The Propaganda Campaign To Wreck Social Security Is Right On Track

[Nostra]

Let's use some actual math here.

We have a guy who makes 40K a year. 12% of that ( 6% from him and 6% from his employer) is confiscated for "investing" in Social Security

That's 400 a month

Let's assume this guy never gets a raise in his entire 45 year working career.

so 400 a month into a Roth IRA for 45 years at 6% which is well below the lifetime average of the stock market

that's $1,054,462 dollars at retirement

Now that money invested at a 4% return will provide a TAX FREE income of 40K a year forever and will never run out.

Compare that to the average SS income of 18K a year

So tell me who is better off?

Plus he can leave that million to his heirs.

And, if SS guy dies right before retirement he gets ZERO of his dollars he has been contributing for decades.

Its a scam.

 

[Nostra]

That makes all sorts of assumptions about his actions and behaviors as well as facts not in evidence.

It also ignores the effect of dumping trillions into what is arguably already a volatile medium as well as costs associated with management.

Chile again is a cautionary tale. It was a disaster

Let’s look at a real world example, Lurch. Tell me which plan you would prefer to retire on:


Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share). Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done. So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.

But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account. When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security. And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.

Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000. That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.

More importantly, if a worker participating in Social Security dies before retirement, he loses his contribution (though part of that money might go to surviving children, if any, or a spouse who didn’t work and therefore didn’t establish his or her own benefits). But a worker in the Alternate Plan owns his account, so the entire account belongs to the estate. There is also, among other benefits, a disability benefit that pays immediately upon injury, rather than waiting six months, plus other restrictions, as under Social Security.

And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security. For example:

• A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.
• A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.
• And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.

What the Alternate Plan has demonstrated over 30 years is that personal retirement accounts work, with many retirees making more than twice what they would have made under Social Security. And that model could work for the roughly 25 percent of public employees—about 6 million people—who are part of state and local government retirement plans. It could also serve as a model for reforming Social Security.

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered

Three Texas counties opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by switching to personal accounts, and those workers have made money every year.

www.forbes.com

 

[Couchpotato]

That makes all sorts of assumptions about his actions and behaviors as well as facts not in evidence.

It also ignores the effect of dumping trillions into what is arguably already a volatile medium as well as costs associated with management.

Chile again is a cautionary tale. It was a disaster

If you just saved the 400 a month for 45 years and got 2% interest you could live off the 348k you would have accrued for almost 20 years at 18k a year. If you stuffed it in your mattress you could live for 12 years. What's the administrative cost to put money in a savings account? Zero? Or is it less?

How much do you think it costs the Federal Government to run the SS Admin? 15 billion dollars is the answer. That's just for the administration of SS not the actual payouts.

SS is a wealth thief. Especially for the poor.

 

[Woodznutz]

Shut up. In the 1980's there was conversations on fixing SS. And those who said to make it partially private we told to shut up. They came up with a cure for it. Massive SS tax increases and utopia. It improved the way of living for those at the time. But times move forward. The money taken from those working was put into the general government fund. As an example,...all of those people rioting and burning down buildings were given checks and benefits in their lives from the taxes of employees being treated as slaves.

Money borrowed from the SS Trust Fund must be repaid to SS, with interest.

 

[Couchpotato]

Money borrowed from the SS Trust Fund must be repaid to SS, with interest.

And?

 

[lennypartiv]

Entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid need to get the axe.

 

[Orangecat]

Ponzi schemes don't last 100 years.

Government mandated ones do. In a classic ponzi scheme, the investors eventually stop investing.

 

[Orangecat]

How many hundreds of millions of americans have benefitted from SS and Medicare? Without them people are screwed. Work till you keel over. How great would that be?

Emotional appeals don't change the facts.
Are current beneficiaries being paid back their own money, or are current contributors funding those payments?

 

[Orangecat]

It allows for a guaranteed retirement.

How is that BAD?

It's not bad.
Forcing people to contribute against their will is bad.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Lesh]

Look at the thread title.

This whole thread reeks of it

 

[Nostra]

Money borrowed from the SS Trust Fund must be repaid to SS, with interest.

How?

Be specific Woodznutz

 

[Couchpotato]

Look at the thread title.

This whole thread reeks of it

what has been said that isn’t true about SS? Propaganda insinuates that what’s being said is false.

 

[Nostra]

Let’s look at a real world example, Lurch. Tell me which plan you would prefer to retire on:


Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share). Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done. So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.

But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account. When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security. And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.

Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000. That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.

More importantly, if a worker participating in Social Security dies before retirement, he loses his contribution (though part of that money might go to surviving children, if any, or a spouse who didn’t work and therefore didn’t establish his or her own benefits). But a worker in the Alternate Plan owns his account, so the entire account belongs to the estate. There is also, among other benefits, a disability benefit that pays immediately upon injury, rather than waiting six months, plus other restrictions, as under Social Security.

And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security. For example:

• A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.
• A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.
• And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.

What the Alternate Plan has demonstrated over 30 years is that personal retirement accounts work, with many retirees making more than twice what they would have made under Social Security. And that model could work for the roughly 25 percent of public employees—about 6 million people—who are part of state and local government retirement plans. It could also serve as a model for reforming Social Security.

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered

Three Texas counties opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by switching to personal accounts, and those workers have made money every year.

www.forbes.com

: crickets: from Lesh

 

[Lesh]

what has been said that isn’t true about SS? Propaganda insinuates that what’s being said is false.

No point in arguing with propagandists.

Pointing it out is sufficient

 

[Lesh]

: crickets: from Lesh

Chile

A real world example of what this would do.

It ain't pretty

 

[Couchpotato]

No point in arguing with propagandists.

Pointing it out is sufficient

So no you can’t point out something that was false? cool.

 

[Supposn]

God if you people have to rely on SS for an income. You are truly great fuck ups in life

Hang on Sloopy, What if there were no social security retirement checks?
A large proportion, (if not the majority) of today's elderly are dependent upon their entitlement of their own monthly social security retirement, (SSR) checks for their primary, (if not their only) sources of incomes. Most of them are unable to work, or to be hired at even the minimum wage rate. Their entitlements of SS retirement incomes enable them to exist with some semblance of independence and dignity; this is regardless of what you consider those SSR checks to be worth.

The alternatives of no SSR entitlements would be to deny those elderly of their semblance of independence and personal liberty,(regardless of how little you may consider their SSR checks to be worth). You'd have those elderly to be in most cases completely dependent upon their children? Have you considered SSR's benefit to our nation's economy?

If there were no SSR entitlements, and those SSR checks, just the loss of purchasing powers among the elderly, their children, and their children's families would have substantial economic impact upon our nation's economy. I pithy those poor elderly who are now more dependent upon their children's reluctant assistance, and I understand the difficulty of the elderlies' willing children that must choose between better supporting their parents or their own spouses and children.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[CowboyTed]

Good, we need to phase out Social Security.
It is none of the govt's business to confiscate our money to supposedly take care of us when we retire.

Freedom comes with responsibility & saving for the future is just common sense that the feds have tried to replace with a Big Brother type system that is going to be completely broke before most of us retire.

Get rid of it

Going for the third world approach I see..

Seriously if someone comes out with this statement, he should be ignored immediately... This is asking US to descend into a third world country...

This approach is about paying for Army and Police but not social benefits... Now lets think of countries that do that?

 

[struth]

Sorry but it's just bullshit.

Ponzi schemes don't last 100 years.

yeah because they are illegal, and have limited contributors

SS is however set up the same way…and well hasn’t been around 100 years, and has had to continue to change how it pays out because it’s run out of money

 

[CowboyTed]

the left wants to destroy SS…the program as is is not substainable…no ponzi set up is

we need reform, we should model reform after Sweden

Hang on... So the Republicans are going to propose a Swedish type social security net?

I would seriously love if you were right... Could you please point to were they have proposed this?