Social Security: if you had a choice

[Goobieman]

If you had the choice between having your current SocSec deduction (and your employer's matching funds) continue to go into SocSec or, instead, go into your 401k (et al), what would you do?

 

[Stinger]

If you had the choice between having your current SocSec deduction (and your employer's matching funds) continue to go into SocSec or, instead, go into your 401k (et al), what would you do?

No brainer............401k

 

[ngdawg]

^^Ditto^^ (but he has me on ignore:mrgreen: )

Social Security has become an outdated joke. Many other countries have given their citizens the choice of paying into a government-backed retirement fund or doing so privately with great success.
This country won't do it because they use SS funds for other things. If senators and congressmen were forced to pay into it(none do), there'd be changes. They pay into private pensions, so there's no onus on them to change the system. And since it's not 'that big a deal' as political platforms go, voting out those who see no problem with dipping into SS to fund other programs won't be seen any time soon.

 

[Iriemon]

I'd do both. SS provides for my family if I die or become disabled, and provides a guaranteed supplement to retirement income, even if my 401k were wiped out in a 1929 scenario.

Plus, I like the fact of living in a society where I don't have to deal with hordes of old men and ladies begging at street corners for food, or having to see them living under the freeway.

 

[aps]

I put 15% of my income into the Thrift Savings Plan from the Federal Government, which is the maximum that I am allowed to put in. The Feds match 5% of that. IF I would be allowed to do the 15% AND the amount taken out for Social Security into my TSP, I would do that.

I have been paying Social Security for decades, and I have a terrible feeling that I'll get very little $$ when I reach 67 because there won't be much left.

 

[Stinger]

I'd do both. .......

The poll question is clearly and specifically framed. If you had a CHOICE which would you do?

 

[Iriemon]

The poll question is clearly and specifically framed. If you had a CHOICE which would you do?

"Other"
...

 

[Iriemon]

I put 15% of my income into the Thrift Savings Plan from the Federal Government, which is the maximum that I am allowed to put in. The Feds match 5% of that. IF I would be allowed to do the 15% AND the amount taken out for Social Security into my TSP, I would do that.

I have been paying Social Security for decades, and I have a terrible feeling that I'll get very little $$ when I reach 67 because there won't be much left.

We can thank the Republican debt and its pass the buck leaders for that.

 

[Goobieman]

We can thank the Republican debt and its pass the buck leaders for that.

Wow. A unashamed partisan bigot.
And the Democrats? They dont share any of the blame?

Who do you think started borrowing from the SocSec trust fund? Hint: It started in the 50s when the Dems held both chambers of Congress...

Having said that...
I cannot imagine why anyone would not rather NOT put the $ into their 401k.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

No brainer. 401(k) or IRA plainly is the only way to go.

Socialist security returns less than 1% of you investment, when you die your spouse gets a pittance of a "survivor's benefit", and when she dies, it's gone.

401(k)'s match up to fifty-percent up front, the fund accrues interest and rises on the values of the stocks in the portfolio, AND it's all yours when you retire. When you die, you're spouse's income changes not one whit, and when she dies, your heirs get to claim the rest, except for that bit the government steals for no reason at all.

As for Socialist Security "providing" for your survivor's when you die, don't be stupid, buy term life insurance. You'll get better coverage and have more control over what your family gets.

Socialist Security was a vast Ponzi scheme put over on the American people by con artists seeking votes. It was immoral when it was implemented, and it's immoral today. Not to mention the fact that like all Ponzi schemes the pyramid is collapsing.

 

[Iriemon]

Wow. A unashamed partisan bigot.
And the Democrats? They dont share any of the blame?

Not much. The debt was $1 trillion at 1980, it is $8.4 trillion now, thanks to Republican policies that have caused the huge deficits that have caused the huge debt.

Who do you think started borrowing from the SocSec trust fund? Hint: It started in the 50s when the Dems held both chambers of Congress...

Someone earlier posted it was Johnson. I don't know. But the borrowing was necessitated because of deficits.

Having said that...
I cannot imagine why anyone would not rather NOT put the $ into their 401k.

How much would you pay for a plan that will pay you monthly income for the rest of your life if you become disabled; paid your family monthly income if you die, and will pay you a guaranteed pension for your entire life? Your 401k won't do that. How long will your 401k last if you become disabled and can't work?

 

[Kandahar]

I'd do both. SS provides for my family if I die or become disabled,

You can buy life insurance that will provide the same, and do so much more efficiently.

and provides a guaranteed supplement to retirement income, even if my 401k were wiped out in a 1929 scenario.

In the event of a 1929 scenario, what makes you think that the government will have the funds to continue paying out social security? On that note, what makes you think that the government will have the funds to continue paying out social security even WITHOUT a 1929 scenario? What makes you think that this would be a top priority in a new depression even if they DID have the funds?

Plus, I like the fact of living in a society where I don't have to deal with hordes of old men and ladies begging at street corners for food, or having to see them living under the freeway.

It isn't government's job to protect people from themselves. They chose not to save money.

 

[Goobieman]

Not much. The debt was $1 trillion at 1980, it is $8.4 trillion now, thanks to Republican policies that have caused the huge deficits that have caused the huge debt.

As I said: The unashamed partisan bigot.

How much would you pay for a plan that will pay you monthly income for the rest of your life if you become disabled; paid your family monthly income if you die, and will pay you a guaranteed pension for your entire life? Your 401k won't do that. How long will your 401k last if you become disabled and can't work?

Its MY choice, isnt it?
Who are you to ask me to justify my choice?

 

[Iriemon]

No brainer. 401(k) or IRA plainly is the only way to go.

Socialist security returns less than 1% of you investment, when you die your spouse gets a pittance of a "survivor's benefit", and when she dies, it's gone.

According to the SSA, if I die my family will get about $2000 a month. Maybe that is a pittance to you; not to me.

When she dies, she won't need it.

401(k)'s match up to fifty-percent up front,

That depends on the company. It is not the government matching it.

the fund accrues interest and rises on the values of the stocks in the portfolio,

Rises and falls on the values of stocks.

AND it's all yours when you retire. When you die, you're spouse's income changes not one whit, and when she dies, your heirs get to claim the rest, except for that bit the government steals for no reason at all.

It steals it to for its revenues, just like it steals my income.

As for Socialist Security "providing" for your survivor's when you die, don't be stupid, buy term life insurance. You'll get better coverage and have more control over what your family gets.

If you are healthy enough to get it. To get a policy sufficient to pay a guaranteed $24k a year youd need at about $750k, which is not that cheap, depending upon your age and health.

Socialist Security was a vast Ponzi scheme put over on the American people by con artists seeking votes. It was immoral when it was implemented, and it's immoral today. Not to mention the fact that like all Ponzi schemes the pyramid is collapsing.

It was passed to that old folks don't starve to death. It has succeeded wonderfully -- arguably too well. We don't have to deal with old folks begging and living in the street in our society. I think that is great. Maybe that doesn't bother you, and you have very dark tint on your windows. Or maybe seeing starving homeless people doesn't bother you.

I don't think it is perfect, if anything, it is too generous to people who don't need it. Thanks largely to SS, the elderly have gone from having the highest poverty rate to being the richest, asset wise. To me, it is stupid to be paying Govt money to guys like Warren Buffet -- money our govt cannot afford. Especially since the SS trust has been wiped out by the Republican deficits.

 

[Iriemon]

In the event of a 1929 scenario, what makes you think that the government will have the funds to continue paying out social security? On that note, what makes you think that the government will have the funds to continue paying out social security even WITHOUT a 1929 scenario? What makes you think that this would be a top priority in a new depression even if they DID have the funds?

I'd take my chances with the Govt than an empty portfolio.

Originally Posted by Iriemon
Plus, I like the fact of living in a society where I don't have to deal with hordes of old men and ladies begging at street corners for food, or having to see them living under the freeway.

It isn't government's job to protect people from themselves. They chose not to save money.

That is why I am a liberal. It bothers me. The "compassionate conservative" response is: "They should have saved better. Let them starve." Roll up the tinted windows.

 

[jallman]

Not even a question...I would take responsibility for my own retirement and put all funds into one of my IRA plans. I like the idea of getting to decide my own investments and returns.

 

[Iriemon]

As I said: The unashamed partisan bigot.

There is truth to that. They way the Republicans have run up the debt for political pandering is inexcuable to me -- it does make me partisan, I admit.

Its MY choice, isnt it?
Who are you to ask me to justify my choice?

Isn't that what this thread is about?

 

[Kandahar]

I'd take my chances with the Govt than an empty portfolio.

Suit yourself, but the odds are overwhelmingly against you.

That is why I am a liberal. It bothers me. The "compassionate conservative" response is: "They should have saved better. Let them starve." Roll up the tinted windows.

I don't think they should starve, I just don't think it's government's place to feed them. There are private charities that can do that sort of thing; if you want to feed them, you are perfectly free to give as much money as you like to those charities. Just don't tell others that they have to do the same.

While we're on the subject, social security reduces the incentive for people to save at all. Why shouldn't I spend every last dime I earn, if I know government will take care of me when I run out of money?

 

[Iriemon]

...Socialist security returns less than 1% of you investment ....

Is that an average or something? If you die or come disabled at age 30 it provides a much higher "return." Or if you live to 110. On the other hand, if you die at aged 68, your "return" is going to be negative.

SS is not an investment; its insurance. If you buy a life insurance policy at aged 25 and die at age 26, you get a great "return". If you die at 90, your return is negative. So does that mean you should not buy life insurance?

The question posed should really state: Would you rather invest your money or buy insurance? In truth you need both.

SS provides disability insurance, life insurance, and an annuity pension. If you added up the benefits you get and compare them to what it costs to replace it with private insurance, I'm not sure SS looks that bad, depending on your age and health. Plus, with a private insurer, if they go belly up, you're screwed. We don't have to worry too much about the Govt going belly up, although if we don't get some fiscally responsible people in there it is going to become more of a worry.

 

[Iriemon]

Suit yourself, but the odds are overwhelmingly against you.

You reckon the govt is going belly up? If we don't change the irresponsible folks who run the government you might be right.

I don't think they should starve, I just don't think it's government's place to feed them. There are private charities that can do that sort of thing; if you want to feed them, you are perfectly free to give as much money as you like to those charities. Just don't tell others that they have to do the same.

Historically private charities did not do the job. That is why SS was created. If private charities had done the job there would have been no need for it.

While we're on the subject, social security reduces the incentive for people to save at all. Why shouldn't I spend every last dime I earn, if I know government will take care of me when I run out of money?

That is true, if you want to live your retirment years just on what SS provides. I don't. That is why I also put money in a 401K. And have life insurance and disability insurance. But I really do find some comfort that if my private savings or insurance went to hell, worst case scenario there is a net under me.

But I agree with the underlying premise of your question -- IMO SS should provide just basic existance level support. It is too rich right now, providing Govt payments to those who don't need it. Seniors are the richest group of Americans. I support Bush's proposal to limit future SS increases to inflation as opposed to wages.

 

[Stinger]

"Other"
...

I take that to mean some "other" investment, not what we basically have now. Oh well.

 

[Stinger]

You reckon the govt is going belly up? If we don't change the irresponsible folks who run the government you might be right.

They've already told me I have to work longer and won't collect as early therefore meaning I wouldn't collect as much. They are threatening to cut back again on what I will get because I save for myself and will have my own money when I retire and therefore "not desire" Social Security.

So what's the difference whether the government goes belly-up or they just take it away from me. Why save at all why not just vote more and more benifits for myself so I don't have to?

Historically private charities did not do the job. That is why SS was created. If private charities had done the job there would have been no need for it.

Historically they did and SS was never suppose to be what it is now.

That is true, if you want to live your retirment years just on what SS provides.

Why not just vote it for ourselves?

I don't. That is why I also put money in a 401K. And have life insurance and disability insurance.

How dare you have those when there are people out there who can afford them. Surely you will give up your Social Securtiy since you have already provided for yourself.

But I really do find some comfort that if my private savings or insurance went to hell, worst case scenario there is a net under me.

If they went to hell because of a financial collapse, where will government get the money to pay everyones social security along with all the unemployment, housing and health care they will have to be paying?

But I agree with the underlying premise of your question -- IMO SS should provide just basic existance level support. It is too rich right now, providing Govt payments to those who don't need it.

:rofl you just proved our point. Why save when government will take away what you been "investing" with them in SS? I have paid into SS close to $100,000. And before I retire they could take away every benifit that has paid for, and don't say it bought me insurance I could have gotten a heck of alot more insurance with a lot less money over that time.

Seniors are the richest group of Americans. I support Bush's proposal to limit future SS increases to inflation as opposed to wages.

Cut benifits. SS doesn't look so attractive versus letting me control my own money.

What if you purchased an annuity that was suppose to pay you 10% a year upon retirement in twenty years. But when you retired and you went to the bank to set up your payments they told you that you had accumulated too much money in your savings and checking accounts therefore they were only going to pay you 5% per year because other people needed your money.

 

[Iriemon]

They've already told me I have to work longer and won't collect as early therefore meaning I wouldn't collect as much. They are threatening to cut back again on what I will get because I save for myself and will have my own money when I retire and therefore "not desire" Social Security.

So what's the difference whether the government goes belly-up or they just take it away from me. Why save at all why not just vote more and more benifits for myself so I don't have to?

Historically they did and SS was never suppose to be what it is now.

Why not just vote it for ourselves?

How dare you have those when there are people out there who can afford them. Surely you will give up your Social Securtiy since you have already provided for yourself.

If they went to hell because of a financial collapse, where will government get the money to pay everyones social security along with all the unemployment, housing and health care they will have to be paying?

:rofl you just proved our point. Why save when government will take away what you been "investing" with them in SS? I have paid into SS close to $100,000. And before I retire they could take away every benifit that has paid for, and don't say it bought me insurance I could have gotten a heck of alot more insurance with a lot less money over that time.

Cut benifits. SS doesn't look so attractive versus letting me control my own money.

What if you purchased an annuity that was suppose to pay you 10% a year upon retirement in twenty years. But when you retired and you went to the bank to set up your payments they told you that you had accumulated too much money in your savings and checking accounts therefore they were only going to pay you 5% per year because other people needed your money.

Your argument reflects a concern that the Govt will not be able to provide the level of benefits it does now in the future. I agree that is a concern, which is why I am so pissed off about the deficits over the past 25 years and currently. They have robbed the SS trust fund that was supposed to have trillions in assets to ensure SS is around for us, and the increasing level of debt means that the govt will have less ability to pay for it in the future.

 

[Stinger]

Your argument reflects a concern that the Govt will not be able to provide the level of benefits it does now in the future.

Mine have already been cut and will probably be cut further or as you said 'why should people who don't need it get it'.

I agree that is a concern, which is why I am so pissed off about the deficits over the past 25 years and currently.

What deficits, the budget?

They have robbed the SS trust fund that was supposed to have trillions in assets

It NEVER had assest and was never designed to have assests. What did you think the money was going into before the past 25 years?

to ensure SS is around for us, and the increasing level of debt means that the govt will have less ability to pay for it in the future.

It would have been that way anyway. This is due to the fact that benifits have been increase year after year, new benificaries added, and people living longer. It was a pyrimid scheme top begin with.

That's why we need a major change involving private accounts with the mony in YOUR name and being a real asset.

 

[Iriemon]

Mine have already been cut and will probably be cut further or as you said 'why should people who don't need it get it'.

Same reply as above.

What deficits, the budget?

Of course.

It NEVER had assest and was never designed to have assests. What did you think the money was going into before the past 25 years?

Before the SS reform act in 1983 (I think) SS was a pay-go system, in any given year the tax receipts roughly equaled expenditures, so up to that point it was not designed to accumulated assets. When in was reformed in '83 the SS taxes were increased higher than necessary to pay current expenditures, specifically to build up a trust fund to fund the boomer's retirement. Since then, SS taxes have been "overpaid" to the tune of about 2 $trillion dollars, which were supposed to build up in the Fund to fund the boomers SS.

However, because of the deficits, the Govt "borrowed" the SS tax dollars to cover the costs of its deficits. When the Govt had to borrow money because its revenues were insufficient to cover expenditures, it borrows from the SS trust fund; replacing what would have been dollars saved in the Fund for IOUs that are essentially worthless, since the Govt has to pay for SS anyway.

It would have been that way anyway. This is due to the fact that benifits have been increase year after year, new benificaries added, and people living longer. It was a pyramid scheme top begin with.

No -- SS taxes have been higher than necessary, and receipts have been far greater than payments over the last few years, specifically to address this problem. You can see them at http://cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf Table 1, under the "Deficit or Surpuls" "Social Security" column. Last year alone people paid $173.5 billion more in SS taxes than necessary to pay current expenditures; with interest the Fund should have had over $2 trillion in it by now.

That's why we need a major change involving private accounts with the mony in YOUR name and being a real asset.

This issues has been discussed. Private accounts don't address the benefit obligation to the scores of millions of boomers retiring over the next couple decades.

Besides, we already have private accounts. Open an 401k or IRA. I strongly recommend it.