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.
What you said doesn't negate what I said. And a lot of those people who aren't living that long are collecting disability before they die, so that has to be figured in, too.
It certainly does negate what you said. Those cohorts, people, that earned more tend to live longer than those that earned less. Ppl that earn less typically work harder, aren't able to take time off for vacation, and don't have the resources to get prompt medical care.
As for collecting SSDI few ppl qualify, there are high standards and years of waiting to be denied.
Wrong, go back 45 years and see what the maximum fica tax contribution was (i used $24.20 as the first years monthly payment, the fica tax was 4.40%) It wasn't $300. Back in 1965 that $300 would be about a month's pay for a working stiff.
Your error is attributing $300 from day one. When you use the max contribution each year you barely put away $275k.
Do your homework next time, before you call someone out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger
Fact Check: $300 per month at 8% over 45 years = $1,592,911.05.
I'm amazed at how many people still talk out of their butts when such facts can be so easily verified:
And by the way, the performance of large company stocks (as represented by the S&P 500 Index) in the 45 years from 1/1/1966 to 12/31/2011 was 9.22%...so 8% was a reasonable return assumption for the last 45 years.
Being a baby boomer born in the 50's, I may be lucky and draw some SS during my retirement. Yeah, I get those statements from the feds every year on my birthday with a record of my yearly contributions and expected future payouts. Realistically, SS does not enter into my equation for supplemental income for my retirement years. The feds can't be trusted, as history has shown, and the statements I receive annually are a joke.
Hard working US citizens are being screwed as SS today is a ponzi scheme IMO. It may provide me with a few extra bucks, but what about my children and grandchildren and yours? What are they going to get for their SS taxes in return when it comes time to collect?
"The feds can't be trusted, as history has shown,"
As far as that's concerned, every person due a social security check since it's inception has got one. So blow that statement off.
"the statements I receive annually are a joke."
What's so funny about them? Is it that you made so much money annually that the social security payout is so small in comparison to your needs? Or is it that you made so little and paid next to nothing into the system and the amount you'll be recieving is paltry? Which is it?
"Hard working US citizens are being screwed as SS today is a ponzi scheme"
Another totally false statement. As stated, nobody due a check has failed to recieve one in the history of the program. There are numerous ways to fix the current system that will keep it solvent for decades to come. Raise the cap on the income threshold, raise the age of full retirement benefits and other methods. It needs tweeking just like it did in 1986.
" but what about my children and grandchildren and yours?"
Right now the system is entering a financial hole because all the boomers are coming home to roost. I guess one needs to be reminded that the boomers will not live forever. Once they begin to die off, the social security system will have a massive surplus for your children and your grandchildren.
I've come to the conclusion that those who post doom and gloom about the social security system without any substantiating facts just don't like the word "Social" in any government program. Just MY opinion. As soon as I hear or read the words "Ponzi Scheme", I know that whatever else is said will be bumper sticker, right wing, trash talk.
"The feds can't be trusted, as history has shown,"
As far as that's concerned, every person due a social security check since it's inception has got one. So blow that statement off.
"the statements I receive annually are a joke."
What's so funny about them? Is it that you made so much money annually that the social security payout is so small in comparison to your needs? Or is it that you made so little and paid next to nothing into the system and the amount you'll be recieving is paltry? Which is it?
"Hard working US citizens are being screwed as SS today is a ponzi scheme"
Another totally false statement. As stated, nobody due a check has failed to recieve one in the history of the program. There are numerous ways to fix the current system that will keep it solvent for decades to come. Raise the cap on the income threshold, raise the age of full retirement benefits and other methods. It needs tweeking just like it did in 1986.
" but what about my children and grandchildren and yours?"
Right now the system is entering a financial hole because all the boomers are coming home to roost. I guess one needs to be reminded that the boomers will not live forever. Once they begin to die off, the social security system will have a massive surplus for your children and your grandchildren.
I've come to the conclusion that those who post doom and gloom about the social security system without any substantiating facts just don't like the word "Social" in any government program. Just MY opinion. As soon as I hear or read the words "Ponzi Scheme", I know that whatever else is said will be bumper sticker, right wing, trash talk.
How much fixing of the system would be needed if the Congress hadn't taken that over $3 trillion from the supposed Social Security Trust Fun that Congress established and provided in the 1930s? When the Congress found all that money they put it in the general fund and spent it. No real pain until 2010 when the fan got hit with all those boomers. Yep,they saw all that money as surplus every year and just spent it. How do they pay us back now?
Up to 2010 there was always a little left but as forecast for years the end came and now they are talking about needing to take out more, shorten the period people can collect and all those things. Politicians just can't stand to see all that money sitting around in a trust fund so they find a way to spend it and they got it done. Not just Democrats, but the GOP congressmen took part, also.
I've come to the conclusion that those who post doom and gloom about the social security system without any substantiating facts just don't like the word "Social" in any government program. Just MY opinion. As soon as I hear or read the words "Ponzi Scheme", I know that whatever else is said will be bumper sticker, right wing, trash talk.
...but it IS structured in a similar fashion*; i.e. each "generation" in the system gets in more than it puts out requiring the next one to put in more.
That's perfectly fine as long as the next one is sufficiently bigger and richer than the last, as has historically been true, but, since that is coming to an end, we have a few options:
- Lower the rate of benefit growth so that
(benefits of future generation) / (benefits of past generation)
=
(size of future generation X per capita income of future generation) / (size of past generation x per capita income of past generation)
- Choose other government programs to cut to make up the difference, as the program grows in the proportion of the economy it takes up
- Choose taxes to raise to make up the difference, as.....takes up
- Go into the future pretending there isn't a problem, proverbially putting our hands over our eyes screaming "la-la-la I can't hear you" as loud as possible. I'm center-right myself and can respect when left-wing people argue to raise taxes to cover it (although I disagree with raising the payroll tax cap because I think it's screwed up both morally and from a sound economics perspective that we tax labor more than capital). There is no respecting this position, however: Children and Congressmen think like this, other people should know better. [edit: just to be clear to the reader considering that I quoted only part of mohawkx's post at the top here - I am talking about people who take this view in general; mohawkx is not one of them as he does acknowledge the need to tweak the system]
*As I said in this thread a while ago, social security is structured like a welfare system (taxes in at present time --> benefits out at present time) rather than a pension system (money in at present time ---> time passes; money invested ---> benefits out at future time), but, for this analysis I'm putting that aside for the moment to keep things relatively simple
...but it IS structured in a similar fashion*; i.e. each "generation" in the system gets in more than it puts out requiring the next one to put in more.
That's perfectly fine as long as the next one is sufficiently bigger and richer than the last, as has historically been true, but, since that is coming to an end, we have a few options:
- Lower the rate of benefit growth so that
(benefits of future generation) / (benefits of past generation)
=
(size of future generation X per capita income of future generation) / (size of past generation x per capita income of past generation)
- Choose other government programs to cut to make up the difference, as the program grows in the proportion of the economy it takes up
- Choose taxes to raise to make up the difference, as.....takes up
- Go into the future pretending there isn't a problem, proverbially putting our hands over our eyes screaming "la-la-la I can't hear you" as loud as possible. I'm center-right myself and can respect when left-wing people argue to raise taxes to cover it (although I disagree with raising the payroll tax cap because I think it's screwed up both morally and from a sound economics perspective that we tax labor more than capital). There is no respecting this position, however: Children and Congressmen think like this, other people should know better. [edit: just to be clear to the reader considering that I quoted only part of mohawkx's post at the top here - I am talking about people who take this view in general; mohawkx is not one of them as he does acknowledge the need to tweak the system]
*As I said in this thread a while ago, social security is structured like a welfare system (taxes in at present time --> benefits out at present time) rather than a pension system (money in at present time ---> time passes; money invested ---> benefits out at future time), but, for this analysis I'm putting that aside for the moment to keep things relatively simple
Thank you, everything you have said concerning the system is true. A well thought out post in my opinion. Any Roysoldboy made some good points about our politicians bipartisan efforts to loot the system for decades. I'll post more tomorrow but right now, have to go.
"The feds can't be trusted, as history has shown,"
As far as that's concerned, every person due a social security check since it's inception has got one. So blow that statement off.
Not in the strictest sense, because Congress has moved the goalposts for collecting old age benefits, resulting in the partial loss of benefits for those whose retirement ages increased and who lived long enough to collect. For those with increased retirement age who died between their 65th birthday and their new retirement age, this act of Congress resulted in the total loss of their retirement benefits.
" but what about my children and grandchildren and yours?"
Right now the system is entering a financial hole because all the boomers are coming home to roost. I guess one needs to be reminded that the boomers will not live forever. Once they begin to die off, the social security system will have a massive surplus for your children and your grandchildren.
I've come to the conclusion that those who post doom and gloom about the social security system without any substantiating facts just don't like the word "Social" in any government program. Just MY opinion. As soon as I hear or read the words "Ponzi Scheme", I know that whatever else is said will be bumper sticker, right wing, trash talk.
Asking this question exposes another inequity of Social Security. Since your Social Security benefits - - unlike private-sector retirement plans - expire when you do, the children of low earners get shortchanged when their parents die before retirement age.
While low earners disproportionately die early, they usually live long enough to render their (grown) children ineligible for survivors' benefits. Contrast this with a 401(k) or IRA where you can pass the assets in youir account to your children and/or grandchildren when you die.
using the general welfare clause would mean that each and every americans would be allowed to collect social security as soon as they start putting into it. if not it is just an entitlement and therefore not part of the welfare clause.
using the general welfare clause would mean that each and every americans would be allowed to collect social security as soon as they start putting into it. if not it is just an entitlement and therefore not part of the welfare clause.
No, everyone is bound by the rules and regulations that govern the social security program, that was found to be constitutional. Your interpretation of the law is misguided.
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.
