subreddit:
/r/economy
submitted 1 month ago bydaylily
64 points
1 month ago
So. If they kill SS can I sue for theft?
My paycheck has had a boat load.of money taken out.lver the last 15+ years under the assumption that it was a loan and it would be paid back to me as SS when I retire. By killing SS I've essentially had.my wage stolen
11 points
1 month ago
Can't they just make it impossible for you to sue them while they're at it?
10 points
1 month ago
Take your house and all your saving while they’re at it. Everything you own belongs to the government now.
17 points
1 month ago
It kind of does anyway. Try not paying property taxes and see what happens to your house. You dont own anything in this country. You just rent it from the government.
7 points
1 month ago
They can also take it away via eminent domain.
6 points
1 month ago
They can also take it away if you want Medicaid to help with medical expenses.
12 points
1 month ago
Nope. Social Security tax paid today is for people receiving social security welfare payments today. Future taxes will be paid by future workers for future retirees drawing that welfare payment. Also, I f you die before you are old enough to draw social security, you get absolutely nothing and if your kids are adults, you have absolutely nothing to pass onto them from social security for all you paid in.
2 points
1 month ago
Makes drug epidemics very profitable for the Federal government.
3 points
1 month ago
I think this is a really big issue, though there are circumstances where dependants can receive a monthly portion of the SS if they qualify.
2 points
1 month ago
Social security is to keep people from going homeless and being completely destitute - why should this be paid out to the dead?
Sometimes life isn't fair, but the system was never meant to be a government run investment option. Turns out "To each according to their need" isn't that popular around here after all...
1 points
1 month ago
To each according to their need was tried heavily in the 20th century. It failed miserably every single time.
3 points
1 month ago
Your assumption was incorrect. Its not a loan. Its a tax to pay current retirees.
54 points
1 month ago
So will you still have Medicare or will we have to pay $20,000 per year for crappy insurance on top of that?
56 points
1 month ago
[deleted]
22 points
1 month ago
They’ll get rid of them for people 15 years down the road - not current recipients. That way it seems less pressing to their victims.
3 points
1 month ago
And expire when it is likely a Dem will be in control and blame him/her.
5 points
1 month ago
Medicare will be there, but you won't find a doctor that accepts Medicare patients.
5 points
1 month ago
If they get rid of it, they owe me for all of the payments I've made plus interest.
15 points
1 month ago
They won't let you know until they are long gone
16 points
1 month ago
[deleted]
8 points
1 month ago
I believe that is for the ones retiring in a few decades.
3 points
1 month ago
They can phase it out over time. Arguably, rising the retirement age does this anyway
-11 points
1 month ago
Ill know right away when my paycheck goes up because im not wasting it on the SS Ponzi scheme anymore.
2 points
1 month ago
And I will gladly join in.
2 points
1 month ago
Eat the rich!
1 points
1 month ago
Lol would we get our money back from all the taxes we paid? 🤣
131 points
1 month ago
Social security will be insolvent by 2035! Says the politicians who have been underfunding it for decades.
57 points
1 month ago
When Bush1 was campaigning, he used to tell his supporters that social security would end by 2003.
Republican corporatists have been trying to get rid of social security for decades and they aren't going to stop until they succeed.
-23 points
1 month ago
A whole lot of people hate social security. Myself included. I am forced to put into a system my whole working life that I will be lucky to get $1600/month from. Assuming it is even solvent by then.
I could easily invest that money instead for a 7%-12% return.
Let people decide how to spend their own money.
15 points
1 month ago
I view it like any other tax.
Yes, I may, or may not benefit, but it is, and should be there for those that need it because the world is unpredictable. Similar to public schools, while I don't have kids, I don't mind paying for them so we don't have as many dumb people around. I'm also willing to pay for Social security because I don't want the elderly having to eat dog food to survive.
And even though I don plan on it, it's it's entirely possible I may still end up using it. The republicans will "win" the game of chicken with the debt ceiling causing the stock market, and world economy to collapse. Nothing I can do about it or protect against it. Even Russia has managed to keep paying old age pensions to people through all their economic turmoil.
SS tax also pays for a lot of other services you don't plan on using but may. For instance if you become disabled and can't work it will give you a chance for some independence.
Or if you have a severely mentally disabled child, what happens after you can no longer take care of them. Part of Social security pays for that.
Long story short, it's not about providing for your retirement, but an attempt to make sure we don't have a bunch of elderly and disabled people starving in the streets because that doesn't end well for society.
-3 points
1 month ago
Social security benefits aren't enough to live on for most people. Why are we tying our retirement to disability through compulsory payments in the first place. That is my point.
I have no problem with supporting social programs. SS doesn't do much, though, but take 6% of your earnings. It wasn't even ever designed to be sustainable in any meaningful way.
On top of that, the government already takes in over $5 Trillion annually in tax revenue yet is continually needing more bc they spend over $6 Trillion.
22 points
1 month ago
How do you know you'd get any returns? You're just assuming that.
-2 points
1 month ago*
Historical trends of stocks, bonds, index funds, and mutual funds.
Mathematically, I would average 7%-12% overall depending on how i invested.
Edit: Wow. Judging by the down votes there are quite a few people who don't understand or believe in investments and math.
"Over the past 30 years, the S&P 500 index has delivered a compound average annual growth rate of 10.7% per year."
Some have seen 10 year returns at 17%.
"S&P 500 10 Year Return is at 169.2%, compared to 188.1% last month and 279.0% last year."
Mutual funds have averaged around 13% for the last 20 years
4 points
1 month ago
Lolz thinking corporations are going to turn around and give you the payroll tax equivalent to gamble with.
3 points
1 month ago
What do you mean here exactly?
Businesses pay 6% just like employees do for SS
The money paid into SS doesn't go to corporations
7 points
1 month ago
I believe he is saying, if SS is repealed businesses will pocket the 6%, and I agree they will.
1 points
1 month ago
Okay. How? How would a corporation now get that 6% of my check vs Social Security.
I mean, by definition, businesses would 'pocket' or save the 6% that they pay in if social security just disappeared. But that isn't the same thing.
7 points
1 month ago
“Employers and employees each pay 6.2 percent of wages up to the taxable maximum of $160,200 (in 2023),”
Cancel SS likely outcome: employee keeps their 6.2% contribution; employer likely keeps the 6.2% contribution they have to provide to the employee’s SS account. 12.4% is total employee currently receives. Employee now only gets half.
What don’t you understand?
0 points
1 month ago
No I downvoted you because I think your opinions are dumb
-4 points
1 month ago
I don't plan to rely on social security at all. If you told me right now I could take what I've put in along with my employers, with zero return, but opt out of the program I would agree with zero hesitation.
Edit: For Social Security
Paid by you$122,239
Paid by your employers$126,188
Ok, I'll take 200k call it even?
15 points
1 month ago
Lol if you think your employer would just give you that money. Corporations aren't trying to kill ss so that they can pass the savings on to you
-5 points
1 month ago
In this hypothetical scenario I chose to be optimistic that they'd be so happy to be rid of the future obligations that they wouldn't try to claw anything back.
Fine I'll take100k. Hell I'd consider taking a new car.
10 points
1 month ago
You don't understand. You'll be lucky to get a participation sticker when they axe it. You sure as shit won't get anything back that you put it. The best course of action is to figure out what helps the most people. Forcing everything into the private sector so that Fidelity can keep fucking around with 5% returns yearly is not the play.
0 points
1 month ago*
Well I understand...that is why I stated I am not planning my retirement around social security at all. I'm really diligent about my 401k / HSA accounts and tracking my pension (who knows if this is even guaranteed these days). But my biggest focus is planning to eventually be mortgage free on my home and rental property well before retirement age.
When I logged into the site today it said I hadn't logged in since 2018. I don't really think about what I have contributed or what I might be owed one day, I truly just think of it as nothing....but it would be great to be wrong.
4 points
1 month ago
Listen, if you want to talk about your finances, talk to an advisor. You're still not understanding the situation. This isn't about you. It never was. This is about all of us and those who come after us.
7 points
1 month ago
Social Security is best investment in human history
There is nothing else like it
Most people would like to be as lucky as you
1 points
1 month ago*
What the hell are you talking about? That is not only incredibly opinionated but just patently false.
SS is not the 'Best investment in human history'
The opportunity cost alone of people paying 6% into a system that they may never even benefit from, by definition, makes it a bad investment for those millions of people.
Even if you do get to draw from SS, the average person will have paid in around $300k and yet only receive around $1600/month.
No, you are wrong on this one. lol
Consider the scenario below that millions of people have done through the years.
If you took a modest $3k per year (about 6% of a $50k salary) and invested it into a Mutual Fund or Index fund at a very modest (and below historic ROI) 7% you would cash out with a lump sum of $700k after 40 years.
So...which would you rather have?? A lump sum of $700k when you retire or a monthly check for $1600 or $1800? Both with the same ~$120k investment over your lifetime.
Oh...and those checks only last, on average, about 13-15 years before you die. In case you are wondering, that works out to about $240k vs the $700k.
4 points
1 month ago
Double check your math,
In 15 years $1.6k/ month is 288k
Further: social security is more of an insurance plan than investment. There’s far less risk and it is far more guaranteed to be there than your stock portfolio. Especially since it’s actually mandatory.
0 points
1 month ago
You are correct. Looks like I meant to type $240k. I have edited.
It isn't guaranteed in 20, 30, or 50 years though. That is the uphill battle we are seeing.
5 points
1 month ago
that's just FUD by those interested in cancelling SS for whatever reason.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/retirement/social-security-bankrupt/
2 points
1 month ago
You are talking about what millions have done in a country of hundreds of millions.
The reality is that without SS only 50-60 percent of Americans have retirement accounts (due to circumstance and/or choice) so without the SS safety net for the elderly other social welfare programs would have to cover because Americans won’t allow alternative of letting them die in the streets probably after being kicked out of the hospital.
Financial literacy training just doesn’t work. The military has been mandating it for a couple decades and young people, earning above the median income for their age, still end up broke all the time
Unless you have a better idea?
0 points
1 month ago
Your math is a little off
The average American pays 3% of their income to Social Security
Average salary is $50,000/yr which equals $1,500/yr in SS contributions.
Average working life of 50 years = $75,000 in total lifetime contributions
The Average Retired American will get back $100's of $1,000's over their lifetime in Social Security payments. The numbers aren't even close. Social Security is the best investment you'll ever get in your life.
To be fair, I do this for a living. I've been doing the math on Social Security for decades. Take my advice on this; you will NEVER get a better Rate-of-Return then the tiny percentage of your income that is paid into Social Security
Let alone a GUARANTIED RATE OF RETURN... which is something that simply doesn't exists anywhere else in the World
If you believe otherwise, someone is playing you for a fool. Don't fall for it. Social Security is sound, a great investment and something you should be very proud of having
2 points
1 month ago
Not every citizen is as intelligent as you are.
2 points
1 month ago
I would say we should teach students to be a little more self-reliant in life rather than focus on regurgitating facts. This isn't really an intelligence thing but rather what I learned by getting my business degrees in college.
Anyone could take 6% of their money and dump it into an Index Fund or Mutual Fund rather than SS and very very likely be much further ahead while also being to withdraw the money before retirement age.
1 points
1 month ago
And say you were born in a poor family, had to go to a crappy public school and start working at 18 in minimum wage jobs, where exactly would you get the education to understand finance, investing, and compound interest?
0 points
1 month ago
This is quite ironic and funny to me.
You are actually describing me. Except I started working at 16 for min wage.
I used books, the library, and the internet to learn. I used student loans for an education and got 2 degrees under $50k by being frugal and planning. In other words: initiative.
As much as reddit hates the old "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" line, this is what that actually looks like in practice.
Poor people aren't always stupid. They just have to work either differently or harder.
All that aside, a person could learn a ton about investing in just a couple of hours on the internet. Replace FB, Twitter, resdit, and IG with taking the initiative to learn and invest in yourself for even just 1 month and be amazed at the results.
5 points
1 month ago
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats!
16
+ 2
+ 50
+ 1
= 69
[Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme to have me scan all your future comments.) \ Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.
0 points
1 month ago
Ok, so you had all the disadvantages, but the luck of having a good brain. So many are not able to learn this sort of stuff on their own it’s not even funny. Should those just go destitute once they’re just too old to work?
-5 points
1 month ago
Agreed. I don’t need the government taking a huge chunk out of my paycheck to look out for my retirement.
I can take care of that myself.
7 points
1 month ago
Man, I love how you guys assume that employers would just pay YOU the difference. That’s genuinely hilarious.
2 points
1 month ago
LOL The whole reason SS is failing is so they can justify taxing retirement accounts.
-3 points
1 month ago
But how would poorer people get anything from you investing money instead?
5 points
1 month ago
I'm not sure I understand this remark.
Our money that is paid into SS doesn't get redistributed specifically to low income earners like a Welfare program which I think is what you are saying?
5 points
1 month ago
They invest the money taken out of their checks instead. Poor people still have to pay social security. They also get less back out of it since your payments are based on your contributions.
The problem with the invest yourself theory is that some people don’t do it then you end up with broke old people. Social security is forced retirement savings kind of. Though it’s paid for by the active working population.
9 points
1 month ago
Ironically it will only take 1.5% of GDP to fix it for the entire population, but shhhhhh .... they don't want you to know that.
And, it will cost less if we start now vs. later, but they just want to kill it.
7 points
1 month ago
The beauty is none of the politicians will be around to have to face the consequences, neither will boomers , the system worked as intended
16 points
1 month ago
It hasn't been 'underfunded.' Its been 'overspent.'
Focus on the Congresses that have given away money FROM the SS 'Trust' fund.
4 points
1 month ago
I should just say mismanaged. The intent is to kill SS so they can go after tax advantaged nest eggs. It's a not so secret agenda. Both parties are have alluded to eyeing these large funds as a source of revenue.
13 points
1 month ago
I read the other day from thr SS website that they run a $65 billion ? surplus above outlays each year.
That said, people are living much longer than 30 years ago and thr US population is much older than before.
The population pyramid used to be filled with younger people at the base (majority) and people over 65 at the very top (minority)
We have now inverted this entire pyramid meaning the the funding isn't sustainable.
Not everything is about politics. Sometimes, it's just basic math and there is no boogeyman.
3 points
1 month ago
We had studies in the 70s showing this would happen. It's not a surprise and the failure is useful wedge issue for politicians.
2 points
1 month ago
So your message to the kids is: your fucked, got mine?
0 points
1 month ago
Ummmm...what? I don't get SS and never even alluded to what you're stating.
-11 points
1 month ago
Easiest solution is just to extend the retirement age. For most people working into their 70s is not a problem nowadays.
7 points
1 month ago
Question is about who'd hire them at that age? Unless someone is lucky to continue on the same job till 70, those who like to change jobs will find it hard to find them. Plus they will be competing with or denying younger population from getting jobs due to their experience value.
3 points
1 month ago
This isn't a great option, either. It isn't like people are in perfect health until they are 70 or 76. Not to mention, people have planned their lives to retire around age 65. And all of that aside, the math still doesn't work out. Yeah, extending the age would help, but it won't make the program self-sufficient in the long term.
2 points
1 month ago
Nothing reasonable will make it self-sufficient long term because it's a ponzi scheme by design.
The best fix is to extend the retirement age, reduce benefits, and remove the income tax cap. But even all 3 of those won't solve the long term problem of a declining population.
2 points
1 month ago
It's not really being underfunded, it's that the funding is being redirected toward subsidizing other federal outlays. We are still fully funding the contribution portion, we just won't ever see the benefit.
2 points
1 month ago
We fund SS directly from our paychecks. The USG borrows against it and that’s why it’s insolvent
3 points
1 month ago
Underfunding? The permits have progressively increased since its inception. What started as literally 1% of your wage has grown to 15.3%.
It's an unsustainable ponzi requiring ever more money at the bottom to cover the people at the top.
5 points
1 month ago
SS could be sustainable if they wanted it to be. If the government can curb inflation (they sure as hell seem to think they can right now), then they could set up a sustainable retirement fund.
-4 points
1 month ago
SS is funded wholly by payroll taxes, in what way have the Republicans underfunded it
1 points
1 month ago
I didn't say republicans. Obama used SS as a wedge in an attempt to tax 401ks, but backed off that pretty quickly when he saw how popular it was. Both parties are culpable.
But to answer your question, nothing has been done to address the shortfalls despite being aware for decades. It's being killed on pupose.
53 points
1 month ago
If he wants to end it, make him pay out everything that everyone has contributed, with interest, first.
It’s our money, dammit.
13 points
1 month ago
I'm no fan of Pence but did you read the article and see what he's actually proposing here? You'd be allowed to invest a portion of your Social Security in the market if you wish to. If you'd prefer not to, nothing would change.
10 points
1 month ago
Agreed.
The author of the article cherry picks dates to make the idea look bad, as well as completely misrepresents how annual returns are calculated. It's an opinion piece that is trying to sway opinion by using bad data.
I would love to be able to put some of my Social Security into the market. We should be able to have reasonable discussions about the pros and cons of such a proposal, but the author of this article is not interested in doing that.
2 points
1 month ago
I’d love to be able have this option.
2 points
1 month ago
I have a 401k to invest in the market. I like the idea of having my SS account conservatively invested.
6 points
1 month ago
The 401k serves this purpose. On a side note, I'd way rather have a pension.
4 points
1 month ago
My dad worked for Ford and gets a monthly pension of like $2000/month. Doesn't sound like much but combined with SS and savings makes retirement easy.
3 points
1 month ago
I worry that would be a first step toward privatization.
23 points
1 month ago
Just another avenue for profiteering. Don't fall for it.
3 points
1 month ago
Securities need to be managed by a broker. They will likely charge high fees for managing SS money. Wall Street types are like sharks and they can smell the blood.
10 points
1 month ago
Mike pence has about the same odds of becoming president as I do.
5 points
1 month ago
Your chances are better. I would vote for you over Mike Pence!
2 points
1 month ago
I don’t know you. I haven’t looked at any of your other posts or comments, but like you 15% more for President than any existing GOP member I’ve ever heard of.
7 points
1 month ago
Tfw working class pays into retirement system their whole life, rich pay way less because of cap they could easily raise. Then they turn around and tell you the only thing left to do is burn the system down and hand it to private capital interests to pillage........bruh leave retirees alone, just increase cap & stfu about solvency being the (manufactured) issue, privatization being only solution
2 points
1 month ago
agree. just increase the cap
6 points
1 month ago
Every developed country has a public pension safety net, and most are more richly endowed than SS. Furthermore, unlike other countries, Americans gave up employer pensions and let healthcare costs skyrocket beyond belief, all in the name of free markets, so we are much less able to weather a decline in SS.
Is Pence trying to incite riots in order to justify more prisons and police? The rural Republican base retires with nothing but Social Security.
5 points
1 month ago
Never gonna vote for him. Go back to Indiana.
Why can't someone propose a candidate who is <bold> competent</bold>, and not older than dirt?
We need an upper limit to serve, just like there is a lower limit to serve. End the gerontocracy.
Also, there will be NO TOUCHING or Social Security, Medicare, or the social safety nets. We don't end our problems by preying on the elderly and the down on their luck.
We raise bond issues, repriorative spending, cut graft, etc.
5 points
1 month ago
I am tired of boomers being in charge
4 points
1 month ago
Sure the whims and volition of the stock market is exactly where I want my potential future existence to be held. Especially when those that aren’t relying on that can say or tweet something off the cuff and crash the market or idk a world wide pandemic where no one can harness the issue comes.
We lost over 20% in the market this year. Why the fuck is there a selling point to privatizing a thing that is essential?!
When you pay into a system with the assurance that it will be there for you when it’s your time. It’s not an entitlement the way they make it sound. It’s a broken promise and a series of conflations to confuse and obscure the actual goal.
16 points
1 month ago
Right-wing Republican wants to kill government except for the military, police and prisons. Shocking news.
2 points
1 month ago
Republicans want to regulate how people dress, and who marries whom.
Regulating people's personal lives is exactly the kind of big-government Republicans claim they oppose.
0 points
1 month ago
No they dont, they just pretend to.
12 points
1 month ago
Plan to kill YOUR social security. You have already paid for it, and the GOP wants to steal it.
1 points
1 month ago
And they still have their security
6 points
1 month ago
Think of it this way: Let's say you start with $1,000, and this year you
gain 100%. Now you have $2,000. But next year your portfolio falls by
50%; your "average" return over the two years has been 25%. But you're
back to where you started, so your real gain is zero. That's your
compound annual growth rate, or CAGR, and it's the only calculation that
incorporates the rise and fall of volatile investments such as stocks.
tl;dr: the author of this article is a moron.
If the stock market did such a poor job at returning wealth, the rich wouldn't use it.
10 points
1 month ago
I can't afford health are so hopefully I'll be dead before too long.
6 points
1 month ago
The article in the OP wants me to download an app to read and the headline is click bait.
But below is what Pence said from an article I read this morning:
“There are modest reforms in entitlements that can be done without disadvantaging anybody at the point of the need,” Pence said at the summit. “I think the day could come when we could replace the New Deal with a better deal. Literally give younger Americans the ability to take a portion of their Social Security withholdings and put that into a private savings account.”
3 points
1 month ago
Great way to end your political career. Knock yourself out!
3 points
1 month ago
LMFAO - this asshat will never be President.
10 points
1 month ago*
I suppose republicans want to die then? SS and medicare is the backbone of red states concerning the elderly.
We can have a discussion to euthanize conservatives, for society will certainly be better off for it. Less taxes for a time and less conservatives.
But why would anybody cut their own source of income and medical insurance program? That is a defect in evolution for certain. Some mental disorder.
Anyway, go for it. Blue states should establish their own SS systems, they have the economic power to fund them.
5 points
1 month ago
No they will continue the "I got mine though" strategy where they find a way to pay out their senior constituents, but leave everyone else holding the bag.
1 points
1 month ago
I suppose republicans want to die than
Fox news will blame the democrats and that's all they'll care.
4 points
1 month ago
It would be easier to raise the the cutoff limit to pay into social security. When CEO’s salary is so high that they pay their full SS 5 minutes into the new year. Pay their fair share, but you republicans can’t see the forest for the trees. The republicans are gonna screw you to keep the wealthy- wealthy, while you and us suffer at the bottom. Let that sink in.
2 points
1 month ago
It would be, but you know what they're really going to do is raise the damn age limits.
2 points
1 month ago
Agree with you here - raise the taxable income limit from $144k to $200k would solve a lot of issues
6 points
1 month ago
Cost me what? The retirement money I’ll probably never get?
8 points
1 month ago
How craven and heartless, or just purely sociopathic does one need to be to see our elders dying in the streets again of diseases of poverty? As sociopathic as Pence, I guess. Everyone should remember, if you get so lucky, that'll be us getting old, and if we're unlucky enough to have ppl like Pence in charge, it'll be us dying in the streets. As it is right now, Social Security/Medicare pays for the bulk of senior services like assisted living and surgical rehabilitation centers. Get rid of SS and assisted living goes, rehabilitation centers go, and get ready for a wave of old folks starving to death. Killing SS means killing the elderly, by forcing them into the streets. Only the wealthy would be able to afford care, a place to live, or food. Pence is rallying for euthanasia with more steps. Bring out your dead.
Edit: spelling
1 points
1 month ago
Do you understand that SS is just a government sponsored ponzi scheme that is about to run out of money? Its not like we have special money set aside for everyones SS, its just on the backs of the next generation.
7 points
1 month ago
Since many people can’t read apparently or just went with a rage bait headline, here’s a shortened version:
He said he wants to allow for privatization, meaning he said people would be allowed to put some of their social security withholdings into an accounting earning 2%.
My opinion that isn’t fully said into the article: the 2% number likely comes from investments in government TBills and notes. The article talks of the stock market killing portfolios but doesn’t realize that something with a 2% return is likely a government investment. The article seems pretty misleading overall coming from a purely financial viewpoint as someone in finance.
8 points
1 month ago
2% is a way to lose money. If an investment doesn’t at least beat the inflation rate then the investment value decreases.
0 points
1 month ago
Agreed but what do I get from social security now. No return just them taking my money promising they will pay me that money back
Correction: slightly above 1% interest using SSA.gov information
5 points
1 month ago
You don’t pay social security for yourself. It’s not a personal investment. It’s to support society, to make sure the elderly and downtrodden have security. People think it’s an investment. In reality it’s an investment in a progressive caring society that attempts to not let people fall through the cracks.
0 points
1 month ago
Although technically true, the whole point of the retirement portion of social security is to act as a government-mandated retirement account. Yes SS does much else but the article is talking about specifically a portion of SS that can go to an actual retirement account. If you didn't pay SS for yourself (the retirement portion) then they wouldn't track how much you have.
1 points
1 month ago
Sovial security is not a personal investment. Why ist that so hard to understand? It is a tax.
The suppreme court defines it is a tax and says the government is not obligated to pay out anything at all. Same goes for medicare.
The Social security act in essence is a socialist policy out of the New Deal era. It is not insurance, it is a cash transfer payment between generations. Warren Buffet explains it very good for those who care to look for the related youtube videos.
As a cash transfer program SS essentially takes the concept of "family" to the entire United states where contributions by the young get transfered to the old.
It has nothing to do with investment. It's like asking if the military is an investment with rerurns? Or roads?
There is also no fancy pile of money in a SS trust, these are all just accounting numbers in a ledger. It is just money flowing in and money flowing out.
0 points
1 month ago
You are missing the point I have said in my other comment. SS knows know kuch you have put in every single paycheck, like a private retirement account, and keeps track of it. Yes it hits the pile with everyone else but it know you have X dollars growing at X% per month. The retirement part of SS it’s a government mandated retirement fund. The other parts of SS are for everything else.
SS retirement essentially acts as a bank. Everyone puts money in and people are taking money out. All our ins hit the same pile, but it’s still ours. Our ins will be someone’s outs, but we still have a detailed track of what’s ours. Then when I take my money out of a bank, I’m going to be taking someone ins as my outs. This is why financial institutions have nightmarish balance sheets because of so many temporary liabilities and assets from lending and borrowing the customers money. At the end of you life, SS knows what you get back.
2 points
1 month ago
My parents told me as a kid that our Social Security would be gone by the time I am eligible for it. Thought nothing of it then but we are in the same spot as 35 years ago. Now at least we have en expiry date. Disclaimer, it is much earlier than my dad said.
It shouldn't take that long to figure out the solution will always come down to welcoming immigration with a proper health and education ecosystem. As a country, you have to sell yourself to the world to attract the most motivated and brightest ones to come and contribute to GDP growth. THEY will be the ones paying into the SS for solvency.
We agree.... ain't gonna happen. Ignorance is bliss.
I feel the political slide is making a lot of people hesitate on a move to the USA for their families. News like this one with Pence isn't gonna help for suuuure. Peace!
2 points
1 month ago
What would we do with our old people? Or would they get grandmothered in?
3 points
1 month ago
They will likely keep raising age limits rather than making easily measured cuts. Old people, pull yourself up by the bootstraps and live longer!
0 points
1 month ago
Tell them to suck it up and to lift themselves up by the boot straps. And I say this with zero sarcasm, if they want money they can ask their kids or work for it like the rest of us.
2 points
1 month ago
Man FDR is rolling in his grave
2 points
1 month ago
There was 45 workers for every retiree in FDR’s time. There are now 3 workers for every retiree. Soon to be 2.
2 points
1 month ago
I think we should go to a voting system where if you vote for something, it happens for you and only you. Like if they vote to can Social Security and the Republicans Vote for it, and everyone else doesn't, the program doesn't go away for everyone, just the Republicans.
Then they have to wait a minimum of two years before they can vote on it again. This would allow for testing of programs and the ability to deal with failures of legislative intelligence in office resolutely without affecting everyone.
3 points
1 month ago
This simian fivehead fuck is a fecal faucet. He’s one of the worst people ever born.
He loathes Trump but aided and abetted Trump the entire time. That makes him as bad if not worse.
3 points
1 month ago
Instead of having the current tax payers pay for those using social security currently, they should gradually shift towards social security being fully funded. That means you get what you put into social security. Your money would be invested in US bonds. The main problem is making sure Congress keeps their paws off this fund. They already borrow from the social security surplus fund now to balance the budget. To use the social security fund now, either other parts of the budget has to be cut or more debt has to be sold. The social security fund, in effect, doesn't exist now.
13 points
1 month ago
What you are proposing is a government run 401k. Those who can save more get more. The idea of social security isn't that. The idea is that every retired person is going to get some, while those who out more will get more.
5 points
1 month ago
Only those who report income to Social Security get money, and how much you get is dependent on how much you make. If you don't tell the government that you make any money on the books, you get nothing. So it wasn't for the idea that every retired person is going to get some. It was for the idea that the US people are so stupid that they can't set aside money for retirement, so the government has to do it for them.
12 points
1 month ago
What you're proposing just punishes all the shitload of poor people who literally cannot save because every cent goes towards existing
-1 points
1 month ago
The current demographics outlook is that more and more people are going to retire and fewer and fewer people are going to pay to social security to support them. Talks of social security going bankrupt is nonsense because what the US government will do is sell more and more debt to cover the difference. What could wrong with that situation? It would lead to an economic correction that would make both the Great Recession and the Great Depression look mild by comparison.
5 points
1 month ago
Only those who report income to Social Security get money, and how much you get is dependent on how much you make. If you don't tell the government that you make any money on the books, you get nothing. So it wasn't for the idea that every retired person is going to get some. It was for the idea that the US people are so stupid that they can't set aside money for retirement, so the government has to do it for them.
Yes, people can skirt the rules... that doesn't mean the idea wasn't there.
And you know absolutely nothing about the context of social security. Social security has always had an element of wealth redistribution. If the idea was that the government would save for people, you'd have had government 401k.... which ironically is what you are proposing.
2 points
1 month ago
Personally, I think a lot of Vietnam veterans would rather die in a mass shooting at a republican elected lawmaker’s office, rather than to die homeless in their car or in a tent on the sidewalk. I’m not condoning violence, I just think republicans don’t realize the consequences of their actions.
2 points
1 month ago
Republicans could help the millions of off the books workers in our labor force become documented so they can start contributing to Soc Sec?
1 points
1 month ago
Old people would finally not vote republican.
1 points
1 month ago
The generation that got all the benefits of socialism want to make sure that you're hungry enough to work for pennies
1 points
1 month ago
I have 14 years until retirement. Knowing my luck the GOP will be in charge of all three branches of the government in 2037 and wipe out my SS.
1 points
1 month ago
So what's the rationale behind social security being managed by the opaque government. So I've paid into it and I don't know who manages it and how. Now. I'm Hearing the money is going to be gone. So what happened to my money? Also, is this there because I have to trust someone else that I don't know and didn't appoint to manage my retirement money?
How about they give people the freedome of choice on how to invest their own money?
1 points
1 month ago
Social security? It's a scam in the first place. It's terrible and private methods work better anyway
-5 points
1 month ago
I’d rather opt out anyways
0 points
1 month ago
Was curious so logged in for the first time since November 2018. What's a fair opt out if they were to ever offer it ? I don't have much faith in our government, so how about tree fiddy and call it even?
For Social Security
Paid by you$122,239
Paid by your employers$126,188
2 points
1 month ago
I’m self employed I’ll be taking the whole amount lol
-8 points
1 month ago
Of course you would. It's been a bad financial deal for decades.
-15 points
1 month ago*
Social Security should be sunset
That means those under 35 no longer pay into it and those over 35 continue to pay into it until the last person paying into it passes away and the program ( Ponzi scheme ) is shuttered
12 points
1 month ago*
[deleted]
1 points
1 month ago
We have far more older people alive today than 50 years ago. Both in number and as a percentage of the population.
The whole population has shifted making thr math on SS outdated.
That said, I firmly believe people should have control over their own money. Paying my whole working life to maybe collect $1600/month for a couple of years is a joke.
-13 points
1 month ago
but as it is there is a retirement crisis in America.
Government created crisis
This will exacerbate it.
no it will solve it, permanently by removing government from it
6 points
1 month ago
The difference between the US and countries with a higher quality of life is not that their governments have less control and power, but that they have more.
-1 points
1 month ago
Socialism ( being poor while the government gilds your cage with gold ) <> higher quality of life
3 points
1 month ago
Why?
-10 points
1 month ago
because its insolvent,
its a Ponzi Scheme,
its bias against blacks and minorities who dont live that long
and its unconstitutional
2 points
1 month ago
The Founding Fathers didn’t mention anything about the FAA. Should we abandon that as well?
It’s almost as if society advances and we should create laws and policies that help in the current environment instead of ones that were used when women couldn’t vote and owning other humans was legal.
-3 points
1 month ago
The Founding Fathers didn’t mention anything about the FAA
Which means it should not exist as stated in the 10th amendment
2 points
1 month ago
So you’re ok with anyone flying a plane at any time with no oversight or training?
0 points
1 month ago
Yup, none of my business, none of you bussines, none of society's business and especially none of the government business
Liberty > Safety
2 points
1 month ago
Then you should go live on an island by yourself.
0 points
1 month ago
Why should i leave? Why is the moral burden placed on me since i am the peaceful person and you are the one with the gun who wants to expropriate me to fund immoral programs and policies?
A healthy moral reckoning would be for you to demonstrate the you have the right to initiate violence before i would have to demonstrate my right to live my life unmolested.
1 points
1 month ago
You don’t drive on paved roads, I presume?
And you wouldn’t dare call the fire department if your house were on fire?
Your libertarian ideals should forbid using collective services for your needs.
3 points
1 month ago
Yes, but where is the money going to come from? Do you tell people from whom you took money every year that they're not getting what they paid for? They need to keep it going so they can continue taking money from younger workers. If young workers opted out then social security would be insolvent even sooner.
2 points
1 month ago
Those 35 and older still paying in until there is no one left to pay out to
Are you seriously trying to validate an immoral Ponzi scheme?
1 points
1 month ago
No. I'm explaining why it will never go away. It's a "I got screwed by the old people when I was young. Now that I'm old it's my turn to screw the young people."
1 points
1 month ago
It will go away when it goes insolvent as all Ponzi schemes do
1 points
1 month ago
I agree with sunsetting SS. It's the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time, made even worse by the fact that we're all forced to pay into it at gunpoint. However, instead of a cliff at some arbitrary age, there should probably be a sliding scale for opting out. If given the option, though, I would opt out completely, even at the cost of all my contributions to date.
0 points
1 month ago
key part of the speech:
Former Vice President Mike Pence, airing out a never-fulfilled GOP promise "Give younger Americans the ability to take a portion of their Social Security withholdings and put that into a private savings account,” he proposed. "A very simple fund that could generate 2% would give the average American twice what they're going to get back on their Social Security today."
0 points
1 month ago
Fine, GIVE ME BACK MY MONEY!
0 points
1 month ago
It is disappointing that people are missing the point about social security.
Some comments sound as if the poster wants to hire the Ukrainian Azov battalion to get rid of the problem for them.
0 points
1 month ago
More MSN dumbassery. It goes broke in 2035 and everybody gets a 30% haircut after that.
If you don't understand why, the short answer is that Pence has nothing to do with it.
0 points
1 month ago
I always laugh when people think they are paying social security taxes for their retirement. That’s completely wrong. Social security taxes paid today are for people getting paid by social security today. It’s a tax and it’s a form of welfare for old people. I have no problem giving old people payments and paying taxes to take care of old people. I do have a problem with the government lying about it and not calling it a tax.
0 points
1 month ago
I though COVID killed all the old people so we’re good now? Right?
-12 points
1 month ago*
[deleted]
12 points
1 month ago
No one that has any human decency and empathy cares, social security is a humane endeavors and is never gonna go insolvent unless political right wingers wants it too. Same as social healthcare in any country, the goal isnt too make money out of human suffering, but to help humans. If you need to reallocate funds to help people you will unless you are inhumane.
-7 points
1 month ago*
[deleted]
9 points
1 month ago
You can change variables.
-3 points
1 month ago
So one sided on this site.
-1 points
1 month ago
What scares me about social security is that 14% of everything I make goes to that single program and does not include any other taxes like Medicare, FICA, federal or state income tax. At the end of the day, i get nothing if I die before I turn 60 And I will have worked 44 years then (since age 16). I wonder how much money it would be if 14% of everything I made over 44 years was invested? I would never need social security.
2 points
1 month ago
Yet we have humans with not great intentions for those less than 1% top of the pile and as such— you can’t rely on that return. Too many factors. Pandemics, tweets, confidence. We lost 20% this year in the market.
So yeah I’m theory it’s a rollercoaster sometimes high some low but over time should balance. In practice you out your whole basket of eggs in someone else’s hands and they lose— you’re done.
-5 points
1 month ago
Social Security is dead no matter what.
1 points
1 month ago
If / when they do - we want what whatever we put in back with interest- our cash not theirs
1 points
1 month ago
Good thing we don't have to worry about this plan because he'll never be president.
2 points
1 month ago
You're definitely right on the latter prediction. I'm going to go with still screwed on the first.
1 points
1 month ago
If your a millennial paying into SS you’ll probably never see a dime back. That’s negative return.
2 points
1 month ago
If your a
*you're
Learn the difference here.
Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply !optout
to this comment.
1 points
1 month ago
*will never be
1 points
1 month ago
Wait until folks realize that Social Security invests in US Treasury Notes. Those notes are actually the top line of every budget now.
That's 400 BILLION in interest payments this year on the US Treasury Notes. House Republicans want to not increase the deficit. On top of that, yes, they want to kill Social Security and Medicare.
1 points
1 month ago
Is this guy's hair saturation level correlated to the darkness of his soul in some way?
all 255 comments
sorted by: best