Skip to main content

View Diary: Republicans working hard to alienate remaining supporters (65 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Do you have a citation for that? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10, Alice Marshall, WineRev

    Because I sincerely doubt that alleged "fact".

    If someone retires today at age 66 making $50,000 per year - close to average - and had worked 40 years, and gotten raises like the average production worker - ie started at $11000 in 1974 - he and his employer will have paid in $145000. His benefits will be about $1850 per month. That's 6.5 years. Higher up the income scale, your pay in would have been higher and benefits lower as a percentage of pay in.

    That doesn't account for the fact that the social security administration earned interest on that money for up to 40 years. You account for the interest earned, almost all the benefits are prefunded.

    •  Here you go (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Contributions Table, Historic

      There is also a downloadable PDF at the website. Link at FAQ question number 16 here.

      Mind you, I'd like to be rather wrong on this, but I got an earful in my job in the mid 1980s from people telling me how they were living off their own and their employers' contributions going back to the 1950s.

      But to pick up a date you cite, 1974, the OASI (the retirement part) lists $577.50 as the MAXIMUM ANNUAL total contribution that would have been withheld from a very good job (obviously the bulk of American workers' contributions would have been LESS than this.)
            If we double this number to account for the employER's contribution we get $1155.00 for the entire year of 1974.
            How many months does it take for a retiree to collect $1155.00? In other words, to "get back" every cent they and their employer paid into the system for the entire year of 1974?

      My sense is 1974 gets exhausted pretty quick and this is for maximum contributions paid in.

      The question of interest is important and how "interest" or "earnings" are amassed by the SSA and "credited" to someone's account, well, I don't feel competent to address that. (But in part this was tangled up with GWB's "plan" to "invest" SSA funds in the stock market to "earn" a better rate of return. The plan was rightly defeated but still leaves the on-going mystery chugging away in the dark for me.)

      It's certainly important because it needs to offset inflation and the erosion of purchasing power since 1974, but I'm overwhelmed trying to grapple with that as well.

      Mind you SOMETHING is going right as an Urban League analysis points out here and summarized nicely here.

      There are subtleties here that are important that are escaping me. But in 1985 a retired delivery van driver told me he was living off of what he'd paid in since the 1950s. I looked it up (at the a book...before the Internet) and found out the banker in town likely paid the highest rate (far more than my van driver) and that total for 1959 was $108 for the YEAR. Doubled that came to $216.
           In 1985 the max MONTHLY payout was $591 so my guess was 1959 wasn't contributing much to his monthly check...but that I was.



      "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

      by WineRev on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 04:16:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site