Which would you rather have $1m in the bank or Social Security Check???

[healthmyths]

Much is made about 70 being the new 50,
70 is the new 50 in the Workforce | TIME.com

This means for people LIKE ME age 71 I am still very active in my business nearly as much as I was when I was 50!

So while I'm getting MINE.. i.e. social security I don't understand why especially younger people don't figure out that because there are more of people like me, i.e. living longer then what SS originally planned in the 1930s i.e. (I'd be dead by 65!) they need to fix this!
Because as more of us live longer and yet we have SS kicking in at 65. With more retired people at 65 getting SS there are fewer younger people paying in!

Solution..
A) Raise retirement age to 70 for all those people currently under age 50!
B) Give the younger people the chance to tell SS where to put their payments... privatize SS!

So by raising the age we have more people paying in for those younger people when they retire at 70!
But more importantly IF NOT mandatory BUT IF the young employee wants to invest say at 25 their SS/Medicare payments into
the wild and risky stock market for 20 years then the next 20 switch a portion to more secure investments and then last 20 years
into totally secured risk free investments.. this 25 year old would have base on average starting salary of $30,000 with increases
in income over the 60 years would have nearly $1 million that is solely under the young worker control!
So at age 70 getting ready to retire this young (now old retiree) has money set aside MORE then traditional SS would pay.
Also with $1 million the health care costs would be taken care of with no need for medicare!

AND AGAIN NO one would be forced to participate in the privatized SS... you want traditional more power!
Two solutions that would solve the "safety net" destruction that is ahead!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Take the checks. It has a terrific return if you live that long. You'll get back much more than you paid in.

 

[KNB]

This is assuming of course that the corporations running the privatized social security scam don't make shitty investments that end up crashing the entire global economy in which the young worker is totally fucked and the CEO who fucked him gets a multi-million dollar bonus.

 

[AntiParty]

You don't seem to know much about why Social Security pays out. But that's typical.

It depends on the situation. I'll assume you think everyone that receives SS is a leech or a Sloth and they are all capable of everything we are.

I'll also assume you don't know that Doctors are the 1%.

 

[Politico]

70 is not the new 50. It's 70. I know how they pay out......They don't if they can help it. I would settle for the scumbags to give me back what I paid in.

 

[jasonnfree]

Much is made about 70 being the new 50,
70 is the new 50 in the Workforce | TIME.com

This means for people LIKE ME age 71 I am still very active in my business nearly as much as I was when I was 50!

So while I'm getting MINE.. i.e. social security I don't understand why especially younger people don't figure out that because there are more of people like me, i.e. living longer then what SS originally planned in the 1930s i.e. (I'd be dead by 65!) they need to fix this!
Because as more of us live longer and yet we have SS kicking in at 65. With more retired people at 65 getting SS there are fewer younger people paying in!

Solution..
A) Raise retirement age to 70 for all those people currently under age 50!
B) Give the younger people the chance to tell SS where to put their payments... privatize SS!

So by raising the age we have more people paying in for those younger people when they retire at 70!
But more importantly IF NOT mandatory BUT IF the young employee wants to invest say at 25 their SS/Medicare payments into
the wild and risky stock market for 20 years then the next 20 switch a portion to more secure investments and then last 20 years
into totally secured risk free investments.. this 25 year old would have base on average starting salary of $30,000 with increases
in income over the 60 years would have nearly $1 million that is solely under the young worker control!
So at age 70 getting ready to retire this young (now old retiree) has money set aside MORE then traditional SS would pay.
Also with $1 million the health care costs would be taken care of with no need for medicare!

AND AGAIN NO one would be forced to participate in the privatized SS... you want traditional more power!
Two solutions that would solve the "safety net" destruction that is ahead!

Some of us had IRA's in place of defined benefits pensions. Look how that worked out in 2008. The JP Morgans became fabulously rich selling defective rifles to the govermnent during the civil war. Now they want all the pension money to manipulate the market and screw the average american further into the ground.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Take the checks. It has a terrific return if you live that long. You'll get back much more than you paid in.

It's a black hole. I have paid into that Ponzi scheme for years and will collect NOTHING.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Take the checks. It has a terrific return if you live that long. You'll get back much more than you paid in.

It's a black hole. I have paid into that Ponzi scheme for years and will collect NOTHING.

It's no Ponzi. Somebody gets rich in those.

And what you will collect are the wages of others. That's how it works.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Take the checks. It has a terrific return if you live that long. You'll get back much more than you paid in.

It's a black hole. I have paid into that Ponzi scheme for years and will collect NOTHING.

If you live to the retirement age and file, you will receive more than you paid in if you live to 75.

 

[healthmyths]

This is assuming of course that the corporations running the privatized social security scam don't make shitty investments that end up crashing the entire global economy in which the young worker is totally fucked and the CEO who fucked him gets a multi-million dollar bonus.

AGAIN you don't read very well do you??
The privatized SS DON"T do the investments! YOU do. YOU are at fault.
So if YOU are so stupid to after 20 years the investments do well (Idiot do you know of course not because YOU can't read!!)

Since 1975 the DJIA has averaged per year over 9.96% growth..
Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) Yearly Returns

Your stupid comment is so cliched. So ignorant.
Privatized SS would allow even idiots like you to stick your money in your local bank IF YOU are so dumb!

 

[rightwinger]

Much is made about 70 being the new 50,
70 is the new 50 in the Workforce | TIME.com

This means for people LIKE ME age 71 I am still very active in my business nearly as much as I was when I was 50!

So while I'm getting MINE.. i.e. social security I don't understand why especially younger people don't figure out that because there are more of people like me, i.e. living longer then what SS originally planned in the 1930s i.e. (I'd be dead by 65!) they need to fix this!
Because as more of us live longer and yet we have SS kicking in at 65. With more retired people at 65 getting SS there are fewer younger people paying in!

Solution..
A) Raise retirement age to 70 for all those people currently under age 50!
B) Give the younger people the chance to tell SS where to put their payments... privatize SS!

So by raising the age we have more people paying in for those younger people when they retire at 70!
But more importantly IF NOT mandatory BUT IF the young employee wants to invest say at 25 their SS/Medicare payments into
the wild and risky stock market for 20 years then the next 20 switch a portion to more secure investments and then last 20 years
into totally secured risk free investments.. this 25 year old would have base on average starting salary of $30,000 with increases
in income over the 60 years would have nearly $1 million that is solely under the young worker control!
So at age 70 getting ready to retire this young (now old retiree) has money set aside MORE then traditional SS would pay.
Also with $1 million the health care costs would be taken care of with no need for medicare!

AND AGAIN NO one would be forced to participate in the privatized SS... you want traditional more power!
Two solutions that would solve the "safety net" destruction that is ahead!

I support raising the retirement age to 70. People are living longer

I am resistant to privatizing Social Security. If you want cash reserves there are 401Ks and IRAs that do the same function. Americans should really have both

Most companies have already trashed their pension funds and SS is one of the last ensured steady flow of income if something bad happens

 

[healthmyths]

Much is made about 70 being the new 50,
70 is the new 50 in the Workforce | TIME.com

This means for people LIKE ME age 71 I am still very active in my business nearly as much as I was when I was 50!

So while I'm getting MINE.. i.e. social security I don't understand why especially younger people don't figure out that because there are more of people like me, i.e. living longer then what SS originally planned in the 1930s i.e. (I'd be dead by 65!) they need to fix this!
Because as more of us live longer and yet we have SS kicking in at 65. With more retired people at 65 getting SS there are fewer younger people paying in!

Solution..
A) Raise retirement age to 70 for all those people currently under age 50!
B) Give the younger people the chance to tell SS where to put their payments... privatize SS!

So by raising the age we have more people paying in for those younger people when they retire at 70!
But more importantly IF NOT mandatory BUT IF the young employee wants to invest say at 25 their SS/Medicare payments into
the wild and risky stock market for 20 years then the next 20 switch a portion to more secure investments and then last 20 years
into totally secured risk free investments.. this 25 year old would have base on average starting salary of $30,000 with increases
in income over the 60 years would have nearly $1 million that is solely under the young worker control!
So at age 70 getting ready to retire this young (now old retiree) has money set aside MORE then traditional SS would pay.
Also with $1 million the health care costs would be taken care of with no need for medicare!

AND AGAIN NO one would be forced to participate in the privatized SS... you want traditional more power!
Two solutions that would solve the "safety net" destruction that is ahead!

Some of us had IRA's in place of defined benefits pensions. Look how that worked out in 2008. The JP Morgans became fabulously rich selling defective rifles to the govermnent during the civil war. Now they want all the pension money to manipulate the market and screw the average american further into the ground.

AGAIN... YOU seem to forget THAT was ONE YEAR! YOU determine ALL YEARS are bad based ON ONE YEAR??
ARE you f...king stupid???
No one invests for a 9% return in just one year.
As I stated.. over 39 years the DJIA has increased an average of 9%...
YES 2008 saw a 33% DECLINE from the 2007 which grew 6.4% and 2006 which grew 16.2%.
Of course MOST people don't judge all events by just one as you do.
THINK you idiot...you don't invest for just one year... !

 

[Granny]

Somewhere on USMB a year or so ago I suggested something very similar to what Healthmyth has suggested and it got little, if any, attention. Essentially, we do need to get government's mitts off just about everything they now control when it comes to our money.

Social Security is a trust fund and as such the money does not belong to the government but to others. Over the years Congress has raided Social Security funds repeatedly - "borrowing" the money to fund their pet projects or some other program with the promise the "borrowed" funds would be repaid. These repayments have not been repaid. So the young people who are doing so much griping about the old bastards robbing them blind of THEIR future retirement income need to take that into consideration and step down a little.

Seeing as many of those in Congress are lawyers you would think they should know that they shouldn't be meddling with trust funds. If they were in private practice it would be cause for them to lose their license to practice.

Privitizing "Social Security" makes sense. It gives each person control over how their money is set aside for their future; but unlike stocks or some retirement plans that allow money to be borrowed for purchase of a home or some drastic emergency situation, the privitized "social security savings" could not be borrowed against just as our current government Social Security funds cannot be borrowed against ... at least by us. Healthmyth is right - WE would be in control of our future welfare and the wiser choices WE make in how our money is invested will determine how much we will accumulate over our working lives.

That's sort of a simplified statement. I'm 70 years old and still working. Of the $12,593 I earned in tax year 2013, I stroked out a check to the IRS for $1,816, some of which went into Social Security. The way the rules are made, I receive a Form 1099 therefore I am a business and as such pay business tax. As a business I have to pay a certain amount into Social Security to cover my employee (me and only me) and as an employee of my business I also have to make my employee contribution into Social Security. I don't know the exact dollar amount of those SS contributions, but I CAN tell you they were more than the 1._% (don't remember the exact %) COLA raise I received beginning in January 2014 but I can tell you that raise was a whole $19. You can do the math, because I don't do math. I'M NOT A BUSINESS!! I have no Articles of Incorporation, no other business documentation, no Agent of Record, no business cards, no letterhead, no business use of my phone, no "office" use of my home - nothing, nada, nyetnik (or whatever in Russian), zip, zero. But I get a 1099 at the end of the year and therefore I am a business - them's the rulz.

If you think there are way too many of us old folks sucking you dry try placing some of the blame on all those people who (at least since the '60s) have chosen not to have children and pushed abortion to the max. Abortion has a whole lot more to do with population control rather than women's control over their bodies.

 

[Moonglow]

With all the support of privatized SS you do know that their will be a surcharge to handle the account? Also include this into your math...

 

[DiamondDave]

Take the checks. It has a terrific return if you live that long. You'll get back much more than you paid in.

Horse shit.. you get a better return on a crappy savings or money market account... and you can pass on the leftovers

 

[JakeStarkey]

We the People are not going to allow individuals to take their SS for investment in order for them to privatize the profit or socialize the elder care if they fail.

 

[Brain357]

Much is made about 70 being the new 50,
70 is the new 50 in the Workforce | TIME.com

This means for people LIKE ME age 71 I am still very active in my business nearly as much as I was when I was 50!

So while I'm getting MINE.. i.e. social security I don't understand why especially younger people don't figure out that because there are more of people like me, i.e. living longer then what SS originally planned in the 1930s i.e. (I'd be dead by 65!) they need to fix this!
Because as more of us live longer and yet we have SS kicking in at 65. With more retired people at 65 getting SS there are fewer younger people paying in!

Solution..
A) Raise retirement age to 70 for all those people currently under age 50!
B) Give the younger people the chance to tell SS where to put their payments... privatize SS!

So by raising the age we have more people paying in for those younger people when they retire at 70!
But more importantly IF NOT mandatory BUT IF the young employee wants to invest say at 25 their SS/Medicare payments into
the wild and risky stock market for 20 years then the next 20 switch a portion to more secure investments and then last 20 years
into totally secured risk free investments.. this 25 year old would have base on average starting salary of $30,000 with increases
in income over the 60 years would have nearly $1 million that is solely under the young worker control!
So at age 70 getting ready to retire this young (now old retiree) has money set aside MORE then traditional SS would pay.
Also with $1 million the health care costs would be taken care of with no need for medicare!

AND AGAIN NO one would be forced to participate in the privatized SS... you want traditional more power!
Two solutions that would solve the "safety net" destruction that is ahead!

No thank you. I'll be lucky to make it to 70. My father didn't and his father didn't.

How about companies start giving pensions again? Then everyone doesn't have to rely on ss or be a financial genius just to retire.

 

[healthmyths]

Much is made about 70 being the new 50,
70 is the new 50 in the Workforce | TIME.com

This means for people LIKE ME age 71 I am still very active in my business nearly as much as I was when I was 50!

So while I'm getting MINE.. i.e. social security I don't understand why especially younger people don't figure out that because there are more of people like me, i.e. living longer then what SS originally planned in the 1930s i.e. (I'd be dead by 65!) they need to fix this!
Because as more of us live longer and yet we have SS kicking in at 65. With more retired people at 65 getting SS there are fewer younger people paying in!

Solution..
A) Raise retirement age to 70 for all those people currently under age 50!
B) Give the younger people the chance to tell SS where to put their payments... privatize SS!

So by raising the age we have more people paying in for those younger people when they retire at 70!
But more importantly IF NOT mandatory BUT IF the young employee wants to invest say at 25 their SS/Medicare payments into
the wild and risky stock market for 20 years then the next 20 switch a portion to more secure investments and then last 20 years
into totally secured risk free investments.. this 25 year old would have base on average starting salary of $30,000 with increases
in income over the 60 years would have nearly $1 million that is solely under the young worker control!
So at age 70 getting ready to retire this young (now old retiree) has money set aside MORE then traditional SS would pay.
Also with $1 million the health care costs would be taken care of with no need for medicare!

AND AGAIN NO one would be forced to participate in the privatized SS... you want traditional more power!
Two solutions that would solve the "safety net" destruction that is ahead!

No thank you. I'll be lucky to make it to 70. My father didn't and his father didn't.

How about companies start giving pensions again? Then everyone doesn't have to rely on ss or be a financial genius just to retire.

Ask your President about that!
REMEMBER every one seems to forget!
The change in SS would ONLY be for 55 or YOUNGER.. Anyone over 55 continues to get traditional SS.
Also REMEMBER did you READ??
The individual under 55 would HAVE the CHOICE which they don't have NOW...
A) Continue with traditional SS which is fine no problem with that other then age should be raised to 70 for retirement as the age 65 was based on 1930s tables!
B) BUT if the under 55 WANTS to choose privatized THE ONLY distinction is this:
All the contributions would be directed in investments selected by the individual. NO one else. obviously a whole cottage industry would exist helping
these people. And Obviously there will be some losers! NO question. But we have SS losers today that ONLY exist because of SS.

But at least the individual has the freedom to choose!
You keep forgetting that. If you don't think you want to THEN DON"T choose the privatization.
BUT YOU are NOT the judge of ME. By forcing me to do what YOU want is undemocratic.
Let me or the individual that wants to choose Self directed SS/Medicare can do better.. LET ME CHOOSE that!

 

[Brain357]

Much is made about 70 being the new 50,
70 is the new 50 in the Workforce | TIME.com

This means for people LIKE ME age 71 I am still very active in my business nearly as much as I was when I was 50!

So while I'm getting MINE.. i.e. social security I don't understand why especially younger people don't figure out that because there are more of people like me, i.e. living longer then what SS originally planned in the 1930s i.e. (I'd be dead by 65!) they need to fix this!
Because as more of us live longer and yet we have SS kicking in at 65. With more retired people at 65 getting SS there are fewer younger people paying in!

Solution..
A) Raise retirement age to 70 for all those people currently under age 50!
B) Give the younger people the chance to tell SS where to put their payments... privatize SS!

So by raising the age we have more people paying in for those younger people when they retire at 70!
But more importantly IF NOT mandatory BUT IF the young employee wants to invest say at 25 their SS/Medicare payments into
the wild and risky stock market for 20 years then the next 20 switch a portion to more secure investments and then last 20 years
into totally secured risk free investments.. this 25 year old would have base on average starting salary of $30,000 with increases
in income over the 60 years would have nearly $1 million that is solely under the young worker control!
So at age 70 getting ready to retire this young (now old retiree) has money set aside MORE then traditional SS would pay.
Also with $1 million the health care costs would be taken care of with no need for medicare!

AND AGAIN NO one would be forced to participate in the privatized SS... you want traditional more power!
Two solutions that would solve the "safety net" destruction that is ahead!

No thank you. I'll be lucky to make it to 70. My father didn't and his father didn't.

How about companies start giving pensions again? Then everyone doesn't have to rely on ss or be a financial genius just to retire.

Ask your President about that!
REMEMBER every one seems to forget!
The change in SS would ONLY be for 55 or YOUNGER.. Anyone over 55 continues to get traditional SS.
Also REMEMBER did you READ??
The individual under 55 would HAVE the CHOICE which they don't have NOW...
A) Continue with traditional SS which is fine no problem with that other then age should be raised to 70 for retirement as the age 65 was based on 1930s tables!
B) BUT if the under 55 WANTS to choose privatized THE ONLY distinction is this:
All the contributions would be directed in investments selected by the individual. NO one else. obviously a whole cottage industry would exist helping
these people. And Obviously there will be some losers! NO question. But we have SS losers today that ONLY exist because of SS.

But at least the individual has the freedom to choose!
You keep forgetting that. If you don't think you want to THEN DON"T choose the privatization.
BUT YOU are NOT the judge of ME. By forcing me to do what YOU want is undemocratic.
Let me or the individual that wants to choose Self directed SS/Medicare can do better.. LET ME CHOOSE that!

Somebody will have to bail out the losers. No thanks.

How about if your really rich and don't need ss you don't collect unless your wealth drops below some level? That should provide some extra money.

 

[Old Rocks]

Much is made about 70 being the new 50,
70 is the new 50 in the Workforce | TIME.com

This means for people LIKE ME age 71 I am still very active in my business nearly as much as I was when I was 50!

So while I'm getting MINE.. i.e. social security I don't understand why especially younger people don't figure out that because there are more of people like me, i.e. living longer then what SS originally planned in the 1930s i.e. (I'd be dead by 65!) they need to fix this!
Because as more of us live longer and yet we have SS kicking in at 65. With more retired people at 65 getting SS there are fewer younger people paying in!

Solution..
A) Raise retirement age to 70 for all those people currently under age 50!
B) Give the younger people the chance to tell SS where to put their payments... privatize SS!

So by raising the age we have more people paying in for those younger people when they retire at 70!
But more importantly IF NOT mandatory BUT IF the young employee wants to invest say at 25 their SS/Medicare payments into
the wild and risky stock market for 20 years then the next 20 switch a portion to more secure investments and then last 20 years
into totally secured risk free investments.. this 25 year old would have base on average starting salary of $30,000 with increases
in income over the 60 years would have nearly $1 million that is solely under the young worker control!
So at age 70 getting ready to retire this young (now old retiree) has money set aside MORE then traditional SS would pay.
Also with $1 million the health care costs would be taken care of with no need for medicare!

AND AGAIN NO one would be forced to participate in the privatized SS... you want traditional more power!
Two solutions that would solve the "safety net" destruction that is ahead!

Yes, of course, privatize SS. Then watch the bankers laugh their asses off when you cease to get any checks, and they are banking what you used to get. You stupid assholes never learn. 1929, 2008 were lessons as to why SS is neccessary.