Replying to a message of TIM RICHARDSON to MARK LEWIS:   
      
    TR> On 10-19-10, MARK LEWIS said to TIM RICHARDSON:   
      
    TR>> Do the math........at some point....nobody's gonna be able to eat   
    TR>> lunch, because there won't be enough coming in to pay for it.   
      
    ML>> nice story but it still does not answer the questions i posed...   
    ML>> everyone who is working has to pay into the system... if they do not   
    ML>> use the monies they paid in by participating in the system, then why   
    ML>> cannot others use those monies??   
      
    TR> I and many other people pay auto insurance. I've been with the same   
    TR> company for over twenty years, and had one accident that was the   
    TR> other guy's fault. His insurance company paid to have our vehicle   
    TR> fixed.   
      
   A note on the news the other day said that 20% of the drivers on the roads   
   in this country don't have insurance.  Some timy number of them are rich   
   enough to self-insure, but most of them are a problem for the rest of us.   
      
    TR> So......you could say that I've paid those monies into the system by   
    TR> participating, but never `used' it.   
      
   I don't think I've ever had a chargeable accident (knock on wood).  I have   
   had to have my car dragged home or to a service station several times,   
   though.  One of those pays my AAA premium for the year.   
      
    TR> Why should someone else who has *not* paid into the system get to use   
    TR> what *I* paid into it? Why should *I* have to pay for someone's   
    TR> accident who has no insurance, and has *never* had any?   
      
   That is a problem.  Also those who don't carry renter's or flood insurance.   
   When something bad happens - and Murphy's Law says that it will, eventually,   
   they still expect the government (IOW the rest of us) to bail them out anyway.   
   I suppose some would consider me hard-hearted, but if someone is harmed by   
   some action on inaction on his/her own part I don't have a lot of sympathy for   
   them; failure to acquire insurance is one such inaction, smoking is another, as   
   is unprotected sex (of either type, one risks AIDS the other risks various   
   STDs -   
   and I count children as an STD).   
      
    TR> And its the same with the Social Security monies I've paid in all   
    TR> these years. I paid in for many years, enough to be recieving a   
    TR> fairly good monthly return for it.   
      
   Actually you'll get a max of about $1300/month.  I get about $1100/month.   
   In 9 years of working at Central States Insurance, I built up enough in my   
   401K to pay me $1100/month for seventeen months - after I took out a loan   
   of $9K from it (which turned into a distribution when I left CSO, but I was   
   over age 59-1/2 so no penalty) to cover the closing costs and incidentals   
   related to my purchase of this place.  The IRA lasted exactly long enough for   
   Social Security to kick in.  I suspect if one manages to stash money in a   
   401K or equivalent IRA investment for a much longer period one can do better   
   than I did.  My boss mentioned that he had over $300K in his 401K just before   
   he was laid off, but he'd had a LOT longer to work on it - if Vanguard is   
   doing as well as it was he's pulling down at least $25K/year in interest on   
   it, so from 2004 to date with no more contributions from him it's grown by   
   about $150K - and he's got about 15 more years to go to age 65, so he should   
   have somewhere around an even million in it by then - and then can draw   
   $5,000/month out of it without touching the principal (assuming 6% growth,   
   and Vanguard generally does better than that) .   
      
    TR> But my return would be much higher if the monies weren't also going to   
    TR> support people who do not work. Who whine about headaches, or sore   
    TR> backs. Not to mention all the other boondoggles those monies have   
    TR> been stretched out to pay for.   
      
    ML>> if you allow no one can to them, then you are wasting your   
    ML>> monies and showing a very negative charitable side...   
      
    TR> The money is only being `wasted' by the politicians who have control   
    TR> over it. Any time you have politicians controlling large sums of   
    TR> money that belong to the people they are supposed to be looking out   
    TR> for, as well as governing.... you get a whole lot of `governing', and   
    TR> very little `looking out for'.   
      
    TR> It isn't the `governed' who waste the monies.....its the politicians.   
      
   Amen.  One definition of insanity to to keep doing the same thing over and   
   over and expect a different result.  The people of this country have been   
   electing Democrooks and Republicrooks to office for over a century and    
   BOTH of those groups are responsible for the mess.   
      
    TR> As for a `negative charitable side'.......the last time I looked,   
    TR> `charitable' was a matter of personal choice. What the government   
    TR> does with much of the monies we pay into the system isn't on a   
      
   --- FleetStreet 1.19+   
    * Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)