Stipulated: The average American worker contributed to their Social Security and their employer did as well; that contribution totaled 15% of income before taxes.
These figures below reflect the 49 years worked by the man who made these calculations. Punch in your own numbers.
- If you averaged $30K/year over your working life, the 15% contribution is $4500 a year.
- Over 49 years, that adds up to nearly $220,500 total cash contribution.
- If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year at a simple 5%, after 49 years of working you’d have $892,919.98.
- If you took out only 3% per year, you’d receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years.
(h/t friend Ed)
You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy. But you cannot have both.
Whatever Works 
Damn straight we paid for it and if “they” have a problem with that, then “they” can kiss my…well, it ain’t my poptart.
LikeLike
Ms. Holland,
I’m sorry but do you even try to make accurate assumptions ? Very few people contribute to SS for 49 years . Plus you don’t earn 5% per year . Wait, wait, wait we could have had private accounts, but your guys shot that down , remember ?
Plus you don’t put anything in for you. You pay for someone else and another sucker pays for you.
Speaking of entitlements, why no mention of Obama shutting down the CLASS act ? They admitted ,, for a freakin change, that their accounting was a lie .
LikeLike
I worked 45 years. My brother, 72, is still working. Plenty of people work for 45+ years.
And yes, we all know that it’s a pay it forward program.
Entitlement policy is a decades long process and should be dynamic and subject to regular change as circumstances change. Since the mid-80’s, our government has failed to do that.
But I know you enjoy making it Obama’s fault.
LikeLike
I won’t bicker the numbers: I think the contributions are closer to 12.5% and the average salary is is misleading due to inflation. But okay…
The conclusion is that had you been able to “mark” the money as your, you would be better off than if you hadn’t [like we can’t today]. I would further add to the conclusion:
If you desired, you could continue to work with no reduction in the “fund”. It’s still there, you just wanna take it later.
If you pass away, you can leave that money to your grand kids.
In short, you are describing a world that’s better than the government funded SS. And, with respect to Alan, you didn’t shoot this down; the Republicans didn’t propose anything this radical. Rather, the proposal was that but 2 of that 15% be set aside in a personal account.
LikeLike
pino – I don’t think the point was to ‘mark’ the money as belonging to any individual. I think the point is to dispute the rhetoric claiming that SS is an ‘entitlement’, which suggests a give-away, or ‘something for nothing’.
LikeLike
pino,
True, Republicans proposed less than half a loaf. Democrats of course would have none of .it. If people had control of even 2% of their SS money that would be 2% Democrats would not control. Heresy. You know even back then they blamed Wall St. And there was no lie too big to tell to Grandma and grandpa.
LikeLike
Moe, how dare you feel entitled to a retirement? 😉
LikeLike
Yo Moe!……
I put my monies in….
I want it there when I ask for it!
LikeLike
I’m with YOU!
LikeLike
Thanks for the figures. it seems Congress shot down the idea … not one party. President Bush tossed out the idea and it couldn’t get any traction.
Although I am for individualized privatized accounts, I continue to support the central idea of supporting the needy late in life. So, any alternative solutions should include that, as well as a way to finance the transition from one system to another.
LikeLike
Thanks for the figures. it seems Congress shot down the idea … not one party. President Bush tossed out the idea and it couldn’t get any traction.
If I remember right, Dubya won the election and felt he had a “mandate”. With that mandate he tried to push through the privatization. The idea was “demonized” to the point no one could support it. Further, control of the Senate transitioned from Republican to Democrat control.
Although I am for individualized privatized accounts
Good for you!
I continue to support the central idea of supporting the needy late in life.
So do I. We could debate all day and night about a totally private method or a public one, but suffice it to say the Republicans idea would have privatized 2% of the 12.5% [Mo has 15% but I think she is off].
a way to finance the transition from one system to another.
Not one single Republican plan changes the system for anyone older than 49. If you are 50 years old or older, the system is what it is.
LikeLike
Sure President Bush mentioned it … however, did the House pass a long at that time? Nope.
LikeLike
Sure President Bush mentioned it … however, did the House pass a long at that time? Nope.
Fair enough. However, to think that it’s not the Democrats who oppose SS reform is dishonest. It has always been the Democrats.
LikeLike
Pino,
I admit that Democrats are generally opposed to SS reform … and I would be a buffoon not to know that. However, the GOP was in charge of the House at that time and they passed nothing on to the Senate. So they dropped the ball at that time. Meanwhile, all of Congress is responsible for the outcome over time. Sorry … no free passes from me.
LikeLike
So they dropped the ball at that time.
Again. Fair enough.
LikeLike
The last serious SS reform was worked out between Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan. It was a truly bipartisan effort and outcome. I don’t think Bush was ever serious about his plan – it fit the conservative ideology but he didn’t fight for it.
LikeLike
What doe we do if you get YOUR retirment money…
Invest it and lose it?
Bail you out?
Leave Social Security and the other two alone…
LikeLike
What doe we do if you get YOUR retirment money…
I know, right? What a moon-bat crazy thing to think! I mean really, me getting to keep my own money!?! What are we, nuts?
Leave Social Security and the other two alone…
And there ya have it.
LikeLike
afrankangle ,
” However, the GOP was in charge of the House at that time and they passed nothing on to the Senate. So they dropped the ball at that time. ”
That is a trifle dishonest Democrats made it politically suicidal for Republicans to proceed. Back then and today, it never changes . Democrats trot out the most pathetic looking old people and scare the crap out of them . Even though nobody on SS would have been affected , Democrats lie and lie and lie. Republicans are just trying to have your SS stolen on Wall Street, that was the cry.
So nothing ever changes because it is easy to lie to old people and scare them . Republicans tried and failed to save SS. Democrats have tried and succeeded in keeping SS insolvent.Congratulations to you and the rest of the Democrats in your victory .
LikeLike
Hah, seriously? That’s rediculous. No way
LikeLike