Social Security--why not a lump-sum payment when you retire? - Page 12 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Financial Forum Economics and Precious Metals

Advertise Here
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Federal court halts Trump¯s immigration ban Unbelievable Political News and Discussion 1153 11-12-2017 05:57 AM
Scavenger loadout GwinnettGA$urvivor Urban Survival 47 09-14-2017 10:37 PM
Security safes sixtus Urban Survival 19 06-19-2017 05:09 AM
Congress Votes To Repeal Social Security Gun Ban AllOutdoor.com AllOutdoor.com 0 02-15-2017 01:30 PM
NRA: Congress To Review Social Security Gun Ban AllOutdoor.com AllOutdoor.com 0 01-31-2017 05:00 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-27-2018, 07:38 PM
prairiegirl1925 prairiegirl1925 is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 358
Thanks: 4,078
Thanked 580 Times in 222 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Thirty years, not forty of financial input, and retiring at 62 are all contributors to your pay out. What about your investments and savings for retirement?
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-27-2018, 07:44 PM
prairiegirl1925 prairiegirl1925 is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 358
Thanks: 4,078
Thanked 580 Times in 222 Posts
Default

That is part of the stupidity that has gone on in America, where people want what they want when they want it, with no foresight into future needs. I know many people who have indulged themselves at every whim and not only have no savings, but have debt to pay on, with their very low retirement funds. Now that the cost of living has gone up, I see older people living out of vans and campers because they did not prepare for retirement. Some have traveled the world. I just heard a man talk about how poor he is, living with his son and daughter-in-law and how the bill collectors keep calling him. But last week was his birthday and he took $300 and went skydiving! Hey, buddy, how about putting $300 on a bill for your birthday present to yourself of reduced debt?
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to prairiegirl1925 For This Useful Post:
Old 10-27-2018, 07:50 PM
prairiegirl1925 prairiegirl1925 is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 358
Thanks: 4,078
Thanked 580 Times in 222 Posts
Default

The Madoff scheme only benefitted the Madoffs. They took the money and bought whatever they wanted, living high off the hog with other people's money. Some people got money back, but mostly the Madoff family. And that all only worked for as long as it did, and then ended up with prison, divorce, and suicide. What a legacy.
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-27-2018, 09:05 PM
NCalHippie's Avatar
NCalHippie NCalHippie is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 13,816
Thanks: 29,606
Thanked 24,655 Times in 9,490 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prairiegirl1925 View Post
Thirty years, not forty of financial input, and retiring at 62 are all contributors to your pay out. What about your investments and savings for retirement?
How much can you invest earning $7,25 an hour raising three kids? That said, we are doing fine, close to .5 million in net worth, $50K in cash and in the bank, no debt except a $600 a month payment on the new remodel.

We will be fine on just our SSI when the wife retires.

ETA, the only reason it was only 30+ years was because of a back injury that left me unable to work a real job, so I did the best I could without filing for disability, which may have been a mistake, but we will be fine.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to NCalHippie For This Useful Post:
Old 11-12-2018, 07:14 AM
me me is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,690
Thanks: 1,161
Thanked 3,199 Times in 1,433 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by puttster View Post
You add 5 years to the poor man's SS benefit for early retirement but oops, not to the rich man's. You argue I miscalculated the rich man's lifetime benefit by $1,000 ($3.79/month) and that proves he suffers more. Really?

Most unbelievable is your statement that because poor people die early (after paying into SS for years and getting zero benefit in return) it exaggerates the penalty against being poor in the SS system. WTF dude, dying early is the very worst penalty. If you think early death does not matter, try it. I think it will change your mind.

What you are doing is cherry-pick examples and leave everything else out in order to make a false claim. It's like saying everyone in America can be a billionaire, just look at Steve Jobs. To make a good case you need to see things more broadly, ME.
What I did was calculate the minimum required for the poorer person to receive a benefit. That is all. The minimum amount of time a poor person has to work is 30 years to receive the minimum benefit. That means the poor person works from roughly 32 until they are 62. They most likely started working far earlier than 32, but since it is only required to have 30 years work history they had breaks in their work record. The person most likely had more than 30 years work history, but I am not going into depth with this analysis because nobody will read and learn from the examples, you included, so what's the point in doing ht work?

The more wealthy person most likely works from the time they are in their late teens until they are 62 (assuming they work until minimum retirement) with few breaks in their work record. They don't take many breaks. That is how they become wealthier.

You have the preconceived notion that the poor person benefits less than the wealthier person, but it isn't true. I have shown where the wealthier pay more into the system and get a lower return on what they pay in yet you still hold your position that the wealthier person benefits more than the poorer person. So I see no reason in going into depth with any analysis.

This has nothing to do with suffering but with the fact that the wealthier person puts more into the system, than they could have earned in the open market. This has everything to do with the fact that the wealthier person puts more into the system and gets less out (as a ratio to what they put in) than the poorer person. Total number, yes the wealthier person will receive more over their lifetime. That is not in dispute and never has been. If you invest $100 and after 30 years you have $110 you made less than if you invest $50 and after 30 years you have $80.

I have done the math. If I took the amount I paid in social security and invested only my portion of the tax in a fund returning market rates, I would have twice the benefit than what I was projected to have. My income has gone up substantially, but my projected benefit amount has only gone up a couple hundred dollars, so using real world number my government benefit is even less than if I had been able to invest my portion of the tax.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to me For This Useful Post:
Old 11-12-2018, 12:04 PM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,768
Thanks: 2,812
Thanked 18,626 Times in 7,796 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=me;19155334

I have done the math. If I took the amount I paid in social security and invested only my portion of the tax in a fund returning market rates, I would have twice the benefit than what I was projected to have. My income has gone up substantially, but my projected benefit amount has only gone up a couple hundred dollars, so using real world number my government benefit is even less than if I had been able to invest my portion of the tax.[/QUOTE]

How many different times must it be said? SS is not a retirement investment vehicle. SS is an insurance. Your math is pointless because you are comparing it to a false assumption.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PalmettoTree For This Useful Post:
Old 11-12-2018, 08:45 PM
puttster's Avatar
puttster puttster is online now
Golfer
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,469
Thanks: 1,734
Thanked 2,609 Times in 1,464 Posts
Default

Wah, wah, wah. IF I had invested in stocks instead of bonds, IF I'd put all my money in Apple 1993, IF Id've put my college beer money in real estate, IF Id've only married Krystal...

Give us a break from the sob stories of what could have been, there are thousands of them here, pls don't start a club
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to puttster For This Useful Post:
Old 11-13-2018, 06:19 AM
me me is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,690
Thanks: 1,161
Thanked 3,199 Times in 1,433 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PalmettoTree View Post
How many different times must it be said? SS is not a retirement investment vehicle. SS is an insurance. Your math is pointless because you are comparing it to a false assumption.
What I am talking about is reforming the system. It is nothing more than insurance. I have shown that it is a very poor value for the money put in. As long as you continue saying that all it is is insurance and nothing can be done, then nothing will be done. If you look at the purposes of the insurance then possibilities open up. Everything Social Security does is easily replaceable by the person themselves or private industry at a better price/value. Even providing for a larger payout for the poor can be accomplished by some simple reforms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by puttster View Post
Wah, wah, wah. IF I had invested in stocks instead of bonds, IF I'd put all my money in Apple 1993, IF Id've put my college beer money in real estate, IF Id've only married Krystal...

Give us a break from the sob stories of what could have been, there are thousands of them here, pls don't start a club
Sorry you don't see the value in saving your own money. Social Security is charging high premiums and giving little in payout. For what you are paying you are not getting a good return on your investment. Yes, insurance is an investment.

It is not a sob story. It is actual fact for what is happening. If you are happy with stats quo then great. I am not. I am for getting the most value out of my expenditures. ALL of my investments pay very good returns. EVERYTHING I buy I look at how much I am paying for the return I receive. Even consumable items are looked at in this manner (no that doesn't mean I always buy the lowest priced item). Social Security is not a good value for the money spent. It ****es me off that I have such a large chunk of my funds tied up in such a low paying product.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-13-2018, 08:24 AM
RW_in_DC RW_in_DC is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Delusion Central, aka, Dreamland on the Potomac
Posts: 355
Thanks: 27,816
Thanked 431 Times in 214 Posts
Default Social Security is a *Tax*, Not an Investment or Insurance

Quote:
Originally Posted by me View Post
What I am talking about is reforming the system. It is nothing more than insurance. I have shown that it is a very poor value for the money put in.

[…]

Sorry you don't see the value in saving your own money. Social Security is charging high premiums and giving little in payout. For what you are paying you are not getting a good return on your investment. Yes, insurance is an investment.

[…]

I am for getting the most value out of my expenditures. ALL of my investments pay very good returns. EVERYTHING I buy I look at how much I am paying for the return I receive. Even consumable items are looked at in this manner (no that doesn't mean I always buy the lowest priced item). Social Security is not a good value for the money spent. It ****es me off that I have such a large chunk of my funds tied up in such a low paying product.
Unfortunately, Social Security is a *tax*, not insurance. Like most taxes, it is imposed on the “rate-payer” and s/he may or may not benefit from the exaction: https://www.cbpp.org/research/social...ty-trust-funds
”Social Security is largely a “pay as you go” program, meaning today’s benefits are funded primarily by the payroll taxes collected from today’s workers.”
I.e., you know it’s a tax because the beneficiaries of a decedent *only* receive money if they meet eligibility requirements. E.g., only underage dependents receive benefits while adult descendants receive nothing; insurance payouts go to specified beneficiaries and if none are named, paid to relatives based on a table of relationship.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-13-2018, 08:40 AM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,768
Thanks: 2,812
Thanked 18,626 Times in 7,796 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RW_in_DC View Post
Unfortunately, Social Security is a *tax*, not insurance. Like most taxes, it is imposed on the “rate-payer” and s/he may or may not benefit from the exaction: https://www.cbpp.org/research/social...ty-trust-funds
”Social Security is largely a “pay as you go” program, meaning today’s benefits are funded primarily by the payroll taxes collected from today’s workers.”
I.e., you know it’s a tax because the beneficiaries of a decedent *only* receive money if they meet eligibility requirements. E.g., only underage dependents receive benefits while adult descendants receive nothing; insurance payouts go to specified beneficiaries and if none are named, paid to relatives based on a table of relationship.
It all depends on how the policy is written. You are making a false comparison. SS is a form of income insurance that provides minimal protection to individuals when they retire or minor children should you pass before they become of a particular age.

It is true that if an individual passes under cert circumstances neither they nor their progeny receive any benefits. That does not mean it is not an insurance. Granted you may not like the policy; the policy is forced upon you; and given the choice you could find one better to your liking.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to PalmettoTree For This Useful Post:
Old 03-25-2019, 11:07 PM
stinger5900's Avatar
stinger5900 stinger5900 is offline
Capitalism Is Boss
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 508
Thanks: 283
Thanked 1,109 Times in 361 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by puttster View Post
Not sure I buy that. When they hire you they take into account the cost of your SS and also your cubicle and computer and the cost of the forklift you will be operating, medical insurance, 401k matching, coffee, parking... who knows what else, so they reduce your pay by those amounts, too? Holy cow, it's a wonder there's anything left you your paycheck.
yes you are correct. your total cost of employment is added in and they know they have to pay your other half of the SSI payment so they subtract you pay by that amount. Your computer is a company asset your SSI is not.
Quick reply to this message
Old 03-26-2019, 01:50 PM
SgtBooker44's Avatar
SgtBooker44 SgtBooker44 is offline
Looks like rain to me.
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Absaroka County, Wyoming
Posts: 41,325
Thanks: 4,559
Thanked 44,520 Times in 26,335 Posts
Awards Showcase
Top Poster 
Total Awards: 1
Default

Since LBJ raided the trust fund and put SS into the general fund, I doubt there is the money available to make lump sum payments.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to SgtBooker44 For This Useful Post:
Old 03-27-2019, 12:26 AM
Eddie_T's Avatar
Eddie_T Eddie_T is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Southern mtns near eastern continental divide
Posts: 2,703
Thanks: 4,711
Thanked 3,232 Times in 1,675 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtBooker44 View Post
Since LBJ raided the trust fund and put SS into the general fund, I doubt there is the money available to make lump sum payments.
Was there ever a trust fund, and if there was how would it grow? If it earned interest who would pay the interest? Any thoughts of privatization are quickly ridiculed, yet I invested only $8K into an IRA and maybe $30K into tax deferred savings and now draw $12K per year as a RMD to supplement my annuity.

Maybe I should have put more into the IRA but I did put after taxes funds into investments that have done well. Of course I do realize that all (IRA, investments and annuity) are just on paper and may vaporize in the event of SHTF (as may SS).
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Eddie_T For This Useful Post:
Old 03-31-2019, 10:28 AM
WilliamAshley WilliamAshley is offline
Birds of a Feather
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,535
Thanks: 97
Thanked 850 Times in 515 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zooeyhll View Post
Thoughts? Opinions?
Hilarious. These lump sum options are pretty much death traps for the elderly. Normally where lump sums are done it exists to save money over the long term. People are so irresponsible with money, many would spend it then be destitute in their old age.

It is intended for people to be able to live when they are old, not have lots of money.


True though US federal debt is mostly retirement funds so if the US defaults that is your retirement that is defaulted.


Depending on fiscally irresponsible, corrupt self interested government isn't a very good sole strategy to stay the least.

Prep what you need, now and in the future.

People without money though should never expect to have money, it is just the life they are born into. Some can do well but most do not. Poverty is systemic.The other problem is so many people are non prepper and spend what they have.

You figure thought $50000 is 50 years of food. The problem is the poor need to work to keep their rental situation or tax situation in tact. If they stop the wage slavery they loose their home.

Most people don't pay forward their property taxes 30 years. Most people don't use that extra money to pay credit to the utilities etc.. So they are always on the hook for those costs and need income streams.

This is why lumpsum doesn't work because people don't paydown future costs in advance.

Earmarking funds through direct dispursements would be much better. Like signing over amounts of SS to rental or tax costs, utility costs, a line of debit for Extended benefits style purchasing etc...

People that are poor just need to be use to being poor because they will always be and the government isn't going to hand out money to people because it needs that money to pay its bills.

The US is pretty far up the creek in terms of debtload, you know there is a lot of pressure to insure that austerity never hits the US as that austerity will likely see clawing back of social security.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WilliamAshley For This Useful Post:
Old 04-02-2019, 01:49 PM
bonegunner's Avatar
bonegunner bonegunner is offline
Deplorable Freedom Zealot
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 2,376
Thanks: 11,182
Thanked 9,546 Times in 2,061 Posts
Default

It will not happen, because the govt. would not have enough funds to pay out to those who did not/have not contributed to SS.

Billions have been paid to people who do not a SS number, and have not contributed.

https://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-p...s-without-ssn/
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to bonegunner For This Useful Post:
Old 04-03-2019, 10:34 AM
boomerweps boomerweps is offline
The Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North western PA
Posts: 1,509
Thanks: 20
Thanked 2,017 Times in 828 Posts
Default

To answer the basic subject question:
The government is counting on you dying before you receive back the money you paid in. Lump sums would lose them your money!
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-03-2019, 02:38 PM
CaffeineBuzz CaffeineBuzz is offline
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 2,445
Thanks: 1,055
Thanked 4,717 Times in 1,642 Posts
Default

I say we disolve it.

Give me back every dime they took...with interest.

We then let each person take responsibility for their own choices.

If you've already taken more than you've contributed...pay it back....with interest.

As far as I'm concerned, the 'greatest generation' stole our income before we even earned it. A reckoning is in store.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to CaffeineBuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 04-03-2019, 04:05 PM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,768
Thanks: 2,812
Thanked 18,626 Times in 7,796 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaffeineBuzz View Post
I say we disolve it.

Give me back every dime they took...with interest.

We then let each person take responsibility for their own choices.

If you've already taken more than you've contributed...pay it back....with interest.

As far as I'm concerned, the 'greatest generation' stole our income before we even earned it. A reckoning is in store.
That is wishful thinking but that is like expecting an insurance company to give you back your premiums with interest. It just ain't going to happen.

The other side is also true. Expecting a person who filed a claim and received payment in excess of premiums paid in to give that money back.

That is a pretty unrealistic nothin you have.

Social Security, like it or not, fair or not, is forced insurance. The worst part is politicians can and have changed the rules to buy votes.

My unrealistic noting is to put them in jail.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PalmettoTree For This Useful Post:
Old 04-03-2019, 06:01 PM
puttster's Avatar
puttster puttster is online now
Golfer
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,469
Thanks: 1,734
Thanked 2,609 Times in 1,464 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaffeineBuzz View Post

As far as I'm concerned, the 'greatest generation' stole our income before we even earned it. A reckoning is in store.
Interesting which generation you blame. I assume there is a certain period of years where all or most of the bad legislation was put into law?
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-08-2019, 02:21 AM
manimalist's Avatar
manimalist manimalist is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: rural unincorporated Los Angeles county
Posts: 4,357
Thanks: 2,954
Thanked 3,988 Times in 2,147 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prairiegirl1925 View Post
They took the money and bought whatever they wanted, living high off the hog with other people's money.
Sounds like Liberal Democrats. (lol)
Quick reply to this message
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net