Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

haele

(12,741 posts)
25. Social Security is an insurance fund, not a retirement fund...
Thu Jan 21, 2016, 05:24 PM
Jan 2016

And so, I don't mind seeing a lower return on it than I would with an IRA or CD. It's there to provide a basic allotment upon a retirement age, the loss of a provider's income (if you're a dependent child), or a disability - no matter if one thinks they are rich or poor.

If you pay into the fund along with everyone else, it's there for you when you need it. That's how insurance is supposed to work.

So long as the fund is secure and growth stable, and payments can be depended on, Social Security shouldn't care what the stock market does. That's what investment funds are for.

As it is, with a 401K and two IRAs, I figure if the market doesn't tank again, I can count on perhaps $100 a month from them for 20 - 25 years or so, or a lump sum of $70K (after fees and taxes) from the $90K + that will be in the accounts when I'm 65.
That will be enough to pay off the final 10 years of my $45K student loan for the BS I got last year, and put the rest into a college fund for the grandkids.
So I guess my retirement will depend on what I might inherit from my mom (probably around $200K, unless she outlives me - which she very well might) and my ability to continue to work for the next 15 - 20 years into my 70's (so I can wait to start collecting the max SS I can get). I also plan to start socking away the reserve retiree military pension I'll start to receive when I turn 60 (in 3 1/2 years) into both a rainy day and a trust fund.

But Social Security will be the majority of my retirement until I die. Honestly - if I had been required to put money in an IRA, or some other retirement fund instead of SS, over the ups and downs of a typical working-class experience over the period post 1980's, I don't know if I would have been able to put as much money into retirement as I have been required to do through the Social Security tax.
The amount of time I spent between jobs, or had been faced with a long-term emergency expenses, or even amount of the times I changed employers or had to work part-time would have significantly cut into my ability to put a disciplined regular 5% of all income off the top into a retirement fund. One needs to make money over the basic cost of living to be able to even think of saving money, and at least 20% of my employment over the years has provided a level equal to or just above a basic minimum income to maintain my household and basic expenditures (especially health and child-rearing).

And I certainly don't think half my employers would have been so generous in matching whatever retirement vehicle I would have gotten through work if I was dependent strictly on a 401K or pension.

While it may just be dinner and entertainment money to some lucky retirees who were able to save up a million or more before they were 60, our regular tax payments into Social Security will keep me and my disabled spouse in our double wide well into our decrepitude, and still leave us with perhaps a little to pass on to our kids. And that's taken a huge load off my mind.

Haele

Perhaps this should be a poll. eom guillaumeb Jan 2016 #1
If it had been invested in 1940s, we'd all be retired and able to withstand a 20% cut. But Hoyt Jan 2016 #2
Except that if Wall Street gets their hands on SS there will be significant fees... Human101948 Jan 2016 #10
I would not want SS in the stock market. But if I knew someone who could turn my $200 in savings Hoyt Jan 2016 #14
Yes, if they could guarantee that they would not share it with you... Human101948 Jan 2016 #16
Money doesn't just spontaneously become more money. ronnie624 Jan 2016 #24
If they ever understand it. You won't get many people alive today who will work for bartered Hoyt Jan 2016 #26
I'm skeptical of the assumption ronnie624 Jan 2016 #27
not quite Travis_0004 Jan 2016 #3
Without government bailouts and intervention in 2008-2009... kentuck Jan 2016 #5
I dont disagree Travis_0004 Jan 2016 #8
fund? enid602 Jan 2016 #4
Yes. kentuck Jan 2016 #7
Had it been a "lock box" from the start TBF Jan 2016 #12
Blame LBJ and his "unified budget" NT 1939 Jan 2016 #15
fund enid602 Jan 2016 #21
Are you being facetious? A HERETIC I AM Jan 2016 #23
Revenue for SS goes into the general fund. ronnie624 Jan 2016 #29
Calling a US Treasury security an "IOU".... A HERETIC I AM Jan 2016 #31
The SS website ronnie624 Jan 2016 #32
No, by definition they are anything BUT IOU's A HERETIC I AM Jan 2016 #36
Essentially, ronnie624 Jan 2016 #37
No, my "problem" is you are wrong A HERETIC I AM Jan 2016 #42
The info you posted, which I read long ago, ronnie624 Jan 2016 #43
"ideologically driven views"?!? A HERETIC I AM Jan 2016 #49
Sorry, but I never made it past the emoticons. n/t ronnie624 Jan 2016 #56
Too bad. I managed to learn something from the text. LiberalAndProud Jan 2016 #57
Thank you. A HERETIC I AM Jan 2016 #58
Okay, I went back and read it, ronnie624 Jan 2016 #59
..... A HERETIC I AM Jan 2016 #63
Do you utilize ad hominem attacks ronnie624 Jan 2016 #67
..... A HERETIC I AM Jan 2016 #69
That isn't going to mitigate the damage to your credibility. ronnie624 Jan 2016 #73
..... A HERETIC I AM Jan 2016 #75
Does the US Government put IOU's in a box to pay the Chinese for their loans? kentuck Jan 2016 #64
Make your point. Don't be scurd. n/t ronnie624 Jan 2016 #66
My point is: kentuck Jan 2016 #68
Why...they're IOU's! A HERETIC I AM Jan 2016 #70
I'm not sure. I'll look into that. ronnie624 Jan 2016 #71
Of course you're not sure A HERETIC I AM Jan 2016 #72
Lol. n/t ronnie624 Jan 2016 #74
Say, A HERETIC I AM... KansDem Jan 2016 #76
Outside of the fact that he probably thought it was charming.... A HERETIC I AM Jan 2016 #79
Whut? dumbcat Jan 2016 #50
You're right. I'm wrong. A HERETIC I AM Jan 2016 #52
They are not marketable, and thus have no market value dumbcat Jan 2016 #54
Let me help you a bit further; A HERETIC I AM Jan 2016 #55
the "market" here is "US Treasury Bonds" and as long as those are "marketable" Warren Stupidity Jan 2016 #60
You don't even know what a market is dumbcat Jan 2016 #61
The selective, ideologically driven ignorance is truly perplexing, at times. n/t ronnie624 Jan 2016 #62
there are winners and losers in the world tk2kewl Jan 2016 #6
Why? whatthehey Jan 2016 #9
This is an amazingly ignorant post nadinbrzezinski Jan 2016 #11
Bernie, with his hammer and sickle Doctor_J Jan 2016 #13
Way Too Much Money ProfessorGAC Jan 2016 #17
Why the f*ck would I want my SS money to go towards paying Glassunion Jan 2016 #18
This message was self-deleted by its author Corruption Inc Jan 2016 #19
The GOP accuses us of picking winners and losers?!?!?!?! CommonSenseDemocrat Jan 2016 #20
I wittnessed the immediate aftermath of Katrina. I saw many, many square MILES bvar22 Jan 2016 #22
Social Security is an insurance fund, not a retirement fund... haele Jan 2016 #25
Social Security is an insurance policy against poverty in one's senior years Samantha Jan 2016 #41
You know they'd hire some gov't contractor to handle it BuelahWitch Jan 2016 #28
I asked that question in 2008 if Social Security had been privatized as Bush* wanted Samantha Jan 2016 #30
and it would all have been more than regained, with dividends whatthehey Jan 2016 #38
Right. kentuck Jan 2016 #39
If you needed all of it in one year, it should have been in bonds whatthehey Jan 2016 #44
Some people on Social Security must have their money on time Samantha Jan 2016 #40
I'm not sure why timeliness is affected by diversified investment. whatthehey Jan 2016 #45
I want them collateralized with CDOs, 400 trillion $$$ of that sloshing around in the markets. bemildred Jan 2016 #33
Why is this even a question on a Democratic website? FSogol Jan 2016 #34
... then someone would have figured out how to steal it. hunter Jan 2016 #35
It doesn't work that way FreeJoe Jan 2016 #46
Depends when it was invested madville Jan 2016 #47
I would have a problem investing my SS money into companies that outsource American B Calm Jan 2016 #48
if social security (and disability) were invested in the stock market, I would have a hollysmom Jan 2016 #51
At the time of receiving benefits the person's funds would not be invested in RB TexLa Jan 2016 #53
Sort of like mortgage securities? kentuck Jan 2016 #65
Never Trust Someone Whose Paycheck Relies On Your Money cantbeserious Jan 2016 #77
Wall Street's function used to be Turbineguy Jan 2016 #78
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If the Social Security fu...»Reply #25