Brexit Encore

[Robert Roaldi]

If you feel that way, you should be ready to start trade negotiations immediately.

Seriously? This is your response?

[James Clark]

This is why we should stop giving government power over our lives. Instead of we being in charge of making life and death decisions over our health,  we've turned it off st to bureaucrats who don't care a whit deciding.   

As opposed to giving actuaries charged with ensuring a profit life and death decisions over our health??  I can give you a ton of solid arguments for private health insurance; That they care more about you than a government entity would ain’t one of them

[RSL]

I think it's interesting that in spite of knocking the American health care system again and again, when he needed heart surgery and his life depended on getting it quickly, Mick Jagger came to the U.S., so he could continue to live. Talk's cheap until death looks you in the face.

[Alan Klein]

Seriously? This is your response?

Well, Bob, you're the one who said Trump was not a tough negotiator with the North Koreans.  If you feel that way, then you should expect Britain to get a great deal from him as well. Therefore, you should be happy to start trade negotiations with America as soon as possible. 

[Alan Klein]

As opposed to giving actuaries charged with ensuring a profit life and death decisions over our health??  I can give you a ton of solid arguments for private health insurance; That they care more about you than a government entity would ain’t one of them

That's not the point I was making.  WIth government, you don;t have a choice.  You're stuck with whatever they want to do.   With Medicare, many the best doctors I can;t go to because they've opted out of Medicare.  On the other hand, private insurers would cover them at least to the extent of whatever insurance plan I purchased.  Ask Rob about how he might lose his only health plan with the government or need to move because of an inane government plan.  Nothing we buy is perfect whether it's food, a car, or health care.  But we have choice.   If we're not happy, we can change who we buy from.  Sellers and providers are not immune to losing customers if they treat them badly.  That's what competition does.  But when the government treats you badly, and eventually they always do, you're stuck.  Ask the Veterans who have to go to the VA for medical care. 

You didn't mention the other part of my post, the part about Social Security and government pensions.  Again, no choice.  If we could keep our money and decide where to invest, I think we'd be better off.  You'd have more money in retirement if you just bought safe US Treasury bonds all your life. Plus, if we die before retirement, our families would get an inheritance of the value of those savings.  Now the government keeps all that money we and our employers gave them our entire lives. 

It's a philosophy.  Do you want a little more safety and lose liberty?  Or would you keep your freedom and live with more risk in life?  The Venezuelans decided on the first. Now they have neither safety nor liberty. 

[Alan Klein]

I think it's interesting that in spite of knocking the American health care system again and again, when he needed heart surgery and his life depended on getting it quickly, Mick Jagger came to the U.S., so he could continue to live. Talk's cheap until death looks you in the face.

^^^
Quality goes down with lack of competition and free markets.  Who here thinks the Soviets made the best cameras?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Social Security and government pensions.  Again, no choice.  If we could keep our money and decide where to invest, I think we'd be better off.  You'd have more money in retirement if you just bought safe US Treasury bonds all your life. Plus, if we die before retirement, our families would get an inheritance of the value of those savings.  Now the government keeps all that money we and our employers gave them our entire lives...

It is a bit more nuanced than that. I see your points, and they are valid ones, in general. But there are some big IFs implied: IF you keep your money and IF you invest it wisely. Getting to a retirement age and finding out you didn't is too late. It is hard for young people to have such willpower and wisdom to set aside 12% of every check and never dip into it in times of crisis. It is also hard to resist the call to invest in stocks in times when everybody and his uncle is making big bucks in the stock market, only to find yourself in 2008 when stocks lost 80% and your time to retire has just come up.

I am generally in agreement with your overall philosophy of personal responsibility and risk-taking. However, it is one thing to punish a young person for foolish financial decisions... there is time for them to learn from their mistakes and recover from it. Not so when you are about retirement age. At that time, and in particular later, there is nothing they could do to recover.

It is easy to say let them rot, it is their fault. But do we really want to see new hordes of homeless old people on the streets? Or should we let them out in the cold, for passing polar bears to find them, when their teeth can not chew seal hide anymore? Not so long ago, maybe 100+ years ago, in the mountainous regions in my country, they would take old people out, put a bread on top of their head and the whole village would stone them to death, as they couldn't pull their own weight anymore.

The level of civilization of a society is measured, among other things, by how they treat their old. Social Security benefits are hardly sufficient even for the most modest living, and hardly going to make anyone rich. They are the absolute floor.

In my particular case, if I did what you suggested, I would have ended up with cash savings worth the next 8-10 years of retirement. My parents and grandparents lived well into their 80s. I hope I have their genes. If so, I would run out of savings somewhere half-way. And then what?

[jeremyrh]

It is a bit more nuanced than that. I see your points, and they are valid ones, in general. But there are some big IFs implied: IF you keep your money and IF you invest it wisely. Getting to a retirement age and finding out you didn't is too late. It is hard for young people to have such willpower and wisdom to set aside 12% of every check and never dip into it in times of crisis. It is also hard to resist the call to invest in stocks in times when everybody and his uncle is making big bucks in the stock market, only to find yourself in 2008 when stocks lost 80% and your time to retire has just come up.

I am generally in agreement with your overall philosophy of personal responsibility and risk-taking. However, it is one thing to punish a young person for foolish financial decisions... there is time for them to learn from their mistakes and recover from it. Not so when you are about retirement age. At that time, and in particular later, there is nothing they could do to recover.

It is easy to say let them rot, it is their fault. But do we really want to see new hordes of homeless old people on the streets? Or should we let them out in the cold, for passing polar bears to find them, when their teeth can not chew seal hide anymore? Not so long ago, maybe 100+ years ago, in the mountainous regions in my country, they would take old people out, put a bread on top of their head and the whole village would stone them to death, as they couldn't pull their own weight anymore.

The level of civilization of a society is measured, among other things, by how they treat their old. Social Security benefits are hardly sufficient even for the most modest living, and hardly going to make anyone rich. They are the absolute floor.

In my particular case, if I did what you suggested, I would have ended up with cash savings worth the next 8-10 years of retirement. My parents and grandparents lived well into their 80s. I hope I have their genes. If so, I would run out of savings somewhere half-way. And then what?

Gosh. I agree :-)

except ...  12% of your pay check doesn’t buy much security if your pay is low.

[Alan Klein]

So set up mandatory private retirement plans with the
 ownership remaining with the individual instead of a greedy government. 
That way, if the guy dies, the money will go to it his inheritors and not stay with the government. Also he'll have more money probably available in retirement then he'll get with Social Security. The average social security check is only $1,500.

[Alan Klein]

Gosh. I agree :-)

except ...  12% of your pay check doesn’t buy much security if your pay is low.

Social Security payments are based on what you earn during your lifetime in any case. So if you didn't earn very much to begin with, your social security check is going to be tiny.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

So set up mandatory private retirement plans with the
 ownership remaining with the individual instead of a greedy government...

That would dery the very essence of insurance: spreading (averaging) the risk. Besides, we already have IRAs, 401ks, ROTHs, etc., private retirements plans. Social Security is the last safety net.

[Alan Klein]

Mandatory.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Back to Brexit:

(Sorry, do not have any other link to this graph)

[Rob C]

It is a bit more nuanced than that. I see your points, and they are valid ones, in general. But there are some big IFs implied: IF you keep your money and IF you invest it wisely. Getting to a retirement age and finding out you didn't is too late. It is hard for young people to have such willpower and wisdom to set aside 12% of every check and never dip into it in times of crisis. It is also hard to resist the call to invest in stocks in times when everybody and his uncle is making big bucks in the stock market, only to find yourself in 2008 when stocks lost 80% and your time to retire has just come up.

I am generally in agreement with your overall philosophy of personal responsibility and risk-taking. However, it is one thing to punish a young person for foolish financial decisions... there is time for them to learn from their mistakes and recover from it. Not so when you are about retirement age. At that time, and in particular later, there is nothing they could do to recover.

It is easy to say let them rot, it is their fault. But do we really want to see new hordes of homeless old people on the streets? Or should we let them out in the cold, for passing polar bears to find them, when their teeth can not chew seal hide anymore? Not so long ago, maybe 100+ years ago, in the mountainous regions in my country, they would take old people out, put a bread on top of their head and the whole village would stone them to death, as they couldn't pull their own weight anymore.

The level of civilization of a society is measured, among other things, by how they treat their old. Social Security benefits are hardly sufficient even for the most modest living, and hardly going to make anyone rich. They are the absolute floor.

In my particular case, if I did what you suggested, I would have ended up with cash savings worth the next 8-10 years of retirement. My parents and grandparents lived well into their 80s. I hope I have their genes. If so, I would run out of savings somewhere half-way. And then what?

Thoughtful post. Difficult to fault much of it, and I have to add that saving even 20% of my earnings wouldn't have kept up with the cost of private medical insurance. The argument forgets little niceties such as income tax, tax on "unearned" income, the "seven fat and seven lean years" cycles of self-employment, and inflation. I did manage to pony up for many years of private health insurance our here in Spain and it was a very good deal in terms of what they gave us - Mapfre was the company - for as long as I could face that premium.

Age knocks the wheels off your plans, as do technical changes in the way life works: anyone forgotten the impact of digital on prices of stock photography? There was no way to fight that one off: so much work turned into worthless junk. The pound never really recovered from 2008 and Brexit has seen a further 20% minimum drop in its value out here. Only the very rich or those with ironclad state pensions can lean back in their rocker, sip another margarita and not grow more creases on their brow. Was a time in the 80s when we were able to clear fifteen percent minimum interest in offshore, legally.

If you live near marinas you will notice that a lot of boats go up for sale as people age, even those with crew. Priorities reach out to the wealthy as well. Your investments need your personal attention or you end up at the mercy of other people for whom you get further and further back on their rows of burners.

[Rob C]

Back to Brexit:

(Sorry, do not have any other link to this graph)

Isn't it funny how that works! Perhaps now some 'teers will catch the Donald drift, and why he encourages our crazies to jump off the cliff with the rest of us chained to them! And hey, they still won't see it.

Ironic, isn't it, that little olde Britain was supposed to be the beneficiary, not the States!

As I often feel compelled to mention, you couldn't make it up.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... saving even 20% of my earnings...

Just to clarify, the 12% in my post above is the combined, mandatory Social Security contribution, split between employee and employer (i.e., 6% each). If you are self employed, you pay yourself the whole 12% (12.4% currently).

And yes, of course, I, as many others, voluntarily save for retirement in addition to that, via tax-free IRA (Individual Retirement Account), 401k, etc., or in taxable savings and investment accounts.

[Robert Roaldi]

^^^
Quality goes down with lack of competition and free markets.  Who here thinks the Soviets made the best cameras?

Which cameras are manufactured in the US?

[jeremyrh]

I think it's interesting that in spite of knocking the American health care system again and again, when he needed heart surgery and his life depended on getting it quickly, Mick Jagger came to the U.S., so he could continue to live. Talk's cheap until death looks you in the face.

That's a different thing - probably few doubt that if you can afford it you can obtain the best treatment in the US. That's not the same as having a good health care system for the non-multi-millionaires.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

That's a different thing - probably few doubt that if you can afford it you can obtain the best treatment in the US. That's not the same as having a good health care system for the non-multi-millionaires.

Or not seriously ill

[Alan Klein]

Which cameras are manufactured in the US?

None.  We can't be competitive and produce quality cameras.    Same with health insurance.  If a company can't be competitive and produce quality health insurance,  they'll lose customers and go out of business. You've confirmed my point.