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

[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!

OK, so you are 71 and healthy. Damned lucky fellow. I am 70 and healthy. Still able to hike at 14,000 ft and hunt rock. Still able to hold down a full time job as an industrial millwright and take university classes part time. I am also one damned lucky fellow. For not one of the people that used to hike with me is capable of doing so now. And some are five years younger. Not from bad habits, but from things like auto immune diseases and bad backs.

All too many in my craft leave it between 55 and 65 with serious back injury.

Now, as to your assertation of 1 million in the bank being enough that medicare would not be needed, pure bullshit. Should you have a medical issue, such as cancer, and your spouse have another serious issue, that money is totally gone. Then what?

What we have now in SS and MediCare works. Works much better than anything we had before. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[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!

OK, so you are 71 and healthy. Damned lucky fellow. I am 70 and healthy. Still able to hike at 14,000 ft and hunt rock. Still able to hold down a full time job as an industrial millwright and take university classes part time. I am also one damned lucky fellow. For not one of the people that used to hike with me is capable of doing so now. And some are five years younger. Not from bad habits, but from things like auto immune diseases and bad backs.

All too many in my craft leave it between 55 and 65 with serious back injury.

Now, as to your assertation of 1 million in the bank being enough that medicare would not be needed, pure bullshit. Should you have a medical issue, such as cancer, and your spouse have another serious issue, that money is totally gone. Then what?

What we have now in SS and MediCare works. Works much better than anything we had before. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I remember a time when people having $100,000 in the bank thought they could retire easily

$1 million will not be that much in 20-30 years.

 

[Spoonman]

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

manage your own money and you;ll get back even more, abd you wont have some asshole politician telling you there is no inflation so you get no col this year. and you won't have some asshole politician telling you you are now not elligible until you are 70.

 

[Pop23]

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

If I died tomorrow it ain't so great for me or my heirs.

 

[Spoonman]

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!

OK, so you are 71 and healthy. Damned lucky fellow. I am 70 and healthy. Still able to hike at 14,000 ft and hunt rock. Still able to hold down a full time job as an industrial millwright and take university classes part time. I am also one damned lucky fellow. For not one of the people that used to hike with me is capable of doing so now. And some are five years younger. Not from bad habits, but from things like auto immune diseases and bad backs.

All too many in my craft leave it between 55 and 65 with serious back injury.

Now, as to your assertation of 1 million in the bank being enough that medicare would not be needed, pure bullshit. Should you have a medical issue, such as cancer, and your spouse have another serious issue, that money is totally gone. Then what?

What we have now in SS and MediCare works. Works much better than anything we had before. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I remember a time when people having $100,000 in the bank thought they could retire easily

$1 million will not be that much in 20-30 years.

1 million is not that much now but it is still 50 years worth of the 20K a year SS will pay you. but i guess if you plan on living past 115 SS is a good deal

 

[Pop23]

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!

OK, so you are 71 and healthy. Damned lucky fellow. I am 70 and healthy. Still able to hike at 14,000 ft and hunt rock. Still able to hold down a full time job as an industrial millwright and take university classes part time. I am also one damned lucky fellow. For not one of the people that used to hike with me is capable of doing so now. And some are five years younger. Not from bad habits, but from things like auto immune diseases and bad backs.

All too many in my craft leave it between 55 and 65 with serious back injury.

Now, as to your assertation of 1 million in the bank being enough that medicare would not be needed, pure bullshit. Should you have a medical issue, such as cancer, and your spouse have another serious issue, that money is totally gone. Then what?

What we have now in SS and MediCare works. Works much better than anything we had before. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I remember a time when people having $100,000 in the bank thought they could retire easily

$1 million will not be that much in 20-30 years.

Invested well it still grows whether retired or not. True story

20 or 30 years would make me 85 to 95 before it runs out? Who gives a rats ass by then?

 

[Spoonman]

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.

because liberals are idiots and can't manage their money?

 

[Zander]

Financial illiterates love Social Security......

 

[Disir]

No privatized social security. Raising the age of retirement does NOT mean that the corporations are going to hire or maintain a workforce of that age. We found this out with the recession. Two, and this is big, the cost of the shift and the fees will bankrupt social security. The Chilean model (Chicago school) was a massive failure.

This is like watching a bunch of sociopathic gamblers drool at the prospect of filching cash that does NOT belong to them.

 

[boedicca]

Oh, definitely $1 million in the bank. SS is just a bunch of IOUs to be paid by younger generations.

 

[Moonglow]

not all are good at handling money....not all are good at all trades.....it just how humans are....

 

[Granny]

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...

Reading some of these posts makes me think some people would look on privitized retirement as general stock trading, day trading or whatever. The cost of a trustee handling retirement funds is fairly nominal. Prior to my retirement my employer had a couple of retirement plans for employees. One was employer contributions only and the other was a matching contribution (401(k)) plan with a 10% max contribution for employees and a 100% matching employer contribution up to a max 7-1/2%. If you contributed 3% of your income, you got a 3% employer match; if you made a 10% contribution it was matched up to 7-1/2% by the employer. Employees could manage which funds we wanted our money in - high risk, low risk, a mix of options - but once that choice was made we had to live with it for (I think) at least 6 months or maybe the entire plan year. I can't remember. If you didn't participate in that plan, then you still had the employer only contribution plan.

We couldn't borrow money from the 401(k) willy-nilly - there had to be a damned good reason, a lot of paperwork, and then there was a maximum amount that could be borrowed. Repayment (with interest as would any loan) was guaranteed - it came out of your paycheck every single pay period. That repayment went right back into your retirement account - it wasn't the employer's to keep and use however it pleased.

 

[Disir]

You know, the same went down with the movement from pensions to the 401ks. Financial classes were held and the 401K was the shift. Education to justify reasons to take your money. As it stands now, we have people on the street that are considered too old to hire but they are too young to collect. They lost savings and jobs during the recession. Time is such a corporatist rag. Same place where they place articles saying under employment is really "flexibility" and it's mmmmm mmmm good.

 

[healthmyths]

not all are good at handling money....not all are good at all trades.....it just how humans are....

NO SHIT! GEEZ so why penalize ALL of us that ARE good and the MAJORITY of Americans ARE..
We have SS for those few that AREN'T good and AS I've constantly pointed out!
It is NOT for EVERYONE but at least GIVE EVERYONE the choice!
Frankly you obviously are a womb to tomb take care of me person.
Feed a person a fish a day rather then teach the person to fish and feed for a lifetime!
YOU like most phony "compassionate" people are actually hurting people by simply feeding NOT teaching!

You honestly believe the majority of people MUST be fed and NOT teach the majority to feed themselves!
Is that correct?

Because again reading closer instead of jumping to conclusions the suggestion that MOST of us truly compassionate people make is
that people be given a CHOICE! Those of us truly compassionate people KNOW there are a few that will need help BUT what better way
to help the unfortunate then the Majority having their OWN money and then time to help the less fortunate RATHER then looking to the government for womb to tomb.. how absolutely dismal your paternalistic path looks to people that want to make their own decisions!

 

[Brain357]

not all are good at handling money....not all are good at all trades.....it just how humans are....

NO SHIT! GEEZ so why penalize ALL of us that ARE good and the MAJORITY of Americans ARE..
We have SS for those few that AREN'T good and AS I've constantly pointed out!
It is NOT for EVERYONE but at least GIVE EVERYONE the choice!
Frankly you obviously are a womb to tomb take care of me person.
Feed a person a fish a day rather then teach the person to fish and feed for a lifetime!
YOU like most phony "compassionate" people are actually hurting people by simply feeding NOT teaching!

You honestly believe the majority of people MUST be fed and NOT teach the majority to feed themselves!
Is that correct?

Because again reading closer instead of jumping to conclusions the suggestion that MOST of us truly compassionate people make is
that people be given a CHOICE! Those of us truly compassionate people KNOW there are a few that will need help BUT what better way
to help the unfortunate then the Majority having their OWN money and then time to help the less fortunate RATHER then looking to the government for womb to tomb.. how absolutely dismal your paternalistic path looks to people that want to make their own decisions!

When people make your choice and lose we will have to bail them out.

 

[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.

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

The chance of me living to 75 is-exactly-zero.

 

[healthmyths]

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.

Yes you are absolutely right.. somebody will have to bail out the losers! NO question!
Tell me how many losers do you think would have to be bailed out???
You think now logically.. If a "loser" at age 25 was able to put away (NOT TOUCH by the way... can't withdraw...) their contributions.
They over 20 years invest at 25 in venture funds,speculative,etc... they still will have a 9% gain...)
So how many losers ????

Also your point about very rich getting SS YOU'RE right!
But again we are talking about the majority of slubs like me that simply want a choice! Why should YOU make the decision about MY future?

 

[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.

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

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

In other words: it is indistinguishable from a Ponzi scheme in all regards except for who runs it. Thank you for agreeing with me.

 

[bendog]

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!

You need to factor in how much it would cost to fund an annuity that would pay equal to survivor benefits to both a child in school and a spouse caring for said child, as well as disability benefits a person may be eligible before retirement age.

When you factor in those costs, the actual retirement benefit of 1800 or 2400 or so bucks a month is actually not a bad return, even though SS is insurance rather than an investment.

 

[auditor0007]

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 agree that the retirement age should be raised to 70. It is currently at 67 for anyone under 50. I do not support any privatization though. Keep it as is. Last of all, if we do raise the retirement age, we have to realize more people will become or will need to become eligible for disability benefits as many people working physically demanding jobs just can't work past the age of 65. While less people now work in those types of careers, we need to understand that not everyone is in a job where they can work until they are 70 or 75. Personally, I plan on working until I am at least 70.