Just normal American Utopia...

[JJ Husker]

45 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

These stories have popped up for years so no not new.  
I don’t understand how it can take 6 months to a year to figure out.   One party has a deed to the home, one party does not.   The party that doesn’t have a deed also has no paperwork showing a lease agreement.   Seems this could be figured out within a week.  
I also wonder if the squatter eventually gets charged with breaking and entering once the process is completed.  

About a year ago an employee of mine had homeless squatters in his home. He had a fire and was living elsewhere while some construction repairs were being made. He and his son stopped by one night to check the progress and get some things out of his storage container and he found about 6 people (unrelated) had moved in and made themselves at home. He’s a big gun rights guy so he was carrying. He and his son evicted them all at gun point. One of them got belligerent with his son so his son pistol whipped him. They left.

 

The brazenness was astounding. They had been there about a week, setup lamps, makeshift beds etc. All his stuff had been moved out because of the fire. His storage container had been broken into and a bunch of guns and tools were stolen. About 3 weeks later police in a neighboring town arrested a guy and found an abandoned car with almost all of his stuff in it. It was one of the squatters he personally evicted. Police told him it would’ve been tough for them to get the squatters out of his house. So I guess the moral of the story is, do the evicting yourself.

[Lorewarn]

5 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

One party has a deed to the home, one party does not.   The party that doesn’t have a deed also has no paperwork showing a lease agreement.

 

 

A lot of time they would have a lease agreement in a tenant/landlord relationship that went sour - but even if they don't it's not hard to make a fake one and it's not hard to just make a claim and then let the molasses speed of the courts take over.

[Archy1221]

36 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

A lot of time they would have a lease agreement in a tenant/landlord relationship that went sour

A scenario that isn’t close at all to what’s being talked about or referenced in the original post. 

[Archy1221]

Good guy with a gun taking out society’s trash

 

https://abc13.com/houston-robbery-shooting-east-shots-fired-two-suspects-shot-and-killed-deadly-attempt/13658273/

[teachercd]

11 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

About a year ago an employee of mine had homeless squatters in his home. He had a fire and was living elsewhere while some construction repairs were being made. He and his son stopped by one night to check the progress and get some things out of his storage container and he found about 6 people (unrelated) had moved in and made themselves at home. He’s a big gun rights guy so he was carrying. He and his son evicted them all at gun point. One of them got belligerent with his son so his son pistol whipped him. They left.

 

The brazenness was astounding. They had been there about a week, setup lamps, makeshift beds etc. All his stuff had been moved out because of the fire. His storage container had been broken into and a bunch of guns and tools were stolen. About 3 weeks later police in a neighboring town arrested a guy and found an abandoned car with almost all of his stuff in it. It was one of the squatters he personally evicted. Police told him it would’ve been tough for them to get the squatters out of his house. So I guess the moral of the story is, do the evicting yourself.

Renters and even squatters rights are insane.  

 

Nutjobs might think that it is "fair" but it is about as fair as me running into the store and a dude taking my car and saying he has the right to use it, for months, without paying.

 

It is almost as nuts as common law marriage rights.  Nutjobs should be nowhere near law making.

[JJ Husker]

46 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Renters and even squatters rights are insane.  

 

Nutjobs might think that it is "fair" but it is about as fair as me running into the store and a dude taking my car and saying he has the right to use it, for months, without paying.

 

It is almost as nuts as common law marriage rights.  Nutjobs should be nowhere near law making.

Yeah, I sort of get it if they were leasing/renting and something is in dispute but when some homeless people just barge in and take over.  I think you would be well within your rights to gain access and force them out at gun point. If they get a little cute, shoot em and say you felt threatened by intruders in your home. Knowing what I know, about the last thing I’d do is call the police. Take care of that crap yourself and save a lot of headache.

[ZRod]

I've never understood the squatters rights thing. I mean, sure, in a large city you need to make sure you're protecting tenants from slum lords trying to evict them to bring in higher paying renters; but when someone owns a home, another person trespasses by just moving in and there is no evidence of financial transactions between the parties... seems pretty cut and dry to me. Like cops could figure that out in a couple days tops.

[Archy1221]

I hear ya!!!!

 

 

[deedsker]

39 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I hear ya!!!!

 

 

Funny.

 

When you actually check into some data you find out:

 

Total max taxable wages for the last 40 years is $3.54 million dollars. At 12.4% for both employer/employee this would only represent under $440 thousand dollars. This means he is likely talking $600 thousand (inflation adjusted dollars) and not gross. That being said, the owner of this account is likely young and is taking a swag at a lot of future earnings based on income now. Historically, the indexed value of the last 40 years is around 4.3%. So the assumption laid out with only a year or two of earnings would be someone making $121 thousand dollars a year. This would put them in near the top quartile of all household earners and about 170% of the median household. (He also states that this would be on "his behalf" so his household earnings could be easily twice as high).

 

https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-household-income-percentiles/

 

So the joke seems to be:

 

"Look at me, I make too much money on my W2. Social security, am I right?"

[Guy Chamberlin]

48 minutes ago, deedsker said:

Funny.

 

When you actually check into some data you find out:

 

Total max taxable wages for the last 40 years is $3.54 million dollars. At 12.4% for both employer/employee this would only represent under $440 thousand dollars. This means he is likely talking $600 thousand (inflation adjusted dollars) and not gross. That being said, the owner of this account is likely young and is taking a swag at a lot of future earnings based on income now. Historically, the indexed value of the last 40 years is around 4.3%. So the assumption laid out with only a year or two of earnings would be someone making $121 thousand dollars a year. This would put them in near the top quartile of all household earners and about 170% of the median household. (He also states that this would be on "his behalf" so his household earnings could be easily twice as high).

 

https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-household-income-percentiles/

 

So the joke seems to be:

 

"Look at me, I make too much money on my W2. Social security, am I right?"

 

Thanks for putting the thought and calculation into this that entitled pricks fishing with click bait avoid. 

[deedsker]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Thanks for putting the thought and calculation into this that entitled pricks fishing with click bait avoid. 

Already had the spreadsheets. I kinda thought I would have to go into the general idea of the program and not just a blatant worst case scenario from a pure numbers with no context scenario.

 

 

[Archy1221]

5 hours ago, deedsker said:

Funny.

 

When you actually check into some data you find out:

 

Total max taxable wages for the last 40 years is $3.54 million dollars. At 12.4% for both employer/employee this would only represent under $440 thousand dollars. This means he is likely talking $600 thousand (inflation adjusted dollars) and not gross. That being said, the owner of this account is likely young and is taking a swag at a lot of future earnings based on income now. Historically, the indexed value of the last 40 years is around 4.3%. So the assumption laid out with only a year or two of earnings would be someone making $121 thousand dollars a year. This would put them in near the top quartile of all household earners and about 170% of the median household. (He also states that this would be on "his behalf" so his household earnings could be easily twice as high).

 

https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-household-income-percentiles/

 

So the joke seems to be:

 

"Look at me, I make too much money on my W2. Social security, am I right?"

1) first, if you thought this was real persons actual scenario, that would be kinda funny 

2) he said “by the time”,  not “I’ve worked 40 years”. So your historical numbers wouldn’t apply.   But since you are missing the actual entire point, let’s use $350,000 (less than even you say but we will use a 7% rate of return with actual real life rate of return over the past 40 years of 11.6%).  If math is correct, please double check, ending balance would be $1.8 million.  $1.8 million divided by $37k is 48 years of math is correct.  
3) he stated on his behalf, not what he put in because of the employer contribution component also.  
4) so the joke is……Social Security provides a terrible return as an investment vehicle for retirement.  
5) just an fyi….many more college graduates than you think will be making starting compensation first year out of school of $80,000 per year.  Even if one starts there, gets to $100,000 in 10 years and stays there for 30 more without a single raise (far less than the max contribution) , they would contribute roughly $450,000 and a historical portfolio of over $2,000,000 if privately invested on a go forward basis.  Doubling the social security payout to $74,000 40 years from now would make it about 30 years (97 years old) as a break even point.  And that’s not even a break even point because it doesn’t account for the $80,000 in interest earned each year while retired.  

[deedsker]

10 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

1) first, if you thought this was real persons actual scenario, that would be kinda funny 

2) he said “by the time”,  not “I’ve worked 40 years”. So your historical numbers wouldn’t apply.   But since you are missing the actual entire point, let’s use $350,000 (less than even you say but we will use a 7% rate of return with actual real life rate of return over the past 40 years of 11.6%).  If math is correct, please double check, ending balance would be $1.8 million.  $1.8 million divided by $37k is 48 years of math is correct.  
3) he stated on his behalf, not what he put in because of the employer contribution component also.  
4) so the joke is……Social Security provides a terrible return as an investment vehicle for retirement.  
5) just an fyi….many more college graduates than you think will be making starting compensation first year out of school of $80,000 per year.  Even if one starts there, gets to $100,000 in 10 years and stays there for 30 more without a single raise (far less than the max contribution) , they would contribute roughly $450,000 and a historical portfolio of over $2,000,000 if privately invested on a go forward basis.  Doubling the social security payout to $74,000 40 years from now would make it about 30 years (97 years old) as a break even point.  And that’s not even a break even point because it doesn’t account for the $80,000 in interest earned each year while retired.  

1) "By the time I..." implies it is real or realistic.

2) I laid that out in my post. The person must clearly be earlier in their career because they could have work 60 years without meeting the numbers state. Thus, it is mostly likely they are on the younger side doing futuristic calculations. Not enough data is provided, but conclusions can still be made in broad strokes.

 

You just changed all the math. That is actually completely incorrect based on the post.

 

3) So they are even younger than I could potentially given them in their original post. At $160,000 cap, starting this year, they plan on working for 60.5 years. So they are 6 or 7.

 

4)Terrible returns if you make a lot. It is a social safety net and not a investment vehicle for the rich. It provides great returns for the less fortunate. 

 

5) Cool. Do that and social security will just be a nice gift to have to help out others in your life at the end. Sounds good.

[Archy1221]

11 minutes ago, deedsker said:

You just changed all the math. That is actually completely incorrect based on the post.

Yes as I told you, to give a less rosy input number than the tweeter did to appease the masses here and also give a slightly more realistic investment return number (still not the 11% last forty year historical figure). 
 

13 minutes ago, deedsker said:

 

3) So he is even younger than I could potentially give him in his original post. At $160,000 cap, starting this year, they plans on working for 60.5 years. So they are 6 or 7.

At a $160,000 cap, each year he/she would have $19,840 put in (12.4%) each year  times 40 years (assumption being the threshold never changes above $160,000 for 40 years which is unrealistic) equals $793,600 which is  $193,600 above the number you are disputing.  So no, not 60.5 years if my math serves me correctly.  And please let me know if it’s wrong and I will gladly apologize and concede.  But if my math is correct, wouldn’t it seem odd that you are railing on a tweet for being incorrect by using incorrect data/math yourself?  
 

 

19 minutes ago, deedsker said:

 

4)Terrible returns if you make a lot. It is a social safety net and not an investment vehicle for the rich. It provides great returns for the less fortunate. 

 If you were an investment advisor for someone making $40,000 a year, would you advise them to put the $4,960 a year in SS portion of FICA tax into the SS system or a private investment account for the next 40 years?  Which way would this rich person be better off? 
 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

11 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Yes as I told you, to give a less rosy input number than the tweeter did to appease the masses here and also give a slightly more realistic investment return number (still not the 11% last forty year historical figure). 
 

At a $160,000 cap, each year he/she would have $19,840 put in (12.4%) each year  times 40 years (assumption being the threshold never changes above $160,000 for 40 years which is unrealistic) equals $793,600 which is  $193,600 above the number you are disputing.  So no, not 60.5 years if my math serves me correctly.  And please let me know if it’s wrong and I will gladly apologize and concede.  But if my math is correct, wouldn’t it seem odd that you are railing on a tweet for being incorrect by using incorrect data/math yourself?  
 

 

 If you were an investment advisor for someone making $40,000 a year, would you advise them to put the $4,960 a year in SS portion of FICA tax into the SS system or a private investment account for the next 40 years?  Which way would this rich person be better off? 
 

 

 

Someone making $40,000 wouldn't be putting anything into an investment account.  They would be living paycheck to paycheck so SS basically forces them to have some form of safety net at the end of their work life.

 

Also, for the people who make over $160,000.  They can take the portion they would be putting into SS that is over $160,000 and invest it the way you say.

 

This is a safety net.  You bring up the 11% returns over the last 40 years.  However, what happens to the people who have to retire say in 2008 or other times when the market crashes and their retirement investment account is cut in half or worse?  I know people like that even with SS.  The amount they got from SS during that time was a big help to them.