There are downsides to annuities also.....won't go into them here, but before investing in anything, especially if you are retired or close to it, either do your own due diligence or get an independent financial advisor. Very few people are really qualified to do their own investing.
archer wrote: There are downsides to annuities also.....won't go into them here, but before investing in anything, especially if you are retired or close to it, either do your own due diligence or get an independent financial advisor. Very few people are really qualified to do their own investing.
I totally agree. Ages 40-55 are the best ages for Indexed Annuities. Younger than that, I would look into Indexed Universal Life Policies. Great track record of growth, can't lose your money, living benefits with the right companies that will protect your assest if you develp critical or chronic conditions that don't allow you to work, Tax defered growth and Tax free withdrawal with no penalty.
LadyJazzer wrote: Boy, it's a good thing that Bush's idea of moving Social Security into private investments failed... A lot MORE of our parents and grandparents would have been wiped even more by the Wall Street slime.
Indeed. That "trust fund" is much safer as an undiversified investment containing nothing but IOU's backed by the full faith and credit of an institution that has to borrow more capital simply to pay the interest due on the capital it has already borrowed and has a 10 year budget that includes $1 Trillion plus deficits each and every year for the next 10 years. Right? Especially when you consider that if the AAA rating that is currently enjoyed is lost and the current $14 Trillion worth of debt can't be refinanced on anything close to the current terms? I feel much safer knowing that all of the eggs are located in a single basket, don't you?
Boy, it's a good thing the Social Security Trust Fund doesn't represent ANY PART of that $14-trillion worth of debt.
Oh, wait... Social Security is "unconstitutional" for you, isn't it... I fergot....
But it's okay for HOW MANY un-paid for, unnecessary wars be folded in there?... And another $700Billion for an unpaid for prescription-drug benefit; and another $900 Billion for tax-breaks for millionaires?... Yeah, I can see why you're upset.
The Viking wrote: The AIG Insuance side was never close to going under. They are one of the strongest insurance companies out there. Not sure if you know but they have two sides that cannot comingle funds. The Mortgage and lending side out of New York is the one that almost went under. The Insurance side out of Texas is going strong and was never in danger of bankruptcy. There has never been money lost in an annuity. And when we were in the depression in the 20's and 30's, the government borrowed from the insurance industry. The insurance industy in the strongest industy in the world and isn't going anywhere.
For every dollar invested in an annuity they are required to set aside $1.17 so as to never be in the over extended in their investments. To be clear: AIG's regular insurance division -- the part that is actually regulated by the states -- is just fine & was never in trouble. The part that is in trouble & therefore dragging down the company is the unregulated division that provided insurance against debt default.
So far as I know, if AIG had gone under the whole company including the insurance division would of gone under. Now I guess it's possible the insurance division could of been sold off, or just the financial division could of been allowed to fail, but it seems to me the government would of still had to bail them out in some way because the insurance division wouldn't of had the funds to cover the screw ups of the financial division.
The Viking wrote: The AIG Insuance side was never close to going under. They are one of the strongest insurance companies out there. Not sure if you know but they have two sides that cannot comingle funds. The Mortgage and lending side out of New York is the one that almost went under. The Insurance side out of Texas is going strong and was never in danger of bankruptcy. There has never been money lost in an annuity. And when we were in the depression in the 20's and 30's, the government borrowed from the insurance industry. The insurance industy in the strongest industy in the world and isn't going anywhere.
For every dollar invested in an annuity they are required to set aside $1.17 so as to never be in the over extended in their investments. To be clear: AIG's regular insurance division -- the part that is actually regulated by the states -- is just fine & was never in trouble. The part that is in trouble & therefore dragging down the company is the unregulated division that provided insurance against debt default.
So far as I know, if AIG had gone under the whole company including the insurance division would of gone under. Now I guess it's possible the insurance division could of been sold off, or just the financial division could of been allowed to fail, but it seems to me the government would of still had to bail them out in some way because the insurance division wouldn't of had the funds to cover the screw ups of the financial division.
But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I will check again, but I am almost positive, that due to the state laws there is no way the funds could be co-mingled and thus the money in the unsurance division could not be touched to bail out the financial division. That insurance money could never be touched and was always 100% secure.
LadyJazzer wrote: Boy, it's a good thing the Social Security Trust Fund doesn't represent ANY PART of that $14-trillion worth of debt.
Oh, wait... Social Security is "unconstitutional" for you, isn't it... I fergot....
But it's okay for HOW MANY un-paid for, unnecessary wars be folded in there?... And another $700Billion for an unpaid for prescription-drug benefit; and another $900 Billion for tax-breaks for millionaires?... Yeah, I can see why you're upset.
Indeed, but the IOU's in the SS "Trust Fund" were issued by an institution that is $14 Trillion in debt. And in order to redeem those "securities" that have been issued, even more would have to be borrowed.
Can you tell me of a single investment adviser worth even a grain of salt would counsel someone to put all of their eggs in a single basket and invest in a single security? Of course not, because to do so would be foolish, yet that is exactly the state of the current SS "Trust Fund", isn't it.
It must be terrible to live in a state of outrage and fear 24/7... I mean there are PCSO personnel under the bed--EVERY ONE OF THEM carrying a county credit-card! And unnecessary buildings being proposed... And Liberals polluting the water supply! And "welfare queens" getting money they are not entitled to...(maybe 1 in 300,000...) And the obscenely rich won't "create any jobs" if they don't get their tax-breaks... rofllol rofllol rofllol And Social Security is going broke!!
rofllol rofllol
Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact James Roosevelt, President & CEO Tufts Health Plan
The truth is that Social Security is completely solvent today, and will be into the future because it has a dedicated income stream that covers its costs and consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion. Estimates are that the Social Security surplus will grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, and that reserves will be sufficient to pay full benefits through the year 2037. After 2037, Social Security would still be able to pay for 78 percent of benefits even with no adjustments to revenues or benefits.
And those "baby boomers" who are going to bust Social Security when the retire? They have been paying into the system for more than 40 years, generating the large surplus the program has accumulated. Much of the money that baby boomers are and will be drawing on from Social Security, is, and will be, their own. That fact is conveniently forgotten by the critics.
Understanding that the public will not succumb to a frontal assault on Social Security, Tea Party supporters, Libertarians and other critics advance their radical agenda by creating a "mythology of fear" trotting out themes of a program that is "in crisis," "bankrupt," "broke," and, in the wake of the Madoff scandal, even a "Ponzi scheme." They then position themselves not as wanting to eliminate Social Security but as wanting to "save, "strengthen," and "protect" Social Security by privatizing it.
Social Security does not need to be saved. The fact is, Social Security has been the most successful government program of the past 75 years. Today, 53 million Americans receive Social Security benefits each month. No other program in American history -- has touched more lives and families and brought more financial stability to households -including those of is most ardent critics.
Sorry... Everybody in a 4-county area knows your feelings on Social Security, Medicare, the "general welfare" clause, ad nauseum...
(Insert standard Federalist 'general welfare' clause nonsense here: ________________________________________________ )
I'm afraid I just can't get too scared about a program that is NOT part of the $14-Trillion deficit, and that is not "in trouble." (But if you want to do something constructive, you might want to figure out how to pay for those two unnecessary wars, the prescription drug benefit, the tax-breaks for millionaires, etc...)
No argument that there is $2.5 Trillion in the "Trust Fund" LJ. But that opinion piece you reference doesn't mention that the amount in the trust aren't liquid funds. Those funds have been loaned out to the federal government, which is why the "Trust Fund" consists of nothing more than a bunch of IOU's issued by an entity that is $14 Trillion in the hole already, could possibly lose its AAA rating for securities it has issued, and would have to borrow another $2.5 Trillion to make good on the securities it has already issued to the SS "Trust Fund". Tell me that sounds like a sound investment to you for the politicians to have made for the money we and our employers paid into the Ponzi for the privilege of being employed. It is not diversified in any manner, shape or form. It contains no hedges against inflation. The "Trust Fund" exists only on paper right now, and will be worth less than the paper should the general government ever default on a single interest payment. That, to me at least, doesn't sound like a secure investment. Neither you or I would invest our entire retirement fund in federal securities and neither one of us would hire an investment counselor who suggested we do so. Yet, for some strange reason, progressives are entirely comfortable with investing everyone's money this way, money that is entirely necessary for the solvency of the Social Security Ponzi "Insurance" Program.
Sorry...I've read the truth, and your continued repetition of the deficit hawks' scare tactics don't work. The program is totally solvent and by 2030 will have a SURPLUS of $4.3-Trillion, and won't need fixing until after 2037... Of course, I've suggested the perfect solution on several occasions... Remove the income ceiling at $106,800, and subject ALL income to it. The program would likely be solvent for the next 150 years...if not longer.
[pausing for the inevitable screams about "taxing the rich"...]
rofllol 
