3 Statistics About Social Security That Are Frightening

[JoeTheEconomist]

All socialist programs end like this. Abused, bankrupt and a bottomless hole demanding ever more money. And in the process they feed a huge parasitical bureaucracy and they create an underclass of dependents who can then be bought by politicians for a mere subsistence living.
Not to mention the expansion of government surveillance and intrusion necessary for such a program and the moral hazard of convincing people to casually live off money stolen from other people.

As Daniel Hastings warned when he opposed the original SS bill in 1935 the effect on Americans will be to "bring its people to the level of the average European". Can anyone argue with this as you watch millennials embrace full socialism now?

And note...all Marxist programs like this are so damn attractive that you have to threaten your citizens with prison for not participating. It is the only way it can work...according to the site linked to by Joe above Social Security costs the average American $600,000 over a lifetime. It has cost me well over a million dollars. Social Security Solutions, Social Security Crisis, Fix Social Security

A hell of a government deal. "We will impoverish you over your entire working life and then point out how much you need government to live when you are old."

The $600,000 was more complicated (the market has done better than 4%):

$600,000? That's Crazy!

Our defintion of cost is lost savings, which is what you would have if you had invested your contributions in a fund that you could not touch until retirement?

Our calculation looks at a typical worker born in 1970 who makes 2/3rds of median income. That is about 34K in 2010. We assume that the worker has 6% unemployment over the course of the year. We invested the actual contributions in an actual S&P 500 index stock fund. We don't have actual returns for future S&P 500 returns. So we look at rolling 40-year periods, and take the lowest return which is about 4% real on average.

 

[beagle9]

Listen, how about where this nation is withdrawing from different programs in the world that was costing us billions, and the economy is getting on track now ?? It's crazy to say that we can't fix this thing, and restore the age scales to their proper scales at 62 minimum and 65 max. How can this nation forsake it's working retirement class when it comes their time after paying into a program over 40 years ? It's just downright robbery is what it is.

We can 'fix' Social Security. If for example every man woman and child worked an entire year for nothing but Social Security, it would almost be fixed.

The program's problems are in the math of inflows and outflows. The program promises more than it can deliver, and then we bitch about how it is the system's fault. For 40 years, Congress promised dollars of benefits for dimes of cost. Asking future workers to hand someone dollars for the dimes that they paid in over 40 years - that is robbery. This isn't the fault of demographics or theft. Social Security is where it is because politicians have continually used it to funnel benefit dollars to current voters at the expense of future ones. If younger workers say no, that isn't robbery.

. If the government forced me to pay into a program over 40 years now, and I was supposed to be able to supplement my retirement with the program benefits that were promised me as a result of my loyalty to the program or idea, then yes indeed it's robbery if they tell me now that I've been screwed. I don't care what the excuse is they screwed me and many more the same.

Now I know good and well that we are a wealthy enough nation to adjust in order to fix the problem, but those who see this as a joke or bump in the road instead of a fraud, undoubtedly don't understand that the people who have been had ain't gonna sit around quite about it. It's time the workers have somebody truly represent their interest in government. It would have been best if private long-standing insurance companies would have been handling this outside of government for the workers of America, and then just like the banks they have the government FDIC garantee on the accounts in case something happened.

 

[beagle9]

Was the Social Security retirement fund also a way to take the pressure off of companies like contractors who work people on jobs, and (because of the temporary status of those jobs), can't offer benefits like retirement plans etc. because of the fluid environment where employees are being shuffled from one company to another by skill set and due to job mobility ??

Otherwise was the government plan a way to ensure the contractor workers of having a way to have their retirement set up in a centralized way in order that private companies not be burdened nor the workers be ousted from a private plan, (by trying to keep the private plan paid in on), when there was always a possibility of long periods of unemployment in the construction sector all due to the volital environment that exist in the sector ???

Specialized contractor services have been a nessesary very important thing across this nation for decades, but the type of movement workers are required to sustain caused these workers huge stresses in keeping family and benefit's together for the long haul. So having a place in government to hold and secure these workers retirement plans was imparative for these workers to be treated fairly in this country for what they do.

If want truckers, construction workers etc to thrive and continue to thrive in this nation, then the government will fix the problem, and they will quit screwing over the workers with the fraud and corruption we keep seeing.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

If the government forced me to pay into a program over 40 years now, and I was supposed to be able to supplement my retirement with the program benefits that were promised me as a result of my loyalty to the program or idea, then yes indeed it's robbery if they tell me now that I've been screwed. I don't care what the excuse is they screwed me and many more the same.

This is the tough love answer. It is easier to complain about robberies that haven't taken place than make this issue a priority in our lives. It is easier to believe than the obvious than accept that we made poor voting choices over our lifetime.

This note isn't just about you, but you are slinging a slogan that I hear a lot. "It is robbery" to describe our own poor choices. As it is, we (and I am a boomer) voted for people who agreed that we would pay more in payroll taxes in hopes that a future generation would pay even more than we did. I have described that as making an agreement with ourselves that our kids would pay the taxes that we wouldn't. Now that our kids have the choice, we want to call that choice a robbery rather than poor voting choices when we were younger. Worse, we boomers have either led or significantly participated in the 3rd rail politics that have stalled any form of reform, largely because we thought that we would be dead before the crisis hit. In this thread you are hearing that the crisis is closer and larger than you expected, and yes you will likely be around for the wreck. That isn't robbery. That is a public foolishly betting against the odds of its own longevity.

I will put the question to you differently. What have you done to stop the "robbery?" Did you make Social Security a top issue in your voting? Typically I hear that people have written their Congressman. That letter is read by a teenager who likely has briefly met the Congressman once in their life. So that is writing a stranger who doesn't care about the problem.

What have you done today to limit the coming crisis? This issue is out of the public eye. The last trustees report showed liability growth of more than 10%. What little media that covered the issue, said that the numbers showed little change. Did you write the head of CNN or FOXNews and ask them why no one covers this issue? Did you talk to your family and friends with facts not hyperbole about robberies that haven't taken place. Until we as voters take the issue seriously, why do you think that Congress will?

This is why I say it is easier to call it robbery than to try to prevent it. Well at this point, from growing into a crisis.

Now I know good and well that we are a wealthy enough nation to adjust in order to fix the problem, but those who see this as a joke or bump in the road instead of a fraud, undoubtedly don't understand that the people who have been had ain't gonna sit around quite about it. It's time the workers have somebody truly represent their interest in government. It would have been best if private long-standing insurance companies would have been handling this outside of government for the workers of America, and then just like the banks they have the government FDIC garantee on the accounts in case something happened.

People are quiet now, and they quietly absorbed the financial crisis which cost many their homes. The people who drove that crisis either got promotions or kept their jobs.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Was the Social Security retirement fund also a way to take the pressure off of companies like contractors who work people on jobs, and (because of the temporary status of those jobs), can't offer benefits like retirement plans etc. because of the fluid environment where employees are being shuffled from one company to another by skill set and due to job mobility ??

Otherwise was the government plan a way to ensure the contractor workers of having a way to have their retirement set up in a centralized way in order that private companies not be burdened nor the workers be ousted from a private plan, (by trying to keep the private plan paid in on), when there was always a possibility of long periods of unemployment in the construction sector all due to the volital environment that exist in the sector ???

Specialized contractor services have been a nessesary very important thing across this nation for decades, but the movement workers are required to sustain caused these workers huge stresses in keeping family and benefit's together for the long haul. So having a place in government to hold and secure these workers retirement plans was imparative for these workers to be treated fairly in this country for what they do.

If want truckers, construction workers etc to thrive and continue to thrive in this nation, then the government will fix the problem, and they will quit screwing over the workers with the fraud and corruption we keep seeing.

IMO, Social Security reflects a change in the family dynamic in which cars enabled people in the 1930s, and much more so as time passed (when Social Security grew exponentially), to leave. This created a structural breakdown in the family network, where parents could no longer live with their children. So yes, employees choosing to move from one company to the next in search of better opportunities make SS a necessity. I do not believe that is limited to companies like contractors though.

The people who want to save (entirely) for retirement do not understand the concept of insurance or the cost of realized risk. If savings were the way to prepare for retirement, we would all have personal auto wreck accounts. For all of the bitching about the return on SS, keep in mind it is managing the cost of risk, not a retirement fund. That said, it is overpriced insurance - again largely because the public isn't paying attention.

 

[Norman]

Was the Social Security retirement fund also a way to take the pressure off of companies like contractors who work people on jobs, and (because of the temporary status of those jobs), can't offer benefits like retirement plans etc. because of the fluid environment where employees are being shuffled from one company to another by skill set and due to job mobility ??

Otherwise was the government plan a way to ensure the contractor workers of having a way to have their retirement set up in a centralized way in order that private companies not be burdened nor the workers be ousted from a private plan, (by trying to keep the private plan paid in on), when there was always a possibility of long periods of unemployment in the construction sector all due to the volital environment that exist in the sector ???

Specialized contractor services have been a nessesary very important thing across this nation for decades, but the movement workers are required to sustain caused these workers huge stresses in keeping family and benefit's together for the long haul. So having a place in government to hold and secure these workers retirement plans was imparative for these workers to be treated fairly in this country for what they do.

If want truckers, construction workers etc to thrive and continue to thrive in this nation, then the government will fix the problem, and they will quit screwing over the workers with the fraud and corruption we keep seeing.

IMO, Social Security reflects a change in the family dynamic in which cars enabled people in the 1930s, and much more so as time passed (when Social Security grew exponentially), to leave. This created a structural breakdown in the family network, where parents could no longer live with their children. So yes, employees choosing to move from one company to the next in search of better opportunities make SS a necessity. I do not believe that is limited to companies like contractors though.

The people who want to save (entirely) for retirement do not understand the concept of insurance or the cost of realized risk. If savings were the way to prepare for retirement, we would all have personal auto wreck accounts. For all of the bitching about the return on SS, keep in mind it is managing the cost of risk, not a retirement fund. That said, it is overpriced insurance - again largely because the public isn't paying attention.

SS is in no way a necessity. Especially the way it's structured now.

People could easily save for their own retirement in their own accounts. This could be mandated if you are afraid that people wouldn't do this.

 

[beagle9]

If the government forced me to pay into a program over 40 years now, and I was supposed to be able to supplement my retirement with the program benefits that were promised me as a result of my loyalty to the program or idea, then yes indeed it's robbery if they tell me now that I've been screwed. I don't care what the excuse is they screwed me and many more the same.

This is the tough love answer. It is easier to complain about robberies that haven't taken place than make this issue a priority in our lives. It is easier to believe than the obvious. We made poor voting choices over our lifetime.

This note isn't just about you, but you are slinging a slogan that I hear a lot. "It is robbery" to describe our own poor choices. As it is, we (and I am a boomer) voted for people who agreed that we would pay more in payroll taxes in hopes that a future generation would pay even more than we did. I have described that as making an agreement with ourselves that our kids would pay the taxes that we wouldn't. Now that our kids have the choice, we want to call that choice a robbery rather than poor voting choices when we were younger. Worse, we boomers have either led or significantly participated in the 3rd rail politics that have stalled any form of reform, largely because we thought that we would be dead before the crisis hit. In this thread you are hearing that the crisis is closer and larger than you expected, and yes you will likely be around for the wreck. That isn't robbery. That is a public foolishly betting against the odds of its own longevity.

I will put the question to you differently. What have you done to stop the "robbery?" Did you make Social Security a top issue in your voting? Typically I hear that people have written their Congressman. That letter is read by a teenager who likely has briefly met the Congressman once in their life. So that is writing a stranger who doesn't care about the problem. This situation isn't something that someone did to you.

What have you done today to limit the coming crisis? This issue is out of the public eye. The last trustees report showed liability growth of more than 10%. What little media that covered the issue, said that the numbers showed little change. Did you write the head of CNN or FOXNews and ask them why no one covers this issue? Did you talk to your family and friends with facts not hyperbole about robberies that haven't taken place. Until we as voters take the issue seriously, why do you think that Congress will?

This is why I say it is easier to call it robbery than to try to prevent it. Well at this point, from growing into a crisis.

Now I know good and well that we are a wealthy enough nation to adjust in order to fix the problem, but those who see this as a joke or bump in the road instead of a fraud, undoubtedly don't understand that the people who have been had ain't gonna sit around quite about it. It's time the workers have somebody truly represent their interest in government. It would have been best if private long-standing insurance companies would have been handling this outside of government for the workers of America, and then just like the banks they have the government FDIC garantee on the accounts in case something happened.

People are quiet now, and they quietly absorbed the financial crisis which cost many their homes. The people who drove that crisis either got promotions or kept their jobs.

. You can put the blame on the voters all you want, but what we have here is a government fraud that has been played out on us because we couldn't freely choose not to pay into the bullcrap that had become the SS scam of the century if not fixed. The government can fix this immediately, but as long as people sit back and take it like you say they did during the housing bubble where they lost their homes etc then nothing changes does it ? Happened again in the case of billions being lost in the failed reactor project down there in South Carolina, and again you had bonuses being paid out to the idiots who were part of that failure according to the news blogs in that state. The poor utility customers who got hit hard in the bullcrap won't see a return of their money for 20 years out.

 

[Disir]

That's nice. SS is a safety net. It's why it exists. Someone of your age and stature should have no problem making that quick cash though. You know, might even have a very nice portfolio going.

SS is a safety net. It's why it exists.

Yes, a system that takes 12.4% of your income all your life, and gives you a crappy return.
Until about 2032, when it'll only give you 70% of a crappy return.

And if it was set up your way and there was a crash it wouldn't exist at all.

Then, you would talk long and hard about a bunch of BS regarding personal responsibility and yada-yada-yada.

And if it was set up your way and there was a crash it wouldn't exist at all.

Bullshit. I've lived through multiple crashes and I'd still have triple.

Right. I mean we just watched people lose everything with the last one, eh?

Oh, wait......that must have been personal responsibility.

You knew people who lost everything in their IRAs in 2008?

Yep. IRAs and 401(k)s. Then there were several articles that were kicked out stating you can't depend on that for retirement-after the fact. Which is rich coming after the fact they played the same line of shit trying to make the shift. And then people that were in their fifties and sixties were losing their jobs and were not being hired anywhere. They were too young to access Social Security and considered too old to be hired. There's always excuses/justifications for the reasons they can steal your shit.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

SS is funded until 2034. By that time, the bulk of the boomers will be gone.
The largest threat to long term solvency is wage stagnation.

I don't believe you. You made that number up.
I provided you a link to the last SS Trustees' report... here tell me on what page does the report state "SS is funded until 2034"?
Page 3 states:
Under the Trustees’ intermediate assumptions, projected OASDI cost will exceed total income by increasing amounts starting in 2022, and the
dollar level of the hypothetical combined trust fund reserves declines until reserves become depleted in 2034.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2017/tr2017.pdf

No by that time the total SS system will have NO money to pay out as the reserves will be depleted.
And your assumption the bulk of baby boomers??? "Baby boomers" were born in the early to mid 1940s... so 2034 - 1943 (me!!!) is 91 years old.
My dad died when he was 90... the expected life span of men born in 1943 is about 90 years or 2034!

Solvent until 2034.

Social Security trustees project trust fund to run dry by 2034

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Raising (or better yet, eliminating) the earnings cap will solve all those problems.

If a rich guy pays twice the tax with no cap, he accrues twice the benefit.
How does that solve the problem?

No. The max benefit is the same for those fully insured, (vested) regardless of wealth.

Turn it into more of a welfare program, that'll guarantee its popularity.

What does this mean and what does it have to do with my post?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'd have triple what Social Security will give me, plus a huge chunk of money to leave to my kids.

You're 100% correct. That has been proven in Galveston Texas and two or three surrounding counties. They opted out of SS decades ago and their benefits are now at least double SS plus there are death benefits.

Again, Galveston Texas works only because they walked away from the obligations that were baked into SS.

All socialist programs end like this. Abused, bankrupt and a bottomless hole demanding ever more money. And in the process they feed a huge parasitical bureaucracy and they create an underclass of dependents who can then be bought by politicians for a mere subsistence living.
Not to mention the expansion of government surveillance and intrusion necessary for such a program and the moral hazard of convincing people to casually live off money stolen from other people.

As Daniel Hastings warned when he opposed the original SS bill in 1935 the effect on Americans will be to "bring its people to the level of the average European". Can anyone argue with this as you watch millennials embrace full socialism now?

And note...all Marxist programs like this are so damn attractive that you have to threaten your citizens with prison for not participating. It is the only way it can work...according to the site linked to by Joe above Social Security costs the average American $600,000 over a lifetime. It has cost me well over a million dollars. Social Security Solutions, Social Security Crisis, Fix Social Security

A hell of a government deal. "We will impoverish you over your entire working life and then point out how much you need government to live when you are old."

I would understand the source of the $600,000. It is a conservative estimate of what my personal savings would be assuming (I think) a 6% real return. That is about the average 45 year return of the stock market. There is another figure $800,000 (I think) which was my contributions put into the S&P. All of these accounts were at the age of 50. I wasn't an average worker though. If you want to know the number, let me know and I will re-run the figures.

they walked away from the obligations that were baked into SS.

Walked away from the benefits that were baked into SS.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SS is a safety net. It's why it exists.

Yes, a system that takes 12.4% of your income all your life, and gives you a crappy return.
Until about 2032, when it'll only give you 70% of a crappy return.

And if it was set up your way and there was a crash it wouldn't exist at all.

Then, you would talk long and hard about a bunch of BS regarding personal responsibility and yada-yada-yada.

And if it was set up your way and there was a crash it wouldn't exist at all.

Bullshit. I've lived through multiple crashes and I'd still have triple.

Right. I mean we just watched people lose everything with the last one, eh?

Oh, wait......that must have been personal responsibility.

You knew people who lost everything in their IRAs in 2008?

Yep. IRAs and 401(k)s. Then there were several articles that were kicked out stating you can't depend on that for retirement-after the fact. Which is rich coming after the fact they played the same line of shit trying to make the shift. And then people that were in their fifties and sixties were losing their jobs and were not being hired anywhere. They were too young to access Social Security and considered too old to be hired. There's always excuses/justifications for the reasons they can steal your shit.

Yep. IRAs and 401(k)s.

Wow, poor choices.

Then there were several articles that were kicked out stating you can't depend on that for retirement-after the fact.

I can depend on assets I control better than I can depend on political promises.

 

[Disir]

And if it was set up your way and there was a crash it wouldn't exist at all.

Then, you would talk long and hard about a bunch of BS regarding personal responsibility and yada-yada-yada.

And if it was set up your way and there was a crash it wouldn't exist at all.

Bullshit. I've lived through multiple crashes and I'd still have triple.

Right. I mean we just watched people lose everything with the last one, eh?

Oh, wait......that must have been personal responsibility.

You knew people who lost everything in their IRAs in 2008?

Yep. IRAs and 401(k)s. Then there were several articles that were kicked out stating you can't depend on that for retirement-after the fact. Which is rich coming after the fact they played the same line of shit trying to make the shift. And then people that were in their fifties and sixties were losing their jobs and were not being hired anywhere. They were too young to access Social Security and considered too old to be hired. There's always excuses/justifications for the reasons they can steal your shit.

Yep. IRAs and 401(k)s.

Wow, poor choices.

Then there were several articles that were kicked out stating you can't depend on that for retirement-after the fact.

I can depend on assets I control better than I can depend on political promises.

You win first place for parroting.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Raising (or better yet, eliminating) the earnings cap will solve all those problems.

If a rich guy pays twice the tax with no cap, he accrues twice the benefit.
How does that solve the problem?

No. The max benefit is the same for those fully insured, (vested) regardless of wealth.

Turn it into more of a welfare program, that'll guarantee its popularity.

What does this mean and what does it have to do with my post?

If you change it from everybody puts in, everybody gets out into
the people who put in twice as much don't get a larger benefit,
you've changed it into a welfare program. Screw enough of the people
and they'll vote against your new welfare program.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And if it was set up your way and there was a crash it wouldn't exist at all.

Bullshit. I've lived through multiple crashes and I'd still have triple.

Right. I mean we just watched people lose everything with the last one, eh?

Oh, wait......that must have been personal responsibility.

You knew people who lost everything in their IRAs in 2008?

Yep. IRAs and 401(k)s. Then there were several articles that were kicked out stating you can't depend on that for retirement-after the fact. Which is rich coming after the fact they played the same line of shit trying to make the shift. And then people that were in their fifties and sixties were losing their jobs and were not being hired anywhere. They were too young to access Social Security and considered too old to be hired. There's always excuses/justifications for the reasons they can steal your shit.

Yep. IRAs and 401(k)s.

Wow, poor choices.

Then there were several articles that were kicked out stating you can't depend on that for retirement-after the fact.

I can depend on assets I control better than I can depend on political promises.

You win first place for parroting.

You win first place for putting your trust in politicians.

 

[Disir]

Right. I mean we just watched people lose everything with the last one, eh?

Oh, wait......that must have been personal responsibility.

You knew people who lost everything in their IRAs in 2008?

Yep. IRAs and 401(k)s. Then there were several articles that were kicked out stating you can't depend on that for retirement-after the fact. Which is rich coming after the fact they played the same line of shit trying to make the shift. And then people that were in their fifties and sixties were losing their jobs and were not being hired anywhere. They were too young to access Social Security and considered too old to be hired. There's always excuses/justifications for the reasons they can steal your shit.

Yep. IRAs and 401(k)s.

Wow, poor choices.

Then there were several articles that were kicked out stating you can't depend on that for retirement-after the fact.

I can depend on assets I control better than I can depend on political promises.

You win first place for parroting.

You win first place for putting your trust in politicians.

Take note, I trust neither.

 

[boedicca]

SS is a safety net. It's why it exists.

Yes, a system that takes 12.4% of your income all your life, and gives you a crappy return.
Until about 2032, when it'll only give you 70% of a crappy return.

And if it was set up your way and there was a crash it wouldn't exist at all.

Then, you would talk long and hard about a bunch of BS regarding personal responsibility and yada-yada-yada.

And if it was set up your way and there was a crash it wouldn't exist at all.

Bullshit. I've lived through multiple crashes and I'd still have triple.

Right. I mean we just watched people lose everything with the last one, eh?

Oh, wait......that must have been personal responsibility.

You knew people who lost everything in their IRAs in 2008?

Yep. IRAs and 401(k)s. Then there were several articles that were kicked out stating you can't depend on that for retirement-after the fact. Which is rich coming after the fact they played the same line of shit trying to make the shift. And then people that were in their fifties and sixties were losing their jobs and were not being hired anywhere. They were too young to access Social Security and considered too old to be hired. There's always excuses/justifications for the reasons they can steal your shit.

If individuals had the 15% plus that is taxed away from them through the combined employer and employee SS and Medicare burden, the compounded returns on that 15% over a lifetime would be Quite Substantial. In addition, the investment account could be inherited by one's loved ones. With SS, if a spouse dies, the remaining one gets the only higher of the two payments the couple received. IOW, one lifetime of benefit contributions are taken away by the government.

 

[jillian]

Typically, we hear a lot of drama and get a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility of benefit cuts 16 years in the future. Comically enough most of the articles are talking about a fairly benign impact.

Here are three stats to worry about :

The Social Security Shortfall Is Growing Three Times Faster Than the US Economy.

In other words, the hole in the program’s finances is growing at three times the rate of our ability to fill it.

People Turning 70 Today expect to Be Alive When Benefits are Reduced

The problem of Social Security hasn't been about those 40 and younger in decades. Here is the SSA's life expectancy calcuator : Calculators: Life Expectancy

In 2016, The Program Lost More Money Than It Collected

We could have reduced benefits to zero for the entire year of 2016, and the program would have finished the year in worse shape than it started. "Loss" here is looking at the $ value of promises that we believe will go unfulfilled.

If you want the details, here is my article, but the stats are pretty simple.

No Way Around Sorry Shape Social Security Is In

newsman?

 

[Disir]

And if it was set up your way and there was a crash it wouldn't exist at all.

Then, you would talk long and hard about a bunch of BS regarding personal responsibility and yada-yada-yada.

And if it was set up your way and there was a crash it wouldn't exist at all.

Bullshit. I've lived through multiple crashes and I'd still have triple.

Right. I mean we just watched people lose everything with the last one, eh?

Oh, wait......that must have been personal responsibility.

You knew people who lost everything in their IRAs in 2008?

Yep. IRAs and 401(k)s. Then there were several articles that were kicked out stating you can't depend on that for retirement-after the fact. Which is rich coming after the fact they played the same line of shit trying to make the shift. And then people that were in their fifties and sixties were losing their jobs and were not being hired anywhere. They were too young to access Social Security and considered too old to be hired. There's always excuses/justifications for the reasons they can steal your shit.

If individuals had the 15% plus that is taxed away from them the combined employer and employee SS and Medicare burden, the compounded returns on that 15% over a life time would be Quite Substantial. In addition, the investment account could be inherited by one's loved ones. With SS, if a spouse dies, the remaining one gets the only higher of the two payments the couple received. IOW, one lifetime of benefit contributions are taken away and by the government.

Until it wasn't.

I guarantee you will see the same game as the PPA of 2006.

 

[boedicca]

And if it was set up your way and there was a crash it wouldn't exist at all.

Bullshit. I've lived through multiple crashes and I'd still have triple.

Right. I mean we just watched people lose everything with the last one, eh?

Oh, wait......that must have been personal responsibility.

You knew people who lost everything in their IRAs in 2008?

Yep. IRAs and 401(k)s. Then there were several articles that were kicked out stating you can't depend on that for retirement-after the fact. Which is rich coming after the fact they played the same line of shit trying to make the shift. And then people that were in their fifties and sixties were losing their jobs and were not being hired anywhere. They were too young to access Social Security and considered too old to be hired. There's always excuses/justifications for the reasons they can steal your shit.

If individuals had the 15% plus that is taxed away from them the combined employer and employee SS and Medicare burden, the compounded returns on that 15% over a life time would be Quite Substantial. In addition, the investment account could be inherited by one's loved ones. With SS, if a spouse dies, the remaining one gets the only higher of the two payments the couple received. IOW, one lifetime of benefit contributions are taken away and by the government.

Until it wasn't.

I guarantee you will see the same game as the PPA of 2006.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.