posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 03:58 PM
The article is simplistic. It does not differentiate between welfare grants and a return of principle. If you put your money into a bank or other
investment, you intend to eventually take it back out to use as you see fit. When the bank returns your principle to you, the bank does not then claim
that it is "giving you its money." That's because it is yours in the first place.
As a working citizen I and others were forced to "contribute" to the social security "fund" for forty-odd years. I paid about $200,000 into the
fund, and my employers also paid the same amount for a total contribution of $400,000 or so over my working career. THIS MONEY NEVER EARNED A DIME OF
INTEREST. Had I put the same amount of money into a typical bank CD at the maximum amount of interest allowed over the years, i.e.: a long-term CD,
that money would easily have doubled to $800,000. (Historically interest rates have not been as low as they are today.)
Bear in mind that half of this was TAXED money. (The employer contribution is not taxed to the employee, and it is only recently that the employee tax
is deferred.) However, when it comes back to you, unless social security is your only income, 85% of it is taxed. This means that 35% is actually
double taxation. You are paying tax on money that has already been taxed. In any other investment you are only taxed on the gain.
Nevertheless the government gives the money back to you in incremental amounts that it decides is appropriate. The less you have made in your life the
greater percentage of that income is paid via social security. If you die before you can collect, or when you are collecting, regardless of the amount
you have paid in, it all goes away and is forfeit to the government. In any other investment you make, including the CDs mentioned above, and
principle that remains is part of your estate and inheritable by your heirs. Not so with social security. The government has designated itself as your
Now if you take that $800,000 that you would have earned had you invested this same money in a bank in a safe CD you would have enough to pay yourself
what the government would until over the age of 90. But let's make a whopping concession here and admit that the government is such a poor money
manager that it earns no interest off your money and instead pays out the money you contribute as benefits as fast as you pay it in (And it does do
this.) Well, if you just use the $400,000 that you actually paid in and pay it out to yourself, it will last until just shy of you being 80 years old,
and guess what? This is EXACTLY what the longevity tables say. On average, you're going to live until age 78. Yes, some people receive much more than
they paid in. And some people die at age 64, too, and lose every dime.
TL;DR? OK, a summary: The government confiscates your money "for retirement," earns no interest on it, and pays it back to you in retirement. By and
large it DOES NOT pay you MORE than you paid in. It TAXES your own money when it gives it back to you, and if you die before the actuarial tables say
you will, the government keeps your money. You could do much better for yourself with little risk if you put the same money on a bank CD with no loss
So do I "get government benefits" while poor slobs keep working? Yes, I do, and the fact is, it's MY DAMN MONEY in the first place! I spent my
whole life since age 16 "saving" this money and I damn well want it back.