Social Security

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2011 2:23 PM GMT


    Remember, not only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500.

    If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% (less than what the govt. pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98.

    If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.

    The folks in Washington have pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madhoff ever had.
    Entitlement my ass, I paid cash for my social security insurance!!!! Just because they borrowed the money, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!
    Then they took OUR money & bailed out the banks and auto companies and gave ½ of GM to the Unions so they could screw us even more than they did before. Think about it. A VERY SMALL percentage of American Workers were GM employees. If you don’t see anything wrong with this, You’re Part of the Problem!!

    Congressional benefits ---- FREE-healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days, now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my social security retirement entitlements?

    We're "broke" and can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless

    In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile, and Turkey. And now Pakistan ......home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!

    Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income' receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while our government and religious organizations pour Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$'s and Tons of Food to Foreign Countries!

    They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives and now when it’s time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place? VOTE BUYING! Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries.

    Sad isn't it?
    99% of people won't have the guts to forward this. I'm one of the 1% -- I Just Did.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2011 4:10 PM GMT
    And you are living off of SS now?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2011 5:10 PM GMT
    Fact Checking - it's astounding how gullible you are and how devoid of personal responsibility that your generation is willing to take - but here's the actual data and how Social Security has been a political ponzi scheme from the very beginning -

    Employee social security taxes
    http://ssa.gov/pubs/10003.pdf
    - 4.2% for employees on earnings up to 106,800
    - 6.2% for employers on earnings up to 106,800
    - total 10.4% (the initial social security tax was 2% total for reference)

    Current yields on treasury bills
    http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=longtermrate
    - 2.66% for longer than 10 years, 2.73% for a 20 year CMT

    Per capita income in the US
    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
    - $27,041

    Life Expectancy in the US
    http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy
    - 78.1 years

    So in the 47 years (65-1icon_cool.gif, total taxes for social security paid was $132,176.40, with a future value of $257,381.99. With benefits starting at 65 years of age, that would equate to 13.1 years with payouts of approximately $19,646.48 - assuming there are NO administration costs borne by the administrators of social security. If you believed that it needed to last 30 years, that would be $8,579.40 a year!

    It's ironic that it's the greed of your generation TropicalMark that created unfunded entitlements - that has created this mess especially since you have been against privatizing it from the beginning. You're now outraged at the idea the money isn't there. Well boo hoo.

    You elected politicians who decided that the money that was coming in would be immediately spent on the backs of future generations. Here's the problem - future generations don't want to pay for the benefits they didn't get to say nothing of the fact they can't even afford it.

    Let's have a deeper look at why this is such a mess:
    ss.jpg

    So in 1945 when the program was created in 1935, US life expectancy was 59.9 for men, 63.9 for women. Today that has grown to 78.1 years! So while the costs of providing social security have risen, the number of workers to support the UNFUNDED program has gone down from 45 workers to support each person on social security in 1945 to 2!

    It is those like you who left your trust that government would invest these retirement funds wisely because you believed that private firms couldn't be trusted. As it turns out your trust was misplaced. The US faces over 20 Trillion - yes TRILLION dollars in future liabilities because of social security. Expect benefits and payouts to be slashed as it should be. Now that it's time to face the consequences, am I surprised by your refusal to do so? Hardly. Brave 1%? Not quite - in fact, not even at all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2011 5:42 PM GMT
    in the 1960s, life expectancy was 60 while retirement age was 65.

    Today, life expectancy is 80s while retirement age is 65.

    Social Security worked because half of the people contributing to it never made it to retirement. At best, they would retire, stop contributing, and live for around 5-10 years collecting benefits, then die.

    Now, people collect benefits for 30+ years, which is insanely difficult to deal with, especially as less and less people put money in for taking a benefit out.

    Social Security worked, but it is now broken, and needs to be fixed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2011 5:53 PM GMT
    And the 1% are collecting SS and not paying their fair share of taxes! Go figure...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2011 5:54 PM GMT
    Chainers saidin the 1960s, life expectancy was 60 while retirement age was 65.

    Today, life expectancy is 80s while retirement age is 65.

    Social Security worked because half of the people contributing to it never made it to retirement. At best, they would retire, stop contributing, and live for around 5-10 years collecting benefits, then die.

    Now, people collect benefits for 30+ years, which is insanely difficult to deal with, especially as less and less people put money in for taking a benefit out.

    Social Security worked, but it is now broken, and needs to be fixed.


    Longevity is a huge issue for both SS and Medicare. Unfortunately, the Republicans and right-wingers have not expressed any real desire to reform the system for the 21st Century. Rather, they want to destroy it, or give it over to the banks to siphon off a fee.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2011 6:06 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    Chainers saidin the 1960s, life expectancy was 60 while retirement age was 65.

    Today, life expectancy is 80s while retirement age is 65.

    Social Security worked because half of the people contributing to it never made it to retirement. At best, they would retire, stop contributing, and live for around 5-10 years collecting benefits, then die.

    Now, people collect benefits for 30+ years, which is insanely difficult to deal with, especially as less and less people put money in for taking a benefit out.

    Social Security worked, but it is now broken, and needs to be fixed.


    Longevity is a huge issue for both SS and Medicare. Unfortunately, the Republicans and right-wingers have not expressed any real desire to reform the system for the 21st Century. Rather, they want to destroy it, or give it over to the banks to siphon off a fee.


    Yes quite, much better to have the government run it into the ground leaving future recipients with little little hope of getting anything. The fund is already cash flow negative - it's those like yourself who have been insistent that there's nothing wrong that only tweaks are necessary to make it sustainable. Too bad even extremist liberals like yourself aren't able to defy simple mathematical properties.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2011 6:47 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    Chainers saidin the 1960s, life expectancy was 60 while retirement age was 65.

    Today, life expectancy is 80s while retirement age is 65.

    Social Security worked because half of the people contributing to it never made it to retirement. At best, they would retire, stop contributing, and live for around 5-10 years collecting benefits, then die.

    Now, people collect benefits for 30+ years, which is insanely difficult to deal with, especially as less and less people put money in for taking a benefit out.

    Social Security worked, but it is now broken, and needs to be fixed.


    Longevity is a huge issue for both SS and Medicare. Unfortunately, the Republicans and right-wingers have not expressed any real desire to reform the system for the 21st Century. Rather, they want to destroy it, or give it over to the banks to siphon off a fee.


    Yes quite, much better to have the government run it into the ground leaving future recipients with little little hope of getting anything. The fund is already cash flow negative - it's those like yourself who have been insistent that there's nothing wrong that only tweaks are necessary to make it sustainable. Too bad even extremist liberals like yourself aren't able to defy simple mathematical properties.


    I honestly dont believe their is any possible reform to Social Security. It is simply a pyramid scheme that is funded by the government. Essentially, all it is is the government mandating that people buy life insurance, disability insurance, as well as saving for their retirement all in one. Kind of craptastic as people can do this on their own.

    A single man has no need for life insurance, why is the government forcing him to buy it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2011 7:28 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    Chainers saidin the 1960s, life expectancy was 60 while retirement age was 65.

    Today, life expectancy is 80s while retirement age is 65.

    Social Security worked because half of the people contributing to it never made it to retirement. At best, they would retire, stop contributing, and live for around 5-10 years collecting benefits, then die.

    Now, people collect benefits for 30+ years, which is insanely difficult to deal with, especially as less and less people put money in for taking a benefit out.

    Social Security worked, but it is now broken, and needs to be fixed.


    Longevity is a huge issue for both SS and Medicare. Unfortunately, the Republicans and right-wingers have not expressed any real desire to reform the system for the 21st Century. Rather, they want to destroy it, or give it over to the banks to siphon off a fee.


    Yes quite, much better to have the government run it into the ground leaving future recipients with little little hope of getting anything. The fund is already cash flow negative - it's those like yourself who have been insistent that there's nothing wrong that only tweaks are necessary to make it sustainable. Too bad even extremist liberals like yourself aren't able to defy simple mathematical properties.


    Or, you can simply lift the cap which would make it solvent for another 60 years and add repayment of the trust fund to any deficit reduction plan, which would more than deal with the Baby Boom glut. icon_rolleyes.gif

    And I'm not a liberal. I'm way more left-wing than a liberal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2011 7:47 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    Chainers saidin the 1960s, life expectancy was 60 while retirement age was 65.

    Today, life expectancy is 80s while retirement age is 65.

    Social Security worked because half of the people contributing to it never made it to retirement. At best, they would retire, stop contributing, and live for around 5-10 years collecting benefits, then die.

    Now, people collect benefits for 30+ years, which is insanely difficult to deal with, especially as less and less people put money in for taking a benefit out.

    Social Security worked, but it is now broken, and needs to be fixed.


    Longevity is a huge issue for both SS and Medicare. Unfortunately, the Republicans and right-wingers have not expressed any real desire to reform the system for the 21st Century. Rather, they want to destroy it, or give it over to the banks to siphon off a fee.


    Yes quite, much better to have the government run it into the ground leaving future recipients with little little hope of getting anything. The fund is already cash flow negative - it's those like yourself who have been insistent that there's nothing wrong that only tweaks are necessary to make it sustainable. Too bad even extremist liberals like yourself aren't able to defy simple mathematical properties.


    Or, you can simply lift the cap which would make it solvent for another 60 years and add repayment of the trust fund to any deficit reduction plan, which would more than deal with the Baby Boom glut. icon_rolleyes.gif

    And I'm not a liberal. I'm way more left-wing than a liberal.


    Except once you remove the cap you remove any pretense that social security is little more than a tax for an entitlement program. Of course you wouldn't care that it would increase marginal tax rates by 10.6% or the fact that despite the fact taxes have already been increased 24 times from its original 2% and still it's going bankrupt - not to mention the fact it's rather unclear that you would even be able to save it for much longer than 7 years rather than the 60 that you suggest.

    The fact is this would be a massive drag on the US economy - given that taxes would increase just to maintain existing benefits. Why don't you just pay more than your fair share in taxes? At least you acknowledge that there's now a problem.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2011 11:03 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    It's ironic that it's the greed of your generation TropicalMark that created unfunded entitlements - that has created this mess especially since you have been against privatizing it from the beginning. You're now outraged at the idea the money isn't there. Well boo hoo.

    You elected politicians who decided that the money that was coming in would be immediately spent on the backs of future generations. Here's the problem - future generations don't want to pay for the benefits they didn't get to say nothing of the fact they can't even afford it.

    Presidents both Republican and Democrat have routinely dipped into the Social Security trust fund to float the national debt, and yet critics from both parties have the effrontery now to treat as some sort of indulgence a program for which seniors, current and future, have paid. Seniors are as much “entitled” to the payback on their investment as the folks who buy Treasury notes, people who will be at the forefront of those protected by a rise in the debt ceiling.

    Fact Checking.. yeah its a bitch isnt it?

    You can STFU.. you aren't even a citizen of this country and I personally could care less what YOU think about anything (which in fact is not much anyway)
    Just make sure that you pay every penny of FICA billed to you by this country.. or stay the hell out of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2011 4:32 AM GMT
    Chainers said...
    I honestly dont believe their is any possible reform to Social Security. ...


    Well heck, if only we had taken possession of Kuwait as "U.S. Government Property" during Gulf War I, we could have put its' GDP surplus into the SS trust fund.

    Wouldn't that have worked?

    icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2011 5:33 AM GMT
    Chainers saidin the 1960s, life expectancy was 60 while retirement age was 65.

    Today, life expectancy is 80s while retirement age is 65.

    Social Security worked because half of the people contributing to it never made it to retirement. At best, they would retire, stop contributing, and live for around 5-10 years collecting benefits, then die.

    Now, people collect benefits for 30+ years, which is insanely difficult to deal with, especially as less and less people put money in for taking a benefit out.

    Social Security worked, but it is now broken, and needs to be fixed.


    If someone has paid into SS for their entire working life, then what does it matter how long they live?

    If someone has contributed even just $3,000/year out of their salary for 40 years, even figuring at A COMPOUNDED 5% (WHAT JUST ABOUT ANY BOND THAT I COULD HAVE INVESTED IN AS AN INDIVIDUAL WOULD HAVE AT LEAST AVERAGED--capped for a particular batman cartoon character being so ridiculous that it couldn't figure that out but went off on its own rude ass fucking presumptions anyway) that's $400,000. Now given a supposedly safe withdrawal rate of 4% on that, say the draw on a private account might be 16,000/year or 1,333/month, which I hear provides a very nice life in Thailand or Mexico. Why should it matter if the person lives another 20 years or 40 years drawing off the investments of that principal?

    How about this, when your generation goes to fix (dismantle) this so called pyramid scheme, I don't want any of your money. Just give me my $400,000 back (what average me probably put into the system plus what I could have minimally gotten had I been allowed to invest on my own) and I'll be on my merry way.


    TropicalMark saidnot only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500....


    http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/169/~/the-social-security-contribution-rate-for-2011
    The 2011 tax rate is 4.2 percent for employees, 6.2 percent for employers, and 10.4 percent for self-employed people. These rates apply to earnings up to the maximum taxable amount ($106,800 in 2011).

    FYI the average SS payment is currently about $1,177/month or $14,124/year.

    http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10070.html

    united-states-gdp-per-capita.png

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_per_capita_income_in_the_United_States
    In 2007 the total per capita personal income in the United States was US$38,611

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_Joe#IncomePersonal_income.png
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2011 6:33 AM GMT
    theantijock said
    Chainers saidin the 1960s, life expectancy was 60 while retirement age was 65.

    Today, life expectancy is 80s while retirement age is 65.

    Social Security worked because half of the people contributing to it never made it to retirement. At best, they would retire, stop contributing, and live for around 5-10 years collecting benefits, then die.

    Now, people collect benefits for 30+ years, which is insanely difficult to deal with, especially as less and less people put money in for taking a benefit out.

    Social Security worked, but it is now broken, and needs to be fixed.


    If someone has paid into SS for their entire working life, then what does it matter how long they live?

    If someone has contributed even just $3,000/year out of their salary for 40 years, even figuring at 5% that's $400,000. Given a supposedly safe withdrawal rate of 4% on that, say the draw on a private account might be 16,000/year or 1,333/month, which I hear provides a very nice life in Thailand or Mexico. Why should it matter if the person lives another 20 years or 40 years drawing off the investments of that principal?

    How about this, when your generation goes to fix (dismantle) this so called pyramid scheme, I don't want any of your money. Just give me my $400,000 back and I'll be on my way.


    TropicalMark saidnot only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500....


    http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/169/~/the-social-security-contribution-rate-for-2011
    The 2011 tax rate is 4.2 percent for employees, 6.2 percent for employers, and 10.4 percent for self-employed people. These rates apply to earnings up to the maximum taxable amount ($106,800 in 2011).

    FYI the average SS payment is currently about $1,177/month or $14,124/year.

    http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10070.html


    Your assumptions, like TropicalMark's are not only ridiculous but they are factually wrong. xIt's no wonder liberals think that Social Security can be saved - of course if wishing that certain numbers were true made them so, I'd be a billionaire by now. As noted earlier:

    Employee social security taxes
    http://ssa.gov/pubs/10003.pdf
    - 4.2% for employees on earnings up to 106,800
    - 6.2% for employers on earnings up to 106,800
    - total 10.4% (the initial social security tax was 2% total for reference)

    Current yields on treasury bills
    http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=longtermrate
    - 2.66% for longer than 10 years, 2.73% for a 20 year CMT

    Per capita income in the US
    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
    - $27,041

    Life Expectancy in the US
    http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy
    - 78.1 years

    So in the 47 years (65-18 ), total taxes for social security paid was $132,176.40, with a future value of $257,381.99. With benefits starting at 65 years of age, that would equate to 13.1 years with payouts of approximately $19,646.48 - assuming there are NO administration costs borne by the administrators of social security. If you believed that it needed to last 30 years, that would be $8,579.40 a year!

    The reality is that those who seek to retire in the next 20 years would get far more than they paid into the program - unfortunately for you, it's neither likely nor sustainable. A ponzi scheme at its worst.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2011 1:46 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    theantijock said
    Chainers saidin the 1960s, life expectancy was 60 while retirement age was 65.

    Today, life expectancy is 80s while retirement age is 65.

    Social Security worked because half of the people contributing to it never made it to retirement. At best, they would retire, stop contributing, and live for around 5-10 years collecting benefits, then die.

    Now, people collect benefits for 30+ years, which is insanely difficult to deal with, especially as less and less people put money in for taking a benefit out.

    Social Security worked, but it is now broken, and needs to be fixed.


    If someone has paid into SS for their entire working life, then what does it matter how long they live?

    If someone has contributed even just $3,000/year out of their salary for 40 years, even figuring at 5% that's $400,000. Given a supposedly safe withdrawal rate of 4% on that, say the draw on a private account might be 16,000/year or 1,333/month, which I hear provides a very nice life in Thailand or Mexico. Why should it matter if the person lives another 20 years or 40 years drawing off the investments of that principal?

    How about this, when your generation goes to fix (dismantle) this so called pyramid scheme, I don't want any of your money. Just give me my $400,000 back and I'll be on my way.


    TropicalMark saidnot only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500....


    http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/169/~/the-social-security-contribution-rate-for-2011
    The 2011 tax rate is 4.2 percent for employees, 6.2 percent for employers, and 10.4 percent for self-employed people. These rates apply to earnings up to the maximum taxable amount ($106,800 in 2011).

    FYI the average SS payment is currently about $1,177/month or $14,124/year.

    http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10070.html


    Your assumptions, like TropicalMark's are not only ridiculous but they are factually wrong. xIt's no wonder liberals think that Social Security can be saved - of course if wishing that certain numbers were true made them so, I'd be a billionaire by now. As noted earlier:

    Employee social security taxes
    http://ssa.gov/pubs/10003.pdf
    - 4.2% for employees on earnings up to 106,800
    - 6.2% for employers on earnings up to 106,800
    - total 10.4% (the initial social security tax was 2% total for reference)

    Current yields on treasury bills
    http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=longtermrate
    - 2.66% for longer than 10 years, 2.73% for a 20 year CMT

    Per capita income in the US
    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
    - $27,041

    Life Expectancy in the US
    http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy
    - 78.1 years

    So in the 47 years (65-18 ), total taxes for social security paid was $132,176.40, with a future value of $257,381.99. With benefits starting at 65 years of age, that would equate to 13.1 years with payouts of approximately $19,646.48 - assuming there are NO administration costs borne by the administrators of social security. If you believed that it needed to last 30 years, that would be $8,579.40 a year!

    The reality is that those who seek to retire in the next 20 years would get far more than they paid into the program - unfortunately for you, it's neither likely nor sustainable. A ponzi scheme at its worst.
    You cannot base the last 70 years on todays "income tax breaks" and todays dismal interest rates. It is an AVERAGE over many years. Some years are better. some worse.

    You aren't entitled to participate or receive a fucking dime of it so blow it out your ass ok?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2011 1:54 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    theantijock said
    Chainers saidin the 1960s, life expectancy was 60 while retirement age was 65.

    Today, life expectancy is 80s while retirement age is 65.

    Social Security worked because half of the people contributing to it never made it to retirement. At best, they would retire, stop contributing, and live for around 5-10 years collecting benefits, then die.

    Now, people collect benefits for 30+ years, which is insanely difficult to deal with, especially as less and less people put money in for taking a benefit out.

    Social Security worked, but it is now broken, and needs to be fixed.


    If someone has paid into SS for their entire working life, then what does it matter how long they live?

    If someone has contributed even just $3,000/year out of their salary for 40 years, even figuring at 5% that's $400,000. Given a supposedly safe withdrawal rate of 4% on that, say the draw on a private account might be 16,000/year or 1,333/month, which I hear provides a very nice life in Thailand or Mexico. Why should it matter if the person lives another 20 years or 40 years drawing off the investments of that principal?

    How about this, when your generation goes to fix (dismantle) this so called pyramid scheme, I don't want any of your money. Just give me my $400,000 back and I'll be on my way.


    TropicalMark saidnot only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500....


    http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/169/~/the-social-security-contribution-rate-for-2011
    The 2011 tax rate is 4.2 percent for employees, 6.2 percent for employers, and 10.4 percent for self-employed people. These rates apply to earnings up to the maximum taxable amount ($106,800 in 2011).

    FYI the average SS payment is currently about $1,177/month or $14,124/year.

    http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10070.html


    Your assumptions, like TropicalMark's are not only ridiculous but they are factually wrong. xIt's no wonder liberals think that Social Security can be saved - of course if wishing that certain numbers were true made them so, I'd be a billionaire by now. As noted earlier:

    Employee social security taxes
    http://ssa.gov/pubs/10003.pdf
    - 4.2% for employees on earnings up to 106,800
    - 6.2% for employers on earnings up to 106,800
    - total 10.4% (the initial social security tax was 2% total for reference)

    Current yields on treasury bills
    http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=longtermrate
    - 2.66% for longer than 10 years, 2.73% for a 20 year CMT

    Per capita income in the US
    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
    - $27,041

    Life Expectancy in the US
    http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy
    - 78.1 years

    So in the 47 years (65-18 ), total taxes for social security paid was $132,176.40, with a future value of $257,381.99. With benefits starting at 65 years of age, that would equate to 13.1 years with payouts of approximately $19,646.48 - assuming there are NO administration costs borne by the administrators of social security. If you believed that it needed to last 30 years, that would be $8,579.40 a year!

    The reality is that those who seek to retire in the next 20 years would get far more than they paid into the program - unfortunately for you, it's neither likely nor sustainable. A ponzi scheme at its worst.
    You cannot base the last 70 years on todays "income tax breaks" and todays dismal interest rates. It is an AVERAGE over many years. Some years are better. some worse.

    You aren't entitled to participate or receive a fucking dime of it so blow it out your ass ok?


    You might actually have a point if social security taxes didn't start out at - 2% TOTAL. Also - historical rates also reflect significantly more inflation - so my number is probably closer than yours. Yeah - because you can't do math, that's my fault?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2011 2:00 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    theantijock said
    Chainers saidin the 1960s, life expectancy was 60 while retirement age was 65.

    Today, life expectancy is 80s while retirement age is 65.

    Social Security worked because half of the people contributing to it never made it to retirement. At best, they would retire, stop contributing, and live for around 5-10 years collecting benefits, then die.

    Now, people collect benefits for 30+ years, which is insanely difficult to deal with, especially as less and less people put money in for taking a benefit out.

    Social Security worked, but it is now broken, and needs to be fixed.


    If someone has paid into SS for their entire working life, then what does it matter how long they live?

    If someone has contributed even just $3,000/year out of their salary for 40 years, even figuring at 5% that's $400,000. Given a supposedly safe withdrawal rate of 4% on that, say the draw on a private account might be 16,000/year or 1,333/month, which I hear provides a very nice life in Thailand or Mexico. Why should it matter if the person lives another 20 years or 40 years drawing off the investments of that principal?

    How about this, when your generation goes to fix (dismantle) this so called pyramid scheme, I don't want any of your money. Just give me my $400,000 back and I'll be on my way.


    TropicalMark saidnot only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500....


    http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/169/~/the-social-security-contribution-rate-for-2011
    The 2011 tax rate is 4.2 percent for employees, 6.2 percent for employers, and 10.4 percent for self-employed people. These rates apply to earnings up to the maximum taxable amount ($106,800 in 2011).

    FYI the average SS payment is currently about $1,177/month or $14,124/year.

    http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10070.html


    Your assumptions, like TropicalMark's are not only ridiculous but they are factually wrong. xIt's no wonder liberals think that Social Security can be saved - of course if wishing that certain numbers were true made them so, I'd be a billionaire by now. As noted earlier:

    Employee social security taxes
    http://ssa.gov/pubs/10003.pdf
    - 4.2% for employees on earnings up to 106,800
    - 6.2% for employers on earnings up to 106,800
    - total 10.4% (the initial social security tax was 2% total for reference)

    Current yields on treasury bills
    http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=longtermrate
    - 2.66% for longer than 10 years, 2.73% for a 20 year CMT

    Per capita income in the US
    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
    - $27,041

    Life Expectancy in the US
    http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy
    - 78.1 years

    So in the 47 years (65-18 ), total taxes for social security paid was $132,176.40, with a future value of $257,381.99. With benefits starting at 65 years of age, that would equate to 13.1 years with payouts of approximately $19,646.48 - assuming there are NO administration costs borne by the administrators of social security. If you believed that it needed to last 30 years, that would be $8,579.40 a year!

    The reality is that those who seek to retire in the next 20 years would get far more than they paid into the program - unfortunately for you, it's neither likely nor sustainable. A ponzi scheme at its worst.
    You cannot base the last 70 years on todays "income tax breaks" and todays dismal interest rates. It is an AVERAGE over many years. Some years are better. some worse.

    You aren't entitled to participate or receive a fucking dime of it so blow it out your ass ok?


    You might actually have a point if social security taxes didn't start out at - 2% TOTAL. Also - historical rates also reflect significantly more inflation - so my number is probably closer than yours. Yeah - because you can't do math, that's my fault?
    And we dont live in the 20th century do we?
    icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif

    You're about as dense as osmium.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2011 2:02 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    theantijock said
    Chainers saidin the 1960s, life expectancy was 60 while retirement age was 65.

    Today, life expectancy is 80s while retirement age is 65.

    Social Security worked because half of the people contributing to it never made it to retirement. At best, they would retire, stop contributing, and live for around 5-10 years collecting benefits, then die.

    Now, people collect benefits for 30+ years, which is insanely difficult to deal with, especially as less and less people put money in for taking a benefit out.

    Social Security worked, but it is now broken, and needs to be fixed.


    If someone has paid into SS for their entire working life, then what does it matter how long they live?

    If someone has contributed even just $3,000/year out of their salary for 40 years, even figuring at 5% that's $400,000. Given a supposedly safe withdrawal rate of 4% on that, say the draw on a private account might be 16,000/year or 1,333/month, which I hear provides a very nice life in Thailand or Mexico. Why should it matter if the person lives another 20 years or 40 years drawing off the investments of that principal?

    How about this, when your generation goes to fix (dismantle) this so called pyramid scheme, I don't want any of your money. Just give me my $400,000 back and I'll be on my way.


    TropicalMark saidnot only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500....


    http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/169/~/the-social-security-contribution-rate-for-2011
    The 2011 tax rate is 4.2 percent for employees, 6.2 percent for employers, and 10.4 percent for self-employed people. These rates apply to earnings up to the maximum taxable amount ($106,800 in 2011).

    FYI the average SS payment is currently about $1,177/month or $14,124/year.

    http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10070.html


    Your assumptions, like TropicalMark's are not only ridiculous but they are factually wrong. xIt's no wonder liberals think that Social Security can be saved - of course if wishing that certain numbers were true made them so, I'd be a billionaire by now. As noted earlier:

    Employee social security taxes
    http://ssa.gov/pubs/10003.pdf
    - 4.2% for employees on earnings up to 106,800
    - 6.2% for employers on earnings up to 106,800
    - total 10.4% (the initial social security tax was 2% total for reference)

    Current yields on treasury bills
    http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=longtermrate
    - 2.66% for longer than 10 years, 2.73% for a 20 year CMT

    Per capita income in the US
    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
    - $27,041

    Life Expectancy in the US
    http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy
    - 78.1 years

    So in the 47 years (65-18 ), total taxes for social security paid was $132,176.40, with a future value of $257,381.99. With benefits starting at 65 years of age, that would equate to 13.1 years with payouts of approximately $19,646.48 - assuming there are NO administration costs borne by the administrators of social security. If you believed that it needed to last 30 years, that would be $8,579.40 a year!

    The reality is that those who seek to retire in the next 20 years would get far more than they paid into the program - unfortunately for you, it's neither likely nor sustainable. A ponzi scheme at its worst.
    You cannot base the last 70 years on todays "income tax breaks" and todays dismal interest rates. It is an AVERAGE over many years. Some years are better. some worse.

    You aren't entitled to participate or receive a fucking dime of it so blow it out your ass ok?


    You might actually have a point if social security taxes didn't start out at - 2% TOTAL. Also - historical rates also reflect significantly more inflation - so my number is probably closer than yours. Yeah - because you can't do math, that's my fault?
    And we dont live in the 20th century do we?
    icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif

    You're about as dense as osmium.


    Hmmm - you're the one attempting to cherry pick assumptions and being caught with an inability to do math and you're calling me dense ? Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.