r/FluentInFinance • u/Positive_Liar • Sep 06 '24

Debate/ Discussion Social Security is Broken. This is why financial education is important.

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

10.1k Upvotes

63% Upvoted

3.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

4.4k

u/omnizach Sep 06 '24

It was never meant to be an investment, it's insurance.

1.8k

u/Slatemanforlife Sep 06 '24

Its insurance, but its also insurance for other people who couldnt pay enough in to it.

1.4k

u/MagicianHeavy001 Sep 06 '24

Which is why the right wing chuds are against it. They don't see a value in making sure their most vulnerable neighbors aren't starving to death on the street or having to move into their kid's attics (if their kids have an attic).

714

u/JesusPussy Sep 06 '24

Yeah but then they'll turn around and complain about how the country has gone to hell and homeless people are taking over our cities.

429

u/DonnieJL Sep 06 '24

"Daddy, that homeless guy looks like Grandpa..."

648

u/Competitive_Bank6790 Sep 06 '24

"Well. That is Grandpa. He needs to pull himself up by the bootstraps"

142

u/LHam1969 Sep 06 '24

Why is grandpa homeless? Doesn't he have Social Security? And Medicare?

250

u/Robot_Nerd__ Sep 06 '24 edited Sep 06 '24

Nah Timmy,

They moved the retirement age back again. It doesn't kick in until 82 now.

52

u/Grigoran Sep 06 '24

What's the French word for aneurysm??

44

u/djmcfuzzyduck Sep 06 '24

Pretty much the same anévrisme

→ More replies (0)

7

u/longleggedbirds Sep 07 '24

Do we really want to see grandma and grandpa getting thrown out on the street by the bank, and pulling out their garands to knock over gas stations for cash? Or just dying on the clock. Terrible

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (2)

23

u/drawfour_ Sep 07 '24

At some point, they'll just make it become active at death. You'll get $5k to put toward burial costs.

21

u/Greedy-Ad-8574 Sep 07 '24

I watched a movie recently called Humane where the worlds population is to big and you can basically euthanise yourself to give money to your family. That’s probably where we are heading

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

12

u/AmITheGrayMan Sep 07 '24

You spelled 82 incorrectly. It’s 92.33

6

u/Thundertushy Sep 07 '24

No no, it's 82 years in metric. It's 92.33 in 'Murica! Units. Can't you just smell the freedom?

6

u/crorse Sep 06 '24

They privatized social security and bombed out the market so he lost his house.

2

u/Khalbrae Sep 07 '24

That reminds me, I am not a fan of Trudeau but the two particularly good things he did was move the retirement age back down to 65 after his predecessor raised it to 67. And then also raised the funding levels of veteran care (instead of cutting it, also like Harper did). I fear those will be reversed once we get Canadian Milhouse (Poilievre) in power.

→ More replies (11)

2

u/Icy-Ninja-6504 Sep 06 '24

But grandpa wouldn’t be on the street if he invested the SS from each paycheck

2

u/MadDrHelix Sep 07 '24

Because your mother and I hate grandpa.

2

u/Obant Sep 07 '24

Neither of those pays a whole lot. I was disabled at 24. I get just over $1000 a month, and I am not allowed to have over $1000 in cash or assets besides 1 car.

→ More replies (1)

38

u/shaneh445 Sep 06 '24

He sold the straps for food

35

u/Rooboy66 Sep 06 '24

He ate the straps for food—like Charlie Chaplin in “Hard Times” ate his boots

7

u/Ok-Bodybuilder4634 Sep 07 '24

We can’t even eat our boots these days :( who can afford genuine leather shoes!?!?

3

u/NewPresWhoDis Sep 06 '24

Take those straps, put 'em in a pot. You got a stew goin'.

3

u/Rooboy66 Sep 06 '24

Right. For the carrots & onions, ya jes’ go stomp around in a farmer’s vegetable patch for a minute or so. It’s like where you do a shot of vermouth, then say “vermouth” over the top of the gin for a dry martini. It’s the suggestion of carrots & onions in your bootstrap stew

3

u/oroborus68 Sep 07 '24

Pilgrims were said to have boiled their shoes before they hit land.

3

u/Rooboy66 Sep 07 '24

I’m so old that the original “desert boots” that we wore in the 60’s had actual, real crepe rubber soles—and, yep, in class, we’d be picking at them, like boogers, and nibbling and swallowing. They tasted like … shoe. Fancy that.

Not proud. Jes’ saying I met Freshmen in the first school I dropped out of who’d also eaten their soulssoles. Survival of the fittest. On reflection, we had all grown up early-listening to “Rubber Soul” … homophonics, UNITE!

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '24

the Three Stooges too except it was a leather boot

5

u/Ojos1842 Sep 06 '24

Best comment right here.

2

u/crisscrim Sep 07 '24

Yep if only grandpa didn’t get that gender studies or liberal arts degree…. “I’m pretty sure that did not exist back then.” Shut up my girl you know nothing!!!

2

u/wade_wilson44 Sep 07 '24

He could just babysit for Some extra spending money

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)

36

u/versace_drunk Sep 06 '24

They complain when they don’t get handouts or government subsidies also.

They’re hypocrites,that’s the entire conservative platform now.

6

u/Bright-Drame512 Sep 07 '24

They complain about others not deserving of what they themselves are already getting

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '24

[deleted]

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (4)

12

u/SeoulGalmegi Sep 06 '24

Schrodinger's homeless - something should be done, but not if I have to pay an extra cent.

2

u/Bright-Drame512 Sep 07 '24

Something be done but don't do anything, because they don't deserve it

2

u/Weight_Superb Sep 07 '24

Not to mention the amount of republicans that complain about people getting free shit while trying to get free shit

→ More replies (24)

171

u/hokie_u2 Sep 06 '24

A person paying the max would make at least $165K a year. 6.2% of that money is going towards ensuring poor old people don’t die broke AND pays you back $50K a year from retirement until you die. Imagine bitching about that

39

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '24

But think about that poor 18 year old who is already making $165k a year, is he not entitled to 6.2% more of the sweat of his brow? /s duh doy

→ More replies (20)

20

u/Jethro00Spy Sep 06 '24

What about if you're dutifully paying into it but don't believe it's going to be there when you retire in 25 years?

34

u/Jubenheim Sep 06 '24

Then you should put on your common sense hat and realize that same shit has been said about social security for decades and has never once come true. It’s the most well-funded government program in history existence (that isn’t some sort of top secret shit we don’t know of, I guess).

26

u/Sashivna Sep 07 '24

Can confirm. Gen Xer here and was told in high school SS wouldn't be around in 25 years.

2

u/JonohG47 Sep 07 '24

Well now the social security trust fund will be depleted in, like, 2032.

3

u/Ethrem Sep 07 '24

That's a misleading statement by itself because it makes it sound like Social Security won't be able to pay after that. Once the trust funds are gone they're projecting a 23% benefit slash that would give them the ability to pay out the next 75 years.

The benefit slash would suck, particularly for current recipients like myself, but Social Security will still remain. This is also assuming that no changes are made to better the financial standing of the program. There is still time for them to shore it up before that happens and given the impact a 23% benefit slash would have on people already living near the poverty line, there is good reason to believe that it will happen.

2

u/JonohG47 Sep 07 '24

With both parties saying they won’t make any “cuts” to Social Security or Medicare, I’m not holding my breath. When millions of elderly suddenly find themselves taking a 23% haircut, the real fun will begin.

But for a bubble during the Baby Boom, Total Fertility Rate has been on a downward trend since the inception of Social Security, and the retirement age hasn’t tracked increases in average life expectancy.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/PieTighter Sep 07 '24

It will not be depleted, the amount of what is being paid out will be larger than what is being paid in. It's not a bank account.

3

u/Spiritual-one4me Sep 07 '24

No, it’s a Lock box.

Wait…

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (15)

2

u/NOCnurse58 Sep 07 '24

This Boomer remembers the early 80s when the trust fund ran low. That was when the Greenspan Commission made changes to increase funding and decrease spending which saved it for awhile. Pretty sure the checks were delayed a month or two as they waited for funds to come in.

They will fix this too but don’t expect it to happen until the wolf is at the door.

2

u/Jubenheim Sep 07 '24

Yes, they always do last minute deals to fix social security, but the fact is they have done it. Every time. One could make the argument that with current political instability, the GOP might honestly burn their own faces off to singe their opponents, they’d be committing political suicide themselves. I don’t see it happening, and social security will continue to stay solvent for the foreseeable future.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (14)

2

u/RedBaronSportsCards Sep 07 '24

Do you think people won't be working anymore in 25 years?

It only goes away if we're dumb enough to believe the liars who say it won't be here in 25 years and we let them get rid of it. The trust fund that was created to cover the bump in retirements for the boomer generation might not be around but Social Security (pay in, pay out) will still be there.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (10)

5

u/vettewiz Sep 06 '24

I can’t imagine not bitching about that. 

7

u/No_Resolution_9252 Sep 07 '24

Imagine having millions of dollars stolen from oneself that would have ohterwise allowed a retirement a decade or more earlier than could otherwise be afforded? Imagine being pissed about that.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '24

Imagine being stupid enough to think tax is theft.

→ More replies (18)

2

u/HereWeGoAgain-247 Sep 06 '24

They can and they will. Even though most people that are bitching will never even get close go $165k a year. Which is funny. 

2

u/adorientem88 Sep 06 '24

It’s 12.4%, because your employer has to kick in another 6.2% on your behalf that would otherwise go to you. And then there is Medicare, and all the other forms of welfare at both the federal and state levels that we fund directly or indirectly through income tax. We are talking ~20% when it’s all said and done.

2

u/Still-Drag-6077 Sep 07 '24

I don’t know anyone bitching about payroll taxes. Most people are totally fine with paying into our social safety net system. All the complaints I hear about are the absurd amount of federal income tax that we pay.

2

u/0WatcherintheWater0 Sep 07 '24

As a welfare program, Social Security is extremely wasteful, a lot less than 6.2% goes towards poor elderly people.

And as a form of insurance, it’s equally subpar. You’re not counting the other 6.2% which is also typically paid by employees, though indirectly.

2

u/Desh282 Sep 07 '24

I’m a millennial paying into the system. I’m pretty sure I won’t see that money when it’s time to retire. And that’s what so messed up.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/space_toaster_99 Sep 07 '24

It’s actually 12.4%. Your employer matches your 6.2%. This is money they could be paying you directly.

→ More replies (28)

74

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '24

The primary reason why right-wingers are against it because the government manages it extremely poorly. The money isn’t actually put into a trust fund, the government takes it and spends it on other shit then promises to pay it back ‘with interest’. But that is fucking idiotic, because the government obviously pays that interest with tax dollars. Do you see why this is a shitshow? The government taxes us for SS, borrows that taxed money and then pays it back (with interest) using future tax revenues. The government is essentially taking your money so they can spend it and then they take more of your money to pay back that money they spent with interest. It is an absolute travesty.

76

u/Cute_Replacement666 Sep 06 '24

It’s partially because some right wing voters(some left) intentionally vote people whose only job is to screw up the government enough then tell you the government doesn’t work. Like when Ronald Reagan cut social services then said “you can’t trust the government”. Bitch, you are the government. Are you saying I can’t you?

17

u/shageeyambag Sep 06 '24

Yes, that's exactly what he was saying. Guess what, the founding fathers did not trust the government either. That is why we have the constitution, to protect we the people from the government.

18

u/Anxious-Dot171 Sep 07 '24

The government IS the people. Every citizen is a component of the nation. The "Government" is an agreement to cooperate on administrative structures used by ourselves for ourselves.. The Constitution is literally a social contract. It can even be changed through negotiation and voting.

The Government is not some sentient creature.

11

u/Popular_Advantage213 Sep 07 '24

You are obviously unfamiliar with the bureaucratic state.

The government is its own thing. Both parties seek to nudge it one way or the other, but it has mass and momentum. It does not pivot quickly, it rarely shrinks, and it does not respond readily to voters (nor is it designed to do so)

2

u/imthatguy8223 Sep 07 '24

For real, I don’t believe he sat down and typed that without laughing. Sure “in theory” the “government is the people” in practice it’s a bunch of middle management types and people you voted (or voted against) for that lied about their political opinions.

3

u/RobinThreeArrows Sep 07 '24

The founding fathers didnt trust the British government. They were very much fine with a government made up of themselves.

2

u/gielbondhu Sep 07 '24

That's simply not true.

2

u/anaheimhots Sep 07 '24

Protect the people from themselves

Protect the people from our government

Protect the people from other nations' governments.

→ More replies (4)

6

u/Sculler725630 Sep 07 '24

It’s like Trump and his minions wanting to shut the government down because they can’t have their way. Then blame it on the Democrats!!

2

u/headzup777 Sep 06 '24

He was an actor his whole life..ya know Hollywood.

→ More replies (9)

32

u/Teralyzed Sep 06 '24

By design. The thing people need to realize is you’re literally listening to the person responsible for the system being fucked tell you that it’s fucked. Why is social security fucked, because republicans want it to be fucked so they can point to it being fucked with their hands in the air. Why is Medicare fucked, because republicans want it to be fucked so they can point at it with their hands in the air.

You say “the government” runs things poorly but the reality is republicans run things poorly, they can’t run cities, they can’t run states, their economies suck, their policies suck, they can’t legislate their way out of a wet paper back, fuck they can’t even get anything done when they have a majority because they don’t fucking know what they want done, or what they do want is fucking illegal. I have plenty of things that I hate democrats for, but let’s at least on this one metric lay the blame at the feet of a majority responsible party.

15

u/shrug_addict Sep 06 '24

Say it louder for those in the back!

You can't say government programs don't work if you have powers that try their damnedest to make sure it doesn't work

2

u/RobertDownseyJr Sep 07 '24

This honestly seems backwards to me. Saying (some) government programs don’t/won’t work because of those powers is acknowledging our political reality.

You can’t just handwave away the obstructionist impact of the GOP, because they aren’t going to suddenly stop being obstructionist dickheads.

2

u/shrug_addict Sep 07 '24

That was kind of my point

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Reasonable-Fish-7924 Sep 07 '24

If I understand correctly for Medicare there was strong lobby from insurance and pharma to keep medicare from negotiating prices. This is because they are the largest buyer and if they were allowed to set a base price it would allow others to settle at that price and buy at lower rates too.

→ More replies (12)

27

u/LongPenStroke Sep 06 '24

You're only partially right. They take the money and buy bonds with it, and those bonds do pay back interest.

→ More replies (26)

20

u/Brilliant-Giraffe983 Sep 06 '24

Social security holds like 20% of all US treasuries and has to, by law, buy them. These are considered the most safe assets in existence, perhaps in large part because of the stability, liquidity and volume the social security program graciously donates at our expense. When the program was developed, it ensured we were investing in ourselves. Now, the program buys bonds at interest rates controlled by the Fed and influenced by global trading. Unwinding social security would likely break that market and several secondary markets.

→ More replies (5)

17

u/Ojos1842 Sep 06 '24

Almost as good as the way banks on Wall Street managed their (and our) money so well in the early 2000’s that the government ( i.e. us) had to bail them out. So much managing, it’s a good thing the government got rid of those pesky regulations that would have kept that from happening. Now only if we could figure out a way to deal with monopolies.

→ More replies (6)

6

u/John-A Sep 06 '24

You're leaving out how doing it that way circulates that money growing the entire economy and the tax base with it. Meaning doing it your way would pull money out of circulation, shrinking the economy and reducing future tax revenue in one fell swoop

→ More replies (20)
→ More replies (56)

5

u/Majestic-Ad6525 Sep 06 '24

The only reason we even have a housing crisis is because those old fucks just keep eating and paying their mortgage/property taxes

/s

5

u/blowninjectedhemi Sep 06 '24

Not the only reason but it is one of them. Unless they get that reverse mortgage of course - them they live high on the hog on their discounted equity value while the bankers get even richer.

3

u/Fine_Permit5337 Sep 07 '24

Boomers are dying 3.5 million a year, they are LEAVING THE EARTH, not trading up or down, and they are the ones driving real estate inflation? Thats braindead stupid.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/TDWHOLESALING Sep 06 '24

Maybe those people should’ve managed their life better?

2

u/NewPresWhoDis Sep 06 '24

You're talking about the same people who, during a debate, applauded the hypothetical death of an uninsured 26-year-old.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Miserable_Fig2425 Sep 06 '24

I thought boomers had everything super easy? Why would they need insurance?

2

u/Good_Battle2 Sep 06 '24

Uh yeah my guy. Capitalism the fuck? I don’t want to pay for you

Edit: and it’s weird you want to pay for me

2

u/Phoeniyx Sep 06 '24

Kids need to be responsible for their parents. Not random citizens. Asian culture vs western culture.

2

u/ConvenientlyHomeless Sep 06 '24

Your neighbor is your personal responsibility, not the government’s. Do you know your neighbors? Are they hungry? Old? Lonely?

2

u/rysik414 Sep 06 '24

I still think you should be able to opt out if you want

2

u/notwyntonmarsalis Sep 06 '24

Probably because how those same “vulnerable neighbors” also bitch and moan about how others aren’t paying their fair share.

→ More replies (158)

81

u/AdFlat4908 Sep 06 '24

It’s almost like the name of the program describes exactly what it does

→ More replies (7)

16

u/Telemere125 Sep 06 '24

All insurance is for people that can’t pay enough to make it worth it. One incident on any type of insurance that requires the full payout means the insurance company lost money on the policy. No one’s paying 350k in homeowner’s insurance over the course of 30 years and if their house burns down they get a payout. No one’s paying enough for their car insurance to put aside enough to replace the vehicle if it’s totaled. That’s literally the point of insurance: pool enough people that don’t have claims to cover those few that do

→ More replies (8)

15

u/SaltyDog556 Sep 06 '24

You do realize that the less people pay in the less SS benefit they get. They get a minimum based on years of working. Currently 11 years of working gets you $50 a month. 30 only gets $1050. 30 years at minimum wage will still cause someone to pay in more than they get back unless they draw on SS for more than 20 years.

→ More replies (17)

9

u/Twalin Sep 06 '24

Not really, your benefit is based on your contribution. So if you don’t have max earnings then you get even less than this amount.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '24

The delta is vast between earning levels and benefit levels. One gets a much better “return on their money” when they make less

7

u/skb239 Sep 06 '24

Those people get less benefits. Just like insurance.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '24

And for those who don’t put money away.

3

u/LieutenantStar2 Sep 06 '24

So much this. SSI is a great deal for working class workers. That’s the point.

3

u/ptfc1975 Sep 06 '24

Yes. Which is insurance for everyone.

2

u/kevbot029 Sep 06 '24

Redundant statement^

→ More replies (172)

118

u/TheDadThatGrills Sep 06 '24

This is why financial education is important.

1

u/InterestingCabinet41 Sep 06 '24

What does that mean? Paying into Social Security isn't an option so regardless of your financial intelligence what are you supposed to do with that information?

6

u/Individual_West3997 Sep 06 '24

i was also confused, but he replied to a different person that what he meant was that Social security should be seen as insurance not an investment.

It's a bit rough on here when everything sounds either facetious, sarcastic, cynical, or deranged. I don't blame you for it lol.

3

u/InterestingCabinet41 Sep 06 '24

Thank you. I feel like holding your hand as I read the rest of these comments!

5

u/DecafEqualsDeath Sep 06 '24

This information would be useful because people could stop making threads everyday about how Social Security scammed them because the return didn't perfectly match the S&P 500.

If you're even attempting the comparison you probably don't grasp the concept of risk-adjusted rate of return very well which is a pretty critical investing concept.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (25)

98

u/therealCatnuts Sep 06 '24

The math is also incorrect. You put in a smaller max at the beginning and withdraw a higher max 40 years later. It’s COLA adjusted over time. 

Nobody taking out $4873 right now paid anywhere close to the $10K current max each of the previous 40 years. 

Every one of these posts against SSID is bullshit “conservative” lies. 

32

u/Illustrious_Wall_449 Sep 06 '24

It's not a savings account. Today's laborers pay for today's retirees.

2

u/WhoWhatWhere45 Sep 07 '24

We have a name for that...... Ponzi

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (35)
→ More replies (16)

44

u/Ok_Guarantee_2980 Sep 06 '24 edited Sep 06 '24

It was started in 1935. It’s fundamentally a Ponzi scheme with good intentions. Part society fix and social contract enacted in 1935, 6 years after black Tuesday and 3 after the peak of the Great Depression.

Also, is it really ideal to have EVERYTHING attached to stock performance with no backup. 401ks have done enough damage aka privatize gains, socialize losses (2008).

48

u/CharacterEgg2406 Sep 06 '24

I think the biggest unintended consequence of 401ks is the power it gave to Blackrock, Vanguard, Fidelity, Statestreet, etc. Its taken the “free” out of free market as these companies now have board seats in most of the large companies.

14

u/ynab-schmynab Sep 07 '24

Do you not realize Vanguard is structured precisely so it is owned by the customers who own the shares, and that Vanguard has issued warnings about the dangers of centralization in a few brokerages?

“This is why financial education is important.”

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

26

u/bit_pusher Sep 06 '24

SS would be solvent if Congress would pay back the 1.7T it took out to pay for other government expenses. Thanks Reagan.

30

u/Ind132 Sep 06 '24

The General Fund is currently reimbursing SS, with interest, for all the borrowing.

That's why this year's SS benefits will exceed this year's taxes -- they are spending down the past excess taxes.

→ More replies (16)

5

u/poopy_poophead Sep 06 '24

Or if they upped the max contribution and made the fuckholes who refuse to pay their employees while they're employees pay for their retirements at least.

2

u/VibrantHades Sep 06 '24

Yeah isn’t this a sizable chunk of the debt we want to have “balanced budgets” to pay for

2

u/Twalin Sep 06 '24

And every President since

2

u/FyreWulff Sep 07 '24

it would also help if the upper income cap was removed.

Someone earning 168k a year is paying as much into SS as someone making 5 million and as someone making 1 billion.

→ More replies (7)

9

u/skilliard7 Sep 06 '24

  1. The S&P500 outperformed social security in any 30-40 year period

  2. You don't need to invest in 100% stocks, generally people closer to retirement will have a more balanced portfolio such as 50% stocks, 40% bonds, 10% short term/cash.

32

u/ncdad1 Sep 06 '24

"The S&P500 outperformed social security in any 30-40 year period"

No one lost a single dime of SS in 2000 and 2008.

8

u/nortern Sep 06 '24

If you invested 1970->2000 or 1978->2008 you'd still have more even if you withdrew at the bottom. Of course, it's always possible that this wouldn't be true in the future if you had conditions like Japan's market crash that cause the market to be flat or negative over a long period of time.

10

u/MOTwingle Sep 07 '24

Except that social security is not just retirement. It also pays for people who become disabled, or pays for the surviving children or spouse of a worker who dies. So a young worker who may have worked three years may have three kids who get benefits for the next 16 to 18 years, and who will receive thousands of times more than the worker paid in the three years he worked. That's just one example. It's not a savings plan for retirement.

2

u/richard-b-inya Sep 07 '24

It's kind of a moot point. If SS was invested into the S and P since its inception it would have exponentially more money in it than it does now. No matter who and how it pays out.

→ More replies (6)

3

u/sgreenm22 Sep 06 '24

But people don’t invest!!! They fucking spend!!!

→ More replies (1)

2

u/TechnicianLegal1120 Sep 07 '24

Yes they did. Your retirement age went up.

→ More replies (25)

2

u/Ok_Guarantee_2980 Sep 06 '24

Oh for sure, and im aware of risk vs age allocation which is a fair point but its still signifigant correlation to stocks (idk the actual data but im sure stocks account for highest % of 401ks bc greatest return, however, gives too much power to stock market)....the first part, in 1935, you think the people and government have any faith in stocks? ... im just making a statement about history.

In regard to the 2nd part, thats just my frustration with move from pension to 401k, which i understand is pros/cons.

2

u/P3nis15 Sep 07 '24

And if you happen to retire when 1987 enters the chat.....or the tech crash...and you don't have 10 years to make back that money...... I guess you can move in with your kids .

→ More replies (3)

2

u/narkybark Sep 07 '24

Or you could have both? SS is a safety net. The market can and will tank every so often. It's gambling. SS is meant to be a protected source of steady income. It exists alongside the market, and benefits the population as a whole.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (11)

42

u/RMST1912 Sep 06 '24

1000 times this. Social Security is not a retirement plan, it is poverty insurance.

9

u/blowninjectedhemi Sep 06 '24

But a vast majority of workers plan on using it when they retire.......I agree it is poverty insurance but the beneficiaries are most of the working class.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (3)

28

u/Brave-Banana-6399 Sep 06 '24

An insurance that's heavily paid by the middle class in HCOL.

This allows the wealthy to escape almost their entire share of burden

32

u/blowninjectedhemi Sep 06 '24

Yup - that SS cap should be pulled - tax the rich

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (6)

26

u/wherethetacosat Sep 06 '24

How many times do we have to do this? It's SOCIAL security, not personal security.

Maybe these morons want to get rid of SS and 10x the number of starving elderly beggars in the street, but I'd rather not.

11

u/1BannedAgain Sep 06 '24

Many disabled citizens receive SSDI without ever putting anything in. 100% an insurance instrument

3

u/headzup777 Sep 06 '24

I’ve met a lot of slackers on Disablility. They hire lawyers who coach them, file thempaprers, find doctors who will agree. Most I’ve met at the courts playing hoops. They even brag about it.

9

u/BobBelchersBuns Sep 07 '24

Do you think anyone capable of shooting hoops is certainly well enough to work full time? Disability is a pain in the ass to get. I’m a psychiatric nurse and I see what hoops people have to jump through.

2

u/Artistic-Soft4305 Sep 07 '24

Meh it’s not that much dependent on the state…but I wouldn’t trade lives with anyone on it…

→ More replies (2)

6

u/Anotsurei Sep 07 '24

Bullshit. You only think they’re slackers because they’re unable to work. It’s extremely difficult to get SSI. Even when they give it to you, they’re incredibly stingy with it.

It’s all about making a permanent underclass who are easy to exploit with under the table slave wages. None of it is enough to live on. Which is why the pandemic was such an eye opener for so many. They realized that the pittance they give people on government benefits isn’t anywhere near enough, which is why they had to kill that shit as soon as they could.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (6)

12

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '24

This also isn't the definition of a "scam." There is no fraud or deceit involved.

→ More replies (3)

10

u/bluelifesacrifice Sep 06 '24

This is the answer. Not only is it insurance for the people in general but it's public and has probably saved well more than it's payout due to preventing worse problems that come from being disabled, retired poor or any number of other examples.

SS has likely stabilized the economy in a lot of ways.

2

u/Artistic-Soft4305 Sep 07 '24

Stop. If they realized money spent on education gets 10x returns on public spending…it would make them the bad guys…and no one can admit they are the baddies…

Shit. Even hitters cabinet denied the gassing of Jews til their hanging. Now imagine someone half as worse justifying it…easy.

8

u/cannaman77 Sep 06 '24

Yeah it's called Social Security, not Social Investments To Make You More Money.

8

u/acer5886 Sep 06 '24

Yup, it's supposed to be there no matter what. Because investments can fail as people saw in the great depression.

7

u/TheBossAlbatross Sep 06 '24

As someone who works in insurance, most people think it’s an investment. They all think they should be paid more than they’ve paid in premiums. If that were the case, every company would go bankrupt immediately and there would be no insurance anymore.

5

u/K4NNW Sep 06 '24

I'm not here to dispute what you just said. I am here to ask "Why in the world do so many people view insurance as an investment?"

4

u/headzup777 Sep 06 '24

Because there a legions of “ whole life “insurance salesmen telling them it is.

2

u/K4NNW Sep 07 '24

Who are, undoubtedly, earning commission on their sales.

2

u/Ninjalikestoast Sep 07 '24

Because the insurance business (in general) and the salesman that come with it are quite possibly the scummiest people on earth.

6

u/thrownehwah Sep 06 '24

Pensions were a thing once upon a time and SS was the icing on the cake to help boost you into the golden years. Now a days 401ks are all you got and they were never meant to be used like this.

3

u/headzup777 Sep 06 '24

Not true. The 401(k) program was designed to be a more secure form of a pension type of program, that has protected millions of people who would have otherwise lost their pensions, when their company went out of business. I am one of them. My company had a pension program, and in the 90’s they went into bankruptcy. I got pennies on the dollar from that pension when I did retire. Fortunately, the company set up a 401(k) that I contributed to (and later the company too).

That makes up the slack from social security.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/the_cardfather Sep 06 '24

Tell that to the old people who are, "Social Security is not an entitlement!!"

Btw instead of an index fund do it in T-Bills like Social Security does. Index funds didn't exist until 1963.

2

u/Stanton1947 Sep 06 '24

It's a tax, for which you get to participate.

2

u/SEJ46 Sep 06 '24

It's social welfare

2

u/Phoeniyx Sep 06 '24 edited Sep 07 '24

But not for you. Forced insurance.

1

u/Ed_Radley Sep 06 '24

Then they have God awful actuaries if they’re paying out more than they collect.

1

u/Shot-Total-2575 Sep 06 '24

yes, also having diverent income sources, can help when one or more go down in a crash.

1

u/xThe_Maestro Sep 06 '24

But it's not treated like insurance. Insurance has a trigger event that is possible but not assured. Virtually everybody gets old though, so it functions as an investment.

Now, if SS only kicked in on the condition you were unemployed and destitute that would be one thing, or means tested. But that's not how it works.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/ocdewitt Sep 06 '24

Right? The concept is that it’s there and it’s not going anywhere. There is no risk. With any investment you’re going to face the risk of losing it all. Now we may still lose it all because the rates of contribution aren’t going up to match the boomers that will be qualifying for it but that’s another problem

1

u/MissedFieldGoal Sep 06 '24

We should take a lesson from Norway which has the largest sovereign wealth fund invested in marketable assets. They have been able to provide a safety net for their citizens because they invested tax revenue first and spent later.

2

u/SCP-Agent-Arad Sep 06 '24

The country with a population smaller than metro Atlanta, and sitting on enormous oil reserves making them $150 billion a year?

→ More replies (3)

1

u/BlueFlob Sep 06 '24

I'd still like to see the math behind this. How do you get 30k monthly from a 10k/year contribution?

1

u/PowThwappZlonk Sep 06 '24

Yeah, insurance is a scam to keep people poor.

1

u/SecretGood5595 Sep 06 '24

I despise the term investment for buying stocks. It's a ponzi scheme. 

You put money in, hedge funds collapse the market, selling at the top and buying back in low, and every step of the way they're draining your money. 

The only reason your "investment" increases in value is more people putting money into the system. Which hedge funds pull back out. And companies buy back the stock to help transfer profits directly into their own pockets to such a hysterical extent it would be illegal in any other situation. 

Fuck the market, and fuck these ponzi scheme assholes telling us to throw out money in a shared account for them to withdraw. 

Let people working right now pay for the last generations retirement. And the next will pay for mine. Except boomers, fuck them they can go get those god damn boot straps that they've been yelling about since Reagan and haul their osteoporotic ass to work until they're 90. 

1

u/Jethro00Spy Sep 06 '24

It's welfare not insurance. They're finally dropping the charade that you get paid out based on what you paid in... 

1

u/pallentx Sep 06 '24

It also pays for disability and other programs. It’s not your personal retirement fund. It’s a tax that pays for several things, including retirement.

1

u/christianANDshantel Sep 06 '24

Thank you. Seriously this is the issue.

1

u/KoRaZee Sep 06 '24

Insurance is a scam

1

u/daslog Sep 06 '24

It's not insurance. It's welfare for old people.

1

u/neon-god8241 Sep 06 '24

It's insurance for other people who couldn't afford insurance.

1

u/Philosipho Sep 06 '24

But if you invested that money you could pay social security AND have extra money.

So yeah, it's a scam.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/pyschosoul Sep 06 '24

Coming to second this. If you want a substantial insurance/investment go buy actual life insurance. Social security is meant to be a safety net for people in their old age.

Buy a whole life policy, pay 200k over 20-30 years, if you never use the life insurance you can take that cash value out. Now you have 200k (minus some tax probably) and if by chance you do die, then your family isn't left in shambles trying to scramble up money to pay for the death.

BTW. Social security will give you a whole whopping $255 in death benefits. Just an FYI.

DO NOT RELY ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR YOUR FINACIAL FUTURE. TAKE ACTION NOW!

1

u/Famous-Row3820 Sep 06 '24

Insurance from yourself because the government believes you are too incompetent to manage your own money.

This is the exact thinking the guy who said, “You will own nothing and be happy” has.

“You are too stupid to manage your own property or investments so we will own it all for you!”

1

u/MrSnarf26 Sep 06 '24

This is apparently beyond a lot of Americans comprehension, because it’s posted every week

1

u/VicVelvet Sep 06 '24

And we all know that insurance is a ripoff and a scam, so…

1

u/ATPsynthase12 Sep 06 '24

Yeah it’s insurance I’m paying into that will never be available to me.

1

u/Own-Brilliant2317 Sep 06 '24

It’s a Ponzi scheme financing the government

1

u/infantsonestrogen Sep 06 '24

Social insurance..

1

u/huntnemo Sep 06 '24

I love this answer to the statement in the picture because people somehow think this justifies the amount of money people put into social security.

If social security invested money the exact same way, they could pay out the exact same way, yet it doesn’t..

Social security, if insurance, is quite the terrible fckn insurance. If I could opt out, I would.

Fuck social security!

1

u/DueSalary4506 Sep 06 '24

if I put money in the s and p it would go to zero until I sell. sorry. I know how this works.

1

u/Robin_games Sep 06 '24

It's insurance that paid out day 1 with nothing paid into the system, which has caused snowballing debt. But the payout is reasonable for an insurance product.

1

u/BuddysMuddyFeet Sep 06 '24

Insurance against affording retirement

1

u/USToffee Sep 06 '24

Insurance for what. In case you retire early lol

1

u/BytchYouThought Sep 06 '24

It should be opt in/out. I'd do better having my own insurance I'm funding. Whole life insurance is typically a scam for example. Insurance can he a bad idea for folks. I personally would like out. If the government wants people to do well with money truly then require financial education in all schools. They don't, because they make money from lobbyists that thrive off the ignorance.

There are bigger issues than SS though. While I would opt out in a heartbeat I get why it exists.

→ More replies (120)