opinion pages and articles on the beauty of life: friendship, family, love, romance, marriage, parenting, etc...
Published on February 19, 2005 By jesseledesma In Politics
The Big Lie

If a person came up to you in the street, confronted you with a gun, and told you to give him all your money, you would call him a criminal. When politicians tell the American people that social security is their best bet a secure retirement they are perpetrating a worse crime than getting rob on the street.

The return of your social security investment is miserable. You take a thousand dollars and invest it for 45 years you are going to come out with more than $600 a month on your return.

The average individual in America can began to work at 18. They have finished high school and are in the mood to make some money. Some people go off to study, but need to work at least part-time to support themselves. Others join the armed services. While still others are fortunate to have their parents pay for their education.

Either way the young American person can began to work at eighteen. Some began to work before they are eighteen. I am going to use 22 as a base date for starting to work. A person graduates at eighteen, studies for 4 years, and is in the job market by the time he or she is twenty-two.

Currently the age range is 65 to 67 (depending on when you were born) to retire and receive 100% of your social security benefits. When you start to work at 22 you have 45 years of work to contribute to your social security funded retirement, if you are among the ones that have to wait till 67 years for full benefits.

Do you honestly believe those 45 years of contribution should give such a poor return? You put any amount of money in a basic interest earning account such as savings account and you are still going to do better than social security.

Here is my retirement investment plan. Take advantage of your education. America has a good public education system that allows access to all. Young people no matter what work to receive a high school diploma.

Then you work to earn a college degree. In our present day, a person can study in an accredited distance learning program and earn a college degree with value. Therefore, even though, your personal experience is that you have to work in order to pay for your education, you can still get a degree with out burning your self out.

You go to work and earn your money. When you come home, you study when you want to. In addition, you do not have to attend classes. I can admit that working a full time job and attending college classes can be tiring. Distance learning programs give the student the freedom of time. You are not required to attend classes. The program I was in consisted of watching the class videos, reading the text books, doing the research assignments, and taking test at a test protectors location.

Therefore, in our modern world people really have no excuse not to study. Regardless of the rhetoric of the federal government cutting back on college grants, every year more money is given out in college grants.

Moreover, there is military road towards a college degree. The key is to not to limit yourself with negative thoughts.

Furthermore, do not have children until you are financial able to give your children everything they will require. No one can choose when they fall in love. Being love leads to intimacy, which leads to sex. Children come from sex. Be responsible to yourself and to the children you might have.

I think it is unfair for people to have children when they know they are going to struggle financially. Children require a lot. They need diapers, formula, healthcare, clothing every other month, lots of attention, and much more.

You as a person also need your sanity. Working in a low paying job, not making your expenses, but knowing that you cannot live with out a basic necessity can drive a person crazy. I have been there. That is why I drove myself as hard as I did to get a college degree.

Well now that you have earned a degree and are making good life choices, you can invest responsibly. I know a lot of people that graduate from college, get a good paying job, and then go on a mad spending spree trying to make up for everything they deprived themselves during their college years.

The end result is a lot of debt. They have car loans, mortgages, credit cards, and maybe even school loans to pay on for the twenty and thirty years.

I consider school loans as a good investment. As long as the money is used for school and a person does not borrow more than he or she needs, it is a good investment. At the end of your studies, you will have to pay these funds back to the lending institution. You will also have the means to earn a good salary, thus paying the money back easier.

Hence during your working years live with in your means, save, and then invest. There is no need to spend everything you make. No matter where you live, there is affordable housing. I do not see anything wrong with living in an apartment while you build your savings.

In addition, a good rule of household income management is 60/40%. You use 40% of your income to live off. You put away 60% in a savings account. Now, if your personal situation is that you cannot live off only 40% of your income, than you want to get to work and increase you income or pay down your debt.

Therefore, you work to get a high school degree, you work to get a college degree, you live with in your means, you save, and then you began to invest.

Every image, symbol, media, or person who is telling you to live it and indulge is lying to you. Yes, you will enjoy pleasure from such a life style. I will tell you that I know people living in excess, who are burning themselves out, and who are unhappy.

Eventually all of us are going to reach an age where we are not going to want to work, companies wont want to hire us, or our bodies are to run down to continue to work. This why we should use our younger years to work for our retirement.

I am not going to count on social security. Every year I get notices from SSI telling how much I count on if I reach retirement age. I could not live on $700 a month today. I am definitely not going to be able to live on that amount in thirty years.

I say we are being lied to in the worst way. The politicians who are saying social security should be saved know the truth. No politician is going to rely on social security for their retirement. The reason is that they know that social security does not provide enough to live on. Jesse Ledesma Biography Page

Comments
on Feb 19, 2005

I say we are being lied to in the worst way. The politicians who are saying social security should be saved know the truth. No politician is going to rely on social security for their retirement


The reason they don't rely on it is they're not eligible to recieve it in the first place. The reason they're not eligible is they don't pay into it
on Feb 19, 2005
Great article!!!

What get's me is, many who say that Social Security deosn't need fixing tell us that, since even if it can't pay the full benefit in 30 more years, it will still be able to pay 70 cents on the dollar. At best we can only expect around a 2% return, and they don't see a problem if it falls to 70% of that??


The reason they don't rely on it is they're not eligible to recieve it in the first place. The reason they're not eligible is they don't pay into it


The reason they don't pay into it, is they voted themselves a completely different retirement plan, and don't need, nor want a plan with the low return they expect us to be happy with.

on Feb 20, 2005
Social security was never meant to be an investment plan as there are too many variables to consider--disability, untimely death leaving a family in financial straits, many of the disadvantaged that do not have your wherwithal to pursue further education--rather the system is to guarantee minimal assistance to those in need, primarily in old age. Whether it is called insurance or a regressive tax it carries a large envelope of helping those without the self reliance of a well planned life as yours. 
on Feb 20, 2005
In addition, a good rule of household income management is 60/40%. You use 40% of your income to live off. You put away 60% in a savings account. Now, if your personal situation is that you cannot live off only 40% of your income, than you want to get to work and increase you income or pay down your debt.


Hey, I agree with much of your comments, and I've done alot of that myself. And hats off to you if you can save that amount of your income. However, the fact is, you are in the minority: The US savings rate is at an all-time low. (Link) Like it or not, most Americans will need that $700 per month.

IMO, the SS 'crisis' is a fraud. Yes, the trust fund will run out in 35 years. But Medicare faces a crisis much sooner. Indeed, the federal government is running record deficits year over year TODAY and that's not counting these factors:
1 - The costs of war in Iraq & Afghanistan
2 - The cost of the prescription drug bill
3 - The cost of making GWB's 2001 & 2003 tax cuts permanent.
4 - The use of the SS surplus to mask the real size of the current deficits.

I note that you do not state an opinion one way or another about the GWB's impending SS private accounts proposal. IMO, borrowing for solvency is inherently counterproductive. The money would have to earn back the rate paid to borrow it (3 percent at least) plus management fees just to get back to zero. Remember: We are talking about $2+ TRILLION here. Until 1980, the US govt never had more than $1 TRILLION in debt. Seven percent of the federal budget is already being paid to service $5.7 trillion in debt. That's not even paying down the debt -- it's just interest payments.

And, I'd like to remind you: A lot can happen in 35 years. Very capable people cannot reliably project the budget deficit TWO years out -- much less 35 years!

A great article in the progressive journal "Dollars & Sense" challenges the SSA projection:
(Link)
on Feb 20, 2005
Hey! Does anybody out there have any idea what Social Security was for in the first place? It's wonderful to read how you can "invest" and do much better. I wonder; do you have life insurance policies? Lousy "investment.". Unless, of course, you die really young and someone gets a big payoff. Problem is that those of us who make it beyond 65 or 70 get screwed since we paid all that money to get your family a bundle because you were too stupid to watch where you driving.
It's an insurance policy stupid!! Countless Americans lived a retirement that was able to sustain them and meet all or most of their obligations. The "Social Security Problem" is easily solved and, for your information, it's also temporary. The Baby-Boomers will eventually die off and—presto—no more problem!
You want to invest ... invest! This is an insurance policy that insures no one who worked all of their lives will have their dignity stripped away from them. Oh, it also covers widows, children and disabled people. Maybe you want them to "invest" also.
on Feb 20, 2005
Please read my blogs on Social Security. "Lets Fix Social Security" and "Bush stepped into quicksand"

I have done a lot of research on this subject. The truth is that past generations have received many times the amount they paid into Social Security. Even the baby boomers, who are about to retire will receive several times what they paid in taxes. The younger workers will not fair as well. We must choose the reason for Social Security. Is it to remain a minimum payment at retirement? If so the structure should not be changed just fund the baby boomers retirement. If it is to become a pension plan, than the individual accounts are the answer. The issue in both cases is how to pay for it? The cost to keep it the same will be far less than to convert it for younger workers while being able to pay the expected benefits to the older workers and those who do not choose to create the individual accounts.
on Feb 20, 2005
It was always my understanding that Social Security was meant to be a suppliment to smart investing to help lighten the load after you can no longer work. It wasn't meant to be the only means of support.

I'm 22 and I'm already building up my 401(k) and have an investment friend who is going to help me out (for free) with some other investment options. I believe we're going to start with a Roth IRA. I don't make a whole lot of money. My after-tax take home is something around 35k. I live in CT too so my regular expenses get a bit high. I don't live in a fancy apartment and don't drive a flashy car (it's a basic Ford Focus). Still, it's not like I have a lot of room in my budget, yet I know that the only way I'll have any money when I retire in 45 years or so is if I manage my money intelligently. I figure I have to sock away money in the right places so I can manage to live comfortably for the 20 or so years I hope to live after retirement. At my current standard of living that would require about $700,000 at todays dollar value. Now, I don't intend to forever live my life in small dank apartments and drive small basic cars. I want to move up in life, it's why I went to college and got a degree. This means I'm going to have to be very smart about investing and a bit aggressive at first.

The key to it all is that I have to rely on my own brain and a reasonable portfolio to make it. I doubt I'll ever become a millionaire short of winning the lottery, so I'll have to work at it for the next few decades. But I know better than to rely on the government to take care of me in my old age. We're talking about an organization that takes 10 years to decide whether or not to place a traffic light at a given intersection. Would you trust your future to people who can't even plan basic road works projects?
on Feb 20, 2005
Zoomba

I am 64 and did the same thing as you are doing all my working life. Social Security is a floor upon which you build. That is why we need to fund the system as it is and encourage all people do just what you are doing. Good Work!
on Feb 20, 2005
The problem is the system as it is is being misused. People are trying to use it to fund their retirement almost exclusively. The problem is coming in because of how everyone expects a return on their investment. I don't think the system as it stands has much longer to live since people are expecting more out of it than it can give, we will drain it totally.

I have 0 faith in the possibility of Social Security in any form existing once I retire. If people do what I'm doing, they won't need SS at all when they hit retirement age. In fact the money being put into SS from our paychecks could instead get put into our 401(k)s or another investment plan. Like I said, I don't trust my future at all to an organization that can't even put in a traffic light in a reasonable amount of time.
on Feb 20, 2005
The problem we have is how to keep the promise to those who have or about ready to retire. Without adding to the trust fund it will not be possible to pay out 100% of the benefits over the next 70 years until the baby boomers have passed.
on Feb 20, 2005
The blogger of this article is misguided..

You ignore the simple fact that a VAST MAJORITY of people in this country, are actually better off if someone else handles their money. American People have proven they are spendaholics and unable to invest properly and invest in their futures. They have a distinct lack of ability to save much of anything, and make wise decisions on investing.. Also, other countries have tried these investment-security type systems, and generally they end up paying out worse than our current system over the long haul.

So your article is riddled with inaccuracies and misconceptions. Our current system is fine, with some minor tweaks, it would be fine. Most SMART people consider it a minor suppliment to their retirement, its the people that don't understand retirement, money management, and investing that you have to worry about, and the new plan for the new system, will do nothing but make things worse for them.

Ultimately, I think Bush has some corporate pals that will stand to benefit from a new system. Why else would he be pushing for it? Everything he does is to line the pockets of his buddy billionaires.
on Feb 20, 2005
Kobrano

I think you are correct. Thye Bush policies are designed to help some faction that supports him and the conservatives. If Bush converts Social Security, many Americans could be harmed and the cost will add to our debt. The place for individual equity accounts is over and above Social Security!
on Feb 20, 2005
Why did you delete my post?
on Feb 20, 2005
fmfyguy wrote:

It's an insurance policy stupid!!


That's exactly right. 110 percent.