If Bush's scam wrecks Social Security, how many $$ will you lose?

[nodictators]

Simple arithmetic tells it all.

The average individual Social Security retiree gets $1,000 per month. The average two-earner retired married couple gets $1,600 per month from Social Security.

Now, on average, a person reaching age 65 can expect to live nearly 20 more years.

Thus, on average, an individal near retirement would lose more than $200,000 if Bush wrecks Social Security.

The average two-earner married couple near retirement would stand to lose more than $350,000.

Note: Bush's secretive plan to privatize Social Security could very well be the mechanixm to wreck Social Security.

[bryant69]

1. It is a plan to destroy social security

I mean if you take a car, remove the wheels, the engine, the doors, the frame and the radio, you'd probably have something left, but would it really be a car?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[liberal N proud]

2. The repukes have been trying to kill Social Security since it's inception

They have raided it many times to pay for other things. Originally farmers were not included in Social Security but were allowed to start collecting in the 60's after only paying into the system for one year. (granted they deserve a secure retirement as well as anyone) but they only paid in for one year to receive full benefits.
Other programs as well have been funded from SS all done under repuke lead congress'.

[Maurkov]

3. Lose?

All I have right now is a promise from the government. What I lose each month is $289.88. If the money I paid went straight into T Bills, I'd at least have an IOU instead of just a promise, and I'd see significantly better returns. The social security tax is regressive. Pay in is capped ($87,000 in 2003). The payout is regressive, since poor people die sooner and will receive less.

If SS is a program to compel saving, it fails because the return is so low. If SS is a program to redistribute wealth, it fails because it is regressive. It needs an overhaul. I just wish the Democrats could have more say over what changes are required.

[nodictators]

5. It was a "promise" that was kept for 60+ years, until Bush.

Everyone who has paid money in FICA tax should demand that Bush honor that promise.

It is foolish to whine about a system that has done so much for so many, in such an efficient way.

It is counter-productive to complain (falsely) about Social Security, instead of complaining loudly about Bush's scam to wreck it.

[Maurkov]

8. I don't think a promise from the government is worth anything.

Laws are not contracts, and they change with the whim of the people who make them. I don't think the AARP is going to let Bush destroy SS, unless by destroy you mean increase benefits to the seniors who don't need them.

Yes, SS has helped a lot of poor and disabled people. Yes, the administrative overhead is remarkably low (for a government program). But doing the wrong thing efficiently is hardly a virtue*. SS takes money from young poor people and gives it to old rich ones. This is not a service I support. The government should provide for those who are incapable of providing for themselves. The government should not provide blanket transfer payments to old people.

As to complaining (falsely), which of my statements isn't true?



*to paraphrase Peter Drucker

[Johonny]

10. Then

You might need a new government.

[Occulus]

26. "I don't think a promise from the government is worth anything."

You think sixty plus years of history is meaningless.

[Squeech]

6. Yeah, but

that's not how SS works.

What SS really is is a mandatory insurance program. It's funded by payroll taxes, and one (the main) category of beneficiary is retired working people who used to pay those payroll taxes, so we think of it loosely as a lockbox we stuff money into to get it back later. We're actually encouraged to think so because the benefit we're credited for depends on the salary we've made and the taxes we've paid.

But there are other beneficiaries. Workers may pay into SS and die before they have a chance to collect, but their spouses get taken care of by Social Security, and children until age 22-- or later, if they're in school. (I met my first wife when she was 18, collecting because her father had died three years previously, and I'm embarrassed to think how many times she took me out to dinner.) Certain people with disabilities get taken care of by SS. These other beneficiaries aren't getting "back" what they "paid," they're being taken care of by all of us because we understand that a decent society takes care of its needy, and this is the most cost-effective mechanism for doing so the world has ever seen.

Needless to say, if the Bushies succeed in destroying it, somebody now reading this will end up starving in the streets. Possibly me.

[amazona]

14. do the math THE RETURN IS UNBEATABLE

No private investment in a legal product can top Social Security over the long term.

Have you checked interest rates over the last few years? T-Bills are paying pfffftttt. Old people who relied on T-Bills, CDs, etc. are very badly hurt.

You see, the catch is, even in years where interest rates are low and CDs, T-Bills, money markets are not paying out...even in those years...old people still have to eat food, drink water, and heat their homes in winter.

So they lose their principal when interest rates are low. And then it's gone forever since they're too old to earn more.

But with Social Security you get that check every month no matter what Greenspan does to the interest rates. It's amazing.

I'm guessing you don't hang out with too many old people or you will realize what a HUGE issue this is in the senior crowd that interest rates are so terribly low for so long. Without Social Security, many people I know would have no option but suicide.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Throd]

4. I'll lose nada

I am 37 years old and I operate under the presumption that I will get absolutely nothing from the government in 30+ years.

[stevedeshazer]

7. As long as you and your peers believe that

It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There's no reason you should not get your benefits as long as we have a legitimate government. It has worked and worked well for three generations of my family.

[Johonny]

9. agreed

And you are losing something. You pay for a system that you've been told it broken and won't exist. The reason you are told this is so that it will not exist in the future. Of course that doesn't mean the payroll tax will disappear. You'll be paying into a system that doesn't exist, but whos money is use to pay for income tax cuts to the rich.

[Famine]

11. Numbers don't lie

Either the money is there or it isn't. I've seen the calculations and the only way they can pay out the benefits is to collect the money from somewhere, either in SS taxes to turn around into payments or income taxes to pay off the treasuries held in the Trust fund. Either way, someone is going to have to pay out a lot more money then there is available. Of course, the government could just inflate their way out of the problem.

I don't expect to collect my SS. The money I paid in is gone and there aren't enough young people to pay for my baby boom generation to get through our retired lives.

[stevedeshazer]

12. And your source for this nugget of information is....

?????

[Occulus]

27. It's been four hours and you didn't provide a source.

I smell a disruption attempt. A big one; there are several in this thread.

[Famine]

30. Source of my comments

Sorry about not replying within the 4 hour designated time frame. As you can see, I'm pretty new here and didn't know that not answering a challenge within a certain time made your comments suspect.

Anyway, the source is http://www.socialsecurity.org. I realize that this is a CATO site and therefore suspect to anyone who only wants to hear one side of the argument but there is a quick facts link at the top right for those who are open minded about the subject. I thought 5, 11, and 17 were especially pertinent. I already knew about #6 but I think its especially important for everyone to realize that the Supreme Court ruled long ago that you get what Congress says you get and that the program can be changed or ended.

[amazona]

16. it is too late for you to save via private investment

If you do any of the retirement calculators provided by financial sites, you will find that they are premised on people putting into their retirement accounts from their early 20s. People who start saving for retirement in their late 30s or beyond can never catch up and pay for retirement at their current standard of living. If you are 37, you have no option except to fight for Social Security. And the scary part is that most private retirement plan calculaters are based on an annual return of 10 percent in the stock market. No responsible adviser believes that the stock market can return anywhere close to this annual rate of return in the 21st century. The 20th century was the greatest period of innovation and growth in the history of humanity, and even then almost all of the growth in the stock market took place in only 90 days -- and most of those 90 days were in one decade, the 1990s.

Please do some research on this matter. You are going to be shocked at what you learn. At best you can assume an average annual return of 6 percent and, even then, nothing is guaranteed.

Americans are shockingly poor at quantifying risks. They worry about very unlikely things like the gov't going broke or getting cancer from second-hand smoke standing in the doorway of a hospital...then think they're going to make money beating the stock market even though a century of science has shown that educated fund managers can't do this any better than the proverbial monkey with a dartboard! If you plan to fund your retirement by playing the lottery, do it on your own dime.

Last time I looked, no one died and made any of us Warren Buffett.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Taragui Junkie]

19. I have a better shot being elected President

...than ever seeing a dime from Social Security now.

I'm like you. I don't even bank on it.

[newyawker99]

31. Hi Throd!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[amazona]

13. hmmm

Let's see. My grandmothers lived to be around 90. So if I retire at age 67, and they say I'm supposed to get $700 a month, so that is
23 years times 12 months times $700 dollars ... whoot! That is a boatload of money!!! $193,200!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Sheesh. And I'm low income. If the people getting $1,000 to $1,200 a month aren't willing to stand up and fight for this kind of money, I don't know what to say. This is definitely worth fighting for. You are not going to get that by saving 1 or 2 percent of your income in some silly stock brokerage account, just try it.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Cha]

15. I would lose my retirement money in

two years..which amounts to about $500 a month.

I got into politics in 2000 because I wanted to be able to work for having my Social Security there when I needed it..it's way beyond SS now but it turns out we weren't be paronoid about the warning that bush would set out to destroy it.

[EVDebs]

17. People will wake up and raise the $90,000 income cap...

and the immigrants we've brought into the country will end up paying more into SS (if they aren't already, or they will end up getting deported and without benefits).

The scare tactics are futile. Republicans are at risk of getting Third Railed so I say to them "Bring It On" !!!!!!

[Corgigal]

18. it's not only to retire on

it's also safety in case you're disabled. My husband, who was 30 at the time, didn't "plan" on some idiot running him down with a car either but it happened.

[EVDebs]

20. It's really Wall Street's scam, to churn the privatized accounts

Wall Street commissions would make fortunes off of this gig.

[ClassicDem]

21. Is there any way to opt out of Social Security.

I don't mean paying I mean recieving? There are plenty of people like myself who are financialy secure and do not need the money. When I retire in 25-35 years I would prefer the money I paid into SS goes to someone who needs it instead of myself.

[tabasco]

23. Yes, move to Somalia.

No taxes.
No government.
Republican bliss !

[ClassicDem]

24. I was not looking to get out of paying.

n/t

[tabasco]

29. Excuse my post.

My apologies.

You know what I was thinking ......

[RebelOne]

22. Well, fortunately, I won't lose anything.

I am working full time and just started collecting SS in May 2004. But I can't afford to retire at this time. I am trying to build up more money into my 401K.

[Cleita]

25. I would lose my income and therefore my life.n/t

[Deja Q]

28. If? Or WHEN? He's destroying everything else when not ALLOWING

the destruction of everything else.

[marc_the_dem]

32. Too much to think about

I'm really not that worried... This issue is a party killer and the repukes know it. No one is going to have the balls to make the changes shit for brains is talking about.