The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing

URL:  https://boards.fool.com/hawkwin-quotat-the-risk-of-being-redundant-i-32160732.aspx

Subject:  Re: Attitude Question - SS Date:  3/15/2016  3:58 PM
Author:  JAFO31 Number:  79356 of 97361

Hawkwin: "At the risk of being redundant, I will state once again that I specifically referred to those that die early.

Those that die early often DO NOT receive a positive rate of return. The article I quoted and bolded stated exactly that."


I am ok, but we are back where we started, and as I noted then, not all benefits are lost.

I am also concerned because this feels like a "nose under the the tent stategy" to abolish or significantly revise or abolish SS.

From the article you cited, and also quoted previously in this thread.

"A projection by Favreault of Social Security data found that 82 percent of individuals who live to age 85 get back more in benefits than then pay in taxes; about 52 percent of those who die between 75 and 84 come out ahead. Meanwhile, just 21 percent of those who die between 62 and 69 get back more than they put in to the system.

Those that die young are not the only ones who collect less than the amount paid in taxes - - - 79% who die b/w 62 (generally speaking, the earliest collection age)- 69 receive less, 48% of those between 75-84 receive less [Note - curious that age 70-74 bracket was omitted], and even 18% of those who live to age 85 receive less.

I have no idea what your suggested change would mean for those who would receive less.

Given your stated position about receiving less that paid (i.e., lack of a guaranteed return of premium), why would I assume that you would not turn the same argument in favor of people who live longer and still receive less than the amount paid in taxes (however the "amount paid in taxes" as calculated by the author of the article, which as I noted previously, was not disclosed).

The ultimate insistence upon a guaranteed return of premium will almost inalterably change SS in significant ways, and likely force it into a "defined contribution" plan and not a "defined benefit" plan, just the way that 401-ks have largely replaced old-school pensions, which were typically defined benefit plans. And I believe that you are too smart not to understand this, too.

Regards, JAFO

Copyright 1996-2020 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us