From MarketWatch | By Jeff Reeves
ROCKVILLE, Md. — Staring at my wife’s annual tax documents this weekend, I couldn’t help getting fired up over what she paid into Social Security last year.
When I pointed out the money sunk into the entitlement program — a 6.2% haircut on her modest salary — she simply shrugged. And when I asked whether she thought she would ever see that money again, she just shrugged again.
I love my wife because she is so temperate. But she’s also not much of a planner. What if I get hit by a bus tomorrow? What if we suffer another market meltdown and her 401(k) plan goes up in smoke? Would this so-called social insurance actually provide for her if she had no other option, or would she be better off if the government just stopped taking its 6.2% and left her the heck alone?
There had to be a point where an individual could better provide for himself or herself than Social Security would. So using my wife’s income and payroll taxes as a case study, I set out to find it.
I did. But where it was surprised me, not only by proving how well Social Security works in its current form, but how it will even work well in a diminished form should our politicians fail to act.
Read more from Why Social Security taxes are a good deal »
More To Read
January 10, 2019
We look forward to the legal review of the Court of Appeals and ultimately the State Supreme Court
January 8, 2019
Cascade Care ensures that Washingtonians pay no more than 10% of their income on health premiums
January 2, 2019
Paid family and medical leave is about to get real in Washington!