1. george says:

    Why do we need financial planners when we have morons like you? Really? 44years @ 40k per year? Assuming you’re over 60, let’s go back in the way back machine and see you at 18 years old, 1967. There’s a good chance you were a grunt in the army slogging around in Vietnam for the lovely sum of 96.00 dollars a month. Given that the the idea of a good paycheck in the private sector was 5 dollars an hour in 1977, that still comes out to 800.00 a month, 9600 dollars a year. By 1990, 13 dollars an hour was nice amount to make,still less than 25,000 a year. The average wage index for 2009, which soc.sec. uses to determine eligibility was 40,411 per year. Your figures are so wrong, you look and sound like an idiot. In 1974 when I first started working part time in high school, I was earning 2.15 an hour. I was paying about 16.00 a month into soc sec. That’s a big difference from the 400.00 a month you seem to think everyone was paying into soc sec. I make currently 70k a year and my average social security deduction is less than 150.00 a paycheck. Federal is less than that 400.00 figure you throw around. Oh yeah, what’s the current savings interest rate today dumbass? 1% on savings? For most individuals, you will get back every cent plus interest that you paid into social security within the first 4-5 years that you begin to receive it. You get a statement from social security every year. It shows how much you earned and how much you paid in to social security for every year you worked. Open your eyes and your closed little mind and educate yourself.

    • VoterinVirginia says:

      OK, let me respond. In 1967 I was 17 years old. My first full time job paid $83.50/week. Ten years later I was making $13,000/year. I stayed with that company in a clerical job for 17 years, eventually earning just under $30,000/year but only reaching the upper level for the last two years of employment.

      During those 17 years both my employer and I contributed 6%/year to Social Security. During that time I also participated in my company’s profit sharing program. I contributed 6% of my income and the company matched it with 6% — 6% of $83.50 is not much, but it hurt especially by the time the government took its share, which including paying Federal Income Taxes!)

      When I left I took my 6% contribution and used it to help buy a house. I left the company’s 6% contribution in stock. (I chose to invest in company stock; it was not required.) My nest egg today is that 6% of a fairly low salary for 17 years, invested in a solid Blue Chip stock — but not one of the monster stars like Microsoft.

      This stock has paid me a dividend for every single quarter since my first stock purchase (43 years now).
      I am now on the verge of getting Social Security. My SS check will not be as large as what I receive in dividends from my stock, calculated on a monthly basis. The value of that stock today (courtesy of government induced inflation) is $530,000. My purchase price for that stock was $25,324.
      And that, sir, is how one acquires a retirement nest egg through savings. The market has gone up and the market has plunged. It doesn’t matter when you’re in it for the long haul instead of trying to play the market for instant gains.

      BTW, I spent all the dividends I received over the years. I did not reinvest them.

    • Scott says:

      First of all, your personal insults do nothing to bolster your argument. On the contrary, personal attacks are simply a tactic used by those who really have nothing else to backup their position.

      This thread is in regards to Social security going forward so any reference to years prior to 2011 is meaningless in this discussion. My proposal relates to SSI in the future, not the past. However, by any stretch of the imagination, you would still be better off today had you been able to keep and invest the FICA monies confiscated from you over the past 40 years.

      Certainly, as you have pointed out, an individual will make less than their average salary during the early years of their career. However, they will make more than their average salary in the later years of their working career. That’s why it’s called an “average”. The current average “Household” income is OVER 40k per year. That is a fact and that fact can be easily verified, including, but not limited to, the links I provided in this article.

      FICA is 12.4%. That IS another verifiable fact. You pay 6.2% and your employer must contribute 6.2%. The 6.2% employer contribution is part of your salary, even though you never see the money. I know because I’ve actually employed people. If you are self-employed, it’s closer to 15% because a self-employed individual must pay it all themselves. For the calendar year 2011, the employee’s share has been temporarily reduced to 4.2% of gross compensation. The employee’s share of the Medicare portion is an additional 1.4% of wages, with no limit on the amount of wage subject to the Medicare tax. These numbers are easily verifiable.

      As far as the amount of interest you can earn on your monies, again, you have to consider the “average” return over the entire life of the investment. A managed fund, mixed with stocks, bonds, real estate and metals can easily yield 5% (on the low end) over the life of an investment and a well managed fund can easily yield 10% over the life of the investment. My estimates of a 4% to 6% ROI over a 40 year time period is spot on.

      I also note that you didn’t dispute the Ponzi scheme nature of the Social Security system, probably because you know it’s the truth. I’m also not surprised by your response to this article. Politicians count on taxpayers being uninformed.

  2. Wallace says:

    I’ve worked off the books for most of my adult life and have not payed into this fund.
    I’m now living on SSI and am barely making ends meet. I don’t have any other means of supporting my self, but I’m grateful for what I do have.
    Nonetheless, I’m still considered to be living below the poverty line, even though my income in provide my SSI.

    • Scott says:

      Being disabled is somewhat of a separate issue, especially if that citizen has never paid into Social Security. For those individuals, there would still need to be some form of social safety net.

      I have not really formulated a position on the best way to handle those specific situations, but I’m virtually certain that there are far better ways to deal with this issue than maintaining the broken and bankrupt Social Security system we now have in place.

      Politicians who support increasing the retirement age, over true reform (using Retirement Savings Accounts) are simply expanding the base of the pyramid and perpetuating the Ponzi scheme. They don’t have the political courage to do what needs to be done, so they kick the can down the road, thinking they will be out of office when the system eventually collapses, which we all know is coming.

Leave a Reply