social security

[snowman45106]

Here is something interesting. I was just looking at what I have paid into social security over the past58 years and it adds up to about 700,000 dollars so why am I only getting 1287 per month. Who do I sue for the rest.

 

[HRZ]

Nobody!

 

[Zigner]

Here is something interesting. I was just looking at what I have paid into social security over the past58 years and it adds up to about 700,000 dollars so why am I only getting 1287 per month. Who do I sue for the rest.

Just live for at least 45+ years after you start collecting and you'll be even. Easy peasy!

 

[justalayman]

Here is something interesting. I was just looking at what I have paid into social security over the past58 years and it adds up to about 700,000 dollars so why am I only getting 1287 per month. Who do I sue for the rest.

Why ever told you you would get back what you paid in? Nobody, that’s who.

Some people get a lot more than they paid in, some people a lot less. It isn’t a savings account. It is, for all practical purposes an insurance policy.

 

[LdiJ]

Here is something interesting. I was just looking at what I have paid into social security over the past58 years and it adds up to about 700,000 dollars so why am I only getting 1287 per month. Who do I sue for the rest.

I think that perhaps you are misunderstanding something, somewhere.

 

[adjusterjack]

Here is something interesting. I was just looking at what I have paid into social security over the past58 years and it adds up to about 700,000 dollars so why am I only getting 1287 per month. Who do I sue for the rest.

Are you sure that the 700,000 wasn't your earnings total and not your contribution?

I figured mine out. In 40 years I contributed $57,000 and in 2008 when I started collecting I got 1367 per month.

I can almost guarantee that your 1287 per month is not based on 700,000.

By the way, at the end of 2018 I will have collected almost $167,000. Not bad for a $57,000 investment and I'm only 72.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Here is something interesting. I was just looking at what I have paid into social security over the past58 years and it adds up to about 700,000 dollars so why am I only getting 1287 per month. Who do I sue for the rest.

The report you get from Social Security periodically does not tell you what you (and your employer) paid in FICA taxes over the years. It instead tells you what your earnings were. Your Social Security beenfits are not based at all on the taxes you paid. It is not like modern defined contribution pension plans that pay out based on what you invested into the pension plan. Social Security is based on what you earned. So it is likely that it is your earnings you are looking at; your actual tax payments would have been much less. And the amounts you get in benefits are defined by statute. Thus, even if you think the benefits are too low relative to what you paid in, you have nothing for which sue based on that. Congress sets the benefit levels, and those benefit amounts are in no way tied to the taxes you and your employer paid into the system.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Are you sure that the 700,000 wasn't your earnings total and not your contribution?

I figured mine out. In 40 years I contributed $57,000 and in 2008 when I started collecting I got 1367 per month.

I can almost guarantee that your 1287 per month is not based on 700,000.

By the way, at the end of 2018 I will have collected almost $167,000. Not bad for a $57,000 investment and I'm only 72.

An excellent example of how the Social Security changes over the years have benefitted previous generations; unfortunately with the baby boomers and subsequent generations they'll see much less benefit from the taxes they paid. I'm not at all confident I'll even get back what I and my employers paid into Social Security when I retire. The system is headed for a break down starting in less than 20 years (i.e. before I retire) unless Congress steps in to fix it, something that so far it has shown zero interest in doing.

 

[HRZ]

There is one heck of a lot of social engineering built into the coverage never mind the SSD and SSDI ...a while back I crunched a few scenarios wherein for married couples in same age group the annual payout could vary by about 18:1 or more per Dollar paid into system.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

From what I've found, the maximum contribution per year was $4984.80 in 2000 for the employer and employee. That has since increased to $7960.80.

I can't find figures prior to 2000, but even if those numbers remained constant from 1961 to 2000 (which is highly unlikely) and you contributed the max each year, you would have contributed $606,448, on earnings of $4,925,700 over the past 58 years.

 

[adjusterjack]

The system is headed for a break down starting in less than 20 years (i.e. before I retire) unless Congress steps in to fix it, something that so far it has shown zero interest in doing.

Like Congress always does, it's going to have to fix it at about 1 minute before midnight on the Social Security Doomsday Clock.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Like Congress always does, it's going to have to fix it at about 1 minute before midnight on the Social Security Doomsday Clock.

The longer Congress waits to fix it, if it ever does (and I'm not totally confident it will ever do it) the worse the fix will have to be to correct the shortfall in the system. That fix is most likely to benefit existing recipients over those of us who have yet to retire. I think baby boomers and later generations are likely to get the short end of the stick on this.

 

[Janke]

I also think you are mixing up your lifetime earnings with the amount of FICA paid. You can check it out by pulling out all of your old W2's and adding up the FICA taxes. The numbers given in a prior post are for those who earned the max. Did you earn the max for 58 years? Did you really work all 58 years? And in the 1960's, FICA was only 3% of wages.

If you earned the max for 58 years, you should have a heck of alot more money invested and saved in your own investments, so much that Social Security is just a pittance. Unless you didn't save. And since many people don't save, Social Security becomes their only income. But it never was designed to be your only retirement income.

I do wish the Social Security Statement actually gave the amount of FICA paid. How much have you paid in car insurance over the years and how much have you collected? How much have you paid in homeowner's insurance over the years and how much have you collected? If your house burned down, your insurance company probably paid much more than you paid in. Now life insurance will pay out the face value upon death, so if you die shortly after taking out life insurance, your beneficiaries will get more than you paid in.

For the people born before the 50's, Social Security has been a pretty good system. For current retirees, it is not as generous, but still, if you live long enough, you get more out than you put in. For the current workers in their 30's and 40's, an even less return on amount paid in. Unless someone becomes too disabled to work at an early age. Then the amount paid in will be substantially less than the amount paid out.

So if you want a good return on the amount of FICA paid in, the key is to become disabled young, but live a long life.

Working always gets you more money to live on than not working.

 

[snowman45106]

sorry about that guys that figure is what I have made in the last 57 years. I only paid in a little over 42000 but it seems even with the amount given with an employer 85000 should get me more than 1287 per month

 

[cbg]

Let's say you retire at 70 and live till the age of 90. Not unlikely, these days. That's 20 years, at 12 months each, or 240 months.

85,000 divided by 240 equals $354 and change per month.

Maybe you only live 10 years. That's $708 a month.

Still think $1287 is a bad deal?