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.
Wow, so soon to trot out the "you are required to pay for this, but don't you dare use it" liberal mantra.
We all have a awesome retirement stolen from us in the form of SS. But people who try to get some of it back in the form of below poverty level SS are called hypocrites.
If you could save what you put into SS, you would retire independently wealthy.
But SS is poverty. And you don't own it.
Somehow liberals call this "caring".
Actually if you look at what people paid into SS and what they are taking out, it averages more, especially when throwing Medicare into the mix. It is doubtful that if people banked or invested it, that they would "retire independently wealthy", if they invested it at all and did not simply spend it when they need it. And as the stock market crashes have shown us, if people could lose it all in one go if invested privately.
So it is hardly true to claim it was "stolen," when most make a profit on it and are well aware of that. That is why seniors like these programs.
"But until that happens, the exhortation that today’s generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax payments is incorrect. ‘We’ are to get much more under current Social Security laws — to the tune of $21.6 trillion — than we’ll pay into the system. The excess benefits are a ‘return’ on past and current generations’ taxes of $71.3 trillion — and quite a handsome return it is!"
LOL...If you save 6.20 of every one hundred dollars you earned, you'd end up independently wealthy?
Where do you guys get this stuff from?
If you saved .062 of your salary over a 40 year career in a 401K making 5%, simplifying for illustrative purposes with a flat income and inflation built in, you would have 7.49 times your annual income on retirement, withdrawn at 4%/year giving an annual available amount of 30% of your working income available each year. Double to 60% if, as is likely in the medium to long term but unlikely in the immediate short term, the employer share goes through completely to higher savable pay.
That's a better deal than social security is, and that's not surprising: SS has to pay the implicit interest on the implicit debt built up by past generations who took out more than they put in (especially the first one), and SS pays relatively generous benefits to people who didn't work a full career and nonworking spouses which have to be paid for out of either defacto transfers from the general budget or lower benefits paid to people who do work a full career than they could get if they kept and invested their own money.
desertdetroiter"Your employer is paying the other 6.2% of your SS, and he wouldn't give it to YOU if he wasn't paying into the fund."
Bingo, and employers would love for the public to get SS ended, as corp profits would rise by..employers paying neither matching SS and Medicare, and also NOT raising wages to offset that gain.
desertdetroiter"Your employer is paying the other 6.2% of your SS, and he wouldn't give it to YOU if he wasn't paying into the fund."
Bingo, and employers would love for the public to get SS ended, as corp profits would rise by..employers paying neither matching SS and Medicare, and also NOT raising wages to offset that gain.
Obviously this would be the case for people at minimum wage, but for the rest of us our employers could try to pay us less, but don't because they value being able to hire and retain good workers -- while people would probably not get immediate 6.2% raises given that we are still not fully recovered from '08 there's no reason to believe that the money wouldn't flow through to paychecks either partially or fully the next time there is a tight labor market.
It's a moot point though because you can't privatize or let people opt out of social security because of the massive implicit debt in the pay-as-you-go system -- instead of every future generation (including the current ones) being moderately harmed to pay for past benefits which were disbursed without matching contributions, the generation in which the privatization happened would be completely screwed and that's neither desirable nor politically possible.
You're only paying 6.2% into Social Security. 12.4% is the total Payroll Tax.
Your employer is paying the other 6.2% of your SS, and he wouldn't give it to YOU if he wasn't paying into the fund.
Would 6.2 bucks out of every 100 bucks of your income saved over 20 or 30 years give you a nice little piece of change if properly invested? Sure.
Would it make you independently wealthy as you claim? Far from it.
I'm self employed, so I pay both sides. 12% of $100,000 a year invested for 40 years is 5.8 million.
That's way more than a "nice little piece of change." I'm in my 30s and we put 15% of our income into retirement for that exact reason. Long term investing is a powerful tool.
I just did the numbers on a person making $50,000 a year. If they invested their 6% themselves rather than putting it into SS, they could have right at $1.5 million after 40 years. More than enough to live off the interest and even pass the principle down to their children, charity, etc. And that's just the employee's 6%, the company's 6% would be worth another $1.5 million, and that's for someone who makes just $50,000 a year.
If you saved .062 of your salary over a 40 year career in a 401K making 5%, simplifying for illustrative purposes with a flat income and inflation built in, you would have 7.49 times your annual income on retirement, withdrawn at 4%/year giving an annual available amount of 30% of your working income available each year. Double to 60% if, as is likely in the medium to long term but unlikely in the immediate short term, the employer share goes through completely to higher savable pay.
That's a better deal than social security is, and that's not surprising: SS has to pay the implicit interest on the implicit debt built up by past generations who took out more than they put in (especially the first one), and SS pays relatively generous benefits to people who didn't work a full career and nonworking spouses which have to be paid for out of either defacto transfers from the general budget or lower benefits paid to people who do work a full career than they could get if they kept and invested their own money.
LOL...that's in a perfect world with the best case scenario. Ain't gonna happen for the overwhelming majority of people and you know it.
And the Employer share? Kiss it goodbye. That's going right back to Joe the Boss..for good.
Besides, SS is an insurance program...and a damn good one too. Sure it's not managed too well, but that's another matter altogether.
Obviously this would be the case for people at minimum wage, but for the rest of us our employers could try to pay us less, but don't because they value being able to hire and retain good workers -- while people would probably not get immediate 6.2% raises given that we are still not fully recovered from '08 there's no reason to believe that the money wouldn't flow through to paychecks either partially or fully the next time there is a tight labor market..
I think you're overestimating your worth to your employer.
Lot's of people on CD do. But then, this is the internet.
They'll give you that "less," and you'll work for it and be damn happy to get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brentwoodgirl
I'm self employed, so I pay both sides. 12% of $100,000 a year invested for 40 years is 5.8 million.
That's way more than a "nice little piece of change." I'm in my 30s and we put 15% of our income into retirement for that exact reason. Long term investing is a powerful tool.
I just did the numbers on a person making $50,000 a year. If they invested their 6% themselves rather than putting it into SS, they could have right at $1.5 million after 40 years. More than enough to live off the interest and even pass the principle down to their children, charity, etc. And that's just the employee's 6%, the company's 6% would be worth another $1.5 million, and that's for someone who makes just $50,000 a year.
You're not making 100k for 40 years. The overwhelming majority of Americans don't make 100k at all. Only a tiny group of people make that kind of money. So let's not show so much hubris as to make that sound like some ordinary salary...please.
Your 50k a year example is also unrealistic for most Americans over 40 years...and i'm sure you know that. People change jobs, lose jobs, and are often forced to take lower paying jobs. 50k a year isn't a hell of a lot of money, but most people don't make that either.
You right wingers and anti-Social Security types always have these rosy scenarios, but you know darn well that they're ridiculous.
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.
...If you save 6.20 of every one hundred dollars you earned, you'd end up independently wealthy?
