If you could opt out of social security, would you do it?

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Nope, I am 37 and make about 65K/year.


From my general recollection, my SS benefits are something like:
1) If I live to the age that SS say I can retire, I will recieve 1600/mo in current dollars
2) If I become completely disabled before my retirement age, I will still recieve the 1600/mo in current dollars
3) If I die before my retirement age, my wife will recieve 1600/mo in current dollars plus another 1400/mo for my children until they turn 18

Try and find a private plan that can do that. If you can, tell me what it costs.
To simplify your research, you can replace the numbers above with
1) Any retirement account that results in 300K at retirment age
2) Disability insurance with a benefit of 1600/mo and cost of living adjustments
3) 300K in Life Insurance with a 30 year term



I suspect that the costs will be very comperable.
I also suspect that a good number of those who complain about SS do not have adequete disability insurance (I think that the stat is 3x as likely to become disabled than to die during a 20yr period)

I am pretty sure disability doesnt cost 12.8% of your salary.
As for the retirement tables. Take 12.8% of your salary and put it into a blanced mutual fund for 40 years.

At 50K a year salary with a 8% annual return you retire with about 3.2 Million.

That is ~10,800 per month for 30 years providing you see zero growth in that asset over that 30 year span. Oh and this is passable via your estate to your kids, unlike SS.

You have addressed nothing and only continue to say the same things that you always have. I understand your point, heard it loud and clear many threads ago. Yes if one were to reclessly persue wealth, and ran into no major obstacles, one would be better off investing on one's own.
Items number 1 and 2 on my list are very important. Inadequete disability and life insureance (if you have a family), is as financially irresponsibile as those that you despise for their financial irresponsibility. In fact, those who do not account for these things in their haste to accumulate wealth are the very sort of person for whom SS is neccessary.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I'm torn on the subject.

Although I feel that Social Security is a great program, it comes down to a matter of self-preservation. I would have to make a judgement on how stripped, robbed and bludgeoned the program will get in the next 30+ years.

Right now, I'd have to say that Social Security is going the way of the dodo-bird, not because of a flaw in its design or concept, but from being stripped of its resources by a spend-thrift governement.

If I could get back every single dime I'd ever put into the system plus modest interest, then yes, I would opt out and try to invest it wisely.

Hey did those tables I posted from the trustee report change your mind a bit?

Truely mind boggling when you think about it isnt it?

As for the OP I would opt out of SS in a heartbeat. The govt has shown over and over again it is unable to run anything efficiently. All the promised social programs havent lived upto expectations and cost twice as much.

No, not really, right now, SS CAN be saved. I just have zero confidence in people like you having the moral fibre to actually do it.

Like me? I am willing to give up my benefits for the betterment of the program. Your bitterness gets in the way of your ability to see past partisan politics in this game.

Your sacrifice is so duly noted. :roll:

I do not put confidence in people that hate the program so deeply to actually fix it.

The truth hurts the most, people who dislike the program dont buy into its BS claims.

People like you still believe it is fixable which clearly indicates your lack of grasp on the failures of the system. Without raising taxes or the age of eligibility to ~75 years of age the system will draw from the general fund.

I am positive the raising of the tax is not something I am willing to do. Mending a broken system with bandaids is failing to fix it.

And yes me willing to sacrafice my SS benefits for the whole of the people is > than your selfish attitude to preserve it best you can so you can rape another generation of its hard earned money for poverty wages.

The only people that have raped the system are people LIKE YOU. As for you position that it can't be fixed, that's complete bullsh*t. You don't WANT the system to be fixed, because YOU are the selfish one. Period.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Dissipate
If you could opt out of social security starting tomorrow, would you do it? This means that you would cease having to pay 7% and your employer wouldn't have to pay anything either. But to go along with that you would only receive benefits up to the point that you already paid in.

State your age as well as your answer.

Considering all of you selfish assholes who want to see grandma out on the street would opt out, I guess I would too. Since, after all, one you had succeeded in bankrupting the program, my money would just end up going for some idiotic war or into some executive's pocket.

First, I don't think we should stop SS and let the elderly become homeless. We should have a transistional period. Second, the reformed SS system should give ownership to the individual, but also price match contributions to low income people so they can retire on something at least more than what SS gives now. Third, fiscal conservatives != neocons. Probably the exact opposite. I'm fiscally conservative, but I'm weak Libertarian. I don't support the war.

Sigh. Don't you understand? If individuals who die before they use up their retirment savings "keep" the money and pass it on to their family than what happens to the 50 percent of people who live past the average death age? the government would have to support them. SS is not only a retirement program but an insurance program. Without the insurance part than everyone(98 percent) would have to save for the possibliity they would live to 100.
Which is why private retirement accounts can't work. They would need so much money in them to account for living to 100 years old that 90 percent of Americans can't save enough. Remember that if you have to provide for a certain standard of living for the 35 years of retirement if you live to 100 you have to take out very little each year of retirement. Forcing almost everyone onto welfare.

Again, you could easily make it so that the government provides for those that live past what they projected. All you have to do is make part of the withholding a tax. This tax would go to pay for people who live longer than expected, disability, etc.

The countries that have moved towards privatization (Chile, Sweden, etc.) haven't had problems with it the long-run. Obviously we shouldn't just drop the current system altogether. We do need to at least partially pay for the baby boomers.

You say privatization won't work but you haven't given any real world examples of where it doesn't. Each country that I've read about that has implemented at least partial privatization has been successful with it.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Nope, I am 37 and make about 65K/year.


From my general recollection, my SS benefits are something like:
1) If I live to the age that SS say I can retire, I will recieve 1600/mo in current dollars
2) If I become completely disabled before my retirement age, I will still recieve the 1600/mo in current dollars
3) If I die before my retirement age, my wife will recieve 1600/mo in current dollars plus another 1400/mo for my children until they turn 18

Try and find a private plan that can do that. If you can, tell me what it costs.
To simplify your research, you can replace the numbers above with
1) Any retirement account that results in 300K at retirment age
2) Disability insurance with a benefit of 1600/mo and cost of living adjustments
3) 300K in Life Insurance with a 30 year term



I suspect that the costs will be very comperable.
I also suspect that a good number of those who complain about SS do not have adequete disability insurance (I think that the stat is 3x as likely to become disabled than to die during a 20yr period)

I am pretty sure disability doesnt cost 12.8% of your salary.
As for the retirement tables. Take 12.8% of your salary and put it into a blanced mutual fund for 40 years.

At 50K a year salary with a 8% annual return you retire with about 3.2 Million.

That is ~10,800 per month for 30 years providing you see zero growth in that asset over that 30 year span. Oh and this is passable via your estate to your kids, unlike SS.

You have addressed nothing and only continue to say the same things that you always have. I understand your point, heard it loud and clear many threads ago. Yes if one were to reclessly persue wealth, and ran into no major obstacles, one would be better off investing on one's own.
Items number 1 and 2 on my list are very important. Inadequete disability and life insureance (if you have a family), is as financially irresponsibile as those that you despise for their financial irresponsibility. In fact, those who do not account for these things in their haste to accumulate wealth are the very sort of person for whom SS is neccessary.

I addressed all of your points. What else can I say?

Do you think disability insurance costs 12.8% of your salary in the private sector?
And you dont have to recklessly pursue wealth at all, unless you consider taking 12.8% of your salary and plowing it into a retirement fund reckless? This is currently what the federal govt does with SS.

Take that 12.8% and instead of plowing it into a hopeless program like SS, stick it into the federal thrift program and you can live much better than what SS can provide.

The only people that have raped the system are people LIKE YOU. As for you position that it can't be fixed, that's complete bullsh*t. You don't WANT the system to be fixed, because YOU are the selfish one. Period.

I havent taken a single dime out of it so your accusations are as silly as your inability to grasp the situation.

You are right, I am not for raising taxes to fix a fundeamental flaw in the system.

 

[engineereeyore]

In a heart beat.

Age: 28

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Nope, I am 37 and make about 65K/year.


From my general recollection, my SS benefits are something like:
1) If I live to the age that SS say I can retire, I will recieve 1600/mo in current dollars
2) If I become completely disabled before my retirement age, I will still recieve the 1600/mo in current dollars
3) If I die before my retirement age, my wife will recieve 1600/mo in current dollars plus another 1400/mo for my children until they turn 18

Try and find a private plan that can do that. If you can, tell me what it costs.
To simplify your research, you can replace the numbers above with
1) Any retirement account that results in 300K at retirment age
2) Disability insurance with a benefit of 1600/mo and cost of living adjustments
3) 300K in Life Insurance with a 30 year term



I suspect that the costs will be very comperable.
I also suspect that a good number of those who complain about SS do not have adequete disability insurance (I think that the stat is 3x as likely to become disabled than to die during a 20yr period)

I am pretty sure disability doesnt cost 12.8% of your salary.
As for the retirement tables. Take 12.8% of your salary and put it into a blanced mutual fund for 40 years.

At 50K a year salary with a 8% annual return you retire with about 3.2 Million.

That is ~10,800 per month for 30 years providing you see zero growth in that asset over that 30 year span. Oh and this is passable via your estate to your kids, unlike SS.

You have addressed nothing and only continue to say the same things that you always have. I understand your point, heard it loud and clear many threads ago. Yes if one were to reclessly persue wealth, and ran into no major obstacles, one would be better off investing on one's own.
Items number 1 and 2 on my list are very important. Inadequete disability and life insureance (if you have a family), is as financially irresponsibile as those that you despise for their financial irresponsibility. In fact, those who do not account for these things in their haste to accumulate wealth are the very sort of person for whom SS is neccessary.

I addressed all of your points. What else can I say?

Do you think disability insurance costs 12.8% of your salary in the private sector?
And you dont have to recklessly pursue wealth at all, unless you consider taking 12.8% of your salary and plowing it into a retirement fund reckless? This is currently what the federal govt does with SS.

Take that 12.8% and instead of plowing it into a hopeless program like SS, stick it into the federal thrift program and you can live much better than what SS can provide.

I consider something reckless when it does not take risk into account. When you say "disability insurance is cheap" and then present a number showing how wealthy you would be if you invested SS contributions in a retirement account, you imply that the cost of disability insurance is negligable. This is not true, so I say that you are either being disingenuous (comparing apples with oranges on purpose) or reckless in the accumulation of wealth (perhaps even blind to risk). I choose to believe that your intent is good, so I call you reckless.

BTW you certianly did not address the points. What you did do though is provide anecdotal evidence of why a program like SS is necessary. There exist investors who fail to take risks (of no longer being able to invest, or of massively foolish decisions) into account. These investors will run into troubles at some rate (clearly not 100%) and the impact to themselves and their families will cost us all.


(pardon me for trimming your other quote, but is was certianly not attributable to me anyway)

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Nope, I am 37 and make about 65K/year.


From my general recollection, my SS benefits are something like:
1) If I live to the age that SS say I can retire, I will recieve 1600/mo in current dollars
2) If I become completely disabled before my retirement age, I will still recieve the 1600/mo in current dollars
3) If I die before my retirement age, my wife will recieve 1600/mo in current dollars plus another 1400/mo for my children until they turn 18

Try and find a private plan that can do that. If you can, tell me what it costs.
To simplify your research, you can replace the numbers above with
1) Any retirement account that results in 300K at retirment age
2) Disability insurance with a benefit of 1600/mo and cost of living adjustments
3) 300K in Life Insurance with a 30 year term



I suspect that the costs will be very comperable.
I also suspect that a good number of those who complain about SS do not have adequete disability insurance (I think that the stat is 3x as likely to become disabled than to die during a 20yr period)

I am pretty sure disability doesnt cost 12.8% of your salary.
As for the retirement tables. Take 12.8% of your salary and put it into a blanced mutual fund for 40 years.

At 50K a year salary with a 8% annual return you retire with about 3.2 Million.

That is ~10,800 per month for 30 years providing you see zero growth in that asset over that 30 year span. Oh and this is passable via your estate to your kids, unlike SS.

You have addressed nothing and only continue to say the same things that you always have. I understand your point, heard it loud and clear many threads ago. Yes if one were to reclessly persue wealth, and ran into no major obstacles, one would be better off investing on one's own.
Items number 1 and 2 on my list are very important. Inadequete disability and life insureance (if you have a family), is as financially irresponsibile as those that you despise for their financial irresponsibility. In fact, those who do not account for these things in their haste to accumulate wealth are the very sort of person for whom SS is neccessary.

I addressed all of your points. What else can I say?

Do you think disability insurance costs 12.8% of your salary in the private sector?
And you dont have to recklessly pursue wealth at all, unless you consider taking 12.8% of your salary and plowing it into a retirement fund reckless? This is currently what the federal govt does with SS.

Take that 12.8% and instead of plowing it into a hopeless program like SS, stick it into the federal thrift program and you can live much better than what SS can provide.

I consider something reckless when it does not take risk into account. When you say "disability insurance is cheap" and then present a number showing how wealthy you would be if you invested SS contributions in a retirement account, you imply that the cost of disability insurance is negligable. This is not true, so I say that you are either being disingenuous (comparing apples with oranges on purpose) or reckless in the accumulation of wealth (perhaps even blind to risk). I choose to believe that your intent is good, so I call you reckless.

BTW you certianly did not address the points. What you did do though is provide anecdotal evidence of why a program like SS is necessary. There exist investors who fail to take risks (of no longer being able to invest, or of massively foolish decisions) into account. These investors will run into troubles at some rate (clearly not 100%) and the impact to themselves and their families will cost us all.


(pardon me for trimming your other quote, but is was certianly not attributable to me anyway)

You had two points, I addressed the retirement side and asked you what you thought disability insurance costed as a % of your salary.

I will ask this again.
Do you think disability insurance costs 12.8% of your salary?

So what your proposal is to continue with a blanket social program that benefits a small minority at the expense of the majority? Color me unsurprised.

If disability is such a real world issue why not scrap the current SS program and erect a disability program? I suspect the amount of people who require what you are scared of losing is much less than you want us to believe.

As for my belief a program like SS is necessary. I believe the idea behind it is good but the implementation is piss-poor.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Dissipate
If you could opt out of social security starting tomorrow, would you do it? This means that you would cease having to pay 7% and your employer wouldn't have to pay anything either. But to go along with that you would only receive benefits up to the point that you already paid in.

State your age as well as your answer.

Considering all of you selfish assholes who want to see grandma out on the street would opt out, I guess I would too. Since, after all, one you had succeeded in bankrupting the program, my money would just end up going for some idiotic war or into some executive's pocket.

First, I don't think we should stop SS and let the elderly become homeless. We should have a transistional period. Second, the reformed SS system should give ownership to the individual, but also price match contributions to low income people so they can retire on something at least more than what SS gives now. Third, fiscal conservatives != neocons. Probably the exact opposite. I'm fiscally conservative, but I'm weak Libertarian. I don't support the war.

Sigh. Don't you understand? If individuals who die before they use up their retirment savings "keep" the money and pass it on to their family than what happens to the 50 percent of people who live past the average death age? the government would have to support them. SS is not only a retirement program but an insurance program. Without the insurance part than everyone(98 percent) would have to save for the possibliity they would live to 100.
Which is why private retirement accounts can't work. They would need so much money in them to account for living to 100 years old that 90 percent of Americans can't save enough. Remember that if you have to provide for a certain standard of living for the 35 years of retirement if you live to 100 you have to take out very little each year of retirement. Forcing almost everyone onto welfare.

Again, you could easily make it so that the government provides for those that live past what they projected. All you have to do is make part of the withholding a tax. This tax would go to pay for people who live longer than expected, disability, etc.

The countries that have moved towards privatization (Chile, Sweden, etc.) haven't had problems with it the long-run. Obviously we shouldn't just drop the current system altogether. We do need to at least partially pay for the baby boomers.

You say privatization won't work but you haven't given any real world examples of where it doesn't. Each country that I've read about that has implemented at least partial privatization has been successful with it.

Agreed.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Nope, I am 37 and make about 65K/year.


From my general recollection, my SS benefits are something like:
1) If I live to the age that SS say I can retire, I will recieve 1600/mo in current dollars
2) If I become completely disabled before my retirement age, I will still recieve the 1600/mo in current dollars
3) If I die before my retirement age, my wife will recieve 1600/mo in current dollars plus another 1400/mo for my children until they turn 18

Try and find a private plan that can do that. If you can, tell me what it costs.
To simplify your research, you can replace the numbers above with
1) Any retirement account that results in 300K at retirment age
2) Disability insurance with a benefit of 1600/mo and cost of living adjustments
3) 300K in Life Insurance with a 30 year term



I suspect that the costs will be very comperable.
I also suspect that a good number of those who complain about SS do not have adequete disability insurance (I think that the stat is 3x as likely to become disabled than to die during a 20yr period)

I am pretty sure disability doesnt cost 12.8% of your salary.
As for the retirement tables. Take 12.8% of your salary and put it into a blanced mutual fund for 40 years.

At 50K a year salary with a 8% annual return you retire with about 3.2 Million.

That is ~10,800 per month for 30 years providing you see zero growth in that asset over that 30 year span. Oh and this is passable via your estate to your kids, unlike SS.

You have addressed nothing and only continue to say the same things that you always have. I understand your point, heard it loud and clear many threads ago. Yes if one were to reclessly persue wealth, and ran into no major obstacles, one would be better off investing on one's own.
Items number 1 and 2 on my list are very important. Inadequete disability and life insureance (if you have a family), is as financially irresponsibile as those that you despise for their financial irresponsibility. In fact, those who do not account for these things in their haste to accumulate wealth are the very sort of person for whom SS is neccessary.

I addressed all of your points. What else can I say?

Do you think disability insurance costs 12.8% of your salary in the private sector?
And you dont have to recklessly pursue wealth at all, unless you consider taking 12.8% of your salary and plowing it into a retirement fund reckless? This is currently what the federal govt does with SS.

Take that 12.8% and instead of plowing it into a hopeless program like SS, stick it into the federal thrift program and you can live much better than what SS can provide.

I consider something reckless when it does not take risk into account. When you say "disability insurance is cheap" and then present a number showing how wealthy you would be if you invested SS contributions in a retirement account, you imply that the cost of disability insurance is negligable. This is not true, so I say that you are either being disingenuous (comparing apples with oranges on purpose) or reckless in the accumulation of wealth (perhaps even blind to risk). I choose to believe that your intent is good, so I call you reckless.

BTW you certianly did not address the points. What you did do though is provide anecdotal evidence of why a program like SS is necessary. There exist investors who fail to take risks (of no longer being able to invest, or of massively foolish decisions) into account. These investors will run into troubles at some rate (clearly not 100%) and the impact to themselves and their families will cost us all.


(pardon me for trimming your other quote, but is was certianly not attributable to me anyway)

You had two points, I addressed the retirement side and asked you what you thought disability insurance costed as a % of your salary.

I will ask this again.
Do you think disability insurance costs 12.8% of your salary?

So what your proposal is to continue with a blanket social program that benefits a small minority at the expense of the majority? Color me unsurprised.

If disability is such a real world issue why not scrap the current SS program and erect a disability program? I suspect the amount of people who require what you are scared of losing is much less than you want us to believe.

As for my belief a program like SS is necessary. I believe the idea behind it is good but the implementation is piss-poor.

Well color me surprised, you really are trying to be deceptive in your argument.

I am pretty sure disability doesnt cost 12.8% of your salary.

Does not sound like "what % of your salary does disability cost?". In fact, if you look at my post on the matter, I challenged you to find a number. If I just wrote a number, I figured that I would be charged with sensationalizing it, so I thought it would be more use to hear from others. The fact that you do not know what it costs suggests that you are ignoring the risk yourself.

Disability is not the only risk, just the largest of the three that I mentioned. As I have stated before, SS is not a wealth accumulation tool, it is a risk managment tool
SS addresses major financial risks associated with no longer being able to work.

I agree that some things need to change, however the concept itself is a very good one. It does not need to be scrapped in the name of higher retirement returns.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Nope, I am 37 and make about 65K/year.


From my general recollection, my SS benefits are something like:
1) If I live to the age that SS say I can retire, I will recieve 1600/mo in current dollars
2) If I become completely disabled before my retirement age, I will still recieve the 1600/mo in current dollars
3) If I die before my retirement age, my wife will recieve 1600/mo in current dollars plus another 1400/mo for my children until they turn 18

Try and find a private plan that can do that. If you can, tell me what it costs.
To simplify your research, you can replace the numbers above with
1) Any retirement account that results in 300K at retirment age
2) Disability insurance with a benefit of 1600/mo and cost of living adjustments
3) 300K in Life Insurance with a 30 year term



I suspect that the costs will be very comperable.
I also suspect that a good number of those who complain about SS do not have adequete disability insurance (I think that the stat is 3x as likely to become disabled than to die during a 20yr period)

I am pretty sure disability doesnt cost 12.8% of your salary.
As for the retirement tables. Take 12.8% of your salary and put it into a blanced mutual fund for 40 years.

At 50K a year salary with a 8% annual return you retire with about 3.2 Million.

That is ~10,800 per month for 30 years providing you see zero growth in that asset over that 30 year span. Oh and this is passable via your estate to your kids, unlike SS.

You have addressed nothing and only continue to say the same things that you always have. I understand your point, heard it loud and clear many threads ago. Yes if one were to reclessly persue wealth, and ran into no major obstacles, one would be better off investing on one's own.
Items number 1 and 2 on my list are very important. Inadequete disability and life insureance (if you have a family), is as financially irresponsibile as those that you despise for their financial irresponsibility. In fact, those who do not account for these things in their haste to accumulate wealth are the very sort of person for whom SS is neccessary.

I addressed all of your points. What else can I say?

Do you think disability insurance costs 12.8% of your salary in the private sector?
And you dont have to recklessly pursue wealth at all, unless you consider taking 12.8% of your salary and plowing it into a retirement fund reckless? This is currently what the federal govt does with SS.

Take that 12.8% and instead of plowing it into a hopeless program like SS, stick it into the federal thrift program and you can live much better than what SS can provide.

I consider something reckless when it does not take risk into account. When you say "disability insurance is cheap" and then present a number showing how wealthy you would be if you invested SS contributions in a retirement account, you imply that the cost of disability insurance is negligable. This is not true, so I say that you are either being disingenuous (comparing apples with oranges on purpose) or reckless in the accumulation of wealth (perhaps even blind to risk). I choose to believe that your intent is good, so I call you reckless.

BTW you certianly did not address the points. What you did do though is provide anecdotal evidence of why a program like SS is necessary. There exist investors who fail to take risks (of no longer being able to invest, or of massively foolish decisions) into account. These investors will run into troubles at some rate (clearly not 100%) and the impact to themselves and their families will cost us all.


(pardon me for trimming your other quote, but is was certianly not attributable to me anyway)

Risk over a 40+ year investment is nothing more than ignorance.

Jeremy Siegel shows how stocks have less risk than bonds in the long term:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/007137.../002-1367201-2963264?v=glance&n=283155


If you're concerned about people foolishing investing all of their money in growth stocks in a single asset class, then have preselected bond/stock funds for people that know nothing of investing. It won't return very well, but it'll be better than the current SS.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Nope, I am 37 and make about 65K/year.


From my general recollection, my SS benefits are something like:
1) If I live to the age that SS say I can retire, I will recieve 1600/mo in current dollars
2) If I become completely disabled before my retirement age, I will still recieve the 1600/mo in current dollars
3) If I die before my retirement age, my wife will recieve 1600/mo in current dollars plus another 1400/mo for my children until they turn 18

Try and find a private plan that can do that. If you can, tell me what it costs.
To simplify your research, you can replace the numbers above with
1) Any retirement account that results in 300K at retirment age
2) Disability insurance with a benefit of 1600/mo and cost of living adjustments
3) 300K in Life Insurance with a 30 year term



I suspect that the costs will be very comperable.
I also suspect that a good number of those who complain about SS do not have adequete disability insurance (I think that the stat is 3x as likely to become disabled than to die during a 20yr period)

I am pretty sure disability doesnt cost 12.8% of your salary.
As for the retirement tables. Take 12.8% of your salary and put it into a blanced mutual fund for 40 years.

At 50K a year salary with a 8% annual return you retire with about 3.2 Million.

That is ~10,800 per month for 30 years providing you see zero growth in that asset over that 30 year span. Oh and this is passable via your estate to your kids, unlike SS.

You have addressed nothing and only continue to say the same things that you always have. I understand your point, heard it loud and clear many threads ago. Yes if one were to reclessly persue wealth, and ran into no major obstacles, one would be better off investing on one's own.
Items number 1 and 2 on my list are very important. Inadequete disability and life insureance (if you have a family), is as financially irresponsibile as those that you despise for their financial irresponsibility. In fact, those who do not account for these things in their haste to accumulate wealth are the very sort of person for whom SS is neccessary.

I addressed all of your points. What else can I say?

Do you think disability insurance costs 12.8% of your salary in the private sector?
And you dont have to recklessly pursue wealth at all, unless you consider taking 12.8% of your salary and plowing it into a retirement fund reckless? This is currently what the federal govt does with SS.

Take that 12.8% and instead of plowing it into a hopeless program like SS, stick it into the federal thrift program and you can live much better than what SS can provide.

I consider something reckless when it does not take risk into account. When you say "disability insurance is cheap" and then present a number showing how wealthy you would be if you invested SS contributions in a retirement account, you imply that the cost of disability insurance is negligable. This is not true, so I say that you are either being disingenuous (comparing apples with oranges on purpose) or reckless in the accumulation of wealth (perhaps even blind to risk). I choose to believe that your intent is good, so I call you reckless.

BTW you certianly did not address the points. What you did do though is provide anecdotal evidence of why a program like SS is necessary. There exist investors who fail to take risks (of no longer being able to invest, or of massively foolish decisions) into account. These investors will run into troubles at some rate (clearly not 100%) and the impact to themselves and their families will cost us all.


(pardon me for trimming your other quote, but is was certianly not attributable to me anyway)

Risk over a 40+ year investment is nothing more than ignorance.

Jeremy Siegel shows how stocks have less risk than bonds in the long term:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/007137.../002-1367201-2963264?v=glance&n=283155


If you're concerned about people foolishing investing all of their money in growth stocks in a single asset class, then have preselected bond/stock funds for people that know nothing of investing. It won't return very well, but it'll be better than the current SS.

Just like Genx87, you focus on the one risk that you understand. You need to deal with all of them. Please come back when you understand what SS is and why it is not a wealth accumulation tool

 

[Genx87]

Like I said, if you are worried about disability, create another program. SS is being sold as a retirement plan, not a disability program. I dont see the benefits of a risk management tool when it cant sustain itself over the long run. It should be run like a wealth accumulation tool and that thinking is probably why we are stagnant on any kind of reform. I am sure in the end they will simply raise taxes like they always do to cover the failures in design of the system, hurting the middle class further.

I still ask you if you think disability insurance costs 12.8% of your salary? If I went into the private sector would they charge me that much? You dont seem to want to answer the question.

Does it or doesnt it?

 

[2Xtreme21]

Many people fail to understand that the money that comes out of your paycheck for SS is money given to your company in order for them to pay into SS. If there is no more SS, then there is no more need for your employer to pay that percentage to the gov't, then there is no more need for you to make the % that goes into it. That is, you will not be just given the money that currently goes into SS, it won't be there at all.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Like I said, if you are worried about disability, create another program. SS is being sold as a retirement plan, not a disability program. I dont see the benefits of a risk management tool when it cant sustain itself over the long run. It should be run like a wealth accumulation tool and that thinking is probably why we are stagnant on any kind of reform. I am sure in the end they will simply raise taxes like they always do to cover the failures in design of the system, hurting the middle class further.

I still ask you if you think disability insurance costs 12.8% of your salary? If I went into the private sector would they charge me that much? You dont seem to want to answer the question.

Does it or doesnt it?

You are right that our differences are in risk managment vs wealth accumulation. That you do not manage your risk (typical percieved invulnerability of youth?) provides anecdotal evidence for exactly why we need a way to manage that risk.

I do not nothink that disability insurance costs 12.8%. I challenged you and other posters to do the research and finally (not still) you now answer my question with a question.

In truth, you probably cannot obtain long term disability in a form similar to what SS provides. I am not aware of any policies that will pay past an age of 65 (SS won't either, but you can start recieving equivalent SS retirement benefits at 65). Remember that since you are disabled, you won't be able to contribute to that retirement account anymore, so this is an important difference to note. If you are and have always been healthy, you should be able to obtain disability insurance with coverage through age 65 for 1000/year (to emphasize the issue, I cannot obtain any disability insurance because of a health problem I had a few years ago).

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: raz3000
Absolutely. I can save and invest my future earnings myself.

22/student

Same here, AFTER doing a bit of research. I was kind of hoping Bush's privatization would go through although I didnt research it enough to make fully decide. Lots of FUD being thrown around on that.

I am 23/student

Did you watch the last state of the union address? The Dems were all applauding themselves for killing that bill. It will not be happening anytime soon if ever.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87
Like I said, if you are worried about disability, create another program. SS is being sold as a retirement plan, not a disability program. I dont see the benefits of a risk management tool when it cant sustain itself over the long run. It should be run like a wealth accumulation tool and that thinking is probably why we are stagnant on any kind of reform. I am sure in the end they will simply raise taxes like they always do to cover the failures in design of the system, hurting the middle class further.

I still ask you if you think disability insurance costs 12.8% of your salary? If I went into the private sector would they charge me that much? You dont seem to want to answer the question.

Does it or doesnt it?

You are right that our differences are in risk managment vs wealth accumulation. That you do not manage your risk (typical percieved invulnerability of youth?) provides anecdotal evidence for exactly why we need a way to manage that risk.

I do not nothink that disability insurance costs 12.8%. I challenged you and other posters to do the research and finally (not still) you now answer my question with a question.

In truth, you probably cannot obtain long term disability in a form similar to what SS provides. I am not aware of any policies that will pay past an age of 65 (SS won't either, but you can start recieving equivalent SS retirement benefits at 65). Remember that since you are disabled, you won't be able to contribute to that retirement account anymore, so this is an important difference to note. If you are and have always been healthy, you should be able to obtain disability insurance with coverage through age 65 for 1000/year (to emphasize the issue, I cannot obtain any disability insurance because of a health problem I had a few years ago).

And that is fine, if this is such a big deal form another program. But to continue down a path of destruction because of disability benefits which btw does SS pay your entire lifetime or is it limited to 5 years? And what was the rate of approval on it? I was reading it wasnt anywhere near 100%.

Anyways I digress, a blanket social program will fail and is going to fail.
If somebody is disabled their entire life I am sure there is a welfare option we can put them on. It doesnt make sense to keep a program alive that will implode this country for such a small % of the population.

The federal Thrift program has been very successful for federal employees. I dont see why this cant be expanded to the general population while finding options for people who are disabled.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Nope, I am 37 and make about 65K/year.


From my general recollection, my SS benefits are something like:
1) If I live to the age that SS say I can retire, I will recieve 1600/mo in current dollars
2) If I become completely disabled before my retirement age, I will still recieve the 1600/mo in current dollars
3) If I die before my retirement age, my wife will recieve 1600/mo in current dollars plus another 1400/mo for my children until they turn 18

Try and find a private plan that can do that. If you can, tell me what it costs.
To simplify your research, you can replace the numbers above with
1) Any retirement account that results in 300K at retirment age
2) Disability insurance with a benefit of 1600/mo and cost of living adjustments
3) 300K in Life Insurance with a 30 year term



I suspect that the costs will be very comperable.
I also suspect that a good number of those who complain about SS do not have adequete disability insurance (I think that the stat is 3x as likely to become disabled than to die during a 20yr period)

I am pretty sure disability doesnt cost 12.8% of your salary.
As for the retirement tables. Take 12.8% of your salary and put it into a blanced mutual fund for 40 years.

At 50K a year salary with a 8% annual return you retire with about 3.2 Million.

That is ~10,800 per month for 30 years providing you see zero growth in that asset over that 30 year span. Oh and this is passable via your estate to your kids, unlike SS.

You have addressed nothing and only continue to say the same things that you always have. I understand your point, heard it loud and clear many threads ago. Yes if one were to reclessly persue wealth, and ran into no major obstacles, one would be better off investing on one's own.
Items number 1 and 2 on my list are very important. Inadequete disability and life insureance (if you have a family), is as financially irresponsibile as those that you despise for their financial irresponsibility. In fact, those who do not account for these things in their haste to accumulate wealth are the very sort of person for whom SS is neccessary.

I addressed all of your points. What else can I say?

Do you think disability insurance costs 12.8% of your salary in the private sector?
And you dont have to recklessly pursue wealth at all, unless you consider taking 12.8% of your salary and plowing it into a retirement fund reckless? This is currently what the federal govt does with SS.

Take that 12.8% and instead of plowing it into a hopeless program like SS, stick it into the federal thrift program and you can live much better than what SS can provide.

I consider something reckless when it does not take risk into account. When you say "disability insurance is cheap" and then present a number showing how wealthy you would be if you invested SS contributions in a retirement account, you imply that the cost of disability insurance is negligable. This is not true, so I say that you are either being disingenuous (comparing apples with oranges on purpose) or reckless in the accumulation of wealth (perhaps even blind to risk). I choose to believe that your intent is good, so I call you reckless.

BTW you certianly did not address the points. What you did do though is provide anecdotal evidence of why a program like SS is necessary. There exist investors who fail to take risks (of no longer being able to invest, or of massively foolish decisions) into account. These investors will run into troubles at some rate (clearly not 100%) and the impact to themselves and their families will cost us all.


(pardon me for trimming your other quote, but is was certianly not attributable to me anyway)

Risk over a 40+ year investment is nothing more than ignorance.

Jeremy Siegel shows how stocks have less risk than bonds in the long term:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/007137.../002-1367201-2963264?v=glance&n=283155


If you're concerned about people foolishing investing all of their money in growth stocks in a single asset class, then have preselected bond/stock funds for people that know nothing of investing. It won't return very well, but it'll be better than the current SS.

Just like Genx87, you focus on the one risk that you understand. You need to deal with all of them. Please come back when you understand what SS is and why it is not a wealth accumulation tool

Why can't it be both a wealth accumulation tool and a fall back? Obviously there will be a need for a fall back for some people but for the majority, there is nothing wrong with it being for wealth accumulation. There's no reason we can't have the majority of SS privatized while part of the payroll tax goes towards people who need it as a insurance.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87
Like I said, if you are worried about disability, create another program. SS is being sold as a retirement plan, not a disability program. I dont see the benefits of a risk management tool when it cant sustain itself over the long run. It should be run like a wealth accumulation tool and that thinking is probably why we are stagnant on any kind of reform. I am sure in the end they will simply raise taxes like they always do to cover the failures in design of the system, hurting the middle class further.

I still ask you if you think disability insurance costs 12.8% of your salary? If I went into the private sector would they charge me that much? You dont seem to want to answer the question.

Does it or doesnt it?

You are right that our differences are in risk managment vs wealth accumulation. That you do not manage your risk (typical percieved invulnerability of youth?) provides anecdotal evidence for exactly why we need a way to manage that risk.

I do not nothink that disability insurance costs 12.8%. I challenged you and other posters to do the research and finally (not still) you now answer my question with a question.

In truth, you probably cannot obtain long term disability in a form similar to what SS provides. I am not aware of any policies that will pay past an age of 65 (SS won't either, but you can start recieving equivalent SS retirement benefits at 65). Remember that since you are disabled, you won't be able to contribute to that retirement account anymore, so this is an important difference to note. If you are and have always been healthy, you should be able to obtain disability insurance with coverage through age 65 for 1000/year (to emphasize the issue, I cannot obtain any disability insurance because of a health problem I had a few years ago).

SS uses less than 3% of the 15% for disability benefits. Disability and retirement funds can be discussed seperately. IF everyone put the remaining 12% into a something like a thrift savings plan, future generations would be far better off than the current generation.

 

[glenn1]

Hell yes. I'd sign a waiver disclaiming any claim on any/all money I've ever paid into the system (I'm 37) and forgo the imaginary 7% raise that no more employer contribution would mean to not have to send money to feed the beast in Washington.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87
Like I said, if you are worried about disability, create another program. SS is being sold as a retirement plan, not a disability program. I dont see the benefits of a risk management tool when it cant sustain itself over the long run. It should be run like a wealth accumulation tool and that thinking is probably why we are stagnant on any kind of reform. I am sure in the end they will simply raise taxes like they always do to cover the failures in design of the system, hurting the middle class further.

I still ask you if you think disability insurance costs 12.8% of your salary? If I went into the private sector would they charge me that much? You dont seem to want to answer the question.

Does it or doesnt it?

You are right that our differences are in risk managment vs wealth accumulation. That you do not manage your risk (typical percieved invulnerability of youth?) provides anecdotal evidence for exactly why we need a way to manage that risk.

I do not nothink that disability insurance costs 12.8%. I challenged you and other posters to do the research and finally (not still) you now answer my question with a question.

In truth, you probably cannot obtain long term disability in a form similar to what SS provides. I am not aware of any policies that will pay past an age of 65 (SS won't either, but you can start recieving equivalent SS retirement benefits at 65). Remember that since you are disabled, you won't be able to contribute to that retirement account anymore, so this is an important difference to note. If you are and have always been healthy, you should be able to obtain disability insurance with coverage through age 65 for 1000/year (to emphasize the issue, I cannot obtain any disability insurance because of a health problem I had a few years ago).

SS uses less than 3% of the 15% for disability benefits. Disability and retirement funds can be discussed seperately. IF everyone put the remaining 12% into a something like a thrift savings plan, future generations would be far better off than the current generation.

Can you back up your numbers with something concrete? I think not.

(hint: throwing out statistics while misrepresenting the amount contributed to SS is a good indicator that you are willing to lie to try and make a point)

 

[MonkeyK]

More detailed numbers: SS statistical snapshot

Quick summary of percent of benefits paid:
Old age insurance: 69%
Survivors insurance: 14%
Disability insusrance 17%

this is after administrative costs close to 1%

(note that some of the old age insurance is converted disability, since the program pays disability insurance to the age of 65 and then changes payments to old age insurance for disability recipients older then 65)

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87
Like I said, if you are worried about disability, create another program. SS is being sold as a retirement plan, not a disability program. I dont see the benefits of a risk management tool when it cant sustain itself over the long run. It should be run like a wealth accumulation tool and that thinking is probably why we are stagnant on any kind of reform. I am sure in the end they will simply raise taxes like they always do to cover the failures in design of the system, hurting the middle class further.

I still ask you if you think disability insurance costs 12.8% of your salary? If I went into the private sector would they charge me that much? You dont seem to want to answer the question.

Does it or doesnt it?

You are right that our differences are in risk managment vs wealth accumulation. That you do not manage your risk (typical percieved invulnerability of youth?) provides anecdotal evidence for exactly why we need a way to manage that risk.

I do not nothink that disability insurance costs 12.8%. I challenged you and other posters to do the research and finally (not still) you now answer my question with a question.

In truth, you probably cannot obtain long term disability in a form similar to what SS provides. I am not aware of any policies that will pay past an age of 65 (SS won't either, but you can start recieving equivalent SS retirement benefits at 65). Remember that since you are disabled, you won't be able to contribute to that retirement account anymore, so this is an important difference to note. If you are and have always been healthy, you should be able to obtain disability insurance with coverage through age 65 for 1000/year (to emphasize the issue, I cannot obtain any disability insurance because of a health problem I had a few years ago).

SS uses less than 3% of the 15% for disability benefits. Disability and retirement funds can be discussed seperately. IF everyone put the remaining 12% into a something like a thrift savings plan, future generations would be far better off than the current generation.

Can you back up your numbers with something concrete? I think not.

(hint: throwing out statistics while misrepresenting the amount contributed to SS is a good indicator that you are willing to lie to try and make a point)

linkage

Total SSA budget is 586B. Disability is only 90B. That puts it about 2.25% of the 15% collected via payroll taxes.


Feel free to retract calling me a liar.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87
Like I said, if you are worried about disability, create another program. SS is being sold as a retirement plan, not a disability program. I dont see the benefits of a risk management tool when it cant sustain itself over the long run. It should be run like a wealth accumulation tool and that thinking is probably why we are stagnant on any kind of reform. I am sure in the end they will simply raise taxes like they always do to cover the failures in design of the system, hurting the middle class further.

I still ask you if you think disability insurance costs 12.8% of your salary? If I went into the private sector would they charge me that much? You dont seem to want to answer the question.

Does it or doesnt it?

You are right that our differences are in risk managment vs wealth accumulation. That you do not manage your risk (typical percieved invulnerability of youth?) provides anecdotal evidence for exactly why we need a way to manage that risk.

I do not nothink that disability insurance costs 12.8%. I challenged you and other posters to do the research and finally (not still) you now answer my question with a question.

In truth, you probably cannot obtain long term disability in a form similar to what SS provides. I am not aware of any policies that will pay past an age of 65 (SS won't either, but you can start recieving equivalent SS retirement benefits at 65). Remember that since you are disabled, you won't be able to contribute to that retirement account anymore, so this is an important difference to note. If you are and have always been healthy, you should be able to obtain disability insurance with coverage through age 65 for 1000/year (to emphasize the issue, I cannot obtain any disability insurance because of a health problem I had a few years ago).

SS uses less than 3% of the 15% for disability benefits. Disability and retirement funds can be discussed seperately. IF everyone put the remaining 12% into a something like a thrift savings plan, future generations would be far better off than the current generation.

Can you back up your numbers with something concrete? I think not.

(hint: throwing out statistics while misrepresenting the amount contributed to SS is a good indicator that you are willing to lie to try and make a point)

linkage

Total SSA budget is 586B. Disability is only 90B. That puts it about 2.25% of the 15% collected via payroll taxes.


Feel free to retract calling me a liar.

I already posted the real numbers. It's the 15% bit that's off...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87
Like I said, if you are worried about disability, create another program. SS is being sold as a retirement plan, not a disability program. I dont see the benefits of a risk management tool when it cant sustain itself over the long run. It should be run like a wealth accumulation tool and that thinking is probably why we are stagnant on any kind of reform. I am sure in the end they will simply raise taxes like they always do to cover the failures in design of the system, hurting the middle class further.

I still ask you if you think disability insurance costs 12.8% of your salary? If I went into the private sector would they charge me that much? You dont seem to want to answer the question.

Does it or doesnt it?

You are right that our differences are in risk managment vs wealth accumulation. That you do not manage your risk (typical percieved invulnerability of youth?) provides anecdotal evidence for exactly why we need a way to manage that risk.

I do not nothink that disability insurance costs 12.8%. I challenged you and other posters to do the research and finally (not still) you now answer my question with a question.

In truth, you probably cannot obtain long term disability in a form similar to what SS provides. I am not aware of any policies that will pay past an age of 65 (SS won't either, but you can start recieving equivalent SS retirement benefits at 65). Remember that since you are disabled, you won't be able to contribute to that retirement account anymore, so this is an important difference to note. If you are and have always been healthy, you should be able to obtain disability insurance with coverage through age 65 for 1000/year (to emphasize the issue, I cannot obtain any disability insurance because of a health problem I had a few years ago).

SS uses less than 3% of the 15% for disability benefits. Disability and retirement funds can be discussed seperately. IF everyone put the remaining 12% into a something like a thrift savings plan, future generations would be far better off than the current generation.

Can you back up your numbers with something concrete? I think not.

(hint: throwing out statistics while misrepresenting the amount contributed to SS is a good indicator that you are willing to lie to try and make a point)

linkage

Total SSA budget is 586B. Disability is only 90B. That puts it about 2.25% of the 15% collected via payroll taxes.


Feel free to retract calling me a liar.

I already posted the real numbers. It's the 15% bit that's off...

Payroll tax is about 15%. Disability consumes about 2.25% of that 15% or less than 1/5 of the total SS taxes. Nothing was misrepresented.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
More detailed numbers: SS statistical snapshot

Quick summary of percent of benefits paid:
Old age insurance: 69%
Survivors insurance: 14%
Disability insusrance 17%

this is after administrative costs close to 1%

(note that some of the old age insurance is converted disability, since the program pays disability insurance to the age of 65 and then changes payments to old age insurance for disability recipients older then 65)

Correction to the above. The percentages that I listed were based on number of beneficiaries.

In dollars paid:
Old age insurance: 32436 million (72%)
Survivors insurance: 5721 million (13%)
Disability insusrance 6714 million (15%)