Social Security - your thoughts?

[C-south]

Social Security is FDR’s socialist legacy that was his intent. And he prophesied that once it was in place it would never be taken away. To date he had been 100% correct.

That’s the case for all welfare. Once it’s started it’s impossible to change it.

 

[lawgator1]

we have been over this LG.

Lets say that 2025 group makes 65k their entire life, and contributes 6.2% income, replacing SS, with no raises, or other adjustments and gets a modest 5% return. (Historically markets tend to be around 7%). they will

This is the problem. You take the historical average example and assume everyone will come out close to that result when you know full well that some people will come out WAY short of that, depending on when they retire and what that (or those) vehicle(s) are doing at the time.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Always sweet, never salty.

Your alter ego

 

[hog88]

If you die, your spouse gets up to 50% of the SS benefit you collected.

Oh great! New guy gets to play with the wife and my SS benefit.

 

[NorthDallas40]

That’s the case for all welfare. Once it’s started it’s impossible to change it.

It isn’t impossible to change. But it is highly unlikely to cancel for sure.

 

[Orangeburst]

Oh great! New guy gets to play with the wife and my SS benefit.

According to you, he should get a sufferance benefit for dealing with her.

 

[LouderVol]

@InVOLuntary

and what do you mean I am not willing to do it? I have told you, I am actively planning my retirement on exactly what I am saying. My retirement plan accounts for nothing back from SS. as I said, cut it now, or cut it at my retirement day, won't make a difference to me.

you are the one who is being greedy refusing to let go; I have let go of that money already, I am counting all my SS as a pure 100% loss.

its a pure 100% loss because of your greedy generation refusing to fix or even attempt to better the system.

I want it ended, I want the wrong stopped. just because you have been wronged more than I have doesn't mean the wrong to me or future generations doesn't matter.

 

[LouderVol]

Was mentioned before, but I guarantee you our Fathers know each other, at least in passing.
Can you say who your Dad worked for?

Mckee Foods.

 

[hog88]

This is the problem. You take the historical average example and assume everyone will come out close to that result when you know full well that some people will come out WAY short of that, depending on when they retire and what that (or those) vehicle(s) are doing at the time.

My goodness, you are intentionally being obtuse. Some people are going to come up short no matter what.

 

[Orangeburst]

Mckee Foods.

Ah..I thought he worked at a firm, not a business.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

same. my dad was a CPA, so I tend to give the financial advice he gives very seriously.

a lot more credence than I give someone like LG or Monty telling me how my retirement is guaranteed by the government.

My Dad was career USAF and then engineer afterwards. He knew how to save and invest. There are some valid points against privatizing it. I doubt either one of them are counting on it being their main source of income at retirement. In fact, anyone with a few functioning brain cells has planned accordingly, if they were able to do so

 

[lawgator1]

My goodness, you are intentionally being obtuse. Some people are going to come up short no matter what.

That's true, but with SS the government tells you what you will get and they make up any shortfall.

With privatized? Hey, if you retire in robust times, good for you. If you retire as a recession hits, you are just screwed.

 

[InVOLuntary]

@InVOLuntary

and what do you mean I am not willing to do it? I have told you, I am actively planning my retirement on exactly what I am saying. My retirement plan accounts for nothing back from SS. as I said, cut it now, or cut it at my retirement day, won't make a difference to me.

you are the one who is being greedy refusing to let go; I have let go of that money already, I am counting all my SS as a pure 100% loss.

its a pure 100% loss because of your greedy generation refusing to fix or even attempt to better the system.

I want it ended, I want the wrong stopped. just because you have been wronged more than I have doesn't mean the wrong to me or future generations doesn't matter.

What I mean is you are asking me to forgo 45 years of paying SS (for someone else) and forfeit any benefits that I have accrued. I've asked you to continue paying SS premiums until you turn 62 and then you don't receive any benefit. That's what you are asking me to do. You don't want to do it. You and I agree that SS is terrible and it should end. What we disagree on is I don't think it's right to pull the rug out from under people that have paid in for their whole working lives.

 

[volfanhill]

If you die, your spouse gets up to 50% of the SS benefit you collected.

I hope my widow sends a thank you letter to our government overlords for that act of kindness.

 

[LouderVol]

This is the problem. You take the historical average example and assume everyone will come out close to that result when you know full well that some people will come out WAY short of that, depending on when they retire and what that (or those) vehicle(s) are doing at the time.

omg. do you even do simple math? forget how the actual vehicles account for the risk, just do the simple math.

taking the averages, because I am not going to sit here an amortize these numbers for you on VN: lets assume the market acts historically (its an average accounting for down years), until the 5 years before your retirement, where its a loss, and look at the numbers.

Yearly Contribution averages out to 4k. yearly 401k averaged out total, based on expected historical rates: 12,250. to everyone who understands math, I know its not linear, but I have to dumb this WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY down for LG.

Year One: Contribution Total 4k, 401k 12,250
Year Ten: Contribution Total 40k, 401k 122,500
Year Twenty: Contribution Total 80k, 401k 245,000
Year Thirty: Contribution Total 120k, 401k 367,000
Year Thirty Five: Contribution Total 140k, 401k 428,250
-
ok this is when your mythical loss comes into play. instead of assuming that 5% growth, we are assuming its a 5% loss. 5% loss for 5% would be the worst 5 year run ever. you are still contributing the same 4k every year.
-
Year Thirty Six: Contribution total 144k, 401k 410,850
Year Thirty Seven: Contibution total 148k, 401k 393,450
Year Thirty Eight: Contribution total 152k, 401k 376,050
Year Thirty Nine: Contribution total 156k, 401k 358,650
Year Fourty: Contribution Total 160k, 401k 341,250

160k < 341k. you will still have made 181,250 on TOP of your contributions still being there.

even with 5 years of losses, you will still have made money overall. you are still have more than double your contributions. and again that is based on BELOW average growth. and again that average accounts for the down years.

that is far far more than SS will EVER give you.

 

[lawgator1]

omg. do you even do simple math? forget how the actual vehicles account for the risk, just do the simple math.

taking the averages, because I am not going to sit here an amortize these numbers for you on VN: lets assume the market acts historically (its an average accounting for down years), until the 5 years before your retirement, where its a loss, and look at the numbers.

Yearly Contribution averages out to 4k. yearly 401k averaged out total, based on expected historical rates: 12,250. to everyone who understands math, I know its not linear, but I have to dumb this WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY down for LG.

Year One: Contribution Total 4k, 401k 12,250
Year Ten: Contribution Total 40k, 401k 122,500
Year Twenty: Contribution Total 80k, 401k 245,000
Year Thirty: Contribution Total 120k, 401k 367,000
Year Thirty Five: Contribution Total 140k, 401k 428,250
-
ok this is when your mythical loss comes into play. instead of assuming that 5% growth, we are assuming its a 5% loss. 5% loss for 5% would be the worst 5 year run ever. you are still contributing the same 4k every year.
-
Year Thirty Six: Contribution total 144k, 401k 410,850
Year Thirty Seven: Contibution total 148k, 401k 393,450
Year Thirty Eight: Contribution total 152k, 401k 376,050
Year Thirty Nine: Contribution total 156k, 401k 358,650
Year Fourty: Contribution Total 160k, 401k 341,250

160k < 341k. you will still have made 181,250 on TOP of your contributions still being there.

even with 5 years of losses, you will still have made money overall. you are still have more than double your contributions. and again that is based on BELOW average growth. and again that average accounts for the down years.

that is far far more than SS will EVER give you.

You continue to miss the forest for the trees.

I am not saying you are wrong about averages and what is likely.

I'm saying that some people, along the way, will retire at a very bad time to rely on those assets. Consider people retiring in 2008-09. The market lost just over 50% of its value.

Folks getting SS got the same they got the year before and the next year. Had those folks been dependent on income from the privatized platform you speak of, the result might have been disastrous for them.

 

[InVOLuntary]

omg. do you even do simple math? forget how the actual vehicles account for the risk, just do the simple math.

taking the averages, because I am not going to sit here an amortize these numbers for you on VN: lets assume the market acts historically (its an average accounting for down years), until the 5 years before your retirement, where its a loss, and look at the numbers.

Yearly Contribution averages out to 4k. yearly 401k averaged out total, based on expected historical rates: 12,250. to everyone who understands math, I know its not linear, but I have to dumb this WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY down for LG.

Year One: Contribution Total 4k, 401k 12,250
Year Ten: Contribution Total 40k, 401k 122,500
Year Twenty: Contribution Total 80k, 401k 245,000
Year Thirty: Contribution Total 120k, 401k 367,000
Year Thirty Five: Contribution Total 140k, 401k 428,250
-
ok this is when your mythical loss comes into play. instead of assuming that 5% growth, we are assuming its a 5% loss. 5% loss for 5% would be the worst 5 year run ever. you are still contributing the same 4k every year.
-
Year Thirty Six: Contribution total 144k, 401k 410,850
Year Thirty Seven: Contibution total 148k, 401k 393,450
Year Thirty Eight: Contribution total 152k, 401k 376,050
Year Thirty Nine: Contribution total 156k, 401k 358,650
Year Fourty: Contribution Total 160k, 401k 341,250

160k < 341k. you will still have made 181,250 on TOP of your contributions still being there.

even with 5 years of losses, you will still have made money overall. you are still have more than double your contributions. and again that is based on BELOW average growth. and again that average accounts for the down years.

that is far far more than SS will EVER give you.

I wish someone would do a real side by side comparison using market averages with amortization and the same 12% contribution.

 

[LouderVol]

What I mean is you are asking me to forgo 45 years of paying SS (for someone else) and forfeit any benefits that I have accrued. I've asked you to continue paying SS premiums until you turn 62 and then you don't receive any benefit. That's what you are asking me to do. You don't want to do it. You and I agree that SS is terrible and it should end. What we disagree on is I don't think it's right to pull the rug out from under people that have paid in for their whole working lives.

Except pulling out the rug is exactly what SS is doing. benefits are going to go down. what you are afraid of is already my reality.

I want to change that reality, and it gets better FOR EVERYONE.

again I am already doing it. I have already given up on that money. the SS money is money I will never see. that is an active reality for someone my age. all that SS money I have contributed, and will contribute is going to be a loss for my generation and all the generations after. with or without my changes.

the difference is under my system, the loss stops with me, and then people can start gaining. under your system, the loss doesn't stop with me, and no one gains.

 

[McDad]

I wasnt refering to you specifically.

Oh yeah?

Well you used to refer to me specifically. Is the thrill of our relationship completely gone?

 

[utvolpj]

That's true, but with SS the government tells you what you will get and they make up any shortfall.

With privatized? Hey, if you retire in robust times, good for you. If you retire as a recession hits, you are just screwed.

Wait, who makes up the shortfall?

Your second paragraph has been proven false several times on this board. The numbers don't lie

 

[McDad]

Step back from the ledge my friend.

1. Your doomsday scenario supposes a catastrophic event the magnitude of which has been observed exactly Zero times in the last 100 years of the S&P 500 Index.

2. In what world would someone 5 years out from retirement be heavy in Equities? Certainly not in the system I’m advocating. Those people in your catastrophic group would be 80% Fixed Income at that point.

So you’re arguing an event we have never seen happen.
And an allocation situation that would never occur.

That's the only way he can argue.

Be obtuse, ridiculous and jot answer simple questions.

 

[hog88]

That's true, but with SS the government tells you what you will get and they make up any shortfall.

With privatized? Hey, if you retire in robust times, good for you. If you retire as a recession hits, you are just screwed.

Screwed as in you lost some of your gains or screwed because you lost it all?

 

[volfanhill]

Oh yeah?

Well you used to refer to me specifically. Is the thrill of our relationship completely gone?

Let me answer for him

 

[gcbvol]

That's true, but with SS the government tells you what you will get and they make up any shortfall.

With privatized? Hey, if you retire in robust times, good for you. If you retire as a recession hits, you are just screwed.

It's why diversification is so important.

 

[utvolpj]

That's true, but with SS the government tells you what you will get and they make up any shortfall.

With privatized? Hey, if you retire in robust times, good for you. If you retire as a recession hits, you are just screwed.

Why are you so exposed that close to retirement? Your scenario never really comes close to real life