Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Do SS retirees now die before collecting all their lifetime contributions?

Posted on 11/20/2008 10:38:12 AM PST by Conservababe

Retirees receiving Social Security seem to believe that they will die before collecting all their lifetime contributions to the system, leaving a balance. But is this the truth? I know there are many variables so I was hoping someone could point me to stats.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-85 last
To: nascarnation

If you had taken the social security taxes collected from you and your employer ($206,000) over the past 40 years and each year instead had put those into a bond paying 5%, you would now have a nest egg in excess of $450,000!!!!

And assuming as a retired person you only drew 5% a year from that $450,000 nest egg, you would receive $22,500 each year (nearly $2000 per month) and your family would still have the $450,000 when you died.

Yup those government programs are sure a great thing.


51 posted on 11/20/2008 12:06:19 PM PST by Presbyterian Reporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah

Re: “With every single pension or life insurance, the beneficiary is your spouse or your designated person.”

******************

True — but don’t forget if Congress has its way, we will soon be forking over HALF of our post-death assets in 401Ks and IRAs to the GOVERNMENT thanks to that Theresa Ghilarducci (sp) “plan.” Beneficiaries will get only half of what’s left in our accounts when we die!!!


52 posted on 11/20/2008 12:11:17 PM PST by CaliforniaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Conservababe
There was some work done by an economist, Lawrence Kotlikoff, a few years ago that I think addresses your question. IIRC, people born before about 1950 will, on average, come out ahead with Social Security, those born between 1950 and about 1954 will roughly break even, and those born after 1954 will lose relative to what they could have earned by taking their (and their employer’s) contributions and investing them at the historical rate of return on stocks. These general conclusions depend, of course, on assumptions about life expectancy, rates of return, etc.
53 posted on 11/20/2008 12:23:26 PM PST by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

Absolutely- opt out if you please, privatize. Anything. To have someone actually address the problem would be divine.


54 posted on 11/20/2008 12:27:41 PM PST by 13Sisters76 ("It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. " Thos. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

what are you? a comedian? I can only assume that your post means you have no understanding of what it means to “means test” a program. How dare you call me by that, or any OTHER demonRAT name- you don’t know me , so don’t insult me. YOU wouldn’t like it it if I refered to YOU as “Barney”, would you?


55 posted on 11/20/2008 12:29:59 PM PST by 13Sisters76 ("It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. " Thos. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

It’s class warfare when you make younger gens pay a tax to support the older gen.- and most of THEM don’t need it, and certainly less than those still working and supporting young families.

MEANS TEST SS. If they don’;t need it, they shouldn’t get it. I don’t CARE how “long” they have paid in. ALL of us pay taxes our whole lives- it ENTITLES us to NOTHING- get it?


56 posted on 11/20/2008 12:33:09 PM PST by 13Sisters76 ("It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. " Thos. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 13Sisters76
If they don’;t need it, they shouldn’t get it.

Isn't that just another way of saying "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?"

57 posted on 11/20/2008 12:38:46 PM PST by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Re: No, retirees are not dying before they extract as much money from the system as they put in.
They are extracting far more than they put in.”

*****************

In the first years of Soc. Sec., people tended to retire by 65 and died a few years later — if they lived much past 70 that was a big deal! But now, with people living so long —that Soc. Sec. just keeps getting paid out on the backs of younger workers.

My parents, Depression kids, always hated the idea of Soc. Sec. as it, like income tax in general, was designed to support those who would not or could not SAVE their income/assets for the future.

They recalled paying income tax at the end of the year, in total— all at once. Naturally that did not last long since so many people couldn’t/wouldn’t come up with the money to pay their tax share.

The current nightmare(s) have been a LONG time coming. Heaven knows how this country will recover from the multiple crises.


58 posted on 11/20/2008 12:50:28 PM PST by CaliforniaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

Re: “More class warfare. You want to means test people who have paid the maximum amount every year for 30 or 40 years and did the best they could to save for retirement? Screw that! You’re no better than the thieves that are stealing that money from me today.”

**********

Agree, nothing is more corrupt than the idea of “means testing.” That idea, long bandied about, needs to DIE.


59 posted on 11/20/2008 12:56:36 PM PST by CaliforniaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 13Sisters76
MEANS TEST SS. If they don’;t need it, they shouldn’t get it. I don’t CARE how “long” they have paid in. ALL of us pay taxes our whole lives- it ENTITLES us to NOTHING- get it?

If you're going to confiscate from my income on the pretense that it is forced savings for retirement, then you must pay it back. All of it. If you intend to reneg on the the agreement, stop stealing my money. Now!

60 posted on 11/20/2008 12:57:06 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: CT

Re: “Don’t forget: unlike money you save in your 401-K, money in ‘your SS account’ doesn’t become an asset for your estate. Instead, the government is able to remove you as a liability when you die and keep any excess contributions.”

*****************

Yes, they remove you as a liability when you die, and they don’t waste any time!

My elderly mother died on the 29th of October a few years ago. She had already received the October payment, via automatic bank deposit.

When I notified SS of her death, they demanded the entire month be repaid to them. It would’ve been nice to have kept most of that money to help defray cost of ambulance/ER fees but noooooooooo — they got the whole month’s payment back.


61 posted on 11/20/2008 1:04:12 PM PST by CaliforniaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: gieriscm

RE: “Don’t forget that if you pass away before you’re old enough to start drawing SS, you get exactly $0 of the thousands that were taken from you when you worked”

***************

This is why my CPA has advised clients to begin taking SS payments at 62 whether they need the funds or not. Many people just want to “get something back.” I don’t necessarily agree with this practice, but a full 60 percent of early retirees take SS payments the minute they are eligible.


62 posted on 11/20/2008 1:07:08 PM PST by CaliforniaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 13Sisters76
Let's see...it is to determine eligibility based on the income of the prospective recipient. The benefit is reduced according the income level, and there is always a level at which no benefit is granted.

Given the fact that we ALL pay SS no matter what our income level and those with higher income pay more, it sounds like Obummer's wealth distribution plan to me and from your comment you are clearly supporting that idea.

I haven't done or posted anything that you could associate with Barney, so your comment on that point is moot.

63 posted on 11/20/2008 1:07:54 PM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: CaliforniaCon

calcs here.

http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2007/06/when_should_you.html


64 posted on 11/20/2008 1:14:31 PM PST by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: CaliforniaCon

You have to factor in your personal health, your tax situation, and whether or not you are still working (on the books).
Collecting at 62 definitely pushes you toward the “underground economy” if you want to keep working at something. That’s my plan.

Also there’s a little known provision that you can “reset” SS by paying back everything you’ve received to date and racheting up your benefit.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080907/news_mz1b7encore.html


65 posted on 11/20/2008 1:16:02 PM PST by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: 13Sisters76
I was astounded when I heard Mark Levin play Ronald Reagan's speech in support of Barry Goldwater in 1964 where our beloved Ronnie described the SS trust fund sham. Cue the great George C. Scott, paraphrasing his Dr. Bock character from the movie "The Hospital":
"We've established the most enormous gubermint entity ever conceived... and more people are worse off than ever. We've solved nothing! We've fixed nothing!"
It is really quite demoralizing.
66 posted on 11/20/2008 2:00:55 PM PST by NonValueAdded (once you get to really know people, there are always better reasons than [race] for despising them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

RE: “Also there’s a little known provision that you can “reset” SS by paying back everything you’ve received to date and racheting up your benefit.”

************

Oh yes, I know all about that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can’t remember who told me about it, but it was not the CPA.


67 posted on 11/20/2008 2:03:23 PM PST by CaliforniaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ontap
She received the check, amounting to $22.54, on January 31, 1940.

Draftees into the military later that year (Roosevelt signed draft bill in September, 1940) were paid $21/month.

68 posted on 11/20/2008 3:35:43 PM PST by Ole Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

I’ve always heard that FDR insisted that benefits be universal lest the super-rich lobby for the program’s termination.

At this point, I don’t know if that’s what would happen or not. I noticed that a lot of those wealthy suburbs voted for Obama.


69 posted on 11/20/2008 5:08:57 PM PST by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg

Makes sense. I saw a TV special on Social Security a few years ago that noted that current recipients receive everything they and their employer put in, on average, within seven years of retirement.

Interesting that many online retirement calculators offer you the option of excluding any potential $ from Social Security. I am assuming that I will receive absolutely nothing. If I do get any benefits I will be glad to spend them to stimulate the economy.


70 posted on 11/20/2008 7:52:50 PM PST by Plywactwo Glowa (Don't just feel something. Stand there and think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

As was yours comparing me with BO’s wife


71 posted on 11/20/2008 9:06:07 PM PST by 13Sisters76 ("It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. " Thos. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

Good luck with that- I don’t see the government giving ANYTHING back. That includes our freedoms, which are in more danger than ever, now.


72 posted on 11/20/2008 9:07:42 PM PST by 13Sisters76 ("It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. " Thos. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: abb

No. I have no problem with giving SS to those who truly need help- REALLY need help. It is unfortunate that our culture has encouraged a generation of children only too happy to dump their parents on the taxpayer. I, for one, don’t want to see Granny eating dog food (although, have you checked the price of THAT lately?).

My problem is this: Retirees with separate incomes from unions, 401Ks, other retirement savings, etc, paid off homes or some other way to boost their personal incomes, leaving SS as a means to pay their greens fees- THEY don’t need it. And there are far more of THOSE than “grannys-in-the-walk-up”. Seniors are the most invested and, arguably, the wealthiest population group. Most of them don’t NEED SS, yet all will tell you how entitled they are TO it.

No one is entitled to welfare of ANY type, no one is entitled to the product of another’s labor. Period.


73 posted on 11/20/2008 9:16:30 PM PST by 13Sisters76 ("It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. " Thos. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: 13Sisters76
No one is entitled to welfare of ANY type, no one is entitled to the product of another’s labor. Period.

Which, of course, is the basic argument against taxes of any type.

74 posted on 11/21/2008 2:23:55 AM PST by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: 13Sisters76
As was yours comparing me with BO’s wife

I don't think so...you are promoting wealth redistribution, something that the Obamas support. It's liberal class warfare, plain and simple. I call 'em as I see 'em and if you really feel that way about means testing for SS, you are on the wrong website and should expect responses such as mine.

75 posted on 11/21/2008 8:35:58 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Conservababe

It’s not your money. It’s a tax. There is no account in your name or a lockbox. Geez.


76 posted on 11/21/2008 8:41:26 AM PST by caver (Yes, I did crawl out of a hole in the ground.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 13Sisters76
No one is entitled to welfare of ANY type,

Excuse me...SS retirement benefits ARE NOT welfare. I have worked all my life (actually since I was 7) and paid in (since I was 15, I lied about my age to get the job as I was homeless), I should be able reap the rewards of MY OWN labor.

no one is entitled to the product of another’s labor. Period.

Make up your mind...you are contradicting yourself. Means testing is exactly that, providing others that didn't bother to work or plan ahead with the fruits of MY labor because you think I don't deserve it because I worked hard and saved for retirement. You can't call yourself a conservative if you truly believe what you do.

77 posted on 11/21/2008 9:01:21 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
Unless I live to 200, I will never break even on SS.

You must make very good money.

78 posted on 11/21/2008 9:19:16 PM PST by pray4liberty (Always vote for life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CaliforniaCon
Beneficiaries will get only half of what’s left in our accounts when we die!!!

We need to "give with a warm hand" -- plan it such, so your beneficiaries get most of those assets before Big Fist Government takes it all.

79 posted on 11/21/2008 9:26:35 PM PST by pray4liberty (Always vote for life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

Social Security IS wealth redistribution (or more accurately, income redistribution) already.

Money is seized from someone who earned it via FICA tax, and is then given directly to someone who else who didn’t earn it via a Social Security check.

How is that not income redistribution? Of course it is. It’s redistributed from working people to retired and disabled people.

I don’t favor means testing, but it’s dishonest to pretend that SS in it’s current form is ANYTHING other than a straight income redistribution scheme.


80 posted on 11/21/2008 10:35:57 PM PST by Hepsabeth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

They most certainly ARE welfare. It doesn’t matter how long you have worked- it is not, nor was it EVER a “retirement account”. It is a TAX on the backs of your children to support you. YOU paid the tax to support those before YOU.

If you don’t NEED it, you should NOT GET IT. If you DO need it and can prove it, then NO ONE would deny it to you.

I do not understand HOW I could make my meaning any more clear.


81 posted on 11/23/2008 8:08:30 PM PST by 13Sisters76 ("It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. " Thos. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: 13Sisters76

You are NO conservative, you are a socialist. I’m sure you will enjoy the Obama administration.


82 posted on 12/01/2008 5:33:34 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Conservababe

My father, who died in January 2007 at the age of 97 figured out that he had used up his SS balance in the 1980’s. He got over 20 years of benefits he didn’t contribute.


83 posted on 12/01/2008 5:47:41 AM PST by KosmicKitty (WARNING: Hormonally crazed woman ahead!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

You ARE an idiot.


84 posted on 12/02/2008 12:25:09 PM PST by 13Sisters76 ("It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. " Thos. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: 13Sisters76

Wow, snappy comeback. Get lost Michelle.


85 posted on 12/02/2008 2:16:51 PM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-85 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson