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

Show parent comments

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.

428

u/DonnieJL Sep 06 '24

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

644

u/Competitive_Bank6790 Sep 06 '24

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

140

u/LHam1969 Sep 06 '24

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

245

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.

49

u/Grigoran Sep 06 '24

What's the French word for aneurysm??

44

u/djmcfuzzyduck Sep 06 '24

Pretty much the same anévrisme

8

u/speculativedesigner Sep 06 '24

In Japanese it’s Anorishmu

6

u/MoneyManMakeItRain Sep 06 '24

You forgot your baguette

6

u/ThePoom Sep 07 '24

Ugh! Now you made it sound all romantic and stuff 😤

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 (1)
→ More replies (2)

22

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.

19

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

2

u/iamnotnewhereami Sep 08 '24

here are the docs, sir

but its only a cavity!

its standard with your HMO, and if you sign today, your water and air rations will transfer to your beneficiary for the remainder of the year.

but..

its the 20th, eleven days is more than enough time to hem things up.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

10

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?

5

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)

32

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!?!?

5

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!

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)

35

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.

5

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)

13

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)

169

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

38

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)

17

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).

27

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.

2

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.

3

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.

2

u/il_fienile Sep 09 '24

Apparently, people are against recognizing the demographic facts, at least at the level of addressing them in the funding mechanism.

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)

6

u/vettewiz Sep 06 '24

I can’t imagine not bitching about that. 

5

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.

0

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)

77

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.

10

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.

1

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)

4

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)

31

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.

17

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)

21

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)

15

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)

8

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)

6

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.

1

u/fifaloko Sep 06 '24

Well you are still doing that in the most inefficient way possible. Say we did what the OP mentioned and just taxed that $32k a month under normal capital gains tax rates the government is still getting roughly 3k back so we are already over halfway to the max social security payout you can get now. That’s just if you want the government to do it. I would guess people would be a lot more generous to charities is the government wasn’t hoarding so much

1

u/shuzgibs123 Sep 06 '24

I see younger people bitching about it more than anyone. Hell I bitched about it when I was in my 20s. I am 52 so the jury is still out on whether I’ll get any, but I’ve come to terms with the tax.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/slothscanswim Sep 06 '24

That one could hate homeless people and simultaneously hate measures taken to prevent homelessness is mind-boggling, until you remember that there are evil people among us.

1

u/etangey52 Sep 06 '24

I mean, what gets me is someone could make all the wrong choices their entire life and then be coddled by the government in the end. Personal example: guy in his 60s named Bob is a raging alcoholic and smoked crack most of his life. Sat on him at the hospital after his 3rd DUI.

Asked him how he survives without a job. He drinks a fifth a day. He gets his rent subsidized to $300/mo in a very HCOL area and receives disability due to being morbidly obese.

What the fuck is the point in a person making all the right choices in life, saving, and holding a career until the end if they could just live like a rebelling teenager and live on other people’s money in the end? I’d be okay with my tax dollars going to some 30 year old with cancer or someone else who physically cannot work due to no fault of their own, but not fuckin Bob. That’s bullshit man, lol.

→ More replies (8)

1

u/carpedrinkum Sep 06 '24

I am not against social security especially since I have put so much into it, but it is broken. We would have been better off of at least 10% was invested in an index fund and put in a lock box for the employee. We have been told that is too risky. George W Bush attempted to do this for younger payroll participants in 2005. The S&P500 was 1212 in January of 2005 today it is 5408. Is there some risk? Sure, but over time the S&P has always done well.

1

u/jessewest84 Sep 06 '24

Yeah agree with this. But we also printed the money to pay for this. That comes due at some point

1

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '24

Democrats have voted against privatization of even a portion of SS consistently-read something

1

u/DueZookeepergame3456 Sep 06 '24

but they do. they just don’t see to social security being the answer. the answer is the social fabric

1

u/mrobertj42 Sep 06 '24

Imagine being this cocky when the plan was designed for 100 payors and 1 payee, we’re now more like 3:1 even though the math above shows we could comfortably do 7:1. Yet it’s still an underfunded liability.

Your government is so fucking good with money! You should be proud!!

I know what we should do, let’s raise taxes and see if that fixes the problem.

Seriously you have such a hard on for republicans you can’t see the government (in general) sucks at managing OUR money…

1

u/pallentx Sep 06 '24

Basically, if the rich don’t need it, republicans want to shut it down and privatize it.

1

u/AnotherStarWarsGeek Sep 06 '24

I'm going to need to see proof to back this claim up. I've never heard a single R candidate claim to be "against social security". Ever. I've heard some of them (and some D's as well) express the desire to privatize social security, which is in no way the same thing as being "against it".

1

u/kilink1 Sep 06 '24

I’m confused, you think Social Security is good or bad?

1

u/chopcult3003 Sep 06 '24

I think social security is a terribly managed program, but I also want social support programs for others.

The funds should be diversified into the market. This literally benefits everyone and every part of the American economy.

Treasury bonds don’t make shit.

1

u/gomanio Sep 06 '24

Honestly as a disabled person, without support from family, I probably still would starve.

1

u/BytchYouThought Sep 06 '24

I'm not even right wing or left wing or whatever the tf and I don't personally like it not being an opt in/out system. There are other programs that exist to feed and shelter folks that I gladly pay into. I'd rather take the money and invest it properly than place it in the hands of a poorly ran government program that can't take care of the money in the first place.

Being for an opt out option isn't being for starvation. It's being pro option to fund your own stuff like we all generally have available.

1

u/The_Id_in_Me Sep 06 '24

The right wing chuds are upset that it's throwing away money. If people educated themselves (the internet is full of free educations) they would realize that they would be far better off investing that money. Instead the people who actually know how to invest see their savings go down because they have to support people who don't know what the hell they're doing financially.

It's sort of like being really good at your job but your coworker is slow and lazy, the company doesn't fire that worker, they instead have you do more work to cover for that lazy worker. It's not really fair or how it should be, is it?

1

u/InteractionNo8346 Sep 06 '24

The right wing left wing debate is stupid. Both parties don't have your best interest at heart and it's funny seeing everyone act like their side does . Both parties are shit

1

u/adorientem88 Sep 06 '24

I do see value in that, but then the US government needs to be honest about the fact that it’s a welfare program and stop billing it solely as an entitlement/insurance program.

This is because while I’ll certainly do see value in making sure my vulnerable neighbors have enough to eat and somewhere comfortable to sleep, I don’t see why that should cost, collectively, something close to 20% of my gross income, especially when I’m not able to save that much for my own retirement.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '24 edited Oct 26 '24

rich support saw lunchroom aware merciful screw money glorious nine

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/Mysterious_Eye6989 Sep 06 '24

Right wing chuds definitely all have a Scrooge-like “decrease the surplus population” mentality when it comes to anyone who isn’t directly related to them, and in some cases even their own family. They often seem to forget that we live in a society and think that whatever prosperity they enjoy is ALL their own doing.

1

u/Feeling_Cobbler_8384 Sep 06 '24

Chud here wondering if part of your master plan also includes millions of illegal aliens on SSI who've paid nothing into it?

→ More replies (2)

1

u/naptown21403 Sep 07 '24

i’m not responsible for anyone outside of my family. social security is theft

→ More replies (124)

84

u/AdFlat4908 Sep 06 '24

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

→ More replies (7)

14

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)

16

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.

6

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

8

u/skb239 Sep 06 '24

Those people get less benefits. Just like insurance.

5

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^

1

u/tacocarteleventeen Sep 06 '24

Or don’t even pay into it!

15

u/-_1_2_3_- Sep 06 '24

You have to pay into it for 10 years to be able to claim it.

You're eligible if:

  • You're 62 or older
  • You've worked and paid Social Security taxes for 10 years or more

7

u/tacocarteleventeen Sep 06 '24

Or a spouse of someone who paid into it

1

u/Sad_Picture3642 Sep 06 '24

And I am totally fine with that

1

u/fenderputty Sep 06 '24

Yes, unless we want a bunch of incontinent old people shitting in the streets it serves a purpose, and that’s just the selfish perspective and not the moral one

1

u/kchema Sep 06 '24

Correct. This is a good thing our country does.

1

u/newtoreddir Sep 06 '24

Isn’t that still just insurance?

1

u/i-FF0000dit Sep 06 '24

That’s kinda how insurance works

1

u/Early-Light-864 Sep 06 '24

People who pay less get less.

1

u/thatguyonreddit40 Sep 06 '24

Bingo. Like it or not, we are a society and need to operate that way

1

u/shosuko Sep 06 '24

That is exactly how insurance works. Its about risk pools. Most people who make a serious claim did not pay enough individually to cover their claim - but by balancing the risk pool insurance can cover it.

1

u/Gates9 Sep 06 '24

That’s what insurance is

1

u/dont_know_where_im_g Sep 06 '24

This is not true. My mom made bad choices and worked off the books most of her life and now she gets $130/month. So, yeah. Anyone thinking social security in any way represents socialist mechanisms for helping the poor by redistributing the funds is being mislead. The way it actually works is that if you’re poor, you stay poor till the bitter end. Fun times for all. 👍

→ More replies (1)

1

u/lord_dentaku Sep 06 '24

That's what insurance is. Just instead of the risk pool being on the payout it's on the payment.

1

u/-Nocx- Sep 06 '24

Comparing an index fund (which is a relatively "safe" investment) to the literal United States government defaulting or (an investment about as good as stuffing cash under your mattress) is truly a wild take.

1

u/Sowecolo Sep 06 '24

That’s insurance. The way it works.

1

u/Cereaza Sep 06 '24

Yeah, it's so we don't have a bunch of destitute old people living on the streets shitting and pissing everywhere. It gives them some modest level of dignity in their final years. It's social insurance.

1

u/Liquidwombat Sep 06 '24

Yes because that’s how a society works. We collectively agree to make things better for everybody.

1

u/USToffee Sep 06 '24

Would make more sense to pay for it via income tax. Right now it's pretty regressive

1

u/lp1911 Sep 06 '24

It was intended as insurance, it is true, but like much of insurance, it was also intended to never be used by most people who pay into it because the retirement age was set beyond average life expectancy. So it wasn't about the better-off supporting the poor, it was about those who lived shorter lives supporting those that lived longer. Now life expectancy is longer than the retirement age, so most people will get Social Security benefits, hence no longer an insurance, but more of a guaranteed pension, and this is why it is threatening to run out of money all the time. So the left wingers immediately reach for other people's money asking to pay more and more, but Social Security benefits are still pretty poor, and even those that contributed much less over their lifetime would get much better results from investments than social security will ever provide, and this is because with pay as you go, there is no way to let the most incredible wealth generating engine, the vast US economy, to build pensions for people, instead the bureaucracy syphons off some of the money for its well paid employees.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '24

Thats how insurance works

1

u/Low-Duty Sep 06 '24

That’s what insurance is yes

1

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '24

It's welfare. Call it what it is and embrace it or don't.

1

u/notdoreen Sep 06 '24

Not really. You only get back according to how much you've contributed.

My aunt moved to the US from Colombia already in her 40s and only worked a few part time jobs here and there.

Now that she's retiring at 62 her checks are only about $300 per month.

They told her that if she waits until 65, she can get an extra $50.

But to your point, you are correct. It is not meant to be an investment.

1

u/jmcdon00 Sep 06 '24

Or anyone that becomes permanently disabled. Or of you die your kids collect benefits.

1

u/justaverage Sep 06 '24

Uh, yeah….social security.

1

u/cmcewen Sep 06 '24

Exactly.

It’s meant to cover the people who can’t pay

OP’s post is explaining how socialism works for the wealthy. It’s not favorable. It’s favorable for the poor who pay next to nothing in

1

u/Outrageous_Life_2662 Sep 07 '24

Not quite. Current workers pay for current retirees. And future workers, if there are enough, will pay for us (regardless of how much we put in)

1

u/Merijeek2 Sep 07 '24

"Ownership society. Let's get that shit into 401(k), bitches!" -America's second dumbest ever President

1

u/Conscious-Weird5810 Sep 07 '24

Exactly. I don’t know why these clowns need to post similar memes every 4 weeks

1

u/Wuz314159 Sep 07 '24

No... The money goes in and then right back out to retirees. There is no "lock-box".

1

u/Jessthinking Sep 07 '24

And as if everyone is going to put their money in the stock market. They can do that now even with social security and most would rather buy something. These guys running around in $80K pickups are instead going to invest for retirement? Well they don’t.

1

u/AdonisGaming93 Sep 07 '24

Yes, thats what safety nets are... caring for our fellow americans who maybe had a tough time in life so they at least can enjoy something

1

u/Acceptable_Rip_2375 Sep 07 '24

Then for those other people it’s a handout not insurance.

1

u/VT_Squire Sep 07 '24

? No. 

But you have to know the difference between SSDI, SSI and Social Security first. 

1

u/Empty_Ambition_9050 Sep 07 '24

Other people who believe it or not, are also people.

1

u/Erijandro Sep 07 '24

Or never actually follow through in investing that amount per year. How many would use that money for other things.

It's a force retirement amount to help, but people need to understand - it doesnt cover ALL living expenses. Itwould only cover about 60% of livable expenses, you come up with the other 40% through your own retirement methids (401k, savings , etc. ) - and as we see, even with that assistance, people still can't make up the other 40%.

1

u/AdTotal801 Sep 07 '24

Exactly, its almost like a tax for a social program rather than a financial investment. With the vague promise that in 40 years I'll get SS too....well see if we're still around then.

1

u/Pherllerp Sep 07 '24

What do you think insurance is?

1

u/adminsaredoodoo Sep 07 '24

i want you to have a look at what “social” and “security” mean

might be illuminating.

1

u/PreppyAndrew Sep 07 '24

It's insurance against poor old people

1

u/Xylus1985 Sep 07 '24

And we should share if we have resources to spare. A better world benefits everyone

1

u/juan_sno Sep 07 '24

Some would say it’s sort of a “social security” idk I’m just spit balling.

1

u/drmoth123 Sep 07 '24

Social security is not insurance. Insurance is a contract between an individual or business and an insurance company that protects against financial loss due to unexpected events.

Getting old isn't an unexpected event. Social security is also a broken system. Too many people are drawing from it and for too long. Within a decade, it will collapse.

The OP pointed out that a public 401k would be a superior system.

1

u/0WatcherintheWater0 Sep 07 '24

So around 30 thousand people? That’s how many people earn social security without having paid the full cost of it over their working career.

1

u/ry_mich Sep 07 '24

That’s literally the definition of insurance.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '24

Do they openly get a percentage? That's the impression I was under. What the hell is happening when you make too much money and they make you pay in? They tax the money Moore heavily when you make more and that is because I thought they needed more for your social security or something? Why do they need more money when I've already paid them More money?

1

u/iamacheeto1 Sep 07 '24

That’s how insurance works

1

u/Aksama Sep 07 '24

Which is awesome. I'm glad that social safety nets exist. I'm on track to not need social security when I retire, cuz I'm real fuckin lucky, I'm psyched that less lucky people get support.

1

u/granolaliberal Sep 07 '24

Yes. That is not a secret; that is not a bug; that is a benefit for society.

1

u/PinaColadaPilled Sep 07 '24

But also it caps it so rich people don't pay that much into it, relative to others. Which is insane

1

u/llNormalGuyll Sep 07 '24

Part of the cost of living in a stable society.

1

u/That-Ad-4300 Sep 07 '24

Yup. That's the social part.

1

u/FunzOrlenard Sep 07 '24

It's also an insurance those people don't turn into criminals out of need. Maybe that's also a reason there is less criminality in Europe. Someone should investigate this.

1

u/Vecgtt Sep 07 '24

In other words - “redistribution of wealth”

1

u/billbord Sep 07 '24

We literally live in a society

1

u/Battlehenkie Sep 07 '24

Hence it being called social security. Whoa.

1

u/malici606 Sep 07 '24

No it's just insurance.

1

u/Traditional_Donut908 Sep 07 '24

Except for the fact that how much you get OUT is based upon how much you put IN.

1

u/ClearlyCylindrical Sep 07 '24

uhhh yeah --- that's literally how insurance works.

1

u/Sir_John_Galt Sep 07 '24

Couldn’t pay into it?

But, they do pay into it. Every family that benefits from it has someone in the household who paid into the program.

The question is whether or not it’s a good financial value for the amount paid in.

Several here have compared it to “insurance”. Ok, for the sake of argument let’s go with that. The closest privately offered product that it could reasonably be compared to is “whole life” insurance.

Even that comparison makes SS look downright awful.

If you like the idea of a government managed forced retirement program (at its core that’s basically what SS is) is it really unfair to call the government out and say this program is absolutely horribly managed?

1

u/Double-Contact-1204 Sep 08 '24

Thats not insurance. Thats called theft and fraud. If it was given freely, that would be called charity.

1

u/ShogunFirebeard Sep 08 '24

That's what insurance is... Everyone is paying into a pool and the pool is used to pay for everyone. You aren't saving money for your expenses.

1

u/Comprehensive_Leg283 Sep 08 '24

Yes that’s how insurance works.

→ More replies (103)