This One Weird Pic DESTROYS Ayn Rand

[jeff47]

51. No.

First they did not take into account what the empolyer has to pay into Social Security

Uh, yeah, they did. You add up a lifetime of contributions, and then subtract the benefits paid back during retirement. And you get a negative number.

The Urban Institute, a non-partisan research institute in Washington, produces statistics on this topic annually. Institute researchers figured out what people turning 65 in various years have already "paid in" to the system and what can expect to "take out" after they reach age 65. (See our charts below)

(...)

According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/

Depending on the combinations of workers in the household and age, Social Security recipients get back 133% to 800% of what they "paid in" when they retire.

So, employees accept lower pay if they are covered by Social Security

Sure. Just like they'll accept lower pay if there is a pension plan. Or at least they used to. It's not clear what will happen now that pensions are being gutted by conservatives and neoliberals. I know I would not trust a pension to actually be there if they were offered in my industry.