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.
I received my first pay subject to social security taxes 49 years ago and I thought some of you might be interested in what I found when I did a detailed analysis.
Over 49 years I had total earnings subject to SS tax in the amount of $1,589,929.00 but that isn't a true number because for about 7 of those years I met the top of earnings subject to SS tax and stopped paying. The $1,589,929.00 is only what was subject to SS and medicare taxes.
I should add that $1,589,929.00 does not factor inflation and I can assure you $15,000 in 1970 was a whole lot more than $15,000 today. In 1970 the $3,000 I earned was equivalent to $17,885.34 today.
For 49 years my average income subject to SS Tax was $32,447.53. For my first ten years of work I earned a total of just $30,976.00 or $3,097.60 per year.
For example in 1967 I earned $2,716.00 which would be equivalent to $18,817.41 today. Not all that bad for a very recent high school graduate facing the draft.
In 1967 I lived on my own in my own studio apartment (hey, I was 18) in Mountain View,CA here second floor on end by the stairwell. I seem to remember I paid $90/month which was a lot of money back then but I wonder what it rents for now? Hey, it had a pool and chicks lived there!
I didn't have a car, couldn't afford one with CA insurance the way it was even back then, so I had a Honda 90.
But I was curious, seems to be a lot of class warfare breaking out between the boomer and GenY generations regarding social security taxes we paid vs the amount we are expected to get. Is it fair, is it true the boomers are robbing GenY of their future?
What I found was if I had simply invested my SS and Medicare taxes into a simple bank pass book account my account would have $642,601.28 today.
Now SS estimates my monthly benefit to be $2,131 so I would have to collect for 301 months (just over 25 years) so not counting interest I would earn on the dwindling account I would have to live to see 91 years old.
That $642,601.28 is just simple interest from the simplest bank passbook savings account, nothing special not even a CD.
These are actual numbers so so much for the idea we boomers will be taking a lot more out of the system than we put in.
I wonder what I would have had if I had invested the money in an average performing mutual fund instead of giving it to government parasites somewhere? I betcha it would easily exceed a million dollars by now.
I think everyone understands you can get a much higher return on investment in the free market.
But with reward comes risk.
Social security isn't about a return on your money, its about the security it provides.
Hey, I'm not arguing with you. I still say, though, that they are exceptions rather than the norm. I don't care if everyone got truly active and fit--I would still venture to say that most fit 70-80s could not withstand an 8 hour day of steamfitting, oil rigging, general construction.
Also I don't disagree with you --- people who have paid into social security should be allowed to retire when they want.
The rules should be changed that one gets out what he/she put in with interest.
If someone has worked 45-50 years and paid into social security all that time, then certainly he or she should be able to take out with interest and inflation considered every nickle he paid in. A construction worker who worked 45-50 years certainly paid in plenty and should be allowed to retire.
It might be called a tax now --- but that's not how social security was sold to the people -- it was sold as a forced government retirement plan.
I also think someone who paid in only 10 years should be allowed to retire when he or she wishes but the payments or the length of time payments are given should reflect that much shorter time of payments.
If you are not yet collecting Social Security and are over the age of 40, what do you think is a fair age for someone to be allowed to retire and collect this government benefit?
(Currently most people start collecting at the early retirement age of 62 and get 70% benefits for filing early)
Lets have this a discussion on the logic and fairness rising the retirement eligibility age for Social Security for people who are currently 40 years old or more, ONLY. PLEASE no general discussion about what you think about Social Security as a concept, just what you feel is a fair and logical eligibility age for someone who is forty or older today to eventually collect Social Security Benefits. If you were in Congress would you eliminate the ability to collect benefits as early as 62? Would you immediately raise the retirement age? Or keep it as it is? What is the fair thing to do about the retirement age?
The answer can't be given without justification. A number means nothing without the reasoning behind it.
My spouse and I paid (and wilL continue to pay) the maximum Social Security and Medicare taxes possible by entering the professional work world in 1983--the year SS taxes were massively increased and benefits reduced. We're already up to age 67, with many more cuts and increases to come.
So for everyone over 50, the retirement age should be the same as today's retirees. Younger peole should be allowed to opt out of this negative-investment catastrophe; it wouldn't give them anything anyway. I wish WE'D been allowed to opt out.
Remember, current retirees who get full benefits worked through GREATEST economic years in history for labor, and largely had great pensions. They paid the least in SS taxes, but get double their money back or more--paid for by those who will NEVER approach their level of wealth.
The main problem is that we all must share the pain for our government's insane fiscal irresponsibility--EXCEPT the wealthiest demographic group, current retirees, for some political reason. They get full SS even with fat pensions and millions in the bank. They are EXEMPT from sharing ONE IOTA of the pain created under their elected government. THAT'S WRONG!
So, how to pay for giving anyone over 50 at least payback (forget interest or interest losses) on the $350,000 or so confiscated under this one program? (Will You Get Back Your Social Security Taxes in Retirement? - Planning to Retire (usnews.com)). The federal gov't is already $16 trillion in debt, and SPENT the non-existent "Trust Fund" years ago, and is already borrowing from other federal accounts to pay benefits (the reverse of how they stole the Trust Fund).
But we CAN pay for what I proposed. Slash the budget of our Empire World-Police Military, which is MORE costly than all the militaries in the world put together. We can't afford to police the world: we don't even protect our own borders. Also, by slashing the REST of our behemoth federal gov't and doing away with everything BUT SS and Medicare and a TINY military. If more is needed, PRINT IT--THAT'S HOW WE'RE ALREADY $16 TRILLION IN DEBT.
But the band-aid solutions we'll actually get will only bring the whole system down in about 10 years. Youngsters like the OP will be totally robbed and given nothing back. My age group too. Too bad the group that voted for this PONZI Scam and protect it with lobbyists don't share any of their early retirements and wealth--since they are going to be the last generation to have any.
If you are not yet collecting Social Security and are over the age of 40, what do you think is a fair age for someone to be allowed to retire and collect this government benefit?
(Currently most people start collecting at the early retirement age of 62 and get 70% benefits for filing early)
Lets have this a discussion on the logic and fairness rising the retirement eligibility age for Social Security for people who are currently 40 years old or more, ONLY. PLEASE no general discussion about what you think about Social Security as a concept, just what you feel is a fair and logical eligibility age for someone who is forty or older today to eventually collect Social Security Benefits. If you were in Congress would you eliminate the ability to collect benefits as early as 62? Would you immediately raise the retirement age? Or keep it as it is? What is the fair thing to do about the retirement age?
I would privatize it and those who paid into retirement would get back what they paid in. Disability insurance would work like insurance. DUH!
No, it provides security to you. You may have a 401K and invest in stocks like I do, but if the market collapses tomorrow, social security is still there for you.
I think everyone understands you can get a much higher return on investment in the free market.
But with reward comes risk.
Social security isn't about a return on your money, its about the security it provides.
anyone supposing that there is no risk associated with trusting the U. S. Federal Government to provide SS is just crazy.
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.
