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

[Spoonman]

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

so, give people the choice at least

 

[peach174]

There is no maximum to pay for Social Security.
All workers pay the same amount of payroll tax for Social Security.
You can pay a maxim for Medicare Part B, but not Social Security.
Medicare does pay out more than you put in, but not social security.
The worker pays half and the employer pays half.
Most will not get more than a thousand a month or less.
If you lived for 30 years after your retirement and you get a thousand a month that would be 360,0000.00 paid to you over a 30 year period.
You would be much better off with a million in the bank.

 

[Toro]

Leave SS alone. If you want to gamble on the stock market, horse races, or local casino, then go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. Even if you are getting SS, you can turn right around and spend it on stocks, lotto tickets, or place it on Lucky Dan at Santa Anita in the 5th race.

Of course, given the choice between $1,000,000.00 in the bank or a monthly SS stipend, most folks would pick the million dollars. There is no guarantee that you would ever make that kind of money though.

The stock market isn't gambling. Almost all pension funds are invested in stocks. SS should be as well.

And nobody is preventing you from investing in stocks.

You're right.

And investing in stocks isn't gambling. So we shouldn't use that argument on what to do with SS.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Drive around your town. Look at all your white middle class neighbors who bought Disney vacations, boats, SUVs, and plasma TV with HELOCs and who ended up foreclosing their homes. Of those who managed to survive, look at all your other white middle class neighbors who are still underwater on their mortgages.

These people are going to wisely invest, and won't just spend the extra cash they have available to invest?

Lack of proper planning on your part does NOT constitute an emergency on my part!

 

[bendog]

The stock market isn't gambling. Almost all pension funds are invested in stocks. SS should be as well.

And nobody is preventing you from investing in stocks.

You're right.

And investing in stocks isn't gambling. So we shouldn't use that argument on what to do with SS.

It's not? LOL

 

[boedicca]

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

So, because some people can't handle their own money, we should all give our money to the Federal Government which REALLY IS NOT GOOD at handling money?

Go figure...

 

[boedicca]

How do you predict the future? Most will choose your new option but some won't. People on SS now are getting the money from people working now. Where does that money come from if all the young choose your new option?

Well Duh! Algore told us that our SS money is held in a LOCK BOX!

So, just pay people their share of the LOCK BOX funds!

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, I just added it up, and SS so far has sent me $168,000. Since I plan on hanging around for quite some time, I prefer getting the checks every month.

 

[boedicca]

Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and index to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors who instituted Social Security, we should be working longer than they did.

Or, just make smoking mandatory so that people die before they start collecting any benefits.

 

[bendog]

How do you predict the future? Most will choose your new option but some won't. People on SS now are getting the money from people working now. Where does that money come from if all the young choose your new option?

Well Duh! Algore told us that our SS money is held in a LOCK BOX!

So, just pay people their share of the LOCK BOX funds!

Remember, Al also said we could have some back if we put it in govt approved accounts, which prolly would be tied to real estate debt obligations

 

[Toro]

And nobody is preventing you from investing in stocks.

You're right.

And investing in stocks isn't gambling. So we shouldn't use that argument on what to do with SS.

It's not? LOL

No, it's not.

The difference between gambling and investing in stocks is that over time, the casino is the house and your initial stake will erode regardless of how well you do in the short run, whereas in stocks, the investor is the house and the initial stake will grow regardless of how poorly you do in the short run.

That's why long lived plans such as SS should invest in stocks.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

1m in the bank on interest. With a good interest rate, you'll get more that you get via social security. You can put that 1m in the bank at any point in your life, whereas you can only take SS after age 62. Do the math.

 

[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...

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.

My 85 year old Mother in Law had 30 years of pension wiped out by the last recession. They invested it in a construction/land development company...

 

[bendog]

You're right.

And investing in stocks isn't gambling. So we shouldn't use that argument on what to do with SS.

It's not? LOL

No, it's not.

The difference between gambling and investing in stocks is that over time, the casino is the house and your initial stake will erode regardless of how well you do in the short run, whereas in stocks, the investor is the house and the initial stake will grow regardless of how poorly you do in the short run.

That's why long lived plans such as SS should invest in stocks.

ah, but it's a gamble as to whether the market will be up or down when you retire, and the recent credit meltdown proved that simply diversifying will not fully remove risk.

So, it's gambling on the market being at point A in year X, when it could be at point B.

That's why gambling works. No matter if its in a capital market of Vegas, you're betting against the house, but you individual skill may allow you to do better than the fellow shmuck next to you.

 

[healthmyths]

There is no maximum to pay for Social Security.
All workers pay the same amount of payroll tax for Social Security.
You can pay a maxim for Medicare Part B, but not Social Security.
Medicare does pay out more than you put in, but not social security.
The worker pays half and the employer pays half.
Most will not get more than a thousand a month or less.
If you lived for 30 years after your retirement and you get a thousand a month that would be 360,0000.00 paid to you over a 30 year period.
You would be much better off with a million in the bank.

And remember.. YOU can leave this nest egg to your heirs.
How many people would love to start their own business but don't have the capital!
With that seed capital who knows what would happen!

 

[healthmyths]

It's not? LOL

No, it's not.

The difference between gambling and investing in stocks is that over time, the casino is the house and your initial stake will erode regardless of how well you do in the short run, whereas in stocks, the investor is the house and the initial stake will grow regardless of how poorly you do in the short run.

That's why long lived plans such as SS should invest in stocks.

ah, but it's a gamble as to whether the market will be up or down when you retire, and the recent credit meltdown proved that simply diversifying will not fully remove risk.

So, it's gambling on the market being at point A in year X, when it could be at point B.

That's why gambling works. No matter if its in a capital market of Vegas, you're betting against the house, but you individual skill may allow you to do better than the fellow shmuck next to you.

Again... do you understand that from 25 to 35 you invest for growth.
36 to 45 invest more conservatively and Then at 50 smaller amount in equities and majority in secured bonds,etc.
YOU don't out pure stupidity with your SS privatized funds leave it all in equities before you retire.
Smart conservative financial planning has higher risks when younger...etc.

 

[deltex1]

I'm not that good at math but at current bank rates of less than 2%, I'll take the 24k that SS sends me each year. I put in 26k total..and now get back almost that each year...not sure how the gummint can afford it...

 

[Jarlaxle]

I'm not that good at math but at current bank rates of less than 2%, I'll take the 24k that SS sends me each year. I put in 26k total..and now get back almost that each year...not sure how the gummint can afford it...

Simple: THEY CAN'T!

 

[healthmyths]

Well, I just added it up, and SS so far has sent me $168,000. Since I plan on hanging around for quite some time, I prefer getting the checks every month.

And I like you getting ss happy to get back a portion of what I paid in...BUT
If I had a choice like most people in favor of privatization when I was 25 first paying in, I would have had nearly 3 million just from my SS/Medicare payments. When I started in 1967 and had the choice to put my FICA into the "risky stock market" for 40 years
at 9% I would have at $2.3 million.

Since I turned 65 I've received $100,000 or about $1,500/month from SS.

BUT if when I was 65 I put the $1.2 million in an annuity kept the rest for health care,etc..
I would receive $4,000 per month or ($2,400 more then what I receive now ) from my annuity for 25 years AND still have
$1.1 million in the bank to pay health care,etc. and leave a nest egg for my family!

 

[healthmyths]

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.

My 85 year old Mother in Law had 30 years of pension wiped out by the last recession. They invested it in a construction/land development company...

WHY would ANY ONE at 85 invest in a private company?
I am sorry but YOU as her offspring are at fault for not being smarter!
GEEZ I would NOT want to admit to that total mistake!
85 year old people should NOT invest in private companies but should be in treasuries bonds, but NEVER in equities especially at 85 unless they have millions in other secured investments.. which obviously she didn't... YOU should be ashamed!