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!

I would agree with all those except I'd still make it mandatory.

People simply do not save enough. They wouldn't save their FICA taxes. They'd spend it. And they'd wind up on government assistance when they're old anyways.

I am going to repeat!
The choice of investments is up to the individual and it is THEIR money.
BUT THEY couldn't take any out just like they can't take any out from SS ... do you understand???
There is NOTHING to spend if they can't get it!

YOU know I am not smart enough to manage other' people money and much less now do I see the Federal govt doing a better JOB..
I mean my SS/Medicare money is counted as part of the gross revenue of the USA and from that gross revenue our government has
spent by The State Department is planning to spend $400,000 in taxpayer funds to buy a sculpture for the new American embassy being built in Islamabad, Pakistan, according to contracting records.

This is what the $400,000 will be spent on:


AND you criticize any individual that WANTS to at least have some control over their future??
GEEZ this camel is just the tip of WASTED Government spending and you think that this mentality will continue to provide for children's SS?

 

[Disir]

Reminds me of the AFLAC sales hype.

 

[boedicca]

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!

Dividend paying blue chip stocks are appropriate as well.

And nobody at any age should tie up all his money in one investment.

 

[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!

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

So why have they "trashed" them???
What better way to generate private ownership of SS then letting YOU manage your money!
You really think an administrator in a D.C. cubicle KNOW more about you?

 

[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.

You think the people who watch Jersey Shore or who think Sarah Palin is a political genius are capable of understanding the ripoff schemes that would sprout up like weeds if SS was privatized?

I think you are the one being stupid.

NO question! The same people that voted for Obama would buy any Brooklyn bridge!
You are right! Those kind of people won't use the program though as they can't touch the money! Fine they choose a ripoff scheme and learn!
And if you think YOU are smart enough to advise them tell me you DIDN'T vote for a guy who sold YOU the brooklyn bridge!!!

 

[Toro]

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.

Someone who is retiring shouldn't have 100% of their retirement account in stocks. A simple rule of thumb for the average person is they should have their age in bonds and the rest in stocks. When someone is 25, they should have 75% of their retirement in stocks and 25% in bonds. When someone is 65, they should have 35% of their retirement savings in stocks and 65% in bonds. Over any 40 year time period in US economic history - from when a person is 25 years to when they are 65 - this simple formula has generated higher returns than a portfolio of 100% bonds over that same period. Even when 2008 happens. In 2008, stocks were down 40% and government bonds were up 8%. So a portfolio of 65/35 bonds/stocks was down 9%. And the person still had more money in their account in 2009 investing in stocks by that formula through much of their life than if they never invested in stocks.

I get that if someone doesn't understand stocks, they shouldn't invest in them. That's why I don't think most people should manage their own money. They should have a professional do it for them. If people want to invest their own SS, they should be allowed to. But most people should be in the SS trusts. And the trusts shouldn't be 100% government liabilities as they are today. The trust should be invested in a diversified portfolio. Government bonds over time have returned about 4%. Stocks have returned 10%. $100 million invested in government bonds is worth $611 million 50 years later. A 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio is worth $3.8 billion over the same time period. That's a HUGE number. We could make SS solvent and give people a tax cut if SS were invested like a real pension fund. Other countries do this. So should we.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

The Social Security Administration, or SSA, will expedite your benefits claim if you can prove you are terminally ill. To have your claim expedited, bring all medical proof that you have to your interview with the SSA representative. You must be able to prove that your medical condition is not expected to improve, and that your doctors expect it to result in death. Once your representative flags it as a terminal illness case, he will accelerate the claims process. Have a question? Get an answer from a personal finance professional now!
Read more: How to Expedite a Social Security Claim for the Terminally Ill | eHow

 

[healthmyths]

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.

Someone who is retiring shouldn't have 100% of their retirement account in stocks. A simple rule of thumb for the average person is they should have their age in bonds and the rest in stocks. When someone is 25, they should have 75% of their retirement in stocks and 25% in bonds. When someone is 65, they should have 35% of their retirement savings in stocks and 65% in bonds. Over any 40 year time period in US economic history - from when a person is 25 years to when they are 65 - this simple formula has generated higher returns than a portfolio of 100% bonds over that same period. Even when 2008 happens. In 2008, stocks were down 40% and government bonds were up 8%. So a portfolio of 65/35 bonds/stocks was down 9%. And the person still had more money in their account in 2009 investing in stocks by that formula through much of their life than if they never invested in stocks.

I get that if someone doesn't understand stocks, they shouldn't invest in them. That's why I don't think most people should manage their own money. They should have a professional do it for them. If people want to invest their own SS, they should be allowed to. But most people should be in the SS trusts. And the trusts shouldn't be 100% government liabilities as they are today. The trust should be invested in a diversified portfolio. Government bonds over time have returned about 4%. Stocks have returned 10%. $100 million invested in government bonds is worth $611 million 50 years later. A 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio is worth $3.8 billion over the same time period. That's a HUGE number. We could make SS solvent and give people a tax cut if SS were invested like a real pension fund. Other countries do this. So should we.

THANK YOU!
Your point about "professional" flat FEE ONLY advisers and not based on stocks they sell is right on target!
Millions of people have followed what you have stated Age in bonds and rest in stocks i.e. for those that can't figure that out:
Someone age 25 should be 25% bonds 75% stocks... Someone age 65.. in bonds 35% stocks... I know I know but there are some real simpletons out here that point for example look at 2008 destroyed their IRA ! Idiots like that have to be talked to at a 3rd grade level and not CORE math by the way!!!

The absolutely greatest accumulation of wealth passed on to offspring would occur and eventually there would be very little if any real poverty levels as we are experiencing now!

 

[Brain357]

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

Problem is everyone will think they are good. Then we will end up bailing out the losers.

 

[Brain357]

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...

If you really want the government out of handling retirement then get companies to give good pensions again. Good luck with that. They found out the government will cover the bill for them.

 

[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

Problem is everyone will think they are good. Then we will end up bailing out the losers.

like we already are with welfare and other entitlements? I thought you libs loved that shit

I mean lets be real. you guys want the government to pay for everything. abortions, birth control. let people make up their own minds

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'll take the $1MM and it's not even a close decision. You OWN the $1MM you don't OWN Social Security. Obama twice now threatened to withhold the checks unless he got his way on the Fiscal Cliff.

If you're worried about quality of life, retire to Panama on the $1MM

 

[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

So why have they "trashed" them???
What better way to generate private ownership of SS then letting YOU manage your money!
You really think an administrator in a D.C. cubicle KNOW more about you?

My point is I think you need both

Social Security doesn't seem like much, but it is adjusted for inflation. It might not be much, but it will be much more 30 years after you retire
That one million is the opposite. It sounds like a fortune now, but in 30 years, you will be struggling

 

[Brain357]

so, give people the choice at least

Problem is everyone will think they are good. Then we will end up bailing out the losers.

like we already are with welfare and other entitlements? I thought you libs loved that shit

I mean lets be real. you guys want the government to pay for everything. abortions, birth control. let people make up their own minds

I'm not a lib. You should see that from my signature. I think we need smaller government. Course I know you can't do that and keep increasing the military...

But yes just like that. Your naïve if you think this won't lead to lots of bailing out.

 

[Freewill]

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

Not really true, or at least it depends on how much you paid into the system. For someone who didn't earn a lot then 1 million in the bank is much better.

1000000/28 = 35715/year for a life span from 62 to 90. I maybe wrong but for most people I think that 2976/ month is more then they would be receiving at 62. Then consider that even a modest return on investment would increase that amount.

Question is, how would they get the million in the first place?

 

[Zander]

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

So why have they "trashed" them???
What better way to generate private ownership of SS then letting YOU manage your money!
You really think an administrator in a D.C. cubicle KNOW more about you?

My point is I think you need both

Social Security doesn't seem like much, but it is adjusted for inflation. It might not be much, but it will be much more 30 years after you retire
That one million is the opposite. It sounds like a fortune now, but in 30 years, you will be struggling

Bullshit.

$1 million invested in an immediate annuity at age 65 pays a single life benefit of $5914.00 (7.1% annual) per month for males $5451 (6.54% annual ) for females. For a slightly lower monthly payout you can add inflation protection, you can make the annuity joint life. A married couple could have a guaranteed benefit for life with built in inflation protections identical to SSN and still collect $4500 or more per month.

By contrast - Social security pays a MAXIMUM benefit of approx. $2600 per month for a single person. The max benefit for a couple is approx $4000. Keep in mind - these are the maximum benefits for people that have paid the maximum tax for 35 years or more. The average SSN benefit is only $1300 per month.

 

[boedicca]

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

So why have they "trashed" them???
What better way to generate private ownership of SS then letting YOU manage your money!
You really think an administrator in a D.C. cubicle KNOW more about you?

My point is I think you need both

Social Security doesn't seem like much, but it is adjusted for inflation. It might not be much, but it will be much more 30 years after you retire
That one million is the opposite. It sounds like a fortune now, but in 30 years, you will be struggling

Not if one invests prudently.

You are also neglecting the fact that the ratio of taxpayers to SS recipients is shrinking - which means that within 30 years, the Feds will implement means testing and drastically cut benefits across the board.

 

[rightwinger]

So why have they "trashed" them???
What better way to generate private ownership of SS then letting YOU manage your money!
You really think an administrator in a D.C. cubicle KNOW more about you?

My point is I think you need both

Social Security doesn't seem like much, but it is adjusted for inflation. It might not be much, but it will be much more 30 years after you retire
That one million is the opposite. It sounds like a fortune now, but in 30 years, you will be struggling

Bullshit.

$1 million invested in an immediate annuity at age 65 pays a single life benefit of $5914.00 (7.1% annual) per month for males $5451 (6.54% annual ) for females. For a slightly lower monthly payout you can add inflation protection, you can make the annuity joint life. A married couple could have a guaranteed benefit for life with built in inflation protections identical to SSN and still collect $4500 or more per month.

By contrast - Social security pays a MAXIMUM benefit of approx. $2600 per month for a single person. The max benefit for a couple is approx $4000. Keep in mind - these are the maximum benefits for people that have paid the maximum tax for 35 years or more. The average SSN benefit is only $1300 per month.

That is why I said you need both savings and an annuity adjusted for inflation

$5900 a month may seem like a fortune in 2014. But in 2044 it will not be that much.

 

[Zander]

My point is I think you need both

Social Security doesn't seem like much, but it is adjusted for inflation. It might not be much, but it will be much more 30 years after you retire
That one million is the opposite. It sounds like a fortune now, but in 30 years, you will be struggling

Bullshit.

$1 million invested in an immediate annuity at age 65 pays a single life benefit of $5914.00 (7.1% annual) per month for males $5451 (6.54% annual ) for females. For a slightly lower monthly payout you can add inflation protection, you can make the annuity joint life. A married couple could have a guaranteed benefit for life with built in inflation protections identical to SSN and still collect $4500 or more per month.

By contrast - Social security pays a MAXIMUM benefit of approx. $2600 per month for a single person. The max benefit for a couple is approx $4000. Keep in mind - these are the maximum benefits for people that have paid the maximum tax for 35 years or more. The average SSN benefit is only $1300 per month.

That is why I said you need both savings and an annuity adjusted for inflation

$5900 a month may seem like a fortune in 2014. But in 2044 it will not be that much.

$5900 is a helluva lot more than $1300 (the average payout) and you can buy inflation protection for a very small premium.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Social Security is the the poster child of ponzi schemes.