An interesting fact about Social Security

[telos2000]

You beat me to my editing job

[luvmetender]

Originally Posted by telos2000

Oops, they changed that rule and it ends with secondary schooling. Man that sux!

It sure does... just when they need it the most, it's taken away.

[crazytimes]

I wonder too, let's say two people each worked from 30-67, so 37 years. One made $30K every year, the other made $87,900K every year. And both paid a straight 7% every year.

I wonder how much their benefits would be and if they would be exactly proportional with how much they paid in. I guess I just wonder how they came up with $87,900 as the payroll cap. Probably some complicated calculation but it would be interesting to know.

Couldn't they just quietly raise it a little bit each year? I doubt people would even notice it on their paychecks.

[crazytimes]

What happens to someone who is 40 years old and has no spouse or children. If they die, does their SS contribution go to anyone? Would their parents get some? Or would it just be the luck of the draw?

[luvmetender]

Crazytimes,
To answer your questions...

They do raise the cap every year.

And, if you put in the max, you get it back. It is all pro-rated according to what you put in. I get a Social Security statement each year that tells me what I've put in since I started working and what I can expect to get back at retirement. Don't you get one of those?

And if you die without survivors, your money goes back in the "pot."

[monkee]

Originally Posted by luvmetender

And if you die without survivors, your money goes back in the "pot."

This is the thing that irritates me the most about SS and one big reason why I think at least partial privatization is a good idea. And it's not only if you die without survivors. If I die before I can retire and I have grown children (and no spouse), I don't get to pass that money on to my kids. If I had an IRA or even a cheesy passbook savings account, at least my kids would get something out of all the money I paid in.

[trust no one]

Originally Posted by luvmetender

Not true. The kids get benefits until they turn 18, whether they go to college or not.

You go girl! Squashing bad information on the internet is a good thing.

By the way, this morning the CBO adjusted the 2018 date to 2020 further dampening the urgency claims of the President; six months from now they will adjust the date again, 2022 perhaps?

From what I hear, the President, you know, the guy who we learned yesterday knew “surprisingly” very little about the 1965 Voter Act, will talk tomorrow about fudged and obfuscated numbers in an attempt to scare us all into believing Social Security is in “grave danger.” Do you remember how he told us we were all in “grave danger” over Iraq’s WMD; the stockpiles of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons that, as it turned out (billions of dollars and 1400 American soldiers’ lives later) hadn’t existed for 10 years? I predict we will be presented the same type of modus operandi in relation to Social Security’s health.

Perhaps the President can send Dr. Rice over to Meet the Press to juxtapose Social Security’s imminent demise with a “mushroom cloud”; she is very good at those comparisons, we have seen.

Anyway, fear this President, not the demise of Social Security. The President has proven he is a gullible, one dimensional, stubborn individual. Social Security, on the other hand, has been reliably sending out checks for scores of years. In summation, Social Security is reliable, The President is not.

[juliet57]

Originally Posted by monkee

This is the thing that irritates me the most about SS and one big reason why I think at least partial privatization is a good idea. And it's not only if you die without survivors. If I die before I can retire and I have grown children (and no spouse), I don't get to pass that money on to my kids. If I had an IRA or even a cheesy passbook savings account, at least my kids would get something out of all the money I paid in.

Yep, you are right. My husband died at 45. Our children were over 18 so they got nothing. I could have drawn on his earnings as a widow when I reached 60 I believe for partial benefits but since I have remarried his lifetime earnings are in "the pot" and his family got none of it.

[meems]

Our options so far..are to fix it now & have to pay out 2 trillion or wait until it crashes & have to pay out much much more! What is in it for Bush? He certainly doesn't doesn't need to do this for political gain at this point.

I don't see stubborness, I see someone who stands tall in his beliefs and follows through. We've heard politicians talking about the demise of this system for decades now..only NOW is someone willing to act on it! Clinton suggested very close to this same program prior to his second term..but, again, the difference between the 2 presidents is follow through.

Originally Posted by trust no one

You go girl! Squashing bad information on the internet is a good thing.

By the way, this morning the CBO adjusted the 2018 date to 2020 further dampening the urgency claims of the President; six months from now they will adjust the date again, 2022 perhaps?

From what I hear, the President, you know, the guy who we learned yesterday knew “surprisingly” very little about the 1965 Voter Act, will talk tomorrow about fudged and obfuscated numbers in an attempt to scare us all into believing Social Security is in “grave danger.” Do you remember how he told us we were all in “grave danger” over Iraq’s WMD; the stockpiles of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons that, as it turned out (billions of dollars and 1400 American soldiers’ lives later) hadn’t existed for 10 years? I predict we will be presented the same type of modus operandi in relation to Social Security’s health.

Perhaps the President can send Dr. Rice over to Meet the Press to juxtapose Social Security’s imminent demise with a “mushroom cloud”; she is very good at those comparisons, we have seen.

Anyway, fear this President, not the demise of Social Security. The President has proven he is a gullible, one dimensional, stubborn individual. Social Security, on the other hand, has been reliably sending out checks for scores of years. In summation, Social Security is reliable, The President is not.

[chippers21]

My family has always had a middle class income but we have been saving for retirement for 25 years on our own. If we had had our own Social Security to manage in our own investments we would be very well off on retirement. As it is now we have put approximately $125,000 toward our retirement and grown it to well over $300,000. This was accomplished on one middle class income, with 4 kids, the last one now attending college (3 grads of college and one of Harvard Law School) I was a stay at home mom for 19 years, used coupons for groceries, we have not bought a new vehicle since 1976. I now work a part-time job that pays very poorly with no benefits, but I love it. (Beats beating my head against the wall as a school teacher, as I once was) Don't tell me you need Social Security to survive. The reason you need it is you never planned ahead. Don't tell me I am not capable of managing my own retirement account. I have been doing so for over 25 years (We did not start investing until our late 20's) Don't tell me the government is a better money manager...Look at the deficit!

[madasahatter]

Originally Posted by monkee

This is the thing that irritates me the most about SS and one big reason why I think at least partial privatization is a good idea. And it's not only if you die without survivors. If I die before I can retire and I have grown children (and no spouse), I don't get to pass that money on to my kids. If I had an IRA or even a cheesy passbook savings account, at least my kids would get something out of all the money I paid in.

This statement makes this monkee fellow, sound like the low broqw neanderthals, i belive theree are in his neck of the woods, This bafoon, seems to think he can not open a savings account, well he can, does he not realise that savings accounts are not illeagal, does he not have a brain, i will tell you, this mad a nd deramged fellow shocks, me, this is simply so low

[Rainmaker]

Originally Posted by chippers21

Don't tell me the government is a better money manager...Look at the deficit!

Or the private sector for that matter! Look at all the pension problems revealed and pension benefits defaulted on lately and you see another crises looming in what the economists call the drag of "Legacy costs." And, as for fixing the SS problem, since it is predicted the Medicare system will go into default a full 20+ years earlier than Social Security, wouldn't it be more prudent to focus on the more immediate crises?