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.
No, he is quite correct. He did not say that all financially successful 50+ Are SS haters. But anyone that really favors privatization of SS either has a way to profit from it, OR thinks they could have invested their and their employers contribution and come out farther ahead. Only successful people would think that. I think that too.
But SS is NOT a pension plan. It is an insurance policy with weird rules that help many that can't help themselves, and favors lower income over higher income. It they want to privatize SS they would have to require an amount to be paid back in to the fund for those that have little, as a minimum equal to what goes to them from SS now. If one is a wizard at investing and triples what they would have gotten from SS, then for instance, a mandatory third has to be taxed back. SS comes out ahead and one is still way ahead of where they would have been. In addition, just like SS, the principle would not be owned by oneself, upon death, like any annuity, and only guaranteed no loss of principle investments allowed. With rules like that, very very few would take the private option.
No, he is quite correct. He did not say that all financially successful 50+ Are SS haters. But anyone that really favors privatization of SS either has a way to profit from it, OR thinks they could have invested their and their employers contribution and come out farther ahead. Only successful people would think that. I think that too.
But SS is NOT a pension plan. It is an insurance policy with weird rules that help many that can't help themselves, and favors lower income over higher income. It they want to privatize SS they would have to require an amount to be paid back in to the fund for those that have little, as a minimum equal to what goes to them from SS now. If one is a wizard at investing and triples what they would have gotten from SS, then for instance, a mandatory third has to be taxed back. SS comes out ahead and one is still way ahead of where they would have been. In addition, just like SS, the principle would not be owned by oneself, upon death, like any annuity, and only guaranteed no loss of principle investments allowed. With rules like that, very very few would take the private option.
I disagree with it, as does everyone I have talked to about it. And most of those folks are pretty well paid. So his perception is wrong, in my experience. No one I know considers SS to be some tiny amount of money that they would equate to mad money. Perhaps the super wealthy think like that, but certainly not all the folks that make more than his stated number of 50k, or whatever it is that he considers to be average.
I don't know what you are talking about. I was only referencing his statement that all SS haters are 50+ and financially successful. No where was any reference to the pocket change or beer money posts. His point was lower income earners like SS just fine. They get an amazing return on investment, double what high earners get.
I wholeheartedly agree that SS is not pocket change. Could I SURVIVE without my SS if I had to? Of course I could. If I were to get divorced tomorrow and lose half of everything saved and have my income for retirement cut in half, I would hate it, but I would survive just fine. My reference for what I could afford would be reset to a still quite livable state, is all.
But that's not the point. SS is NOT a "for the poor only" plan. If I pay in and live long enough I fully expect and deserve my portion, regardless of the means testing. Whether I use it on pole dancers or rescuing animals is entirely up to me. Neither the government (at least legally at this time) nor anyone else can tell me I am only allowed to have and use this money if I absolutely need it. The same applies to millionaires and billionaires, where SS won't even pay for the fuel in their private jet. I have no problem with that at all. Those same millionaires and billionaires typically donate the lions share of money to help the same causes that support the people that criticize them. It is what it is.
On my last 01/2017 SS statement, myself and my employers have paid in to SS and Medicare just over about $390k since 1974, and we will pay in another almost $60k by the time I retire at 62, for which I will not see any real increase in my SS, because I already have 35 years maxed out. Would I rather have $450k, and let the government keep everything it had earned on it in the last 45 years, and give up SS? On a personal income level, I sure would! My age 62 amount is $2100. Would someone who made much less than I, and gets the $1200 (amounts from my wifes statement) average take the $110k and give up SS? I think not. I don't think I have to explain why. Who's getting the better deal?
Last edited by Perryinva; 02-01-2017 at 07:03 PM..
[quote=foundapeanut;47024011]^^^ you are right, it is an annuity.
Hubs started OK I'm going to guess you aren't married. If you are, .
Your making an assumption his mother never worked. If she didn't, she made life easier on her husband by supporting him while he worked. Not giving her widow bennies would set us back to why social security was created to begin with. To get people who worked all their lives out of poverty when they quit working. And the widows who supported these men.
Here's where the SS bennies should quit. A man gets one survivor benny to pass on. Your first wife should get it, not every woman you been with for 10 years. If the first wife remarries, than that one can be passed on to the next.
Not every woman gets remarried, especially when she gets older. A guy ss account can be paying multiple survivors bennies as long as the women never remarry.
************************************************
If his mother never worked and she's under, say, 75, she's an exception these days. Most women have been working and paying into SS for at least 40 years. Two income households, have, for example, fueled inflation in real estate, food - probably everything. So some guy who is simply not interested in sharing a bed with someone, not interested in losing half of his income in a divorce, lives in a single income house, pays school taxes, etc. pays the same for everything as a two income household...then, gets part of his potential SS payout taken away because 70 years ago when they set up this stuff, women had wringer washers, starched shirts, cooked from scratch, and washed walls because paint was oil based and expensive. It's now the 21st century. Nobody does that any more - haven't needed to for many, many years.
Been to almost any workplace (exclusive of a coal mine or steel mill) lately? It's 50% women. Has been for a long, long time. End the survivor bennies. Archaic junk.
That's not what is being discussed here. Your post implied the person is not correct, your wife earned less but has more in SS. It's not a debate whether to take SS at 62 or FRA or 70. You can't compare apples with oranges. You might want to clarify your comment with my wife took SS at FRA that's why it's more, not because she earned less and got more than OP as you implied.
That's exactly what is being discussed here. The OP was whining about getting smaller checks because he was planning early retirement. Well, snowflake, that's life. Get used to it.
Hubs started OK I'm going to guess you aren't married. If you are, .
Your making an assumption his mother never worked. If she didn't, she made life easier on her husband by supporting him while he worked. Not giving her widow bennies would set us back to why social security was created to begin with. To get people who worked all their lives out of poverty when they quit working. And the widows who supported these men.
Here's where the SS bennies should quit. A man gets one survivor benny to pass on. Your first wife should get it, not every woman you been with for 10 years. If the first wife remarries, than that one can be passed on to the next.
Not every woman gets remarried, especially when she gets older. A guy ss account can be paying multiple survivors bennies as long as the women never remarry.
************************************************
If his mother never worked and she's under, say, 75, she's an exception these days. Most women have been working and paying into SS for at least 40 years. Two income households, have, for example, fueled inflation in real estate, food - probably everything. So some guy who is simply not interested in sharing a bed with someone, not interested in losing half of his income in a divorce, lives in a single income house, pays school taxes, etc. pays the same for everything as a two income household...then, gets part of his potential SS payout taken away because 70 years ago when they set up this stuff, women had wringer washers, starched shirts, cooked from scratch, and washed walls because paint was oil based and expensive. It's now the 21st century. Nobody does that any more - haven't needed to for many, many years.
Been to almost any workplace (exclusive of a coal mine or steel mill) lately? It's 50% women. Has been for a long, long time. End the survivor bennies. Archaic junk.
Actually the work place is more than 50% women. But there are women that still stay home, like 20%. For many reasons. They won't change it. Life isn't fair, get over it.
How is his payout being affected? He gets exactly the same as everyone else in his pay history.
That's exactly what is being discussed here. The OP was whining about getting smaller checks because he was planning early retirement. Well, snowflake, that's life. Get used to it.
Yes but he was thinking of taking his SS at 62. And you replied your wife did earn much but has higher SS. But you forgot to mention she didn't take it out at 62. She delayed taking it out to get a higher payment. Get with the program please. Stop injecting inaccurate information for the purpose of insulting OP.
Well ,,, , my father died @ 55 year old and mother is not around. He never collected. So where did his SS earnings go?
Into a pot to give some smuck who didn't really work and collecting his SS reward?
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 are, 
. 
