it is steadier and more consistent which is necessary for a plan where people can't withstand the market's volatility and can't wait until the market goes back up.

For example, if people's Social Security was market driven, retirees would have taken.a bath in 2008.

SS funds by law are invested in govt securities, which are less risky so will return less than the stock market. Also, your SS contributions benefit others who may not have paid in as much, eg, disabled persons, lower wage workers, stay-at-home spouses.

OTOH, if you defer taking your SS distribution from age 62 to age 70, the annual payments increase 8% (in some cases more). So for that period that is a good, guaranteed increase.

That means you receive 32% more each month if you can wait that four years to begin benefits.

If you are not married but were married at least ten years, you can draw a spousal benefit based on the earnings of your ex, usually half their regular SS benefits. Helps a lot in deferring benefits on your own account.

insurance. And, if the worker dies, his/her children get a payment until age 18. A lot of families have been saved by this.

Then you have to deal with life expectancy, when you started contributions, general returns during the period, how well you select investments, etc.

All in all, Social Security is a pretty good deal for the money paid in. I know the lower levels of monthly benefits are grossly inadequate, but still a pretty good, safe investment for what one paid in.

Because of the way SS benefits are determined -- the payments do not increase in proportion to higher incomes subject to FICA -- higher income people don't get as good a return.

But, it's still a pretty good safety net. A lot of high living elderly -- suddenly forced into retirement -- would be living in their old, broken down Mercedes and BMWs without Social Security.

And needs to be expanded.

My savings(stock market) earnings will most likely vastly out pay my SS.

And if every American can afford to put 10-15K yearly into stocks over their career then SS would be meaningless.

But in the real world most people can’t save even 5k a year. Hell, the average household income would require many Americans to save 50% of their earnings to live on their savings.

The whole argument is a right wing canard. It basically says if everyone were rich we would need no government programs. If you make 40k a year and can manage to save 10% of that, which is basically impossible, you are not living the good life at 65.

folks who were in those invested plans by their employers are less fortunate...and yes, folks didn't make enough money to invest so much of their paychecks in one of those funds, no matter how terrific they seemed to be. They couldn't make enough to do that.

My wife and I have excellent ones having been employed by the same company for well over 30 years.

But starting a decade ago new employees only have 401k with a somewhat generous match. And our company is worth over 80 billion dollars.

We also have 401ks as well.

The fact most Americans will not be able to retire comfortably should be on of the largest issues for the Democratic Party.

On those without pensions 8%.

I should clarify this is only for salaried employees. Hourly employees are covered under a collective bargaining agreement with a pathetic $1000 per month pension but also a 6% matched 401k. But of course, how much can you save making $15-30 an hour? You can live and perhaps decently. But you are not socking away 10K per year.

I will say one of the best things they have done is making new employees automatically enrolled. Well, not really cause that is illegal. But they kind of have to opt out of it.

That is why SS is so critical and must be expanded for lower income folks.

have a defined benefit pension plan. The plan is managed by a board of employees and professionals. It is solidly funded and earns a good return.

If ever we could return to unions and defined benefit pension plans for everyone a lot of worry would be lessened.

Defined benefit plans are only as reliable as the financial stability of the entity that holds the funds. Many can and do go bankrupt leaving you screwed, not to mention many such bankruptcies are specifically designed to get out of such liabilities.

The entity that owns the funds are the employees and retirees.

I'll put it up against anything you have any day.

""

Now do a search on defined pension plans that have gone bankrupt and left people on the gov insured plan.

and businesses did not pay their annual fund contributions.

Any retirement plan that has employer contributions can get into trouble if the employer does not pay the annual contributions.

The problem is they are viewed as a liability which can be abandoned. The days of blue chip companies retaining such plans for decades are long gone.

p

Not even close

Stocks 10%-12% depending on source

SS 3%-5% depending on source

It is guaranteed income, not stock market casino money. It does not need to beat the stock market.

I've been receiving SSDI for about 10 years now and worked sporadically for a few years before applying and qualifying for SSDI. I don't think I could have invested enough into the stock market during the time I was working full time to generate enough income for the years I have drawn SSDI and in the future. Unless I had become a partner of Walter White.

Can you make more in interest, dividends and cap gains? Sure, but you'll have to have a decent amount invested to generate more than 12k/yr in income (assuming soc security payments are about 1,000/mo).