2 votes

So just how does one live WITHOUT Social Security?

Originally published 2011-01-06 20:02:
- - -
With all the energy now aimed at cutting Social Security (and not the Trillion Dollar Wars) by both political Parties (including Obama's own deficit commission), just how then is one supposed to live -- without Social Security?

Many jobs and occupations become unsustainable as you become older and older. People's physicial abilities and stamina simply diminish (through no fault of their own), and also the underlying technologies and skills required change and transform with time so rapidly that even well educated people can become de-facto obsolete in their jobs, and no longer marketable. And the stress level and exhaustion level for many jobs just aren't well suited for people that are in their 60s. Finally, its just a fact that health issues will make older people more frail, more vulnerable, and less effective than younger people. While there are some occupations that can be sustained into old age (successful book author, owning a successful business that's mostly run by others, etc.), many, many professions and occupations cannot be sustained. People simply need to retire, and they cannot just work until "they've fallen and can't get up" (and then how do the bills get paid?). Retirement is a necessity for most.

So to retire at the age of 65, you would need to create a yearly revenue stream for yourself that would support all of your expenses, and could last for up to 35 years.

So if you need $40,000-per-year to pay for all your housing/taxes/health-care/food/utilities/automobile/phone/internet/insurances/and other miscellaneous expenses, then this means one of two things:

1) You have savings of at least: $1,400,000.00 (40,000 * 35 years), and therefore can draw down $40,000 each and every year - until the point where you will eventually be totally broke then at age 100. Of course, if you live up to 100, or you have a major surgery or hospital procedure that Medicare won't cover, or you have some other unforseen expenses, then you're screwed anyway -- even with 1.5 million.

2) Your savings (however much that is) can be put into some investment that will predictably and safely generate back $40,000 a year, and also not lose its principal value. With interest rates at 0%-1% I don't know what the hell that would be -- such an investment simply does not exist.

___

So please tell me, how the heck do you retire without Social Security? This is just impossible for 95% of the population.

In today's times with the cost of living so damn high, people living from paycheck-to-paycheck, and Employers not giving raises, how does anyone possibly save up a whopping 1.5 Million dollars?

Most people can't even afford to buy one house (and those that do are borrowing virtually all the money).

And where oh where can you ever put your money and invest it in something -- such that it is not put at any risk, and can also generate back a steady $40K or so for paying all the bills over the course of the year?

There is no such investment. It doesn't exist.

So, for people who are not wealthy, what do you do without Social Security.

The vast majority of the people, are going to need it. But if there is some secret alternative investment strategy that I haven't heard about that will magically produce the scenarios of 1 or 2 (above) -- I'd sure like to know about it.



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I see many comments about "lessons from the Depression"

There's only one lesson to be re-learned from the depression.

Central Banks in credit systems are genocidal tools which will invariably be used to confiscate and destroy wealth. Without sound money, instability, catastrophe and genocidal depressions are guaranteed.

"Central Banks are more dangerous than standing armies for through inflation, then deflation they will buy out all of the land our fathers conquered." (or close, I know the essence is right.)

SS is another story. It should be private and voluntary to participate. If you're not comfortable saving for your own retirement, use it. If you're prudent or have a better idea then good for you. Of course transitioning from now to something like this will take time or there'll be mass genocide. (Of course that's assuming the dollar doesn't rocket to zero before that transition can be made. If it does, SS won't matter.)

TJ, one of my favorite

TJ, one of my favorite historical figures. The quote attributted to TJ you mentioned above is one of my favorites that I can recite by memory - you did get the essence of it.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson

One thing you don't do:

Is put your life savings in a govt. sponsered IRA. Only to have it in the stock market and lose it all with the push of an electronic button. What about farmland, wellwater, growing food? UNAgenda 21 herds everyone into cities. So much easier to control the masses. Protect Property Rights! Ron Paul!

What do you do WITH social

What do you do WITH social security? Someone making $30,000 a year living in New York City then getting to retirement age- social security payments are not enough to make rent. Pretty useless.

Everyone wondering how the elderly will manage their lives should start asking why they aren't taking care of their own elders themselves? We have a certain culture where everyone is in a rush to move out of their parents home and then leave them be like they don't exist. Why not have them live with you? Support them during their old age if you care.

If you're concerned about old people with no families, go and find them yourself- give them a room, give them food. Be a real man who takes actions on his principles. You can't house everyone, but if you're not even going to house ONE person you have no moral ground to argue for taking people's money from social security to give it to someone else.

Well said...

Well said but you are counting on humans to be compassionate and sharing,You are asking that folks take on a little inconvenience of lifestyle.If we are counting on this to happen even if society dictates it as responsibly actions towards the future it will not happen.Not enough to help the inevitable result.It is truly a good thought though,unfortunately reality will prevail in the end.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Doesn't always work

You know,

Sometimes people try, and it just doesn't work. My husband and I took my mother in for 3 months. My father had gone into a veteran's nursing home a few months before, and my mom finally agreed to come and stay with us. We also had four children with one on the way (9 yrs. and under). My mother has Parkinson's as well as a bad knee cap (injured after her knee replacement, and they can't really do anything for it) that seriously impairs her mobility.

I ended up not giving her enough attention, and she didn't like being around my sometimes bickering kids, and she ended up calling the police on my husband a couple of times because he was 'intimidating.' This same husband built solid wooden ramps in our house in case she might some day come and live with us - so just on a maybe, he did that. He helped adapt the bathroom and shower for her. He, along with my brother helped move her furniture in, along with setting up a couple of different beds for her because she had a bad back. He pushed her wheelchair sometimes, and even got down on the ground to help her move her foot if it got stuck.

On Christmas Eve, he was wrapping presents in the room next to hers, and had to walk the hallway to transport presents or wrapping materials to and from the tree. She called the police on him for walking in his own hallway. We think she was having a bit of paranoia issues because of medication, and she was also having hallucinations of mice in her room. She decided to move out - we did not put her out. I was hopeful until the end that maybe we could work it out, but she was miserable in our house. She lived in MA, and we moved up to NH to find a big enough place to try to take my parents in (we moved before my father went into a nursing home, but though the place was bigger it was also a big fixer-upper, so we weren't ready to take anyone in when he gave into dementia). So the change to NH was too much for her to take. We have neighbors, but it's kind of wooded around the house, so it's a bit hard to see their houses. I mean, we only live about 8 minutes away from the center of town and shopping, etc., but right around the house it just seemed too isolated for her. Every time we went out driving, especially at night, she always- always without fail- said something derogatory about the area we lived (usually that there weren't enough street lights, and the hills were too scary). She's used to seeing her neighbors' houses.

It didn't work. I'm still trying to help her, but I can see why some people just can't take someone in. It isn't always so cut and dry.

Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Mary, Our Mother, protect us under your mantle.

i'd say

it's an engineered shift.
just like a career is seen as more important than being a parent.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

The reality as it is now is

The reality as it is now is that like I said- social security doesn't even do anything to help pay rent- at the cost of taking money away from people's paychecks when they could've used it for something they need.

You're also counting on humans to be compassionate if you think that humans in the government will live up to their promises. If people aren't charitable enough to help others- then what makes you believe that the bureaucrats in charge of social security money are? The true reality of social security promises not being met will certainly prevail in the end.

You don't have to "count" on people helping their elders, JUST DO IT YOURSELF even if you're the only one on earth doing it. You are hurting people by taking their money through social security and pretending that you're not.

Don't count on anyone to do anything right- just do whats right on your own thats enough. If you don't want to, then that just means you're arguing for the sake of arguing and don't care about anyone really. I'm speaking to you directly by the way.

Of course not everyone is compassionate- but why support immoral practices because of it? That doesn't make any sense.

Can you imagine how bad the

Can you imagine how bad the crash would have been in 2008 if the bankers had had our social security money to play with? Disaster!

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

psnow's picture

SS

Dr.NO, The bankers did not have the SS money to play with because there hasn't been any money 'there' since Nixon put it in the 'general fund' to pay for his war.
There IS NO MONEY THERE!!

"I just want to live in a free country" - Dr. Ron Paul

it's never been

anything but a tax since its inception.
helvering v. davis.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

I am living it now

I am living with and taking care of my father because SS is not enough.My father and I have worked very hard all of our lives towards a future with the possibility of no Social Security.We have never bought anything we did not need. I am right now sacrificing all other Family,Friends and even a more prosperous location to make a better income towards my own future of no SS.

I am in this situation because we have both had events beyond our control destroy us over and over financially.Between my business and his SS we are barely maintaining as a family unit.We have never accepted any hand outs and because of this we are broke trying to do it right, let alone making any extra towards my future. It would be this way whether I had to pay taxes or not.Taxes are very little compared to the cost of protecting myself from trivial lawsuits filed by dishonest human nature.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

That's how people used to do it

Before SS, people used to live WITHIN their means, and many set aside money for unforeseen disasters, or retirement. Some people were just as likely to build or make something themselves as they were to go buy it in a store. They used things until they wore out, and found new uses for the worn out stuff. They cooked their own food instead of relying on pre-packaged reheatable stuff void of nutrients. Retired and elderly were often cared for or lived alongside younger family members--the traditional "extended family" unit. All of this meant that during their working lives, they often did without the "luxuries" that we take for granted today. They did not have the urge to constantly "upgrade" their stuff to the newest version all the time (getting rid of perfectly useful and reliable "old" stuff in the process). Today, people are conditioned to believe they can spend every dime they earn on stuff they mostly don't need, live off their credit cards if there is not enough in their paychecks for that stuff, and that SS (and medicare) will cover their needs when they retire.

If we must rely on SS, we must face the fact that it will not support the same abundant lifestyle we have been used to living pre-retirement. More inflation will only magnify that reality.

So, in order to survive without SS (and potentially medicare), we need to change our thinking, go back to a more frugal/minimalist lifestyle, and realize that taking care of ourselves and our own is a satisfying and rewarding way to live life. Maybe that means growing a garden (cheap organic food!), driving a used car, living closer to your work, living in a smaller home, shopping garage sales and resales, whatever it takes to stay within your means and have a little extra to set aside. That mentality will take a while to achieve, but that was the way for hundreds of years, and the modern luxuriant lifestyle has only been around for a few decades. We can overcome!

Well

Arguing Ron´s idea, health care costs are high because of government interference, food, energy, costs are high cause of inflation and the monetary system.

Taxes are to high so people can´t save for these things and retirement.
Instead of saving, people take loans to the maximum.

There is no going back to scrapping social security completely in a hurry, that is why Ron suggests cutting foreign aid and the military spending first, to take care of those that now are dependent.

He is the only candidate to make sure that social security check will keep its spending power. No use to get a check if it is not worth anything.

Making people to be able to opt out gives them the ability to save and take control of their future themselves and live without dependence on the government.
At the same time tie those people dependent now over by ending the foreign occupations and have peace.

Sounds like a great plan if you ask me.

Here in Sweden we have 55% income tax(direct+indirect) + 25% VAT tax for a whopping 80% tax and I probably forgot some other taxes and still they have been cutting health care massively the last years, because it is a very ineffective system.
Sick people here have to wait a long time for help and some die before they get any, despite that they have paid for it a life time.
Still our military spending is next to nothing compared to the USA.
So how on earth are you gonna afford any health care or social security with all your military spending and so low taxes.
It can´t possibly work or end well.

The problem is, health care

The problem is, health care costs, food costs, energy costs etc. aren't high JUST because of the government. There are so many other reasons. Blaming the government for every bad thing is just as stupid as not blaiming it for everything.

BTW, food costs and energy costs have gone down with increased government, no?

BTW, I know little about the tax policy of Sweden. Yet they have a very prosperous society, high income, and very high purchasing power.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

food and energy

You're right, it's "NO"
Both are government subsidized [taxes]

Deekey

..

"BTW, food costs and energy costs have gone down with increased government, no?"

It has gone up cause of that, not down.

Energy is skyrocketing, some months here house owners have to pay 1000$ a month for energy in the winter.

Food is packaged in smaller parts, so they think no one will notice.

No Sweden have low income but add +25% minimum to all costs, including silver, thanks to VAT.

Sure the minimum wage is likely higher here, but not all wages. Despite, much higher costs. High wages sure are lower.

There is VAT on everything. What we don´t have is people living in trailers, at least not as many.

But who knows, soon real estate prices will crash here and here debt stays for life, no turning in the keys.

Right now most people think estate is different here, it may fall everywhere else, but not here, cause it is a special market here.

They said the same thing ofc in very country before it happened.

I think it will be really bad.

Without confiscatory income taxes...

most people could accumulate enough wealth to retire comfortably. Many state employees are NOT part of the Social Security system. Further, Social Security penalizes success.
I will not draw Social Security for my first month of retirement, because "I made too much money" in 2011. That means my monthly income goes from about $6K/mo. to $2K/mo. for December, while the tax thieves have prevented me from accumulating much personal wealth outside of my 401K, which I cannot touch until sometime in January. How fair is that?

Can you prove

Can you prove this?

Historically, people will spend the money or put it in the stock market. When the market crashes, they have to go to the poorhouse.

People forget that Social SEcurity was invented so that people would get off the government dollar; they wouldn't have to rely on government hospitals, poorhouses, or welfare in their retirement. It was all about personal responsibility.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Peter Schiff's book "The Real Crash"

Peter Schiff's Book "The Real Crash" has a great chapter on the origins of social security, how it was sold to the American people as a certain type of program, and then when it was challenged at the Supreme Court level, the gov't insisted it was something else. (Sounds like Obamacare, doesn't it?)
The book is wonderful, and Schiff has a knack for clearly explaining concepts that are usually boring or confusing to many.

Social Security was presented

Social Security was presented to the Supreme Court in a different way because the government was/is not allowed to do an insurance or pension program. It is allowed to tax and spend, so SS was passed that way.

In practice, however, Social Security has worked exactly like a pension program. Though benefitees are technically owed nothing, they end up getting paid based on what they put in.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

SS was not invented to get

SS was not invented to get people off the government dollar. SS was never about personal responcibility.

i get the feeling it was invented

to protect the government dollar. it's impossible to protect wealth by simply saving it and they knew it, hence the scheme to confiscate some now and give you back an 'adjusted for inflation' pittance later.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Fact,Thank you

It is unfortunate that the fact is forgotten.If we did not have SS we would right now be in a full blown starving and homeless depression of the likes no one can even grasp.

Some of us were listening when the folks that lived through it explained how bad it truly was.This is what happens when we throw all of our eggs into one basket and allow a handful of gamblers to take us all down when they drop it.No matter how responsible we are towards the future.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

I think you overexaggerate

I think you overexaggerate how bad it would be, as most probably, welfare and medicaid would be much, much higher to pay for all the elderly with SS or Medicare.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

What if?

What if there was also no welfare? At least SS would create a minimum of economy cash flow to prevent the horrible travesties that came about during the great depression.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

huh?

huh?

i had to check

my browser tab too.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Example

I contribute $350/month to a 401(k) which I have at conservative growth of 5% and annually increase my monthly payment by $50 and plan to do so until I'm 50.

I'm 24 now.

If I retire at 64, that means I'll be retiring with roughly $1,000,000.

I don't worry too much about Social Security.

What I worry about is inflation.

Dude, your 401k is about to

Dude, your 401k is about to be destroyed or confiscated. You would be much better off to take that money and buy 350.00 worth of silver every month.