You versus Social Security – Quinn is betting against you.

One thing (?) really bothers me and that is the idea that Social Security is a bad deal. That view is based on the theory that a person would be far better off if the FICA taxes instead of going toward Social Security, were invested by the worker.

There are two major flaws in that view. First, Social Security is far more that a individual retirement income – disability benefits, survivor income, dependent income, ex-spouse income are included. 

So, for the theory to have a chance, everything must go right throughout a persons entire life, no job loss, no disability, no divorce, no disabled child, no early death and no bad investments or bad timing. 

Second, we must assume a person exercises forty or so years of financial discipline and investment skills. No diverting any of the money, no skipping new investments, no speculation, good diversification based on years to retirement and more. 

I suggest relatively few people are capable of doing that and I think the overall financial state of many retirees and most Americans provides ample evidence. 

So, the argument against SS based on what one person expects to successfully do is irrelevant in my opinion. The collective benefits for society are what matter. 

During my working life of over fifty years beginning in 1959 I and my employers combined paid $266,314 in FICA Social Security taxes. I have no idea what that would be worth if invested in lieu of the taxes as paid weekly, but I do know that Connie and I collected in benefits all those taxes paid in about seven years of retiring and that today after sixteen COLAs, our combined SS benefits based on my taxed earnings only are $60,496 a year and the survivor benefit would be $40,320. And all that is about as guaranteed as is possible. 

Did I miss out on accumulating a million or two? I doubt it, but I also don’t care. In my book Social Security still wins. I see that as the case for 99% of workers, even HD readers.