Social Security.... 62 or 65???

cowboydoc · May 27, 2004

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the fact that social security is the worst investment vehicle that there is. It's nothing more really than a tax. The money is used for other projects and never even saved. There was a study that I read that said if all the money had been invested in the safest vehicle out there at a modest 5% that the Social Security fund would be viable to the year 2400 even at todays money. The money put into social security by the avg. person was only about 35% to what you would have made in just a simple savings account.

fivestring · May 27, 2004

"I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the fact that social security is the worst investment vehicle that there is." 

I was thinking that same thing, Richard.
The next worst thing is the savings bond.

I personally don't think there'll be a social security when I turn old enough to start drawing (about 20 years).
Too many freeloaders abusing the system now.

Franklin Roosevelt introduced the Social Security (FICA)
Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely
voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and some are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that you are getting taxed on 85% of the money you paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:
Lyndon Johnson took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it.
Al Gore cast the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S. that started taxing Social Security annuities.
It was Jimmy Carter's administration that decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants after moving into this country, and at age 65, begin to receive SSI Social Security
payments!

Bottom line:
Take what you can get NOW before it is all given away!!!! /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

KubotaSteve · May 27, 2004

I'm with you on this one. I doubt Social Security will be around when I retire.
It is only a bad investment vehicle for the ones who are actually working. For the freeloaders it was an excellent investment!!!! /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

MikePA · May 27, 2004

Too many freeloaders abusing the system now. 
Gary and Steve, please define freeloaders. Just curious who you think these freeloaders are and how the system would be better off if they were eliminated.

Junkman · May 27, 2004

( .........................Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and some are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that you are getting taxed on 85% of the money you paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:
Lyndon Johnson took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it.
Al Gore cast the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S. that started taxing Social Security annuities.
It was Jimmy Carter's administration that decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants after moving into this country, and at age 65, begin to receive SSI Social Security
payments!

Bottom line:
Take what you can get NOW before it is all given away!!!! /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

)

Please keep in mind that all the above things that have happened were by Democrats. The one thing to also keep in mind, with the exception of the one tie breaking vote by Al Gore, that there were Republicans that also voted to allow all these things to happen. It doesn't matter, Democrat or Republican, they both want your money and believe that they know how to spend it and dispense it better than the people that earn it. I don't know of any other job that people would invest millions of their own dollars to get a job that pays so poorly by comparison. It is the perks that go with the job that they are after. I haven't seen a poor National politician in more years than I can remember. Even if they were poor when they were elected, they became rich before they left National government. Wonder why Ralph Nader is running for President even though he knows that he has no chance of winning??? It is for the money that he gets to keep at the end of the campaign process. Thieves, the whole lot of them. Democrats, Republican, and Independents alike. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
Now the bigger question is whether this will be deleted by a moderator that doesn't like what I have posted. If a moderator does delete this, please have the courtesy of advising me.... thanks .....

MikePA · May 27, 2004

Now the bigger question is whether this will be deleted by a moderator that doesn't like what I have posted. 
Junkman, the issue is not, and never has been, whether the Moderators agree with you, or anyone else for that matter. The issue is, and always has been, whether the post met the Terms of Service and the forum posting rules. If it does, it stays. If it doesn't, it gets moderated. Simple, really. /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Libertine · May 27, 2004

Junkman:

Interesting you ask the question . . . I've been getting notices from the Feds that I can go on welfare next year and start ripping off the younger folks (just as I was ripped). Anyway, a week or so I asked one of my ex-wives that very question (she is a CPA). She said that for most folks the breakeven point, after figuring average taxes, opportunity cost & etc. etc. is around 12 years.

So . . . If you don't need the money & know you're going to live into your 80s+ wait. If you need the money, or, if you're not certain when you're going to die, grab it now.

JEH

fivestring · May 27, 2004

Freeloaders are ones that have never put into the system but are drawing from the system.
First-hand knowledge of one (I work with):
Has a sister with 2 kids... no dad.
Never had a job because the first kid was born while she was in school. She gets a SS check every month.
Spoke with a guy the other day (looked like a bum/homeless). He said he gets a disability check every month. I asked him what company he worked for. His reply - no company, the disability check is from the US Government.
I wanted to ask more questions but knew better than to bother. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

"Thieves, the whole lot of them. Democrats, Republican, and Independents alike." Junkman

Truer words have not been spoken on TBN! /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

frank_f15 · May 27, 2004

( I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the fact that social security is the worst investment vehicle that there is. It's nothing more really than a tax. )

why are u suprised? that was not the question. SS as we all know is not an investement, it is a tax, and it is the law, no way out of it. i would rather of had all the funds i put into it, to invest i as i saw fit.

Henro · May 27, 2004

I was thinking that same thing, Richard.
The next worst thing is the savings bond.


Hummm...

Maybe so...but...check CD rates VS US Gov. I bonds. Also I bonds interest are tax deferred. And inflation protected. And liquid, although you need to hold them for a year before you can cash them now. And if you time your purchase right, the penalty is only 2 months interest if you cash within the first five years...much better than penalties for early CD withdrawls...

Oh, and one of the best guarantees that your funds will be there when you want them too...

Sure not the same payback as an investment with risk attached, but not too shabby in todays market if you want 100% security (or as close to that as you can get) and money available without penalty (or without much penalty) and tax deferred, plus no state or local tax on the interest ever...

As I get older the I bonds are more and more attactive. Less time to wait for a recovery if things go bad... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Frankly, for me they are one of the best investments at my point in life, where I don't need risk, I need security...and a fair return.

Guess I don't agree with your opinion of the savings bond, at least with respect to the I Bond...the other savings bonds are less attractive...