I have a question. I have been employed since age 16, and have been contributing to SS my entire life. I am now 60 years old, single, and have a couple of kids and grandkids. I pass away. Who gets all of the money I have put into SS over the years?

I have a question. I have been employed since age 16, and have been contributing to SS my entire life. I am now 60 years old, single, and have a couple of kids and grandkids. I pass away. Who gets all of the money I have put into SS over the years?

Not your kids or grand kids. You don't get any of the money you put in at all. That's been spent on previous generations. If you make it to 65, or 66, or 70 and get to retire, you'll be getting money put in by me. If you don't make it, well there is a reason it is called Social Security. Your donations will be kept in the pool and given to my generation. Social Security is used to do more than supplement retirement, too.

 

BTW, that was all Social Security was originally intended to do. Supplement a one's retirement, not be the whole thing. Not provide survivor benefits. Not provide disability benefits. Not provide the Treasury an open line of credit that it probably won't repay. Last I checked, the trust fund should be completely bankrupt by 2037. Anybody in their early 40s counting on that as your sole retirement, good luck with that.

IMO the same downside as completely doing it. Are we prepared as a society to see seniors sleeping on the streets and going hungry if they choose to invest privately. Are you willing to do that if they choose that route and it ends badly? Much more likely is there would be some emergency legislation or a dramatic increase in welfare type benefits that would eat up any savings from privatization. All my opinion of course.

 

Cost/benefit has to come into play.

 

How much is it "costing" taxpayers today to have the govt administer the SS? How much would taxpayers save but it going private? Add in how much it would cost taxpayers to handle those that make bad choices.

 

What's the result? If its positive (ie costs taxpayers less) then lets do it.

 

We can't continue to squander tax dollars simply because some will make bad choices.

 

We, as a country, already have safety nets in place for those without funds.

 

Its no different than extending UI. What's the cost of doing that vs some of those folks having to go on welfare/food stamps? What's the net result?

I'm not wild about it for this reason: if, as 2 Humped Camel suggested above, someone's investments were to go bad, what happens to them? I'll tell you: we end up taking care of them anyway. This amounts to an individual losing their own money that they've put in throughout their life and so now need other people's money as well. In order to counter-balance that, you'd need at least one person who did VERY well in their own investments or a couple people who did pretty well. I'm just concerned that this doesn't necessarily lead to financial independence for our aging population, but leads to further problems.

 

Do you believe more people would benefit or would more be hurt?

Not your kids or grand kids. You don't get any of the money you put in at all. That's been spent on previous generations. If you make it to 65, or 66, or 70 and get to retire, you'll be getting money put in by me. If you don't make it, well there is a reason it is called Social Security. Your donations will be kept in the pool and given to my generation. Social Security is used to do more than supplement retirement, too.

 

BTW, that was all Social Security was originally intended to do. Supplement a one's retirement, not be the whole thing. Not provide survivor benefits. Not provide disability benefits. Not provide the Treasury an open line of credit that it probably won't repay. Last I checked, the trust fund should be completely bankrupt by 2037. Anybody in their early 40s counting on that as your sole retirement, good luck with that.

 

Well, that seals it...my dog and I will be sharing the same bag of food.

Not your kids or grand kids. You don't get any of the money you put in at all. That's been spent on previous generations. If you make it to 65, or 66, or 70 and get to retire, you'll be getting money put in by me. If you don't make it, well there is a reason it is called Social Security. Your donations will be kept in the pool and given to my generation. Social Security is used to do more than supplement retirement, too.

 

BTW, that was all Social Security was originally intended to do. Supplement a one's retirement, not be the whole thing. Not provide survivor benefits. Not provide disability benefits. Not provide the Treasury an open line of credit that it probably won't repay. Last I checked, the trust fund should be completely bankrupt by 2037. Anybody in their early 40s counting on that as your sole retirement, good luck with that.

I get it. Next question. Now instead of that money going in SS over 44 years, I have invested it privately, and same scenario at age 60, who gets that money? Hmmmm. Let's see. I have worked hard my whole life, I have socked some money away, and who should get that if I don't stick around? My family, or leave it to the gov't to give it to someone else? I would prefer that my kids and grandkids recieve that windfall. And if I haven't saved that money, then chances are I have already spent it on my family, and if I stick around past my time, then they can take care of me.

I get it. Next question. Now instead of that money going in SS over 44 years, I have invested it privately, and same scenario at age 60, who gets that money? Hmmmm. Let's see. I have worked hard my whole life, I have socked some money away, and who should get that if I don't stick around? My family, or leave it to the gov't to give it to someone else? I would prefer that my kids and grandkids recieve that windfall. And if I haven't saved that money, then chances are I have already spent it on my family, and if I stick around past my time, then they can take care of me.

 

The problem is that it will always be considered insurance and not a true investment like a mutual fund or a stock. The only change is going to be how its invested so the same rules at your untimely demise will still apply.

The problem is that it will always be considered insurance and not a true investment like a mutual fund or a stock. The only change is going to be how its invested so the same rules at your untimely demise will still apply.

 

The problem is I have no control over that segment of my income and retirement. Clyde, you and I have probably been in the work force about the same amount of time. You do realize how much money you would have if you could have invested the money you have paid SS in even a conservative investment? And then to think, your heirs could possibly see none of that. It's pretty much legalized robbery.

The problem is I have no control over that segment of my income and retirement. Clyde, you and I have probably been in the work force about the same amount of time..

 

Oh, that hurts. I ain't 60. I ain't 50.

 

However, I'd hate to think about how much value my dollars invested would have today.

I'm planning on having a nice chunk of change in my 401k and hopefully a nice retirment set up by then, I've got a few decades to work out the details.

Oh, that hurts. I ain't 60. I ain't 50.

 

However, I'd hate to think about how much value my dollars invested would have today.

Hey, I'm not that old either. I believe you and I are real close in age. 60 was just a number I threw out there. Lets hope we make it past that too.:thumb:

To answer Clyde's original question, I've been in favor of this since I first heard it proposed (I think by GWB). Of course, I'm younger, so it is to my benefit. But as others have said, it'll never happen.