(Logan Martin Lake Specific)
4,314 messages
Updated 5/23/2024 1:39:01 PM
Lakes Online Forum
83,631 messages
Updated 5/23/2024 1:10:37 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Logan Martin Lake Specific)
126 messages
Updated 12/23/2022 9:21:15 AM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
MartiniMan
- 
|
|
Subject:
|
GF is once again way off the mark
|
|
Date:
|
6/11/2010 10:29:36 AM
|
|
GF, you should know better than to compare the value of SS versus other forms of retirement savings. All you have to do is look at Galveston County, Texas that opted out of SS in 1980 before Congress closed that loophole. Workers in Galveston County get anywhere from double to triple what they would have gotten from SS. Those making more than $75K when they retired get almost $55K per year while SS would only pay them around $19K. And this is just from 1980 to today. Granted social security will pay as long as you live but that won't be all that long since you will have to eat dog food to survive.
There are a number of very accurate calculators that compare what you would get at retirement from SS versus a private account funded only by our payments under FICA by the time I retire. In my case I expect to pay around $487K in SS taxes in my lifetime (based on current rates) and receive a benefit of $2,900 per month at retirement. Assuming I retire at 67 and live to age 77 and I took that money and invested in a combination of stocks and bonds my monthly benefit would be around $24,000. So I give up $21,000 per month for being forced at the point of a gun to participate in your most valued program. If I lived to 87 my annual payments would be $13,000 per month (or $10,000 more than SS). I would have to live age 151 in order for my nest egg to produce your much ballyhooed $2,900 per month, and that assumes no growth in principal after I retire. You see how silly you sound when you crow about SS?
Even worse is the average rate of return on my investment in social security is -1%. I can only imagine how well that would work out for a mutual fund to have that record. In fact, since January 1980 the average rate of return in equities is 13.9%, even with the current correction. I know a typical libtard would gladly exchange 13.9% for -1% if it came from their generous and benevolent government. But for most of us thinking folks we would prefer the more reasonable rate of return and an actual asset that we own versus a promise from a bankrupt government program.
But to make matters even worse (as if the above weren't bad enough), the fact is my negative return isn't even real because the government puts every penny from my SS tax into the general fund and spends it (not to mention the $3 they borrow for every $1 they collect) on past contributors to SS that are now retired along with all the other entitlement spending.
And for the final indignity, there is no way I will ever see a dime of that $487K because I have been responsible and productive and will have way too many other retirement assets so my benefits will be means tested away. I know it, I accept it, there's no other way. So in essence I will have pissed away $2.9M (my $487K that grew from my investments) and will also have to pay much higher income taxes in the future to keep SS solvent.
GF, sometimes it is better to remain silent than to expose ignorance in all its glory. You or I would be in prison if we ran a retirement plan like the government runs social security and that is a fact. Why you accept something that is certainly not moral for our government to do to its people is beyond me, especially given it would be illegal if you or I did it.
|
|
Reply
Back
Search
Off-Topic Forum
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Logan Martin Lake
Login
|
Home
