Motley fool says you can make $15,978 more per year with Social Security. Is this for real?
The purpose of this spammy Motley Fool video ad is to sell their paid newsletter products.  Although the beginning of the video promises to tell you this secret trick for obtaining additional Social Security payments, it fails to do so.  (Luckily, I found a transcript of the video, so I didn't have to watch it.) What they are talking about is the Social Security File and Suspend strategy.  Under this strategy, one spouse files for social security benefits early (say age 66).  This allows the other spouse to claim spousal benefits.  Immediately after that is claimed, the first spouse suspends his social security benefits, allowing them to grow until age 70, but the other spouse is allowed to continue to receive spousal benefits.   Congress has ended this loophole, and it will no longer be available after May 1, 2016.
"I dug up an old article on Motley Fool and one approach they mention is to get the stock certificates and then sell them to a friend: If the company was liquidated, you should receive a 1099-DIV form at    year's end showing a liquidating distribution. Treat this as if you   sold the stock for the amount of the distribution. The date of ""sale""   is the date that the distribution took place. Using your original cost   basis in the shares, you can now compute your loss. If the company hasn't actually been liquidated, you'll need to make   sure it's totally worthless before you claim a loss. If you have   worthless stock that's not worth the hassle of selling through your   broker, you can sell it to a friend (or cousin, aunt, or uncle) for   pennies. (However, you can't sell the stock to a spouse, siblings,   parents, grandparents, or lineal descendants.) Here's one way to do   it: Send the certificate to your stock-transfer agent. Explain that the shares have been sold, and ask to cancel the old shares and issue   a new certificate to the new owner. Some brokerages will offer you a quicker alternative, by buying all of your shares of the stock for a penny. They do it to help out   their customers; in addition, over time, some of the shares may   actually become worth more than the penny the brokers paid for them. By selling the shares, you have a closed transaction with the stock and can declare a tax loss. Meanwhile, your friend, relative, or   broker, for a pittance, has just bought a placemat or birdcage liner." There has been an abundance of articles in recent years which make it fairly clear that many participants in the Social Security system-- especially those who have started contributing recently, and going forward from that-- will experience negative rates of return. In other words, they will put in more than they will get out. Some examples of such articles: Time Magazine: But it is now official: Social Security is a lousy investment for the   average worker. People retiring today will be among the first   generation of workers to pay more in Social Security taxes than they   receive in benefits over the course of their lives, according to a new   analysis by the Associated Press. That AP piece, referenced by Time: People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who   have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they   will receive in benefits after they retire. It's a historic shift that   will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by   The Associated Press. A piece which appeared in DailyFinance (includes a helpful graphic summary):  10 Myths About Social Security: Myth 4: Social Security Is a Good Deal for Today’s WorkersEven if   there were no reduction in benefits or increase in taxes—an   impossibility given Social Security’s looming financing   shortfalls—Social Security is an extremely bad investment for most   young workers. In fact, according to a study by the nonpartisan Tax   Foundation, most young workers will actually receive a negative return   on their Social Security taxes— they will get less in benefits than   they paid in taxes. Some studies indicate that a 30- year-old   two-earner couple with average income will lose as much as $173,500.   That actual loss does not even consider the opportunity cost, what   workers might have earned if they had been able to invest their taxes   in real assets that yield a positive return. In fact, a study by   financial analyst William Shipman demonstrates that, if a 25-year-old   worker were able to privately invest the money he or she currently   pays in Social Security taxes, the worker would receive retirement   benefits three to six times higher than under Social Security. Has that answered your question? Congratulations on being in this position. Your problem - which I think that you identified - is that you don't know much about investing. My recommendation is that you start with three goals: The Motley Fool (www.fool.com) has a lot of good information on their site. Their approach may or may not align with what you want to do; I've subscribed to their newsletters for quite a while and have found them useful. I'm what is known as a value investor; I like to make investments and hold them for a long time. Others have different philosophies. For the second goal, it's very important to follow the money and ask how people get paid in the investment business. The real money in Wall Street is made not by investment, but by charging money to those who are in the investment business. There are numerous people in line for some of your money in return for service or advice; fees for buying/selling stocks, fees for telling you which stocks to buy/sell, fees for managing your money, etc. You can invest without spending too much on fees if you understand how the system works.  For the third goal, I recommend choosing a few stocks, and creating a virtual portfolio. You can then then get used to watching and tracking your investments. If you want a place to put your money while you do this, I'd start with an S&P 500 index fund with a low expense ratio, and I'd buy it through a discount broker (I use Scottrade but there are a number of choices).  Hope that helps. "Chris, Joe's table helps.  but think this way:  there are two ways you can pay the taxes for your side-gig:  either you can send a check quarterly to the Feds, OR, you can overwithhold at your real job to cover taxes at your sidegig.  I'd do this in ""arrears"" -- after you get your first paycheck from sidegig, then adjust your real job's withholding. Except (and Joe neglected this), you're still responsible for Social Security / Medicare Tax from your sidegig.  I suspect your income at real-job is high enough that you stop paying Social Security Tax, so at least at this time of year you won't be subject to 15.4% Social Security Tax.  However, that's NOT true for the 2.9% Medicare Tax.  Remember that because you're an independent contractor being payed without withholding, YOU are responsible not only for the Medicare (and Social Security) taxes you'd be responsible for if a regular employee, but you're also responsible for what your employer's share as well." Then at the end, if you decide to cash in your house, you can roll the   proceeds into a fancier house to avoid paying taxes on your profit. The problem is that the book was written in 1989. That comment is no longer true; that part of the tax law changed in the 1990's. Also in 1989 the maximum amount that person could put in an IRA was $2,000 and hadn't been raised for almost a decade and wouldn't be raised for another decade. Roth accounts didn't exist; nor did HSA's or 529's. Most people didn't have a 401K. You are asking to compare what options we have today compared to what was available in the late 1980's.  For me except, for the years 2001-2005 and 2010-2015, the period from 1988 until now has had flat real estate values. Still the current values haven't returned to the peak in 2005. The score is 11 great years, 17 flat or negative. I know many people who during the 1990's had a zero return on their real estate. "As usual, you're again wrong :""http://askville.amazon.com/opt-out-Social-Security-system/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=1338366""  and [here](http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2011-04-27-opting-out-of-social-security_n.htm) and [here](http://dailyreckoning.com/opt-out-of-social-security/) and [here](http://www.crown.org/library/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=690) and.... well, about everywhere shows you to be wrong again. Google finds this quite easily.  So although there are a few classes of people who can opt out, the average person, and the vast majority of Americans, *cannot opt out* since they do not meet the criteria.  Most people *cannot* opt out of SS since they *are required by law* to pay FICA by the IRS, as stated in the wall of text you copied without understanding.  &gt; **Seriously, you need to learn how to use google asshole. Stop looking like an idiot and posting blatent lies.**  How's that ignorance feel now? :)" Title is overblown.    FTA:  &gt; Citing the fine print on Social Security projected-income statements that explains by 2034 **there will only be enough money to meet 79% of the obligation**, Mr. Beagle tells clients between ages 50 and 60 to not count on more than 75% of their projected benefit  Social security won't disappear.  It might be cut by 20% to 25%, if Congress does nothing. The $250K and up are not one homogeneous group. The lower end of this group benefits from normal Schedule A itemized deductions, e.g. mortgage interest, property tax, state income tax, and charitable donations. As you mention, 401(k) ($17k employee contribution limit this year), but also things like the dependent care account ($5k limit) and flexible spending account, limited usually up to $2500 in '14. The 529 deposits are limited to the gifting limit, $14K in 2014, but one can gift up to five years' deposits up front. This isn't a tax deduction, but does pull money out of one's estate and lets it grow tax free similar to a Roth IRA. The savings from such accounts is probably in the $15k - $20K range given the 20 or so year lifetime of the account and limited deposits. At the higher end, the folks making the news are those whose income is all considered capital gains. This applies both to hedge fund managers as well as CEOs whose compensation included large blocks of stock. This isn't a tax deduction, but it's how our system works, the taxation of capital gains vs. ordinary income.