Social Security - your thoughts?

bend point?
post #607 I posted a video that explains bend points. The video is about an hour long but explains how bend points work in the first 15 minutes.

Bend points are progressive like the income tax system...the more you make the more gov't takes from you in taxes. People who are high earners (6 digit income and above) have the amount they get from social security reduced by these bend points and the amount reduced goes to lower earners. Most people are benefitted by these bend points by getting a larger check. In essence the bend points take money from the highest earners and gives it to lower earners so lower earners can have a bigger check in retirement.....welfare is baked into the system and most people do not know that.
 
The numbers on higher lifetime benefits vs taxes paid in are useless without using the net present value of the taxes paid 40 years ago to today’s dollars. Using realistic math, and I’d guess one would have to live to 90+ to ever recover the current value of the SS taxes they paid over a lifetime.
In order to determine how much a person's SS check will be, the SSA indexes your income for wage inflation to current income to arrive at your AIME (Average Indexed Monthly Income).

I believe it works like this;

SSA keeps track of what the average income is per year for all past years.

Your social security is based on 60 years from the year you were born. So if you were born in 1960 your base year is 2020.

Let's suppose the average income in 2020 was $65,000 so all your past yearly income will be indexed on that $65,000,

Suppose the average income in 2005 was $50,000 and you actually made $40,000.

So your income in 2005 will be indexed for wage inflation like this...your base year of 2020 the average income was $65,000 divided by the average income in 2005 of $50000 = 1.3.

SSA then takes you actual income of $40,000 multiplies it by 1.3 and your income for 2005 adjusted for wage inflation will be $52,000.

Suppose the average income in 2010 was $55,000 and your actual income was $40,000, we get:

$65,000 (your 2020 base year) divided by the 2010 average income of $55,000 = 1.18

Then your actual income of $40,000 times 1.18 = $47,272.

So your indexed income for 2010 will be $47,272 when indexed for wage inflation.

SSA does indexing for wage inflation for every year you have an earned income to determine your AIME. That AIME then is run through the bend points to determine what your social security check amount will be.

So even if for some reason you have a year in which your earning was low, it will still be adjusted upward for wage inflation.

SSA takes the highest 35 years of your earnings, adjust the earnings of all those years for wage inflation. Then adds up the total of what your adjusted income is each year of those 35 years then divides by 35 to get your AIME.

=======================

The annual COLAs retirees get is indexed on price inflation.
 
Last edited:
So you are saying you are willing to give up getting a social security check as long as the 6.2% tax you are paying starts going into your own private savings account?
yup. I am still at least 30 years from the current retirement age. based on it creeping backwards and contributions getting cut, my ROI is crappier than the 90 year life some have posted.

If I could get market rate growth, in a 401k, on that 6.2% for even 20 years most people in my generation would come out ahead. like way ahead, couple hundred bucks a month more. you do that over the 50+ years I will have contributed and I would have far more money than SS could give me even today. plus the added benefit of no reliance on the government, and not screwing over other people just to make sure I get mine.

my retirement plans are counting on zero SS money, none, nada, zilch. as far as I am concerned I will contribute for 50 years and get nothing in return. so they could make my proposed changes to the SS system 1 year before I retire, and I will still opt in, won't make a difference to me.

I am screwed either way thanks to the generations before me. I would rather it stop with me too, rather than try to pass the buck on to my children so that I get a few dollars more.
 
yup. I am still at least 30 years from the current retirement age. based on it creeping backwards and contributions getting cut, my ROI is crappier than the 90 year life some have posted.

If I could get market rate growth, in a 401k, on that 6.2% for even 20 years most people in my generation would come out ahead. like way ahead, couple hundred bucks a month more. you do that over the 50+ years I will have contributed and I would have far more money than SS could give me even today. plus the added benefit of no reliance on the government, and not screwing over other people just to make sure I get mine.

my retirement plans are counting on zero SS money, none, nada, zilch. as far as I am concerned I will contribute for 50 years and get nothing in return. so they could make my proposed changes to the SS system 1 year before I retire, and I will still opt in, won't make a difference to me.

I am screwed either way thanks to the generations before me. I would rather it stop with me too, rather than try to pass the buck on to my children so that I get a few dollars more.
Actually, 6.2% is only half of what you’re paying….12.4% probably is even more enticing to many to opt out.
 
Actually, 6.2% is only half of what you’re paying….12.4% probably is even more enticing to many to opt out.
in my proposal the employers ~6.2% still goes to those who failed to take appropriate care of themselves for retirement. I am still assuming the government gets that half. that is the part I am abandoning.

it comes across as a pretty sick joke when people can throw away 50% of their contributions to one system, and still come out far better in another already available system.

there is no argument for SS at the scale it exists. it really should only be a true needs case, and yes that means many who rely on it aren't getting it. they are dragging the ship down instead of doing a little bit of work.
 
yup. I am still at least 30 years from the current retirement age. based on it creeping backwards and contributions getting cut, my ROI is crappier than the 90 year life some have posted.

If I could get market rate growth, in a 401k, on that 6.2% for even 20 years most people in my generation would come out ahead. like way ahead, couple hundred bucks a month more. you do that over the 50+ years I will have contributed and I would have far more money than SS could give me even today. plus the added benefit of no reliance on the government, and not screwing over other people just to make sure I get mine.

my retirement plans are counting on zero SS money, none, nada, zilch. as far as I am concerned I will contribute for 50 years and get nothing in return. so they could make my proposed changes to the SS system 1 year before I retire, and I will still opt in, won't make a difference to me.

I am screwed either way thanks to the generations before me. I would rather it stop with me too, rather than try to pass the buck on to my children so that I get a few dollars more.
If I were decades away from getting a SS check I might do what you are saying but I am less than one year away.

Congress of course is not going to let you out of social security.....they want your 6.2% tax and will happily cut your social security check 20%+ before they let you out of social security.
 
it comes across as a pretty sick joke when people can throw away 50% of their contributions to one system, and still come out far better in another already available system.
with SS you get about a 2% COLA increase every year....privately investing your own 6.2% tax you can get a yearly 10%++ ROI compounded annually.

Many people though get a lot more in benefits than what they paid in taxes. Ida Mae Fuller got about 924 times more out of it than what she paid in. For the first 20 years or so of social security those people made out like bandits paying in almost nothing and getting back many times what they paid in taxes.

=================


question: a person makes an average salary of $50000 per year for 45 years. About how much more in social security benefits will that person get versus what they paid in taxes?


GROK: A person earning an average of $50,000 per year (in nominal dollars, though analyses often adjust for wage indexing) over 45 years pays Social Security payroll taxes primarily at the employee rate of 6.2% (with employers matching another 6.2%, but the question focuses on what "they paid in taxes," typically meaning the individual's share, though full program contributions are often considered in net calculations).

Rough employee-only payroll taxes paid: 6.2% × $50,000 × 45 = $139,500 (this is a very rough undiscounted total; actual figures use indexed earnings, and the taxable maximum applies, but $50k has been below the cap in most recent years).

However, reliable estimates from sources like the Urban Institute and Tax Policy Center compare lifetime Social Security benefits (retirement, plus any survivors/disability aspects) to lifetime payroll taxes paid (usually the full 12.4% combined employee + employer share, as that's the cost to fund the system).

For an average earner (often around the national average wage, which has been in the $60k–$70k range recently but scales similarly), studies show that most single workers receive more in lifetime benefits than they (and their employers) paid in taxes, due to the program's progressive structure, longevity, and intergenerational transfers.

Key recent findings (adjusted to recent/prospective dollars, for workers retiring around 2020–2025 at age 65, with average earnings histories):
  • A single average male earner might pay around $466,000–$500,000 in combined Social Security + Medicare taxes over a career but receive $640,000 in combined benefits → net +$140,000–$174,000 more in benefits.
  • For Social Security alone (excluding Medicare), the net positive is smaller but still typically positive for average earners, especially singles with average or below-average longevity expectations aren't factored, but averages show benefits exceed taxes by tens to hundreds of thousands.
For scenarios closer to your $50,000 salary (slightly below recent averages but comparable for a steady mid-career earner):
  • Lifetime Social Security benefits often exceed the worker's share of contributions by a significant margin, but when including the full payroll tax (12.4%), the net excess (benefits minus taxes) for a single average worker is often in the range of $100,000 to $200,000+ more in benefits, depending on lifespan, claiming age, and exact cohort.
  • Couples (especially with one average and one lower/no earner) see even larger net positives, often $500,000+ more in benefits than taxes paid.
About how much more? For a single person with this earnings profile, expect roughly $100,000 to $250,000 more in lifetime Social Security benefits than the payroll taxes they paid in (focusing on the employee's 6.2% share) — or tens of thousands to around $150,000 net positive when using the full 12.4% contribution basis common in analyses. This varies widely by:
  • How long you live (longer life → more benefits collected).
  • When you claim (age 62 reduces monthly amount; delaying to 70 increases it).
  • Marital status (spousal/survivor benefits boost couples).
  • Exact birth year/cohort (earlier cohorts got better "deals"; future ones may get less due to solvency adjustments).
These are actuarial present-value or undiscounted lifetime totals from independent analyses (e.g., Urban Institute reports). Social Security remains a positive net for most average earners, especially when including disability/survivor protections, though high earners often get less relative to contributions. For a personalized estimate, use the SSA's online calculators with your actual earnings record.
 
in my proposal the employers ~6.2% still goes to those who failed to take appropriate care of themselves for retirement. I am still assuming the government gets that half. that is the part I am abandoning.
Currently, the "contribution" is mandatory. If that mandate continued, but the amount went into an account like you are promoting, there would be no one who failed to take appopriate care of themselves. Which would mean "employer's 6.2% (pet peeve that is the employer's by the way) wouldn't be needed to take care of others.
it comes across as a pretty sick joke when people can throw away 50% of their contributions to one system, and still come out far better in another already available system.
Great point.
there is no argument for SS at the scale it exists. it really should only be a true needs case, and yes that means many who rely on it aren't getting it. they are dragging the ship down instead of doing a little bit of work.
 
Currently, the "contribution" is mandatory. If that mandate continued, but the amount went into an account like you are promoting, there would be no one who failed to take appopriate care of themselves. Which would mean "employer's 6.2% (pet peeve that is the employer's by the way) wouldn't be needed to take care of others.

Great point.
the employer side contribution would cover those who actually need welfare, those who don't contribute to SS at all. so for the left they still get to steal from the rich to give to the poor. but it puts them in conflict because now the poors SS is also tied to the markets and not government manipulation, which limit some of the lefts control over the poor via SS.
 
the employer side contribution would cover those who actually need welfare, those who don't contribute to SS at all. so for the left they still get to steal from the rich to give to the poor. but it puts them in conflict because now the poors SS is also tied to the markets and not government manipulation, which limit some of the lefts control over the poor via SS.
I appreciate the altruism. But there already is welfare. Fully commit to liberty and constitutional society!
 

Advertisement



Back
Top