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

[healthmyths]

And that would be a good idea to you?

Sure why not? What's wrong with me getting a check for 500k dollars to put into my 401k to fund my future retirement needs and also receiving an additional 12-15% each month in my paycheck?

[...]

Would you be saying the same thing and asking the same question if this were 2008?

Your 401k is an investment program which is subject to being wiped out -- as has happened to so many in the recent stock market disaster. Social Security is not an investment. It is an insurance policy.

I've been collecting Social Security for thirteen years. While I've never taken the time to figure it out I'm sure I've already received much more than I'd contributed and if my genes are a reasonably accurate predictor of my life expectancy I probably will be collecting for another dozen years. There simply is no 401k plan that will, presuming proportionate contributions, generate income anywhere near that level.

LET's have some FACTS Mikey!!!
Assuming you were 65 when you started collecting was $1,536/mo. source:2002 Social Security Changes
A total of $239,616. Assuming you live another 12 years the total payments at $1,536/month: Total paid out to you : $460,800.

So what kind of lump sum annuity would GUARANTEE to pay you for the rest of your life to equal $1,536 per month.

Check out this annuity calculator.. plug in how much you are getting for SS or $1,536 per month GUARANTEED for the rest of your life or 25 years.
At age 65 it would take $263,843 paid to an insurance company that would send you a check of $1,536 per month for the rest of your life.

Compare the two:
Social security will pay out $460,000 and you and your employer would have paid in from age 25 to 65 approximately $348,000.
Now instead of having the $348,000 over 40 years paid in by you and your employers used to pay out YOU told SS you wanted from
age 25 to 65 that total invested in the stock market that over that 40 year period your market value would be at average of 9% growth per year:
Year in and year out for 111 years the DJIA has grown at 7.04%. From 1968 to when you retired 2001 the DJIA is 8.9%...
So using that figure from 1968 to when you retired at 2001.. and YOU had the ability to tell SS please put my and my employers payments into the market:
Total accumulation YOU would have control over: $5.5 million.
Out of that you buy for $263,843 an annuity guaranteeing you a life time of $1,536 per month.

NOW tell me... what would you truly honestly prefer... SS sending a check for $1,536/month for 25 years OR
The guarantee of $1,536/month AND approximately $5 million left over????
GEEZ seems to be a no BRAINER!!!

 

[MikeK]

Sure why not? What's wrong with me getting a check for 500k dollars to put into my 401k to fund my future retirement needs and also receiving an additional 12-15% each month in my paycheck?

[...]

Would you be saying the same thing and asking the same question if this were 2008?

Your 401k is an investment program which is subject to being wiped out -- as has happened to so many in the recent stock market disaster. Social Security is not an investment. It is an insurance policy.

I've been collecting Social Security for thirteen years. While I've never taken the time to figure it out I'm sure I've already received much more than I'd contributed and if my genes are a reasonably accurate predictor of my life expectancy I probably will be collecting for another dozen years. There simply is no 401k plan that will, presuming proportionate contributions, generate income anywhere near that level.

LET's have some FACTS Mikey!!!
Assuming you were 65 when you started collecting was $1,536/mo. source:2002 Social Security Changes
A total of $239,616. Assuming you live another 12 years the total payments at $1,536/month: Total paid out to you : $460,800.

So what kind of lump sum annuity would GUARANTEE to pay you for the rest of your life to equal $1,536 per month.

Check out this annuity calculator.. plug in how much you are getting for SS or $1,536 per month GUARANTEED for the rest of your life or 25 years.
At age 65 it would take $263,843 paid to an insurance company that would send you a check of $1,536 per month for the rest of your life.

Compare the two:
Social security will pay out $460,000 and you and your employer would have paid in from age 25 to 65 approximately $348,000.
Now instead of having the $348,000 over 40 years paid in by you and your employers used to pay out YOU told SS you wanted from
age 25 to 65 that total invested in the stock market that over that 40 year period your market value would be at average of 9% growth per year:
Year in and year out for 111 years the DJIA has grown at 7.04%. From 1968 to when you retired 2001 the DJIA is 8.9%...
So using that figure from 1968 to when you retired at 2001.. and YOU had the ability to tell SS please put my and my employers payments into the market:
Total accumulation YOU would have control over: $5.5 million.
Out of that you buy for $263,843 an annuity guaranteeing you a life time of $1,536 per month.

NOW tell me... what would you truly honestly prefer... SS sending a check for $1,536/month for 25 years OR
The guarantee of $1,536/month AND approximately $5 million left over????
GEEZ seems to be a no BRAINER!!!

That all seems very nice -- provided the bottom doesn't drop out of your glowing projection -- as it did for millions in the 1920s and during the Bush-2 presidency.

I'm not a gambler, and I'm quite content with the monthly Social Security deposit, which, added to my pension, and my stack of U.S. Savings bonds, keeps me and my mooching grand-kids happy. It would be nice to have $5 million but at my age I'm doing just fine without it.

FYI: I live in a very large retirement community where I've met several people whose investment dreams were crushed by the 2008 crisis. You should hear what they have to say about Social Security.

Last, I should tell you my parents suffered through the Great Depression. My father's often-repeated advice to us was avoid debt, live within your means, get a civil service job with a good pension, and never invest in anything but U.S. Savings Bonds. I have followed his advice and I have absolutely no regrets.

What you've had to say is right out of a playbook which I'm quite familiar with. And what I have to say is I wish you luck in all your endeavors.

 

[healthmyths]

Would you be saying the same thing and asking the same question if this were 2008?

Your 401k is an investment program which is subject to being wiped out -- as has happened to so many in the recent stock market disaster. Social Security is not an investment. It is an insurance policy.

I've been collecting Social Security for thirteen years. While I've never taken the time to figure it out I'm sure I've already received much more than I'd contributed and if my genes are a reasonably accurate predictor of my life expectancy I probably will be collecting for another dozen years. There simply is no 401k plan that will, presuming proportionate contributions, generate income anywhere near that level.

LET's have some FACTS Mikey!!!
Assuming you were 65 when you started collecting was $1,536/mo. source:2002 Social Security Changes
A total of $239,616. Assuming you live another 12 years the total payments at $1,536/month: Total paid out to you : $460,800.

So what kind of lump sum annuity would GUARANTEE to pay you for the rest of your life to equal $1,536 per month.

Check out this annuity calculator.. plug in how much you are getting for SS or $1,536 per month GUARANTEED for the rest of your life or 25 years.
At age 65 it would take $263,843 paid to an insurance company that would send you a check of $1,536 per month for the rest of your life.

Compare the two:
Social security will pay out $460,000 and you and your employer would have paid in from age 25 to 65 approximately $348,000.
Now instead of having the $348,000 over 40 years paid in by you and your employers used to pay out YOU told SS you wanted from
age 25 to 65 that total invested in the stock market that over that 40 year period your market value would be at average of 9% growth per year:
Year in and year out for 111 years the DJIA has grown at 7.04%. From 1968 to when you retired 2001 the DJIA is 8.9%...
So using that figure from 1968 to when you retired at 2001.. and YOU had the ability to tell SS please put my and my employers payments into the market:
Total accumulation YOU would have control over: $5.5 million.
Out of that you buy for $263,843 an annuity guaranteeing you a life time of $1,536 per month.

NOW tell me... what would you truly honestly prefer... SS sending a check for $1,536/month for 25 years OR
The guarantee of $1,536/month AND approximately $5 million left over????
GEEZ seems to be a no BRAINER!!!

That all seems very nice -- provided the bottom doesn't drop out of your glowing projection -- as it did for millions in the 1920s and during the Bush-2 presidency.

I'm not a gambler, and I'm quite content with the monthly Social Security deposit, which, added to my pension, and my stack of U.S. Savings bonds, keeps me and my mooching grand-kids happy. It would be nice to have $5 million but at my age I'm doing just fine without it.

FYI: I live in a very large retirement community where I've met several people whose investment dreams were crushed by the 2008 crisis. You should hear what they have to say about Social Security.

Last, I should tell you my parents suffered through the Great Depression. My father's often-repeated advice to us was avoid debt, live within your means, get a civil service job with a good pension, and never invest in anything but U.S. Savings Bonds. I have followed his advice and I have absolutely no regrets.

What you've had to say is right out of a playbook which I'm quite familiar with. And what I have to say is I wish you luck in all your endeavors.

Fine. You don't believe the math do you?
111 years through MORE UPS then downs the over all average of the DJIA has been 9%!
I am not as smart as you but I do know when the numbers FAVOR.
What you have done in your illustration is what the tremendous problem we have in this country..i.e. taken the anecdotal i.e. your parents situation and making it
the rule! It wasn't the rule for the majority of people in the depression!
YOU saw the exceptions.. NOT the rule.
YES you met "several people"... SEVERAL!! CRUSHED by 2008 !
AGAIN during the last "crushing"... when the MARKET LOST 33% WOW CRUSHED!!!
from 2008 including the "crushing" to current 2014.. a 5.6% INCREASE even after the crush 2008 33%!.

Also if these idiots you were quoting where maybe NOT so overly invested at their OLD age.. i.e. they shouldn't be risking their money in the 60s..
But the market is the LONG haul... NOT quick gains as you evidenced your limited knowledge.

MY point is GREAT YOU were in bonds! GREAT ! Privatization would allow that also!
I at 25 would have been totally in highest risk stocks etc. because OVER THE LONG haul... 9% historic even with the FEW downs and the MANY UPs!

But at least YOU would have the freedom to choose bonds and I the freedom to choose stocks.
FREEDOM not servitude.

 

[RKMBrown]

Sure why not? What's wrong with me getting a check for 500k dollars to put into my 401k to fund my future retirement needs and also receiving an additional 12-15% each month in my paycheck?

[...]

Would you be saying the same thing and asking the same question if this were 2008?

Your 401k is an investment program which is subject to being wiped out -- as has happened to so many in the recent stock market disaster. Social Security is not an investment. It is an insurance policy.

I've been collecting Social Security for thirteen years. While I've never taken the time to figure it out I'm sure I've already received much more than I'd contributed and if my genes are a reasonably accurate predictor of my life expectancy I probably will be collecting for another dozen years. There simply is no 401k plan that will, presuming proportionate contributions, generate income anywhere near that level.

LET's have some FACTS Mikey!!!
Assuming you were 65 when you started collecting was $1,536/mo. source:2002 Social Security Changes
A total of $239,616. Assuming you live another 12 years the total payments at $1,536/month: Total paid out to you : $460,800.

So what kind of lump sum annuity would GUARANTEE to pay you for the rest of your life to equal $1,536 per month.

Check out this annuity calculator.. plug in how much you are getting for SS or $1,536 per month GUARANTEED for the rest of your life or 25 years.
At age 65 it would take $263,843 paid to an insurance company that would send you a check of $1,536 per month for the rest of your life.

Compare the two:
Social security will pay out $460,000 and you and your employer would have paid in from age 25 to 65 approximately $348,000.
Now instead of having the $348,000 over 40 years paid in by you and your employers used to pay out YOU told SS you wanted from
age 25 to 65 that total invested in the stock market that over that 40 year period your market value would be at average of 9% growth per year:
Year in and year out for 111 years the DJIA has grown at 7.04%. From 1968 to when you retired 2001 the DJIA is 8.9%...
So using that figure from 1968 to when you retired at 2001.. and YOU had the ability to tell SS please put my and my employers payments into the market:
Total accumulation YOU would have control over: $5.5 million.
Out of that you buy for $263,843 an annuity guaranteeing you a life time of $1,536 per month.

NOW tell me... what would you truly honestly prefer... SS sending a check for $1,536/month for 25 years OR
The guarantee of $1,536/month AND approximately $5 million left over????
GEEZ seems to be a no BRAINER!!!

The problem with your math is you assume we all put the same amount into SS. The truth is the lower intelligence voters would rather get the same 1500 check as you will vs. risking them having a million dollars and 1500 and you having 5million and 1500. You see SS is mostly about making sure everyone suffers the same. Thus pissing the money away in a pyramid scheme with zero rate of return is the better solution for the socialists. Remember all those flunkies & cheaters in high school? Yeah those are the libtards.

 

[healthmyths]

Would you be saying the same thing and asking the same question if this were 2008?

Your 401k is an investment program which is subject to being wiped out -- as has happened to so many in the recent stock market disaster. Social Security is not an investment. It is an insurance policy.

I've been collecting Social Security for thirteen years. While I've never taken the time to figure it out I'm sure I've already received much more than I'd contributed and if my genes are a reasonably accurate predictor of my life expectancy I probably will be collecting for another dozen years. There simply is no 401k plan that will, presuming proportionate contributions, generate income anywhere near that level.

LET's have some FACTS Mikey!!!
Assuming you were 65 when you started collecting was $1,536/mo. source:2002 Social Security Changes
A total of $239,616. Assuming you live another 12 years the total payments at $1,536/month: Total paid out to you : $460,800.

So what kind of lump sum annuity would GUARANTEE to pay you for the rest of your life to equal $1,536 per month.

Check out this annuity calculator.. plug in how much you are getting for SS or $1,536 per month GUARANTEED for the rest of your life or 25 years.
At age 65 it would take $263,843 paid to an insurance company that would send you a check of $1,536 per month for the rest of your life.

Compare the two:
Social security will pay out $460,000 and you and your employer would have paid in from age 25 to 65 approximately $348,000.
Now instead of having the $348,000 over 40 years paid in by you and your employers used to pay out YOU told SS you wanted from
age 25 to 65 that total invested in the stock market that over that 40 year period your market value would be at average of 9% growth per year:
Year in and year out for 111 years the DJIA has grown at 7.04%. From 1968 to when you retired 2001 the DJIA is 8.9%...
So using that figure from 1968 to when you retired at 2001.. and YOU had the ability to tell SS please put my and my employers payments into the market:
Total accumulation YOU would have control over: $5.5 million.
Out of that you buy for $263,843 an annuity guaranteeing you a life time of $1,536 per month.

NOW tell me... what would you truly honestly prefer... SS sending a check for $1,536/month for 25 years OR
The guarantee of $1,536/month AND approximately $5 million left over????
GEEZ seems to be a no BRAINER!!!

The problem with your math is you assume we all put the same amount into SS. The truth is the lower intelligence voters would rather get the same 1500 check as you will vs. risking them having a million dollars and 1500 and you having 5million and 1500. You see SS is mostly about making sure everyone suffers the same. Thus pissing the money away in a pyramid scheme with zero rate of return is the better solution for the socialists. Remember all those flunkies & cheaters in high school? Yeah those are the libtards.

You wrote:"The problem with your math is you assume we all put the same amount into SS"
True. I assumed most people on this board was the audience. I assumed internet savvy would start at $15.00 an hour as I did when I graduated
from college progressing till end of working $51,840.
At a constant 13.4% of paycheck put in by myself and my employers would have paid in over 40 years $376,896.
I then assumed I would direct in my first 20 years high risk stock market and then as I got older moved more towards secure investments.
9% first 20 years 4% next 20 years accumulates to $1.722 million.
Now if I had kept it all at 9% end of 40 years: $5.5 million..
So where is my math problem?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Would you be saying the same thing and asking the same question if this were 2008?

Your 401k is an investment program which is subject to being wiped out -- as has happened to so many in the recent stock market disaster. Social Security is not an investment. It is an insurance policy.

I've been collecting Social Security for thirteen years. While I've never taken the time to figure it out I'm sure I've already received much more than I'd contributed and if my genes are a reasonably accurate predictor of my life expectancy I probably will be collecting for another dozen years. There simply is no 401k plan that will, presuming proportionate contributions, generate income anywhere near that level.

LET's have some FACTS Mikey!!!
Assuming you were 65 when you started collecting was $1,536/mo. source:2002 Social Security Changes
A total of $239,616. Assuming you live another 12 years the total payments at $1,536/month: Total paid out to you : $460,800.

So what kind of lump sum annuity would GUARANTEE to pay you for the rest of your life to equal $1,536 per month.

Check out this annuity calculator.. plug in how much you are getting for SS or $1,536 per month GUARANTEED for the rest of your life or 25 years.
At age 65 it would take $263,843 paid to an insurance company that would send you a check of $1,536 per month for the rest of your life.

Compare the two:
Social security will pay out $460,000 and you and your employer would have paid in from age 25 to 65 approximately $348,000.
Now instead of having the $348,000 over 40 years paid in by you and your employers used to pay out YOU told SS you wanted from
age 25 to 65 that total invested in the stock market that over that 40 year period your market value would be at average of 9% growth per year:
Year in and year out for 111 years the DJIA has grown at 7.04%. From 1968 to when you retired 2001 the DJIA is 8.9%...
So using that figure from 1968 to when you retired at 2001.. and YOU had the ability to tell SS please put my and my employers payments into the market:
Total accumulation YOU would have control over: $5.5 million.
Out of that you buy for $263,843 an annuity guaranteeing you a life time of $1,536 per month.

NOW tell me... what would you truly honestly prefer... SS sending a check for $1,536/month for 25 years OR
The guarantee of $1,536/month AND approximately $5 million left over????
GEEZ seems to be a no BRAINER!!!

That all seems very nice -- provided the bottom doesn't drop out of your glowing projection -- as it did for millions in the 1920s and during the Bush-2 presidency.

I'm not a gambler, and I'm quite content with the monthly Social Security deposit, which, added to my pension, and my stack of U.S. Savings bonds, keeps me and my mooching grand-kids happy. It would be nice to have $5 million but at my age I'm doing just fine without it.

FYI: I live in a very large retirement community where I've met several people whose investment dreams were crushed by the 2008 crisis. You should hear what they have to say about Social Security.

Last, I should tell you my parents suffered through the Great Depression. My father's often-repeated advice to us was avoid debt, live within your means, get a civil service job with a good pension, and never invest in anything but U.S. Savings Bonds. I have followed his advice and I have absolutely no regrets.

What you've had to say is right out of a playbook which I'm quite familiar with. And what I have to say is I wish you luck in all your endeavors.

Then feel free to invest your money in treasuries that will guarantee you the same level of poverty in retirement as social security.

But don't deny others financial independence because of your fear.

We should privatize SS accounts so others won't be forced into dependence just because you want to be.

 

[editec]

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

No you cannot.

Throw in the cost of the WORKERS' INSURANCE you get and there is no better deal than Social Security.



Doubt me?

Try buyint the workman's coverage SS give you on the open market/

Get back to us IF you can find any company willing to make that deal.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

No you cannot.

Throw in the cost of the WORKERS' INSURANCE you get and there is no better deal than Social Security.



Doubt me?

Try buyint the workman's coverage SS give you on the open market/

Get back to us IF you can find any company willing to make that deal.

A 22 year old can buy a disability policy that will pay him 2000 a month for a premium of 25 a month.

And unlike SS disability it will pay him if he cannot perform his current occupation not any occupation and it will also pay partial benefits if one cannot return to work full time.

If you are talking about workman's comp that is the employers responsibility not the employee's or the government's.

 

[healthmyths]

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

No you cannot.

Throw in the cost of the WORKERS' INSURANCE you get and there is no better deal than Social Security.



Doubt me?

Try buyint the workman's coverage SS give you on the open market/

Get back to us IF you can find any company willing to make that deal.

What is workers' compensation?
Workers' compensation, also known as workmans' comp,
is a state-mandated insurance program that provides compensation to employees
who suffer job-related injuries and illnesses.
While the federal government administers a workers' comp program for federal and certain other types of employees,
each state has its own laws and programs for workers' compensation.
For up-to-date information on workers' comp in your state, contact your state's workers' compensation office. (You can find links to the appropriate office in your state on the State Workers' Compensation Officials page of the U.S. Department of Labor's website.)
What is workers' compensation? - Nolo.com

WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO with Social Security????

 

[RKMBrown]

LET's have some FACTS Mikey!!!
Assuming you were 65 when you started collecting was $1,536/mo. source:2002 Social Security Changes
A total of $239,616. Assuming you live another 12 years the total payments at $1,536/month: Total paid out to you : $460,800.

So what kind of lump sum annuity would GUARANTEE to pay you for the rest of your life to equal $1,536 per month.

Check out this annuity calculator.. plug in how much you are getting for SS or $1,536 per month GUARANTEED for the rest of your life or 25 years.
At age 65 it would take $263,843 paid to an insurance company that would send you a check of $1,536 per month for the rest of your life.

Compare the two:
Social security will pay out $460,000 and you and your employer would have paid in from age 25 to 65 approximately $348,000.
Now instead of having the $348,000 over 40 years paid in by you and your employers used to pay out YOU told SS you wanted from
age 25 to 65 that total invested in the stock market that over that 40 year period your market value would be at average of 9% growth per year:
Year in and year out for 111 years the DJIA has grown at 7.04%. From 1968 to when you retired 2001 the DJIA is 8.9%...
So using that figure from 1968 to when you retired at 2001.. and YOU had the ability to tell SS please put my and my employers payments into the market:
Total accumulation YOU would have control over: $5.5 million.
Out of that you buy for $263,843 an annuity guaranteeing you a life time of $1,536 per month.

NOW tell me... what would you truly honestly prefer... SS sending a check for $1,536/month for 25 years OR
The guarantee of $1,536/month AND approximately $5 million left over????
GEEZ seems to be a no BRAINER!!!

The problem with your math is you assume we all put the same amount into SS. The truth is the lower intelligence voters would rather get the same 1500 check as you will vs. risking them having a million dollars and 1500 and you having 5million and 1500. You see SS is mostly about making sure everyone suffers the same. Thus pissing the money away in a pyramid scheme with zero rate of return is the better solution for the socialists. Remember all those flunkies & cheaters in high school? Yeah those are the libtards.

You wrote:"The problem with your math is you assume we all put the same amount into SS"
True. I assumed most people on this board was the audience. I assumed internet savvy would start at $15.00 an hour as I did when I graduated
from college progressing till end of working $51,840.
At a constant 13.4% of paycheck put in by myself and my employers would have paid in over 40 years $376,896.
I then assumed I would direct in my first 20 years high risk stock market and then as I got older moved more towards secure investments.
9% first 20 years 4% next 20 years accumulates to $1.722 million.
Now if I had kept it all at 9% end of 40 years: $5.5 million..
So where is my math problem?

There are a lot of people here that capped out or close every year after school.

There are also a lot of people here that never earned more than minimum wage range at part time hours, who chose to keep their salary under the welfare cap their entire life.

If you only work a few years here and there and instead decide to sit around collecting unemployment & disability checks you are not gonna have much to save.

But my main point was that some folks would rather no one have anything if it means someone else has more than they do, but don't ask them to work and place their assets at risk to get there, oh hell no. Most of these folks on the left want everything to be free and there to be no risk at all in life, no one should want for anything, no one should have to work or save for anything. No failures. No one should be allowed to excel unless their job is emperor of the welfare state.

 

[MikeK]

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

No you cannot.

Throw in the cost of the WORKERS' INSURANCE you get and there is no better deal than Social Security.



Doubt me?

Try buyint the workman's coverage SS give you on the open market/

Get back to us IF you can find any company willing to make that deal.

What we're being told here is the stock market is the way to sure-thing wealth in which nothing ever goes wrong. Another good way to get rich is the crap tables at Vegas and Atlantic City. All you need to do there is roll mostly sevens and in just twenty years you will be a multi-millionaire. Can't miss.

It's a system that never fails.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

No you cannot.

Throw in the cost of the WORKERS' INSURANCE you get and there is no better deal than Social Security.



Doubt me?

Try buyint the workman's coverage SS give you on the open market/

Get back to us IF you can find any company willing to make that deal.

What we're being told here is the stock market is the way to sure-thing wealth in which nothing ever goes wrong. Another good way to get rich is the crap tables at Vegas and Atlantic City. All you need to do there is roll mostly sevens and in just twenty years you will be a multi-millionaire. Can't miss.

It's a system that never fails.

Tangible asset investment is not the same as gambling at craps. Well, not till we end unlimited expansion of credit. As long as we continue to devalue the dollar and other currencies, investments in tangible assets will on average beat out burying cash in your backyard.

 

[MikeK]

And that would be a good idea to you?

Sure why not? What's wrong with me getting a check for 500k dollars to put into my 401k to fund my future retirement needs and also receiving an additional 12-15% each month in my paycheck?

Sounds like FANTASTIC IDEA to me.

I'm not even gonna ask for interest or inflation adjustments. Just give me the damn money I put in there straight up.

With a 25t price tag? No thanks. Then we will have to bail out all the homeless old people one day who didn't save enough.

Which basically defines the reason for Social Security.

I am convinced the increasing willingness to abandon Social Security in favor of the stock market is the result of declining awareness of the frightening reality known as The Great Depression. I have a clear awareness of that terrible time in modern American history because I was born at its peak and my parents, who suffered through it, often explained the miseries of widespread poverty and why the Social Security program would have made an enormous difference for millions of those who were least able to deal with being utterly destitute.

The FDIC didn't exist until 1933, after thousands of banks already had failed and millions of depositors, including my parents, lost every penny of their savings. Millions of ordinary, hard-working Americans who were well off and believed their savings and/or investments were secure woke up one morning to find they were flat broke -- penniless! And while a situation like that is bad enough for those who were young and strong enough to scavenge for an occasional day's labor (at 20 cents an hour) to fend off starvation, many older Americans fell victim to their utter helplessness and died. Homelessness was rampant and during New York winters the Bellevue and Kings County hospital morgue wagons made morning rounds to pick up frozen corpses of old people who had nothing to eat and nowhere to get warm. They died on park benches and in doorways.

Fortunately, my maternal grandmother was a premier seamstress who made wedding gowns and dresses for the rich and was thus able to sustain the family through the hardest times. Without her help it's anyone's guess what would have come of us. And I'm talking about being grateful for baked macaroni or fried SPAM dinners on Thanksgivings. That's how bad it was.

While Social Security is properly considered a supplement to those (such as myself) who have other sources of income during the good times, for those who have no other source it can -- and will -- make the difference between life and death during a full-scale economic depression.

 

[RKMBrown]

Sure why not? What's wrong with me getting a check for 500k dollars to put into my 401k to fund my future retirement needs and also receiving an additional 12-15% each month in my paycheck?

Sounds like FANTASTIC IDEA to me.

I'm not even gonna ask for interest or inflation adjustments. Just give me the damn money I put in there straight up.

With a 25t price tag? No thanks. Then we will have to bail out all the homeless old people one day who didn't save enough.

Which basically defines the reason for Social Security.

I am convinced the increasing willingness to abandon Social Security in favor of the stock market is the result of declining awareness of the frightening reality known as The Great Depression. I have a clear awareness of that terrible time in modern American history because I was born at its peak and my parents, who suffered through it, often explained the miseries of widespread poverty and why the Social Security program would have made an enormous difference for millions of those who were least able to deal with being utterly destitute.

The FDIC didn't exist until 1933, after thousands of banks already had failed and millions of depositors, including my parents, lost every penny of their savings. Millions of ordinary, hard-working Americans who were well off and believed their savings and/or investments were secure woke up one morning to find they were flat broke -- penniless! And while a situation like that is bad enough for those who were young and strong enough to scavenge for an occasional day's labor (at 20 cents an hour) to fend off starvation, many older Americans fell victim to their utter helplessness and died. Homelessness was rampant and during New York winters the Bellevue and Kings County hospital morgue wagons made morning rounds to pick up frozen corpses of old people who had nothing to eat and nowhere to get warm. They died on park benches and in doorways.

Fortunately, my maternal grandmother was a premier seamstress who made wedding gowns and dresses for the rich and was thus able to sustain the family through the hardest times. Without her help it's anyone's guess what would have come of us. And I'm talking about being grateful for baked macaroni or fried SPAM dinners on Thanksgivings. That's how bad it was.

While Social Security is properly considered a supplement to those (such as myself) who have other sources of income during the good times, for those who have no other source it can -- and will -- make the difference between life and death during a full-scale economic depression.

The reason for SS was to burn the country to the ground with socialist bullshit.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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

No you cannot.

Throw in the cost of the WORKERS' INSURANCE you get and there is no better deal than Social Security.



Doubt me?

Try buyint the workman's coverage SS give you on the open market/

Get back to us IF you can find any company willing to make that deal.

What is workers' compensation?
Workers' compensation, also known as workmans' comp,
is a state-mandated insurance program that provides compensation to employees
who suffer job-related injuries and illnesses.
While the federal government administers a workers' comp program for federal and certain other types of employees,
each state has its own laws and programs for workers' compensation.
For up-to-date information on workers' comp in your state, contact your state's workers' compensation office. (You can find links to the appropriate office in your state on the State Workers' Compensation Officials page of the U.S. Department of Labor's website.)
What is workers' compensation? - Nolo.com

WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO with Social Security????

Nothing...Eddie just isn't all that bright.

 

[MikeK]

The reason for SS was to burn the country to the ground with socialist bullshit.

Do you have parents or grandparents who benefit from Social Security?

 

[The T]

The reason for SS was to burn the country to the ground with socialist bullshit.

Do you have parents or grandparents who benefit from Social Security?

POINT is it NEVER should have never been foisted on the people. It's INSOLVENT.

 

[healthmyths]

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

No you cannot.

Throw in the cost of the WORKERS' INSURANCE you get and there is no better deal than Social Security.



Doubt me?

Try buyint the workman's coverage SS give you on the open market/

Get back to us IF you can find any company willing to make that deal.

What we're being told here is the stock market is the way to sure-thing wealth in which nothing ever goes wrong. Another good way to get rich is the crap tables at Vegas and Atlantic City. All you need to do there is roll mostly sevens and in just twenty years you will be a multi-millionaire. Can't miss.

It's a system that never fails.

Well little Mikey...
If the stock market was the constant loser for EVERYONE that has been in the market for over 112 years why have people been "in the market"?

How about some FACTS to deal with courtesy of HISTORY..
Dow Industrial Average Stock Market Index Historical Graph (DJIA)

In the 112 years of the DJIA:

there have been 40 years where there was no gain but losses.
There has been nearly twice as many (73 years) with gains.
The biggest loss 1931 52.7%.
The biggest gain 1915 81.7%
The average over those 112 years has been a growth of 7.25%

Now If I remember you have been collecting for 12 years which means assuming you started when 65 or in 2002.
Assuming you were 65 in 2002 that means you were born in 1937. Assuming you started paying in at 22 years old in 1959.
And assuming you were privatized allowing investing in the stock market the DJIA average growth from 1959 to 2002 was 7.4%
Assuming the average starting salary in 1959 was $9,300 with raises over the 43 years you worked.
Accumulation at your retirement would be:$943,799.
An annuity for your life time to pay you what you get from SS , $1,500/month rest of your life would cost $240,000 leaving $700,000 for hospitals/etc./heirs..

Too bad you deal with emotions and not the facts and obviously your ignorance of the FACTS means yup you are well suited for the womb to tomb title.
Your mentality and lack of knowledge truly shows you are not what the majority of Americans would love to do.. invest on their own!
Be able to accumulate millions without depending on the government.

 

[P@triot]

The reason for SS was to burn the country to the ground with socialist bullshit.

Do you have parents or grandparents who benefit from Social Security?

Other than the original recipients who never paid in and received free money from Uncle Sam, nobody ever benefits from Social Security.

People have money taken from them by the federal government at the barrel of a gun and then if they die before 65, that money is stolen by the federal government. If they live to 65, they receive a pittance compared to what they would have had were they allowed to keep the money which was taken from them.

 

[dnsmith35]

The reason for SS was to burn the country to the ground with socialist bullshit.

Do you have parents or grandparents who benefit from Social Security?

Other than the original recipients who never paid in and received free money from Uncle Sam, nobody ever benefits from Social Security.

People have money taken from them by the federal government at the barrel of a gun and then if they die before 65, that money is stolen by the federal government. If they live to 65, they receive a pittance compared to what they would have had were they allowed to keep the money which was taken from them.

I BENEFIT FROM SOCIAL SECURITY. I paid in for 40 years and when disabled by both aircraft hard landings and heart trouble SS benefits became important to me. At this moment it provides me about 20% of my total retirement income, to the point I have to pay income tax on a significant part of my SS income.

I personally believe it is a good program, but I believe the funding must be improved, probably best by eliminating all caps on the INCOME FROM WHICH FICA is collected.