-3

Social security benefits vary unpredictably by cohort, eligibility, etc.

Yet something like a rental property or dividend stock produces basically the same income all the time.

Is there any evidence that Social security is more secure?

closed as unclear what you're asking by JJJ, bytebuster, CoedRhyfelwr, ahemmetter, Jontia Oct 31 '18 at 9:24

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    This doesn't seem to be a question about politics and political processes as described in the help center. If you want to give people investment advise, then Personal Finance and Money Stack Exchange might be a more appropriate site. – Philipp Oct 31 '18 at 14:56
  • Dividend stocks do NOT produce basically the same income all the time. Consider utility stocks after Enron: a lot went from paying regular dividends to paying no dividends for years. – jamesqf Oct 31 '18 at 18:16
2

I will need to find more modern estimates, but in 1998, conservative Heritage Foundation published a study comparing SSI returns to other financial instruments.

  • Two-income households with children making $26,000 each: 1.23% return for SSI, 5% for 50/50 allocated portfolio (ironically, the latter figure still held true for such portfolios in 5 year period ending 2018).

  • Single African American low earning males were even worse off (negative returns), due to lower life expectancy (SSI returns depend on how long you live past retirement).

Also, while this isn't personal finance SE, I'd like to note that "a rental property or a divident stock" is a rather poor primary way of investing for retirement for most people. A typical advice for the masses is 60/40 or 50/50 portfolio of high quality bonds (US Treasuries or highly rated corporate bonds and indexed low-cost funds).

Oh, and if you're not lucky, you just may end up investing in a bad period where your portfolio wouldn't fare so well (1930s come to mind).

  • The recommended portfolio is 70-75% stocks and 25-30% bonds. Why? This is the normal market allocation. A 50/50 mix will be more consistent but consistently lower over any decent time interval. As retirement approaches, it makes sense to build up a five year cash cushion. So something like 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% cash (e.g. bank CDs, a savings account, or even a checking balance). – Brythan Oct 31 '18 at 5:12
-3

enter image description here

No, social security is not great in terms of volatility.

Here are some additional comparisons.

Historical rent data shows good performance.

SS eligibility rules. As you can see fairly arbitrary and not fully predictable.

Examples of SS returns and the large number of unforseeable events the affect them.

  • Welcome to Politics.SE! I'm afraid that's not how this site works. Links are volatile - a bit like investments - so you should edit the important information from those sources into your answer. Otherwise, for all intents and purposes, you haven't presented any sources at all. – F1Krazy Oct 31 '18 at 12:10
  • 4
    It looks a bit like you are the same person who posted the question, but then you created a new account to answer it. Answering your own question is allowed on Stack Exchange, so there is no reason for this subterfuge. – Philipp Oct 31 '18 at 14:54

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.