donkeyoaty0099 wrote: » This type of plan seems the way to go, the only issue being if there is another global financial melt down. But your money isn't safe anywhere if that happens do its a moot point I suppose.
Greentopia wrote: » I wasn't advocating it for myself. But I do contribute already with taxes and charges I pay. Not income tax at the moment as I'm a student right now but that will change when I do work. And I'll look into making a PRSI contribution if I'm self employed.
Bubbaclaus wrote: » So you want DOB to pay for your retirement essentially?
Greentopia wrote: » Yes, tax the super wealthy who have gotten richer during austerity while avoiding paying taxes (Denis O Brien doubling his wealth in the past five years) while working class people have been screwed to the wall with cuts, extra taxes and charges.
Greentopia wrote: » Don't be absurd, I never said that.
Ronnie Worried Workaholic wrote: » Do you know what you are talking about at all? There's no looking into making a contribution to PRSI [PHP][/PHP]if self-employed, you will have to.
osarusan wrote: » How much is the non contributory state pension?
Ronnie Worried Workaholic wrote: » In effect you did.
Ronnie Worried Workaholic wrote: » OK, define super rich. Denis O'Brien is exceptional as a billionaire. Who are these super rich residents you will get all this much needed funding for pensions from? As for working class - another vague overused term. We work, so we are working class.
FURET wrote: » Not worried about that at all. It's happened before (1929, 2000, 2008) and it will happen again. The thing is, investments are not just numbers on a screen. When you own stocks, you own something as real as the ground you're standing on.
Greentopia wrote: » So long as the company you have stocks in doesn't go belly up. So really not that solid.
FURET wrote: » Not worried about that at all. It's happened before (1929, 2000, 2008) and it will happen again. The thing is, investments are not just numbers on a screen. When you own stocks, you own something as real as the ground you're standing on. Take Coca-Cola. The share price of Coca-Cola fell around 50% in 2008/2009. But did Coke as a business lose 50% of its customers and profits during that six-month period? No. Investors need to be prepared to see periodic falls of 50%. If you can't handle it, you deserve to lose. Prudent long-term investors don't fear and fret when the market tanks. Instead, they recognize it for the wonderful buying opportunity that it is. A 50% stock market crash should really be thought of as a 50% sale and an excuse to load up on cheap stocks. We often hear of billionaires (Buffett, Gates) who have doubled their wealth in the past five years. Sure they did - because they are predominantly invested in stocks, and global stocks have more than doubled in the past five years. Filipino stocks are up 500% since 2009 lows. US stocks are up 230%. And anyone can buy stocks and see their money double (or halve!). As you get older, you reduce your stock holdings and increase your bond holdings, so you will not experience the 2008-like volatility that all young investors should cheer, not fear.
Greentopia wrote: » I don't begrudge them an extra €5. In fact I'd raise it a lot more than that paid for it with a tax on financial services or a wealth tax.
spud_grower wrote: » the bull market since 2009 should not be viewed as typical , the kind of increase in equity value since 2009 often takes more than two decades
RayM wrote: » I don't begrudge them either, but I hope they increase all other Social Protection payments too - and by a lot more than €5. Unlike the pension, they were actually cut during the recession.
FURET wrote: » I never said it was typical. The point is that stocks go up and down and this movement explains the "doubling of wealth" that is oft-reported over the past few years. The tendency of the global stock market is to always go up over the long-term, because it is comprised of businesses that are always striving to boost their earnings. If a business shrinks dramatically or goes bust, it is removed from the index, and another takes its place.
FURET wrote: » There are no reputable pension plans where I live, so I don't have one. But every month I invest around 80% of my income into stock and bond market index-tracking ETFs:FTSE Developed Europe (520 European businesses; 40% of portfolio) S&P 500 (500 US businesses; 22% of portfolio) FTSE Emerging Markets (1000 businesses in emerging markets; 8% of portfolio) US Short-Term Bonds (thousands of bonds, gov. and corporate; 7% of portfolio) European short term corporate bonds (hundreds of bonds; 23% of portfolio) The total cost of this self-managed investment is 0.13%. If the past hundred years of market data is anything to go by, I can expect it to grow by around 7 to 8% per year over 20-30 years. I am highly diversified, owning a huge number of great businesses as a result. I don't plan on relying on any tax-payer or state cheque to fund my retirement. I'll do it myself.
beeno67 wrote: » You may be overestimating the 7-8% a year for the next 20-30 years. The bonds (30% of your investment) won't get that. FTSE hasn't earned 7-8% a year over last 25 years. Why should it in the future?Emerging markets are obviously very risky so may make or loose loads but at only 8% of your portfolio are hardly going to make a massive difference. Have you priced in the Bid/Offer spread which won't make a huge difference at present but will affect returns in time. Also 80% of your income? Really?
spud_grower wrote: » sigh that most people not only see this as a good thing but see it as not going far enough , makes me depressed , we will never change in this country giving a raise to the group who suffered least during the recession , disgusting
FURET wrote: » What, all 2000 of them?
FURET wrote: » If that happens, we all have far bigger problems than pensions.
FURET wrote: » This type of fear and scarcity-driven mentality is one of the key things that prevents people from building wealth.
beeno67 wrote: » You may be overestimating the 7-8% a year for the next 20-30 years. The bonds (30% of your investment) won't get that. FTSE hasn't earned 7-8% a year over last 25 years. Why should it in the future?Emerging markets are obviously very risky so may make or loose loads but at only 8% of your portfolio are hardly going to make a massive difference. Have you priced in the Bid/Offer spread which won't make a huge difference at present but will effect returns in time. Also 80% of your income? Really?
Greentopia wrote: » I wasn't being specific to whatever your situation is. Of course it's better if you are going to go down that road to spread your risk at least. Who is this all of us? my livelihood, food on my table or roof over my head doesn't depend on the existence of multi national corporations. God forbid. And it's not fear mongering to point out that stocks are not bullet proof investments.
FURET wrote: » Nope - even with bonds, this is back-tested to perform like that. The method (stocks to bonds) is to rebalance and take advantage of equity plunges. This is commonly referred to as the Boglehead approach. It works (the future is unwritten; however I err on the side of optimism).
Greentopia wrote: » Oh I agree. Cuts to lone parents in particular have been savage.
beeno67 wrote: » Simply untrue. But, hey why not provide evidence that funds such as yours have averaged 7-8% a year over the last 20-30 years. Pick say 25 years (i.e. 1990 - 2015) just to be fair.
