• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

The case against Social Security.

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

From the link.

Conclusion

"Lawmakers have many policy options that would reduce or eliminate the long-term financing shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare. Lawmakers should address these financial challenges as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will permit consideration of a broader range of solutions and provide more time to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare."

It's all good. :D
 
Upvote 0

Andrew77

The walking accident
Site Supporter
Feb 11, 2018
1,912
1,242
Ohio
✟183,616.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
But Income was $797.5 billion.(year 2016)

Sigh....

General Funds Reimbursement. That's money from general taxes. General funds that have to be borrowed.

Interest earnings. From what? Remember Social Security has no assets.

Interest Earnings from what? From the government.... which comes from general funds that have to be borrowed.

OK. My apologies.
.
.









.
Social Security has been US Law since 1935 and will likely remain so until the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ to this rotten earth.
....... Your desire to change or abolish this US Law is likely an exercise in futility. Similarly for the US Law that legalized abortion, same-sex-marriage, sodomy, adultery, witchcraft and other unholy practices.

Well, you have the right to think that, and it may or may not be true.

If what you say does end up being true, then you can expect that the US will decline into a failed state like Greece and Venezuela.

Regardless, you can also expect the upright and morally good people of this country, to stand up and push to change bad policies. It is not un-biblical to standing against bad laws, anymore than standing against slavery was the upright and moral duty of the Christians in the past.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Andrew77

The walking accident
Site Supporter
Feb 11, 2018
1,912
1,242
Ohio
✟183,616.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
From the link.

Conclusion

"Lawmakers have many policy options that would reduce or eliminate the long-term financing shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare. Lawmakers should address these financial challenges as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will permit consideration of a broader range of solutions and provide more time to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare."

It's all good. :D

Yeah, they can cut benefits and raise taxes, making both far worse than they already are. There are endless options to make both bad programs last far longer, and do far more damage.

Do you know how many health care provides absolutely refuse Medicaid, and Medicare?

Remember the Mayo Clinic that Obama went to, which he said was a model of quality care?

Why the Mayo Clinic is refusing to see Medicare patients

Cutting costs is a great way to make the program last longer, sure. It also makes the care you get crap. If you are ok being given crap care, then you are absolutely right. They have many options to make bad programs last longer.
 
Upvote 0

Andrew77

The walking accident
Site Supporter
Feb 11, 2018
1,912
1,242
Ohio
✟183,616.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Social Security is not a welfare program because the amount that people collect at retirement is proportional to how much people pay in during their lifetime. It is a trust fund, and to say otherwise is dishonest.

No, to claim it is a trust fund, is factually WRONG. You are WRONG. Period.

It does not matter what rational you use. If you want to believe lies, that is your choice. But you can't call something a "trust fund" just because you think it is.

A trust fund, is a fund with assets in it. There is no fund with assets in it.

A trust fund pays out from the funds, to beneficiaries. Social Security beneficiaries are paid not from funds in trust, but from current people paying taxes.

That's a ponzi scheme.

The Alaska Permanent Fund, is a trust fund. The money put into the fund, is used to purchase ASSETS. Those assets provide dividends and growth, that is then used to pay out dividends to the public.

The assets... not current payments into the fund, result in dividends to the public. That's how a real trust fund, operates.

Bernard Madoff used current people paying into his fund, to pay off existing beneficiaries. There were no (or very little) assets in his fund. He was just taking money from the new group of people, to pay the old group of people. And then he was taking from the next group of people, to pay for that group.

That is how Social Security has always, and currently to this day, operates.

So.... using the definition of words.... Social Security is NOT A TRUST FUND. PERIOD.

Listen to me..... whether you admit it, and accept the truth or not, doesn't matter. What you said.... IS WRONG. End of story.

Now if you can't admit that... if you can't even use the proper definitions of words to talk about the facts?

Then you are no longer qualified to talk on this thread. I'll talk with smart people who disagree until the end of time. But I have no time for fools.

This is your last chance with me. When I meet someone what throws their brains in the trash can, and stands around screaming the moon is made of cheese.... because that's what they want to believe, I put them on my ignore list, and never talk with them again for the rest of my life.

You want to talk about the facts? Then start using the facts. Social Security is not a trust fund. If you can't do that, then you are a waste of my time. Too many intelligent worth while people to talk to, than to bicker with someone who can't even use a proper definition of words while in a discussion.

Last chance. Make your choice.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Andrew77

The walking accident
Site Supporter
Feb 11, 2018
1,912
1,242
Ohio
✟183,616.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
The $20Trillion is long-term debt, like a mortgage. And government bonds are still in demand, especially by foreign countries.

Sadly, not even that is true anymore. Ever since the crash of 2007, the Treasury has moved towards shorter and shorter term bonds.

Bond-Market-Size-Article-Chart-4.png

Only 11% of bonds outstanding, are 20 to 30 year bonds. 66% are between 2 and 10 year. 15% of them are 52 weeks or less.

That said, I've never understood this... statement. It's not really an argument, but rather like "it's like a mortgage...."... so?

First, it isn't. A mortgage has an asset that backs it. The US government does not have any assets that back the $20 Trillion in debt. It has some assets... but not $20 Trillion worth, or close.

Second, that isn't even an argument. People go bankrupt all the time, because they bought a house on a mortgage, that they can't afford. The fact it's a long term debt... doesn't change anything if you can't pay the bill. So I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean.

And yes, government bonds are still in demand.

I think you need to be wary of this, for a couple of reasons.

First, the demand for bonds will remain steady right up to very moment of the crash. Literally, overnight, the bonds could crash. This is exactly what happened with Greece.

Greekyield.jpg


Before the total crash in 2010, the demand for Greek bonds actually went up. That's why yields were going down. As the demand increases, the interest paid declines.

So before the switch flipped that Greece might not be able to repay the bonds, more and more people were buying them, right into the crash.

So saying that there is a high demand for US bonds right now.... doesn't mean much. We could have the highest levels of demand in US history this month, and be in fiscal crisis next month.

Look at Portugal for example. Even into 2010, they had high demand for their bonds, then 2011 they were looking at possible default.

Again, none of this would matter if the US government was running a surplus, and had billions of stored savings. But as long as we keep running huge deficits, then the moment we can't borrow, your Social Security is toast.
 
Upvote 0

Andrew77

The walking accident
Site Supporter
Feb 11, 2018
1,912
1,242
Ohio
✟183,616.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
I'm paid from a pool of money from present day contributors, which includes myself as I'm still working and paying in.

Exactly. You getting paid, off the stolen money from working people.

Which again, is what a ponzi scheme is. If it was a retirement system, then you would be paid from the growth and interest from the assets purchased for your retirement.

When you collect from a real 401K, you are collecting money you have earned from your investment.

When you collect social security, you are getting money from people who have no choice, but to either pay in, or go to prison.

Social Security, is a tyrannical ponzi scheme. It is both immoral, and it is simply a bad retirement to begin with. Anyone who retires on social security, lives in object poverty until they die. Terrible system at best, and far worse given they could be millionaires if they had been allowed to keep their own money.
 
Upvote 0

Andrew77

The walking accident
Site Supporter
Feb 11, 2018
1,912
1,242
Ohio
✟183,616.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
But the only way your plan would work for most Americans is if they are forced to buy Treasury notes, as people just don't voluntarily save or invest enough money for retirement (they would not have access to their funds either or they would spend them long before retirement). This fact of life alone makes SS look pretty good.

Americans Are Not Remotely Financially Ready For Retirement

Our laws force us to do many things against our will that benefit us greatly, many of which are absolutely necessary. SS is one of those laws.

Really? So you think it's in my benefit to keep me poor by taking 12.4% of my income my whole life, so that I can then live on $900 a month until I die in poverty?

That's in my benefit? Let me suffer while I work, so I can suffer when I'm old? That's your idea of "benefit"?

Again, I already said this. The whole reason Americans are not financially ready for Retirement is because the government takes their money to give them social security. They both have less money to save for retirement, and at the same time are told by vote-bribing politicians that government will take care of them.

You are pointing to the sickness caused by cancer, and then saying we clearly need more cancer. The Social Security Cancer is what is causing people to not heal up and save for retirement.
 
Upvote 0

CGL1023

citizen of heaven
Jul 8, 2011
1,342
267
Roswell NM
✟90,781.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
So on another thread, I had a guy post the following about social security.

Best government plan ever conceived. People don't save, therefore need a 'forced' retirement income plan that ensures at least some security. Tweaking the numbers will solve the problem. Politicians just need to allow the administrators of SS to do their job and stop using SS as a political football.

This shows just how little people know about social security, and why social security is such a massive danger to this country.

Now there will be people who will refuse to believe anything I am about to say, but it is the truth. Christians are supposed to be about the truth. We're not supposed to act like the pagans, and believe lies, simply because we don't like the truth. So you want to argue with me, you had better be able to prove it. Because I can prove what I'm about to tell you.

Social Security is not a retirement plan, or insurance.

This is not up for debate. It's a fact. Social Security is simply a tax.... and a welfare benefit.
It's nothing different than your income tax... and food stamps... an income tax... and welfare.... an income tax... and public housing, or Obama Phones, or anything else.

I can prove this. It was never an investment program for retirement, from the first day that it was signed into law. In 1937, the Supreme Court ruled that Social Security was a welfare program, like any other. That's why it was constitutional.

A retirement system was unconstitutional. There is no clause in the constitution for a retirement program.

FDRs legal team itself, argued it isn't a retirement program... and it isn't. It's an income tax, and a welfare program. Not any more connected together, than income tax and food stamps. Exactly the same thing.

There is no account with your money, nor any investments.

Your social security money, is tax. That's all. It's just a tax. It goes to pay the same things all taxes pay for. When the IRS collects your social security tax, it is sent to the same place as all other taxes go. It is given to the US government, and spent.

Some of your money goes to the military. Some to food stamps. Some to the EPA. Some to health care. And some of your money goes to pay existing Social Security recipients.

But all of that money that was collected, is spent, and gone.

It is all gone. There is no account with your name on it. There is no investment. There is no mutual fund, or assets, or anything. It is all spent, and gone.

The High Cost of Good Intentions: A History of U.S. Federal Entitlement Programs

There is no legal assets, no legal retirement savings, and you have no legal rights.

With any real retirement, you would have legal assets. When i purchase stock, I have a legal right to the asset that I purchased. It is something that I legally own.

When I purchase an investment property, I have legal ownership of that property.

When I purchase shares in a mutual fund, I have legal rights to the assets in those funds.

If someone tries to deny my access, I can take them to court, and get some, or all, the money from those assets I have legal rights to.

Not with Social Security.
Flemming v. Nestor - Wikipedia

The Supreme Court has already ruled that you have no legal right to Social Security, no matter how much you paid into it.

Which of course makes sense. Remember, Social Security was justified as just being an income tax, and welfare program, back in 1937.

So would you demand a right to have a tank? Because your tax money paid for tanks? No. No one would think that.

Well you have no more of a right to social security, than a military tank, just because you paid for both out of your income taxes. Just because we label one income tax "Income tax" and label the other income tax "Social Security Contributions" does not change the fact tha both are legally just.... income taxes.

You have no legal right to social security. It can be removed at any time. It can be cut at any time. It can be eliminate at any time. You have no legal assets, no legal claims, no legal anything. It is a welfare program, and can be cut whenever the government decides.

Social Security is broke.

Social Security is literally, 100%, broke. There are no assets in Social Security. All money that is taxed away, is spent.

There is no account with Social Security money in it. The idea that social security has treasury bonds in it, is a joke.

It would be the same as you, holding a $50 dollar bill in your left hand. Then using your right hand, to write out on a note "I owe You $50". Then replacing the $50 in your left hand, with the IOU note you yourself wrote out with your right hand.... and then saying to yourself.... ok now I have an investment.

You.... owing.... you.... money, is not an investment.

In fact, even those IOUs that Social Security "buys" are fake. They are not even real.

A real Treasury bond, has value on the open market. We call them "marketable bonds".

What that means is, if you buy a bond, and the bond matures in 10 years, but you find that you really need the money in 5 years... you can sell that bond on the open market, and get money for it. It has value. Thus, it is a "marketable bond".

The 'treasury bonds' that Social Security has, are not even real bonds. They are in fact nothing more than paper saying the government, owes the government, money.

If we all rounded up a gang, and raided the Social Security administration, stealing all the 'treasury bonds' they have... we would walk away with a few dollars worth of paper. They have zero value. They can't be sold.

Which is why if the government stops borrowing, Social Security will be cut.

A ton of people claimed that Obama was lying, back when Obama said Social Security would be cut if the government debt limit wasn't raised.

They said this, because they all still believed the complete myth, that Social Security has investments. Social Security has no investments. Obama was actually telling the truth.

If the Social Security administration seized all the assets of Social Security, and tried to sell them, they would have no money.

If people demanded a test of the "social security trust fund", and said for one month, and only one month, Social Security will collect zero tax, and get zero money from the government. We want them to simply pay out social security checks from the "trust fund". There would be ZERO.... listen.... ZERO payouts. Not one person, would get one penny.

There is no trust fund. There are no assets. All the money you paid in, is spent, and gone.

Lastly, Social Security is the absolute worst retirement possible.

If you put your money into literally ANYTHING, you will be better off than in Social Security.

In the 80s, the government allowed certain groups in Texas to opt-out of Social Security, and were allowed to put their money into private retirement funds.

The absolute worst retirement fund, ended up having a retirement more than double that of Social Security.

This is still true today. A person who works for $50,000 a year, will end up with a social security check of just barely $1,300 a month.

That's almost poverty.

But that same person who is paying $600 a month into social security, if they instead put that money into a private retirement in good growth stock mutual funds, would end up with $5 Million by retirement.

Can anyone say poverty at $1,300 a month, is better than retiring with $5 Million?

Which leads me to the last point, about incentives.

The other poster, said "People don't save, therefore need a 'forced' retirement income plan that ensures at least some security".

The sad pathetic part of this is, before there was Social Security, people saved. Public savings has dramatically fallen since the introduction of Social Security.

He's right the people do not save, but is actually looking directly at the very cause of that, as the solution. The whole reason people don't save, is because they expect government to bail them out.

Even during the decades after Social Security was created, people still had a general idea that it was their own job to pay for their retirement. But as the benefits of Social Security increased, starting in the 60s and 70s, the view changed to that of Government is going to take care of me, so I don't have to.

I have actually heard this directly to my face. I knew a lady that spent every single penny she earned. Literally paid on Friday, broke by Thursday. I confronted her on her irresponsibility and she said directly, just a few more years and she'll collect social security.

When you bailout bad behavior, you end up with more bad behavior. The whole reason we have an entire generation of irresponsible people, is because we bail out their bad choices.

And not only do we encourage bad choices, but we make it harder on everyone else to make good choices. It's harder to save up money, when almost 15% of your check is confiscated from you, to pay for other people's bad choices.

Social Security does not prevent people from ending up poor. It helps guarantee more people will be poor.

Conclusion: Truth.

Social Security is a horrible program, that dooms people to poverty, and is going to eventually have to be replaced.... or.... it will destroy this country.

At some point, now or later, we will have to replace this program, or face devastation.

We have already seen the results of denying the Truth, and living in a fantasy world. Greece is the defining example of our age.

People warned Greece over and over throughout the 1990s, that their pension system was not supportable. That their taxes were too high, that payouts from were to high, that the debts were too high.

And everyone simply refused to believe it. They said the same things we see today being said about our pension system. They said it was the best system in Europe. They said it was the best plan every conceived. They said had worked for decades. They said it was well funded.

Then the bills came due. Then truth hit the fiction. Then reality defeated the myth.

Now Greece is a devastated country, only now, a decade later, stablized.
After a decade of economic crisis, people in Greece 'don't dream anymore'

Nearly half a million Greeks have left, Bank of Greece report finds, Stratos Karakasidis | Kathimerini

And that's with half a million having fled the country.

That could be... and I suggest will be, the US unless we change our course. Only a fool thinks doing the exact same things, will have a completely different outcome.

In order to change things millions of like minded citizens would be needed to voice their concerns with their vote. I don't think that people can even articulate the problem well, though you did.
There are many other such injustices that are just carried along like baggage because we can't unload them -- one of them being income tax.
 
Upvote 0

Andrew77

The walking accident
Site Supporter
Feb 11, 2018
1,912
1,242
Ohio
✟183,616.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
In order to change things millions of like minded citizens would be needed to voice their concerns with their vote. I don't think that people can even articulate the problem well, though you did.
There are many other such injustices that are just carried along like baggage because we can't unload them -- one of them being income tax.

Agreed. But that's the only hope. Changing one mind with education, at a time. Reminds me of a guy who was comparing changing culture, to changing the direction of an oil tanker on the ocean, with that tiny little rudder. It can take hours to turn the ship. But as long as you keep that rudder slowly pushing to the side, you can change the direction of 550,000 tons.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Yeah, they can cut benefits and raise taxes, making both far worse than they already are. There are endless options to make both bad programs last far longer, and do far more damage.

Do you know how many health care provides absolutely refuse Medicaid, and Medicare?

Remember the Mayo Clinic that Obama went to, which he said was a model of quality care?

Why the Mayo Clinic is refusing to see Medicare patients

Cutting costs is a great way to make the program last longer, sure. It also makes the care you get crap. If you are ok being given crap care, then you are absolutely right. They have many options to make bad programs last longer.

People will just have to save up more for their retirement. I didn't have what I wanted to retire at 65, so I kept on working. I'm 77 and still at it, and "piling it up" for a great retirement.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: discipler7
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Terrible system at best, and far worse given they could be millionaires if they had been allowed to keep their own money.

That's a pretty big "if". I count on SS to provide about 1/3 of my retirement funds. The rest I provide from my savings and investments. If I can do it, with my limited intelligence,:confused:,anyone can (just ask anyone on the forums).
 
  • Agree
Reactions: discipler7
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Really? So you think it's in my benefit to keep me poor by taking 12.4% of my income my whole life, so that I can then live on $900 a month until I die in poverty?

You only contribute half of that figure, the other half is paid by your employer.

Again, I already said this. The whole reason Americans are not financially ready for Retirement is because the government takes their money to give them social security. They both have less money to save for retirement, and at the same time are told by vote-bribing politicians that government will take care of them.

The reason people aren't financially ready for retirement is that they don't plan and save for it. Taxes are just the "ante" everyone must pay to sit in on the game. It's actually a pretty good deal.
 
Upvote 0

Andrew77

The walking accident
Site Supporter
Feb 11, 2018
1,912
1,242
Ohio
✟183,616.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
People will just have to save up more for their retirement. I didn't have what I wanted to retire at 65, so I kept on working. I'm 77 and still at it, and "piling it up" for a great retirement.

And what exactly did you earn over your last 40 years, roughly?
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
And what exactly did you earn over your last 40 years, roughly?

That's personal, but I will reveal that my net worth at age 55 was barely $20,000, and that took 10 years to save up.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Andrew77

The walking accident
Site Supporter
Feb 11, 2018
1,912
1,242
Ohio
✟183,616.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
You only contribute half of that figure, the other half is paid by your employer.



The reason people aren't financially ready for retirement is that they don't plan and save for it. Taxes are just the "ante" everyone must pay to sit in on the game. It's actually a pretty good deal.

No, you contribute all of that. Your employers reduces your pay, to offset the cost of employing you.

All large employers do this, and generally all employers do this.

Look up "Total Cost of Employment". There are dozens of articles, and even employee cost calculators businesses use to determine how much they can pay employees. This is normal throughout the entire economy.

It's no different than if you are trying to figure out how much car or house you can buy, and considering what the taxes will be on the purchase. Same thing.

If they have to pay $3,000 into social security on your behalf, then you are paid $3,000 less a year.

Do not live in this mythology that you only pay half, and the company pays half.

Companies don't have money trees. Every single dollar the company pays out in any kind of tax, benefit, mandate, or regulation, has to come from one of two locations... the customers (us) in the form of higher prices, or the employees in the form of lower wages.

Typically the most popular way is through simply not giving out pay hikes for years on end. It's no surprise that after the tax hike of 1989, that we went almost a decade with stagnant wages. The companies were all paying more for you to be employed in taxes, so you didn't get those pay hikes.

You pay for all those taxes, all the time. Every dollar paid to employer side tax, is a dollar less in your pay check.

The reason people aren't financially ready for retirement is that they don't plan and save for it. Taxes are just the "ante" everyone must pay to sit in on the game. It's actually a pretty good deal.

You can keep saying that, but it's funny how the more people bought into social security, the fewer saved for retirement. It's funny how that just magically happened that way.

It's no surprise to me that between 1930s to 1970s, the pay out for Social Security was exceptionally low, and the personal savings rates in the US, were actually increasing.

Then the personal savings rates starting dropping in the 1970s. You know what else happened in the 1970s? The benefits for social security went up.

Coincidence? Maybe... doubt it... Seems a little too suspicious that the moment Social Security benefits increased enough that people thought the government would take care of them, that magically and mysteriously fewer and fewer people started saving for their own retirement.

And as far as saying it's a pretty good deal.... no it's not.
You can say that a million times, but the fact is, it isn't a good deal by any possible measure. Name one measure.... just one measure, that it's a good deal?

People are not even getting out of Social Security, how much they pay in. How is that a good deal? You pay me $600,000 over the course of your entire life, and I'll give you back $550,000? If I'm your investment professional, you'd fire me. You'd be better off putting your money in a plain bank savings account. But you think Social Security is better (sarcasm).

Oh, and that's if you live along enough. If you die, you lose it. That's a good deal? Compared to what? I put my money in a bank, and if I die, it goes to my relatives or a charity of my choosing, or whatever I put in my will to be done with it. You die, you lose it. That's better... yeah...

If I buy $600,000 in stock, I'll be a multimillionaire when I retire. If you "buy" $600,000 in social security, you'll end up with $1,300 a month until you die. That's a good deal? Compared to what?

Even if you buy US bonds outside of Social Security, you'll double your money, and if you die, all of it will go to your spouse or grand kids, or whatever.

But Social Security is good deal compared to that? Don't lie. Your lies are not believable. And it is a lie. There is absolutely no possible way, not one single measure you can cite, that this is a 'good deal'.'

No, it not a "pretty good deal" compared to ANYTHING.
 
Upvote 0

Andrew77

The walking accident
Site Supporter
Feb 11, 2018
1,912
1,242
Ohio
✟183,616.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
That's personal, but I will reveal that my net worth at age 55 was barely $20,000, and that took 10 years to save up.

Oh good grief. I'm 40 years old, and last year I got over $20,000 a year for the first time in my entire life. I made.... $25,000 for the year. This year isn't looking good.

Ironically, I have thousands in an Roth IRA. When the market crashed, I started dumping money into it. Smart move on my part.

I also have a 401K, but I have no idea how much is in there, because I don't pay attention to it. I'm sure I'll find out when I am fired or quit this job.

I think real reason you won't tell me how much money you've made yearly on average, is because you don't want to know how many millions you would have right now, if your Social Security sink hole money was put into something worth while.

I've been working since I was 18. I've made about $20K a year, every single year since then.

That means I have been paying $200 a month into social security, since age 18. I'm now 40.

I would have $250,000 in retirement right now, if I could actually have my own money.

Instead, at this rate, my retirement will be $800 a month from Socialist Insecurity.

Thankfully I'm not stupid enough to think that's a good deal, and I'm taking steps to save as much as I can. Too bad others think it's a "good deal" to lock me into poverty..... Thanks a ton.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: discipler7
Upvote 0

Vylo

Stick with the King!
Aug 3, 2003
24,768
7,823
44
New Jersey
✟212,969.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Social security should have the option to privatize investments, but default to an fund called "social security" that functions like it does today. You should be able to manage it just like I manage my own funds.

There should be an obligation to see a fiduciary free of charge before you can opt into private accounts, and I would probably support an automatic transfer and lock into the standard SS at a certain age (say 60), to protect investments.
 
Upvote 0

Andrew77

The walking accident
Site Supporter
Feb 11, 2018
1,912
1,242
Ohio
✟183,616.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
That's a pretty big "if". I count on SS to provide about 1/3 of my retirement funds. The rest I provide from my savings and investments. If I can do it, with my limited intelligence,:confused:,anyone can (just ask anyone on the forums).

That's not a big if. Finding good investments isn't difficult. I've doubled my money in a matter of a few years. All that it required was to check their history, setup a monthly draft from my account, and then let it go. Not a big if.
 
Upvote 0

Vylo

Stick with the King!
Aug 3, 2003
24,768
7,823
44
New Jersey
✟212,969.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
That's not a big if. Finding good investments isn't difficult. I've doubled my money in a matter of a few years. All that it required was to check their history, setup a monthly draft from my account, and then let it go. Not a big if.
Same here. If you can find the right funds and ride them out, you will make money.
 
Upvote 0

Andrew77

The walking accident
Site Supporter
Feb 11, 2018
1,912
1,242
Ohio
✟183,616.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Social security should have the option to privatize investments, but default to an fund called "social security" that functions like it does today. You should be able to manage it just like I manage my own funds.

There should be an obligation to see a fiduciary free of charge before you can opt into private accounts, and I would probably support an automatic transfer and lock into the standard SS at a certain age (say 60), to protect investments.

I was with you until that last part of locking into the standard SS at a certain age.

What do you mean by that? For what purpose?

If I spent so much time and effort saving up, why would I then turn over my money to the government, when the whole reason for privatizing is because they are incompetent?
 
Upvote 0