Social Security

[Traveler]

A few days ago I got a fifty letter from the Social Security Administration. They informed me of the status of my account and my future benefits. I thought I would make some calculations based on the information in the report and the internet statistics on aging and the amount I have paid and will pay into Social Security by time I retire.

I will get back less than ½ of what I paid. In essence I will get back about 47 cents on every dollar paid. There is no counting for inflation, and no interest. Accounting for inflation I will receive during my retirement something less than 1/4 of the value I paid during my lifetime. That is unless inflation increases as most economist are predicting. It is possible I could end up with less than 20% of the value that I paid into the program. Keep in mind that my employer has been paying into Social Security dollar for dollar every penny I have paid.

When I was 16 years I bought and paid for a $25,000 whole life insurance policy that I paid in full with about $3,000. If you are to talk to any investment councilor or economist they will tell you a whole life policy is the worse investment possible. Really? Since my insurance was paid I have invested the extra dividends in more insurance for a total current value of $85,000. That is what the initial investment has returned. That is over 28 times what I paid or a 2,800% increase. Even counting for inflation I will come out a head – not a whole lot because that money invested in compound interest would net close to $1,000,000 when I retire. That is why it was considered such a bad investment.

My conclusion – if any insurance or any other retirement program in the United States was run like Social Security everybody bulked out of their savings would sue the management of the company and demand that everyone involved in the scam serve time in a federal correctional facility for fraud. I am not kidding – every politician, liberal or conservative would agree to the criminality of those that perpetrated the program. No one would suggest we put more money into such a debacle.

President Bush is lying about Social Security running out of money. The money is not there because we are running out – the money is not there because it has been mismanaged; so mismanaged that it is criminal. President Bush belongs in jail for his lie and cover-up of criminal mismanagement – more so than any Enron executive. Of course Bush is not the only criminal – he has not pulled this off all by himself. He had help – lots of it. Every politician alive to day is a part of the lie and criminal offense and they are all exempt from Social Security, every lying stinking one of them. Am I bitter? Yah I’m bitter, not just with the lying stinking scum politicians but even more so of the idiots that continue to trust the lying stinking scum to fix Social Security, education and over see ever other government program – and especially keep us safe from domestic criminal predators or foreign terrorist. I am not so bitter for myself – I will do alright. I have made some investment and I will be okay but there are a lot of others that have trusted in their elected officials and Social Security is their only hope from complete poverty in their retirement. Social Security robs the greatest from the poor.

Hay I’ve got a great idea – lets have these bums solve the health care problems by putting together a Social Medical program. How stupid is this country?

Sorry – I’ll crawl back in my hole now.

The Traveler

[john doe]

Please enlighten me. How, exactly, did the surrent Pres. Bush cause the Social Security crisis? I always was under the impression that Social Security has had problems for decades, but that just may be my bad memory reminding me of the running-out-of-money stories that were warned about at least as far back as the '70s. I just don't remember any of those stories even mentioning the name of George W. Bush, but I could be wrong. Perhaps you could point me to them? And just how did he, as (the young) son of the head of the CIA, convince everyone on Capitol Hill to raid the Social Security funds? Did he go around making "offers they couldn't refuse" until they complied with his demands to bankrupt SS? And what, exactly, was the point of his doing so?

[Traveler]

Originally posted by john doe@Jun 9 2005, 10:14 PM

Please enlighten me. How, exactly, did the surrent Pres. Bush cause the Social Security crisis? I always was under the impression that Social Security has had problems for decades, but that just may be my bad memory reminding me of the running-out-of-money stories that were warned about at least as far back as the '70s. I just don't remember any of those stories even mentioning the name of George W. Bush, but I could be wrong. Perhaps you could point me to them? And just how did he, as (the young) son of the head of the CIA, convince everyone on Capitol Hill to raid the Social Security funds? Did he go around making "offers they couldn't refuse" until they complied with his demands to bankrupt SS? And what, exactly, was the point of his doing so?

Tell you what - if you will send me $10,000 I will explain exactly how the scam works and President Bush continues the problem, plus I will guarantee $2,500 retirement for you.

President Bush wants more money for Social Security. I have paid enough in that 4 could retire on just the Social Security I will pay plus the ratio right now is 8 paying for each person receiving Social Security. There never will be a time when there are fewer paying in than receiving - Why then does President Bush think more is needed? He has no desire or ability to end the fraud - He cannot think of any alternative. His plan is Social Security or bankruptcy for everybody.

You are right the fraud has had scores of helpers since the 50’s but just because someone else has gotten away with being a criminal is no reason to thank then next one in line. Don’t you get it my friend? Social Security cannot work – if it is headed for trouble so soon after being fixed dozens of times there is no way it can ever be a success. It started out asking for 2% of earnings – it is currently around 15% of earnings and rising.

The reason it is rising is because Bush says it must have more or 95% of Americans that depend on Social Security will be forced into complete poverty. Do you know a con when you hear it? Maybe we should can the concept and try a new one starting over at the 2% level.

The Traveler

[Jason]

Actually, I believe 'W' has tried harder to solve the Entitlements crisis than most other presidents of recent memory.

I'd like to invest my money elsewhere, and he's trying to give me that chance.

It's a lot better than getting nothing. Which at 30yrs old, means that I'll never even get Traveller's 47 cents on the dollar!

[john doe]

There never will be a time when there are fewer paying in than receiving

Now I'm not a statistical expert, but it seems to me that when the baby boomers start retiring in their full numbers, the numbers of available workers to pay for that debt may perhaps be less than the actual number of people in the workforce. People are living much longer than before, and they will continue to be a drain on the system for much longer than originally planned for.

I agree with Jason, at least Pres. Bush is attempting to do something about the problem, despite your protestations against him. I would love to have some sort of control over where my SS money goes, but the liberals don't think Americans as a whole are smart enough to know what's best for us.

What do you think will grow at a higher rate of return over the 55-60 years I work before I retire, my 401(k) or my SS account? I daresay that the 401(k) funds may give me a higher payout than what I will realistically see from SS the way it is currently set up. And I pay about 2/3 third less for my 401(k). The difference? 401(k) funds are run by business people who understand money and investing and whose livelihoods depend on those funds doing well. What incentive does a politician have to give me a good return on my investment 50 years later? He's going to be long gone with his own self-given (non-SS) retirement that I will pay for as long as he lives which is a lot more than I will ever see. He doesn't care about me or the problems he has caused. Politicians don't generally have consciences, they just get in the way of them getting as much for themselves as they can.

[Traveler]

If you check the life expectancy for men it is 73 and for women I think it was 75. This is the average and has not changed in over 15 years. This means that the time on SS is about 10 years but there are efforts to up the retirement age to 70. There are more payouts if you do not retire till 70. With the average between 73 and 75 and the working force between 20 and 70 (or even 65) the population would be in more trouble than just SS if there are more over 65 than under 65.

If you could fix your old car for $175,000 or buy a brand new one for $20,000, why do you think someone would be trying to convince you to fix the old one? And if your neighbor kept saying the the person trying to talk you into the $175,000 repair job is a really nice guy that wants to help you - what would you think? That either they really do not have your interest at heart or they are not real bright.

I am thinking that you may not realize that there are other options other than Social Security. Why won't any body consider that possibility?

The Traveler

[john doe]

Did you even read my post?

[Traveler]

Originally posted by john doe@Jun 10 2005, 04:00 PM

Did you even read my post?

Yes I did and I agree a 401k is superior to SS. But not everyone can or does have a 401k. My point is that increasing the amount paid into SS has not solved the SS problem. For the record I think that someone that keeps doing the same thing over and over and over again in attempt to solve a problem and thinking that there will be a different outcome is the defination in insanity. In 60 years of increasing SS from 2% of earnings to 15% of earnings has not solved the problem. I do not think Pres Bush cares are wants to fix Social Security - I think his motives are 100% political.

Social Security does not need to be fixed - it needs to be ended and another concept put into place. Do you think making SS a 401k is the solution to the problem. It might work and be better but I think there is a much better solution for government funded retirement.

The Traveler

[john doe]

If you check the life expectancy for men it is 73 and for women I think it was 75. This is the average and has not changed in over 15 years.

Bzzzzzt! Try again. This from today's NY times:

Americans turning 65 this year can expect to live, on average, until they are 83, four and a half years longer than the typical 65-year-old could expect in 1940. And government actuaries predict that American life spans will just keep growing.

Democrats are refusing to even discuss changing the system, Republicans are at least recognizing that there is a major problem, and can't get democrats to even engage in talking about the problem. So how does this make Pres. Bush such a bad guy in the mix?

[Traveler]

One of the problems with statistics is understanding exactly what they mean. In general when we speak of life expectancy there is more than one category. The reason for multiple categories is to try to understand what is being expressed. For example, if I were to say – what is the life expectancy of the average American today? What would you expect that means. How many more years will the average American live or to what age will the average American live? Or is it the average number of years Americans that are born this year will live to?

The most recent official government statistics I know of are dated 2002. The web link is http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_06.pdf

This shows that on average a person that is 60 years old in 2002 will live to 82 years of age. However, that does not take into account everybody that was born in 1942. Only those that are still alive in 2002. I assume the statistics you are using include only those Americans alive today. You will also note that everybody that turned 100 in the year 2002 can expect to live another 2 years or so. This would mean that their average life expectancy would be 102 years.

My calculations are based on everyone born the year I was born. What I do not have is the statistics of all the Social Security paid by those that were born the same year that I was. So I have tried to extrapolate the number based on what I have paid for the years I have worked as an average projected on the numbers of those that will retire based on the age 65 or the age 70. Using the record from my taxes during my life time I can check to see how much I personally paid Social Security and use that to compare with the pay back from the statement form Social Security I received in the mail. All numbers projected from my date of birth and adjusted for life expectancy for all persons born that year.

Any way I figure it I will not even get back the money I put in and that does not account for the pay out from my employers against my earnings. All by my self I have paid for my Social Security retirement and at least 3 others just like me. Now there may be somebody that gets back more than they put in – but I believe to date those people are extremely rare. And will remain rare based on the behavior of those running Social Security continually asking for more.

The problem is all the money that is missing – all the money that went in and was never paid out in actual payment to anybody trying to live on Social Security. That is the cover-up. That is the lie. That is the problem. And no politician I know of will even try to address that problem, including Pres Bush. The only political solution has been – send us more money. My point is to end this insanity now!

The Traveler

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

The problem is that we are spoiled.

We don't want to just "survive"...we want to live in luxury.

You will be lucky to get at least $500 per month after you retire, and you better thank God if you get it. If you don't get it...live without it. You won't be the first. In the history of the world, social security is relatively new. People survived without it for thousands of years.

As for Democrats vs. Republicans...both are going to try to take your money and spend it how they want to. Both parties would do the country a great service if they just disappeared. Life was crappy in the 80's under the Republicans. It was crappy in the 90's under the Democrats. It is crappy now under the Republicans again. I have seriously not seen one bit of change in my lifestyle resulting from a change of government. I didn't even see a change when I moved to the United States from Canada. Not one.

Sure...a few things went up in price...a few things went down in price.

The only changes that occurred in my life were a result of actions that I took.

The only thing the government ever did was take my money, in different amounts depending on when and where I was living. It is a fact of life that we have to give a portion of our income to organizations...governments, insurance companies, churches...they all want your money. What can you do? Give it to them. Give it to them with a smile.

Money is as impermanent as "dust in the wind"...just like you.

So...as a temporary inhabitant of this planet who is destined to be poor...try to make the best of it.

Even if we have to live life backpacking and camping. We might not live long that way, but who says living long is more important than living in the moment?

Sorry, but the big picture always gets in the way of those petty political discussions.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

And if you have kids, don't neglect them (see the thread about the Dinosaurs in Gospel Discussion).

Give them your love.

If you are LDS, give them the gospel.

If not, teach them compassion.

Teach them to overcome suffering and help others who are suffering.

Teach your kids survival skills that might be necessary in a world without Social Security.

Teach them survival skills that might be necessary in a world with 100% unemployment.

Heck, teach them survival skills that might be necessary in a post-apocalyptic environment.

You might be a temporary being...but after you are gone, you need to make sure your children can survive (and be happy) without the luxuries we take for granted today...because those luxuries could be gone tomorrow. They are as temporary as all things.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Jun 16 2005, 05:47 PM

And if you have kids, don't neglect them (see the thread about the Dinosaurs in Gospel Discussion). 

Give them your love. 

If you are LDS, give them the gospel. 

If not, teach them compassion. 

Teach them to overcome suffering and help others who are suffering.

Teach your kids survival skills that might be necessary in a world without Social Security. 

Teach them survival skills that might be necessary in a world with 100% unemployment. 

Heck, teach them survival skills that might be necessary in a post-apocalyptic environment.

You might be a temporary being...but after you are gone, you need to make sure your children can survive (and be happy) without the luxuries we take for granted today...because those luxuries could be gone tomorrow.  They are as temporary as all things.

Just for your information I was raised in a very wealthy family. However, my father hated rich kids when he grew up (he grew up poor). So I was in college when I found out my family was wealthy. Growing up, my father got his boys up about 3: am to get work done at his various businesses (mostly apartments or warehouses). We had to earn money to buy our own cloths and pay for any vacations or anything else we had. I thought I had to work to help support the family.

I have lived well through the years and we have great vacations. My wife and I usually spend a week in Hawaii and Mexico every year. I also like to take about 60 people on a white water river trip. Each year we try to take a family that otherwise would not have a vacation. I have trained my kids as river guides for the boats. Last year my son brought some of his friends from the Hollywood seen and they could not believe anyone camps like we do. The water fight especially they thought got rather intense. As a side note I also consider myself an expert in desert survival.

The point is that I am not concerned about myself and I am sure many people will find some way to survive. That is not the point about Social Security. The point is that many people are depending on Social Security. I am not saying that is a good thing or a bad thing. What I am saying is that the government has done two things. One: They have taken something that they have no right to take but they took it with a promise to give it back. Second: They have used what they have taken for something they will not even tell; so now they cannot give the money back. They are as bad as an alcoholic that begs for money to buy his children some cloths for winter. They get some money and just go buy booze and come back begging for more money saying the need for winter cloths has increased and please won’t we help. The money is not to relieve the poor and suffering. That is obvious. I would like to know where the money is really going. I believe if the public knew we would rid ourselves of both Social Security and all the politicians that use it to beg for what they know is not the government's.

The Traveler