FORTY YEARS OF SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY WOULD NET THE AVERAGE WORKING PERSON $1.3 MILLON DOLLARS…

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Obviously ...they were not telling the truth. Government is the least stable "investment". They write the rules to steal by.

Some people can't or won't save for retirement.  The obvious answer is to force everyone to.  Let's put their money into the hands of the least fiscally responsible people on Earth.  Oh, and let's REQUIRE them to not just hold onto that money (yeah, right), but to turn it into gov't debt (aka spend it).  What could go right?

[libertybele]

I was talking to my daughter about this and she stated that on her estimate of benefits it basically says that funds will NOT be available.  So ..... proof positive that the Ponzi scheme will be coming to an end.  She's been paying into the system for over 15 years, yet absolutely none of that money will be available to her. What is going to happen to her generation?  Yes she went to college, has a job (but still not a job that she went to school for) and trying to make ends meet and can't afford to put $$ aside. In addition, she was also penalized when she filed taxes for not having Bammycare for a full year!  Her thoughts; with all the unrest and corruption going on, she doesn't see the world being around for much longer anyways.  Sad. 

[LMAO]

I think what’s going to happen is decisions will be made that will upset everybody but at the same time give everybody a little what they want

 Benefits will probably be be cut, the means testing argument sounds good but you’re going to also upset people who paid into the system and saved being told they can’t get it.  There will probably be at least some partial privatization.

Medicare, on the other hand, is probably lost

[libertybele]

I think what’s going to happen is decisions will be made that will upset everybody but at the same time give everybody a little what they want

 Benefits will probably be be cut, the means testing argument sounds good but you’re going to also upset people who paid into the system and saved being told they can’t get it.  There will probably be at least some partial privatization.

Medicare, on the other hand, is probably lost

The monies were stolen out of my paycheck and yours. Medicare was paid into as well.  The $10,000,000.00 question that I'd like to know is why are those who have never paid into the system receiving benefits, yet those that have paid into the system are going to eventually lose their benefits?  Something is definitely wrong with that picture.  Our tax dollars have supported ILLEGALS and people who just plain don't feel like working for years, but yet, those who are here LEGALLY and have worked will be denied benefits.  Houston ... we've got a problem! It's called LIBERALISM!

[jpsb]

SS ping

[libertybele]

It surprises me that more people aren't livid about SS eventually becoming insolvent after we've paid into the fund.

[Emjay]

Which alone would be enough for a retirement in dignity...instead of the poverty that one would get from that same SS confiscation. Now imagine what a real rate of return..say the 7% Stock market return.

Various people have proposed changes in the SS system.  I believe Ted Cruz is one.

People under a certain age ... not close to retirement ... say 50 or 55, could opt out of social security and choose to invest the same amount in the stock market.

It would have to be semi-controlled by the government because otherwise people would be ... oh, maybe next year, or I need a car now.

So it would be mandated that wage earners contribute a similar amount and also it would have to go into an approved, credited stock ... not your sister-in-laws start up dress shop.

This is entirely do-able but it would take some courage on the part of Congress and very few of them have any.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Various people have proposed changes in the SS system.  I believe Ted Cruz is one.

People under a certain age ... not close to retirement ... say 50 or 55, could opt out of social security and choose to invest the same amount in the stock market.

It would have to be semi-controlled by the government because otherwise people would be ... oh, maybe next year, or I need a car now.

So it would be mandated that wage earners contribute a similar amount and also it would have to go into an approved, credited stock ... not your sister-in-laws start up dress shop.

This is entirely do-able but it would take some courage on the part of Congress and very few of them have any.

Control would be through payroll deduction, IMO.  Then come tax time if you can document that you put $X in your retirement account, they return YOUR money that was deducted up to $X.

I don't like the idea of an (I assume you mean) accredited stock.  For one thing, that's giving an advantage to one business over another.  Also, you might not want to be buying stocks.  AAA rated (though we've seen the inherent flaws there) investments would be more likely.  But then who are we kidding, in a couple years they'd make it US debt only.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Well, I need more than that.  I just retired at 66 and started my first payment into SS 50 years earlier at age 16.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

It surprises me that more people aren't livid about SS eventually becoming insolvent after we've paid into the fund.

Anyone who was paying any attention has known the whole time they were paying in that getting "their money back" was a losing bet.  It's not a retirement plan, it's a tax.  Those who weren't paying any attention probably just assume that since it's worked their whole lives it can work forever.

What makes me livid is my assumption that when I become eligible they'll implement means testing.  So, because I recognized the scam and chose to protect myself by saving for retirement I will effectively be penalized.  It's not that I won't get anything, I was expecting that, it's that I won't get anything while others will just so that they can keep the scam going a few more years.  Kind of like during W's term when they sent out those $300 rebate checks -- I didn't get one because my meager income was too high (aka, I paid too much in taxes), while people who paid little or nothing got free money.

[Fantom]

Various people have proposed changes in the SS system.  I believe Ted Cruz is one.

People under a certain age ... not close to retirement ... say 50 or 55, could opt out of social security and choose to invest the same amount in the stock market.

It would have to be semi-controlled by the government because otherwise people would be ... oh, maybe next year, or I need a car now.

So it would be mandated that wage earners contribute a similar amount and also it would have to go into an approved, credited stock ... not your sister-in-laws start up dress shop.

This is entirely do-able but it would take some courage on the part of Congress and very few of them have any.

Yes, there is a much better way. Chile is a pretty good model to start with. One can thank Augusto Pinochet. Sure he offed some leftist regressives. But looking at blm/anifa and the left in general... they deserved it and more. I want to have some T-Shirts with Pinochets face... my answer to the Che shirts.

Anyways, I digress.

The Chilean model goes a long way to providing a road map.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/score-another-one-for-the-chilean-model-of-private-pensions/

Yes, there would have to be government involvement, regulation/oversight. Essentially one would place their FICA deductions directly into a private account with a vendor of their choosing... could be their bank, could be  Edward D Jones. The custodian then would invest such funds according to the wishes of the individual and as such regulation permitted( would be unwise to allow investment in wildcatting oil fer instance).

The custodian makes its profit off of a % of gains made. If it goes bankrupt... the assets in the accounts are not theirs, the individual owner simple designates a new custodian. This is where government belongs... they hold the funds. Yeah, I know scary but someone has to be the House. I would hope for a Constitutional amendment that such holdings not be instruments of Debt..T-Bills but actual assets.

Yes, there would need to be a cutoff on age. I would put it at 30-40. Let anyone vested say 20 years. Decide if they wish to stay in the current form of S.S. Or place their funds for their remaining years into the new and better S.S. While receiving the appropriate amount on the vested funds upon retirement under the old S.S. regulations.

It would be a changeover for sure as the costs would tail out over 50 Years. We have to pay, and can pay what is owed. Currently that is 1.3 trillion a year for Socialist Insecurity and Medi-Scam. So say around 50 trillion over 50 years.

The federal government has the hard assets.. minerals/land to cover that. Time to sell some.

Likewise, the total burden could be trimmed. I would be willing to forgo my S.S., if I am deemed sufficiently wealthy upon my retirement. But only if they privatize. Otherwise I will show up and toss my colostomy bag at any Political vermin who cut me off from what I have paid for.   

I doubt it will happen. democrats/regressive leftist are not in the habit of making people independent.

Anywho, that is how this Simple Bricklayer see's it.

 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Anyone who was paying any attention has known the whole time they were paying in that getting "their money back" was a losing bet.  It's not a retirement plan, it's a tax. 

I could say it even shorter:  It is a SCAM.

[Hoodat]

FORTY YEARS OF SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY WOULD NET THE AVERAGE WORKING PERSON $1.3 MILLION

Nothing goes further in guaranteeing the cycle of poverty gets repeated generation after generation than social security.  It is the most evil thing ever perpetrated upon the American public by our government.

A person making minimum wage could work an extra 10 hours a week from age 20 through age 45, and invest that extra money in a mutual fund.  At age 45, the person stops working those extra hours and stop contributing.  Yet when that person turns 65, that mutual fund investment would be worth over $1 million.

[Emjay]

Yes, there is a much better way. Chile is a pretty good model to start with. One can thank Augusto Pinochet. Sure he offed some leftist regressives. But looking at blm/anifa and the left in general... they deserved it and more. I want to have some T-Shirts with Pinochets face... my answer to the Che shirts.

Anyways, I digress.

The Chilean model goes a long way to providing a road map.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/score-another-one-for-the-chilean-model-of-private-pensions/

Yes, there would have to be government involvement, regulation/oversight. Essentially one would place their FICA deductions directly into a private account with a vendor of their choosing... could be their bank, could be  Edward D Jones. The custodian then would invest such funds according to the wishes of the individual and as such regulation permitted( would be unwise to allow investment in wildcatting oil fer instance).

The custodian makes its profit off of a % of gains made. If it goes bankrupt... the assets in the accounts are not theirs, the individual owner simple designates a new custodian. This is where government belongs... they hold the funds. Yeah, I know scary but someone has to be the House. I would hope for a Constitutional amendment that such holdings not be instruments of Debt..T-Bills but actual assets.

Yes, there would need to be a cutoff on age. I would put it at 30-40. Let anyone vested say 20 years. Decide if they wish to stay in the current form of S.S. Or place their funds for their remaining years into the new and better S.S. While receiving the appropriate amount on the vested funds upon retirement under the old S.S. regulations.

It would be a changeover for sure as the costs would tail out over 50 Years. We have to pay, and can pay what is owed. Currently that is 1.3 trillion a year for Socialist Insecurity and Medi-Scam. So say around 50 trillion over 50 years.

The federal government has the hard assets.. minerals/land to cover that. Time to sell some.

Likewise, the total burden could be trimmed. I would be willing to forgo my S.S., if I am deemed sufficiently wealthy upon my retirement. But only if they privatize. Otherwise I will show up and toss my colostomy bag at any Political vermin who cut me off from what I have paid for.   

I doubt it will happen. democrats/regressive leftist are not in the habit of making people independent.

Anywho, that is how this Simple Bricklayer see's it.

You may be a bricklayer but you are not simple.  I think your age recommendation is a little young but otherwise your idea or my idea would be great, so why can't it happen.