Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so the $50k-$100k earners aren't the only ones who get screwed by social security. The $100k+ earners should have the opportunity forced upon them to be screwed by it, too, at a full 100% of their income, just like me.
Why? We will never collect so why should we be screwed by a system just because you agree to be screwed by it?
Why? We will never collect so why should we be screwed by a system just because you agree to be screwed by it?
if i want to remain an american worker i have no choice but to agree.
to answer "Why," , well ... if higher earners are forced to pay into the system i won't get screwed as badly.. so my motives, like yours, are pretty simple.
Why? We will never collect so why should we be screwed by a system just because you agree to be screwed by it?
Where is this lie coming from? If nothing was changed for the next 20 years, Social Security could pay out 100 percent of benefits until 2037 and 77 percent of benefits thereafter. I guess it's a lot easier to steal a person's bank account if you can convince them it's not there, but I find it sad that so many of you have bought into this lie. It's like saying, you think you have $100,000 in the bank? You do know that banks aren't required to retain 100 percent of their cash deposits on hand at all time,s right? So that means your money isn't really there. So that means you should let me "fix" this for you. Trust me, my fix will get you at least 40 percent of your money or so, which is better than nothing, right?
100 percent of benefits and 77 percent thereafter is pretty good to me. I, of course, expect to get 100 percent of my benefits after 2037, and I will vote for politicians who will make some minor tweaks to make sure that happens. Even if it wasn't changed at all though, I'm sure that 77 percent is a hell of a lot higher than I'd get after the Republics do a teahad on the program.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with this comment. Frank, do some actual research on Social Security before commenting please. All nonbiased sources agree that it is currently solvent at 100 percent payouts until 2037 and then over 75 percent payouts indefinitely after that. We can get it to 100 percent solvent at 100 percent payouts for the next 75 years with a few minor and relatively painless changes.
Social security is the most successful social contract ever instituted in the United States. It has taken the poverty rate for the elderly from almost 50% to less than 9%. It has paid out 100% of the agreed upon payments to participants for over 75 years.
WestCobb, your figures are correct using any and all actuary tables. Frankly, I'd like to see a link to one reputable economist who agrees with the naysayers in this thread. Clue, there are none. As far as investing in the stock market vs Social Security, every financial advisor recommends that a person who is getting close to retirement weigh their portfolio heavily in low interest bonds vs stocks to minimize risk. Even then, as is stated by the detractors of SS, the fund pays out much more than the average individual pays in.
The biggest problem SS has with the detractors is the fact that it has the word "Social" in front of "Security". The concept that security for the average American can be achieved using a "Social" program is anathma to the political right wing.
Right now the right wing of American Politics is in the process of attempting to dismantle all social contracts the government has with the American People under the guise of "Personal Responsibility". Removing all safety nets for it's citizens is an important step in creating a totalitarian state.
Social Security exists as insurance against the downswings of the market. It is meant to be an extremely safe investment. Of course when the risk is so low, the returns are not going to be stellar. They are still very good and keep millions from living in poverty in their old age.
Haven't you been hearing the news of people who can't retire because their investments have gone down so much in the past few years? It was the same when the tech bubble popped. It was the same when the market crashed in 1987.
A smart investor has a diversified portfolio. Stocks should definitely be a part of that, but so should Social Security.
You STILL don't seem to understand. Social Security provides for a worse retirement than pure investment in the market.
That is a proven, fiscal fact. How is that so difficult to understand? Give me your email address and I will send you a spreadsheet with the calculations.
You STILL don't seem to understand. Social Security provides for a worse retirement than pure investment in the market.
That is a proven, fiscal fact. How is that so difficult to understand? Give me your email address and I will send you a spreadsheet with the calculations.
You don't get it. Social Security is the most secure investment an investor can make. Of course such a secure investment isn't going to have stellar gains -- but it does have very good gains though. I think people should invest in the market in addition to having Social Security.
Social security is the most successful social contract ever instituted in the United States. It has taken the poverty rate for the elderly from almost 50% to less than 9%. It has paid out 100% of the agreed upon payments to participants for over 75 years.
WestCobb, your figures are correct using any and all actuary tables. Frankly, I'd like to see a link to one reputable economist who agrees with the naysayers in this thread. Clue, there are none. As far as investing in the stock market vs Social Security, every financial advisor recommends that a person who is getting close to retirement weigh their portfolio heavily in low interest bonds vs stocks to minimize risk. Even then, as is stated by the detractors of SS, the fund pays out much more than the average individual pays in.
The biggest problem SS has with the detractors is the fact that it has the word "Social" in front of "Security". The concept that security for the average American can be achieved using a "Social" program is anathma to the political right wing.
Right now the right wing of American Politics is in the process of attempting to dismantle all social contracts the government has with the American People under the guise of "Personal Responsibility". Removing all safety nets for it's citizens is an important step in creating a totalitarian state.
Teh actuary tables you reference will need to be recalucalted, certainly if income tax rates are adjusted down. So I do not believe at all the system will be solvent til 2037. I am not close to retirement, so I simply say, let me out of the program be "personally responsible for my own retirement. Why is there no free choice? This is suppossed to be America? I have a probelm with Group good vs. individual good. Sure, there are minor tweaks that can be made - increasing full retirement age, etc. However, I reject the notion that there is a social contract with Americans. I would like to see this contract in writing. When I sign contracts, I like to read them and decide on my own accord to sign it or not.
You don't get it. Social Security is the most secure investment an investor can make. Of course such a secure investment isn't going to have stellar gains -- but it does have very good gains though. I think people should invest in the market in addition to having Social Security.
And it should be a choice..not mandated...or if mandated, let me choose where the money goes and who manages it...
You don't get it. Social Security is the most secure investment an investor can make. Of course such a secure investment isn't going to have stellar gains -- but it does have very good gains though. I think people should invest in the market in addition to having Social Security.
For long term investments, the stock market is the most secure investment vehicle one can use. This is another fiscally proven fact.
Tell me, is your viewpoint based on historical returns/booms/busts, or based on your opinion?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
