The truth about Social Security: it's a big rip-off

Discussion in 'Politics' started by glockmail, Nov 14, 2006.

  1. glockmail
    Offline

    glockmail BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    7,700
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Ratings:
    +438
    Have you ever calculated how much you would have in retirement funds if you had invested all of your social security taxes, incrementally as you have paid them, in a safe investment portfolio, such as municipal bonds (5-6%, almost no risk), or corporate real estate (7%, slight risk). After 45 years of working most people would be millionaires. And if they die the day after they retire, their spouses or children get to fight over the money.

    The only difference between you, with your mortgage, college bills, and retirement worries, vs. the old money people living in mansions, is that their grandparents had enough money in the bank to set them up in a comfortable lifestyle. These people perpetuate their wealth by adding to the principle to keep up with inflation and living off the interest. The current social security system virtually assures that this will never happen to the middle and lower classes. Since we are forced to pay so much taxes, we can't afford to retire!

    Say at age 20 you make $20,000/yr ($1667/mo) and pay 6.2% of your income into a fund matched by your employer, and continue this practice until you retire at age 65. After 45 years in a slight risk investment (and with a 45 year term it is almost inconceivable that a "slight risk" investment would have any risk), earning 7%, you would have $783,802 dollars in the bank. (Let's forget inflation here because we will assume that your raises would at least keep up with inflation.) By continuing your 7% investment, never touching the principle, you would be able to draw $4572 in interest per month upon retirement. That's 2.74 times your pre-retirement income. A low risk, 5% investment would earn you almost twice your pre-retirement income.

    And the numbers simply multiply with income. Under this scenario, a retired couple would have over $1.5 million in the bank and earn over $100,000 per year in interest.

    Compare that with the paltry amount given back by the government in social security. But here is the real rub: after you die, all your principle can be given to your children and grandchildren, basically setting them with "old money". Comparatively, your social security “investment” evaporates, and some people die unable to pay for a decent funeral.

    The Republican plan is to transition from the system that we have now to full privatization over several decades, to allow support of the retired and retiring who have been duped all these years. You and I won’t see full privatization, but maybe our grandchildren will.

    This is the truth that Democrats don't want you to know. By throwing crumbs, rich liberals like Kennedy and Edwards will continue to be supported by poor people. After all, a retired couple living on 100 large doesn’t really care about the cost of prescription drugs, universal health care, or the current question of social security. They are unlikely to vote for a Democrat.

    Do the math. Be smart about your life decisions. See more at http://calculator.socialsecurity.org/.
     
  2. Rico
    Offline

    Rico Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    223
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +38
    Yes it's a scheme to rob the poor in particular. Think about it. The poor live the shortest lives of any group so they collect the least of what they payed. Black American men are particular losers in this scheme. Their current life expectancy for White males is an average of seven-and-a-half years longer than African American males.

    It's a losing proposition for everyone below 50 right now. I'll bet a dime to a dollar that within ten years the Ponzi scheme is bust. It's a shame the American people are either too ignorant or too fearful to make it on their own. Sad.

    I'm self employed and thus pay more than what a wage earner pays in SS taxes. I feel like I'm being stolen from right in front of my face and my hands are tied.
     
  3. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    Sadly, it will never happen. We will just keep going till its completely broke then blame it on the Republicans and their greedy tax cuts for the rich. People will buy it. Taxes will be raised. Politicians will get richer. People will be happy despite being poorer because of class warfare.

    What a wonderful country we live in. :rolleyes:
     
  4. BaronVonBigmeat
    Offline

    BaronVonBigmeat Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,185
    Thanks Received:
    160
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +160
    I consider my SS deductions from each check to be my primary obstacle towards a secure retirement. I'll have to check, but I think it exceeds my 401k contribution. If I throw in medicare, I'm almost certain it does.

    Besides the obvious differences in retirement income, the ability to help out grandkids with college, etc...just imagine how much stronger the economy would be without this giant leech on everyone's paycheck. How many more jobs would there be because of increased investment, how many more jobs would there be because employers can afford to hire more people, etc. How many people would give more to private charity if only they had more money, and how many fewer people would need it in the first place. FDR and his gang of merry Mussolini-and-Stalin-admiring socialists didn't create this wonderful new charity program, they simply shifted charity from the private sector to Washington.

    edit: someone's probably going to claim that without SS, there will be some who are too dumb to save for the future. Perhaps, but there are some who are too dumb to brush their teeth in the morning. Should we have a government tooth-brushing program?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356

    Right on target, BVM. Unfortunately, those same stupid people that can't brush their teeth are the ones that will cling for dear life to SS because the politicians say they will die without it.
     
  6. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +618
    Social security is a crime!! Check this out and you’ll understand why.
    *************************************************

    Read the rest.....WARNING YOU'LL JUST GET PISSED.
    http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba215.html
     
  7. glockmail
    Offline

    glockmail BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    7,700
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Ratings:
    +438
    Take whatever you pay in and double it to account for your employers "contribution", which you would otherwise get in pay if SS was abolished.
     
  8. glockmail
    Offline

    glockmail BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    7,700
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Ratings:
    +438

    Nice. The guv'mint opting out of its own system. Priceless.
     
  9. BaronVonBigmeat
    Offline

    BaronVonBigmeat Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,185
    Thanks Received:
    160
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +160
    Yeah, I forgot about that one. Most of it their savings would probably go towards labor, or it might be used to fund research or expansion, it's hard to say; but any of these would be better than what we have now.

    Just for the sake of clarity, let's take my specific example. I earn slightly less than the national average. Every two weeks, my gross paycheck is just shy of $1500. After all deductions (including 6% for 401k), I get about $1050. Let's do some math.

    1440 - ( 1440 x .06) - 1050 = $303.

    I'm going on memory here, and that sounds a little high. So, let's say $200 every two weeks. That would be a little bit over $400 a month (or, $656/month if the $303 is correct). That's a conservative estimate, AND we're not counting employer contributions either.

    As I said, my salary is right around the national average, or a little under. If every person, on average, had an extra $400+ a month to spend, invest, or donate...my god. And it's not preposterous to suggest that, without SS, Mr. Average would really have more like $600~$1200 a month extra, considering what the employer pays. My brother and I could match what grandma's getting from SS now, and still have money left over.
     
  10. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +618
    In theory this is true. However, the employer may not give that savings to the employee, then again the option is there.
     

Share This Page