re: In just a few years, the average retiree will be receiving 37% more in SS than he paid in

quote:

---

Is this analysis ignoring employer contributions?

---

Macht nichts. (unless you're referring to the OP "analysis" rather than my post)

The author says:

quote:

---

most Americans are promised Social Security and Medicare benefits substantially exceeding the taxes they’ll pay over their lifetimes. In other words, the benefits are neither earned nor paid for.

---

In other words, the OP's premise is, if you paid $100 in taxes 40yrs ago, you should receive $100 in benefits today.

Anything beyond that is "unearned," "unpaid for" manna from heaven. HHTM say Biggs accounts for inflation. I'm not seeing that.

That is rat brain stupid. Yet a couple of posters here have repeated it as if it were a profound observation.

quote:

---

Go frick yourself

---

No. No.

The OP gets it wrong, dead wrong. But until folks really understand WTF SS is, and what it isn't, this is a discussion worth having.

SS is not a retirement benefit.
SS is a major benefit to the Federal Government.

The latter explains the DC fervor to "fix" SS, 10 yrs in advance of program financing going red.

quote:

---

They by law are supposed to invest it in low return treasury bonds

---

Fedgov:

quote:

---

I have no interest in paying more into the government coffers under the guise of keeping SS solvent. I wouldn't be surprised if they implement a means test by the time I retire.

---

Re: Means Testing

First, SS’s payout formula is bracketed. It favors lower-wage workers. The SS payment system entails three brackets or average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) "bend points." SS payment is allocated at 90% of the first $1,115 of AIME, 32% of AIME between $1,115 and $6,721, and 15% of AIME over $6,721. ( LINK).

So, although higher-wage workers receive larger monthly checks in absolute terms, they receive less back in Social Security benefits per dollar of tax paid over their lifetimes. At the extremes, the difference in the implicit rate of return on those contributions is enormous.

Second is income taxation. Once a beneficiary’s total income (including half of Social Security benefits) exceeds $25,000 ($32,000 for a married couple), SS payments are taxable, up to inclusion of one-half of benefits. When income (including half of Social Security benefits) exceeds $34,000 ($44,000 for a married couple) the portion of benefits included in taxable income escalates, up to a maximum inclusion of 85% of benefits. This provision is designed to have no effect on the low-income elderly, while gradually increasing its impact as total incomes rise.

So SS is basically means tested now.

quote:

---

It’s why the program is heading into the fiscal poope

---

No. If the money was invested and we stopped borrowing from it we'd have money than enough

quote:

---

Are you freaking kidding me. They confiscated my money for 40 years you a-hole.

---

It's a tax like all other taxes.

quote:

---

You obviously don't understand a goddamm thing about return on investment.

---

Again, do you do this analysis for all of your taxes?

quote:

---

You pay your fricking student loans back like I did and leave my shite alone.

---

When people talk about Student Loans or Ukraine when discussing SS, it shows how little they understand.

What we've sent to Ukraine is about (or a little less than) 1 month of SS payments.

SL repayments would be about 13 months

SS spending is on another universe than anything other than Medicare, Medicaid, and military spending

This is lying with statistics. If I had put all the money that went to SS into a safe investment, like bonds - my money would have grown many times over. I"ve heard a rule of thumb that invested money doubles every 7 years on aveage. I've been giving money to SS for 50 years. So my money should have doubled 7 times when you average it all out. It would be Super Modest to say I and my employer have given 5K a year over all that time. That first 5K would have become 10, then 20, then 40, then 80, then 160, then 320, then 640. And that's just the first 5K. So tell me again how I'm gong to get more than I deserve at 30K year payout?

There were a couple years at the end of the Clinton administration where we ran a surplus and the 2000 Presidential campaign debate between Gore & Bush consisted considerably in what to do with the surplus including tax cuts vs. social security "lockbox", etc.

quote:

---

You are implying that a person receiving $150 today, in return for a $100 dollar contribution made 40yrs ago, contributed less than what they are receiving.

Yet, that $150 represents only a ~1% rate of annual return on the original investment. At standard market ROI that $100 investment would have grown to $5900 over 40yrs.

---

Why are we assuming all of this model investing efficiency when the vast majority of Americans do not engage in this behavior?

quote:

---

you should understand the average retiree is getting royally screwed in the process.

---

The average retiree would have spent, not saved, all of that money. So they are getting a huge benefit.

Hence why this is a welfare program.

quote:

---

There were a couple years at the end of the Clinton administration where we ran a surplus

---

Yes Newt forced a surplus on the back of the tech boom. It was like, 1 year.

quote:

---

and the 2000 Presidential campaign debate between Gore & Bush consisted considerably in what to do with the surplus including tax cuts vs. social security "lockbox", etc.

---

Even Bush pushed for more privatization options to allow individuals to invest more intelligently and the population rejected it for the more traditional welfare setup.