Posted by M. Wright | Filed in: Social Security
I’m not an accountant or an investment broker, and I’m not particularly skilled in mathematics. Just consider this a thought experiment.
- - -
Let’s say you’re 30 years old in the year 2008, a bit younger than the U.S. median age of 36.7.
You will reach the full retirement age of 67 in the year 2045, 37 years from now.
Let’s also say that your annual income is $30,000 (somewhere between the median U.S. income of $25,795 and the mean U.S. income of $37,517).
Your Social Security tax is 12.4%, which equals $3,720 for the year. (Unless you’re self-employed, you only see half of that amount itemized on your paystub.)
Let’s say you invest an equal amount in a tax-deferred 401(k) or 403(b) retirement plan. And let’s say your mutual fund loses 39.12% of its value this year, or $1,455.26. So the year-end value of your retirement account is $2,264.74.
Let’s say that by some freakish circumstance, you earn the exact same amount each year until 2045, and your private retirement account accumulates an additional $2,264.74 each year, even though you continue to contribute $3,720 annually. At age 67, the value of your account is $83,795.38. Because of your reckless investment in the stock market, you lost $53,884.62.
On the other hand, your Social Security contribution was not invested in the stock market, so it did not lose 39.12% of its value. Instead, your Social Security contribution was paid out to current retirees or emptied into the general fund where it was spent immediately. Thus, your Social Security account lost 100% of its value, and its current value is $0. After 37 years, the value of your account is still $0. Because of your involuntary investment in the Social Security program, you lost $137,640.
- - -
Well before the year 2045, the Social Security program will be officially bankrupt and will be spending more than it takes in*. So in order for you to receive any benefit from the program, you will need to draw from the investments of three or more future contributors, you may be required to wait a few additional years before you are allowed to retire, or your annual contributions along the way may have increased, or you will be guaranteed fewer benefits, or some combination of these. Under no circumstances can you expect to have your Social Security contributions invested for a gain, or even saved dollar for dollar.
However, there is a decent chance that your private investment will not continue to tank 40% each year, and instead will grow an average of 10% each year for the next 37 years, as it has over the last century. Thus, your $137,640 becomes $1,350,522.
- - -
I suppose that’s why the Democrats want to raid your 401(k), pesky ignorance notwithstanding.
They don’t want you taking any chances with your money, not when they’ve got all this redistributing of your paycheck to accomplish.
What part of “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody” don’t you understand?
* The current estimate is 2017, the year SSA begins paying more in benefits than it collects in taxes.
November 20th, 2008 at 6:47 am
The only reason Social Security is looking shaky right now is because Republican presidents and Republican Congresses since the 80’s have been raiding the Social Security Trust Fund so they can hand out their irresponsible tax cuts.
When you start using words like “invest” and phrases like “your Social Security account lost 100% of its value” you stop making rational sense. Those words don’t apply to Social Security. There is no investing. There is no interest. There is no expectation of a profit. That’s because it’s an insurance program.
Why don’t you call your Allstate agent and ask him when he’s going to send you your dividend check? It makes about as much sense as what you’re saying here.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:57 am
You write as if the GOP had a monopoly on power and policy over your chosen time period. But since 1980, Democrats have controlled the White house for 9 years, the Senate for 13 years and the House for 17 years. So it can’t just be that one party has “been raiding” the “trust fund,” unchecked. Furthermore, you write as if the only possible destination for these funds has been “irresponsible tax cuts,” as if irresponsible federal spending wasn’t the primary factor (it is), and hasn’t grown exponentially year after year (it has).
I must admit that it’s slightly more pleasant to consider Social Security as “an insurance program” rather than as a savings or investment account. But I don’t think my Allstate agent, if I had one, would send me an annual statement reporting exactly how much I paid into the program each year, as does Social Security, leaving the unmistakable impression that the $16,000 or so in taxes I’ve contributed to date have been saved in some sort of individual account (or saved at all). Nor would my Allstate agent insist that I keep participating in his grossly mismanaged program and prevent me from opting out.
Still, the exact classification for Social Security isn’t the most important issue. Whether Social Security is an insurance account, or a pension fund, or a savings account, or an investment account doesn’t matter as much as the fact that — whatever it is — it’s a terrible way to provide retirement security, and benefits you far less than would a private, individual retirement plan.
Just for the sake of argument, let’s grant you the notion that Republicans have singly raided Social Security, and disbursed it all in the form of tax cuts. When we place that kind of power in the hands of government, we put ourselves at risk for political results we may not appreciate. So what was already an unwise method for providing retirement security now becomes doubly-unwise, because we have to allow for government mismanagement. That’s an essential risk inherent in allowing the government to provide for you (or fail to provide). What meager returns you might expect are additionally imperiled by unfavorable election results.
So, you place your retirement security in the hands of government, and government screws you over. Who do you blame, the government or yourself? I would strongly suggest it should be the latter.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:35 am
I know this may be off point, but … there never seems to be much advocacy for tax cuts with corresponding spending cuts. Seems to be another political Ponzi scheme.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Tom — I’m pretty sure that’s what Senator McCain advocated in 2000 and 2001, and why he voted against the first round of Bush tax cuts. IIRC, that was his stated reason, at least.
In the third debate, our President-Elect said he has proposed a spending cut to match every proposed spending increase. That’s a start, no?
Well, not really, because proposed budgets aren’t the same as approved budgets.
And that’s even assuming he follows through on his promise to “go through the federal budget line by line, page by page” and cut “programs that don’t work.”
Will Social Security qualify? I suspect not.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
you can misrepresent all you like dearest
Does not make it so