Social Security is a crock (50+, 2015, respects, accidents)
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.
The entire problem with the high earner scenario, is that the SSA isn't a fortune teller. It's easy to play Monday morning QB in your 50's and older, and reflect on how financially successful you've been, and what a waste all those FICA taxes you've paid have been. But in your 20's you didn't know that. You could have become disabled at some point, some Madoff type character could have ripped off your investments, and a variety of other unpredictable financial calamities could have occurred. You pay FICA taxes to provide a basic income in case of such occurrences.
It's interesting that it's almost universal, that all SS haters are the financially successful that are 50 or older.
Women who qualify on their own are penalized for any years they take out of the workforce to care for family. Where is society's value for them?
all personal choices when you get down to it . many women utilize all sorts of means for caring for the child and go right back to work . we have someone in a discussion in one of the cd forums who had 11 children .
Last edited by mathjak107; 02-01-2017 at 06:59 AM..
I'm about your age....my salary has been somewhat less than yours up until a few years ago...and yet my amount at estimated amount at even age 62 is about $2k a month.
Are you sure you don't have some $0 years in there? Your example sounds a little extreme but it's difficult when you're not only comparing different salaries but perhaps different numbers of years working, retirement age, etc., pre FRA "penalty", etc. Anyway, you still have some time to save - I'm assuming you were already?
Perhaps the years of six figures salaries are embellished in typical C-D forum, "I'm richer than you" fashion.
The entire problem with the high earner scenario, is that the SSA isn't a fortune teller. It's easy to play Monday morning QB in your 50's and older, and reflect on how financially successful you've been, and what a waste all those FICA taxes you've paid have been. But in your 20's you didn't know that. You could have become disabled at some point, some Madoff type character could have ripped off your investments, and a variety of other unpredictable financial calamities could have occurred. You pay FICA taxes to provide a basic income in case of such occurrences.
It's interesting that it's almost universal, that all SS haters are the financially successful that are 50 or older.
Very financially successful, over 50 and not a SS hater. In fact my husband doesn't draw a salary anymore so all of our money goes through me to build up my SS more.
We've had Madoff type characters rip us off. The trick is don't give them all your money. Diversify. Give them a small part. What you can stand to lose. Then it isn't a life style killer.
Greedy arrogant people who think they will never suffer any losses only gains are the ones against SS. Or want it privatized.
Back in the early 80's, I think SS pay in was capped at $35,000. I made $60,000 a few years then. I put my savings in an IRA. Dad was collecting SS and a pension. He told me repeatedly I will not be able to survive on SS alone. EVER.
Seems that something is missing from our educational system.
I don't know if that's a solution. Lots of subjects are taught now, that are not retained by the masses. The average American is somewhat literate with the ability to do simple arithmetic. No reason to believe a required high school course in personal investing, will result in CNBC overtaking Oprah in the TV ratings.
Because it's possible you didn't even pay into your SS if you were self employed.
Hubs self employed his whole life. So we paid double for our SS contribution as we were the employer.
If this occurs, it eventually is caught. I do know someone who worked for a company that the owner did this, pocketed the employees contributions. Never paid in. Didn't pay any taxes either. He was around for 4 years.
When he was caught, he had a nice fortune. Closed the business and went back to Central America. Looks like he had planned it all along.
So she has a 4 year gap she isn't getting credit for in her SS pay ins.
I am speechless. Where the heck has all our money gone for these decades paying into the government fund? This is a lesson to everyone out there in their 30s and younger. Don't even consider SS as potential income in retirement. Save as much as you possibly can as early as you can and take advantage of as many investment opportunities as you can - like 401K and Roth IRAs. Your government is squandering your social security so do not expect to get anything resembling a return on what you are paying in.
It has never been taught or advertised that way. People who have NEVER worked collected SS, that's where your money is going. Some young adults are disabled- get social security. Some kids who have no living parents get social security-that's where your money is going. People are living longer than ever- that's where your money is going. ETC.
It's never been advertised as a retirement. It's supplemental at bets. It's not meant to be lived off of as a sole source of income.
Indeed, the reason why a surviving spouse gets to collect their partner's social security is because of a value that society places on the home and on families. Rightly or wrongly, the policy is that marriage and family create a certain stability that is good for society. There is some truth to it. Life insurance companies have statistics indicating married men live longer than unmarried men do. Some people think family doesn't count. I couldn't disagree more. Marriage and family are the central fact in my life.
Family does count. Spouses even more. Feel bad for those who put so little value on what makes our society great. Stability, loyalty, love.
Why is everyone using the numbers at 62? The gain is great if you wait till 66 even better at 70. If you've planned, you can still retire earlier and live off your savings.
all personal choices when you get down to it . many women utilize all sorts of means for caring for the child and go right back to work . we have someone in a discussion in one of the cd forums who had 11 children .
Yes, you are correct. It is a personal decision. My issue is with social security benefits favoring stay-at-home spouses who never work over women (or men) who take a limited amount of time off for childcare. Looking at it another way, people who contribute the same as I do, get significantly more in benefits if they have a stay-at-home spouse. At the same time, I get zeros when I stay at home for a few years.
Are all these "projected" social security amounts at early, FRA and 70 on my SS page based on me working & contributing at my current income until I'm 62? Are there any calculators out there that give you SS numbers if you plan on retiring early?
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.
