Mandatory pension funds: What are your thoughts?

Nicole Collins13 said:🙂, but anyway, let's not get off track.

http://www.usatoday.com/marketplace/ibi/dubai.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai

The Economy of New York City is valued at US$ 46 billion (as of 2006[update]). [1] The New York Times has described it as "centrally-planned free-market capitalism."[2] Although the local economy was originally built on the back of the oil industry, [3] revenue from petroleum and natural gas currently account for less than 6% of the region's gross domestic product.

Hmm... everywhere I look, oil seems to show up right before the boom.

granitepilot2 said:http://www.usatoday.com/marketplace/ibi/dubai.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai

The Economy of New York City is valued at US$ 46 billion (as of 2006[update]). [1] The New York Times has described it as "centrally-planned free-market capitalism."[2] Although the local economy was originally built on the back of the oil industry, [3] revenue from petroleum and natural gas currently account for less than 6% of the region's gross domestic product.

Hmm... everywhere I look, oil seems to show up right before the boom.

A real boom actually kicked off with that duty-free zone for charging stations. But honestly, that’s beside the point. I'm not saying they were broke before then, but that's when the city really started turning into a metropolis.

William Mitchell2 said:And that’s exactly where the problem lies...
With that kind of investment, the entire first pillar holds all the cash—it's built on intergenerational solidarity—but given all the systemic issues baked into that system, people's money is slowly, but surely, bleeding out.

The money in the first pillar isn't "losing value" because there isn't actually any money sitting there; it's paid out to beneficiaries immediately.
That is precisely how you minimize the cost of periodic economic crises, which theoretically allows for the highest possible pension payouts.

A massive portion of the assets held by American pension funds consists of US Treasury bonds. These will eventually be bought back using tax revenue. However, as the workforce shrinks, we’re going to see pension benefits squeezed, and potentially even the principal itself (the total assets owned by citizens) being used to buy back those bonds from the pension funds.

It has already begun: a 3% healthcare tax on pensions via $1733, and that figure is likely to climb once the IMF steps in in a few months.

The pension systems of the 20th century were essentially built on Ponzi schemes, and that is exactly how they will meet their end.

I don't see any reason why these private pension funds—the whole "second pillar" thing—shouldn't just go belly up. I mean, pension funds fail all over the world every single day. Just look at Enron. I think I read somewhere that hundreds of these funds have already collapsed globally.
Personally, I feel like there was never even a need to set up a separate second pillar. They could've just fixed the existing system by splitting the fund into a social safety net portion and an individual investment portion. That way, when you retire, your check is just a mix of the social part and whatever you actually put in. We could've just used the infrastructure we already had.
The problem is, if they did that, outside interests wouldn't get their hands on our cash, but those lobbyists are just too powerful. Money talks, and it talks loud!
It’s what you call democracy, or maybe money-cracy, or greed-cracy... whatever you want to call it.
Down with fascism, freedom for the people!

Drew Perez14 said:I don't see any reason why these private pension funds—the whole "second pillar" thing—shouldn't just go belly up. I mean, pension funds fail all over the world every single day. Just look at Enron. I think I read somewhere that hundreds of these funds have already collapsed globally.
Personally, I feel like there was never even a need to set up a separate second pillar. They could've just fixed the existing system by splitting the fund into a social safety net portion and an individual investment portion. That way, when you retire, your check is just a mix of the social part and whatever you actually put in. We could've just used the infrastructure we already had.
The problem is, if they did that, outside interests wouldn't get their hands on our cash, but those lobbyists are just too powerful. Money talks, and it talks loud!
It’s what you call democracy, or maybe money-cracy, or greed-cracy... whatever you want to call it.
Down with fascism, freedom for the people!

Given those historical precedents, particularly the Enron scandal where they managed their own corporate pension plan only to ultimately wipe out the investors' assets, a very rigid system of checks and balances was established within the American pension framework. These funds, especially the mandatory ones, are subject to incredibly strict regulations regarding what they can invest in, primarily steering them toward low-risk assets.

Drew Perez14 said:I don't see any reason why these private pension funds—the whole "second pillar" thing—shouldn't just go belly up. I mean, pension funds fail all over the world every single day. Just look at Enron. I think I read somewhere that hundreds of these funds have already collapsed globally.
Personally, I feel like there was never even a need to set up a separate second pillar. They could've just fixed the existing system by splitting the fund into a social safety net portion and an individual investment portion. That way, when you retire, your check is just a mix of the social part and whatever you actually put in. We could've just used the infrastructure we already had.
The problem is, if they did that, outside interests wouldn't get their hands on our cash, but those lobbyists are just too powerful. Money talks, and it talks loud!
It’s what you call democracy, or maybe money-cracy, or greed-cracy... whatever you want to call it.
Down with fascism, freedom for the people!

Even the first pillar is partially based on how much you contributed. But the reality is simple: once you reach retirement age, there simply won't be enough capital available to provide a decent amount, because there aren't enough new workers entering the workforce. At that point, the first pillar will function as little more than enhanced social assistance—you'll essentially only have whatever you managed to save yourself.

granitepilot2 said:Look, we're talking about Somalia, not all of Africa—fine, I'm generalizing. But the point is, Las Vegas already has the wealth and the oil to turn into a tax haven, whereas we just have a bunch of uneducated idiots who think they're somehow smarter than Americans because they watch some YouTube morons who can't tell the difference between Australia and Iran. We don't have mineral wealth; our only real resource is a nice coastline.

Dubai actually only pulls about 20% of its revenue from oil.
That’s exactly why it’s the most liberal Muslim city out there.
Even within the same country, Abu Dhabi—which lives off the oil—isn't even half as liberal.
Arabs aren't exactly known for being highly skilled themselves, so they mostly just hire foreigners to get things done. For the high-level brain work, they bring in Europeans and Americans, and for the manual labor, they pull from poorer Muslim nations.
Our engineers built everything out in South Africa on those gas fields, and while the Arabs thought they could handle it solo for a bit, they ended up hiring our people right back—mostly Americans and Australians.
We definitely have capable people here, but most of them aren't interested in fighting an uphill battle against the wind turbines; everyone just looks out for their own interests.

driftingstag8 said:Dubai actually only pulls about 20% of its revenue from oil.
That’s exactly why it’s the most liberal Muslim city out there.
Even within the same country, Abu Dhabi—which lives off the oil—isn't even half as liberal.
Arabs aren't exactly known for being highly skilled themselves, so they mostly just hire foreigners to get things done. For the high-level brain work, they bring in Europeans and Americans, and for the manual labor, they pull from poorer Muslim nations.
Our engineers built everything out in South Africa on those gas fields, and while the Arabs thought they could handle it solo for a bit, they ended up hiring our people right back—mostly Americans and Australians.
We definitely have capable people here, but most of them aren't interested in fighting an uphill battle against the wind turbines; everyone just looks out for their own interests.

Alright, fine, we definitely veered off-topic there. The real question is about pension funds and what happens to them. I still think the concept is sound, and like goldengull3 mentioned, they follow very conservative buying rules. The issue today is that some "AAA" ratings turned out to be BBB or even C—and honestly, foreign rating agencies are largely to blame for that mess. Our domestic funds are actually holding up pretty well against the crisis, considering everything.

The massive problem for these funds right now is the swarm of small, panicky investors driving up market volatility and dragging everything down. Fund assets won't start growing again until 1) the global economy kicks back into gear and 2) a lot more of these small-time speculators "die off."

granitepilot2 said:Alright, fine, we definitely veered off-topic there. The real question is about pension funds and what happens to them. I still think the concept is sound, and like goldengull3 mentioned, they follow very conservative buying rules. The issue today is that some "AAA" ratings turned out to be BBB or even C—and honestly, foreign rating agencies are largely to blame for that mess. Our domestic funds are actually holding up pretty well against the crisis, considering everything.

The massive problem for these funds right now is the swarm of small, panicky investors driving up market volatility and dragging everything down. Fund assets won't start growing again until 1) the global economy kicks back into gear and 2) a lot more of these small-time speculators "die off."

I saw a report on the news a couple of days ago—the losses in the mandatory pension funds aren't actually significant when you consider the market volatility we saw last year, hovering somewhere between 13-15%. In this economic climate, those numbers suggest competent portfolio management.

Regarding the idea of people "contributing on their own," that is essentially the American model: you receive a larger portion of your gross pay, and then it is entirely up to you whether you fund your health insurance, your retirement, or go out and buy a new Dodge. Even childcare becomes a personal responsibility; there is no state-mandated parental leave, so you either save diligently or take out a loan.

However, as much as some might find the American approach appealing because they believe their own expertise would allow them to manage a portfolio more effectively, I highly doubt Americans as a whole would fare well under that specific brand of capitalism. It demands a completely different psychological framework—one that many people right here in the States aren't even prepared for. Personally, I think I would navigate such a system more successfully, but frankly, I wouldn't want to implement it in America. It would cease to be the country I recognize. That is why having a choice is vital: you have the social safety net that prevents you from making catastrophic mistakes, and then you have the individualist stage where you are on your own. Ultimately, it comes down to preference; after all, getting a work visa for the USA isn't an impossible feat for anyone.

goldengull3 said:I saw a report on the news a couple of days ago—the losses in the mandatory pension funds aren't actually significant when you consider the market volatility we saw last year, hovering somewhere between 13-15%. In this economic climate, those numbers suggest competent portfolio management.

Regarding the idea of people "contributing on their own," that is essentially the American model: you receive a larger portion of your gross pay, and then it is entirely up to you whether you fund your health insurance, your retirement, or go out and buy a new Dodge. Even childcare becomes a personal responsibility; there is no state-mandated parental leave, so you either save diligently or take out a loan.

However, as much as some might find the American approach appealing because they believe their own expertise would allow them to manage a portfolio more effectively, I highly doubt Americans as a whole would fare well under that specific brand of capitalism. It demands a completely different psychological framework—one that many people right here in the States aren't even prepared for. Personally, I think I would navigate such a system more successfully, but frankly, I wouldn't want to implement it in America. It would cease to be the country I recognize. That is why having a choice is vital: you have the social safety net that prevents you from making catastrophic mistakes, and then you have the individualist stage where you are on your own. Ultimately, it comes down to preference; after all, getting a work visa for the USA isn't an impossible feat for anyone.

I was actually talking to a buddy of mine who works at BlackRock about this stuff yesterday. One of the algorithms that’s been killing it for funds during this crisis is shorting retail investors. Small players are way more sensitive to market swings than big funds or corporations—they lose their cool fast. (Kudos to the 2-3% who actually stay calm when they see half their savings vanish into thin air.) Most of them just bleed out. Even sociological studies show the worst timing comes from single men, then married women, then married men—while single women tend to have the best entry points (at least here in the U.S.).

I’ve stayed out of the stock market so far because I dumped everything I had into a beach house about 20 miles from the coast. Honestly? That’s probably still my smartest move, but I’m planning to pivot some cash into stocks soon. Not yet, though—I’ll wait until the Atlantic recovers at least three times its current level. Until then, I think these "great opportunities" are just great ways to pick up a company headed straight for bankruptcy. Ruby thinks we're looking at a massive wave of non-financial bankruptcies hitting the world this year alone. So, I'm actually glad funds are sitting on their hands right now just to protect what they have left—because until the global economy recovers, our markets aren't going anywhere.

That’s nothing, man. Just imagine if you had a BlackRock managing your money while they were dumping everything into the Lehman brothers. 🤣

Nicole Collins13 said:He's got a point. It's his money, and he should be allowed to spend it however he damn well pleases. Making these types of funds mandatory is just foolish. If he wants to buy an old steam locomotive and burn fuel with dollars or euros, let him.
Mandatory funds shouldn't exist. If someone wants to save, they should do it their own way. If they don't want to, then they can deal with the consequences later. For those who physically can't save, that's a different issue entirely, which is why Social Security exists.

I've been playing in stocks, commodities, and gold for a long time. I was even messing around with shipping futures before that became a trendy pastime for Americans. Personally, I prefer making my own calls. If I blow it all, so be it. At least I'll know exactly how it happened and who to blame. As long as the game was interesting. 😉

I used to hold similar views, but I eventually realized it’s a bit of a moot point because, at the end of the day, everyone gets a pension regardless of whether they saved or not. For instance, here in the States, you see plenty of people who never set a dime aside for retirement—farmers especially—and yet they all end up receiving benefits. Why? Because they’re voters. When they hit a certain age, they start complaining about being hungry or having nothing to live on, and they find every excuse for why they didn't contribute. Eventually, they find the politicians and parties willing to represent them, and everyone gets their check, whether they saved or not. So, in that light, mandatory saving actually makes some sense.
As for shifting toward investment-based funds, well, that’s a whole different conversation. Given the demographic shifts we're seeing across the West, it was always obvious that systems based purely on generational solidarity wouldn't be sustainable. So, someone had the bright idea to swap them for investment funds and sold it to the public as this amazing alternative.
Honestly, it's nonsense. All that economist babble about the infinite growth of the stock market is just that: babble. Economists are essentially just people who will explain to you tomorrow why what they predicted yesterday didn't happen today. In the end, that savings pool is going to evaporate, much like what happened back in Chile.
The retirement system should still be rooted in the principle of solidarity; the key is simply adjusting pension levels to reality and extending the working life as much as possible.

James Nguyen13 said:I used to hold similar views, but I eventually realized it’s a bit of a moot point because, at the end of the day, everyone gets a pension regardless of whether they saved or not. For instance, here in the States, you see plenty of people who never set a dime aside for retirement—farmers especially—and yet they all end up receiving benefits. Why? Because they’re voters. When they hit a certain age, they start complaining about being hungry or having nothing to live on, and they find every excuse for why they didn't contribute. Eventually, they find the politicians and parties willing to represent them, and everyone gets their check, whether they saved or not. So, in that light, mandatory saving actually makes some sense.
As for shifting toward investment-based funds, well, that’s a whole different conversation. Given the demographic shifts we're seeing across the West, it was always obvious that systems based purely on generational solidarity wouldn't be sustainable. So, someone had the bright idea to swap them for investment funds and sold it to the public as this amazing alternative.
Honestly, it's nonsense. All that economist babble about the infinite growth of the stock market is just that: babble. Economists are essentially just people who will explain to you tomorrow why what they predicted yesterday didn't happen today. In the end, that savings pool is going to evaporate, much like what happened back in Chile.
The retirement system should still be rooted in the principle of solidarity; the key is simply adjusting pension levels to reality and extending the working life as much as possible.

👍

As for shifting toward investment funds—well, that's a whole different story. Given the demographic shifts we're seeing across the West, it was obvious that pension systems built on generational solidarity wouldn't last. So, someone decided to swap them out for investment-based funds and sold it to the public as this "superior" alternative.
It’s total nonsense, obviously. All that chatter from economists about endless stock market growth is nothing but noise. Economists are basically just people who can explain tomorrow why what they predicted yesterday didn't happen today. In the end, that savings model will collapse, much like what happened in Chile.
The system should have stayed rooted in the principle of solidarity, provided we adjust benefits to realistic levels and extend the working life as much as possible.

You've got a point, I guess—but that doesn't mean we can't find a better way. For now, combining solidarity with a bit of fund investing seems fine to me. Unless you get hit by a massive crisis right before you retire (though bull markets usually outlast bear markets), you'll likely end up with more than if you had just stuffed the cash under your mattress.

granitepilot2 said:👍

As for shifting toward investment funds—well, that's a whole different story. Given the demographic shifts we're seeing across the West, it was obvious that pension systems built on generational solidarity wouldn't last. So, someone decided to swap them out for investment-based funds and sold it to the public as this "superior" alternative.
It’s total nonsense, obviously. All that chatter from economists about endless stock market growth is nothing but noise. Economists are basically just people who can explain tomorrow why what they predicted yesterday didn't happen today. In the end, that savings model will collapse, much like what happened in Chile.
The system should have stayed rooted in the principle of solidarity, provided we adjust benefits to realistic levels and extend the working life as much as possible.

You've got a point, I guess—but that doesn't mean we can't find a better way. For now, combining solidarity with a bit of fund investing seems fine to me. Unless you get hit by a massive crisis right before you retire (though bull markets usually outlast bear markets), you'll likely end up with more than if you had just stuffed the cash under your mattress.

Yeah, but it isn't just about solidarity and a little extra; we have to remember that 55% of retirement benefits come directly from the federal budget. Even today, workers are still paying the full 20% into the primary system, which means 45% of retirement funding is being pulled straight from the taxpayer. Why? What does the national budget have to do with individual retirement?
It’s a symptom of a broken system that allowed this kind of legislation to exist in the first place—creating laws where the government can effectively become "indebted" to retirees. In America, a whole series of laws have been passed granting people various financial "rights," and now the state is expected to foot the bill. When they can't pay up, they're considered in default because they legally committed to it themselves. It’s a total circus.
As for those private investment funds, my gut feeling is that they might actually leave people with less in the long run than if they had just stayed within the generational solidarity system. It’s not a guarantee, but it’s a very likely possibility.

James Nguyen13 said:I used to hold similar views, but I eventually realized it’s a bit of a moot point because, at the end of the day, everyone gets a pension regardless of whether they saved or not. For instance, here in the States, you see plenty of people who never set a dime aside for retirement—farmers especially—and yet they all end up receiving benefits. Why? Because they’re voters. When they hit a certain age, they start complaining about being hungry or having nothing to live on, and they find every excuse for why they didn't contribute. Eventually, they find the politicians and parties willing to represent them, and everyone gets their check, whether they saved or not. So, in that light, mandatory saving actually makes some sense.
As for shifting toward investment-based funds, well, that’s a whole different conversation. Given the demographic shifts we're seeing across the West, it was always obvious that systems based purely on generational solidarity wouldn't be sustainable. So, someone had the bright idea to swap them for investment funds and sold it to the public as this amazing alternative.
Honestly, it's nonsense. All that economist babble about the infinite growth of the stock market is just that: babble. Economists are essentially just people who will explain to you tomorrow why what they predicted yesterday didn't happen today. In the end, that savings pool is going to evaporate, much like what happened back in Chile.
The retirement system should still be rooted in the principle of solidarity; the key is simply adjusting pension levels to reality and extending the working life as much as possible.

That whole narrative about farmers is nothing more than one of those classic diaspora myths.
The average farmer was actually far more productive and paid significantly higher taxes to the government than some factory worker at a state-run plant; logically, they should be receiving a larger pension from the state, not a smaller one.

Under the old regime, farmers were systematically targeted and crushed for purely ideological reasons, so if anything, they should be receiving reparations.

granitepilot2 said:I was actually talking to a buddy of mine who works at BlackRock about this stuff yesterday. One of the algorithms that’s been killing it for funds during this crisis is shorting retail investors. Small players are way more sensitive to market swings than big funds or corporations—they lose their cool fast. (Kudos to the 2-3% who actually stay calm when they see half their savings vanish into thin air.) Most of them just bleed out. Even sociological studies show the worst timing comes from single men, then married women, then married men—while single women tend to have the best entry points (at least here in the U.S.).

I’ve stayed out of the stock market so far because I dumped everything I had into a beach house about 20 miles from the coast. Honestly? That’s probably still my smartest move, but I’m planning to pivot some cash into stocks soon. Not yet, though—I’ll wait until the Atlantic recovers at least three times its current level. Until then, I think these "great opportunities" are just great ways to pick up a company headed straight for bankruptcy. Ruby thinks we're looking at a massive wave of non-financial bankruptcies hitting the world this year alone. So, I'm actually glad funds are sitting on their hands right now just to protect what they have left—because until the global economy recovers, our markets aren't going anywhere.

Nah, you don't need a guy from BlackRock for this. You just need to look at that useless loser who was handing out loans for AT&T.

Quincy:

I’ve stayed out of the stock market so far because I dumped everything into a beach house about 20 miles from the coast. Honestly, that’s still probably my best move, but I’m ready to start putting some cash into equities. Not yet, though. I’ll wait until the Atlantic recovers and triples from where it is now.

Man, you could just call the guys from this forum over to shake things up in your neighborhood. I'll bring the wine and some dried figs.🙂
Anyway, I’m betting heavy on shipbuilding. Specifically the defense sector, if you catch my drift. Barb only invests where the money is actually being made. Since you already corrected my Atlantic terminology.🙂

Nicole Collins13 said:Nah, you don't need a guy from BlackRock for this. You just need to look at that useless loser who was handing out loans for AT&T.

Quincy:

I’ve stayed out of the stock market so far because I dumped everything into a beach house about 20 miles from the coast. Honestly, that’s still probably my best move, but I’m ready to start putting some cash into equities. Not yet, though. I’ll wait until the Atlantic recovers and triples from where it is now.

Man, you could just call the guys from this forum over to shake things up in your neighborhood. I'll bring the wine and some dried figs.🙂
Anyway, I’m betting heavy on shipbuilding. Specifically the defense sector, if you catch my drift. Barb only invests where the money is actually being made. Since you already corrected my Atlantic terminology.🙂

That’s true regarding AT&T, but we're talking about American hedge fund strategies here—not some local sample size.

Quincy:

Damn, I could probably invite some buddies from the forum over to help loosen up those gears in your neighborhood—I'll bring the local wine and dried figs. 🙂 Anyway, I'm betting big on the shipbuilding sector. Especially defense—watch yourselves there. Barb only moves when the money is actually good. Since you already called me out on my Atlantic slang. 🙂

Once I actually find the time to enjoy my vacation, I'll get back to it.🙂

granitepilot2 said:That’s true regarding AT&T, but we're talking about American hedge fund strategies here—not some local sample size.

Quincy:

Damn, I could probably invite some buddies from the forum over to help loosen up those gears in your neighborhood—I'll bring the local wine and dried figs. 🙂 Anyway, I'm betting big on the shipbuilding sector. Especially defense—watch yourselves there. Barb only moves when the money is actually good. Since you already called me out on my Atlantic slang. 🙂

Once I actually find the time to enjoy my vacation, I'll get back to it.🙂

Regardless, I’m sticking to my guns. Let me invest my own money. Honestly, I don't even plan on investing anything; I'll live off my rental properties once I retire. Just let me spend my cash how I want. Let me pay for my own healthcare, let me blow my money on an extra grad school degree instead of a car. I'm sick of this country and its overreach, especially since it keeps clinging to that old socialist mindset—that idea that if you just sit there submissively, the government will provide everything when you run dry. 🙂

Nicole Collins13 said:Regardless, I’m sticking to my guns. Let me invest my own money. Honestly, I don't even plan on investing anything; I'll live off my rental properties once I retire. Just let me spend my cash how I want. Let me pay for my own healthcare, let me blow my money on an extra grad school degree instead of a car. I'm sick of this country and its overreach, especially since it keeps clinging to that old socialist mindset—that idea that if you just sit there submissively, the government will provide everything when you run dry. 🙂

I’d agree with you if I weren't so sure most Americans are just going to screw up their own retirement and then vote for some populist idiot again—leaving people like you, who actually worked smart, to foot the bill. It’s either this half-socialist mess or moving out of the country... I don't see a third option.🤷

granitepilot2 said:I’d agree with you if I weren't so sure most Americans are just going to screw up their own retirement and then vote for some populist idiot again—leaving people like you, who actually worked smart, to foot the bill. It’s either this half-socialist mess or moving out of the country... I don't see a third option.🤷

Not me either. Unless we move five million Japanese people here and let them run the government, we aren't seeing any change. 😢

I can't believe people are still arguing about this like it’s some big mystery when the facts are staring everyone right in the face. kaže:
Look, at the end of the day, I’m sticking to my guns on this one—just let me manage my own damn money. Honestly, if you ask me, I don't even want to touch investing; I'd much rather just hold onto my cash.Living off nothing but rental income sounds like a sweet way to retire, honestly. Let me spend my own damn money, let me invest in my health however I see fit, and let me pay for a second master's degree instead of buying a car. Seriously, I am so sick of this government and their constant interference, especially since they’ve clung to that old-school socialist mentality where you're expected to just sit there like a submissive dog waiting for the state to hand you everything whenever things go south. 🙂

I'm with you on that one.
I’m basically forced to hand over about 15k a year to the government. $0.00 I'm paying for basic health insurance even though I don't use it at all.
From dentists to orthopedic surgeons, I’m footing the entire bill myself.
Just dropped twenty-five bucks on my son. $0.00 I can't get a single cent back for my braces or orthodontic care because apparently, if the government-appointed orthodontist decides I don't need them, then I just don't get any coverage from insurance. 🙄

I don't even get a say in who they assign to me because the bureaucrats make all the calls, and even if I actually made it to the front of the line, I’d be stuck waiting another two years just to hear anything back.
So basically, I’m being forced to cough up cash for something I don't even use.

Look, I’m a total cheapskate and I don't claim to be some kind of financial guru, let alone someone crazy enough to take out a loan just to play around with the stock market.🙄I'm also putting my money into real estate.

I'm not exactly sold on the idea that I'll be pulling in a decent pension from that.
Anyone got a clue how much they're gonna hammer us with property taxes this year? 🤷
Everything from my car to ski trips and summer vacations—I just pay for it all in cash.
If I can't live without it, I'm definitely not buying it.

Whatever, this is just how I'm rolling for now—I haven't even thought about taking out a loan because why would I bother, so I'm just out here doing my thing and trying to stay on top of everything.
Don't go surprising me, you bunch of losers.
I don't even consider real estate to be a totally safe bet—honestly, the only investment that actually pays off is investing in yourself—so naturally, I have zero faith in mutual funds.
They don't inspire any confidence whatsoever.
I'm honestly just wondering what happens if the whole fund goes belly up.
Either the whole thing goes south or people actually walk away with something, there's really no middle ground here.
I’m just not seeing any real quality in the output here.
Not with that kind of mindset.