It is…theft

It is…theft


Just in case anyone but me cares, the math works out to: 40 years of working, $15,728 per year going into social security. $629,140 total paid in. Had he returned 5% per year, that $15,728 compounded annually would reach exactly 1.9M at the end of the 40th year. And if he continued to earn 5% per year he could actually take out $116,036 per year every year for the next 35 years before running out of money.


Don’t forget the part where the government takes their share of his withdrawal, they worked really hard for it and they truly deserve it… /S


Hey man, taking money away from you is hard work.


The guns they point at us are so heavy, and the recoil from firing a warning shot is just dreadful.


...wait... you guys are firing warning shots?


My first shot taking the fucker's head off is a warning to his partners, so yeah.


True. My Tax Fu is strong, and I am not so easily defeated.


To make things worse, could you imagine an effort to reform SS? The reps would block any effort put forward by the dems if a D is in the white house and the dems would likely do the same. We are stuck with this shit for the foreseeable future


thats the problem with the us vs them mentality. Red vs blue right vs left etc and the list goes on. it would be too hard to rig the system if everyone works together so divide and conquer. Blame the other side blindly.


So by their fruits, both parties like things the way they are.


No, Republicans would not put forward a bill to reform SS to make it better. They would scrap it and take the money claiming the private sector would benefit, all while ignoring one of the purposes of government stated in the first paragraph of the [Constitution](https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/us), Promote the General Welfare. >We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, **promote the general Welfare**, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Those four words in of themselves do not constitute any authority over providing financial aid or services funded via congressional taxation laws. You might want to spend more time reading the Federalist Papers as well as the Antifederalist Papers (for which we would not have the Bill of Rights). The sole purpose of the federal govt explicitly described in the Constitution is for the conducting of war and treating of peace. The state governments handle their jurisdictions. FFS, that paragraph in and of itself is not an assumption of any power or authority either, it is literally just stating the purpose and intent of the document's following paragraphs. By your reasoning, the signatures contained at the end of the very last paragraph of the Constitution grant authority and power!


Social security does not promote the general welfare. It represents an opportunity cost that robs people of potential returns on their money like this post is pointing out.


I agree, but to be clear I don't think the Dems care about the constitution either


I hate that people shit on the constitution without really understanding it. Like fuck if we just actually listened to it we wouldn’t be living in a dumpster fire


This is what makes a pirate ship analogy of voting so goddamn ingenious! The pirates all vote for who the captain would be, like after a mutiny. Pirates weren't stupid, and they wouldn't obey orders from a captain who didn't know how to sail or how to be a pirate. They weren't so uneducated that they voted for just anyone. American voters need to be more responsible with their votes, otherwise its their fault for following a captain that leads them to losing their ship, their lives, or their fortunes. The first paragraph of the Constitution is just stating the purpose and intent of the document. What about the very last paragraph of the Constitution? Why does no one cite the authority and powers granted by the words and signatures present in the final paragraph?


What needs reformed then? If SS should exist to promote the general welfare then you’ll have this situation where someone who pays in their whole life gets screwed and someone who only pays in the minimum number of years makes out with profit. Promoting general welfare binds the wealthier to the poorer.


The problem with his proposal isn't the math, it's the investment vehicle. The government needs to guarantee these payments even during recessions. The investment vehicle has to be some kind of bond, mutual fund, or risk averse annuity. Then there are the moral and political ramifications of the government buying stock. If the government buys S&P500 funds, is the government materially favoring established corporations over smaller corporations and newcomers?


Yes. Which is why individual financial decisions should be up to the individual, not daddy government


>The government needs to guarantee these payments even during recessions. The government doesn't NEED to do anything. We'd be better off if they let us make our own decisions, or at least opt out of this particular Ponzi scheme


Well, right now you CAN opt out but only if you work for yourself, unfortunately. But every worker should be given the option.


Nobody is suggesting that government invest in the market. They're suggesting the government let us invest in the market with our own money instead. If we desire the same level of guarantee that social security offers in its returns, then we can invest in the same things that social security invests in, namely bonds. The point is to return the power of choice to the people whose money it is in the first place.


There's also no claim that it is *your* money, it's not a 401k. It's designed to be progressive and redistribute wealth to poor people. Which I can understand this sub doesn't like, but if that's your complaint payroll taxes do much better than most other taxes...


>It's designed to be progressive No it isn't. Educate yourself a little bit about it. Social security is actually a 12.4% flat income tax across the board on everyone up to a taxable maximum. It's actually regressive.


Learn to read before being that condescending. The program overall is progressive, the return you get in benefits for your taxes is higher at lower income levels than at higher ones. Look up SS bend points.


This is a ridiculous, uneducated comment. It is your money, because it comes out of your paycheck. Guess what, even poor people making the federal minimum wage pay into social security. And guess what… It also comes out of their paycheck.


Only as much as the other taxes you pay.


Where did you get $15k? Maximum you could pay into SSI is $8,239.80, if you made $137k per year. Now, if you include the employer contribution, an additional 6.2%, then yea, thats over $16k, but is anyone claiming that 6.2% the employer pays would go to you instead? Cause that's doubtful.


Yes, if my employer didn't have to pay an extra 6.2% to the gov I would immediately demand it as salary. Any competent person would.


Lol, right. I've noticed that when companies I've worked for find a savings, they immediately tell me about it and they *always* agree to give it to me instead of quietly pocketing it.


Make all the demands you want, you won't get it.


This is the mentality of a person who doesn't know how to value their worth or negotiate effectively. That's a you problem, dude. And since I'm an employer and no longer an employee, I can tell you first hand that if a pass through employee expense was eliminated I would absolutely start putting it in their paycheck.


Thank you. This all smells rotten. Why would you need to make up stuff to defend your stance if the truth was on your side.


It's also treating Social Security like it's a retirement plan, it's not. It's not a pension either. It's an insurance plan, with a payout at the end of the policy.


You smell old and in want of your SS check.


$15k is how much you'd have to put in each year at 5% growth to get from 0 to 1.9M over the course of 40 years. If you increase the years from 40 to something else, then you could do less than 15k/year. It's strictly the math. I used the time value of money formula in Excel to find the PMT of an ordinary annuity.


But SS tax is at max, $8k, and only if you earn $137k a year. Where does that $15k come from?


Yeah social security is a bad investment -- **if you're a multi-millionaire**. The entire program is designed around helping the poor.


The maximum amount of earnings subject to Social Security tax will rise 2.9% to $147,000, from $142,800 in 2021. This is not multimillionaire level.


LOL. If you're making 147k per year and not a millionaire by retirement, you're doing it wrong.


If it was then why don't survivors receive any benefits. An entire generation of wealth is stolen from people's families who don't make it to 65.


Survivors/widows get benefits... https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/survivors/ You're right, it's not a retirement plan, it's a type of pension plan for the poorest only.


This *hugely* benefitted my grandmother. She and my grandfather split up in the mid 70s. He remarried twice, she never remarried. He passed away in the mid 00s. She retired shortly after and ended up getting his SS. She never paid in much and her SS was pretty low, around $1000/mo at the time she retired IIRC. His doubled it. She ended up receiving probably close to $300k in SS benefits over 12-13 years receiving it before she passed away. There's no possible way that she put that much in even adjusted for inflation. They were apart for 3x longer than they were married. I don't see how that is fair. >it's a type of pension plan for the poorest only. For sure, the SS "cliffs" are ridiculous. The 2nd cliff really shafts high earners they get back much less than they put in.


>There's no possible way that she put that much in even adjusted for inflation. Historically, women took care of the kids and didn't have any income. I'm not surprised your grandmother was able to withdraw more than she contributed.


It was mainly that they were no longer together when she eventually received it, they were apart for nearly 35 years. All of his earnings over that time she had no part of yet she benefitted from. Her SS benefits ended up being 50% more than her normal monthly income from working. I'm of the opinion that SS shouldn't exist and we should be able to do with our money how we see fit so obviously I disagree with the whole thing but that's just ridiculous. If women decide to be stay at home mothers that is *their* choice. They don't need to be compensated for doing so.


>If women decide to be stay at home mothers that is their choice. They don't need to be compensated for doing so. Sounds like misogyny. Married people having a family isn't a solo activity, and if you think having children is a solo activity, don't have a family, and don't engage in that type of behavior -- because your choices have consequences.


Just because it will disproportionately effect one sex over another doesn't make it misogyny. This is the same bullshit excuse to call for racism when wanting to eliminate welfare programs. I'd feel the same way for either male or female. It's not the government's job to redistribute wealth to favor you.


Because it's a welfare program, not an investment.


Then why does it pay out to rich people, too?


Many countries govts maintain separate individual accounts for social security


The US has that too... 401k's and IRAs.


And a million other ones too. 403(b), 457, SEPIRA, individual pensions that some companies offer, plus if you wanted to mimic the insurance of SSI you could get a whole life insurance plan, universal life, indexed variable life, or even term life with a lifetime distribution for terminal illness.


Don't forget they're also constantly inflating away the value of your money and taxing away any gains you manage to make on your own. Oh, and by the way, you also have to pay income taxes on your social security benefits.


It’s like they’re trying to punish financial responsibility


Don’t politically reframe things to demonize actions. They are attempting to help the poor but this costs money so they tax. In effect this does reward irresponsible and punish responsible, but they aren’t doing it for that reason.


SS benefits are adjusted for inflation.


In that case they're digging themselves deeper in debt. How can you take out 15000 this year and pay back more than that in a later year if the money never earned interest. They must print more or tax more to pay for the idiocy that is social security


If you actually wanted to “help people” through coercion, you would force employees to invest into private index funds or some sort of managed 401k or pension, or allow them to contribute more to their IRAz


I remember when G. W. Bush wanted to give people an option to invest some of their mandatory Social Security payments in a private fund and all of politics lost its damn mind.


But then how would the government borrow that money and spend it, then have the same people pay taxes to pay it back to themselves if it was in private funds? Clearly you’re not thinking straight! Off to a re-education camp for you!


You have been promoted to moderator of /r/Pyongyang


Australia does this with superannuation. It's not a perfect system, because people who never manage to make it off lower incomes end up needing social security anyway (10% of $40k doesn't end up being that much), while richer people end up getting tax advantaged investments they don't need. The reason social security works as a system is twofold: 1) you need some kind of system to support disabled people (unless you're cool with them just dying I guess) 2) If you suddenly switch from one system to another, everyone who is just about to retire had to pay all that tax but never sees the benefit. They are twice as screwed.


Point 2 is stupid. If something is wrong then take the pain to set it right.


That's how Australia does it. Employers pay 12% on top of their income into a private pension fund in their employees name


If you actually wanted to “help people” through coercion, you would force No. Hard no. You don't force anyone to do anything. You let them keep their own damn money. Maybe I don't want to contribute to my retirement fund this year because I need a new roof or had a baby. Fuck forcing anyone to do anything.


Yeah that’s why “help people” is in quotes. Coercion is evil. That’s what we are all about as libertarians. I’m saying from a statist perspective, if you thought forcing people to do ___ to help them was the answer you would force them to invest into something that actually provides returns.


Australia has been doing this since the 1990s. The 'left' party, predicting that this generation would likely not have the old age social benefits that the boomers receive, worked with the unions to allocate a certain federal pay increase to a market based pension fund, and 'superannuation' was born. The 'right' party has beem trying to get this money into the hands of private, profit driven corporations ever since.


Social Security is just a wealth transfer from the poorest generation to the richest generation.


No from the working class to the wealthy. People pay into social security.


From the people to the government’n freinds




> The money was taken from the older generation for their entire lives. Now that older generation is only getting back pennies on the dollar. When the program first began, people who had never paid into the system were given money. It has always been about the current generation of workers giving to the current generation of non-workers. That first group--the group who receive the money without having to pay in any--were the *real* beneficiaries. They're the ones who were being bribed for their votes. They were just given free money, and quite a lot of it. Everyone else since its inception has been straddled with a no-interest retirement savings plan. What a crock.




> No, That never happened. Ah, I must be remembering it slightly incorrectly. The initial recipients *did* pay for a few years, but they paid in vastly less than they received. They paid in during 1937, 1938, and 1939. They began receiving payments in 1940. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Social_Security_in_the_United_States >The first monthly payment was issued on January 31, 1940 to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. In 1937, 1938, and 1939, she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her first check was for $22.54. After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She ultimately reached her 100th birthday, dying in 1975, and she collected a total of $22,888.92. Those people who were nearing retirement age when social security was first enacted made out like bandits. Everyone else who came after got stuck with a very low interest savings plan.


100,000% return, not a bad investment!


They are getting 300 pennies on the dollar because the benefits are more than they paid in during their lifetime


It's the American way, like housing, corporations or the Fed


They stopped calling it savings years ago. it's just a tax. If you believe that all taxation is theft then yes, it's theft.


I would say the only real way to get ahead these days is the stock market. Wish I had started trading earlier. 5% return isn’t even that much. Just don’t YOLO into options lol


The majority of people lose money trading stocks


The majority of people have no idea what they’re doing. Either get a guy or learn=)


Or just put money into spy, 96 percent of hedge funds under perform the sp500. Or be like that Twitter account that just matches the trades Nancy Pelosi makes.


Never give your money to hedge funds their sole purpose is to use your own money to steal from you.


spy is just what you buy when you want to day trade s&p, or want in on s&p with a broker that doesn't do fractional shares. S&p 500 isn't smart enough to steal from you, it's just the 500 biggest companies, the bet is the rich get richer.


SPY has been absolutely killing it. 🌈🐻s are having a bad time. Been paying attention to that Pelosi tracker as well. Some decent info so far.


The only thing is your at least 1 qtr behind the moves. So maybe follow it and back out as soon as you go green so you don't turn I to a bag holder.


Yep solid advice. The thing I’ve been noticing with politician trades is that they all have great exit points. I’ll probably start with some cheap long term options on a few congress tickers once I exit my current positions. Keep that as a side bet and see how it goes.


I've looked into the Pelosi tracker account, and it's like 70 shitposts a day. I'm not about to spend my day watching some doofus send out that many useless things. Is there a source that's more concise?


I’d say it’s more for trade hints than anything I would follow religiously. There’s this https://disclosures-clerk.house.gov/PublicDisclosure/FinancialDisclosure#Search https://efdsearch.senate.gov/search/ Which gives you direct access to financial disclosures so you don’t need Twitter. Unusual Whales is also an interesting follow and service. The Congress tracking is still pretty new on my radar so I haven’t gotten that into it, but there’s definitely some interesting hints scattered around. I’d say the most important thing is to do your own DD on any ticker you find. GL bro=)


What's the Twitter handle?


Iris app




just do the s&p direct if you're holding it long term like that, find a broker that does fractional shares,


>Or be like that Twitter account that just matches the trades Nancy Pelosi makes. While not a terrible strategy the discloses are 45 days after the purchase. So its delayed information that might not be as valuable when we know about it.


I have a guy and have lost 6% total the past 3 quarters


How’s his RoR been in the past? Everyone can have bad years, but if he’s not hitting decent numbers consistently might be worth shopping around. Or taking some time to get stuck in yourself. I learned when my old guy just wasn’t really doing anything with my money. In fairness it wasn’t a lot, but it was pretty stagnant so I started looking into my own shit. No regrets.




If you're day trading, yeah. If you just buy into an indexed fund following the top 200 companies you will make money, just have enough of an emergency fund that you don't have to cash out during a downturn.


That’s why I invest in Lotto scratchers!


I think that’s why some suggest just investing in a mutual fund. Those grow slowly, but it’s much harder to lose everything in than picking and choosing your own stocks.


90/90/90 rule. This rule states that 90% of retail investors lose 90% of their investments in the first 90 days of trading.


This is so dumb lmao


Dumb, but true https://www.tradingview.com/chart/EURUSD/OwNWHA4C-Education-The-90-90-90-rule-Why-do-traders-fail/


.... but it might work for me!


Most people loose money day trading. There are a lot of reasons for that. Most passive investors make money.




I would disagree with this. The only way to really get ahead is to have your own military force that protects opium, oil guns, and trafficking of children for your elite friends. The rest of us are just remedial casualties of chance on the road to death


Calm down


Its worse when you realize the average ssi check is 1500, and it will likely collapse in the next 10 and i wont see any of it despite paying for it every check


It will only collapse if the US loses the ability to print money as the world’s reserve currency


I got some news for you buddy...


Except the US doesn’t funnel funds from other areas into the social security fund, so even printing doesn’t directly fix the balance.


Yep, I’ve just accepted I won’t receive an my SSI checks and am planning as if it doesn’t exist. Fuck government programs.


I puke everytime i see how much the feds steal from my paycheck.


Just wait until you hear what the millennials will be getting


It is a pyramid scheme. They need your money now to pay the pensions of people that put in 40 years ago


was a time when banks went under also for that if im not mistaken


Social security is so bad yet it's still popular. If fond this utterly hilarious in a clown car crash sort of way


Because when they designed Social Security it was intended to nevwr be paid out because the age for people *"eligible"* for it was set 3 years higher than the Average Life Expectancy at the time. But then modern medicine came along and started making people live longer, frustrating FDRs plans. TLDR: Because you we're supposed to be dead already, and you can't steal from dead people yo.


Not to mention they will garnish your social security money to pay for student loans


But what if you don't know how to invest it? Are there "safe" options with a lower return rate but doesn't take much skill?


Google Boglehead approach or go to the subreddit — this is from Jack Bogle/Vanguard founder. Essentially the strategy is “slow and steady wins the race” — you buy the whole world/the total global stock market via low cost index funds/ETFs, don’t try to time to market, and invest when you can — the goal is to keep it simple. Typically then you do what’s known as a 3 fund portfolio (total US / total international / total bond) or something that’s already globally diversified for you such a Target Date funds. If you wanna keep it really really simple S&P500 is a general recommendation and has a lot in common with us total stock market funds. But personally I’d do something like VT (total world ETF/weighted by market cap) or a target date fund if I wanted to keep it giga-simple and just do one fund for everything. Good luck to you mate


What annual returns have you been getting?


Yes, but 5% isn't a great rate of return. Big names like the S&P have averaged over 10% and that takes very little skill to invest in, especially if you talk with an advisor or someone who knows why they are doing.


Who is getting a guaranteed 5% return? Legit asking for a friend.


If you look at something like the S&P500 or us total stock market funds (or weighted globally diversified funds like VT) those on average reach such levels but it’s volatile to some extent due to the nature of the stock market and all that jazz. Alternatively Target Date funds can be a great option for people that don’t know a lot about investing. Boglehead 3 fund portfolio is a common approach to minimize risk/gradually built wealth over time.


Hell, I'm not asking for a friend, I'm asking for me! Would love those guaranteed returns!


Well, considering that the government would have taxed that 5% return at your income tax rate I doubt you would have had that much. BTW, where are you get a safe 5% return from?


In Australia we have superannuation, in which ~10% of your salary is paid into a fund and you live off the returns - you get to pick your own fund, own investments, etc. So we would have that $1.9M


For the top payers it is not lucrative. SS gives out lifetime disability as well as the pension type of payment. This is not an individual investment, but a group plan paying out.


beautiful post


It is literally socialism. *Social* security. It protects those who don't work.


It is theft, pure and simple. Now look the other way as what you put in funds people streaming across the border, us paying the union dues for union members, tax exceptions for "journalists" in the media. Some bullshit about equity this and that and wealth redistribution... and so forth.


I’ve been working on a Privatized Social Security plan for a while, so I’m with you on this one. However, I do want to point out that one of the intents of the current system is ensuring that everyone has a securely invested retirement fund to draw from once they hit the set age. Just handing people the keys to their retirement would result in a lot of poor investing. One way to tell that’s true is to ask how many investing courses are taught to students by the end of high school? So if we have a bunch of people entering retirement with absolutely no way to support themselves, they wind up becoming an even bigger burden on whatever other social safety nets we have, in addition to possibly becoming a burden on their local community by becoming homeless.


Sounds like an easy solution is to teach people to not be financially illiterate.


That’s because you oversimplify financial literacy. Both in the ability to produce it and how markets literally require people to be financially illiterate to function in the current system. Plus how much of our economy is reliant on workers who make under a living wage? You’d know, being financially literate, that a living wage is minimum wage a financially literate person would require to be able to retire at a reasonable age. Someone should take care of these people as they form the support on which the comfort of those who were lucky enough to make a living wage. The backs on which your wealth was built on. They cooked your food, they cleaned your office, they helped build your home … they were there making your life better. But they clearly were stupid in doing that so you know what, fuck’em. Idiots should have been rich if they wanted to eat past 70. Financial literacy means nothing if the minimum doesn’t meet the need. Plus how many dollars of the wealthy literally depend on financial illiteracy, trillions spent on capitalizing on human psychology to encourage people to spend outside their need. I have a psychology degree and I can tell you the amount of power corporate interests have in controlling your agency is more than you could imagine. Through advertising, social, and economic engineering many people don’t have a chance.


Even financially literate people will make idiotic investments and lose everything in pursuit of greed. That is why IRAs have 10% penalties for withdraw, to keep people from burning up all their retirement money in day-to-day whims.


Social security is mostly a transfer program benefitting people who could not (or simply did not) save adequately for retirement. It's a tax that we pay to live in a society in which elderly people aren't living in destitution. It's not meant to be your personal retirement account.


But it should be optional now. I should be required to invest a percentage of my pay but I should be able to choose how I invest it


You’re absolutely right.


Again, it's a transfer program, not your personal retirement account. If we stopped the transfer program aspect of this, we'd have millions more elderly people living in poverty


>it's a transfer program What's another word for unwilling transfer? It's on the tip of my tongue, maybe heft?


> not your personal retirement account. it was literally sold to the American people as this. Its why you have an account. If it was always going to be just a transfer program why waste the time, money and energy with accounts and credits? If you want it to be welfare just say so


What account?




My favorite part of this site is that it's only possible to set up your account during business hours. God I love the government.


lol the best incompetence money can buy


I'd be fine with phasing it out. Allow people under 65 the option of getting a rebate check for whatever they paid into it and never have to pay into SS again for the rest of their lives. Keep it around until people stop opting to pay into it and the program effectively disappears. After all Social Security was designed as a way to get old people to actually retire and allow young people to enter the work force....during a major economic crisis....it worked and the major economic crisis ended but it really should have been phased out decades ago during the boom of the 1950s. In its place just let people manage their own retirements rather than burden the most indebted generation with the cost of taking care of a burgeoning generation of retirees.


A transfer account by another name is..


Nice idea but how does this justify extorting the wealth of millions of others?


Actually, it’s supposed to be exactly a personal retirement account of sorts. It’s not supposed to go to someone else who didn’t pay into it. What you’re indicating is a transfer payment which is illegal but still happens.


So much this. In other countries the expectation is that kids take care of you when you’re old. We had the foresight to build in a social safety net


Perhaps those systems are better because the elderly get judged at an individual level of if they are worth helping.


It’s theft, but not quite like this. The $3,075/month he gets at 67 comes from people who are working when he’s 67. There’s no $600,000 “paid into” it on his behalf. It’s not a savings account. It’s straight pass-through from workers to recipients. You can’t compare it to 40-50 years of savings.


Of course you can. This is a program he is forced into by law. He is comparing it to what he would have if he wasn't forced to participate. It doesn't matter why or how the program is drastically less efficient than he would be on his own, the difference is how much money he has lost because of the required participation.


If every retiree had $2 million would their saved $2 million not be worth less?


Its extortion. If you dont pay then armed men will take away your freedom, possibly your life


5% interest rate is low too. If you invest in an index fund you can easily double that, even after crashes are averaged in. You can get better returns on penny stocks than social security.


What is it about libertarianism that attracts the dumbest losers. This guy actually tweeted that and it never once occured to him how stupid it is.


Whats your thought process here. Wheres the flaw in his logic?


What if you had a medical condition that left you bankrupt and you couldn't work. I think it would be kind of cool if collectively society said it would be wrong to just leave you in the gutter to fend for yourself, but we can't have a collective social program to support you because that would be stealing from the self sufficient winners, right?


Uh is he missing the social part? If it was just your own account it would just be individual security. On a related note, where I live it's required by law that you invest a portion of your income for retirement. It's capped at around the equivalent of $200 but people already complain about it.


I don't think he missed the 'social' part, I think you've completely missed his point. The government is taking his money and profittng off of it. On your related note, I'm sorry that your government is telling your citizens what they need to do with their money by law.


Paying into social security was never meant to be solely self serving. If that doesn't sit right, think of it as paying for the benefit of not having to step over other old people dying in the streets all the time for the crime of being poorer than you.


Why should we be forced to pay for those who spent their lives being financially irresponsible? Programs like Social Security are penalty for people who make good decisions. It's like a group assignment where one person does all the work and everyone else fucks off and they all get a D. You might be okay with that, but other people aren't. I would much rather contribute a lower rate into a program that helps the disabled, and opt out of SS if it ment I was able to keep even half of what I currently pay in.


Yes! Yes it is. This is yet another failed government program that was originally supposed to be voluntary and temporary! It is the world's biggest pyramid scheme!


Pyramid schemes are not investments.


It’s a Ponzi scheme that we are forced to be a part of. Having said that, the nearly 5 trillion dollars in excess that the government took in all these years was invested back into the economy so that’s been a benefit for anyone living over the past 70 years or so. That’s by far the the biggest part of the real National Debt. Now we just print money which is far worse especially if they continue to do that.


Not to mention that that money can be passed on to a beneficiary when you die, when you die the government keeps the rest


Well actually estate taxes lol




So by the time I think SS will run out (2032ish?) I will have paid an assload into it but will be nowhere near retiring. Do I get all that money back then? Since I can’t use it for its original intentions?


Because OTHER people get a cut of that $600K you're paying for! Don't you want to help your fellow retirees? (sarcasm)


The fact that social security isn't invested anywhere should be a crime in of itself, goes without saying the entire system is a scam


They take our money and give us peanuts,


Let's not forget the package they receive with benefits.


ItS sOcIaL SeCuRiTy FoR OtHeRs ToO. We need to skim off the top and also give to have nots so they keep voting for us.


My understanding is the money is distributed through out the whole population, so you don't have homeless elderly people. Out of curiosity, 15k divide by 12 months is $1250 a month paid out. What would his salary be if that were the case? 100k plus for 40 years? I could be wrong but he probably is doing just fine.


5% on returns of what? Stocks? I think there is a very vocal portion of retail investors that got fucked by a failure to regulate cheating the market... just recently even




You have to take care of those that don’t work. Government just steals money from one person and gives it to another.


no one pretends social security serves the rich. the whole idea is taking from the poor and giving the rich. if the governement takes from you more than they give you... that's the point


Because Social Security is not and has never been a savings account. The people who were already old and in poverty when it was enacted couldn’t have saved anything, so they had to fund it from people who are still working. But I guess selfishness gets in the way of logic.


No, you are too stoopid to handle your own retirement, that's why we need to employ a lot of people to do that for you. Pay up, slave!


Is there a way to opt out of social security?


And yet the social security system is going to go bust before I'm 40 unless we seriously jack up payments into it. I seriously wish I could just opt out.


You break even if you live until 118?


Yes, contributing by society really sucks when you’re rich.


Social security is a ponzi scheme.


But social security is being used by more than just you it's for everyone on retirement or disability.


Guys this isn’t even close to the worst part. If that money had been kept in a savings account at zero percent growth and give to him as a lump sum he could invest it at five percent and get $30k a year, almost the same as with social security. Then we he dies HIS FAMILY STILL HAS THE $600K.


Wait, in the US you can’t opt out of pension contributions?


"Taxes are what pay to live in a civilized society." - Cro-Magnon Man


How many people have lost everything when the investment industry collapses.