Does it take into account how much you had to pay into Social Security all those years or is that only the average payout?
Wealthy people pay a lot less in social security tax than the poor (as a percent of income).
Ack, I did make a mistake - my memory was the $1m figure but that's for a two-income household not a 1-income household.
rationale:
An average SS check is $1658, or $20,000 per year.
To get that same inflation-adjusted, risk-free amount from an annuity in the private market, you'd have to pay around $500,000 up front.
So a single-worker household has an average SS 'value' of $500,000 and a two-income house has an average SS value of around $1 million.
Of course, a third of American households make over $100,000/year so their SS checks will be much more than $1658, and closer to my original post.
So as you drive around an average neighborhood imagine every house having an annuity worth $500k-$1mn. A middle class neighborhood has far more than that.
That does change the calculus of wealth inequality a lot.
here's an example of an academic study that calculates that value of SS and says it does reduce wealth inequality. I've seen many such studies and thought pieces.
Does it take into account how much you had to pay into Social Security all those years or is that only the average payout?
Wealthy people pay a lot less in social security tax than the poor (as a percent of income).
Ack, I did make a mistake - my memory was the $1m figure but that's for a two-income household not a 1-income household.
rationale:
An average SS check is $1658, or $20,000 per year.
To get that same inflation-adjusted, risk-free amount from an annuity in the private market, you'd have to pay around $500,000 up front.
So a single-worker household has an average SS 'value' of $500,000 and a two-income house has an average SS value of around $1 million.
Of course, a third of American households make over $100,000/year so their SS checks will be much more than $1658, and closer to my original post.
So as you drive around an average neighborhood imagine every house having an annuity worth $500k-$1mn. A middle class neighborhood has far more than that.
That does change the calculus of wealth inequality a lot.
You're forgetting that part where Social Security only stays viable if there's more money coming in then going out. As of 2034 that will no longer be the case.
It doesn't matter how many households are over 100k. Social security caps at $137,000 and the chunk of US households making 100k to 137k is closer to 10% of households.
Social security is also calculated on your highest 35 years of income not your highest salary.
Does it take into account how much you had to pay into Social Security all those years or is that only the average payout?
Wealthy people pay a lot less in social security tax than the poor (as a percent of income).
He either made it up or he read an article a moron wrote and didn't realize the author was a moron...
The average retirement benefit check from social security is $1500 assuming you wait until age 67 to get full benefits.
For that $1500 check to be worth $1,000,000 you'd need to live to be about 122 years old.
When SS was created there were over 30 workers paying in for every person receiving benefits. Most Americans didn't even live long enough to reach retirement age. Average life expectancy in 1935 was 60 years.
Now we have less than 3 workers paying into the system for every person receiving benefits. People live to be 78/79 and can retire at 67.
The system is BROKEN. It is untenable can't be fixed without jacking up the tax a huge amount or drastically reducing the benefits.
or...and wait me out on this...we wait 15 years until the boomers die off so they stop sucking up all the money and we slowly raise the retirement age to 70 or 72 for current workers. That would fix it, I suspect.
The boomers and the aging of america distort virtually every economic stat, esp those around SS, because they are specifically concerned with aging. Once this current demographic bulge is gone, many of these problems fade away with just a little adjustment.
So what would you do instead of SS? How would your plan work?
I don't have a plan typed up waiting to send over to Nancy....
But the stock market is the answer. There are ways you could structure it to do everything social security does with greater returns and even generate more money for other things.
You could leave everything Social Security does completely intact and just change the way the money is invested.
So what happens to the SS trust fund when the stock market stays down by 50% for several years?
I'm not saying there is no stock-based plan that could work. I just haven't seen one.
Ack, I did make a mistake - my memory was the $1m figure but that's for a two-income household not a 1-income household.
rationale:
An average SS check is $1658, or $20,000 per year.
To get that same inflation-adjusted, risk-free amount from an annuity in the private market, you'd have to pay around $500,000 up front.
So a single-worker household has an average SS 'value' of $500,000 and a two-income house has an average SS value of around $1 million.
Of course, a third of American households make over $100,000/year so their SS checks will be much more than $1658, and closer to my original post.
So as you drive around an average neighborhood imagine every house having an annuity worth $500k-$1mn. A middle class neighborhood has far more than that.
That does change the calculus of wealth inequality a lot.
You're forgetting that part where Social Security only stays viable if there's more money coming in then going out. As of 2034 that will no longer be the case.
It doesn't matter how many households are over 100k. Social security caps at $137,000 and the chunk of US households making 100k to 137k is closer to 10% of households.
Social security is also calculated on your highest 35 years of income not your highest salary.
point is a lot of SS checks are much, much larger than $1658. Way larger.
and the other point is what I made above, that SS will be fine with time and some adjustments.
That's is the most un-selfaware thing ever said in the history of the world.
EVERYTHING Democrats do FEELS good at election time and goes on to make life worse for everyone they pretend they want to help.
That is fundamentally untrue.
If everything government does is bad then we should get rid of government. That would make you an anarchist.
So if you aren't ready to say you are in favor of anarchy then you must admit that government makes life better.
And you must also admit that government should not be just about winning the next election. It should be about improving the lives of Americans.
Name a government program created by Democrats that made something better.
The government does not have any money. It is bad by default because whatever they choose to spend it will be much more than the private market would have to spend to get the same job done.
Of course the government SHOULDN'T be about the next election. But is ALWAYS is. 60% of the federal budget is entitlements. It is political suicide to try to take away anyone's free stuff so no politicians try to. They're always willing to add more though which is why we are $30 TRILLION in debt.
Ack, I did make a mistake - my memory was the $1m figure but that's for a two-income household not a 1-income household.
rationale:
An average SS check is $1658, or $20,000 per year.
To get that same inflation-adjusted, risk-free amount from an annuity in the private market, you'd have to pay around $500,000 up front.
So a single-worker household has an average SS 'value' of $500,000 and a two-income house has an average SS value of around $1 million.
Of course, a third of American households make over $100,000/year so their SS checks will be much more than $1658, and closer to my original post.
So as you drive around an average neighborhood imagine every house having an annuity worth $500k-$1mn. A middle class neighborhood has far more than that.
That does change the calculus of wealth inequality a lot.
You're forgetting that part where Social Security only stays viable if there's more money coming in then going out. As of 2034 that will no longer be the case.
It doesn't matter how many households are over 100k. Social security caps at $137,000 and the chunk of US households making 100k to 137k is closer to 10% of households.
Social security is also calculated on your highest 35 years of income not your highest salary.
That's is the most un-selfaware thing ever said in the history of the world.
EVERYTHING Democrats do FEELS good at election time and goes on to make life worse for everyone they pretend they want to help.
That is fundamentally untrue.
If everything government does is bad then we should get rid of government. That would make you an anarchist.
So if you aren't ready to say you are in favor of anarchy then you must admit that government makes life better.
And you must also admit that government should not be just about winning the next election. It should be about improving the lives of Americans.
yeah right wingers have an unnaturally pessimistic view of people who work for government. Right wingers literally cannot conceive of someone like HRC or Obama or Joe, who goes into public service to serve the nation and other people. It's so far outside of their narrow selfish worldview that they can't even talk about it. it's a sickness, really.
but yes, adult, many, many politicians, I'd say even most, and virtually all Dems, go into politics to help the nation. They do. I don't care what you say about it. They do. Obama talked about it just today.
You're forgetting that part where Social Security only stays viable if there's more money coming in then going out. As of 2034 that will no longer be the case.
It doesn't matter how many households are over 100k. Social security caps at $137,000 and the chunk of US households making 100k to 137k is closer to 10% of households.
Social security is also calculated on your highest 35 years of income not your highest salary.
point is a lot of SS checks are much, much larger than $1658. Way larger.
and the other point is what I made above, that SS will be fine with time and some adjustments.
Pretty sure the largest check possible is less than $3200. And that would be for a person who averaged the maximum or greater for 35 years. If you've been living off of $11,475 a month your whole life $3200 won't seem that great if it's all you had which is the boat millions of Americans find themselves in. $3200 isn't much more than the 20 year old at Arby's is making.
It's going to take more than "some adjustments" to fix a system that is completely broken.
If everything government does is bad then we should get rid of government. That would make you an anarchist.
So if you aren't ready to say you are in favor of anarchy then you must admit that government makes life better.
And you must also admit that government should not be just about winning the next election. It should be about improving the lives of Americans.
yeah right wingers have an unnaturally pessimistic view of people who work for government. Right wingers literally cannot conceive of someone like HRC or Obama or Joe, who goes into public service to serve the nation and other people. It's so far outside of their narrow selfish worldview that they can't even talk about it. it's a sickness, really.
but yes, adult, many, many politicians, I'd say even most, and virtually all Dems, go into politics to help the nation. They do. I don't care what you say about it. They do. Obama talked about it just today.
LOL! Politicians are some of the most arrogant self-involved people on the planet. Anyone who thinks the majority of them are in it to actually help people is delusional. They may start out with good intentions but by the time they get to DC they don't care about anything but re-election and power.
Name a government program created by Democrats that made something better.
There are lots of government programs supported by Democrats that make life better.
Though we quibble about the size of funding, Democrats support a strong military.
Democrats support roads and bridges.
Democrats support the judiciary system.
National weather service.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Meat inspection.
On and on and on.
Most of the budget is stuff we generally agree on.
The military is necessary. Still, for every dollar the military spends wisely they waste $1000.
US infrastructure crumbling. Biden just passed a $2.2 TRILLION infrastructure bill that's like 80% not infrastructure. It will spend more on electric cars than on roads, bridges, ports, airports, and waterways combined.
Why do we need a national weather service? Weather is literally local by definition.
Regulatory agencies are necessary but still full of waste. A private company could do the same job for much less.
yeah right wingers have an unnaturally pessimistic view of people who work for government. Right wingers literally cannot conceive of someone like HRC or Obama or Joe, who goes into public service to serve the nation and other people. It's so far outside of their narrow selfish worldview that they can't even talk about it. it's a sickness, really.
but yes, adult, many, many politicians, I'd say even most, and virtually all Dems, go into politics to help the nation. They do. I don't care what you say about it. They do. Obama talked about it just today.
LOL! Politicians are some of the most arrogant self-involved people on the planet. Anyone who thinks the majority of them are in it to actually help people is delusional. They may start out with good intentions but by the time they get to DC they don't care about anything but re-election and power.
yeah see? it's literally impossible for right wingers to see dems helping kids out of poverty and see anything but an urge to gain more power. It's a neurosis among them. But when dems get in power they literally pass bills that help average and poor americans.
Rs just hand more money to rich people when they get power, so that's their point of view.
Read some prez bios, man. Guys like FDR and LBJ committed entire careers to actually helping average and poor americans, in the face of vicious right wing fights just like today. It still kills me that Rs fought hard against rural electrification because you know it would soften up farmers and make them lazy.
Many, even most, Dem politicians truly work in politics to help people. it's a terrible job - you get paid little, no job security, you have to beg for money all the time...but they do it to help people.
point is a lot of SS checks are much, much larger than $1658. Way larger.
and the other point is what I made above, that SS will be fine with time and some adjustments.
Pretty sure the largest check possible is less than $3200. And that would be for a person who averaged the maximum or greater for 35 years. If you've been living off of $11,475 a month your whole life $3200 won't seem that great if it's all you had which is the boat millions of Americans find themselves in. $3200 isn't much more than the 20 year old at Arby's is making.
It's going to take more than "some adjustments" to fix a system that is completely broken.
it's tricky. whether you start the SS payments at 62 or 67 or 70. Huge variation. But if you can wait, your checks get much larger:
The maximum benefit depends on the age you retire. For example, if you retire at full retirement age in 2022, your maximum benefit would be $3,345. However, if you retire at age 62 in 2022, your maximum benefit would be $2,364. If you retire at age 70 in 2022, your maximum benefit would be $4,194.""
LOL! Politicians are some of the most arrogant self-involved people on the planet. Anyone who thinks the majority of them are in it to actually help people is delusional. They may start out with good intentions but by the time they get to DC they don't care about anything but re-election and power.
yeah see? it's literally impossible for right wingers to see dems helping kids out of poverty and see anything but an urge to gain more power. It's a neurosis among them. But when dems get in power they literally pass bills that help average and poor americans.
Rs just hand more money to rich people when they get power, so that's their point of view.
Read some prez bios, man. Guys like FDR and LBJ committed entire careers to actually helping average and poor americans, in the face of vicious right wing fights just like today. It still kills me that Rs fought hard against rural electrification because you know it would soften up farmers and make them lazy.
Many, even most, Dem politicians truly work in politics to help people. it's a terrible job - you get paid little, no job security, you have to beg for money all the time...but they do it to help people.
You're forgetting the part where they don't actually help the kids get out of poverty.
Single motherhood is the #1 cause of poverty. Democrats glorify single motherhood and created social programs that incentivize it. Democrats while "trying to help" directly destroyed the American family. In 1960 something like 24% of black homes were broken. Today it's over 70%. Directly because of government policy.
Republicans are about personal responsibility. Democrats are about charity with other people's money.
I like the Democrats intentions usually. I'm just fully aware that nothing they try to do actually works.
Paid little? The salary is literally their smallest revenue stream. The majority of congress are millionaires. AOC was a BARTENDER a month ago and she's worth $1.5 million.
Most of them are not in it to help anyone but themselves.
Pretty sure the largest check possible is less than $3200. And that would be for a person who averaged the maximum or greater for 35 years. If you've been living off of $11,475 a month your whole life $3200 won't seem that great if it's all you had which is the boat millions of Americans find themselves in. $3200 isn't much more than the 20 year old at Arby's is making.
It's going to take more than "some adjustments" to fix a system that is completely broken.
it's tricky. whether you start the SS payments at 62 or 67 or 70. Huge variation. But if you can wait, your checks get much larger:
The maximum benefit depends on the age you retire. For example, if you retire at full retirement age in 2022, your maximum benefit would be $3,345. However, if you retire at age 62 in 2022, your maximum benefit would be $2,364. If you retire at age 70 in 2022, your maximum benefit would be $4,194.""
So a person who lived off of $11,475 every month of their adult life would get a $4,194 check.
That's not tricky at all. Even in the rosiest of scenarios Social Security won't replace your income. Expenses may decrease after you retire assuming you don't go anywhere or do anything but they won't decrease by 75%.
There are lots of government programs supported by Democrats that make life better.
Though we quibble about the size of funding, Democrats support a strong military.
Democrats support roads and bridges.
Democrats support the judiciary system.
National weather service.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Meat inspection.
On and on and on.
Most of the budget is stuff we generally agree on.
The military is necessary. Still, for every dollar the military spends wisely they waste $1000.
US infrastructure crumbling. Biden just passed a $2.2 TRILLION infrastructure bill that's like 80% not infrastructure. It will spend more on electric cars than on roads, bridges, ports, airports, and waterways combined.
Why do we need a national weather service? Weather is literally local by definition.
Regulatory agencies are necessary but still full of waste. A private company could do the same job for much less.
Your characterization of the infrastructure bill is wrong. And the funding for electric cars is all about charging stations, which clearly is infrastructure. And it's not more than all those other things combined. Not even close.
EV Charging: $7.5 billion
Roads and Bridges: $110 billion
Ports and Waterways: $17 billion
Airports: $25 billion
If you don't understand why we need a national weather service, you don't know much about anything.
Yes, there is lots of waste in government. I've seen lots of Democrats and Republicans run on a platform of cutting waste. Unfortunately, they usually lose.
The military is necessary. Still, for every dollar the military spends wisely they waste $1000.
US infrastructure crumbling. Biden just passed a $2.2 TRILLION infrastructure bill that's like 80% not infrastructure. It will spend more on electric cars than on roads, bridges, ports, airports, and waterways combined.
Why do we need a national weather service? Weather is literally local by definition.
Regulatory agencies are necessary but still full of waste. A private company could do the same job for much less.
Your characterization of the infrastructure bill is wrong. And the funding for electric cars is all about charging stations, which clearly is infrastructure. And it's not more than all those other things combined. Not even close.
EV Charging: $7.5 billion
Roads and Bridges: $110 billion
Ports and Waterways: $17 billion
Airports: $25 billion
If you don't understand why we need a national weather service, you don't know much about anything.
Yes, there is lots of waste in government. I've seen lots of Democrats and Republicans run on a platform of cutting waste. Unfortunately, they usually lose.
You just said there's $152 billion set aside for infrastructure in $1.2 TRILLION infrastructure bill and you think you're helping your case? LOL!
The National Weather Service has over billion dollar budget. It is absolutely certain that the tax payers aren't getting a billion dollars worth of service from it.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.