Quote Capital:... clearly you already looked back further than the 20 years and choose not to answer the question on the terms offered. He said 7% in 40 years. NOT 7% in 20 years. You purposely cherry picked his question. Than chastised his intelligence. I find that funny.
You got caught being a disingenuous A-hole, Don't try to make a discussion out of it.
I know you need to bastardize reality to keep your delusions alive but I didn't question Maui's math... I QUESTIONED THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT WENT INTO HIS MATH. And clearly the two main inputs... his 7% average doesn't hold up in every 40 year period. And more ridiculous was his claim someone 40 years ago could have easily socked away $8000 a year. I was doing well back then and my/employer SS contributions were around 1/10 Maui's assumptions. So if he can't make a point without gross distortions... HE HASN'T MADE A POINT... and therefore his claim he could be worth 1.5 or 1.7 million getting $75k a year is pure bullshit. Gettin' in yet Einstein?
Quote Pierpont:So in your mind picking HALF of the last 40 years is "cherry picking"?
Quote Cap:Did you not say "First the 10-year Treasury yield has only been above 7% for about ONE year in the past 20"Maui never presented a credible source for his 7% average TBill yield holding up over 40 years. But it's clear just because one historical period that included the high interest rates of the late 70's and early 80's brings up the average, doesn't mean that's the norm as he's claiming. All one has to do is look at yields in the 50s and 60s. If you bothered to look at the 10year TBill yield chart I posted, it's only been above 7% for 12 months in the last 20 YEARS. That's not being rhetorical… it's the fact. Maui's scenario was deeply flawed and if you believe it… it's because you're a a gullible fool than needs to believe ANYTHING the Right claims no matter how unrealistic or idiotic.
You can answer your own question. I'll assume it was rhetorical.
You can't have it both ways Cap... though I'm sure you want to. You can't claim there may have been a 7% yield average over the LAST 40 years and pretend that proves Maui correct without also seeing the absurdity of his $8000 a year assumption over that same period. All I was doing was showing his assumptions were nonsense. And I ask again, what of those who start their retirement planning in 1992 where clearly there have NOT been 7% yields the past 20 years?