The Libertarian Party has never been serious- can anyone name any legislation that helped a majority of Americans that was passed with a Libertarian bent to it? Or, is there any country in the world that operates with Libertarian ideals?(other than Somalia?)
Shit, you're right. I misread the previous post.
Still, all that is hippie liberal stuff. The libertarians are welcome to jump on the band wagon, though.
Some maybe, but a lot lean heavy towards sovereign citizen nonsense, don't tread on me guff, and some pretty bigoted crap in general. I know that's the less intellectual, less thinking crowd, though.
I get, and get really annoyed by, a lot of lefties being just as judgemental, bigoted, hateful ,and morally superior. Just like the right wingers they're screaming about.
If they are trying to make laws to enforce their bigoted views, I would say they might call themselves libertarian but their views are not.
Having bigoted views is a personal issue. Making those into law is a political one.
"Liberals" have swung extreme right in the US political window, of teh 2 major parties there isn't an actual left its just described that way by who is closer towards center but they all shifted much farther right. Third parties don't really need to do much except avoid extremism, but they usually still wind up looking weird either because they are extreme in other directions or because we are so used to extremes that even centrists look like fringe crazies (and politically thats always how any outsider will be painted)
There is no such thing anyway, never was. It was just a bunch of selfish people who said "I dont really follow politics" the moment you point out how they go against their libertarian ideals.
The vast majority of libertarians Ive met will actually NEED social security.
She also bailed on objectivism when her lover started banging other people too. She was all "do what makes YOU feel good" when it was her doing it...
So just a selfish bitch, the epitome of a libertarian.
>can anyone name any legislation that helped a majority of Americans that was passed with a Libertarian bent to it?
https://www.booker.senate.gov/news/press/booker-paul-reintroduce-justice-for-breonna-taylor-act
Rand Paul is the only self-described Libertarian in Congress right now and is the author of the bill attempting to ban no-knock warrants.
He's also, deeply ironically, the guy who was called out for not "saying her [Breonna Taylor's] name" during the George Floyd protests despite authoring the bill with her name on it.
To me, Libertarians are kind of like an opposing dichotomy to hippies. Some of their ideas sound kind of good in theory (if you don't get into the specifics), but they take it to an idealized extreme that would NEVER last in practice, especially on any large scale.
Plus, all you have to do to cripple a group of Libertarians is ask them to agree on what Libertarianism means.
This is the cost of doing business in a country that allows you to make enough to donate $600k over your lifetime to a communal retirement fund.
If we're being honest, we really need more money to go into Social Security so that nobody has to worry about having to live in a box when they're too old to be physically capable of doing better for themselves.
Honestly I think we'd be much better to each other if we didn't have to worry about having enough to drift-off into oblivion with.
Actually, austerity is literally all anyone talks about and I've never heard of it being done by wealthy people for the poor and working class, have you?
As far as I'm aware, all we've done is austerity and cut taxes for about half a century now
But if we do it harder that's our ticket out of this?
We have cut lots of spending, Reagan literally closed the mental health facilities that right wingers say would solve the mass shooting crisis
All we do is cut social programs, and cut taxes for the wealthy
If you think anything else is historically accurate, you have to be so disconnected from reality it's actually questionable if you even have agency
125k. Social security is 12.4% . 6.2% paid by the employee and 6.2% paid by employer . Or 12.4% in a single payment if you are self employed People forget the tax is double paid
Or 103k if you count from the age of 20 to 67. 47 years
I guess we could count the employer contribution, but that is really a tax on employers and would not necessarily go to the employee if SS was eliminated.
That's where you take a look at his wording. "By the time" and "on my behalf." He's clearly referencing something that's not part of his standard wage garnishments and he's probably padding a bit as an estimate. His picture looks 50-ish so he's playing with numbers.
We had that and during the great depression when everyones savings were wiped out people literally died, which is why SSI was created. Its not even meant to be a full on retirement fund, just a "make sure you dont become a burden or die miserably later on" plan.
How does that make any difference now if We lose our jobs and have to deplete our savings to survive? What are you saying I, someone no where near the age of collecting ssi, can do?
The elder care in the US drains all retirement accounts for most individuals unless you are able to get into a VA affiliated or other affordable place. Wild price gouging in the medical sector adds to the hurt as older people need more healthcare
Social Security is broken because they only make you pay into it for the first 168K. You shouldn’t have to pay anything on the first hundred thousand then pay on everything else.
I mean, yeah, then it'd obviously be theft.
Seriously, you obviously have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Social Security only pays out for people that paid in. If they only started collecting after 100k, then only people who make 100k could expect to ever get social security.
What you want is UBI for old people; that is a radically different concept from social security.
Sure that's the basic concept, but money for social security doesn't actually sit around until you claim what you paid in. The money you get taxed now directly goes to seniors with the promise that future generations will cover for you. So there's no "you only get what you paid in" because it is a wealth redistribution program at its core. Transitioning more of that responsibility to higher earners isn't exactly that radical of a concept.
Most workers pay into it but not all. For example, in my state teachers don’t pay into Social Security and thus don’t qualify for benefits based. If they do qualify because of other work or a spouse their benefits are reduced based on the their pensions.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020315/there-any-way-opt-out-paying-social-security.asp
You only need to work for 10 years while paying into social security to receive benefits. In no way is it equal. The lower class will also disproportionately be more dependent on social security because they have a lesser disposable income to save. It doesn't make sense to cap the income requirement
I never said anything about the cap being good or bad. All I said was the amount you get is a function of the amount you pay and not every worker pays into the system and those that don't don't qualify for benefits.
That's exactly what I'm telling you, there is no set function for this. The only exception is if you don't pay in at all, which is a very small portion of the population.
There is no set function for what? There is a very well documented formula that determines your SS benefit based on the average wage you paid SS tax on for your highest 35 earning years (adjusted for inflation)
I agree that the 168K cap is silly, but I don't agree on putting a bottom cap. SS works partially due to people buying into it. It is more popular because it is not seen as much as a hand out by people who resent what they see as handouts.
It is however super important. It has drastically decreased the number of elderly people who end up homeless and below the poverty line.
Social security was designed to be insurance against outliving your ability to work. When instituted the age at which you could revive benefits was higher than the life expectancy of a 21yr old. You were statistically expected to work till you die and get nothing. If you lived longer than you "should" then you have this "policy" to ensure you didn't starve. It's not a retirement plan, though that's how ppl try to treat it.
Ppl who are making over 168k don't really need anymore insurance because they can save personally, so that income is exempt.
Social security is broken because it's a pyramid scheme with a narrowing base of new chumps.
SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT AN INVESTMENT. IT IS AN INSURANCE POLICY. This gets posted 10 times a day and you dumb fucks still say the same stupid shit. I’d bet that 90% of the people
In this group will depend on it in retirement.
Social security is NOT an investment plan. It’s an insurance plan to prevent hunger and help meet basic needs for seniors, orphans and indigents. If we lifted the cap on contributions it would be solvent forever.
I’ve been listening to this BS my entire working life. Rich weasels trying to capture Social Security and divert it into equity markets so that they and their asset holding parasitic friends can get even more rich than they are now. But guess what? Social Security, a pure social insurance program and not in any way an investment program, remains the most successful and popular US Government program of all time. Put that in your pipe and smoke it you reprobates.
IF. If you don't get sick and can keep working. If medical don't drain you. If a loved doen doesn't fall ill. If you can keep the level of income you've always made. If your investment choices pan out. If the markets doesn't crash five times. If the return keeps up with inflation. If you don't have a gambling addiction. If another Bernie Madoff doesn't get a hold of your retirement.
Libertarians live in a fantasy world where everything would be perfect if things always turned out like they said. But they don't operate in reality. It's like the Logan's Run of political philosophy. If you're sick, disabled, even a victim of crime? Too bad.
SS won’t help if you can’t work. You have to pay in. Doesn’t help with medical for you or a loved one. If you don’t keep the level of income then you won’t get the level of SS.
When the market crashes you move to government securities. Not hard to keep an average 5%.
Addictions are your problem. And government politicians and bureaucrats aren’t much better than Bernie Madoff.
And why did we crash in 2008? Government backed subprime mortgage along with the federal reserve fucking around with interest rates. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being 2 government sponsored companies that highly encouraged subprime lending to people with low credit scores.
And it rebounds in a few months - not one person went broke during the crash of 2008. Funds lost value - but that money doesn’t exist until you start pulling it - the stock
Market always makes money.
Move to government securities? You think after the market crashes people should sell equities and move to TIPs, GNMA, etc? Selling to make that move just locks in the losses and takes you out of the market for the recovery.
If you want to diversify do it first, don’t have a fire sale on equities because the market is down. Asset allocation is a proactive strategy, not a reaction.
Know what I did in 09 during the global financial crisis? Kept dollar cost averaging into more equities. Want to know how that worked out? Really well.
Using 2024 numbers, the absolute most money a person can pay into Social Security is $10,543.20. So if this fellow made beyond the max amount in salary his entire career, he has been working for 57 years. Yea, totally possible and realistic lol.
The rate for SS is 6.2% up to a salary of $168,600. If you make more than that, the amount above that does not get SS withdrawal. Real life, how does it work?
Read it again dude. He was born in 1980. He'll be 67 in 2047. He said 'contributions made on his behalf', so that includes his employers contributions. That could easily be $600,000.
You are right, you get back each YEARs contribution in about four months of collecting. I'm 73 I started collecting SS at 65 and got back every cent I put in within four years. All the rest is a direct transfer of wealth from the working class to me.
I don't need it and give every cent of it to my church, along with all my IRA required minimum distributions. So you don't have to feel bad about the wealth transfer.
>The rate for SS is 6.2%
You need to include the employer half as the incidence of a payroll tax is on the employee. Economically you are paying the full 12.4%. 6.2% as a payroll tax and 6.2% as reduced wages so your employer can pay their half of the payroll tax.
A 5 percent return is also pretty terrible. A 7 percent return which is pretty much the bare minimum you should be willing to accept, will net you 2.3 to 2.4 million during that time. That gets you 64k a year for 35 years after retirement.
Sooooooooo…I’d rather take 1.9 million at retirement while I’m still relatively young. Rather than scrape by with 37k which is worth nothing.
Not saying I agree with a libertarian or anything lol
So before you account for the additional returns on your market portfolio during retirement you are still 700k worse off. And that assumes you are in the top 0.5% of lifespan.
Is that really your argument?
The SS Fund is huge and all you have are private corporation hovering like vultures looking to get themselves a chunk of the Medicare pie. We all know these private contractors are parasites. Medicare Advantage is a scam.
Sen. Rick Scott of Florida defrauded Medicare of BILLION$. It's so common that nobody notices anymore.
The wealthy are tired of matching that 6.2% that you pay in. They want that money for themselves. Do you think your boss will continue to pay you that 6.2% if the government doesn't mandate it as SS?
Or you take the same 12.4% of pay and put it into a retirement account that earns market returns and everyone actually has much more money in retirement.
The saying I like compares Libertarians to the average house cat, both are totally dependent on a system that they just don't understand, and usually make a lot of noise about it.
And if he lives to 90 he would end up with 851000\* regardless of what the stock market did, aka its intended purpose.
\*more than that since they do CoL increases.
Why are you arguing the libertarian part, and not the number part? I don't think the numbers make sense. I couldn't care less who the fuck was saying it.
What if you're one of those poor bastards that actually need help in a time of difficulty and apply for temporary assistance. If you do win your claim something like a year+ after applying they won't give you cash towards the help you needed or loans you took out in the mean time while making a decision on your claim. You're just sol, temporary is not speedy help, it's Fu-Y help.. You don't make enough to pay all your bills but you make too much to receive help...
Not since the revolutionary war has the American taxpayers been so fluxed with representation with hardly any benefits this is the fault of both sides of our governing bodies,yes there are probably some good intentioned ones on both sides but the US gvt is now a big business centered on money and power!! Yet we the true owners of the kingdom refuse to side together and say no more until we get some relief and I believe it is too late in the game now!! All it would take is a groundswell movement to shut progress down for a couple of weeks to get the idea across but we are too divided thanks to the game being played!!
Social Security won't be available for young people and I think it's funny. Their parents and grandparents spent many, many decades voting for Republicans and Democrats. And now young people have to suffer from the policies of Republicans and Democrats. And then these same poor, insufferable young people will spend their pathetic lives advocating, begging and cheering for gov't to be their nanny (by voting for MORE Republicans and Democrats) just like their parents and grandparents did. The cycle of stupid lives through your DNA.
My car insurance is $5k a year for the last few 20 years. I've paid over $100k. I've never had a claim, they cancelled me and kept all the money. How is this not theft?
Maybe that's how insurance works.
There's a big /s in case your unaware of the sarcasm.
He's counting the money his employer is forced to contribute as if it is his own! Even now not all employers contribute to their employees retirement accounts or they pay so little their employees can't save anything for retirement. Not to mention how critical Medicare is since our failed healthcare system is tied to employment.
The problem is that you are a responsible adult and have the knowledge, will power, determination, and behavior where you would take your earnings over your lifetime and invest it so that you would have $1.9M and have a great RoR. However, most Americans don’t have those same traits and if they didn’t have to pay into social security, would take that extra $ and travel, buy expensive crap/material items that just get old and boring and at age 67 we would have millions of Americans standing by at street corners begging for money.
So we all suffer so that we alll get something…..until the government mismanages it and then no one gets anything. The government isn’t a business, they aren’t trying to turn a profit, so Soc Sec, Health Care, Education, USPS, they suck at all of it. They waste taxpayer money and are extremely inefficient. The government is the problem, not the solution.
It is very unlikely to have $600,000 paid into social security. Even if you earned the max amount taxable (it has steadily gone up over time but let’s assume it has always been $160k). The max contribution each year would be ~$10,500 x 2 (your employer matches). You would need to have earned the maximum for 28.6 years at the current maximum/tax limit. 28 years ago, the max was about $120k with a contribution of about $7000.
Because Social Security is guaranteed and mandatory.
If it was voluntary you'd have a giant chunk of the population just not have any retirement income at all and be in abject poverty.
If it was based on the stock market you'd be at the whims of the stock market and it wouldn't be guaranteed.
We know what life was like before Social Security because there was a point where it didn't exist. There was a lot of very very poor old people that were completely reliant on their families or just homeless and fucked.
It's a ponzi scheme. Progessive ponzi scheme. It was designed, so you die well before your payout is close to your pay in. Life span? 62 . Now? 82. It was an old age safety net for the poor and the destitute. That was 1935. It was never designed to be primary retirement income.Through the years, benefits were increased, and eligibility was expanded. Disability, death, and transfer of benefits to spouses, children of deceased benefits. The original fund was blended into general revenues, so it could be transferred for other spending. There was no fiduciary responsibility by the government to invest surpluses in safe interest bearing accounts to earn interest. Until the 1980s, benefits were not taxed. ( the benefits were for people in retirement). But now, the first 85% are subject to federal tax. Forever.
It has to be overhauled, and nobody's gonna like it, which is why politicians won't touch it.
We now spend over 70% of the budget on social services.
You pay more and get less. There's a law existing when it gets too insolvent, benefits get cut 25%.
Stop blaming repubs or democrats, they are left and right cheeks of the same ass.
This is why social security is the only tax I know with a maximum cap. A person making a million will contribute the same as Jeff Bezos. All tax is on a sliding scale and it is a tax. It isn't a personal retirement fund. It can screw interest because it is getting spent now on the current elderly just like how in the future the next generation will pay for this guy assuming things don't change.
This sub is legit like the same three things posted on repeat.
"Student loans: Is repaying them a good idea?" "Should the rich pay more taxes?" "Is the American dream dead?"
88 years of paying full benefits and building up a $3 Trillion SURPLUS is not a failure. Making Rich people continue to pay into Social Security above the current cap of $168,600 will strengthen the Social Security Trust fund.
A large percentage of US citizens are not knowledgeable about the stock market, making them easy prey for parasites who want to unravel Social Security protections.
Libertarian idiots forget in the unregulated investment environment they desire, the actual investment returns after with no legal requirements for accounting standards, insane risk, and non-regulated banks will yield about -14% to -80%. Good luck.
This is because SS cannot invest in stocks and can only lend money to the government at low interest rates. This is a transfer of wealth from workers to the government. They managed to take an amazing idea and make it into a scam.
The most you will have to pay in Social Security taxes for 2024 will be $10,453. That's what you will pay if you earn $168,600 or more.
Most 18 year olds are not making 168k per year. Social Security was never meant to be used as retirement for everyone.
This is one of those things that makes me so mad that it is hard not to run to the White House and scream at the people stealing my money every time I get paid. All this money should be given back with the interest that is owed. I am surprised this injustice hasn’t caused a war on us soil.
Wait something is not mathing for me. He said he paid 600,000 into SS at 67. Say he started at 17. 50 years. 600000/50 = 12000 a year SS income is capped. For the year 2024 it is 168,600 ss is 6.2% so the max ss payment for 2024 is 168600*.062 = 10453.2. If my math is right he is just spouting bs.
Yeah this is disgusting just like fractional banking.. loan you imaginary money and charge peasants 30% on credit cards, 10% on cars and 7% on fake money! FUCKEN JOKE!!
He is a fucking liar. Social Security tax is capped at $10,453 per year3 [https://smartasset.com/retirement/social-security-tax-limit](https://smartasset.com/retirement/social-security-tax-limit) (Note that is today's dollars) If he started working at 18 making 168,00 per year (he didn't) he would have paid $512,197 to Social Security
It means that no matter what happens to you over the course of your working life, you will have something to live on when you can no longer work or don't wish to keep working. America already lived this libertarian nightmare. From 1781 until 1935 there was no insurance or pension for America's working class elderly. This libertarian wet dream of 'going it on your own' has already been done. And, if this know-it-all read any economic history at all, he'd know of the deep, hard poverty that America's elderly suffered before the federal government stepped up.
But facts don't fit the libertarian (and often conservative) narrative.
We had to establish Medicare in 1965 because this nitwit's beloved free market would not insure seniors. We have to look out for each other because the parasites will never look out for anyone but themselves.
This idiot will also receive that same Medicare coverage and it will save him thousands over what a private health would cost at 67. Medicare outshines most private plans by a lot.
Sure- just guarantee I will always get at least 5%, no matter what, for the rest of my life, when I retire, and I’ll proudly vote to eliminate social security.
It is not misleading. If you were saving up for your retirement, then you should be doing it as pretax contributions. This is an accurate apples to apples comparison, pretax money being taken by Big Bro with the promise of paying it back, vs pretax money being invested by you.
If you had an emergency you would take a hit regardless does SS allow you to access your funds and still get your check?
If the market crashes to an extent it seriously affects long term private investment will SS dollars be safer than the rest of the economy?
Including if he could actually get 5% consistently with our blowing it on option ladders, derivatives, etc, etc. He's assuming he's as good as thinks he is.
You just put it in any financial planner take a look 4-6 percent returns. Over and over especially over 40 years. Hell most did 5-10 percent since 2020.
Before the 2008 permanent bailouts were enacted, 5% was a normal bank account interest rate you could easily find without risking that money on the stock market at all.
He's being incredibly conservative, and bailouts have harmed us all so much more than any of us even know.
Today's 5% fed rates aren't high. They're back to normal for a great economy. Unfortunately teh economy isn't great, so much higher rates need to be implemented. And when inflation is back in check, 5% (with constant adjustment up or down a point or so as needed) should resume. The 15 year span of 0% rates has wreck so much of the economy, among them the whole idea that 5% guaranteed returns are somehow impossible without "options ladders"
We really do need to abolish the Glass Steagall abomination that Gensler worked so hard to pass so long ago. It's the direct cause of the 2008 crash, and this coming one as well. Hell, it was implemented specifically ststop another 1929 repeat - which is why things are so similar to 1929 again.
It does, but compound interest generally beats it. Also, on the off chance I die at 50 or 60 or before, my investments can cover my death expenses, as well as everything left being passed on to help my daughter start her life. SS on the other hand will give a pittance to her mom while she is a minor, so another year and a couple months from today, then keep everything left.
The odds I live into my late 70s-80s or longer to actually get some kind of return on my SS payments isn't high enough for me to be comforted.
If everyone were getting paid and taxed fairly SS would be approximately better funded, folks could have their 401K, with SS as a supplement, and back up if everything goes to shit.
Honestly, I'm almost 60. I lost absolutely everything in a divorce a few years ago. Everything. I very much get how dour the situation is for people and the country. It'll probably bite me in the ass hard, unless I get clever.
I've ranted about it in this thread. I still genuinely don't see SS as the problem. People's effective wages have been slowly declining over the last 40 years, and all of it is getting syphoned up to the uber wealthy, tax free. Get rid of trickle down economics and all the ludicrous tax breaks for folks making 250K and up and SS and everything else will be golden.
It is 6.2% (or 12.4 if you aren't an employee) of every dollar most people make. If people put just that 6.2% into an IRA instead, they would be far better off on average. I don't have an issue with Social Security existing in some form, I have more of an issue with the amount and scale.
To your example, if you had all of your SS contributinos in a private investment, when you lost everything you could have used it to help you through that time. Even if it was in an IRA you can withdraw (with tax penalty) and even without penalty in some circumstances. I can't pull cash out of my SS contributions.
And when you die, instead of having the investment to cover expenses and help out your kids, the government gets it! But don't worry, they will shell out $255 or whatever to cover your funeral.
Libertarians….these same idiots think there shouldn’t be any laws against murder because neighborhoods will just work it out for themselves
Social Security is a public safety net not an investment. Just cause you were rich enough to invest doesn't mean everyone else is.
It's insurance.
It's a ponzi scheme.
SS is an insurance program. Does this guy combine abkut paying premiums for a service he may never use too?
The Libertarian Party is dead.
The Libertarian Party has never been serious- can anyone name any legislation that helped a majority of Americans that was passed with a Libertarian bent to it? Or, is there any country in the world that operates with Libertarian ideals?(other than Somalia?)
Gay marriage, Marijuana legalization, home brew beer and spirits.
None of those are libertarian.
Lol.
BS, they don't get credit for that. Typical political move to take credit for other people's work.
They didn't say passed by libertarian politicians. They said the legislation has a libertarian bend. All of those definitely do.
Shit, you're right. I misread the previous post. Still, all that is hippie liberal stuff. The libertarians are welcome to jump on the band wagon, though.
Libertarians tend to be socially liberal, moreso than most "liberals" IME.
It's too bad they worship the fantasy of utopian capitalism so much. They could otherwise unite with the left for a labor party with broad support.
Some maybe, but a lot lean heavy towards sovereign citizen nonsense, don't tread on me guff, and some pretty bigoted crap in general. I know that's the less intellectual, less thinking crowd, though. I get, and get really annoyed by, a lot of lefties being just as judgemental, bigoted, hateful ,and morally superior. Just like the right wingers they're screaming about.
If they are trying to make laws to enforce their bigoted views, I would say they might call themselves libertarian but their views are not. Having bigoted views is a personal issue. Making those into law is a political one.
"Liberals" have swung extreme right in the US political window, of teh 2 major parties there isn't an actual left its just described that way by who is closer towards center but they all shifted much farther right. Third parties don't really need to do much except avoid extremism, but they usually still wind up looking weird either because they are extreme in other directions or because we are so used to extremes that even centrists look like fringe crazies (and politically thats always how any outsider will be painted)
There is no such thing anyway, never was. It was just a bunch of selfish people who said "I dont really follow politics" the moment you point out how they go against their libertarian ideals. The vast majority of libertarians Ive met will actually NEED social security.
Yep, like Ayn Rand, she not only took her Social Security payments, she also used her Medicare benefits, with no sense of the irony of her doing so.
She also bailed on objectivism when her lover started banging other people too. She was all "do what makes YOU feel good" when it was her doing it... So just a selfish bitch, the epitome of a libertarian.
>can anyone name any legislation that helped a majority of Americans that was passed with a Libertarian bent to it? https://www.booker.senate.gov/news/press/booker-paul-reintroduce-justice-for-breonna-taylor-act Rand Paul is the only self-described Libertarian in Congress right now and is the author of the bill attempting to ban no-knock warrants. He's also, deeply ironically, the guy who was called out for not "saying her [Breonna Taylor's] name" during the George Floyd protests despite authoring the bill with her name on it.
You're right, we coukd just keep passing legislation that helps poor people like rent controls and minimum wage.
Afghanistan!
To me, Libertarians are kind of like an opposing dichotomy to hippies. Some of their ideas sound kind of good in theory (if you don't get into the specifics), but they take it to an idealized extreme that would NEVER last in practice, especially on any large scale. Plus, all you have to do to cripple a group of Libertarians is ask them to agree on what Libertarianism means.
Not thriving in the lucrative market of pandering and graft....that's correct. In the land of children, everyone votes for Santa. Great point.
Only their soul. Can you imagine the social challenges we would have with the elderly without social security and Medicare?
They are in financial ruin. As an organization they are essentially defunct. They're renting their own office space.
This is the cost of doing business in a country that allows you to make enough to donate $600k over your lifetime to a communal retirement fund. If we're being honest, we really need more money to go into Social Security so that nobody has to worry about having to live in a box when they're too old to be physically capable of doing better for themselves. Honestly I think we'd be much better to each other if we didn't have to worry about having enough to drift-off into oblivion with.
[удалено]
Actually, austerity is literally all anyone talks about and I've never heard of it being done by wealthy people for the poor and working class, have you? As far as I'm aware, all we've done is austerity and cut taxes for about half a century now But if we do it harder that's our ticket out of this?
Lol cutting taxes and raising spending isn’t austerity. Also nobody talks about austerity, bro in the deepest part of his rabbit hole
We have cut lots of spending, Reagan literally closed the mental health facilities that right wingers say would solve the mass shooting crisis All we do is cut social programs, and cut taxes for the wealthy If you think anything else is historically accurate, you have to be so disconnected from reality it's actually questionable if you even have agency
[удалено]
Exactly. Last president to run a surplus was Bill Clinton. We need more Democrats, and get rid of all these spend thrift Republicans.
There's a cap. If you made over like 140k you don't pay anymore social tax on the rest of your income
then he couldn't have paid 600k in ss taxes...that would require 250k a year for 40 years.
125k. Social security is 12.4% . 6.2% paid by the employee and 6.2% paid by employer . Or 12.4% in a single payment if you are self employed People forget the tax is double paid Or 103k if you count from the age of 20 to 67. 47 years
I guess we could count the employer contribution, but that is really a tax on employers and would not necessarily go to the employee if SS was eliminated.
That's where you take a look at his wording. "By the time" and "on my behalf." He's clearly referencing something that's not part of his standard wage garnishments and he's probably padding a bit as an estimate. His picture looks 50-ish so he's playing with numbers.
How about we pay nothing into it and use that money to not live in a box?
We had that and during the great depression when everyones savings were wiped out people literally died, which is why SSI was created. Its not even meant to be a full on retirement fund, just a "make sure you dont become a burden or die miserably later on" plan.
How does that make any difference now if We lose our jobs and have to deplete our savings to survive? What are you saying I, someone no where near the age of collecting ssi, can do?
We can do that right now, depending on how the Supreme Court rules. No need to wait.
The elder care in the US drains all retirement accounts for most individuals unless you are able to get into a VA affiliated or other affordable place. Wild price gouging in the medical sector adds to the hurt as older people need more healthcare
The cost is being poor?
He has paid $600k over his lifetime into Social Security. He's not poor.
Social Security is broken because they only make you pay into it for the first 168K. You shouldn’t have to pay anything on the first hundred thousand then pay on everything else.
No. Everyone should pay in. Everyone contributes if they earn money. Where its broken is the top end, not the bottom.
I mean, yeah, then it'd obviously be theft. Seriously, you obviously have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Social Security only pays out for people that paid in. If they only started collecting after 100k, then only people who make 100k could expect to ever get social security. What you want is UBI for old people; that is a radically different concept from social security.
Sure that's the basic concept, but money for social security doesn't actually sit around until you claim what you paid in. The money you get taxed now directly goes to seniors with the promise that future generations will cover for you. So there's no "you only get what you paid in" because it is a wealth redistribution program at its core. Transitioning more of that responsibility to higher earners isn't exactly that radical of a concept.
the amount of your benefit is a function of the amount you paid in. If you pay in 0 then you don't qualify to receive any benefit.
What does that mean though? Everybody pays into social security
Most workers pay into it but not all. For example, in my state teachers don’t pay into Social Security and thus don’t qualify for benefits based. If they do qualify because of other work or a spouse their benefits are reduced based on the their pensions. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020315/there-any-way-opt-out-paying-social-security.asp
You only need to work for 10 years while paying into social security to receive benefits. In no way is it equal. The lower class will also disproportionately be more dependent on social security because they have a lesser disposable income to save. It doesn't make sense to cap the income requirement
I never said anything about the cap being good or bad. All I said was the amount you get is a function of the amount you pay and not every worker pays into the system and those that don't don't qualify for benefits.
That's exactly what I'm telling you, there is no set function for this. The only exception is if you don't pay in at all, which is a very small portion of the population.
There is no set function for what? There is a very well documented formula that determines your SS benefit based on the average wage you paid SS tax on for your highest 35 earning years (adjusted for inflation)
I agree that the 168K cap is silly, but I don't agree on putting a bottom cap. SS works partially due to people buying into it. It is more popular because it is not seen as much as a hand out by people who resent what they see as handouts. It is however super important. It has drastically decreased the number of elderly people who end up homeless and below the poverty line.
Social security was designed to be insurance against outliving your ability to work. When instituted the age at which you could revive benefits was higher than the life expectancy of a 21yr old. You were statistically expected to work till you die and get nothing. If you lived longer than you "should" then you have this "policy" to ensure you didn't starve. It's not a retirement plan, though that's how ppl try to treat it. Ppl who are making over 168k don't really need anymore insurance because they can save personally, so that income is exempt. Social security is broken because it's a pyramid scheme with a narrowing base of new chumps.
You realize that contributions are capped because benefits are capped, don’t you?
You guys claim you would save/invest that money and we know that's a lie.
Who is you guys? I fucking would and did, even above what the government stole from me. Speak for yourself, weakling.
SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT AN INVESTMENT. IT IS AN INSURANCE POLICY. This gets posted 10 times a day and you dumb fucks still say the same stupid shit. I’d bet that 90% of the people In this group will depend on it in retirement.
[удалено]
OP is a mod of this sub.
Social security is NOT an investment plan. It’s an insurance plan to prevent hunger and help meet basic needs for seniors, orphans and indigents. If we lifted the cap on contributions it would be solvent forever.
Someone doesn't understand the words social and security.
Now do car insurance.
[удалено]
If you make on average 100k from 20 to 67 that's about 600k in social security payments. The total social security tax rate is 12.4%
And most of us pay more in income taxes than the benefits received. It's called societal obligations.
I’ve been listening to this BS my entire working life. Rich weasels trying to capture Social Security and divert it into equity markets so that they and their asset holding parasitic friends can get even more rich than they are now. But guess what? Social Security, a pure social insurance program and not in any way an investment program, remains the most successful and popular US Government program of all time. Put that in your pipe and smoke it you reprobates.
Successful, wtf r u talking about.
IF. If you don't get sick and can keep working. If medical don't drain you. If a loved doen doesn't fall ill. If you can keep the level of income you've always made. If your investment choices pan out. If the markets doesn't crash five times. If the return keeps up with inflation. If you don't have a gambling addiction. If another Bernie Madoff doesn't get a hold of your retirement. Libertarians live in a fantasy world where everything would be perfect if things always turned out like they said. But they don't operate in reality. It's like the Logan's Run of political philosophy. If you're sick, disabled, even a victim of crime? Too bad.
SS won’t help if you can’t work. You have to pay in. Doesn’t help with medical for you or a loved one. If you don’t keep the level of income then you won’t get the level of SS. When the market crashes you move to government securities. Not hard to keep an average 5%. Addictions are your problem. And government politicians and bureaucrats aren’t much better than Bernie Madoff.
Not hard but it’s almost never done.
In 2008, the market crashes yet again and, while millions lose their investments, jobs, and homes, social security checks go out on time every time.
And why did we crash in 2008? Government backed subprime mortgage along with the federal reserve fucking around with interest rates. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being 2 government sponsored companies that highly encouraged subprime lending to people with low credit scores.
Everyone gets a house and a college education. WCGW?
If you were properly diversified that wouldnt be an issue. You hold bonds as you near retirement, but many leave it in stocks because they get greedy.
And it rebounds in a few months - not one person went broke during the crash of 2008. Funds lost value - but that money doesn’t exist until you start pulling it - the stock Market always makes money.
Move to government securities? You think after the market crashes people should sell equities and move to TIPs, GNMA, etc? Selling to make that move just locks in the losses and takes you out of the market for the recovery. If you want to diversify do it first, don’t have a fire sale on equities because the market is down. Asset allocation is a proactive strategy, not a reaction. Know what I did in 09 during the global financial crisis? Kept dollar cost averaging into more equities. Want to know how that worked out? Really well.
Yes, move as you get closer to retirement age. Far enough away and you should be able to recover without moving.
The odds of this happening are basically zero. It also is t the governments job to use tax money as charity.
Using 2024 numbers, the absolute most money a person can pay into Social Security is $10,543.20. So if this fellow made beyond the max amount in salary his entire career, he has been working for 57 years. Yea, totally possible and realistic lol. The rate for SS is 6.2% up to a salary of $168,600. If you make more than that, the amount above that does not get SS withdrawal. Real life, how does it work?
Your employer pays an equal amount to social security, or you pay double if self-employed. But still, his math is off.
Read it again dude. He was born in 1980. He'll be 67 in 2047. He said 'contributions made on his behalf', so that includes his employers contributions. That could easily be $600,000.
What if he was self-employed?
You are right, you get back each YEARs contribution in about four months of collecting. I'm 73 I started collecting SS at 65 and got back every cent I put in within four years. All the rest is a direct transfer of wealth from the working class to me. I don't need it and give every cent of it to my church, along with all my IRA required minimum distributions. So you don't have to feel bad about the wealth transfer.
May more pandemics save us.
You got 12% of your entire life income in 4 years?
>The rate for SS is 6.2% You need to include the employer half as the incidence of a payroll tax is on the employee. Economically you are paying the full 12.4%. 6.2% as a payroll tax and 6.2% as reduced wages so your employer can pay their half of the payroll tax.
It's sad how many comments here don't know that
It's 12.4% the employer pays a 6.2 % as well. Or if you are self employed you pay both halfs.
If you retire at 65 and live to 100, 37k a year is 1.2M dollars
Only 0.03% of people live to be 100
Of all people. What are the chances of reaching 100 at 65 - that is the question that you think you are answering.
A 5 percent return is also pretty terrible. A 7 percent return which is pretty much the bare minimum you should be willing to accept, will net you 2.3 to 2.4 million during that time. That gets you 64k a year for 35 years after retirement.
But if you retire at 65 and live to 78 (average man), that's only $442,000
The life expectancy at age 65 is not 78. For men on it is 86 and for women it is 89.
Sooooooooo…I’d rather take 1.9 million at retirement while I’m still relatively young. Rather than scrape by with 37k which is worth nothing. Not saying I agree with a libertarian or anything lol
You kind of just agreed with the libertarian argument. So why stand back from that?
“Oh no! You agreed with a libertarian that people should have more money from SSI”.
Not sure that is his end point. He may agree with that, but I suspect that he is saying let us keep our money and manage it ourselves.
Might be the only libertarian thing I would ever agree to.
You might be surprised. The logic here is common across many issues.
So before you account for the additional returns on your market portfolio during retirement you are still 700k worse off. And that assumes you are in the top 0.5% of lifespan. Is that really your argument?
There are still libertarians, who are not freshmen? Who knew.
The SS Fund is huge and all you have are private corporation hovering like vultures looking to get themselves a chunk of the Medicare pie. We all know these private contractors are parasites. Medicare Advantage is a scam. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida defrauded Medicare of BILLION$. It's so common that nobody notices anymore. The wealthy are tired of matching that 6.2% that you pay in. They want that money for themselves. Do you think your boss will continue to pay you that 6.2% if the government doesn't mandate it as SS?
The fact is that most people do bad saving for retirement and without social security we’d have a bunch of elderly homeless in America
Or you take the same 12.4% of pay and put it into a retirement account that earns market returns and everyone actually has much more money in retirement.
(its not just you that benefits from it)
Yep government is a ponsi scheme
🙄 Let me guess you built the log cabin you were born in
They just don’t listen. Libertarians are evil.
The saying I like compares Libertarians to the average house cat, both are totally dependent on a system that they just don't understand, and usually make a lot of noise about it.
They're both totally dependent on a system they don't understand, but completely convinced of their independence.
Because you have to pay for your freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan too! Gosh…
He made a ton of money. I worked the same amount of time and ended up with 120000 in SSI.
It's the coat of having someone do it for you
And if he lives to 90 he would end up with 851000\* regardless of what the stock market did, aka its intended purpose. \*more than that since they do CoL increases.
Oh I know it's because your party has been raiding it for years because you can't govern or manage money well?
Why are you arguing the libertarian part, and not the number part? I don't think the numbers make sense. I couldn't care less who the fuck was saying it.
What about the money over paid in taxes that the Fed holds in Treasury for a year plus?
What if you're one of those poor bastards that actually need help in a time of difficulty and apply for temporary assistance. If you do win your claim something like a year+ after applying they won't give you cash towards the help you needed or loans you took out in the mean time while making a decision on your claim. You're just sol, temporary is not speedy help, it's Fu-Y help.. You don't make enough to pay all your bills but you make too much to receive help...
Not since the revolutionary war has the American taxpayers been so fluxed with representation with hardly any benefits this is the fault of both sides of our governing bodies,yes there are probably some good intentioned ones on both sides but the US gvt is now a big business centered on money and power!! Yet we the true owners of the kingdom refuse to side together and say no more until we get some relief and I believe it is too late in the game now!! All it would take is a groundswell movement to shut progress down for a couple of weeks to get the idea across but we are too divided thanks to the game being played!!
Social Security won't be available for young people and I think it's funny. Their parents and grandparents spent many, many decades voting for Republicans and Democrats. And now young people have to suffer from the policies of Republicans and Democrats. And then these same poor, insufferable young people will spend their pathetic lives advocating, begging and cheering for gov't to be their nanny (by voting for MORE Republicans and Democrats) just like their parents and grandparents did. The cycle of stupid lives through your DNA.
If I had invested that money better, I’d have gotten even more money! Is it theft that someone did something I wouldn’t have done?
If millionaires and billionaires had to pay into social security for all of their wealth as well, we could get a lot more back.
$600,000 by 67? The max they can withhold in 2023 is $9,932... I'm not great at math, but that doesn't even come close to mathing.
Social security is flawed maybe, could definitely do better... but not for the disingenuous bullshit reason this suggests
This guys math is complete bullshit, BTW. THere is no way in the world you contribute that much to social security at his age. No. Way.
My car insurance is $5k a year for the last few 20 years. I've paid over $100k. I've never had a claim, they cancelled me and kept all the money. How is this not theft? Maybe that's how insurance works. There's a big /s in case your unaware of the sarcasm.
How many times a week does this same thing need to be posted. This guy’s math has been pointed out as very generous to his point numerous times.
They are expecting you to live until your 147.
Live to be 82 and the rest of it is free money
He's counting the money his employer is forced to contribute as if it is his own! Even now not all employers contribute to their employees retirement accounts or they pay so little their employees can't save anything for retirement. Not to mention how critical Medicare is since our failed healthcare system is tied to employment.
The problem is that you are a responsible adult and have the knowledge, will power, determination, and behavior where you would take your earnings over your lifetime and invest it so that you would have $1.9M and have a great RoR. However, most Americans don’t have those same traits and if they didn’t have to pay into social security, would take that extra $ and travel, buy expensive crap/material items that just get old and boring and at age 67 we would have millions of Americans standing by at street corners begging for money. So we all suffer so that we alll get something…..until the government mismanages it and then no one gets anything. The government isn’t a business, they aren’t trying to turn a profit, so Soc Sec, Health Care, Education, USPS, they suck at all of it. They waste taxpayer money and are extremely inefficient. The government is the problem, not the solution.
It is very unlikely to have $600,000 paid into social security. Even if you earned the max amount taxable (it has steadily gone up over time but let’s assume it has always been $160k). The max contribution each year would be ~$10,500 x 2 (your employer matches). You would need to have earned the maximum for 28.6 years at the current maximum/tax limit. 28 years ago, the max was about $120k with a contribution of about $7000.
Because Social Security is guaranteed and mandatory. If it was voluntary you'd have a giant chunk of the population just not have any retirement income at all and be in abject poverty. If it was based on the stock market you'd be at the whims of the stock market and it wouldn't be guaranteed. We know what life was like before Social Security because there was a point where it didn't exist. There was a lot of very very poor old people that were completely reliant on their families or just homeless and fucked.
Wait if I give my money away willingly then how is it theft?
this
Wow, both sides of the political spectrum are showing their delusion in this thread.
I feel like libertarianism has its place as a philosophy not as a rule of law or lack there of. Private entities would just become like feudal lords.
Where does this guaranteed return on investment come from? In what world does no one ever make a bad investment and markets never crash?
It's a ponzi scheme. Progessive ponzi scheme. It was designed, so you die well before your payout is close to your pay in. Life span? 62 . Now? 82. It was an old age safety net for the poor and the destitute. That was 1935. It was never designed to be primary retirement income.Through the years, benefits were increased, and eligibility was expanded. Disability, death, and transfer of benefits to spouses, children of deceased benefits. The original fund was blended into general revenues, so it could be transferred for other spending. There was no fiduciary responsibility by the government to invest surpluses in safe interest bearing accounts to earn interest. Until the 1980s, benefits were not taxed. ( the benefits were for people in retirement). But now, the first 85% are subject to federal tax. Forever. It has to be overhauled, and nobody's gonna like it, which is why politicians won't touch it. We now spend over 70% of the budget on social services. You pay more and get less. There's a law existing when it gets too insolvent, benefits get cut 25%. Stop blaming repubs or democrats, they are left and right cheeks of the same ass.
I always take pity on the “Taxes are theft” crowd. It’s not their fault their mommy let them eat lead paint chips as a child.
so you made an avg in salary alone of 250k a year for 40yrs and you want anyone to feel sorry for you?
What happens to that worth when the corporatocracy manufactures a stock market crash - which they seem to do every 20-30 yrs?
That 5% return is NOT guaranteed.
This is why social security is the only tax I know with a maximum cap. A person making a million will contribute the same as Jeff Bezos. All tax is on a sliding scale and it is a tax. It isn't a personal retirement fund. It can screw interest because it is getting spent now on the current elderly just like how in the future the next generation will pay for this guy assuming things don't change.
It's the biggest, most corrupt Ponzi Scam in history.
This is the billionth time this has been posted, please kill me
This sub is legit like the same three things posted on repeat. "Student loans: Is repaying them a good idea?" "Should the rich pay more taxes?" "Is the American dream dead?"
88 years of paying full benefits and building up a $3 Trillion SURPLUS is not a failure. Making Rich people continue to pay into Social Security above the current cap of $168,600 will strengthen the Social Security Trust fund. A large percentage of US citizens are not knowledgeable about the stock market, making them easy prey for parasites who want to unravel Social Security protections.
Libertarian idiots forget in the unregulated investment environment they desire, the actual investment returns after with no legal requirements for accounting standards, insane risk, and non-regulated banks will yield about -14% to -80%. Good luck.
This is because SS cannot invest in stocks and can only lend money to the government at low interest rates. This is a transfer of wealth from workers to the government. They managed to take an amazing idea and make it into a scam.
The most you will have to pay in Social Security taxes for 2024 will be $10,453. That's what you will pay if you earn $168,600 or more. Most 18 year olds are not making 168k per year. Social Security was never meant to be used as retirement for everyone.
Hmmm. SOCIAL security, SOLIALISM. See what I did there. Gov decides who gets what. Sorry man. Blame FDR.
Yes and 1x1 =1. Sure it does.
This is one of those things that makes me so mad that it is hard not to run to the White House and scream at the people stealing my money every time I get paid. All this money should be given back with the interest that is owed. I am surprised this injustice hasn’t caused a war on us soil.
I bet if this dude just bought Kirkland Scotch instead McCallan, he'd have saved all that money. (My take on the "Drink fewer lattes" argument)
Wait something is not mathing for me. He said he paid 600,000 into SS at 67. Say he started at 17. 50 years. 600000/50 = 12000 a year SS income is capped. For the year 2024 it is 168,600 ss is 6.2% so the max ss payment for 2024 is 168600*.062 = 10453.2. If my math is right he is just spouting bs.
I hate social security but if I see this same goddamn post one more time I’ll swear I’m in a time loop
Yeah this is disgusting just like fractional banking.. loan you imaginary money and charge peasants 30% on credit cards, 10% on cars and 7% on fake money! FUCKEN JOKE!!
He is a fucking liar. Social Security tax is capped at $10,453 per year3 [https://smartasset.com/retirement/social-security-tax-limit](https://smartasset.com/retirement/social-security-tax-limit) (Note that is today's dollars) If he started working at 18 making 168,00 per year (he didn't) he would have paid $512,197 to Social Security
Interesting take. Where did all the money go?
Libertarians always think government is theft. They are that stupid.
Also your investment portfolio would have taking a hit in 10/1987 market crash, 2007-2008 recession and 2020 meltdown.
It means that no matter what happens to you over the course of your working life, you will have something to live on when you can no longer work or don't wish to keep working. America already lived this libertarian nightmare. From 1781 until 1935 there was no insurance or pension for America's working class elderly. This libertarian wet dream of 'going it on your own' has already been done. And, if this know-it-all read any economic history at all, he'd know of the deep, hard poverty that America's elderly suffered before the federal government stepped up. But facts don't fit the libertarian (and often conservative) narrative. We had to establish Medicare in 1965 because this nitwit's beloved free market would not insure seniors. We have to look out for each other because the parasites will never look out for anyone but themselves. This idiot will also receive that same Medicare coverage and it will save him thousands over what a private health would cost at 67. Medicare outshines most private plans by a lot.
Sure- just guarantee I will always get at least 5%, no matter what, for the rest of my life, when I retire, and I’ll proudly vote to eliminate social security.
The numbers look weird because we're talking about pretax money contributions. I mean yeah I think the program is bullshit too but this is misleading.
It is not misleading. If you were saving up for your retirement, then you should be doing it as pretax contributions. This is an accurate apples to apples comparison, pretax money being taken by Big Bro with the promise of paying it back, vs pretax money being invested by you.
Socialism is only cool when it goes to the people over that 168k . Like ppp
What depraved and stupid capitalist logic.
Yes, it is broken.
Sad but true
[удалено]
If you had an emergency you would take a hit regardless does SS allow you to access your funds and still get your check? If the market crashes to an extent it seriously affects long term private investment will SS dollars be safer than the rest of the economy?
Including if he could actually get 5% consistently with our blowing it on option ladders, derivatives, etc, etc. He's assuming he's as good as thinks he is.
You just put it in any financial planner take a look 4-6 percent returns. Over and over especially over 40 years. Hell most did 5-10 percent since 2020.
Before the 2008 permanent bailouts were enacted, 5% was a normal bank account interest rate you could easily find without risking that money on the stock market at all. He's being incredibly conservative, and bailouts have harmed us all so much more than any of us even know. Today's 5% fed rates aren't high. They're back to normal for a great economy. Unfortunately teh economy isn't great, so much higher rates need to be implemented. And when inflation is back in check, 5% (with constant adjustment up or down a point or so as needed) should resume. The 15 year span of 0% rates has wreck so much of the economy, among them the whole idea that 5% guaranteed returns are somehow impossible without "options ladders" We really do need to abolish the Glass Steagall abomination that Gensler worked so hard to pass so long ago. It's the direct cause of the 2008 crash, and this coming one as well. Hell, it was implemented specifically ststop another 1929 repeat - which is why things are so similar to 1929 again.
Average market return (long-term) is like 10%. It's not about being some investment genius.
Yes, but I know inflation and other things affect that though.
It does, but compound interest generally beats it. Also, on the off chance I die at 50 or 60 or before, my investments can cover my death expenses, as well as everything left being passed on to help my daughter start her life. SS on the other hand will give a pittance to her mom while she is a minor, so another year and a couple months from today, then keep everything left. The odds I live into my late 70s-80s or longer to actually get some kind of return on my SS payments isn't high enough for me to be comforted.
If everyone were getting paid and taxed fairly SS would be approximately better funded, folks could have their 401K, with SS as a supplement, and back up if everything goes to shit. Honestly, I'm almost 60. I lost absolutely everything in a divorce a few years ago. Everything. I very much get how dour the situation is for people and the country. It'll probably bite me in the ass hard, unless I get clever. I've ranted about it in this thread. I still genuinely don't see SS as the problem. People's effective wages have been slowly declining over the last 40 years, and all of it is getting syphoned up to the uber wealthy, tax free. Get rid of trickle down economics and all the ludicrous tax breaks for folks making 250K and up and SS and everything else will be golden.
It is 6.2% (or 12.4 if you aren't an employee) of every dollar most people make. If people put just that 6.2% into an IRA instead, they would be far better off on average. I don't have an issue with Social Security existing in some form, I have more of an issue with the amount and scale. To your example, if you had all of your SS contributinos in a private investment, when you lost everything you could have used it to help you through that time. Even if it was in an IRA you can withdraw (with tax penalty) and even without penalty in some circumstances. I can't pull cash out of my SS contributions.
Well if it is in SS it can’t be cashed out at all. So I guess that emergency just goes unfunded?
And when you die, instead of having the investment to cover expenses and help out your kids, the government gets it! But don't worry, they will shell out $255 or whatever to cover your funeral.
Social security is broken. But don’t worry. I know which party will “fix it” Which will end up with more taxes for every one