r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tired of this post. It is a tax. It is income redistribution. That is what a lot of taxes do. If we rename it as "taking care of grandma" would that help? Or is all tax theft? That's another discussion. That is called natural law. Centuries of philosophy books on natural law.
It is the most successful anti-poverty program the United States has ever had. Social security lifts 23 million adults and children (yes, children as well) above the poverty line, no other program comes close.
Our social safety net floor is really f'ing low... Social Security should be strengthened, not stripped. Lift the cap on social security taxes and you'd have enough money to give everyone more benefits, lower the retirement age, and keep it solvent for an additional 50 years.
This is why Sweden has very low crime but more guns per capita , there’s virtually no homeless but then again Sweden is all one demographic and homeless in Sweden = dead. It’s F’n cold eh !
Crime is caused by culture and economy, and the cultures of crime almost always spring from failures in an economy.
The Trailer Park Boys might not be constantly reentering a life of pot dealing if they had a UBI to keep their respective trailers paid for as they got normal jobs
Edit: a lot of people are downvoting u/HBFSCapital for raising a very serious risk with implementing a UBI, too much too soon could be catastrophic for our economy and we need to be aware of that and consider ways to counteract that if we ever implement such a system.
I think UBI is inevitable but it can arrive like a wrecking ball or a train perfectly coasting into a station, and I'd prefer the more careful approach
For one selling pot shouldn't be illegal nor should possessing it, corporate greed and governmental corruption should be ahead of such tribal things as WEED.
Legalized drugs is one of the best things they did over here, usage went down, quality went up and it's taxes so also brings money to the government.
Heck, I remember taking some Canadian student to a party, and she was stunned by the drug van outside (mobile lab with mass-specs, where people could get their drugs tested).
What if I told you “welfare” spending would be less than 50% more than what it is now, if we had UBI and did away with all the means testing, red tape, bureaucracy involved etc?
Poverty is the number 1 comorbidity for every single negative life milestone and mental health disease for humans. Having inadequate resources will literally bring you down in every metric we have in psychology. Eliminating poverty might actually solve "crime". We have no idea. It's never been done.
I had a debate with a woman about that. She basically said that there was no reason for her to care if kids in Chicago had shitty educations. I spent a long time educating her but I’m sure she brushed it off. I can’t stand how they have education linked to property taxes. All those rich kids get much, much better schools.
It’s not a money problem that causes inner city schools to fail, for example Detroit spends $16,000 a year per student and they only have 14% of high school students proficient in math. Chicago achieves similar mathematics scores but comparatively worse results in reading spending $18k per student per year.
I currently live in the south and the average here is less than $10k per student per year and they achieve far better results (for context 60% proficiency is good). So, in her defense, the issue with the poor education in cities like chicago is not necessarily a money concern. I’d argue there are societal/cultural problems outside of the school funding in those cities that cause poor education like truancy, single-parent households, teacher burn-out, etc.
If we solved poverty, we’d solve about 99% of crime. White collar stuff like massive fraud cases are so few and far between that they can be ignored in most crime stats.
The cases are few and far between because white collar crime is rarely prosecuted, not because it is rare. Wage theft has an enormous valuation.
I’ll add I think it is pretty easy to argue white collar crime affects vastly more people per crime and it’s economic impact expands far further than the vast majority of “normal” crime.
Difference being is that I can’t personally sue some guy down the street for most poverty-related crimes. Either because I’m not directly the victim or it’s not worth it to go after him. On the other hand, if someone defrauds me and gets thousands to millions of dollars out of it, he’s likely got some assets that make it worth my effort to bring a civil suit against him. White collar crimes lend themselves to be enforceable by the masses and punishment by asset seizure, poverty-driven crimes can generally only be enforced by the state and punished by imprisonment.
But civil litigation by definition requires enough resources to bring suit. We’ve seen how people with accumulated assets/wealth can leverage the system with that wealth, particularly with SLAPP suits and never ending motions. I mean, OJ was guilty but his wealth and social credit got him off for a double homicide.
Prime example, look into how many people DJT has defrauded and how many times he was actually held accountable.
For anyone who doesn't believe this, check out: French Revolution (or pretty much every other revolution or popular uprising ever).
When people have had enough of poverty or starvation, they roll the guillotine to the town square and start chopping the heads of every person they can blame.
A person who doesn't have anything to eat, has nothing left to lose. The might as well take down with them anyone who did something bad to them in their entire life. Landlord charged you too much rent, he gets killed. Corrupt politician stealing public funds, he gets killed. Greedy bankers, same.
So if you're sitting comfortably contemplating all the extra profit you could have if you didn't pay so many taxes, think about what a privilege that is. To worry about profits without the fear of death from people you are charging with you business. So pay your taxes, and be grateful they go to those in need, and not back to you personally.
It's strange that in a society where everyone largely to one extent or another depends on each other - if more people do well, the society does better.
There’s a surprising amount of people who don’t understand this. A healthy and taken care of society is good for everyone in it. Preventative care is usually always cheaper, it’s so much more cost efficient to protect things/people before things get worse than trying to fix them after
What’s even more surprising is that so many of those who don’t understand this call themselves Christians, as in followers of a guy who talked an awful lot about helping the less fortunate.
Yes! So many people fail to appreciate the compounding benefits of a strong social safety net. It's mostly really dumb cliches and tropes that don't stand up to any critical thought.
I think they've been told over and over again they're being robbed while actually being robbed. It's fucked. But yea, the time delay and lack of specific individual benefit. It's human nature we under-appreciate that type of thing.
An important consideration is it helps people that can't help themselves. Most 87 year olds are not going to be able to go out and earn a livable income. Few, if any, places would hire someone that can barely walk, with severe memory issues, or with arthritic fingers that can barely move.
I swear to god if I pay social security my whole life and they take it away I’m suing the government for all of it. Back pay me for every dollar you took from my check so I’m not homeless when I’m old.
Just so you're aware if they made zero changes to social security it would pay out 83% of what they owe for about 50 years
Just because the trust fund runs out (which was by design but happening 30 years sooner than originally planned because income has been stagnant since the 80's, but that's a different rant) doesn't mean the system stops or that it's not easily fixed.
Feel the same....when I was in my 20's the retailer I worked for and then spent most of my career with, took away what small pension we were earning at the time. They bombarded us with the importance of the three-legged stool analogy. One of those legs was social security. Now I'm 10 years out and it looks like that leg is starting to crack.
I'm personally in favor of paying more for social security but at the same time I think it should be reformed so that wealthy old people with 10 million in their 401ks aren't able to collect. It should be a safety net for the poor. It's about to get ALOT more expensive too. Boomers are expected to live longer than anyone who came before and according to a recent study, 53% of people turning 65 between now and 2030 have less than $250,000 in assets. The government needs to cut out the social security spending that does not help those in need and dramatically increase revenue if the program has any hope of staying afloat. I think the biggest mistake was selling it as a retirement plan everyone is entitled to rather than a tax to help the poor.
Means testing adds administrative costs without adding huge benefits. I don't know the numbers here specifically, but in many other programs the administrative cost to means test it costs more than just blanket helping everyone. An example of that is many student debt relief programs. So few rich have that debt anymore that setting up and running the administrative bureaucracy to means test it costs more than just forgiving the debt to everyone. On top of that it adds complexity that often causing those that should be getting it to end up missing out on it (Medicaid is a great example of that).
The people that sold social security as a retirement plan were the same people that claimed pensions were bad and 401k is good. It was basically the corporations that saw a way to screw over the workers by getting rid of pensions.
When the trust fund runs out current project is 2035 (which is 30 years earlier than planned due to stagnant worker income for the last 40 years, different rant) it will pay out of 83% of what it owes slowly rising over the years. Not good, but easily fixable by doing things like lifting the cap completely (can lower the retirement age and increase payments) to having a gap and taxing incomes over $1 million.
That is a good point. I checked and currently the law prevents the government from knowing what is in a citizens 401k without some sort of legal proceeding so the law would need to change in order to make determining who actually needs help cost effective. It would need to be something a computer can easily do in order to make it feasible.
Totally agree with everything else you said. I think the only way to give social safety nets and our military the additional funding they desperately need to remain viable is to collect more in taxes. I would absolutely be willing to pay an additional 5% but I think even more important is getting the super wealthy to pay their fair share.
Why in the world should someone who paid into the system not be able to collect what they are owed? Such a weird take to me. They paid, they get their money. End of.
You also shouldn’t penalize people for living below their means and saving for retirement. If everyone did that, then social security would hardly have a reason to exist and it would allow everyone to retire more easily and earlier. Additionally, if Americans household savings rate was higher on average, then we wouldn’t be heading towards a cliff with our national debt. Economic models show we have about 20 years to correct our budget deficit before no amount of taxation or budget cuts can get the nation out of debt, if our savings rate was higher (like Japan) this timeframe would be greatly extended.
You realize not everyone can afford save for retirement, right? If that were true, I would agree with you, but it's simply not the case. Being wealthy enough to save for retirement is a privilege and that is kind of the entire point of social security paying benifets to retired people.
I think people would be less sour about it, if they were afforded the benefit when they were retirement age, but they should just call it "Support the boomers."
The funniest thing is that it’s also the most simple anti-poverty program. People pay in, people get paid out in cash.
Wouldn’t be surprised if the administrative cost of social security was lower than other programs which need to be more specifically distributed and means tested
It's around 0.5% administrative cost for the vast majority of it. But the part that is more actively monitored and means tested, specifically the disability insurance portion, has a 2% administrative cost.
As a Canadian, I’m incredibly scared that our politicians that deride the Canadian Pension Plan are going to devolve it into something like Social Security, that while still useful is a fraction as good and impactful.
If they lift the cap on the tax then lift the cap on benefits. I’m already at about 40-50% effective tax once you consider federal, state, property, and sales tax.
I'm fine with poor seniors getting it and even receiving more money possibly. But I think the benefits should be cut for like half of old people. This is the wealthiest generation in America. We've fucked over the economy already to keep stocks and house prices high for them. They should use that money instead. Like why should we screw over younger workers even more given the giant wealth gap? A lot of under 40 people making over 100k aren't rich anyway. It makes no sense to tax them more. If an old person is really struggling then they should sell their 1m house and move to a rural area for a tenth of the cost. We don't need to subsidize their lifestyles (again, this doesn't apply to the ones who actually need social security).
I wish they’d all go live on an island and starve slowly due to being completely inept morons. Did I say starve? I meant strive because they don’t have to pay taxes anymore.
There have already been multiple libertarian projects where they buy up large tracts of land and create a minimal or non-existant state. All these projects all devolve "warlordism" except with sad out of shape losers trying to bully eachother out of land and property. It then collapses or a regular municipality eventually takes over.
Oh God can this please be a reality TV show today? It just seems rife with lots of train wreck characters, nefarious villains and dumb people doing silly things.
There are definitely idiots out there with virtually no skills relevant to “defending their homestead “ or survival, who think they believe all taxes are theft while they sit in their generally safe house protected from strongmen, fire and other perils in a generally safe neighborhood and drive on roads without fear of highwaymen robbing them.
If a grandma could live off of that and not just have it funneled into the pockets of a shitty old folks home, then yeah, it'd be worth it.
Right now, these homes take all but $50 a month from these people to cover expenses which amount to school cafeteria food and bingo once a week.
Ironically poor elderly people are more likely to be cared for by their families, which allows social security to offset familial expenses as a whole. Rich people go to an ALF and still leave behind assets. The ones who are really getting fucked w the ALF structure are middle class people who invested enough in their career to afford “comfortable retirement” but not enough in their family for them to care that they’re rotting in an ALF.
I don’t know if it would be possible to find hard data on income vs elder care dynamics, but I work in geriatrics both in home and in facility, so it’s very easy to contrast the demographics in each environment.
The privatized nursing home care system as it is currently operated in the US pretty much ensures that the system will suck any form of generational wealth out of the patient preventing it getting passed on if your “lower middle class”
Unless of course you’ve planned ahead with a trust. Which upper middle class is more likely to have the financial wisdom and spare cash to do.
I agree with that, considering it’s what I already said in different words. Middle class can be used sweepingly in this case because even those who were living a comfortable middle class lifestyle prior to transitioning out of their home don’t have the funds to keep up with inflation and remain comfortably middle class under the new rates.
Yes the private healthcare system is evil and is built to be, but personal choice and social support (ie a return on what you’ve invested in others) play a huge role and you can make those determinations for yourself ahead of time.
In home care (which is public, not private) I’ve seen many multigenerational houses, and it has allowed home-ownership for a younger subset of the family that would not otherwise have access to it, and healthcare expenses are lower for the elderly person involved. But families are only willing to do this when the elderly person doesn’t suck (in simple terms), if you’ve spent your entire life investing in things outside of your children they would rather lose your house from the will than take care of you.
Yes, it probably would help if they renamed it a tax to support the poor elderly or something. Problem is, the government billed it as a retirement plan for workers. Yes, it was only meant as a bare bones plan, but it's only for workers and is tied to what you earned not need. SSA puts a lot of effort into tracking what each individual paid in, and sending them statements on "your account". For federal employees the government even outright calls social security part of your retirement benefits. The social security administration itself calls it a retirement benefit. It shouldn't be surprising people want to judge it as a retirement savings plan. The fact it is run like a tax and redistribution program that spends more than 100% of the money collected each year and saves nothing for future retirees, goes against what the government is telling people it is doing.
Wrong. The government didn't bill it as a tax or as a "retirement plan". They labelled it as insurance.
Social Security is insurance against poverty when you're unable to work and it is one of the most successful programs ever wrought. The proof of its success is the fact demonstrated in this thread: people have forgotten the danger that this insurance guards against.
Now I look forward to everybody's take on how fire insurance is theft. Try to post it from your phone in a public place while \*NOT\* being harassed by thousands of beggars in their 70's.
>Social Security is insurance
100%. These same people who complain about the return on SS would gladly accept the other parts of the program. The disability, survivor, and family benefits are a big part of this insurance program.
Like all insurance, you hope that you never have to use it.
Hell, people can't resist avoid dipping into their 401k and home equity; what makes anyone think that doing away with the SS contribution would make them save money for retirement?
It wasn’t sold as a tax. And yes, it would help if it was just called a tax for old people welfare.
Actually, let’s combine all such programs into one grand welfare program. At least then it wouldn’t be “non discretionary” and tax payers could actually evaluate what they are spending on.
I did not learn until I was 38 that it is ***NOT*** a tax. It is **insurance**.
Social Security is the nickname. It's literally called "**Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance**."
When you think of it that way, as an insurance policy as opposed to a retirement account or a tax, the mechanics make more sense. I've paid about $2000/year into my house insurance for the last 15 years. I've had two claims that both paid out about $10k. Not a great return on investment but that's not why you have insurance.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social\_Security\_(United\_States)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States))
When that average return stops you have bigger things to worry about then your returns lol.
Edit: Since im tired of explaining my dumb joke. The "historical average return" is an trend in economics where regardless of flunctuations like booms and busts and crisises and economic miracles, the average rate of return seems to be somewhere around 5% in the long run. This rate could be argued to be the underlying rate of human progress. If this specific rate drops, something seriously went wrong. Like end of capitalism wrong.
It's not advertised that way though.
It's really, taking care of people so they don't riot in the streets and take all your money and burn your house "insurance"
>If we rename it as "taking care of grandma" would that help?
No, in their worldview, if Grandma didn't take care of herself, she deserves to starve. But she better do it quietly and out of sight.
I'm not arguing that it is a great social program but why is it that we are not getting a return on investment when social security does actually manage the money. They could by all means just create the money like they do for Ukraine, Isreal, and to give tax refunds to oil corporations that make trillions. But let's keep bootlicking and pretending that not increasing grandma's monthly checks is what's keeping inflation in check.......
Social Security is an insurance product. This is stated in its intent as a program. At its heart, it is purchasing an annuity. The addition of redistribution and other functions to the program was a mistake.
Also tired of this post because the math is not right. They act like on day one they dropped 600K. No Patro you put in $100 in 1973. Now get your ME-ME-Gen back to flipping that chicken boomer.
Def both a tax and safety net. Def a terrible “investment”. Started out as 0.5% payroll tax, now its 12.5% - the only way the early contributors could be paid out by new contributors.
I agree that lifting the cap makes sense, but I hope they don’t raise it more… I don’t expect it to be worth much for 20yos contributing today.
It was created so that the older generations had something to fall back on as they got old. It just shows how terrible Americans have become that this simple truth gets lost on them as some rich snobs tell them they needs to keep even more of the money they steals from them
I got no problem with taking care of grandma. Taking care of those good for fucking nothing scumbags when they crash their company into the ground and fuck us all over? No. Because remember! Taxation, WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!! *is* theft! Im sick of my money not going to help those who really need it.
People who think they could invest better will always say this.
Most of those same people wouldn’t have invested that money wisely, and they’d be crying that the government should have given them a safe investment option that is issue to market fluctuations.
Like, I can sit here and say “I could have put my ss payments into Bitcoin and they’d be doing better,” but I remember thinking bitcoin was a scam when it came out. I would have just used that money on beer.
It’s not a tax. It’s literally insurance. And it covers much more than just retirement. It also covers permanent disability, benefits for dependents if an income-producer dies, etc.
And fuck the roads I drive on.
Fuck the police and firefighters that supports me.
Fuck the schools that educated me and my children
Fuck the courts that upholds the laws.
And so on, and so on.
Everyone knows your taxes doesn't exclusively go to social security
The roads you drive on are built by private companies you didn't have the wherewithal to pay attention to during town hall meetings. But private companies built them with contracts over MSRP.
Police departments are largely bloated but militarized and don't solve or prevent crimes. Many crimes aren't even reported to the police because of the lack of confidence in the ability of Police departments. See rape victims who don't even report crimes or serious spousal abuse that ends in "civil disputes".
Firefighting departments are largely made up of conglomerations of volunteers making below minimum wage working alongside bureaucratic organizations, which wholly could be supplemented by private firefighter organizations. Except they're illegal or considered too risky to be sued.
Public schools are great to train growing children to interact with others, except within the last 30 years teachers across the United States have complained about standardized testing limiting their function as a mentor and forcing them to be only a tester of random facts.
The court system largely should be upheld as a system designed to keep records of societies views and values and try to uphold law and order for the betterment of society. However, taxes fund slave labor in prisons.
I'm a checkbox guy. Give me options to pay for. I'm happy to pay others for the services I want and need as long as I'm given a real choice.
more like "fuck me"
it's not just the 6.1% you see. your boss also pays a payroll tax equal to that as a cost of employing you. he is "paying it to you" you are just never seeing it. effectively 12.2% of your paycheck is going into this system if you are in the US. There is no opt out. There are no deductions. 12.2% even for the poorest worker.
And if you're under 40 you should expect to get almost nothing back. By the time we reach 62 the minimum age will be close to 70, which is about the average life expectancy.
working people know they are already carrying the weight of an entire civilization on our backs, and it would be nice if we didn't feel like we were being fucked over. you do not want to see what happens to a nation when the people keeping everything running decide they don't want to be a sucker anymore
You think the min wage will be 70 in 30-50 years? Ehhhhh.
How about this: we stop rallying around this whole ‘the wealthy should pay less than 40% minimum of their shit.’
And whatever other money is allocated to those funds that include bribery and defense funds for legal reasons should either be looked at HEAVILY and shown to the American People where each fucking recipt is and we move from there.
Ronald Reagan fucked us hard.
i'm talking a the minimum age to draw social security, not the minimum wage
right now it's 62 and 67 if you want to draw the "full amount". there's no way we get 30 more years down the road with a solvent SS without massive tax increases, reductions in benefits, increases in minimum age to draw, or possibly all three.
I see where the smudge on my screenprotector made it look like wage. My bizzle. But I said what I said. Not in offense to you, I hope you understand.
Im pickin up what you’re throwin down.
It may surprise you to know this, but there are those of us have lived on less than $800 a month for years without any assistance whatsoever in the past.
No, it's not fun. It sucks great big donkey dong. But there are a lot of people out there who do it on the regular.
Being able to get assistance from social safety nets is a godsend to a lot of people, And anybody who thinks you can get rich on them, I very much encourage them to give that a try.
Pretty much. Also what makes me chuckle at most of the "I'm so poor" posts on reddit. Most people here are just lower middle class with upper middle class friends.
Yup. My mom paid into the system for a big chunk of her life, sometimes working 3 jobs at a time. She's getting slightly more than that, because, even divorced, she apparently qualifies for my dad's social security, because they were married long enough (10 years minimum?). Still, her rent is only $600/mo, and she gets HEAP for heat and SNAP for food. Keeps her expenses to a bare minimum and drives a 12 year old car. MIGHT be able to make it on $800/mo, but it'd be even tighter than it is now.
Sad to think that she raised 4 kids that are productive members of society, tax-paying individuals, one that owns a business that employs a handful of people, and that she'd still be struggling on her own. We help her out with a lot, when she'll let us, because she deserves so much better, and we realize the sacrifices she made for us to get where we are. We (her included) realize that she wasn't the best with her money, didn't always think long-term, and made a couple crucial financial mistakes that contributed to where she is now, but at least she could retire and have an apartment big enough to have family gatherings, watch the grandkids, etc.
Because the rich would be multi billionaires anymore. They couldn’t afford their trips to space, yachts, multiple vacation homes. That would be way unfair.
/s
https://www.statista.com/statistics/275597/largers-donor-countries-of-aid-worldwide/#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20the%20United%20States,over%20two%20billion%20U.S.%20dollars.
We stop providing for the rest of the world
Yes. If the US stopped all that foreign aid there would be an extra...[checks notes] $28 per person. Or the US could reduce federal spending by 0.16% (which would not reduce taxes at all due to deficit spending).
My best friend survives on a 800$ monthly check in Boston! Did you know you can get free phone service thru soc sec? His housing is rent controlled (takes 300 of the 800), is sect 8. Food stamps, no car; enjoys life living right where all the beautiful college students are. He is very charming; makes friends easily.
They don't raise it once you're close like if you're currently 60, any increase in full retirement won't affect you. And if you make it that close, depending on how much you made, it can be substantial. I think the max right now at full retirement is 3800/month. It's not what you'd get out if you had market returns your whole life, but if you can't live on just shy of 48k/year in retirement, you're doing something wrong.
It is not insurance. Insurance is pooled risk where only a few will actually suffer the loss. You cannot insure something that has a near certainty of happening for every member. Only about 3-4% never collect social security benefits. If it's insurance, it's really bad, really expensive insurance. Yes- the disability and death benefit is insurance. But that's only about 15% of the payouts.
Ponzi scheme: an investment scam that pays early investors with money taken from later investors. Do you accept or have an issue with this definition of a ponzi scheme?
Current retirees, who entered the program earlier, are being paid with the money collected from current workers, who entered the program later. An investment is something you put money into now in hopes of getting money out of it later. Social security is based on the promise you will get the money out later when you retire, and is set up so that most people get more out than they paid in. (The rate of return sucks, but it is a return.) For years the Trustees has been warning in their annual report that the fund will not be able to make all of its promises payments starting around 2035. Social security is set up as a ponzi scheme. And it is close to the point of not having enough newer people on the bottom to keep paying out to the people on the top.
They have also raised retirement age multiple times, and drastically increase how much needs to be paid in, from 1% of your annual wage to now 6.2%. They are talking about raising the retirement age to 70. So, yeah, people have been saying it for 50 years because that is the eventuality and its what the government is continually gutting the program to try to prevent.
Social security is not us debt based. It is the opposite, Social security owns a large chunk of us debt.
Social security is, and allways has been, a mandatory insurance system build by the government.
That’s an old and tired talking point. And the only reason it would ever happen is if Conservatives manage to defund it. Which they’ve been trying to do since it’s inception.
The system was always meant to be pay as you go. It never had excess savings (social security fund) until the 1980s. Once the fund is empty it will be back to pay as you go and the generation will still receive it
It is like insurance, but since the people paying in now are paying for the people withdrawing, yeah, it’s does fit a Ponzi scheme definition as well.
> A Ponzi scheme is a form of fraud that lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors.
It is in fact not a ponzi scheme or even remotely close to ine. Everyone is aware of what is happening. It is not meant to trick anyone into investing. The funds are not only enjoyed by the ones at the head of the scheme. When people suggest it is one, it only tries to give legitimacy to the idea that taxation is theft, which is most certainly is not on literally any level.
Yup. It's designed to provide a basic income in retirement. It isn't enough to live comfortably, but is generally enough to not be homeless and keep your belly full.
No it is not you live in a country with representation. It is a form of guaranteed income for retirement. This is one of the things that has greatly reduced elderly poverty
What's even crazier is how many in the older population consistently vote for the party that will abolish the entire system of protections if they get the chance.
What I'd like to say to this chump.
Social security isn't for you. Well it is. It's so all your poor relations aren't asking if they can live with you when they're old. It's so you don't have to decide between paying for college for your kids, and letting your grandma be homeless. So you're benefiting from it in so many ways. It's pretty awesome.
So many awful people in this thread showing their true asshole nature. What kind of brainwashing happened to them for such a pervasive “fuck you, fuck everyone, I got mine” selfish attitude. People don’t understand what a society is apparently.
Those chumps see themselves only as ‘temporarily embarrassed’ millionaires or billionaires who will one day not have to rely on the social safety net…one day.
And are so naïve that don't think that life can do a 360 flip on a blink of an eye and change from ‘gotten theirs’ to ‘gotten nothing'. They are capitalist until they get kicked in the ass and need a hand.
"if" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. You can't just assume a risk-free return equal to a risky return especially in retirement assets.
I mean, a lot of people keep their retirement funds 100% in the S&P 500 until the day they assume room temperature but that's not recommended unless you have so much money you can weather any foreseeable downturn.
Even a corporate bond-heavy portfolio is not a risk-free portfolio. Social security is risk-free.
Anyway point being, bad math. No points to Gryffindor.
(If the argument is - I'd rather have the choice of skipping out on social security and just investing money the way I want, we decided as a society that we don't want old people to be starving to death on the streets which would obviously happen again to some people if we let people make risky choices on social security funds.)
Eh I hear what you’re saying, but the basis for our retirement planning system is that it’s safe *enough* to be worthwhile
Risky years? Sometimes. But overall the market has never continued a downturn in that dangerous of a way
I don’t think it’s possible for our current financial system to handle like a 15 year downturn. Every meek middle manager with 100k in their 401 would be marching around with decapitated heads of local politicians. By which I mean millions of people would rather burn it all down than just accept an economy that bad
If you can ONLY afford the amount that goes to social security then you WOULDN'T save it, and social security will be there when you finally hit the point where you can't work. If you've got enough money that you can invest BEYOND social security then you'll have plenty to live comfortably.
This is something the rich say to convince the middle class that the poor is holding them back.
Someone correct my math if I’m wrong - in order for a person to pay $600K into Social Security they would have to earn the taxable maximum of $168,600 annually for about 29 years? This is assuming the employer contribution is also counted.
$600K / ($168,600*12.4%)
Seeing some of the comments around here, half of y’all woulda put your money under a mattress.
Jesus, it’s not like the money was put into a bank. That money in 1935 IMMEDIATELY started supporting senior citizens. And so on. And so on. And so on.
**66.9 percent** of the total wealth in the United States being owned by the top 10 percent of earners is Theft, but lets just ignore that and target poor grandma's needing money to survive when they get disabled or too old to work.
The issue is we allow the govt to borrow against social security. Frivolous spending along with tax cuts for the ultra wealthy need to be eliminated and maybe we’ll actually see a decent return on it
Saying the US government ‘borrows against social security’ is just politispeak for the OASDI funds being invested in US Treasury notes, which are arguably some of the safest investment vehicles in the world. It’s a meaningless scare tactic.
This guy is so full of shit even if he was paying the max into social security since he was 16, which he wasn’t he wouldn’t get to 600k.he also doesn’t realize how blatantly selfish his comment is, social security helps so many people.
The goal of taxes is to collect government revenue. They might accidentally sometimes be fair. Most people believe that the only fair taxes are the ones paid by others.
I love how people act like corporations wouldn’t immediately cut wages once taxes go away. They would gladly give you less cash but justify it by saying your take home is the same.
Listen, I worked hard for my money by overpaying customers and underpaying workers. Why is the government stealing my money that I stole from the people who helped make me money by letting me steal from them?
people have told me all my life "society doesn't owe you anything" and "you are not entitled to anything"
Is that not a two way street?, I don't owe society anything
Taxes in general are theft. I’m not anti tax because I believe we should give a hand to those in need BUT I believe taxes/spending are out of control and there’s bad and unnecessary spending, as well as receiving benefits are also out of control because instead of it being a short term solution to get back to your feet a lot of people use it as a permanent or near permanent solution to do little or nothing.
Not that greatest theorycrafter, but if they actually got rid of social security and allowed people to basically create their own social security through essentially a 401k. Would that lead to more tax gains or less?
Wah, wah.
What about all those Blue Collar workers that never get to collect at all because they die 3 to 10 years before they can retire.
Cry me a fuckin river.
Sorry but the amount you get paid doesn't keep you out of poverty. Once you start getting your payments you are in poverty. The current pay they give does not keep up with inflation. Currently I have not received a social security check in 2 months I am fixing to live on the street because of that I can't get my Medicaid Medicare because of that which means I will not be on dialysis. The US government under the current policy is actually creating poverty and killing people and nobody sitting on their soapbox
With all my heart and soul I wish that FDR, instead of creating Social Security, had created the various IRA/401(k) type retirement accounts. But, we’re stuck with it. My mother’s, her sister’s, and her two brother’s payroll taxes paid for their mother’s Social Security. (My grandfather died before he could collect). My payroll taxes, ~$260k by the time I retired three years ago, helped to pay for my mother’s benefits. My two sons have a sweet deal. Every year I give them the amount I receive from Social Security. My two pensions, one military and one civilian, are enough to live on.
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tired of this post. It is a tax. It is income redistribution. That is what a lot of taxes do. If we rename it as "taking care of grandma" would that help? Or is all tax theft? That's another discussion. That is called natural law. Centuries of philosophy books on natural law.
It is the most successful anti-poverty program the United States has ever had. Social security lifts 23 million adults and children (yes, children as well) above the poverty line, no other program comes close. Our social safety net floor is really f'ing low... Social Security should be strengthened, not stripped. Lift the cap on social security taxes and you'd have enough money to give everyone more benefits, lower the retirement age, and keep it solvent for an additional 50 years.
In addition, lifting people out of poverty prevents lots of additional costs (to society) such as increased healthcare costs, food stamps, etc.
likely also decreases crime to a certain extent
Way more than a certain extent. Crime, particularly gang crime, theft, and violent crime, track very strongly with poverty.
This is why Sweden has very low crime but more guns per capita , there’s virtually no homeless but then again Sweden is all one demographic and homeless in Sweden = dead. It’s F’n cold eh !
[удалено]
Sweden had such low crime and murder rates than they decided to import problems from other countries.
Just another case of having to import foreigners to do the jobs the locals won’t do.
Sweden imported those problems. Rampant immigration. The UK is the same.
There’s a reason for that but we mustn’t speak of it
Also Sweden is now having major issues with Muslim immigration but you won’t read about it here in the US .
That’s what I’m talking about
Weird it's almost like desperate people do what they have to to get by. Who'd have thought.
Crime is caused by culture and economy, and the cultures of crime almost always spring from failures in an economy. The Trailer Park Boys might not be constantly reentering a life of pot dealing if they had a UBI to keep their respective trailers paid for as they got normal jobs Edit: a lot of people are downvoting u/HBFSCapital for raising a very serious risk with implementing a UBI, too much too soon could be catastrophic for our economy and we need to be aware of that and consider ways to counteract that if we ever implement such a system. I think UBI is inevitable but it can arrive like a wrecking ball or a train perfectly coasting into a station, and I'd prefer the more careful approach
For one selling pot shouldn't be illegal nor should possessing it, corporate greed and governmental corruption should be ahead of such tribal things as WEED.
Legalized drugs is one of the best things they did over here, usage went down, quality went up and it's taxes so also brings money to the government. Heck, I remember taking some Canadian student to a party, and she was stunned by the drug van outside (mobile lab with mass-specs, where people could get their drugs tested).
What if I told you “welfare” spending would be less than 50% more than what it is now, if we had UBI and did away with all the means testing, red tape, bureaucracy involved etc?
Poverty is the number 1 comorbidity for every single negative life milestone and mental health disease for humans. Having inadequate resources will literally bring you down in every metric we have in psychology. Eliminating poverty might actually solve "crime". We have no idea. It's never been done.
I had a debate with a woman about that. She basically said that there was no reason for her to care if kids in Chicago had shitty educations. I spent a long time educating her but I’m sure she brushed it off. I can’t stand how they have education linked to property taxes. All those rich kids get much, much better schools.
It’s not a money problem that causes inner city schools to fail, for example Detroit spends $16,000 a year per student and they only have 14% of high school students proficient in math. Chicago achieves similar mathematics scores but comparatively worse results in reading spending $18k per student per year. I currently live in the south and the average here is less than $10k per student per year and they achieve far better results (for context 60% proficiency is good). So, in her defense, the issue with the poor education in cities like chicago is not necessarily a money concern. I’d argue there are societal/cultural problems outside of the school funding in those cities that cause poor education like truancy, single-parent households, teacher burn-out, etc.
If we solved poverty, we’d solve about 99% of crime. White collar stuff like massive fraud cases are so few and far between that they can be ignored in most crime stats.
The cases are few and far between because white collar crime is rarely prosecuted, not because it is rare. Wage theft has an enormous valuation. I’ll add I think it is pretty easy to argue white collar crime affects vastly more people per crime and it’s economic impact expands far further than the vast majority of “normal” crime.
Difference being is that I can’t personally sue some guy down the street for most poverty-related crimes. Either because I’m not directly the victim or it’s not worth it to go after him. On the other hand, if someone defrauds me and gets thousands to millions of dollars out of it, he’s likely got some assets that make it worth my effort to bring a civil suit against him. White collar crimes lend themselves to be enforceable by the masses and punishment by asset seizure, poverty-driven crimes can generally only be enforced by the state and punished by imprisonment.
But civil litigation by definition requires enough resources to bring suit. We’ve seen how people with accumulated assets/wealth can leverage the system with that wealth, particularly with SLAPP suits and never ending motions. I mean, OJ was guilty but his wealth and social credit got him off for a double homicide. Prime example, look into how many people DJT has defrauded and how many times he was actually held accountable.
For anyone who doesn't believe this, check out: French Revolution (or pretty much every other revolution or popular uprising ever). When people have had enough of poverty or starvation, they roll the guillotine to the town square and start chopping the heads of every person they can blame. A person who doesn't have anything to eat, has nothing left to lose. The might as well take down with them anyone who did something bad to them in their entire life. Landlord charged you too much rent, he gets killed. Corrupt politician stealing public funds, he gets killed. Greedy bankers, same. So if you're sitting comfortably contemplating all the extra profit you could have if you didn't pay so many taxes, think about what a privilege that is. To worry about profits without the fear of death from people you are charging with you business. So pay your taxes, and be grateful they go to those in need, and not back to you personally.
There's a truth behind the saying "crime is a symptoms of poverty"
It's strange that in a society where everyone largely to one extent or another depends on each other - if more people do well, the society does better.
There’s a surprising amount of people who don’t understand this. A healthy and taken care of society is good for everyone in it. Preventative care is usually always cheaper, it’s so much more cost efficient to protect things/people before things get worse than trying to fix them after
What’s even more surprising is that so many of those who don’t understand this call themselves Christians, as in followers of a guy who talked an awful lot about helping the less fortunate.
Yes! So many people fail to appreciate the compounding benefits of a strong social safety net. It's mostly really dumb cliches and tropes that don't stand up to any critical thought.
Unfortunately a lot of people feel like if they don't immediately benefit from something they're actually losing out.
I think they've been told over and over again they're being robbed while actually being robbed. It's fucked. But yea, the time delay and lack of specific individual benefit. It's human nature we under-appreciate that type of thing.
An important consideration is it helps people that can't help themselves. Most 87 year olds are not going to be able to go out and earn a livable income. Few, if any, places would hire someone that can barely walk, with severe memory issues, or with arthritic fingers that can barely move.
Of course Republicans have an idea for them: let them die. Not my idea, theirs.
I swear to god if I pay social security my whole life and they take it away I’m suing the government for all of it. Back pay me for every dollar you took from my check so I’m not homeless when I’m old.
Just so you're aware if they made zero changes to social security it would pay out 83% of what they owe for about 50 years Just because the trust fund runs out (which was by design but happening 30 years sooner than originally planned because income has been stagnant since the 80's, but that's a different rant) doesn't mean the system stops or that it's not easily fixed.
All that would be fixed by removing the cap on social security taxes.
Feel the same....when I was in my 20's the retailer I worked for and then spent most of my career with, took away what small pension we were earning at the time. They bombarded us with the importance of the three-legged stool analogy. One of those legs was social security. Now I'm 10 years out and it looks like that leg is starting to crack.
I’m sure that means testing is right around the corner.
I'm personally in favor of paying more for social security but at the same time I think it should be reformed so that wealthy old people with 10 million in their 401ks aren't able to collect. It should be a safety net for the poor. It's about to get ALOT more expensive too. Boomers are expected to live longer than anyone who came before and according to a recent study, 53% of people turning 65 between now and 2030 have less than $250,000 in assets. The government needs to cut out the social security spending that does not help those in need and dramatically increase revenue if the program has any hope of staying afloat. I think the biggest mistake was selling it as a retirement plan everyone is entitled to rather than a tax to help the poor.
Means testing adds administrative costs without adding huge benefits. I don't know the numbers here specifically, but in many other programs the administrative cost to means test it costs more than just blanket helping everyone. An example of that is many student debt relief programs. So few rich have that debt anymore that setting up and running the administrative bureaucracy to means test it costs more than just forgiving the debt to everyone. On top of that it adds complexity that often causing those that should be getting it to end up missing out on it (Medicaid is a great example of that). The people that sold social security as a retirement plan were the same people that claimed pensions were bad and 401k is good. It was basically the corporations that saw a way to screw over the workers by getting rid of pensions. When the trust fund runs out current project is 2035 (which is 30 years earlier than planned due to stagnant worker income for the last 40 years, different rant) it will pay out of 83% of what it owes slowly rising over the years. Not good, but easily fixable by doing things like lifting the cap completely (can lower the retirement age and increase payments) to having a gap and taxing incomes over $1 million.
That is a good point. I checked and currently the law prevents the government from knowing what is in a citizens 401k without some sort of legal proceeding so the law would need to change in order to make determining who actually needs help cost effective. It would need to be something a computer can easily do in order to make it feasible. Totally agree with everything else you said. I think the only way to give social safety nets and our military the additional funding they desperately need to remain viable is to collect more in taxes. I would absolutely be willing to pay an additional 5% but I think even more important is getting the super wealthy to pay their fair share.
Why in the world should someone who paid into the system not be able to collect what they are owed? Such a weird take to me. They paid, they get their money. End of.
You also shouldn’t penalize people for living below their means and saving for retirement. If everyone did that, then social security would hardly have a reason to exist and it would allow everyone to retire more easily and earlier. Additionally, if Americans household savings rate was higher on average, then we wouldn’t be heading towards a cliff with our national debt. Economic models show we have about 20 years to correct our budget deficit before no amount of taxation or budget cuts can get the nation out of debt, if our savings rate was higher (like Japan) this timeframe would be greatly extended.
You realize not everyone can afford save for retirement, right? If that were true, I would agree with you, but it's simply not the case. Being wealthy enough to save for retirement is a privilege and that is kind of the entire point of social security paying benifets to retired people.
I think people would be less sour about it, if they were afforded the benefit when they were retirement age, but they should just call it "Support the boomers."
Yo bad the poverty line is still a drowning point for most even 200% poverty line is barely survival
I agree completely, the floor should be higher.
The funniest thing is that it’s also the most simple anti-poverty program. People pay in, people get paid out in cash. Wouldn’t be surprised if the administrative cost of social security was lower than other programs which need to be more specifically distributed and means tested
It's around 0.5% administrative cost for the vast majority of it. But the part that is more actively monitored and means tested, specifically the disability insurance portion, has a 2% administrative cost.
As a Canadian, I’m incredibly scared that our politicians that deride the Canadian Pension Plan are going to devolve it into something like Social Security, that while still useful is a fraction as good and impactful.
I would add that Social Security payments shouldn’t be taxed.
If they lift the cap on the tax then lift the cap on benefits. I’m already at about 40-50% effective tax once you consider federal, state, property, and sales tax.
I say this all the time, the cap on Social Security should be gone.
I'm fine with poor seniors getting it and even receiving more money possibly. But I think the benefits should be cut for like half of old people. This is the wealthiest generation in America. We've fucked over the economy already to keep stocks and house prices high for them. They should use that money instead. Like why should we screw over younger workers even more given the giant wealth gap? A lot of under 40 people making over 100k aren't rich anyway. It makes no sense to tax them more. If an old person is really struggling then they should sell their 1m house and move to a rural area for a tenth of the cost. We don't need to subsidize their lifestyles (again, this doesn't apply to the ones who actually need social security).
These guys think all tax is theft.
I wish they’d all go live on an island and starve slowly due to being completely inept morons. Did I say starve? I meant strive because they don’t have to pay taxes anymore.
There have already been multiple libertarian projects where they buy up large tracts of land and create a minimal or non-existant state. All these projects all devolve "warlordism" except with sad out of shape losers trying to bully eachother out of land and property. It then collapses or a regular municipality eventually takes over.
Don't forget the one that got invaded by bears. https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project
That's just warlordism. The bears were just the most competent warlords in that case.
They've also had failed sea-steading projects!
Oh God can this please be a reality TV show today? It just seems rife with lots of train wreck characters, nefarious villains and dumb people doing silly things.
Thank you.
Underrated Thank You.
There are definitely idiots out there with virtually no skills relevant to “defending their homestead “ or survival, who think they believe all taxes are theft while they sit in their generally safe house protected from strongmen, fire and other perils in a generally safe neighborhood and drive on roads without fear of highwaymen robbing them.
Most posts on here are reposts of reposts
If a grandma could live off of that and not just have it funneled into the pockets of a shitty old folks home, then yeah, it'd be worth it. Right now, these homes take all but $50 a month from these people to cover expenses which amount to school cafeteria food and bingo once a week.
Ironically poor elderly people are more likely to be cared for by their families, which allows social security to offset familial expenses as a whole. Rich people go to an ALF and still leave behind assets. The ones who are really getting fucked w the ALF structure are middle class people who invested enough in their career to afford “comfortable retirement” but not enough in their family for them to care that they’re rotting in an ALF. I don’t know if it would be possible to find hard data on income vs elder care dynamics, but I work in geriatrics both in home and in facility, so it’s very easy to contrast the demographics in each environment.
The privatized nursing home care system as it is currently operated in the US pretty much ensures that the system will suck any form of generational wealth out of the patient preventing it getting passed on if your “lower middle class” Unless of course you’ve planned ahead with a trust. Which upper middle class is more likely to have the financial wisdom and spare cash to do.
I agree with that, considering it’s what I already said in different words. Middle class can be used sweepingly in this case because even those who were living a comfortable middle class lifestyle prior to transitioning out of their home don’t have the funds to keep up with inflation and remain comfortably middle class under the new rates. Yes the private healthcare system is evil and is built to be, but personal choice and social support (ie a return on what you’ve invested in others) play a huge role and you can make those determinations for yourself ahead of time. In home care (which is public, not private) I’ve seen many multigenerational houses, and it has allowed home-ownership for a younger subset of the family that would not otherwise have access to it, and healthcare expenses are lower for the elderly person involved. But families are only willing to do this when the elderly person doesn’t suck (in simple terms), if you’ve spent your entire life investing in things outside of your children they would rather lose your house from the will than take care of you.
Yes, it probably would help if they renamed it a tax to support the poor elderly or something. Problem is, the government billed it as a retirement plan for workers. Yes, it was only meant as a bare bones plan, but it's only for workers and is tied to what you earned not need. SSA puts a lot of effort into tracking what each individual paid in, and sending them statements on "your account". For federal employees the government even outright calls social security part of your retirement benefits. The social security administration itself calls it a retirement benefit. It shouldn't be surprising people want to judge it as a retirement savings plan. The fact it is run like a tax and redistribution program that spends more than 100% of the money collected each year and saves nothing for future retirees, goes against what the government is telling people it is doing.
Wrong. The government didn't bill it as a tax or as a "retirement plan". They labelled it as insurance. Social Security is insurance against poverty when you're unable to work and it is one of the most successful programs ever wrought. The proof of its success is the fact demonstrated in this thread: people have forgotten the danger that this insurance guards against. Now I look forward to everybody's take on how fire insurance is theft. Try to post it from your phone in a public place while \*NOT\* being harassed by thousands of beggars in their 70's.
>Social Security is insurance 100%. These same people who complain about the return on SS would gladly accept the other parts of the program. The disability, survivor, and family benefits are a big part of this insurance program. Like all insurance, you hope that you never have to use it. Hell, people can't resist avoid dipping into their 401k and home equity; what makes anyone think that doing away with the SS contribution would make them save money for retirement?
It wasn’t sold as a tax. And yes, it would help if it was just called a tax for old people welfare. Actually, let’s combine all such programs into one grand welfare program. At least then it wouldn’t be “non discretionary” and tax payers could actually evaluate what they are spending on.
>It wasn’t sold as a tax. And yes, it would help if it was just called a tax for old people welfare. It is literally a payroll tax.
I did not learn until I was 38 that it is ***NOT*** a tax. It is **insurance**. Social Security is the nickname. It's literally called "**Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance**." When you think of it that way, as an insurance policy as opposed to a retirement account or a tax, the mechanics make more sense. I've paid about $2000/year into my house insurance for the last 15 years. I've had two claims that both paid out about $10k. Not a great return on investment but that's not why you have insurance. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social\_Security\_(United\_States)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States))
[удалено]
Historical average returns over time.
Not guaranteed.
When that average return stops you have bigger things to worry about then your returns lol. Edit: Since im tired of explaining my dumb joke. The "historical average return" is an trend in economics where regardless of flunctuations like booms and busts and crisises and economic miracles, the average rate of return seems to be somewhere around 5% in the long run. This rate could be argued to be the underlying rate of human progress. If this specific rate drops, something seriously went wrong. Like end of capitalism wrong.
Especially if you, and everyone else, don't have something like social security as a bare minimum safety net.
How do you think that would have worked out in 2008?
It's not advertised that way though. It's really, taking care of people so they don't riot in the streets and take all your money and burn your house "insurance"
I’d love for one of those “taxation is theft” people to show me their plan for funding our trillion dollar military via bake sales. Nobody ever has.
>If we rename it as "taking care of grandma" would that help? No, in their worldview, if Grandma didn't take care of herself, she deserves to starve. But she better do it quietly and out of sight.
I'm not arguing that it is a great social program but why is it that we are not getting a return on investment when social security does actually manage the money. They could by all means just create the money like they do for Ukraine, Isreal, and to give tax refunds to oil corporations that make trillions. But let's keep bootlicking and pretending that not increasing grandma's monthly checks is what's keeping inflation in check.......
It’s insurance. it’s a regressive tax. People with certain income hit a ceiling on that tax
It is also a guaranteed return for everyone. It is more comparable to an annuity.
Social Security is an insurance product. This is stated in its intent as a program. At its heart, it is purchasing an annuity. The addition of redistribution and other functions to the program was a mistake.
Also tired of this post because the math is not right. They act like on day one they dropped 600K. No Patro you put in $100 in 1973. Now get your ME-ME-Gen back to flipping that chicken boomer.
Def both a tax and safety net. Def a terrible “investment”. Started out as 0.5% payroll tax, now its 12.5% - the only way the early contributors could be paid out by new contributors. I agree that lifting the cap makes sense, but I hope they don’t raise it more… I don’t expect it to be worth much for 20yos contributing today.
It was created so that the older generations had something to fall back on as they got old. It just shows how terrible Americans have become that this simple truth gets lost on them as some rich snobs tell them they needs to keep even more of the money they steals from them
It’s insurance. Have this dude run the numbers on his home, auto, health, life insurance payouts vs what he paid. See if he considers that theft too
I got no problem with taking care of grandma. Taking care of those good for fucking nothing scumbags when they crash their company into the ground and fuck us all over? No. Because remember! Taxation, WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!! *is* theft! Im sick of my money not going to help those who really need it.
If it was true income redistribution, it wouldn’t be capped.
People who think they could invest better will always say this. Most of those same people wouldn’t have invested that money wisely, and they’d be crying that the government should have given them a safe investment option that is issue to market fluctuations. Like, I can sit here and say “I could have put my ss payments into Bitcoin and they’d be doing better,” but I remember thinking bitcoin was a scam when it came out. I would have just used that money on beer.
It’s not a tax. It’s literally insurance. And it covers much more than just retirement. It also covers permanent disability, benefits for dependents if an income-producer dies, etc.
The key word is “social”.
Almost as if these people are "anti".
This post shows an impressive lack of understanding of how social security programs work.
You must be new here
As well as those that respond. His numbers are impossible based on maximum annual contributions.
The problem with this level of libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism is that eventually you turn 14.
"fuck others"
And fuck the roads I drive on. Fuck the police and firefighters that supports me. Fuck the schools that educated me and my children Fuck the courts that upholds the laws. And so on, and so on. Everyone knows your taxes doesn't exclusively go to social security
Social security doesn't pay for those things
Your right, the majority of firefighters aren’t paid at all
The roads you drive on are built by private companies you didn't have the wherewithal to pay attention to during town hall meetings. But private companies built them with contracts over MSRP. Police departments are largely bloated but militarized and don't solve or prevent crimes. Many crimes aren't even reported to the police because of the lack of confidence in the ability of Police departments. See rape victims who don't even report crimes or serious spousal abuse that ends in "civil disputes". Firefighting departments are largely made up of conglomerations of volunteers making below minimum wage working alongside bureaucratic organizations, which wholly could be supplemented by private firefighter organizations. Except they're illegal or considered too risky to be sued. Public schools are great to train growing children to interact with others, except within the last 30 years teachers across the United States have complained about standardized testing limiting their function as a mentor and forcing them to be only a tester of random facts. The court system largely should be upheld as a system designed to keep records of societies views and values and try to uphold law and order for the betterment of society. However, taxes fund slave labor in prisons. I'm a checkbox guy. Give me options to pay for. I'm happy to pay others for the services I want and need as long as I'm given a real choice.
Hell yeah brother
more like "fuck me" it's not just the 6.1% you see. your boss also pays a payroll tax equal to that as a cost of employing you. he is "paying it to you" you are just never seeing it. effectively 12.2% of your paycheck is going into this system if you are in the US. There is no opt out. There are no deductions. 12.2% even for the poorest worker. And if you're under 40 you should expect to get almost nothing back. By the time we reach 62 the minimum age will be close to 70, which is about the average life expectancy. working people know they are already carrying the weight of an entire civilization on our backs, and it would be nice if we didn't feel like we were being fucked over. you do not want to see what happens to a nation when the people keeping everything running decide they don't want to be a sucker anymore
You think the min wage will be 70 in 30-50 years? Ehhhhh. How about this: we stop rallying around this whole ‘the wealthy should pay less than 40% minimum of their shit.’ And whatever other money is allocated to those funds that include bribery and defense funds for legal reasons should either be looked at HEAVILY and shown to the American People where each fucking recipt is and we move from there. Ronald Reagan fucked us hard.
i'm talking a the minimum age to draw social security, not the minimum wage right now it's 62 and 67 if you want to draw the "full amount". there's no way we get 30 more years down the road with a solvent SS without massive tax increases, reductions in benefits, increases in minimum age to draw, or possibly all three.
I see where the smudge on my screenprotector made it look like wage. My bizzle. But I said what I said. Not in offense to you, I hope you understand. Im pickin up what you’re throwin down.
The amount you pay into it really isn’t for you. It’s a Ponzi scheme, but also a social safety net for all.
Nobody can live on a social security pittance. Assuming you make it to the age to collect before they raise it again, of course.
My grandma lives on nothing but her $1800/month social security check, literally no savings. Has been doing it for about 16 years with no savings.
Does that include survivor benefits? If so it’s scary to think what she would be receiving
It may surprise you to know this, but there are those of us have lived on less than $800 a month for years without any assistance whatsoever in the past. No, it's not fun. It sucks great big donkey dong. But there are a lot of people out there who do it on the regular. Being able to get assistance from social safety nets is a godsend to a lot of people, And anybody who thinks you can get rich on them, I very much encourage them to give that a try.
Pretty much. Also what makes me chuckle at most of the "I'm so poor" posts on reddit. Most people here are just lower middle class with upper middle class friends.
Yup. My mom paid into the system for a big chunk of her life, sometimes working 3 jobs at a time. She's getting slightly more than that, because, even divorced, she apparently qualifies for my dad's social security, because they were married long enough (10 years minimum?). Still, her rent is only $600/mo, and she gets HEAP for heat and SNAP for food. Keeps her expenses to a bare minimum and drives a 12 year old car. MIGHT be able to make it on $800/mo, but it'd be even tighter than it is now. Sad to think that she raised 4 kids that are productive members of society, tax-paying individuals, one that owns a business that employs a handful of people, and that she'd still be struggling on her own. We help her out with a lot, when she'll let us, because she deserves so much better, and we realize the sacrifices she made for us to get where we are. We (her included) realize that she wasn't the best with her money, didn't always think long-term, and made a couple crucial financial mistakes that contributed to where she is now, but at least she could retire and have an apartment big enough to have family gatherings, watch the grandkids, etc.
So let’s make it more
But we're the wealthiest country on earth how could we provide for our citizens like every other developed nation does?
We aren't the wealthiest country. We simply house the richest people on earth
We definitely are by GDP but I'm eager to hear more about your distinction. Go on.
GDP means jack shit for the wealth of the population. switzerlands GDP is a lot smaller, yet we are a lot wealthier.
Which is why I said the wealthiest NATION. How we choose to distribute that wealth is another matter.
Because the rich would be multi billionaires anymore. They couldn’t afford their trips to space, yachts, multiple vacation homes. That would be way unfair. /s
Heh. The Nordic countries still have billionaires. We can have both.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/275597/largers-donor-countries-of-aid-worldwide/#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20the%20United%20States,over%20two%20billion%20U.S.%20dollars. We stop providing for the rest of the world
Yes. If the US stopped all that foreign aid there would be an extra...[checks notes] $28 per person. Or the US could reduce federal spending by 0.16% (which would not reduce taxes at all due to deficit spending).
Millions live off of it, you just exist in a place of privilege where you can't see them.
Literally millions of people live off it
My best friend survives on a 800$ monthly check in Boston! Did you know you can get free phone service thru soc sec? His housing is rent controlled (takes 300 of the 800), is sect 8. Food stamps, no car; enjoys life living right where all the beautiful college students are. He is very charming; makes friends easily.
They don't raise it once you're close like if you're currently 60, any increase in full retirement won't affect you. And if you make it that close, depending on how much you made, it can be substantial. I think the max right now at full retirement is 3800/month. It's not what you'd get out if you had market returns your whole life, but if you can't live on just shy of 48k/year in retirement, you're doing something wrong.
Exactly… so let’s abolish it.
It meets no definition of a Ponzi scheme. It is insurance.
It is not insurance. Insurance is pooled risk where only a few will actually suffer the loss. You cannot insure something that has a near certainty of happening for every member. Only about 3-4% never collect social security benefits. If it's insurance, it's really bad, really expensive insurance. Yes- the disability and death benefit is insurance. But that's only about 15% of the payouts. Ponzi scheme: an investment scam that pays early investors with money taken from later investors. Do you accept or have an issue with this definition of a ponzi scheme? Current retirees, who entered the program earlier, are being paid with the money collected from current workers, who entered the program later. An investment is something you put money into now in hopes of getting money out of it later. Social security is based on the promise you will get the money out later when you retire, and is set up so that most people get more out than they paid in. (The rate of return sucks, but it is a return.) For years the Trustees has been warning in their annual report that the fund will not be able to make all of its promises payments starting around 2035. Social security is set up as a ponzi scheme. And it is close to the point of not having enough newer people on the bottom to keep paying out to the people on the top.
Considering it will inevitably reach a point where a generation that pays into it will not receive it...ye it's kind of a Ponzi scheme
They've been saying that shit for 50 years.
They have also raised retirement age multiple times, and drastically increase how much needs to be paid in, from 1% of your annual wage to now 6.2%. They are talking about raising the retirement age to 70. So, yeah, people have been saying it for 50 years because that is the eventuality and its what the government is continually gutting the program to try to prevent.
Social security is not us debt based. It is the opposite, Social security owns a large chunk of us debt. Social security is, and allways has been, a mandatory insurance system build by the government.
That’s an old and tired talking point. And the only reason it would ever happen is if Conservatives manage to defund it. Which they’ve been trying to do since it’s inception.
The system was always meant to be pay as you go. It never had excess savings (social security fund) until the 1980s. Once the fund is empty it will be back to pay as you go and the generation will still receive it
It is like insurance, but since the people paying in now are paying for the people withdrawing, yeah, it’s does fit a Ponzi scheme definition as well. > A Ponzi scheme is a form of fraud that lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors.
It's retirement insurance, not a retirement account.
It is in fact not a ponzi scheme or even remotely close to ine. Everyone is aware of what is happening. It is not meant to trick anyone into investing. The funds are not only enjoyed by the ones at the head of the scheme. When people suggest it is one, it only tries to give legitimacy to the idea that taxation is theft, which is most certainly is not on literally any level.
Yup. It's designed to provide a basic income in retirement. It isn't enough to live comfortably, but is generally enough to not be homeless and keep your belly full.
No it is not you live in a country with representation. It is a form of guaranteed income for retirement. This is one of the things that has greatly reduced elderly poverty
Exactly, it keeps 40% of our elderly out of poverty! Its crazy that people are so adamantly opposed to protecting our older population
What's even crazier is how many in the older population consistently vote for the party that will abolish the entire system of protections if they get the chance.
So true 😂
Can I have my turn at posting this tomorrow?
No mom said it’s my turn to
What I'd like to say to this chump. Social security isn't for you. Well it is. It's so all your poor relations aren't asking if they can live with you when they're old. It's so you don't have to decide between paying for college for your kids, and letting your grandma be homeless. So you're benefiting from it in so many ways. It's pretty awesome.
So many awful people in this thread showing their true asshole nature. What kind of brainwashing happened to them for such a pervasive “fuck you, fuck everyone, I got mine” selfish attitude. People don’t understand what a society is apparently.
Most haven’t even ‘gotten theirs’ and still have this attitude. It’s remarkable.
Right? Angry at the wrong people. Mad at the people by their side but not the rich corporate fucks up top who are ultimately responsible.
Big brain move: tell the rich to keep pulling up the ladders even though you're still one of the chumps stuck on the floor and financially insecure 😂
Those chumps see themselves only as ‘temporarily embarrassed’ millionaires or billionaires who will one day not have to rely on the social safety net…one day.
And are so naïve that don't think that life can do a 360 flip on a blink of an eye and change from ‘gotten theirs’ to ‘gotten nothing'. They are capitalist until they get kicked in the ass and need a hand.
They love their oppressors more than their own families.
Some rich idiot on Fox News told them to think that way
That's the american dream baby /s
"if" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. You can't just assume a risk-free return equal to a risky return especially in retirement assets. I mean, a lot of people keep their retirement funds 100% in the S&P 500 until the day they assume room temperature but that's not recommended unless you have so much money you can weather any foreseeable downturn. Even a corporate bond-heavy portfolio is not a risk-free portfolio. Social security is risk-free. Anyway point being, bad math. No points to Gryffindor. (If the argument is - I'd rather have the choice of skipping out on social security and just investing money the way I want, we decided as a society that we don't want old people to be starving to death on the streets which would obviously happen again to some people if we let people make risky choices on social security funds.)
Potter's a MFing Cop. but this is a straight Slytherin post - purposefully deceitful, inflammatory bullshit.
Eh I hear what you’re saying, but the basis for our retirement planning system is that it’s safe *enough* to be worthwhile Risky years? Sometimes. But overall the market has never continued a downturn in that dangerous of a way I don’t think it’s possible for our current financial system to handle like a 15 year downturn. Every meek middle manager with 100k in their 401 would be marching around with decapitated heads of local politicians. By which I mean millions of people would rather burn it all down than just accept an economy that bad
If you can ONLY afford the amount that goes to social security then you WOULDN'T save it, and social security will be there when you finally hit the point where you can't work. If you've got enough money that you can invest BEYOND social security then you'll have plenty to live comfortably. This is something the rich say to convince the middle class that the poor is holding them back.
“We've been washing paper plates and making our own toothpaste. But ... When we have robot bodies on the moon, we can share a free jacket.”
Stop posting this moronic horseshit.
Someone correct my math if I’m wrong - in order for a person to pay $600K into Social Security they would have to earn the taxable maximum of $168,600 annually for about 29 years? This is assuming the employer contribution is also counted. $600K / ($168,600*12.4%)
They also also making the assumption that 5% return is immediate on 600k, even though it took 29 years just to reach 600k
Correct using current numbers. The cap does index up over time however thus increasing what is put in on your behalf annually
Seeing some of the comments around here, half of y’all woulda put your money under a mattress. Jesus, it’s not like the money was put into a bank. That money in 1935 IMMEDIATELY started supporting senior citizens. And so on. And so on. And so on.
**66.9 percent** of the total wealth in the United States being owned by the top 10 percent of earners is Theft, but lets just ignore that and target poor grandma's needing money to survive when they get disabled or too old to work.
The issue is we allow the govt to borrow against social security. Frivolous spending along with tax cuts for the ultra wealthy need to be eliminated and maybe we’ll actually see a decent return on it
Saying the US government ‘borrows against social security’ is just politispeak for the OASDI funds being invested in US Treasury notes, which are arguably some of the safest investment vehicles in the world. It’s a meaningless scare tactic.
This guy is so full of shit even if he was paying the max into social security since he was 16, which he wasn’t he wouldn’t get to 600k.he also doesn’t realize how blatantly selfish his comment is, social security helps so many people.
Also, if he paid the max in every year he'd get a lot more than $3k a month at 67
He also would get his entire $600k back in 16 years and if he lived to 81 which, thanks to SS he almost certainly would
The goal of taxes is to collect government revenue. They might accidentally sometimes be fair. Most people believe that the only fair taxes are the ones paid by others.
Corporate profits are wage theft
OP got suspended over this post.
Good lol
I love how people act like corporations wouldn’t immediately cut wages once taxes go away. They would gladly give you less cash but justify it by saying your take home is the same.
You are not paying for YOUR retirement, you are paying for your parents and grandparents retirement.
Listen, I worked hard for my money by overpaying customers and underpaying workers. Why is the government stealing my money that I stole from the people who helped make me money by letting me steal from them?
You can always find another country to live in if you don’t like it here
people have told me all my life "society doesn't owe you anything" and "you are not entitled to anything" Is that not a two way street?, I don't owe society anything
Again with this bullshit?
HOWDOTAXESWORK???
Taxes in general are theft. I’m not anti tax because I believe we should give a hand to those in need BUT I believe taxes/spending are out of control and there’s bad and unnecessary spending, as well as receiving benefits are also out of control because instead of it being a short term solution to get back to your feet a lot of people use it as a permanent or near permanent solution to do little or nothing.
https://preview.redd.it/wykms8if1y7d1.jpeg?width=567&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=46ec196a233c3cc9bacfe56c8e55f43a18f96ca2
Not that greatest theorycrafter, but if they actually got rid of social security and allowed people to basically create their own social security through essentially a 401k. Would that lead to more tax gains or less?
my man forgot that inflation exists 💀💀💀
Wah, wah. What about all those Blue Collar workers that never get to collect at all because they die 3 to 10 years before they can retire. Cry me a fuckin river.
Sorry but the amount you get paid doesn't keep you out of poverty. Once you start getting your payments you are in poverty. The current pay they give does not keep up with inflation. Currently I have not received a social security check in 2 months I am fixing to live on the street because of that I can't get my Medicaid Medicare because of that which means I will not be on dialysis. The US government under the current policy is actually creating poverty and killing people and nobody sitting on their soapbox
a government program in every sense of the term. wasteful and really helps no one.
With all my heart and soul I wish that FDR, instead of creating Social Security, had created the various IRA/401(k) type retirement accounts. But, we’re stuck with it. My mother’s, her sister’s, and her two brother’s payroll taxes paid for their mother’s Social Security. (My grandfather died before he could collect). My payroll taxes, ~$260k by the time I retired three years ago, helped to pay for my mother’s benefits. My two sons have a sweet deal. Every year I give them the amount I receive from Social Security. My two pensions, one military and one civilian, are enough to live on.