PSA isn't an abbreviation or acronym I recognize. If you're asking why I decided to mention it, it's because I was surprised to learn that the value of the payment stream is the largest asset most Americans have.

I'm aware of all of the money taken from my earnings to pay into the fund for some security in my old age. Let's just keep it to one word "obligation". It's not a dirty word. An act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment.

The comment above now stands as an orphan. It was in response to an apparently now deleted comment, I believe from seagrass, asking me if my intent behind starting the thread was as a "PSA".

Edit to add the following:

I've deleted words in this comment. Seagrass's post seems to have gone away and then came back.

Now that our SS system has been "DOGED" (whatever that means?, no one really knows) I hope it can remain as " it was intended to be a safety net to provide a baseline existence for people of lower economic means....it's often the sole or overwhelmingly most significant source of income to meet living expenses.

PSA = Public Service Announcement

" I'm aware of all of the money taken from my earnings to pay into the fund "

We all are, it's in the statement available online and perhaps sent in the mail too.

Historically, the so-called "fund" was a misnomer. Workers do not have accounts akin to a bank or investment account from which each person's benefits are paid. Collections are a tax, payments are a government funded benefit. No dollar for dollar tie in.

Depending on one's date of birth and chronological age when benefits are chosen to begin, there is no balance struck between payments in and payments out. I recovered my lifetime FICA payments after about 6 years of receiving benefits. Even though I paid at a rate of 2X what most pay because I was self-employed and was out of pocket both the employee and employer share. FICA tax rate increases lagged benefit increases.

That will be the case for many people - it was surely the case for my parents and in-laws and others of their Greatest Generation too, who lived long enough to enjoy the large benefit increases to amounts well beyond anything they'd ever put in.

Again, I'm supportive of the program. I was just more than a little surprised of the magnitude of the "asset" value compared to other assets one would assume many people have. Like, just as an example, the value of owned homes.

Thanks for the translation, vgkg

I was sitting in the waiting room to get a routine bone density test, I'd never had one. The woman next to me was telling me how she was being ripped off, having to pay $300 for multiple X-rays for her broken wrist. She seemed to think no one could afford such a HUGE medical bill when ALL she had was social security. I must have looked pretty thunder-struck by that statement. I couldn't think of anything to say.

I'll remove my comment so you can have enough rope to hang yourself. Good luck!

rob said: " I'm still trying to figure out why this was posted? "

As an attorney would say at a trial, when objecting to a question posed to a witness by the opposing counsel:

"Previously asked and answered"

Well it looks like this thread has been bastardized, so I’ll just make some comments based on whats here.

Calling SS someone’s ”asset” surprises me. I’m quite sure I know what was meant by it so I’m not trying to argue, but if it can in fact technically be considered an asset I’d be curious for an explanation.

I do think this is a bad thing that people are so reliant on it. For one thing, someone who loses their spouse might find out why I wouldn't consider it an asset. Anothet thing, while I’d be surprised to see existing recipients lose their benefits, people closer to my age and younger might do well not to count on what their statements estimate.

”Pay into the fund” is correct. As is pointing out that the fund is not someone’s personal account. Another reason I don’t consider it an asset.

I’m not sure where this conversation is intended to go, but I’m interested in the topic so I’ll watch to see if anything posts. (And sticks!)

Elmer, what's the formula to calculate what a person's SS income would amount to as money in the bank, drawing interest? If I earn $24,000 a year in social security, what is that equivalent to in bank interest at, say, 4%?

Simple interest, which this presumably would be I think since we’d be withdrawing not reinvesting the earnings, $600,000.

food, it's not possible and so I'm not going to try to describe in a sentence or two what an asset is and why a Social Security entitlement is a type of financial asset whose value is easily estimated. Variables affecting the calculation include what the individual's age is, what their life expectancy is at the time of the calculation, what the projected flow amounts are per period (based on covered earnings when making contributions), what interest rate is to be used for compound interest discount calculation, and how many compounding periods are to be used over the period of the flows.

The calculation is called discounted present value of a series of flows. You're welcome to look it up.

The accounting, budgetary and financial tracking rules of the federal budget and federal receipts and spending are arcane and something that also can't be described in a few words. Leave it to say that aspects of the FICA Tax and underlying benefit payments are elements of the General Fund and what goes where, when, and how that can be changed, are not easily understood, described, or fixed/unchangeable.

Well you did say the thread was "bastardized" (I'm not really sure how my comment makes any difference. It is what it is.). And let's assume you mean my comment. So let's see where it goes on without me, and "sticks".

" Elmer, what's the formula to calculate what a person's SS income would amount to as money in the bank, drawing interest? "

sushipup, there's no principal amount involved before, during or after the receipt of an individual's Social Security benefits. So if I understand your question, there's no formula.

As I understand it at a high level of generalization, the factors that over time have resulted in changes to FICA tax rates and base amounts by payers of the tax, are not directly tied in to the factors that are considered in changing Social Security benefits of recipients.

rob said : "Well you did say the thread was "bastardized" (I'm not really sure how my comment makes any difference. It is what it is.). And let's assume you mean my comment. "

rob, my take on the polite way to handle thanking contributors to a thread, is that I thank everyone who has taken the time to make a contribution. Whether I agree, disagree, like it or dislike it.

You asked a question, I thanked you for that and responded, and you've asked about the same question again. The thank you for first iteration can cover for the second. If you've read my earlier comments, your question was addressed.

Also, are you confused, thinking food's comment (that you quoted a word from) was mine?

In looking it up I stumbed upon the article, which addresses my question. I don’t think it was linked earlier, so I’ll include it here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/05/business/social-security-wealth-benefits.html

Skimming, it looks like the general point of the piece is to say that a whole lot of people depend on SS and as such it should be saved.

I am not going to read all this codswollop but SS was created and sold as a real part of peoples retirement income and I don't understand why that would be worth commenting on. Yes of course if you believe your government is real you ought to be able to expect to rely on SS for a part of your retirement income. How is this some sort of comment worthy scenario? Really. We ought to be able to rely on this money. Enormous numbers of people, the very people this program was intended for, cant live and put aside sufficient funds for retirement. So SS was invented to fill that spot. How is that some sort of weird thing.

patriciae

food, that's one take-away from the article, though not one that I found particularly surprising. What got my attention was what I said in my first sentence.

I think it's something more than 50 percent of Americans own their homes. I realize most people don't live in areas where homes are expensive, as I do and as many of you likely do to perhaps an even greater extent. But beyond that, in that the value of the Social Security annuity asset isn't more than a few hundred thousand for most people, at best, that it is the largest single asset of more than half the population, including homeowners, is what surprised me.

I calculated that if I live to age 90 my SS benefits received, not considering annual increases, will be slightly more than half of my current savings/investments (also not considering future gains, or losses) if I live to age 90.

I’ve been reading & following the posts on this thread. IMO, the posts aren’t following a common theme on the topic. I do understand Elmer’s basic point of his surprise at SS being the largest single asset of more than 50% of the population including homeowners. Elmer - is that assumed to be specifically 50% of the SS eligible age of population only? The posted comments don’t seem to relate to that point. My thought is that our SS is like any stock investments we have. We pay (or invest) a bit of $$ over our working and paid careers & hope for more $$ for pay out at retirement. The amount of SS income each of us who have paid SS tax over our careers will receive in retirement will likely greatly exceed the amount we each paid in especially if we live into our mid 80’s and more especially if we delayed collecting the benefit until we reach 70 years of age & live past mid 80’s break even points. I assume we all know our SS income stream is currently at risk in most of our lifetimes. If a person has other retirement income resources, their SS income benefit has likely enabled them to draw down less on their personal resources and use the SS benefit to supplement their retirement income. What will happen in that situation if SS benefits are reduced due to lack of $$ in the budget to pay out the current level of benefits? Those for whom SS is their sole income will be in immediate distress and those who use it as a ’supplemental’ will begin using more of their personal resources for as long as they might last in what will certainly be a floundering economy. I know there are ways to keep SS solvent but none have stepped up to fix it yet.

It’s frustrating to me that the NYT doesn’t link to the source of that specific claim. The results of related searches has me calling it into question. Not one specific stat, but a combination.

I’m seeing that per census data a few years back, 80% of Americans 65+ own their homes, of which 63% own them outright.

@sushipup2 - My $600K answer above was to draw that payment out in perpetuity. To set up say a 20 year annuity of $2000/mo at a 4% investment rate, it’s $395K.

So here’s an example of why I question the stat. 63% of 80% is about 50%. Now I realize not everyone’s home is worth $395K, but still that’s lower than the median US home value. So it’s hard to imagine that home ownership value is less than SS value for 90% of the senior population.

Disclaimer: This is all middle of the night insomnia thinking and math, I’m happy to be corrected.

Quoting-

"the stream of Social Security payments Americans receive or will receive in later years is the largest single asset most people own.

The average monthly benefit for a retired worker is a tad over $2,000.

When enacted, it was intended to be a safety net to provide a baseline existence for people of lower economic means. "

I think that's the point. I think that for the vast majority of people on these forums, this is not our reaility. The article was highlighting the fact that for many people, this has become their rainy day fund or nest egg, Just thinking about the average benefit of $2000 for someone who has no other income, it is certainly possible but likely will be very strained, living on that.

I think that so many people really don't have savings and this is the point.

I think that so many people really don't have savings and this is the point.

Indeed. I remember this article from The Atlantic about 10 years ago:

Since 2013, the Federal Reserve Board has conducted a survey to “monitor the financial and economic status of American consumers.” Most of the data in the latest survey, frankly, are less than earth-shattering: 49 percent of part-time workers would prefer to work more hours at their current wage; 29 percent of Americans expect to earn a higher income in the coming year; 43 percent of homeowners who have owned their home for at least a year believe its value has increased. But the answer to one question was astonishing. The Fed asked respondents how they would pay for a $400 emergency. The answer: 47 percent of respondents said that either they would cover the expense by borrowing or selling something, or they would not be able to come up with the $400 at all. Four hundred dollars! Who knew?

Well, I knew. I knew because I am in that 47 percent.

I know what it is like to have to juggle creditors to make it through a week. I know what it is like to have to swallow my pride and constantly dun people to pay me so that I can pay others. I know what it is like to have liens slapped on me and to have my bank account levied by creditors. I know what it is like to be down to my last $5—literally—while I wait for a paycheck to arrive, and I know what it is like to subsist for days on a diet of eggs. I know what it is like to dread going to the mailbox, because there will always be new bills to pay but seldom a check with which to pay them. I know what it is like to have to tell my daughter that I didn’t know if I would be able to pay for her wedding; it all depended on whether something good happened. And I know what it is like to have to borrow money from my adult daughters because my wife and I ran out of heating oil.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secret-shame/476415/?gift=WjwSwyS8OosbtsOKbar-GbrJRONnp39uT5aCst0ck2w&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share 

If SS goes bankrupt with no repair from government which is us by the way then a whole lot more will be going wrong in our world and you will probably be kissing a lot more than your SS good by. Investments will go south as well. I fruitlessly remind people from time to time that as an actual fact not one of us owns anything. It is all based on the solidity of the country and culture we have created. This is apparently a very hard concept for people to wrap their heads around. Looking after our commitment to SS as a people is imperative to that solidity. If you don't believe this dystopian view I suggest you get out a history book and read all about all those countries that no longer exist.

patriciae

While it is true that many people would be hurting without SS, our current president is already directing cutbacks to many programs that help/affect our health and welfare.

you will probably be kissing a lot more than your SS good by

Certainly there are some distressing choices in both health and welfare being made by our president that may reduce the standard of living by many, especially those who are alreadt economically challenged, and I hope the some of them can be reversed.

" My thought is that our SS is like any stock investments we have. We pay (or invest) a bit of $$ over our working and paid careers & hope for more $$ for pay out at retirement. "

KW PNW Z8 , I look at it differently. It's not an "investment" per se because it's not voluntary, it can't be cashed out, and any amounts one expects to receive "back" vanish at death.

It's an income tax when paid during employment years. Payment of which entitles one to get government provided money (presumably for support) when one reaches the age that qualifies one for benefits.

Payment of benefits doesn't depend solely on a static "money in = money out" structure.

It's a promise. Don't think of it as a big water tank that can supply only a fixed amount, as much water out as flows in. Both the In's and the Out's of the Social Security water tank can be changed.

" My $600K answer above was to draw that payment out in perpetuity. To set up say a 20 year annuity of $2000/mo at a 4% investment rate, it’s $395K. "

food, you seem to be stuck on thinking there's a principal sum providing a rate of return. There isn't. The FICA tax paid by everyone who works and pays it this month, pays the Social Security payment I get next month.

salonva - Exactly.

bookwoman, I wasn't impressed by the author of nor of the article you linked to. To me, he displays a naivety and intellectual deficit in understanding how to find one's way in the world with adequate financial means. Especially with this comment

" I didn’t know if I would be able to pay for her wedding; it all depended on whether something good happened. "

Was he waiting for money to fall out of a passing armored car?

With that, and with respect to the comments of others, I can say - I agree with food that the some of the underpinnings of the NY Times piece are wobbly. It's floating a bit in the air, not sure what's holding it up. But I thought some observations were interesting and to the extent it triggered some reactions here, that's good.

I don't subscribe to the "sky is falling" assessments and attitudes. As to the commotion and continual surprises in daily events, my attitude is "This too shall pass".

How well has this survived the recent impact/(attacks?) on various federal government departments by that chainsaw?

o j

Elmer - I agree with your view about SS not being an ”investment” & specifically because it’s not a voluntary action to pay on the part of a wage earner. I should’ve been more clear in my statement ”My thought is that our SS is like any stock investments we have. We pay (or invest)…” I meant that as an analogy. Another thought about the payouts - they don’t always completely ”vanish at death” with the survivor benefits that reassign a deceased’s benefit to their spouse or dependent child(ren). Granted that in the case of death benefit paid to spouse, that surviving spouse will have to give up their own smaller $$ amount benefit if they have one.

" How well has this survived the recent impact/(attacks?) on various federal government departments by that chainsaw?

o j"

Nothing yet has changed. As I understand it, any changes would require law changes enacted by Congress and then signed by the president. I could be wrong.

“food, you seem to be stuck on thinking there's a principal sum providing a rate of return.”

Not at all. As I read sushipup’s question, she simply asked how much money she’d need invested at 4%, to pay out $2000 a month. I answered two ways, one as a perpetual payment not reducing principle, the second as a 20 year annuity wiping out the principle over time.

Her question and my answer have nothing to do with how socisl security works. I know that current benefits are paid by current taxes, and that my future benefits will be paid by others’ future taxes. I’d imagine everyone here lnows that.

Okay, maybe I read it wrong. I most certainly agree that the topic has nothing at all to do with Social Security.

" I know that current benefits are paid by current taxes, and that my future benefits will be paid by others’ future taxes. I’d imagine everyone here lnows that. "

I wouldn't imagine that to be the case. In conversations I hear, and even comments from those in Congress, there's a lot of confusion about how it works. Predominantly leaning toward thinking that it works like an individual 401(k) or contributory pension plan, which isn't the case. As I said before, the operations and finances are muddled.

Back to the title statement of this thread - I do mostly agree with it - the valuable asset part - regardless of whether it’s one’s most valuable asset. Even if a person doesn’t ’need’ their SS income, it is counted as an asset. And, if one lives long enough one certainly collects more than one paid into the SS fund so it’s usually not a bad rate of return when total collected calculated against total paid in. SS as we know it may be in its sunset years though if the administration doesn’t step up and fix it. Doubtless the current one won’t fix it beyond cutting staff & therefore access to people to provide helpful information or guidance. The full retirement age has already been raised. The maximum taxable earnings cap figure does increase with the National Average Wage Index but that’s not enough to keep pace with the decline in working population and increase in our longer lived population.

All the previous statements are my opinion only but I hope are based on a correct understanding of how the SS sytem functions.

SS as we know it may be in its sunset years though if the administration doesn’t step up and fix it.

Fixing SS is the job of congress, not the executive branch,

My DM was sole support of herself and her parents during the Depression. When she became eligible to collect SS, she resisted, saying it was meant for people who didn't have adequate income to *survive*.

SS has sustained a nation with a high standard of living -- in the past. Americans don't consider what Public Welfare means to all of us -- you know, 'the public', *us*!

This is a wealthy nation. We need to spread that money around more equitably -- or we'll be living behind high walls topped with razor wire -- prisoners of our inability to understand our own best interests.