benefits. I have no idea how long the gov't model says I'll be collecting SSI retirement (if it still exists).
I realize we are talking about retirement benefits here, but that contribution to SS also would become a survivor's benefit to your spouse and minor children should you die before retirement age, and become a disablilty benefit should you become partially or fully disabled.
I'm no big fan of social security, but the statement that a savings account is a better investment should have some qualifiers attached.
Quote from: Wilbur on August 09, 2009, 06:26:55 AM
Social security was NEVER proposed to be someone's total retirement... it is a retirement supplement. Unfortunately, many people have come to rely on SS for total retirement and now wonder why they struggle living off of SS.
I agree.
When social security was put in place in 1935, you couldn't draw benefits until 65, but the average life expectancy was 61.7. Sounds like a typical federal plan well thought out.
Until folks started living longer. That's probably why they are increasing the age for full benefits and give even greater if you wait longer. Playing the odds.
Those who contribute to SS would have made more money by putting that same amount of money into a simple savings account. Yes, a simply savings account, with its poor interest rate, makes a better return then SS. Yet, people fight any change to social security. Plus, the federal government wouldn't be able to rob your savings account to pay for some other silly ....
I quit putting money in a passbook savings account when the interest rate went below 1%. The rates were better than that when I was a kid in the 50s and 60s. I got about 3% from a commercial bank and 4% from the savings and loan. Right now I'd like to get that on a CD. See Conan's reply about finite quantities of funds.
You mention your 401k and IRA you can't draw from until a certain age. I agree, but you can certainly contribute to any savings plan you wish that does not have this restriction. My employer, while they offer 457b plans (same as 401k), they match zero. I would love a match similar to that in the private sector, or any match for that matter.
Being single, the tax advantages of the 401K are too much to turn down. As I noted before, not all my employers matched any of my contributions. I'm glad my current one does. Putting as much as I do in the 401K doesn't leave a whole lot more to put in another retirement specific savings.
Look, I'm certainly not complaining about my pension. I'll be glad to collect it and PRAY TO GOD I'll get to enjoy it more then the average officer does. My wife wants me to live past 58 (I think).
And I am certainly not going to deny you the right to it. You and your employer have paid for it. Perhaps SS should be universal, even for Civil Service. That way your pension would be a lot like the legacy pensions like my dad's. He contributed significantly (I don't remember the percentage.) so he and mom could have a comfortable retirement above SS. Then the SS supplement for your wife would not be subject to any GAO or other cuts and you would get a few extra bucks too. Of course, nothing is free. One thing that concerns me now is the thought of "means based benefits" for SS. I have paid for a lot of years. My benefits should be based on my contributions, not any other income I may have.
Quote from: Wilbur on August 09, 2009, 06:26:55 AM
Social security was NEVER proposed to be someone's total retirement... it is a retirement supplement. Unfortunately, many people have come to rely on SS for total retirement and now wonder why they struggle living off of it.
This is one of those stories where I was there. When Roosevelt installed the SS system in 1935the teachers were signing contract for $75.00 per month. In the starting the goal was after retirement at 65 the max I could draw was $160 dollars per month. Now in simple arithmetic that would be over twice the salary the teachers were paid. I am sure if that promise was kept then I could live comfortable on twice what the teachers are paid today don't you think? As it is I have drawn benefits in excess of a quarter of a million of dollars since retirement off SS. I saw the people line up at the doors of the closed banks wanting their savings they never got. We are on the brink of that again. SS can pay a family of a retired worker the maximum of $2,324.40 a month. What Bank can you start a saving account in that will produce such dividends after 65?
Shadows,
Was that max of $160/mo what you could get from a $75/mo salary or was that for the payers who maxed out their contribution? Not everyone gets the max payout.
My point about social security is.... you shouldn't rely on it for your total retirement.
Plenty of people in this country retire before the age of 65 who work in the private sector and do not rely on some government run program to get them through retirement. They have had the discipline and goal to save and invest, making it possible for them to retire way before the age of 65.
Ha, the heck with you old folks and your social security! I'll be paying for it at the full rate and have no illusions about ever getting a dime from that system. That's why I am against it: it is a back loaded system. Benefits were paid out to people who never paid in. Thus, we started behind and continue to be behind. Though I fully intend to retire off my own savings, I still have to pay into the damn system. So in my eyes, I'm being taxed to subsidize someone else's retirement while at the same time I'm working to fund my own.
- - -
Shadows: while I do not work for a wage I can pretty well assure you that my salary minus my student loan payments that are automatically deducted puts me well into your beloved "working poor" category. So what do I get? Do I get some special Shadows prize?
Maybe you should clarify. How much can I make and be counted as "working poor"?
I worked my butt off in high school to get into college. I then worked hard in college to get into law school. I then graduated in the top 15% in law school. I worked jobs, often 2nd shift, to pay as much of my way as I could, but still graduated with what amounts to a second mortgage payment. So lets take what I make and pro-rate it against 8 years of labor at the national average for high school graduates and add to that an estimated student loan payment on 100,000.
8 years as a high school graduate earns on average: $25,000 x 8 = $200,000
Student Loan Debt: $100,000
So I spent $300,000 going to college to avoid being a member of the "working poor." Do you have any idea how long it will take me to earn that money back to even BREAK EVEN?
And while I'm rambling - my neighbor to the East makes about $100,000 a year as a single man, drives a BMW, and lives alone. My neighbor to the West makes probably $28,000 a year and has a nest full of kids. What does this tell you, me, or anyone about how much we should value their opinion on any given topic? NOTHING. (for the record, the $28K guy is a lot more fun than the $100K guy)
/ramble
Quote from: shadows on August 09, 2009, 04:41:50 PM
SS can pay a family of a retired worker the maximum of $2,324.40 a month. What Bank can you start a saving account in that will produce such dividends after 65?
I ran a few quick calculations using the financial formulas in Excel (MicroSoft Spreadsheet).
Assumptions:
5% APR on savings
Taxes deferred until cash is withdrawn as income
Allow for 30 years of retirement payments, I hope to live past 85.
$2500/mo for 30 years requires approximately a $465,700 nest egg
To get that nest egg Save:
$559/mo for 30 years
or $409/mo for 35 yrs
or $305/mo for 40 yrs
or $229/mo for 45 yrs
Years of saving are in your favor. All you young guys that expect to receive no SS benefits should be saving now. Of course, in another 20 or 30 years, $2500/mo will probably not be enough.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on August 10, 2009, 10:30:24 AM
So in my eyes, I'm being taxed to subsidize someone else's retirement while at the same time I'm working to fund my own.
Yep, bad deal in that respect. It worked well enough when the Baby Boomers (me) entered the work force. I paid for my grandparents and parents (mom is still living). Not so many folks (you guys) to pay for me. Other bad deals such as "borrowing" from the SS funds for the general fund etc didn't help any either.
In any case, my employers and I have paid a bunch in, I expect some back.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 10, 2009, 12:26:24 PM
I hope to live past 85.
Not me. I should have been more gentle on my body when I was younger ;)
Your assumptions are correct, only problem is even the best CD rates are between 2 & 3% at this point. Passbook savings??? Under 2, I believe.
CF: Don't be alarmed. Its all in the grand plan of retirement.
So it be that the working poor appreciate greatly all the contributions that are paid by elitist who can deposit $25,000 in a retirement savings accounts monthly, drawing less than 1% per year in interest. Or buy stocks that can delete your equity at any given moment or loose the market value of the stock in minutes. The SS can borrow from the nation debt if its funds are depleted and only in the shortage of paper-ink would the fund be in jeopardy as we expect our unborn great grandchildren to pay it off the public debit
Look up at what year the right to take the Oklahoma Bar examination required 80 college before it could be taken was installed. Look up when the schools downtown taught the fundamentals to be able to pass the bar. When one had to spends a $100,000 to qualify to be given the bar examination this created a class of their own that do not pay SS. (of course if one is on a athletic scholarship offtimes receives the hours.) Isn't that Lincoln spent 6 years as a Illinois legislator before he studied by the light of the fire place interesting and now this class is not subject to SS. Protect the turf .
.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 10, 2009, 02:55:22 PM
Your assumptions are correct, only problem is even the best CD rates are between 2 & 3% at this point. Passbook savings??? Under 2, I believe.
Last time I looked, passbook savings were about 1/2% (.005). CDs ranged from the low of 0.25% at BOK to a little over 2% at the Credit Union with most commercial banks between 1% and 2%. As of about a month ago.
I have had CDs as much as 15% in the early 80s. Of course inflation ate most of that up.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 09, 2009, 05:42:31 PM
Shadows,
Was that max of $160/mo what you could get from a $75/mo salary or was that for the payers who maxed out their contribution? Not everyone gets the max payout.
The purpose of the SS was the thousands of homeless, gov soup kitchens, the buying of cattle by gov for 20 dollars a head and pigs for 25 cents which were canned in gov canaries and passed out as welfare. Unemployment rose to an unofficial 20% and the minimum wage was established at .25cents per hour. A good job paid $1.00 dollar a day. WPA allow one to work until they earned $14.00 each week. Camps were set up for the youth that paid $14 dollars plus board and room per month. A state legislature had to recommend you for admittance. This was the foundation for the Grapes of Wrath . And the HI BAB BO PEEP was not a part of the program.
Then the program of social security was introduced at a very low percentage on labors earned income liken the mills on sales taxes for old age assistance on the sale of commodities that has become a cash cow for the exploding bureaucracies that are our masters.
We were promised the total of $160.oo monthly after retirement at 65. When you were 18 years old it sould be a dream of a secure retirement when you were earning a dollar a day.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on August 10, 2009, 10:30:24 AM
So I spent $300,000 going to college to avoid being a member of the "working poor." Do you have any idea how long it will take me to earn that money back to even BREAK EVEN?
My dad said it took him about 20 years to catch up to the guys that went to work right out of high school compared to his engineering degree. After that, he pulled way ahead. I haven't figured it out for me. The important thing is whether you like what you are doing now compared to what you would be doing without your education.
I did compare income with a friend that graduated from college with me. Same degree, almost same GPA. I went into the US Navy (drafted, then chose the Navy over the other options) for 4 yrs active duty then went to grad school at TU on the GI bill and a TA from TU. He got a graduate degree courtesy of his employer. I came out with about $87,000 less income over 7 years. At 3% interest, (allowing some for taxes) that would be worth about $210,000 now.
Most of us probably have some financial lost opportunity, expense, or other injustice to tell. I know a few people that were retired very young, until the DotCom collapse. This recession has claimed some more.
Quote from: shadows on August 07, 2009, 03:29:52 PM
When viewing the posts on the Tulsa forum one assumes that the poster are made up of the elitist which gives the illusion that the common working poor are not represented.
Many of the poster hide behind false names and data.
Being the average pay in the city is now $20.81 dollars an hour or $832.69 per week. Many of those don't seem to be represented on this forum.
Is there any data available that show those of the working poor, not subsided directly of indirectly by goverments making under the average wage, are member on this forum?
I make above average pay for my industry but guess I'm below average per your statistics... I prefer median income as a better measure of wages over average income...
I do not consider myself to be "working poor" although was once a "starving artist."
I have never worked for the gubmint, but I fail to see the inferiority of teachers, police, fire, etc..... to the many hard working people in the private sector.... in fact, I prefer dealing with gubmint bureaucrats over self-absorbed pompous private sector lawyers or egotistical doctors who refer you to an out of network boutique hospital they happen to own..... just sayin'
Quote from: Wilbur on August 09, 2009, 06:26:55 AM
Look, I'm certainly not complaining about my pension. I'll be glad to collect it and PRAY TO GOD I'll get to enjoy it more then the average officer does. My wife wants me to live past 58 (I think).
Wait you 'pray' to a 'god'? Are you hearing voices? Are you mentally unstable? Are you so ill that you believe that there is anything but what you see in this universe to worry about? You must be crazy to think that some disembodied diety gives a rats donkey about your miniscule, pitiful existence. You must be some kind of screwball.
We are so screwed as a nation. Every child born from here out is in how much debt? $300K? $400K? Our nation just signed over what $30TRILLION to the criminal federal reserve and you expect some phantasm to save you some spare time at the end of your life for leisure? Pick up a shovel grandpa or get on an ice flow. We ain't got time for your quaint fantasies, but we got this ditch here to dig . . .
Quote from: shadows on August 10, 2009, 05:04:09 PM
CF: Don't be alarmed. Its all in the grand plan of retirement.
So it be that the working poor appreciate greatly all the contributions that are paid by elitist who can deposit $25,000 in a retirement savings accounts monthly . . .
When one had to spends a $100,000 to qualify to be given the bar examination this created a class of their own that do not pay SS.
I'm so confused.
1) Please put a dollar figure on who counts as "working poor." Please do so in terms of NET pay, including benefits and the like. I need to know if I am the working poor or not.
2) Americans generally have a very low savings rate. But lets pretend your rich American is saving 25% (about 8 times the average). If he is putting away $25,000 a month he is making $250,000 a month. Or $3,000,000 a year. There are probably less than 100 people in Tulsa that make that much money, perhaps far fewer than that. So as a demographic it isn't really that important as a percentage of our MSA GDP.
3) Whoever informed you that attorneys don't pay SS was horribly wrong. A higher percentage of attorneys are self employed than any other profession. Thus, we tend to pay MORE social security than any other profession (as we pay our share and the company match). The days of attorneys being their own "class" went away when it was determined that restricting the number of attorneys was an unconstitutional restriction to access.
If you want to get a feel for what attorneys USED to make, see the only profession that still successfully limits the number of practitioners: MDs. If you restrict the number accepted to medical school and lobby to further restrict licensing of immigrants, you can control supply. Then make it illegal to practice without a license and control that license and you're in.
Attorneys still have the second half, but the BAR can no longer dictate admissions to law schools. Hence, access to attorneys is more readily available and greater competition has greatly reduced the price. Much to my dismay :P.
- - -
Red Arrow:
I was merely trying to show Shadows that us "elitists" generally have a great deal of cost associated with eventually getting to the promised land. He seems to think you get a degree and march out to build a castle on the backs of the "poor." If there was a way to do that, I probably would. . . but I haven't found it yet. ;)
Quote from: cannon_fodder on August 13, 2009, 08:56:49 AM
Red Arrow:
I was merely trying to show Shadows that us "elitists" generally have a great deal of cost associated with eventually getting to the promised land. He seems to think you get a degree and march out to build a castle on the backs of the "poor." If there was a way to do that, I probably would. . . but I haven't found it yet. ;)
I was actually trying to support your position. Hopefully there will be a time when you "win financially" but it certainly isn't just a couple of years. I lost about $87k compared to my friend after college but that doesn't even address the money we spent and didn't make while we were getting our 4 yr degrees. OK, I worked a few summer jobs but that money went right back into school.
CF: This is the additions to SS and who was exempted.
1954 Farm self-employed. Professional self-employed except lawyers, dentists, doctors, and other medical groups. Additional regularly employed farm and domestic workers. Homeworkers. State and local government employees (except firemen and policemen) under retirement system if agreed to by referendum. Ministers could elect coverage.
The above are the amendments to the SS act of 1935. Are you an attorney or a law employee?
----------------------------------------------------------------
CF quoted:
3) Whoever informed you that attorneys don't pay SS was horribly wrong. A higher percentage of attorneys are self employed than any other profession. Thus, we tend to pay MORE social security than any other profession (as we pay our share and the company match). The days of attorneys being their own "class" went away when it was determined that restricting the number of attorneys was an unconstitutional restriction to access.
=============================================================
You may attend law school without the 80 hours but you are restricted from taking the bar examination.
In going over bank statements I see where a $10,000 dollar CD paid interest of $9.82 and the service charge to transfer the interest into the checking account was a $10.00. This means that it only cost me 18 cents for them to use the money for one month. I am trying to calculate how many years of savings to have a nest egg for 30 years in retirement. How do you go about it?
Quote from: shadows on August 14, 2009, 10:34:43 PM
In going over bank statements I see where a $10,000 dollar CD paid interest of $9.82 and the service charge to transfer the interest into the checking account was a $10.00. This means that it only cost me 18 cents for them to use the money for one month. I am trying to calculate how many years of savings to have a nest egg for 30 years in retirement. How do you go about it?
Because we are such close friends...I will let you in my exclusive investment club. Bring your 10K to my house and I will guarantee to match your bank's interest rate will waive all transfer fees. Promise.
Quote from: shadows on August 14, 2009, 10:34:43 PM
In going over bank statements I see where a $10,000 dollar CD paid interest of $9.82 and the service charge to transfer the interest into the checking account was a $10.00. This means that it only cost me 18 cents for them to use the money for one month. I am trying to calculate how many years of savings to have a nest egg for 30 years in retirement. How do you go about it?
You're not going to live off $10,000 for 30 years no matter where you invest it. And certainly not invested in a CD.
Quote from: shadows on August 14, 2009, 10:34:43 PM
In going over bank statements I see where a $10,000 dollar CD paid interest of $9.82 and the service charge to transfer the interest into the checking account was a $10.00. This means that it only cost me 18 cents for them to use the money for one month. I am trying to calculate how many years of savings to have a nest egg for 30 years in retirement. How do you go about it?
Make up for it in volume.
Seriously:
$9.82 interest on a $10,000 investment is approximately 0.2% interest. You must be with BOK. I had a CD there that was to renew at 0.25% so I moved the whole thing to another bank willing to pay 1.75% APR. Some Credit Unions are a squeak above 2%. Non of these rates are going to get you too far but leaving your money in a 0.2% CD is not a good choice. You may have benefits for another account tied to having a CD at the same bank. I am in the process of getting rid of that (checking with CD to get "free" checking) with BOA.
So for the short term, move your money to another bank or a Credit Union. At least there would be enough interest to transfer. Interest rates were this low a few years ago and then rose to the lofty height of about 5% before crashing again last fall. Still not much but for FDIC (etc) you will pay some in reduced interest.
Edit: I glossed over the per month for the $9.82 so the APR is higher. Concept above is still the same. Additional choice may be to transfer the interest less often assuming the cost of the transfer would be the same.
Quote from: Wilbur on August 15, 2009, 07:18:41 AM
You're not going to live off $10,000 for 30 years no matter where you invest it. And certainly not invested in a CD.
I saw the people stand in front of the banks and building and loans in the 30's begging for their money they had on deposit. I do not trust any one bank but deposit in several banks thinking if any one were to close I could get my other 2 nickels out. We are being told daily that we are to expect some banks to close.
The family that bought the closed bank building in Inola found a stash of $20.00 gold pieces behind the vault. The Government lay claim to them as it was illegible to own gold coins. Then the fight started. They are possible in some government employees collection today.
Quote from: shadows on August 15, 2009, 04:21:42 PM
I do not trust any one bank but deposit in several banks thinking if any one were to close I could get my other 2 nickels out. We are being told daily that we are to expect some banks to close.
I also keep my money in several banks/Credit Unions for the same reason. Even with FDIC and the CU equivalent, it may take a while to get your money.