How to fix SS Trump style

[Conservative65]

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Social Security

Let's start with three people. We'll call them Paul, Ringo, and George. All three are healthy, young, and entering the workforce at the age of 25 years. All three earn $100 per week, or $5200 a year. Aside from other normal taxes, 6.2% of their paycheck goes to Social Security, with their employer paying another 6.2% as required by law. Let's put all of this SS money into a pot which is allocated for these three people. Now, as time goes on inflation happen and the cost of living goes up. Paul, Ringo, and George all get 4% cost of living raises every year. By the time they are 65, they are making $16,962.60 per year.

All three men retire after their 65th year, having spent 40 years contributing to the SS pot. That pot is now $152,166.27. That breaks down to $50,722.09 of contributions per person, though half of that was contributed by their employer. But there's a problem that arises already. You see, over the years maintaining the SS program has cost money. There are administrative costs. SSA employee salaries, building costs, office supplies, etc. It's about 20% of the contributions, so the pot is actually only worth $40,577.67 per person ($121,733.02 total).

Now that each person is retired, it's time to start paying out to these men. The payout is 40% of their average income. Their average yearly income over their 40 years turns out to be $10,226.23. Thus, their payout in their first year is $4090.49. But SS gets a cost of living raise every year as well. Each year the amount increases by 4% which depletes the pot faster.

If all three men live to be 75 years old, their specially designated pot has gone into the red by $5399.40. Of course, who really knows for sure how long either will live? Let's say for a moment that Paul dies in the first day of his retirement. He basically never collects a single cent of that SS money he contributed over the years. What happens to it? Well, he's never going to see it, that's for sure. It stays in the pot. Next to die is Ringo, at the age of 70 years. By this point he's used about $17,400 of his contribution, which is almost one half after administrative costs were deducted. The remaining stays in the pot. This now leaves only George.

George is a healthy and lives a very long life. He always exercised. Ate healthy. Never smoked, only fucked the clean hookers, whatever. Whatever the reason, George is still kicking at 82 years old, drawing from that SS pot. But, George is about to be in a pickle. Because at the age of 82, that SS pot, which included half of Ringo's contributions and all of Paul's contributions, is about to be empty. There will be no more money next year. George lives to be 90 years old, and for the remainder of his years he receives a Social Security check, and in total the pot for the three goes $70,000 in the red. But how is that possible if the pot is now empty? Because, it turns out that Social Security isn't a pot after all. It's not an investment, and it doesn't "pay out." The politicians tell you that it works like that, but it actually doesn't. It's carefully constructed to imitate a contribution/payout model on its surface. But at the end of the day, it's just a tax and entitlement program.

Congress imitates a contribution/payout model by basing your entitlement amount on your average income over your lifetime. This creates a superficial sense of a contribution based payout. It's a cleverly laid out word game. Your contributions are based on your income, your payout is based on your income, therefore your payout is based on your contributions. It's a blatant illogical line of reasoning. It is a logical fallacy that even has a special name known as the Politicians Fallacy.

To highlight this, let's put it in standard form:
All "contributions" are income based
All "payouts" are income based
Therefore, all payouts are contribution based.

This is what's known as an AAA-2 form, and commits the undistributed middle fallacy.

As it turns out, Social Security is not a contribution/payout system. It is a tax/welfare entitlement system. It doesn't matter how much you pay in SS tax in your lifetime. Your ability to collect Social Security welfare will not diminish if your lifetime taxation has been met. You have no control over the amount of your entitlement. The funds do not belong to you, they are given by the grace of the government, and you only receive what Congress decides you're entitled to, and when. Nor will your estate ever be able to retain any value from your lifetime Social Security taxation if you should happen to die before you consume an amount in welfare equivalent to your taxation. You have no property rights over the Social Security taxes you've paid.

A true contribution/payout retirement fund is 100% based on your contributions (including returns), and is 100% at your control upon retirement. You can decide how much to withdraw, and when to do so. If you die your money becomes part of your estate and become the property of your heirs (you have property rights over the fund). Social Security is a very different system.

And the worst part is that even after mandating your employer match the 6.2% you are taxed Social Security gives you less for your money than if you had simply had the chance to invest your 6.2% into a typical retirement fund.

To explain that, let's look at our fourth worker, named John. John is just like Paul, Ringo, and George. He's the same age, makes the same amount of money. He gets the same COL raise every year. The only difference is that John isn't being taxed by Social Security, nor is John's boss paying SS tax on John. Instead, John invests 6.2% of his income into a personal retirement account. His boss matches the same 6.2% into the account. While John is young he has the account invested in stocks, returning 10% a year, which is naturally reinvested into the account. When John reaches 45 years, he re-diverts the funds into safe mutual bonds that only return 5% a year. John retires at the same age as the rest, with a retirement fund of more than $180,000 just for himself. If John withdraws the same amount that Paul, Ringo, and George are paid from Social Security (including the same yearly COL increases), his fund will continue to grow slightly each year until he's 99, and he'll never run out of money unless he lives to be older than 121 years. If John lives to be 100 years old, he will die with more than $300,000 to pass on to his heirs. Of course, with those kinds of resources available to him John might be inclined to provide himself a more comfortable allowance. Even if John withdraws twice the amount SS would have been paying him, he'd easily have enough money to carry him through until he's 90 years old.

Explained perfectly as to why SS isn't insurance like many say but a redistribution of wealth scheme designed to give low wage earners far more than they ever put in while presenting the likelihood that some higher wage earners won't get out what they put in unless they live to be very, very old.

 

[SwimExpert]

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Social Security

Let's start with three people. We'll call them Paul, Ringo, and George. All three are healthy, young, and entering the workforce at the age of 25 years. All three earn $100 per week, or $5200 a year. Aside from other normal taxes, 6.2% of their paycheck goes to Social Security, with their employer paying another 6.2% as required by law. Let's put all of this SS money into a pot which is allocated for these three people. Now, as time goes on inflation happen and the cost of living goes up. Paul, Ringo, and George all get 4% cost of living raises every year. By the time they are 65, they are making $16,962.60 per year.

All three men retire after their 65th year, having spent 40 years contributing to the SS pot. That pot is now $152,166.27. That breaks down to $50,722.09 of contributions per person, though half of that was contributed by their employer. But there's a problem that arises already. You see, over the years maintaining the SS program has cost money. There are administrative costs. SSA employee salaries, building costs, office supplies, etc. It's about 20% of the contributions, so the pot is actually only worth $40,577.67 per person ($121,733.02 total).

Now that each person is retired, it's time to start paying out to these men. The payout is 40% of their average income. Their average yearly income over their 40 years turns out to be $10,226.23. Thus, their payout in their first year is $4090.49. But SS gets a cost of living raise every year as well. Each year the amount increases by 4% which depletes the pot faster.

If all three men live to be 75 years old, their specially designated pot has gone into the red by $5399.40. Of course, who really knows for sure how long either will live? Let's say for a moment that Paul dies in the first day of his retirement. He basically never collects a single cent of that SS money he contributed over the years. What happens to it? Well, he's never going to see it, that's for sure. It stays in the pot. Next to die is Ringo, at the age of 70 years. By this point he's used about $17,400 of his contribution, which is almost one half after administrative costs were deducted. The remaining stays in the pot. This now leaves only George.

George is a healthy and lives a very long life. He always exercised. Ate healthy. Never smoked, only fucked the clean hookers, whatever. Whatever the reason, George is still kicking at 82 years old, drawing from that SS pot. But, George is about to be in a pickle. Because at the age of 82, that SS pot, which included half of Ringo's contributions and all of Paul's contributions, is about to be empty. There will be no more money next year. George lives to be 90 years old, and for the remainder of his years he receives a Social Security check, and in total the pot for the three goes $70,000 in the red. But how is that possible if the pot is now empty? Because, it turns out that Social Security isn't a pot after all. It's not an investment, and it doesn't "pay out." The politicians tell you that it works like that, but it actually doesn't. It's carefully constructed to imitate a contribution/payout model on its surface. But at the end of the day, it's just a tax and entitlement program.

Congress imitates a contribution/payout model by basing your entitlement amount on your average income over your lifetime. This creates a superficial sense of a contribution based payout. It's a cleverly laid out word game. Your contributions are based on your income, your payout is based on your income, therefore your payout is based on your contributions. It's a blatant illogical line of reasoning. It is a logical fallacy that even has a special name known as the Politicians Fallacy.

To highlight this, let's put it in standard form:
All "contributions" are income based
All "payouts" are income based
Therefore, all payouts are contribution based.

This is what's known as an AAA-2 form, and commits the undistributed middle fallacy.

As it turns out, Social Security is not a contribution/payout system. It is a tax/welfare entitlement system. It doesn't matter how much you pay in SS tax in your lifetime. Your ability to collect Social Security welfare will not diminish if your lifetime taxation has been met. You have no control over the amount of your entitlement. The funds do not belong to you, they are given by the grace of the government, and you only receive what Congress decides you're entitled to, and when. Nor will your estate ever be able to retain any value from your lifetime Social Security taxation if you should happen to die before you consume an amount in welfare equivalent to your taxation. You have no property rights over the Social Security taxes you've paid.

A true contribution/payout retirement fund is 100% based on your contributions (including returns), and is 100% at your control upon retirement. You can decide how much to withdraw, and when to do so. If you die your money becomes part of your estate and become the property of your heirs (you have property rights over the fund). Social Security is a very different system.

And the worst part is that even after mandating your employer match the 6.2% you are taxed Social Security gives you less for your money than if you had simply had the chance to invest your 6.2% into a typical retirement fund.

To explain that, let's look at our fourth worker, named John. John is just like Paul, Ringo, and George. He's the same age, makes the same amount of money. He gets the same COL raise every year. The only difference is that John isn't being taxed by Social Security, nor is John's boss paying SS tax on John. Instead, John invests 6.2% of his income into a personal retirement account. His boss matches the same 6.2% into the account. While John is young he has the account invested in stocks, returning 10% a year, which is naturally reinvested into the account. When John reaches 45 years, he re-diverts the funds into safe mutual bonds that only return 5% a year. John retires at the same age as the rest, with a retirement fund of more than $180,000 just for himself. If John withdraws the same amount that Paul, Ringo, and George are paid from Social Security (including the same yearly COL increases), his fund will continue to grow slightly each year until he's 99, and he'll never run out of money unless he lives to be older than 121 years. If John lives to be 100 years old, he will die with more than $300,000 to pass on to his heirs. Of course, with those kinds of resources available to him John might be inclined to provide himself a more comfortable allowance. Even if John withdraws twice the amount SS would have been paying him, he'd easily have enough money to carry him through until he's 90 years old.

Explained perfectly as to why SS isn't insurance like many say but a redistribution of wealth scheme designed to give low wage earners far more than they ever put in while presenting the likelihood that some higher wage earners won't get out what they put in unless they live to be very, very old.

It's not even about low versus higher wage earners, because your benefit payment is based on your average income over your lifetime. It's about younger generations paying for older generations, current workers paying for former workers. It's basically a ponzi scheme. One that can only remain solvent when either enough people die soon enough to leave money on the table, and enough younger people pay increasingly higher taxes with increasingly reduced benefits. This is why so many baby boomers complained about the amount of their own SS taxes, but now demand that reduced benefits be delayed until after they're gone.

 

[Norman]

SS was a horrible scheme designed to enrich politicians with money they didn't have, while claiming that the people invested into something at the same time. The perfect ponzi scheme.

There is no way to fix it. The only way to move forward is make the economy of the USA great again, so the benefits can be paid to at least to some degree.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Some don't save. That's not my problem nor is it justification to force anyone to be part of a program because they don't. That's the problem. The government mandates those of us that do and set our selves up financially to be part of a system because others aren't responsible.

It's not my responsibility to support someone's family member that outlived his/her savings. It's their family's job to do it.

Society says that it is. The government taxes citizens, and sets priorities. You may not like it, but that is the beauty of the electoral process. Vote for people who support your view.

The problem with social security is the government thinks one group, the higher income group, should be part of a system in order that the other, the irresponsible and/or low income groups can have something. Living in society doesn't make it the responsibility of one to pick up the slack of the other. You say people don't save. Not my problem. I didn't make the choice not to save. They did. That means it's not my place to be part of a system because they chose not to.

I'm not saying that SS should be disbanded. Let those who want to opt out do so. I add to that if they then don't do their part, let them pay the price as a result.

I don't sense you fully understand how the system works or the size of the problems that it faces. The primary subsidy is not rich to poor. It is young to old and single to married. That doesn't justify it but that is the way it works.

If you let anyone opt-out, everyone would. The system has $25 trillion in promises it can't keep. Everyone leaves a burning house. So you are saying that the SS should be disbanded, but you just don't realize it. The problems within the system are larger than you realize.

I fully understand how it works. Those working today fund the system for those receiving today and those receiving today funded the system for those receiving before them. Since the contributions and distributions are based on income, discussing things related to income are directly in line with it.

I'm saying those that want to opt out should be able to opt out. That doesn't mean it should be disbanded it means those that don't want to be a part of it shouldn't be forced to be a part of it and accept that if they choose not to do themselves, they do without later.

While you say you 'fully understand' how the it works, your words make me question your understanding again. The largest subsidy is from single person to married person regardless of wage. Marriage is correlated to wealth. Another subsidy is length of career. In order to get very high income, many people have to go to college and post-graduate work. These things tend to shorten a working career. There are those who say that data shows that wealth is connected to longevity. Individual checks are set by income, but that a long way from understanding how people benefit or do not benefit from the program.

You insistence that an opt-out option will not end SS suggests you underestimate the size of the hole. If everyone leaves how will you pay benefits to existing retirees?

www.FixSSNow.Org

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

I fully understand how it works. Those working today fund the system for those receiving today and those receiving today funded the system for those receiving before them. Since the contributions and distributions are based on income, discussing things related to income are directly in line with it.

I'm saying those that want to opt out should be able to opt out. That doesn't mean it should be disbanded it means those that don't want to be a part of it shouldn't be forced to be a part of it and accept that if they choose not to do themselves, they do without later.

And what happens when they miscalculate and are broke by their 65th? Are we now going to jump in a bail them all the same or maybe let them wallow in poverty and all the problems that causes?

The wealth at age 65 is the least of the problems. Dependence on SS rises rapidly with age. It basically doubles between 70 and 80. This is the disturbing fact. The relative importance of SS research stops at 80. The average retiree lives to 85. This isn't a miscalculation. It is a function of losing the ability to work, burning-up other savings, and pensions which are not inflation adjusted.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

The lower income people get far more of a benefit from SS than a person contributing at the max income level.

...a program is designed to ensure that elderly and disabled are not in severe poverty and will obviously benefit the least those that are already financially well off.

Is there a point you are making that I'm under-appreciating?

Do you have in mind a better way to do this?

You said the program is designed. By design, the system pays Bernie Sanders and his wife $46,000 per year. Can you explain how that design ensures that the elderly are not in severe poverty?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"How to fix SS Trump style"

Die before you're 65.

It’s not unlike republican healthcare reform: just don’t get sick.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

I guess all that I've been setting aside for retirement and the short term/long term disability insurance premiums I pay really haven't been going to retirement and those policies.

It's not the government's job to force you to buy any kind of insurance.

If people don't, that's their problem and not the place of government to hold their hand. You may need the government to do so but many of us don't.

What about auto insurance? Every state requires it.

Understand, SS isn't retirement insurance. It is old-age insurance. These are very different things. One insures you if you fail to save. The other pays you a small amount of liquidity so that you can plan your retirement.

My state requires auto insurance. However, there is a big difference in the reason behind what they require be purchased and the reason Timmy gave for SS being in place. Can you tell me?

Elaborate on the big difference. Insurance manages the cost of realized risk. You don't know how many auto wrecks that you will have so you buy insurance. You don't know how long you will live so you buy old-age insurance. Social Security carries more benefits than just old-age insurance, but the primary benefit is old-age insurance.

In my State, the only type of auto insurance required is liability. That isn't designed to protect me, it's designed to protect the other guy in case I'm at fault. Based on Timmy's reasoning behind supporting SS, it's designed to protect me.

I have save and invested so that I can provide for myself in older age. Unlike people who defend SS, I don't need the government forcing me to buy something I don't need. When I reach the age where I can start getting distributions, I will take it but it won't be because I need it. It will be because I was required to be a part of it and will gladly take it even if someone else needs it more.

Like I said to Timmy. The ONLY reason people aren't allowed to opt out is the government knows those doing so are the ones that truly fund the system, those on the higher end of the income scale. Without us, those on the lower end wouldn't have a pot to piss in and someone it would be seen as our fault because we didn't want to be forced to fund a system that provides many of them with the only thing they'll ever have for money when they get old.

There is an income cap on which SS is paid. Without looking, I don't recall the exact amount but it's somewhere just shy of $120,000.

Person A contributes over his/her working lifetime at an average income amount that is 5x more than the average income for which Person B contributes over his/her lifetime. Should Person A get 5x the monthly distribution of Person B? Does Person A get 5x more/month than Person B because they put in at a 5x greater amount?

What happens if you get some horrible cancer that wipes out your finances and insurance?

As Americans we feel it's better to have SS, rather than have scores of homeless and sick old folks begging on every street corner.

Since SS doesn't pay people more for cancer that wipes out your argument. How does paying Bernie Sanders and his wife $46,000 per year keep scores of homeless and sick old folks from begging on the street corner?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Social Security

Let's start with three people. We'll call them Paul, Ringo, and George. All three are healthy, young, and entering the workforce at the age of 25 years. All three earn $100 per week, or $5200 a year. Aside from other normal taxes, 6.2% of their paycheck goes to Social Security, with their employer paying another 6.2% as required by law. Let's put all of this SS money into a pot which is allocated for these three people. Now, as time goes on inflation happen and the cost of living goes up. Paul, Ringo, and George all get 4% cost of living raises every year. By the time they are 65, they are making $16,962.60 per year.

All three men retire after their 65th year, having spent 40 years contributing to the SS pot. That pot is now $152,166.27. That breaks down to $50,722.09 of contributions per person, though half of that was contributed by their employer. But there's a problem that arises already. You see, over the years maintaining the SS program has cost money. There are administrative costs. SSA employee salaries, building costs, office supplies, etc. It's about 20% of the contributions, so the pot is actually only worth $40,577.67 per person ($121,733.02 total).

Now that each person is retired, it's time to start paying out to these men. The payout is 40% of their average income. Their average yearly income over their 40 years turns out to be $10,226.23. Thus, their payout in their first year is $4090.49. But SS gets a cost of living raise every year as well. Each year the amount increases by 4% which depletes the pot faster.

If all three men live to be 75 years old, their specially designated pot has gone into the red by $5399.40. Of course, who really knows for sure how long either will live? Let's say for a moment that Paul dies in the first day of his retirement. He basically never collects a single cent of that SS money he contributed over the years. What happens to it? Well, he's never going to see it, that's for sure. It stays in the pot. Next to die is Ringo, at the age of 70 years. By this point he's used about $17,400 of his contribution, which is almost one half after administrative costs were deducted. The remaining stays in the pot. This now leaves only George.

George is a healthy and lives a very long life. He always exercised. Ate healthy. Never smoked, only fucked the clean hookers, whatever. Whatever the reason, George is still kicking at 82 years old, drawing from that SS pot. But, George is about to be in a pickle. Because at the age of 82, that SS pot, which included half of Ringo's contributions and all of Paul's contributions, is about to be empty. There will be no more money next year. George lives to be 90 years old, and for the remainder of his years he receives a Social Security check, and in total the pot for the three goes $70,000 in the red. But how is that possible if the pot is now empty? Because, it turns out that Social Security isn't a pot after all. It's not an investment, and it doesn't "pay out." The politicians tell you that it works like that, but it actually doesn't. It's carefully constructed to imitate a contribution/payout model on its surface. But at the end of the day, it's just a tax and entitlement program.

Congress imitates a contribution/payout model by basing your entitlement amount on your average income over your lifetime. This creates a superficial sense of a contribution based payout. It's a cleverly laid out word game. Your contributions are based on your income, your payout is based on your income, therefore your payout is based on your contributions. It's a blatant illogical line of reasoning. It is a logical fallacy that even has a special name known as the Politicians Fallacy.

To highlight this, let's put it in standard form:
All "contributions" are income based
All "payouts" are income based
Therefore, all payouts are contribution based.

This is what's known as an AAA-2 form, and commits the undistributed middle fallacy.

As it turns out, Social Security is not a contribution/payout system. It is a tax/welfare entitlement system. It doesn't matter how much you pay in SS tax in your lifetime. Your ability to collect Social Security welfare will not diminish if your lifetime taxation has been met. You have no control over the amount of your entitlement. The funds do not belong to you, they are given by the grace of the government, and you only receive what Congress decides you're entitled to, and when. Nor will your estate ever be able to retain any value from your lifetime Social Security taxation if you should happen to die before you consume an amount in welfare equivalent to your taxation. You have no property rights over the Social Security taxes you've paid.

A true contribution/payout retirement fund is 100% based on your contributions (including returns), and is 100% at your control upon retirement. You can decide how much to withdraw, and when to do so. If you die your money becomes part of your estate and become the property of your heirs (you have property rights over the fund). Social Security is a very different system.

And the worst part is that even after mandating your employer match the 6.2% you are taxed Social Security gives you less for your money than if you had simply had the chance to invest your 6.2% into a typical retirement fund.

To explain that, let's look at our fourth worker, named John. John is just like Paul, Ringo, and George. He's the same age, makes the same amount of money. He gets the same COL raise every year. The only difference is that John isn't being taxed by Social Security, nor is John's boss paying SS tax on John. Instead, John invests 6.2% of his income into a personal retirement account. His boss matches the same 6.2% into the account. While John is young he has the account invested in stocks, returning 10% a year, which is naturally reinvested into the account. When John reaches 45 years, he re-diverts the funds into safe mutual bonds that only return 5% a year. John retires at the same age as the rest, with a retirement fund of more than $180,000 just for himself. If John withdraws the same amount that Paul, Ringo, and George are paid from Social Security (including the same yearly COL increases), his fund will continue to grow slightly each year until he's 99, and he'll never run out of money unless he lives to be older than 121 years. If John lives to be 100 years old, he will die with more than $300,000 to pass on to his heirs. Of course, with those kinds of resources available to him John might be inclined to provide himself a more comfortable allowance. Even if John withdraws twice the amount SS would have been paying him, he'd easily have enough money to carry him through until he's 90 years old.

Re-run your numbers when someone dies at 64, and collects nothing. Also make the numbers run such that people work 45-50 years rather than 40. People don't get 40%. High-wage workers collect about 30%. The system has problems but your numbers do not reflect them. Today the system has created $1.50 of promise that it can't keep for every dollar ever collected, and you are complaining about what you get?

Comparing insurance to an investment is flawed analysis. It is like saying that Michael Phelps is a bad swimmer because he swims slower than you run. One is an expense which manages risk. The other makes money taking risk.

 

[Conservative65]

Some don't save. That's not my problem nor is it justification to force anyone to be part of a program because they don't. That's the problem. The government mandates those of us that do and set our selves up financially to be part of a system because others aren't responsible.

It's not my responsibility to support someone's family member that outlived his/her savings. It's their family's job to do it.

Society says that it is. The government taxes citizens, and sets priorities. You may not like it, but that is the beauty of the electoral process. Vote for people who support your view.

The problem with social security is the government thinks one group, the higher income group, should be part of a system in order that the other, the irresponsible and/or low income groups can have something. Living in society doesn't make it the responsibility of one to pick up the slack of the other. You say people don't save. Not my problem. I didn't make the choice not to save. They did. That means it's not my place to be part of a system because they chose not to.

I'm not saying that SS should be disbanded. Let those who want to opt out do so. I add to that if they then don't do their part, let them pay the price as a result.

I don't sense you fully understand how the system works or the size of the problems that it faces. The primary subsidy is not rich to poor. It is young to old and single to married. That doesn't justify it but that is the way it works.

If you let anyone opt-out, everyone would. The system has $25 trillion in promises it can't keep. Everyone leaves a burning house. So you are saying that the SS should be disbanded, but you just don't realize it. The problems within the system are larger than you realize.

I fully understand how it works. Those working today fund the system for those receiving today and those receiving today funded the system for those receiving before them. Since the contributions and distributions are based on income, discussing things related to income are directly in line with it.

I'm saying those that want to opt out should be able to opt out. That doesn't mean it should be disbanded it means those that don't want to be a part of it shouldn't be forced to be a part of it and accept that if they choose not to do themselves, they do without later.

While you say you 'fully understand' how the it works, your words make me question your understanding again. The largest subsidy is from single person to married person regardless of wage. Marriage is correlated to wealth. Another subsidy is length of career. In order to get very high income, many people have to go to college and post-graduate work. These things tend to shorten a working career. There are those who say that data shows that wealth is connected to longevity. Individual checks are set by income, but that a long way from understanding how people benefit or do not benefit from the program.

You insistence that an opt-out option will not end SS suggests you underestimate the size of the hole. If everyone leaves how will you pay benefits to existing retirees?

www.FixSSNow.Org

While going to college and post graduate work may shorten a career, it's not a hard fact. I have two Master's degrees both of which were earned while working, therefore, it didn't shorten anything. Also, the median income for someone with a Master's degree is approximately $33,000 more per year vs. a high school diploma and those are Census bureau numbers.

Your insistence that an opt out will end SS is the doom and gloom the Liberals in government use in order to convince people that government programs are such a good thing.

Pay for it by changing that members of Congress can get a pension for life having only been in office for FIVE years. That means a Senator becomes eligible for that pension by getting elected only once and a House member three times. We both know what being an incumbent means and how easy it is to get reelected in many districts. I also understand that the amount is based on years, a 3 year average salary, and a multiplier. However, once a member of Congress meeting the minimum years of service required reaches retirement, based one today's numbers, would get almost $18,000/year. That's more that some low income earnings workers will get and they worked far more years than 5 to get it.

Another way would be to stop making it where illegals benefit from social welfare programs. How many billions/year would that save.

 

[AntonToo]

I fully understand how it works. Those working today fund the system for those receiving today and those receiving today funded the system for those receiving before them. Since the contributions and distributions are based on income, discussing things related to income are directly in line with it.

I'm saying those that want to opt out should be able to opt out. That doesn't mean it should be disbanded it means those that don't want to be a part of it shouldn't be forced to be a part of it and accept that if they choose not to do themselves, they do without later.

And what happens when they miscalculate and are broke by their 65th? Are we now going to jump in a bail them all the same or maybe let them wallow in poverty and all the problems that causes?

The wealth at age 65 is the least of the problems. Dependence on SS rises rapidly with age. It basically doubles between 70 and 80. This is the disturbing fact. The relative importance of SS research stops at 80. The average retiree lives to 85. This isn't a miscalculation. It is a function of losing the ability to work, burning-up other savings, and pensions which are not inflation adjusted.

Ummm thats right - people quite often are not ready for retirement, which is exactly WHY we need SS.

Without SS mandate the whole thing falls apart, given option people will pull money out of the system which will become completely financially insolvent for a generation and a half.

If I'm a 30 year old and pull my money out off SS that's money out of SS benefits payout today, while it wouldn't be another 40 years before SS realizes savings from not paying out my SS benefits. There is financially no way to gap these 40 years, especially considering retiring baby boomers.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Those on the upper income end are the ones funding the system. Without them, the system would fail financially. That's why they're required to be a part of it. It's just another way someone that makes if financially has to support those that didn't.

That is a GREAT position for the republican party to take.

Tell all the low income social security recipients how they should be so grateful that higher income people also pay in to the trust fund. That basically rich people are supporting them. Even if it ain't so.

Why do you think republican politicians aren't saying what you feel?

 

[Wilbur Right]

The lower income people get far more of a benefit from SS than a person contributing at the max income level.

Well no shit dude. Did your supposed two Masters degrees help you figure that out.

 

[Conservative65]

The lower income people get far more of a benefit from SS than a person contributing at the max income level.

Well no shit dude. Did your supposed two Masters degrees help you figure that out.

Anyone with good sense can figure that out. That's why I had to tell your dumbass. You never would have known it.

 

[Conservative65]

Those on the upper income end are the ones funding the system. Without them, the system would fail financially. That's why they're required to be a part of it. It's just another way someone that makes if financially has to support those that didn't.

That is a GREAT position for the republican party to take.

Tell all the low income social security recipients how they should be so grateful that higher income people also pay in to the trust fund. That basically rich people are supporting them. Even if it ain't so.

Why do you think republican politicians aren't saying what you feel?

Low income/no income people should start looking toward and thanking those that make higher incomes. It damn sure isn't their won funding the social welfare programs many receive or funding the disproportionately higher to earning social security checks many get.

 

[Wilbur Right]

The lower income people get far more of a benefit from SS than a person contributing at the max income level.

Well no shit dude. Did your supposed two Masters degrees help you figure that out.

You thought you were telling me something I didn't know eh?
All the while I was making fun of your very obvious observation.

Poor people need and benefit more from social security than upper income people.

Wow. Exciting news. Your education must be in obvious economics.

 

[Conservative65]

I fully understand how it works. Those working today fund the system for those receiving today and those receiving today funded the system for those receiving before them. Since the contributions and distributions are based on income, discussing things related to income are directly in line with it.

I'm saying those that want to opt out should be able to opt out. That doesn't mean it should be disbanded it means those that don't want to be a part of it shouldn't be forced to be a part of it and accept that if they choose not to do themselves, they do without later.

And what happens when they miscalculate and are broke by their 65th? Are we now going to jump in a bail them all the same or maybe let them wallow in poverty and all the problems that causes?

The wealth at age 65 is the least of the problems. Dependence on SS rises rapidly with age. It basically doubles between 70 and 80. This is the disturbing fact. The relative importance of SS research stops at 80. The average retiree lives to 85. This isn't a miscalculation. It is a function of losing the ability to work, burning-up other savings, and pensions which are not inflation adjusted.

Ummm thats right - people quite often are not ready for retirement, which is exactly WHY we need SS.

Without SS mandate the whole thing falls apart, given option people will pull money out of the system which will become completely financially insolvent for a generation and a half.

If I'm a 30 year old and pull my money out off SS that's money out of SS benefits payout today, while it wouldn't be another 40 years before SS realizes savings from not paying out my SS benefits. There is financially no way to gap these 40 years, especially considering retiring baby boomers.

SS is nothing more than another form of redistribution of wealth. Unless someone that contributes at a 5x higher average income for the same amount of years as a lower income person get 5x as much distribution, my statement is true. If Person A contributes for 40 years at an average of $100,000/year and Person B contributes that same amount of time at an average of $20,000/year, unless Person A's distribution is 5x as much/month, it's yet another social welfare program disguised as something it isn't.

 

[AntonToo]

Low income/no income people should start looking toward and thanking those that make higher incomes. It damn sure isn't their won funding the social welfare programs many receive or funding the disproportionately higher to earning social security checks many get.

Yes, thank god for the generosity of us well off people. Those asshole peasants need to kiss my feet at least 2 times a day, otherwise I don't feel good enough about myself.

 

[Norman]

The lower income people get far more of a benefit from SS than a person contributing at the max income level.

Well no shit dude. Did your supposed two Masters degrees help you figure that out.

Anyone with good sense can figure that out. That's why I had to tell your dumbass. You never would have known it.

You have to remember, the libs are actually dumb enough to believe that rich people are in fact taking their money, rather than the reality, which is that they contribute overwhelming more than they pay in.

Despite the above and the fact the rich are the reason the parasitical liberals can even exist, they hate rich people. If I were them, I would be grateful. But I suppose you have to hate those whose money you steal through taxes, and blame them for your own mistakes while at it.

 

[Conservative65]

The lower income people get far more of a benefit from SS than a person contributing at the max income level.

Well no shit dude. Did your supposed two Masters degrees help you figure that out.

You thought you were telling me something I didn't know eh?
All the while I was making fun of your very obvious observation.

Poor people need and benefit more from social security than upper income people.

Wow. Exciting news. Your education must be in obvious economics.

I knew I was telling you something you didn't know.

I thought you lefties were about equality. Guess not when it comes to SS.

Your education must be in kissing Liberal ass especially the black one as President now. Pucker up.