That’s a hard pass for me. I’d rather opt out of social security. It’s a ponzi scam. If the government had put that into a private account, I’d have millions of dollars in there.
That’s a hard pass for me. I’d rather opt out of social security. It’s a ponzi scam. If the government had put that into a private account, I’d have millions of dollars in there.
I assumed you started working in 1977 for $120k/year (that’s $630k in today’s value btw) and retired today, contributing 6.2% monthly from the start and put it in a 6% monthly compounding savings account, you’d be just shy of millions ($1.9m).
I did not account for raises because if you’ve made over $7m in your lifetime, you don’t need the cash payout from social security anyway. It’s a safety net for people who can’t afford to save for retirement - and they’ve been paying into it their whole lives, too.
I’m not a fan of how social security has been handled (or that I’m not going to benefit as much as boomers have) but social security for everyone benefits the country.
I started working in 1988. I haven’t made less than 100k since 2000. I’ve averaged since about 2010 over 400k a year.
Increasing how much I pay into the system; doesn’t increase the amount I receive. That isn’t in the design.
401k allows about double social security with the cap. I have about 5 million in my 401k which shows social would have done better in a private account.
Yeah, so you’re wealthy. You don’t need any social security (but you still benefit from it)
Moving it to a private account means a tiny group of millionares would make billions off our tax dollars. I am not on board with that.
I don’t benefit from it. It provides zero value to me
Yes, you do. A healthy country benefits all citizens.
There’s a financial burden we all bare when people can’t afford to live. We’re spared part of that burden through the underprivileged receiving social security
No I don’t. It’s just a wealth transfer which doesn’t build wealth. It provides zero benefit to me.
You must really like crime, because what you’re advocating for is the worsening of economic outcomes for Americans and therefore crime.
There you go again.
There you go again
Yes, you do. Trickle down economics is a proven disaster that has eroded the middle class. It’s much better for the country to help bring the bottom up than to further increase wealth inequality by further funding the rich with our tax dollars.
You’re against wealth transfer but you’re proposing another one…this time to the wealthiest people in the country. And you’re fine with that because you get some more scraps out of it.
I’d be more sympathetic to your plight if you paid your fair share in taxes…but you richer you are, the less you contribute proportionally. You’re not the 1% but your attitude is why there’s so much anger toward the rich.
I am not suggesting a wealth transfer. Keeping my own money is not a transfer. Trickle down didn’t hurt the middle class. That’s some weird liberal re-write of history. If that was the issue then why didn’t the democrats fix it? NAFTA and other trades agreements are what destroyed the middle class. When companies could move jobs to China or Mexico , that removed the factory jobs many middle class people depended on.
You are suggesting a wealth transfer. Do you think private banks give you 100% of the interest your money makes? Where do you think the extra money goes?
Democrats didn’t fix it because Democrats can’t fix shit
And nafta is not the only reason for wealth consolidation. The fact remains that wealthy people largely do not choose to “trickle down” anything. It’s been a massive failure and you’d have to do mental gymnastics to see it as working. Or just be extremely selfish