TO TRUST A MATTRESS OR A DEMOCRAT?
Democrats, and Republicans too, have got us all confused about Social Security, but here is an explanation that even the mentally retarded can follow. The average American makes $16.05 per hour according to The Bureau of Labor Statistics; lives to age 77 according to the Center for Disease control, officially retires at age 66 according to a law passed by Congress, and contributes 12.4% of his income to Social Security according to a legalized scam perpetrated by the Democrats.
So, $16.05 (per hour) x 40 (hours per week) x 52 (weeks per year) x 46 (years worked) x 12.4%gives you $190,422 that is now stolen by the Democrats, but might have been put in your mattress. To disguise this grand larceny the Democrats give back $952 (average Social Security monthly check at retirement) and say to you, " the math is very complicated but trust us, this is a great deal; we love you and care for you; and those Republicans are just so selfish and mean."
But, if you had been free from Democratic treachery to put the 12.4% each pay period ($190,422 in total ) in your mattress until retirement, and then lived 11 years longer (average life span), you could take 51% more ($1442 vs. $952) per month($190,422/11/12=$1422) in retirement income than the Democrats give you!
For those who are fortunate enough to fall above the retarded level of intelligence you know that money, rather than being invested in a mattress, can be invested in a balanced Republican fund of stocks and bonds where it might return, conservatively, 5%, in which case the return would not be 51% above the Democratic grand theft return, but rather 580% above the Democratic grand theft return!
In point of fact, many Americans retire to a life at or near the poverty level because the Democrats steal their money by convincing them they are the caring Socialist Party. In poorer countries around the world, where retirement income is proportionately less, this Democratic lead is often followed and as a result millions die prematurely of poverty.
Sadly, those who cannot understand this are not functionally above the mentally retarded level, but rather have fallen prey to the same pack animal or tribal/herd mentality that throughout history has caused mankind to worship and trust strange Gods and stranger men who were far more likely to kill or abuse them than to care for them. It all makes you wonder if the Jeffersonian concept of freedom from Gov't is too unnatural to prevail in the end.
Comments: Ted Baiamonte, bje1000@aol.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Ted,
There's something the matter with your math. You use the example of a guy currently making $16/hr who is currently guaranteed $952/month, with wage-indexed yearly increases -- until he dies. You then argue that if he could have kept 12.4% of his $16/hr wage going back for the past 46 years, he'd be sitting on $190k in savings.
That's crazy. If that guy was working at the average hourly wage 40 years ago, he'd probably have been making $3/hr, or maybe $4/hr, I don't know.
Granted, that money could have been earning interest during those years. But by the same token it could lose in the markets -- potentially. But let's say it made 5% or even 6% per year. You are still forgetting a couple of other factors. One, the guy could live another thirty years. Social Security is a kind of insurance against living longer than you expected. Second, you are leaving out survivor's benefits. Suppose the guy had two kids and a wife, and suppose he died after only a year or two on the job -- his family could collect survivor's benefits. The kids would get benefits through high school and even into college. The wife would get benefits since she was married to a wage earner. And when she reaches retirement age, she'd get the benefits he would have been entitled to.
Social Security has to pay those survivor benefits. And we haven't even talked about disability benefits. A guy could lose his eyesight or he could lose his legs in an industrial accident or even in a car accident, and be unable to work. Happens all the time. So there's two ways in which Social Security is an insurance program. The plan you talked about doesn't do any of those things.
Ted,
There's something the matter with your math. You use the example of a guy currently making $16/hr who is currently guaranteed $952/month, with wage-indexed yearly increases -- until he dies.
******HUH?? I said nothing about wage indexing????
You then argue that if he could have kept 12.4% of his $16/hr wage going back for the
past 46 years, he'd be sitting on $190k in savings.
********HUH?? I said nothing about "going back for 46 years"
That's crazy.
*****I didn't say it
If that guy was working at the average hourly wage 40 years ago, he'd probably have been
making $3/hr, or maybe $4/hr, I don't know.
*******but who is "that" guy? you can't win an argument by imagining I said something I didn't and then argue against what I didn't say!
Granted, that money could have been earning interest during those years. But by the same token it could lose in the markets -- potentially.
*****if the markets lose over a persons career then so would gov't social security since it comes from wages which in your example would be derived from a losing economy-which has never happened anyway.
But let's say it made 5% or even 6% per year. You are still forgetting a couple of other
factors. One, the guy could live another thirty years.
********or he could die at an average age of 77 which I assume
Social Security is a kind of insurance against living longer than you expected.
******yes by stealing every penny if you die sooner than expected
Second,
you are leaving out survivor's benefits. Suppose the guy had two kids and a wife, and suppose he died after only a year or two on the job -- his family could collect survivor's benefits. The kids would get benefits through high school and even into college. The wife would get benefits since she was married to a wage earner. And when she reaches retirement age, she'd get the benefits he would have been entitled to.
*******they are a tiny % and with the 1000% additional you'd have from keeping the money in your mattress a slight tax to pay survivor benefits would not be onerous
Social Security has to pay those survivor benefits. And we haven't even talked about disability benefits. A guy could lose his eyesight or he could lose his legs in an industrial accident or even in a car accident, and be unable to work. Happens all the time. So there's two ways in which Social Security is an insurance program. The plan you talked about doesn't do any of those things.
*******same answer: we'd all be so rich it would not be a problem to pay disability. The most important things is to keep the gov't out of the way
Whether people end up eating catfood when they're 70 due to their own malfeasance or poor planning or lack of self-control or whatever, I still don't want them eating cat food.
I agree, none of us want them eating cat food and the best way to insure that is to stop the Democrats from stealing retirement income through Social Security
That is just dumb.
You know, I think I will trust the economists, actuarials, and mathematicians to do the numbers on this.
Some points:
we started with a debt to be paid, not with money to spend.
what about the people who work hard but are not rich?
if you wanted to tell people on benefits (benefits that keep them from eating cat food) to take 10 years off we could probably build a program that works like you think it works. but that would be a retirement fund. this is a social safety net.
Anonymous said... You know, I think I will trust the economists, actuarials, and mathematicians to do the numbers on this.
********thats exactly what the Democrats want: stupid people too lazy to run the numbers themselves and see the extent of the rip off.
Some points:
we started with a debt to be paid, not with money to spend.
******yes and now the debt is in the trillions and can never be paid without totally ripping off our children
what about the people who work hard but are not rich?
*******anyone who works hard would retire rich were it not for the Democrats stealing their money
if you wanted to tell people on benefits (benefits that keep them from eating cat food) to take 10 years off we could probably build a program that works like you think it works. but that would be a retirement fund. this is a social safety net.
*****its not a social safety net if it steals all the money and everyone then retires poor!
Post a Comment