Which would you rather have $1m in the bank or Social Security Check???

[sealybobo]

Much is made about 70 being the new 50,
70 is the new 50 in the Workforce | TIME.com

This means for people LIKE ME age 71 I am still very active in my business nearly as much as I was when I was 50!

So while I'm getting MINE.. i.e. social security I don't understand why especially younger people don't figure out that because there are more of people like me, i.e. living longer then what SS originally planned in the 1930s i.e. (I'd be dead by 65!) they need to fix this!
Because as more of us live longer and yet we have SS kicking in at 65. With more retired people at 65 getting SS there are fewer younger people paying in!

Solution..
A) Raise retirement age to 70 for all those people currently under age 50!
B) Give the younger people the chance to tell SS where to put their payments... privatize SS!

So by raising the age we have more people paying in for those younger people when they retire at 70!
But more importantly IF NOT mandatory BUT IF the young employee wants to invest say at 25 their SS/Medicare payments into
the wild and risky stock market for 20 years then the next 20 switch a portion to more secure investments and then last 20 years
into totally secured risk free investments.. this 25 year old would have base on average starting salary of $30,000 with increases
in income over the 60 years would have nearly $1 million that is solely under the young worker control!
So at age 70 getting ready to retire this young (now old retiree) has money set aside MORE then traditional SS would pay.
Also with $1 million the health care costs would be taken care of with no need for medicare!

AND AGAIN NO one would be forced to participate in the privatized SS... you want traditional more power!
Two solutions that would solve the "safety net" destruction that is ahead!

Bad idea. It's like defunding the schools and wondering why they don't work.

Most people won't have a million dollars. And if they do, how much will a million dollars be worth if every senior has a million in the bank.

And what happens if another republican trashes the stock market like Bush did and people's portfolio's take a huge dump? Who's gonna bail them out.

We like ss. If you want to save an additional $1 million, go for it. If you can't, shut the **** up.

And **** that. You got ss when you were 65? I want it when I'm 65. No one wants to work longer. Sure you may have to or you may choose to but most people want to be able to retire earlier, not later.

We need to strengthen ss and medicare, not defund them. Not privatize them.

 

[Spoonman]

Much is made about 70 being the new 50,
70 is the new 50 in the Workforce | TIME.com

This means for people LIKE ME age 71 I am still very active in my business nearly as much as I was when I was 50!

So while I'm getting MINE.. i.e. social security I don't understand why especially younger people don't figure out that because there are more of people like me, i.e. living longer then what SS originally planned in the 1930s i.e. (I'd be dead by 65!) they need to fix this!
Because as more of us live longer and yet we have SS kicking in at 65. With more retired people at 65 getting SS there are fewer younger people paying in!

Solution..
A) Raise retirement age to 70 for all those people currently under age 50!
B) Give the younger people the chance to tell SS where to put their payments... privatize SS!

So by raising the age we have more people paying in for those younger people when they retire at 70!
But more importantly IF NOT mandatory BUT IF the young employee wants to invest say at 25 their SS/Medicare payments into
the wild and risky stock market for 20 years then the next 20 switch a portion to more secure investments and then last 20 years
into totally secured risk free investments.. this 25 year old would have base on average starting salary of $30,000 with increases
in income over the 60 years would have nearly $1 million that is solely under the young worker control!
So at age 70 getting ready to retire this young (now old retiree) has money set aside MORE then traditional SS would pay.
Also with $1 million the health care costs would be taken care of with no need for medicare!

AND AGAIN NO one would be forced to participate in the privatized SS... you want traditional more power!
Two solutions that would solve the "safety net" destruction that is ahead!

Bad idea. It's like defunding the schools and wondering why they don't work.

Most people won't have a million dollars. And if they do, how much will a million dollars be worth if every senior has a million in the bank.

And what happens if another republican trashes the stock market like Bush did and people's portfolio's take a huge dump? Who's gonna bail them out.

We like ss. If you want to save an additional $1 million, go for it. If you can't, shut the **** up.

And **** that. You got ss when you were 65? I want it when I'm 65. No one wants to work longer. Sure you may have to or you may choose to but most people want to be able to retire earlier, not later.

We need to strengthen ss and medicare, not defund them. Not privatize them.

please, the way democrats are expanding entitlement programs to the do nothings for votes, SS is losing its value every day. if you are a top earner you might see 20k taxable dollars a year. good luck surviving on that.

 

[dnsmith35]

Much is made about 70 being the new 50,
70 is the new 50 in the Workforce | TIME.com

This means for people LIKE ME age 71 I am still very active in my business nearly as much as I was when I was 50!

So while I'm getting MINE.. i.e. social security I don't understand why especially younger people don't figure out that because there are more of people like me, i.e. living longer then what SS originally planned in the 1930s i.e. (I'd be dead by 65!) they need to fix this!
Because as more of us live longer and yet we have SS kicking in at 65. With more retired people at 65 getting SS there are fewer younger people paying in!

Solution..
A) Raise retirement age to 70 for all those people currently under age 50!
B) Give the younger people the chance to tell SS where to put their payments... privatize SS!

So by raising the age we have more people paying in for those younger people when they retire at 70!
But more importantly IF NOT mandatory BUT IF the young employee wants to invest say at 25 their SS/Medicare payments into
the wild and risky stock market for 20 years then the next 20 switch a portion to more secure investments and then last 20 years
into totally secured risk free investments.. this 25 year old would have base on average starting salary of $30,000 with increases
in income over the 60 years would have nearly $1 million that is solely under the young worker control!
So at age 70 getting ready to retire this young (now old retiree) has money set aside MORE then traditional SS would pay.
Also with $1 million the health care costs would be taken care of with no need for medicare!

AND AGAIN NO one would be forced to participate in the privatized SS... you want traditional more power!
Two solutions that would solve the "safety net" destruction that is ahead!

Bad idea. It's like defunding the schools and wondering why they don't work.

Most people won't have a million dollars. And if they do, how much will a million dollars be worth if every senior has a million in the bank.

And what happens if another republican trashes the stock market like Bush did and people's portfolio's take a huge dump? Who's gonna bail them out.

Bush did not trash the market all by himself. It started being trashed in 1997 when the price to value ratio of housing started inflating. Bush didn't improve the situation, but he didn't cause it all either.

We need to strengthen ss and medicare, not defund them. Not privatize them.

With that I partially agree. No one has ever suggested we privatize ALL social security investments. It was always to be an option for the individual to choose investments which pay more than the paltry interest rate the Treasury pays.

But I totally agree with strengthening the trust fund. I believe the best way to do that is to eliminate all the Caps on the income from which FICA is collected.

 

[healthmyths]

Much is made about 70 being the new 50,
70 is the new 50 in the Workforce | TIME.com

This means for people LIKE ME age 71 I am still very active in my business nearly as much as I was when I was 50!

So while I'm getting MINE.. i.e. social security I don't understand why especially younger people don't figure out that because there are more of people like me, i.e. living longer then what SS originally planned in the 1930s i.e. (I'd be dead by 65!) they need to fix this!
Because as more of us live longer and yet we have SS kicking in at 65. With more retired people at 65 getting SS there are fewer younger people paying in!

Solution..
A) Raise retirement age to 70 for all those people currently under age 50!
B) Give the younger people the chance to tell SS where to put their payments... privatize SS!

So by raising the age we have more people paying in for those younger people when they retire at 70!
But more importantly IF NOT mandatory BUT IF the young employee wants to invest say at 25 their SS/Medicare payments into
the wild and risky stock market for 20 years then the next 20 switch a portion to more secure investments and then last 20 years
into totally secured risk free investments.. this 25 year old would have base on average starting salary of $30,000 with increases
in income over the 60 years would have nearly $1 million that is solely under the young worker control!
So at age 70 getting ready to retire this young (now old retiree) has money set aside MORE then traditional SS would pay.
Also with $1 million the health care costs would be taken care of with no need for medicare!

AND AGAIN NO one would be forced to participate in the privatized SS... you want traditional more power!
Two solutions that would solve the "safety net" destruction that is ahead!

Bad idea. It's like defunding the schools and wondering why they don't work.

Most people won't have a million dollars. And if they do, how much will a million dollars be worth if every senior has a million in the bank.

And what happens if another republican trashes the stock market like Bush did and people's portfolio's take a huge dump? Who's gonna bail them out.

We like ss. If you want to save an additional $1 million, go for it. If you can't, shut the **** up.

And **** that. You got ss when you were 65? I want it when I'm 65. No one wants to work longer. Sure you may have to or you may choose to but most people want to be able to retire earlier, not later.

We need to strengthen ss and medicare, not defund them. Not privatize them.

How many is "MOST People"? Another one of those hyperbolic totally unproven statements.
The fact is using your number "MOST People" aren't so fu...king stupid as YOU that when they get to their retirement age HAVE the money in the "RISKY" stock market.
DUMB f...K! MOST people do what most financial planning people do..

A) From age 20 to 40 have money they can risk in the "risky stock market"DUMMY!!! Then as the grow older..
B) From ages 40 to 60 .. LESS RISKY STOCK MARKET you dummy and more treasury bills, secured, you dummy!
C) From ages 60 to retirement almost ALL OUT of the "RISKY MARKET" and into the less risky above!
THAT's how over 45 years MOST people would retire with "$1 million" you dummy!

ALSO not ONE plan offered to alter SS would go into affect for ANYONE over 55! Period you dummy!!!
Then it also would allow idiots like you that can't even read the minimum about any investment to keep with your stupid let the SS burn up your money!
The rest of the smarter people would be from beginning of paying into SS allowed to TELL SS where to put the money!
So if even an idiot like you that can't read a financial... could say put into my local bank GUARANTEED by FDIC you dumb f...k!
AND YOU still would be better off!

Hey any dummy like you according to the plans CAN KEEP their valuable "SS" and let the government take it which is EXACTLY what they do now.
It would be the majority of intelligent smarter people then you that would when they started working to tell the SS where to INVEST!
These people would be most happy to start out with RISKY stock market primarily because they wouldn't be idiots like you and keep it ALL invested when they
turned 60 or when retirement was closer!

AGAIN the simple facts about the "RISKY stock market">>>
I've calculated since I began paying into SS/Medicare that if I had been when I started able to invest at my younger years in the stock market,i.e.
from 1967 for 20 years to 1987.. I'd averaged
In 1967 the DJIA was 879.12
In 20 year 1987 it was increased to 2275.99 a 159% increase or over 20 years... or a 7.94% increase per year.
Then moving half out of "risky stock market"
The DJI from 1988 1939 (remember 1987 stock crash...) to 2008 the DJIA was in 13,264
Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) Yearly Returns

A gain of 29% per year!
I think I would have retired as my stock market account would be over $10 million by then!
And if I left it in the market 100% till retired at 65? $7 million!
2008 the DJIA was 8,776
2013 The DJIA was 13,104
Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) Yearly Returns
A gain of 49% over 10 years or 4.9% per year... still better then the bank!!!

 

[Erand7899]

This is assuming of course that the corporations running the privatized social security scam don't make shitty investments that end up crashing the entire global economy in which the young worker is totally fucked and the CEO who fucked him gets a multi-million dollar bonus.

They would be the same people that currently run the IRAs and 401k's that a large share of American workers already invest in.

If American workers had put their SS payments, plus their employer contribution into 401k's back in the thirties, they would all be wealthy retirees. The same applies today. But, government would not have had all that money to spend.

 

[Erand7899]

Maybe? And thats supposed to make it right? Maybe? Seriously?

One way or another we will pay. We are not going to have a bunch of homeless elderly.

Ah the good old days, when retirement meant illness and poverty. Oh how great we were then.

Social security was not a bad idea. The way that it was implemented, and the way it has been maintained over the years has been terrible. Another example of how liberal/socialists can screw the pooch, on even good ideas.

Another grand example of left wing partisan idiocy was the Obama idea of giving people back a portion of their SS taxes, as a temporary "tax reduction". Liberal/socialists cheered that idea. The same liberal/socialists who scorned the idea of allowing people to invest part of their SS taxes, as a scheme to ruin social security.

 

[dnsmith35]

Much is made about 70 being the new 50,
70 is the new 50 in the Workforce | TIME.com

This means for people LIKE ME age 71 I am still very active in my business nearly as much as I was when I was 50!

So while I'm getting MINE.. i.e. social security I don't understand why especially younger people don't figure out that because there are more of people like me, i.e. living longer then what SS originally planned in the 1930s i.e. (I'd be dead by 65!) they need to fix this!
Because as more of us live longer and yet we have SS kicking in at 65. With more retired people at 65 getting SS there are fewer younger people paying in!

Solution..
A) Raise retirement age to 70 for all those people currently under age 50!
B) Give the younger people the chance to tell SS where to put their payments... privatize SS!

So by raising the age we have more people paying in for those younger people when they retire at 70!
But more importantly IF NOT mandatory BUT IF the young employee wants to invest say at 25 their SS/Medicare payments into
the wild and risky stock market for 20 years then the next 20 switch a portion to more secure investments and then last 20 years
into totally secured risk free investments.. this 25 year old would have base on average starting salary of $30,000 with increases
in income over the 60 years would have nearly $1 million that is solely under the young worker control!
So at age 70 getting ready to retire this young (now old retiree) has money set aside MORE then traditional SS would pay.
Also with $1 million the health care costs would be taken care of with no need for medicare!

AND AGAIN NO one would be forced to participate in the privatized SS... you want traditional more power!
Two solutions that would solve the "safety net" destruction that is ahead!

Bad idea. It's like defunding the schools and wondering why they don't work.

Most people won't have a million dollars. And if they do, how much will a million dollars be worth if every senior has a million in the bank.

And what happens if another republican trashes the stock market like Bush did and people's portfolio's take a huge dump? Who's gonna bail them out.

We like ss. If you want to save an additional $1 million, go for it. If you can't, shut the **** up.

And **** that. You got ss when you were 65? I want it when I'm 65. No one wants to work longer. Sure you may have to or you may choose to but most people want to be able to retire earlier, not later.

We need to strengthen ss and medicare, not defund them. Not privatize them.

How many is "MOST People"? Another one of those hyperbolic totally unproven statements.
The fact is using your number "MOST People" aren't so fu...king stupid as YOU that when they get to their retirement age HAVE the money in the "RISKY" stock market.
DUMB f...K! MOST people do what most financial planning people do..

A) From age 20 to 40 have money they can risk in the "risky stock market"DUMMY!!! Then as the grow older..
B) From ages 40 to 60 .. LESS RISKY STOCK MARKET you dummy and more treasury bills, secured, you dummy!
C) From ages 60 to retirement almost ALL OUT of the "RISKY MARKET" and into the less risky above!
THAT's how over 45 years MOST people would retire with "$1 million" you dummy!

ALSO not ONE plan offered to alter SS would go into affect for ANYONE over 55! Period you dummy!!!
Then it also would allow idiots like you that can't even read the minimum about any investment to keep with your stupid let the SS burn up your money!
The rest of the smarter people would be from beginning of paying into SS allowed to TELL SS where to put the money!
So if even an idiot like you that can't read a financial... could say put into my local bank GUARANTEED by FDIC you dumb f...k!
AND YOU still would be better off!

Hey any dummy like you according to the plans CAN KEEP their valuable "SS" and let the government take it which is EXACTLY what they do now.
It would be the majority of intelligent smarter people then you that would when they started working to tell the SS where to INVEST!
These people would be most happy to start out with RISKY stock market primarily because they wouldn't be idiots like you and keep it ALL invested when they
turned 60 or when retirement was closer!

AGAIN the simple facts about the "RISKY stock market">>>
I've calculated since I began paying into SS/Medicare that if I had been when I started able to invest at my younger years in the stock market,i.e.
from 1967 for 20 years to 1987.. I'd averaged
In 1967 the DJIA was 879.12
In 20 year 1987 it was increased to 2275.99 a 159% increase or over 20 years... or a 7.94% increase per year.
Then moving half out of "risky stock market"
The DJI from 1988 1939 (remember 1987 stock crash...) to 2008 the DJIA was in 13,264
Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) Yearly Returns

A gain of 29% per year!
I think I would have retired as my stock market account would be over $10 million by then!
And if I left it in the market 100% till retired at 65? $7 million!
2008 the DJIA was 8,776
2013 The DJIA was 13,104
Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) Yearly Returns
A gain of 49% over 10 years or 4.9% per year... still better then the bank!!!

A tidbit for consideration. Location of retirement is an important issue. Moving to Alabama improved my lifestyle at least 20 to 25% over other locations in which I have lived. Within easy commute I can see excellent stage plays, Operas or Symphonies. We have great medical care, and every MD accepts Medicare, something doctors in some inflated cost of living areas do not do. We have great forests for hunting and great lakes for fishing, all within 20 minutes of my home. My 2500 sq ft Brick/frame home cost me $53,000 when I bought it in 1984 and with $20,000 we build a 4th bedroom and a solarium. It is now worth $125,000 which is way over average for small town Alabama. My retirement pay could have supported us anywhere in the US, but here I have between $5,000 and $6,000 to play with after my bills monthly. Something I couldn't say if I retired in New York City or most of California.

10 States That Offer the Most Comfortable Retirement - Part 10

 

[JakeStarkey]

Which would you rather have $1m in the bank or Social Security Check???

Based on your behavior and words here, if we allowed you to handle your own investment money, hm, we would be supporting you when you got old because you would be broke.

 

[boedicca]

Do you have parents or grandparents who benefit from Social Security?

Other than the original recipients who never paid in and received free money from Uncle Sam, nobody ever benefits from Social Security.

People have money taken from them by the federal government at the barrel of a gun and then if they die before 65, that money is stolen by the federal government. If they live to 65, they receive a pittance compared to what they would have had were they allowed to keep the money which was taken from them.

I BENEFIT FROM SOCIAL SECURITY. I paid in for 40 years and when disabled by both aircraft hard landings and heart trouble SS benefits became important to me. At this moment it provides me about 20% of my total retirement income, to the point I have to pay income tax on a significant part of my SS income.

I personally believe it is a good program, but I believe the funding must be improved, probably best by eliminating all caps on the INCOME FROM WHICH FICA is collected.

All that will do is to provide a bigger pool of money for DC to spend now with an IOU on future generations.

The better alternative is to move to a privatized account system such as the one in Chile. Indiviuals own their retirement savings accounts. The government cannot plunder them, and they can leave them to their heirs.

 

[dnsmith35]

BTW, at the moment to receive the same benefits as my current SS check, I would need a little over $2,000,000. Current interest rates are right at 1%, so I would say, keep giving me my SS checks.

 

[Wake]

I'd choose $1M, and invest more than half of it in index funds, preferred stocks with high integrity, and preferred monthly DRIPs with an APY of at least 10% interest. Maybe put $20,000 or more in a traditional IRA. As long as you practice basic frugality and live well within your means, you should be alright.

 

[healthmyths]

I'd choose $1M, and invest more than half of it in index funds, preferred stocks with high integrity, and preferred monthly DRIPs with an APY of at least 10% interest. Maybe put $20,000 or more in a traditional IRA. As long as you practice basic frugality and live well within your means, you should be alright.

How old are you and how financially secure above and beyond the $1M... because that was the point of the exercise..i.e. which would you rather have control over your destiny by investing as you suggested at age appropriate plateaus so that instead of depending on SS you had $1m in the bank. That's the point.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'd choose $1M, and invest more than half of it in index funds, preferred stocks with high integrity, and preferred monthly DRIPs with an APY of at least 10% interest. Maybe put $20,000 or more in a traditional IRA. As long as you practice basic frugality and live well within your means, you should be alright.

How old are you and how financially secure above and beyond the $1M... because that was the point of the exercise..i.e. which would you rather have control over your destiny by investing as you suggested at age appropriate plateaus so that instead of depending on SS you had $1m in the bank. That's the point.

The point is that if you were as qualified and disciplined as Wake or Stat or Toro, that would be one thing. You and 90% of Americans are not qualified and disciplined to do as you want.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Which would you rather have $1m in the bank or Social Security Check???

Based on your behavior and words here, if we allowed you to handle your own investment money, hm, we would be supporting you when you got old because you would be broke.

Fakey is projecting, again and still.

 

[healthmyths]

I'd choose $1M, and invest more than half of it in index funds, preferred stocks with high integrity, and preferred monthly DRIPs with an APY of at least 10% interest. Maybe put $20,000 or more in a traditional IRA. As long as you practice basic frugality and live well within your means, you should be alright.

How old are you and how financially secure above and beyond the $1M... because that was the point of the exercise..i.e. which would you rather have control over your destiny by investing as you suggested at age appropriate plateaus so that instead of depending on SS you had $1m in the bank. That's the point.

The point is that if you were as qualified and disciplined as Wake or Stat or Toro, that would be one thing. You and 90% of Americans are not qualified and disciplined to do as you want.

NO you f...king idiot!
The point of the thread WAS which would you prefer.. having $1 million in the bank at 65 or having to count on SS?

Because AS I pointed out several several times....
A) you dummy... THE INDIVIDUAL would NOT have access till 65!
B) You idiot... YOU don't have to participate in the plans... you can be the dumb f...k you are pay the SS/Medicare over lifetime and it is USED by the government to pay bills!
You don't believe me.. HERE ARE THE FACTS!

I'm making REALLY simple for you ok???

In 2011 the Federal government received MONEY (revenue) from these sources:
(in Billions)

1. $1,091.5 47.4% Individual taxes That is the taxes that people pay... OK??? Understanding? withholding then after deductions what is PAID! Make SENSE IDIOT?
2. $ 818.8 35.6% Social insurance (payroll taxes) NOW this is what YOU and YOUR employer matching what you paid (I AM SURE idiots like you don't know that employers pay also a matching amount!)
3. $ 181.1 7.9% Corporate taxes This taxes that corporations PAY before they declare a dividend (Which by the way is taxed again in the above "Individual taxes" but dummies like you don't know that!)
4. $ 72.4 3.1% Excise taxes (paid when purchases are made on a specific good, such as gasoline.)
5. $ 7.4 .3% estate and gift taxes. Taxes paid after some dies their estate is taxed!

==========================
$2,300,000,000,000 in total revenue.

Reduce the Tax Burden: Government Revenue and Tax Trends Charts

So... dummy... EVERY current dollar you and your employer pay in "payroll taxes" is counted as GENERAL REVENUE and used! NOT set aside.. NO magic "lock box"! BUT USED!

Now for again dummies like you..
A) the Plan never was to have it for anyone over 55! SS stays exactly as fraudulently as it is!
B) The plan is anyone UNDER 55 can choose
1) To tell SS where to put the money deducted from your paycheck and matched by your employer... YOU can't touch it! Can't borrow. This won't apply to idiots like you because YOU being the dummy wil
2) LET SS use your tax money and pay you a pittance when you retire and YOU will be totally totally dependent!

It's not complicated. 1 out of 2 Americans "INVEST" In that "RISKY GAMBLING Stock market"..
As of September 30, 2012, 401(k) plans held an estimated $3.5 trillion in assets and represented approximately 18 percent of the $19.4 trillion U.S. retirement market, which includes employer-sponsored retirement plans, individual retirement accounts (IRAs), and annuities. In comparison, 401(k) assets were $1.6 trillion and represented nearly 15 percent of the U.S. retirement market in 2002.

How many Americans have 401(k)s?
In 2011, 51 million American workers were active 401(k) participants.

51 million workers have 401(k)s! Valued at $3.5 trillion or each of the 51 million have total assets in 401(k) of $68,000 per each of the 51 million on average!

So again you ignorant dummy... tell me YOU really are that stupid to ignore the facts??
Are you truly that dumb??

 

[bripat9643]

I'd choose $1M, and invest more than half of it in index funds, preferred stocks with high integrity, and preferred monthly DRIPs with an APY of at least 10% interest. Maybe put $20,000 or more in a traditional IRA. As long as you practice basic frugality and live well within your means, you should be alright.

How old are you and how financially secure above and beyond the $1M... because that was the point of the exercise..i.e. which would you rather have control over your destiny by investing as you suggested at age appropriate plateaus so that instead of depending on SS you had $1m in the bank. That's the point.

The point is that if you were as qualified and disciplined as Wake or Stat or Toro, that would be one thing. You and 90% of Americans are not qualified and disciplined to do as you want.

But you are qualified to choose the leader of the free world?

Spare me.

 

[bripat9643]

BTW, at the moment to receive the same benefits as my current SS check, I would need a little over $2,000,000. Current interest rates are right at 1%, so I would say, keep giving me my SS checks.

Horseshit. The maximum you can recieve from SSN is about $25,000/yr. At a 5% rate of return, which is far lower than the typical return from stocks, $2,000,000 will give you $100,000/yr

 

[JakeStarkey]

How old are you and how financially secure above and beyond the $1M... because that was the point of the exercise..i.e. which would you rather have control over your destiny by investing as you suggested at age appropriate plateaus so that instead of depending on SS you had $1m in the bank. That's the point.

The point is that if you were as qualified and disciplined as Wake or Stat or Toro, that would be one thing. You and 90% of Americans are not qualified and disciplined to do as you want.

But you are qualified to choose the leader of the free world?

Spare me.

Me, absolutely not, you and jarl even less.

 

[Jughead]

Which would you rather have $1m in the bank or Social Security Check???

If I only had the choice between the two, I'd pick the $1m in the bank hands down. You can't invest a social security check.

 

[dnsmith35]

BTW, at the moment to receive the same benefits as my current SS check, I would need a little over $2,000,000. Current interest rates are right at 1%, so I would say, keep giving me my SS checks.

Horseshit. The maximum you can recieve from SSN is about $25,000/yr. At a 5% rate of return, which is far lower than the typical return from stocks, $2,000,000 will give you $100,000/yr

That is very true Brit. But I am 78 and I no longer invest. Combined with my SS, my wife's SS, the proceeds from investments past and my pension I get $100K a year without risk. I don't even spend that on myself. I support a couple of children in an orphanage in India with the excess.