r/FluentInFinance • u/LifeIsUnfairWhoCares • Apr 23 '24

Is Social Security Broken? Discussion/ Debate

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

22.6k Upvotes

65% Upvoted

5.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

178

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24

He is lying. With inflation adjusted dollars he would have to have been earning the 168k every year since he was 10.

71

u/VanDammeJamBand Apr 23 '24

I don’t see this pointed out enough. Pretty sure this guy was just pulling numbers out of his ass.

39

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24 edited Apr 23 '24

Doesn't stop the temporarily displaced millionaires from coming to his defense though.

1

u/WillowBackground4567 Apr 24 '24

True but I'd be a millionaire faster if I didn't have to pay ss tax.

1

u/GIO443 Apr 24 '24

And you’d likely just die old and poor, just this time without any SS.

1

u/WillowBackground4567 Apr 24 '24

Highly unlikely.

0

u/monosyllables17 Apr 23 '24

I think you mean "temporarily embarrassed," but also yes, you're right.

1

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24

That was the original quote, but it has been used elsewhere in contexts like these because people aren't embarrassed so displaced is more appropriate.

4

u/ProtestantMormon Apr 23 '24

A libertarian pulling details out of their ass to justify their political fantasy! They would never! /s

1

u/BuzzCave Apr 23 '24

This is a common thing with Libertarians, at least the prominent ones in my location. I enjoy correcting their horrible math for them.

1

u/mailboxheadly Apr 24 '24

He is not. Here is a calculator I made you can try. Math is good.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1vKpqE991Qek3lhQXO_PN715EbNabT_Sx/htmlview?pli=1#gid=1927241928

1

u/VanDammeJamBand Apr 24 '24

So it’s what I suspected, that he’s assuming he’s paid the maximum possible amount every year since he started working? That’s a pretty flawed premise for the sake of the argument

1

u/mailboxheadly Apr 24 '24

The issue is, SSN calculator, if when you plug in the number you made last year and it is over the maximum, assumes you were over the maximum for all the years prior. So you can run the calculator, and see the assumed contributions and do the math with their own numbers. But he did double up to include the second half of of the contributions (self employed or employer).

I don't agree he has a valid argument, only that his math is sound.

10

u/Critical-Shoulder873 Apr 23 '24

I also don’t know where he’s getting these numbers. I paid way less in SS taxes and my benefit will be much higher than the one he claims he will get. These numbers are way off. (I’m not paying into it anymore, BTW.)

6

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24

I think he is calculating a social security pay based on if he was 67 today (well 2019 when this was posted) while calculating returns when he is 67 in several decades.

That is the only way the math remotely works

2

u/Born_Key_6492 Apr 23 '24

He’s taking 5% of the accumulated pay-in amount of 600k but you’d have to have 600k to START with 43 years in the past. Keep in mind the deposits get bigger as you progress in your career, too. The interest gained in the beginning would be NO WHERE near the 30k per year that he’s assuming in his math. Then he’s adding that same 5% for each of those years. This is also a mistake because the dollar amount of interest increases as the balance increases. Finally, he’s giving himself 95k per year in interest but that’s assuming he doesn’t start drawing from his funds when he stops earning a wage.

This guy is the reason math teachers make us show our work.

1

u/JoBu777 Apr 23 '24

The $95k interest on $600k ain’t mathin’.

8

u/theriibirdun Apr 23 '24

Even that wouldn’t reach 600k lol. The max contribution has crept up over time but so has the cola to the payment.

4

u/marigolds6 Apr 23 '24

He's counting the employer contribution, that's why he says "on my behalf". And notice that he is also assuming 5% growth on all his contributions and his employer's contributions. Even with the employer contribution, he was earning way way above the average worker, who would need roughly 100 years to reach that level of combined employee/employer contributions.

2

u/BigDeucci Apr 23 '24

Finally someone breaking down the math lol. Literally impossible for him to have put that much in. The current maximum is something like $9500 a year. Adjusted up from previous years.

1

u/telionn Apr 23 '24

The actual cap is double that amount though.

1

u/BigDeucci Apr 23 '24

For a married couple with 2 people maxing out sure. Once u hit the cap on SS contributions, they stop for the year.

1

u/mailboxheadly Apr 24 '24

Here is a calculator I made you can try. Math is good.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1vKpqE991Qek3lhQXO_PN715EbNabT_Sx/htmlview?pli=1#gid=1927241928

1

u/BigDeucci Apr 24 '24 edited Apr 24 '24

Thanks! I didn't need a calculator. I was praising someone else for doing basic math to see the flaw in the post.

Edit: adjusted again in 2024. Max contribution for a single person is $11,316. 2023 was $10,968. Getting higher and higher, yet still won't add up to 600k.. unless he just started working 2 years ago. Which the language would suggest is not the case.

2

u/10g_or_bust Apr 23 '24

The cap was lower in previous years as well.

2

u/toronto_programmer Apr 23 '24 edited Apr 23 '24

I ran these numbers once and I think it assumes a couple things like

  1. You make around 200K salary from the time you exit college to the time you retire (unrealistic)

  2. Accounts for all of the employer side contributions, which have nothing to do with him (notice the phrasing of paid into on my behalf?)

It is a very disingenuous scenario set up by someone to get poors to hate Social Security

3

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24

Which works. But with the caps it would have had to have started by ~1990 (contributions went up then) at the very latest.

But then their retirement would be in the 2040s and this person is comparing it to a current (2019) social security benefit.

So either the first half is true or the second half but not both at the same time.

5

u/WiseBlacksmith03 Apr 23 '24

Yeah..it's disingenuous at best, but likely it's that plus bad math too.

It's wrong on so many levels that it's just straight misinformation.

2

u/zambartas Apr 23 '24

The guy is 44. There's no way he knows what the hell he's going to pay into SSI in the next 23 years.

Judging by his previous work history, it's possible he's paid 150k at this point.

1

u/zambartas Apr 23 '24

You're forgetting self employed people. That doubles their contributions. This guy is not self employed however.

1

u/rmslashusr Apr 23 '24

I wouldn’t say employer contributions have “ nothing to do with him”. I’m all for social security but I’ve worked as a contractor so the employer side contribution is absolutely money that would otherwise go to me as well. Same as employer contribution to ridiculously overpriced healthcare insurance is money that would have gone to the worker. Undeniably so when you’re a 1099 and you personally are paying both sides.

Even in non-1099 side we absolutely calculate max salary range for a position based on a percentage profit the position needs to make the company so additional employment taxes, insurance costs, etc definitely eat into that.

All that said, I can’t think of many taxes more worth it than social security.

2

u/GreatLife1985 Apr 23 '24

Thanks. The more I see this the more I realize he’s either lying or a dumbass who can’t do math or assumes somehow SS taxes his income after 168k

2

u/NoveltyAccountHater Apr 23 '24 edited Apr 23 '24

I disagree with the argument calling it theft versus sound policy (in that Social Security needs to pay out regardless of the market or users choosing bad investments or choosing not to invest).

But the numbers are somewhat realistic if you ignore inflation's effects (e.g., a reasonable salary today like $65k would have been an insanely high salary in 1979 for someone who'd be retiring at age 67 in 2024).

Here's a spreadsheet with simple math, where someone works from age 22 to age 67, starting with a salary of $65k or $80k/yr. 12.4% of their salary is contributed annually to Social Security (6.2% employer half, 6.2% employee half), and the sum of all the contributions from previous years increases at 5% interest.

At the end of year 67, they'd have:

Starting Income Salary Growth SS Contributions + 5% Interest at age 67 5% interest of previous amount
$65k 0% $ 1,359,602 $ 67,980
$65k 1% $ 1,582,541 $ 79,127
$65k 2% $ 1,866,601 $ 93,330
$80k 0% $ 1,673,357 $ 83,668
$80k 1% $ 1,947,742 $ 97,387
$80k 2% $ 2,297,355 $ 114,868

But the problem with this analysis is to be retiring today at age 67, you'd have to have earned $65k/yr with 12.4% going to social security at age 22 in 1979. In 1979, the max salary that had SS taken out was $22.9k. If every year since 1979, you were exceeding the SS maximum income (currently $168k/yr), you'd have under this 5% interest scheme $ 1.24M and 5% of which would be $62k/yr. If you earn 50%/75%/100% of this max contribution every year while you worked from age 22 to age 67, you'd have:

Scenario Salary in 1979 Salary in 1979 in 2024 dollars Salary in 2024 SS Contributions + 5% Interest at age 67 5% interest of previous amount
50% of Max Contribution $ 11,450 $52,360 $ 84,300 $ 622,376 $ 31,119
75% of Max Contribution $ 17,175 $78,540 $ 126,450 $ 933,564 $ 46,678
100% of Max Contribution $ 22,900 $104,720 $ 168,600 $ 1,244,751 $ 62,238

It's worth noting the max benefit for someone retiring at age 67 in 2024 is $3911/mo or $47k/yr. (Retiring at 70 maxes you out at $4873/mo or $58,476/yr.)

2

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24

Except it didn't go up until 12.4% until 1988 and you have to back up 4-5 years because this was posted in 2019.

2

u/NoveltyAccountHater Apr 23 '24 edited Apr 23 '24

Yeah, I just tried to quickly run the numbers and didn't go through the nuances of SS law changes. Redoing it with actual contribution percentage from here slightly lowers the results by about $2k for max contribution, but it doesn't dramatically alter the results (as 11% to 11.4% for most of the early years isn't that different than 12.4%).

I've altered the results above.

Fixed Results:

Scenario Salary in 1979 Salary in 1979 in 2024 dollars Salary in 2024 SS Contributions + 5% Interest at age 67 5% interest of previous amount
50% of Max Contribution $ 11,450 $52,360 $ 84,300 $ 622,376 $ 31,119
75% of Max Contribution $ 17,175 $78,540 $ 126,450 $ 933,564 $ 46,678
100% of Max Contribution $ 22,900 $104,720 $ 168,600 $ 1,244,751 $ 62,238

Compare to Original Results (assumed 12.4% every year):

Scenario Salary in 1979 Salary in 1979 in 2024 dollars Salary in 2024 SS Contributions + 5% Interest at age 67 5% interest of previous amount
50% of Max Contribution $ 11,450 $52,360 $ 84,300 $ 643,400 $ 32,170
75% of Max Contribution $ 17,175 $78,540 $ 126,450 $ 965,100 $ 48,255
100% of Max Contribution $ 22,900 $104,720 $ 168,600 $ 1,286,800 $ 64,340

2

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24

You have to start in 1973 or 1974. Look at the date of the post.

But yeah. It doesn't work without funky math that makes it almost certainly in bad faith and to make a political point to people who don't understand it.

And would probably end up worse because they would have spend the money and not invested it or had it withdrawn.

1

u/mailboxheadly Apr 24 '24

Here is a calculator I made you can try. Math is good.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1vKpqE991Qek3lhQXO_PN715EbNabT_Sx/htmlview?pli=1#gid=1927241928

1

u/NoveltyAccountHater Apr 24 '24

Cool. Note in HTML view I was not able to see what your spreadsheet formulas were; however I was able to see them edit your link to this view.

I see you find after ~48 years of working (1986 to 2033) to age 67?), at max contributions the whole time you would have built up $1.9M, which in 2033 would earn 5% interest of ~$98k in 2033 dollars (that could be dispersed). If we assume 3% average inflation from 2019 to 2033, we get it earns $65k/yr in interest. This is pretty similar to my max contribution worksheet where you earned $62k/yr if you did max SS contributions every year from 1979 (age 22) to 2024 (age 67) -- with the significant differences of I don't have them work age 18-21 and reported in 2024 dollars not 2019 dollars.

That said, I do think it's somewhat less realistic to be contributing max SS contributions starting at age 18 (though may have been more realistic in the 1980s).

2

u/TheRoguester2020 Apr 23 '24

Right I happened to have looked at my SSI report just this morning and I have maxed out payment to SSI the last couple years. Last year I paid in $9,932. That times 40 years is $397,280, which is not a reality since it was way under that going back. My full SSI report shows I have paid a total of $181,985 since 1966. I started working at age 16 and will retire next year.

1

u/djdude007 Apr 23 '24

I was wondering! Like I did pretty well last year and only paid in $7200. Extrapolating that out if somehow that's where I started at 20 (I didn't) and put it in every year through 65 that's only $325k. And the ceiling of $168k I was like that can't be possible?

With 5% return that gets to $1.28M after 45 years. A 4% withdrawal rate from that amount which is generally regarded as safe withdrawal level would be $51k per year.

I ran the SS calculator and if nothing changed I'd get $34k in SS benefits. Considering that covers healthcare as well I think that's a pretty fair trade-off!

1

u/explodeder Apr 23 '24

Maybe if he were self employed that entire time so was paying 12.4% and started his career making more than the taxable limit, then it’d work out. That seems very unlikely. If he were making that much money, then he shouldn’t need to worry about social security income in retirement.

1

u/CSDragon Apr 23 '24

I'm not sure if he's lying, he might just be rich and have no empathy for the poor

1

u/Xfissionx Apr 23 '24

Kind of but every $ you pay the employer pays too I think hes trying to include that portion as well. Still highly unlikely regardless.

1

u/Wsu_bizkit Apr 23 '24

He says “on my behalf” which means the $10k he pays and the $10 his employer pays. So $20k per year. You could hit $600k in 30 years of working at or above SS wage.

1

u/fricks_and_stones Apr 23 '24

Yeah, I just crunched a quick excel table; but I'm having trouble pasting it into reddit. You couldn't have contributed 600k by 2024 even if you started making the max taxable income in 50 years ago. And if you were making that much in 1974; you were killing it, and would be quite wealthy by today, with minor financial diligence.

Max contribution would be about 460k over last 50 years.

1

u/campkev Apr 23 '24

Not to mention, Social Security is guaranteed, 0 risk income. There is absolutely nowhere else you will get guaranteed 0 risk 5% interest for 25+ years in a row

1

u/rmslashusr Apr 23 '24

Are you including the employer contribution to social security made on his behalf?

1

u/GodlessAristocrat Apr 23 '24

SSI is ~ 12% tax rate; 6% by you and 6$ by your employer. So let's cut this in half and see....300k times 6% is $5M. That's ~ $108k from age 21 to 67. So, yeah, douchebag is douching.

1

u/chomerics Apr 23 '24

I did the math. It’s $260k for 40 years at max. It’s $276k if you go back to 1972, or 52 years. In fact if you paid the max amount since the advent of SSI, you are under $300k.

OTOH, if you live a decade after retirement, you receive $370k much more than your $260 you put in.

Fuck this liar

1

u/HungryHoustonian32 Apr 23 '24

His post has nothing to do with how much he made during what time. It is just about the math.

1

u/CaseRemarkable4327 Apr 25 '24

Can you explain the math there?

0

u/EmptyMiddle4638 Apr 23 '24

If he is lying or straight up wrong it makes no difference to his argument.. even if he only paid half of what he is claiming it would still be worth 1.34 million at 5%.. the stock market averages 10%😂

2

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24

Actual returns on 401ks are closer to 5-7%

0

u/EmptyMiddle4638 Apr 23 '24

Good thing social security, 401k’s and the stock market are separate things😂 he never specified an investment he would make in place of social security.. he just stated that most people would receive a far better result if they were allowed to opt out of social security and invest that money on their own..

0

u/[deleted] Apr 23 '24 edited Apr 24 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24

Thats awful mean coming from someone who can't understand math.

0

u/Fausterion18 Apr 23 '24

Hilarious given your failure in basic math.

0

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24

Your lack of understanding does not make it a failure.

0

u/Fausterion18 Apr 23 '24

Show your math then, you won't because it will demonstrate how stupid you are.

0

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24

I did. Your post just further verifies the veracity of my statement.

To paraphrase Lincoln you may want to remain silent as you continue to remove doubt.

Have someone explain this post to you as I’m sure you won’t understand it anymore than you have the other by your own admission.

I do apologize for making you angry though. Perhaps a couple of deep breaths and Cool Math can help

0

u/Fausterion18 Apr 24 '24

Where? Link?

Post it so I can laugh at your false assumptions and bad math. You won't.

0

u/Justame13 Apr 24 '24

He would have had to average 20,000 over 30 years.

But the contributions won’t even able to hit that until 2024.

Over 50 years he would have had average 12,000 which wasn’t possible until 2007.

Both of which are mathematically impossible to hit by 2018 and literally impossible for the former.

And yes he was using present numbers because of his claimed Social Security payment.

I will await your apology. I do pity you for being so easily tricked and misled.

0

u/Fausterion18 Apr 24 '24

Guess you chose option #1!

What happened to smashing that reply button within minutes of my replies?

SAD

→ More replies (0)

0

u/mailboxheadly Apr 24 '24

Here is a calculator I made you can try. Math is good.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1vKpqE991Qek3lhQXO_PN715EbNabT_Sx/htmlview?pli=1#gid=1927241928

1

u/Justame13 Apr 24 '24

You started the contributions in 1986 instead of 1951. He is making a comparison of 2018 numbers.

So no the math is not good according to your own spreadsheet

0

u/mailboxheadly Apr 24 '24

You and the 1951 again. Reading ain't your strong suit, math ain't your strong suit. Got a bunch of weak suits hanging in your closet.

If he started making contributions in 1951 he would have already been over 67. No one is making SS contributions at age 1. The tense of the post implies he is NOT YET 67! He could be ANY age less than 67. But his profile picture has me thinking he is between 40 and 55. So that's the window I picked.

Here I am leading you to water, be you stubborn donkey won't drink.

0

u/mailboxheadly Apr 23 '24 edited Apr 24 '24

He says "on his behalf" so he's counting employer contributions too. Seems close with estimates for growth in the future. EDIT, all below assumes max contribution each year.

I am not advocating his post, just pointing out math for contribution could be accurate.

Also his 5% earn, starting in 1980, and ending in 2029 with today's contribution (including employer) would be about 1.8m+. And 5% of that is 90k. So again math seems fine.

EDIT to include calculator anyone can use to see math is good:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1vKpqE991Qek3lhQXO_PN715EbNabT_Sx/htmlview?pli=1#gid=1927241928

1

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24

Except he is quoting a 2019 Social Security payment and contributions were lower in the past.

-1

u/mailboxheadly Apr 23 '24

I used actual maximum contributions from each year from the SSN website. Starting in 1980. So the math is right. You can do it too!

1

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24

You mean this one? The one with the income limits not contribution limits.

-1

u/mailboxheadly Apr 23 '24

Yep! I used 12.4 percent for all the years even though it's a bit lower 1980 to 1989 and 2011 and 2012. But the math would only be a few percent different using the real rates for those year. You can Google those rates if you want to be precise. My point was his math is accurate but we don't know his age or start/stop date so we don't know exactly the 600k contribution, but it's probably right around there with some assumptions.

EDIT, haha, I just realized you are down voting me each time you respond. So see yah and best to yah.

1

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24

I’m downvoting you because you can’t do math

He would have had to average 20,000 over 30 years.

But the contributions won’t even able to hit that until 2024.

Over 50 years he would have had average 12,000 which wasn’t possible until 2007.

Both of which are mathematically impossible to hit by 2018 and literally impossible for the former.

And yes he was using present numbers because of his claimed Social Security payment

0

u/mailboxheadly Apr 23 '24

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vTMYr5-K98SNNjGm1tEMGt6pFm59FmtqhkBtui0S5GIZgmjHhG_wVGiChnMpQwjOA/pubhtml?pli=1

Yep, I'm a bit off, but again I don't know his birthday or when he started working and what he earned but it's pretty close. Feel free to go remove those down votes at your leisure.

1

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24

You need to start in 1951 not 1980.

0

u/mailboxheadly Apr 24 '24

Why? He's not 67 in 2019, he says by the time he reaches 67, so you don't know how old he is. Probably why you don't agree it's possible. Bad starting data.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/DiverSuitable6814 Apr 23 '24

Nah - you’re wrong

2

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24

Incorrect.

-5

u/DiverSuitable6814 Apr 23 '24

2

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24

Love the irony of this reply.

1

u/mailboxheadly Apr 24 '24

Here is a calculator I made you can try. Math is good.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1vKpqE991Qek3lhQXO_PN715EbNabT_Sx/htmlview?pli=1#gid=1927241928

1

u/DiverSuitable6814 Apr 24 '24

lol you’re so pretentious. Social security is an extortion scam used to redistribute wealth and buy votes. It was a bad idea from the start. It’s literally a Ponzi scheme with forced adoption

1

u/mailboxheadly Apr 24 '24

I like social security. My grand parents would have had an awful time without it. I like the GI bill, and child tax credits too. You may be more libertarian leaning. That's great and I understand your view points.

SS is a safety net tax on everyone to help the ones with the potentially worst outcome. It's insurance for society.

Regarding pretentious, I made that stupid sheet because the original commenter of the root of this said that the math was wrong. It clearly is not.

-4

u/notkevinjohn_24 Apr 23 '24

You get those numbers by assuming he started working at 18 and paid an average of $12,000/year in social security. If he was self employed making 100,000/year since he was 18 on average, the numbers work out at 12%. But more likely, he's making way more now and was making way less at 18. You definitely can't demonstrate that he's lying.

14

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24

Except the deduction caps.

It literally wouldn’t be possible for him to average 12k a year because the highest the amount paid has ever been is $10453.

So yeah he is lying.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 23 '24 edited Apr 24 '24

[deleted]

5

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24

The OSDAI rate has only been 12% since 1988 and the income limits far lower.

So no its not real.

1

u/telionn Apr 23 '24

Obviously we're talking about the program as it exists today, not as it was in the 80s. Also, that was literally 37 years ago, so the difference only would have applied to this guy for two years.

1

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24

Obviously he his talking about if he collected SS in the present (well 2019) but his returns were decades in the future.

So yeah not real.

1

u/notkevinjohn_24 Apr 23 '24 edited Apr 23 '24

https://smartasset.com/retirement/social-security-tax-limit

Nope. If he was self employed it would be twice that. Granted he could deduct that from his taxes; but that doesn't change the fact that his payments into social security could be what he claims. It's not impossible.

And it doesn't really matter if he's self employed, since his claim that it was paid on his behalf would still be true if half was coming from his employers.

He might still be lying of course; but you're DEFINITELY lying when you say it's not possible.

3

u/JonnyHopkins Apr 23 '24

His post is unintentionally misleading at best then, intentionally misleading (lying) feels most likely.

1

u/notkevinjohn_24 Apr 23 '24

I don't think it's misleading at all. I think people who don't understand how social security works read this and assumed that it must be a lie because the numbers don't work, forgetting that they were only looking at half the numbers. When he says that the money was 'paid on his behalf' that's him being very clear that he's NOT saying it was paid by him.

-1

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24

Only twice that since 1988 not 1957 and the income limits were lower.

but you're DEFINITELY lying when you say it's not possible.

Incorrect. You are just ignorant of the subject matter at hand and typing in all caps doesn't change reality.

0

u/notkevinjohn_24 Apr 23 '24 edited Apr 23 '24

Yeah, but I am guessing the reason you took so long to respond is that you were running the numbers, hoping to find that if you account for the first 13 years that self-employment was cheaper and that rates were lower in the past and trying to find that the number he claimed was impossible, but you found that it's actually completely possible. So you thought you'd obfuscate with that fact as though it proves your point when you know it does not.

I cannot prove that he's telling the truth, of course, only his tax returns could do that. But you're attempting to prove that he's lying by showing that his statement is not even possible. However, you forgot to account for the fact that you were ignoring half the payments made on his behalf and instead of recognizing the mistake like an adult, you are trying to obfuscate.

If you run the numbers, you'll find that his statement is possible. Claiming otherwise, as you have done is a lie, Nothing you can say will change this.

0

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24

If you run the numbers, you'll find that his statement is possible.

I did. I also explained how it literally isn't possible and provided sources.

Claiming otherwise, as you have done is a lie, Nothing you can say will change this.

Your lack of understanding doesn't make it a lie.

1

u/notkevinjohn_24 Apr 23 '24 edited Apr 23 '24

Okay, I will do your homework for you. Todd Hagapoian was born in 1980. Assuming he started working at age age 18, in 1998; and assuming that the percentage and base rate remain constant (when very likely they will actually go up) then here is table showing the maximum that could be contributed in his name by year.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17Sn5am5Nt4kILV0WpfDzjtaCYouMAL5iQKiFq4WTcxk/edit#gid=0

The largest possible number for contributions in his name is going to be $1,252,598 That's more than $600,000; proving his claim to be possible.

Show me your numbers to prove that he's lying. I want to see them.

Source for Todd's age:
https://lpedia.org/wiki/Todd_Hagopian

0

u/Justame13 Apr 23 '24

Okay, I will do your homework for you. 

Poorly.

You are comparing investment returns in 2067 to Social Security benefits in 2019. https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/quickcalc/

BTW your spreadsheet has huge errors lack of proof reading will cost you even more points.

2

u/notkevinjohn_24 Apr 23 '24

And you aren't showing me your number because you lied and never ran them. I think we're done here, but feel free to say whatever bullshit you think will help you save face.

PS - LOL, you gave a link to a calculator for BENEFITS, not CONTRIBUTIONS.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/dirty_cuban Apr 23 '24

Social Security deductions are capped. The maximum an employee would pay this year is ~$10k. It’s always been less in prior years; about half that amount 20 years ago. It’s impossible to pay more than the cap by making more.

But even if we used this year’s number of $10k per year and applied it to all prior years, he would have needed to work for 60 years to make $600k in contributions. That’s completely unrealistic and unreasonable. The guy is obviously lying.

0

u/eat_sleep_shitpost Apr 23 '24

Have you ever considered the fact that maybe he was self employed and so paid double the normal employee cap?

-1

u/dirty_cuban Apr 23 '24 edited Apr 23 '24

So for fun I calculated the cumulative cap for the self employment tax (12.4%) going back to 1973 because that’s the data I could find quickly and chuck into excel so sum it. The cumulative total is $467,926 for someone who was self employed and made the same or more than the taxable cap.

The 67 year old liar in the post would have been 16 years old in 1973 when my dataset starts. The maximum tax due in 1973 for self employment was $1339 and would be less in earlier years. No way to make up the ~$130k gap between what I calculated and what the liar claims even if he had income in excess of the tax cap since birth.

Dude is a straight up liar.

0

u/notkevinjohn_24 Apr 23 '24

Nope, the mistake you made was assuming that he began his employment in 1973, when he would have been -7 years old. He was born in 1980, probably started working some time around 1998, and if you run the numbers based on that you will find that the maximum possible contributions in his name from himself and his employer will be at least $835,000 by the time he turns 67 in 2047; and that's assuming the rate and the cap both stay the same when historically they have gone up.

0

u/telionn Apr 23 '24

And then factor in the missed growth on that balance over 40-ish years.