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

PoindexterOglethorpe

(25,851 posts)
18. I am pretty sure that's not true.
Fri Jul 2, 2021, 08:16 PM
Jul 2021

Looking back at my SS records, a bit under $30k was paid to SS, between me and my employers. I realize that I entered the workforce in 1965, and so an inflation calculator for those early years would make it somewhat more, but I've already collected more than that in the three years since I turned 70 and started collecting on my own account.

The problem with people opting out is that few of them would actually set aside that money, and if they did they'd probably not invest well and end up far, far worse off than on Social Security.

I spent some 25 years out of the workforce raising children, although I just counted and do have 32 years of recorded earnings. About ten of those years I was only working part time and earned very little.

I also have a small pension, two annuities, and other investments I draw from. My social security amount is about one third of my income, which is what it should be. The real problem is that too many people rely on SS for their entire income in old age. Those are precisely the people who would be much worse off if they were told they had to start saving that 7.5% themselves.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Censorship doesn't work.....»Reply #18