M
- Status
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.
A
Augustinian
Guest
We’ve had erosion of Social Security benefits for more than 30 years already. The taxation of Social Security benefits started modestly under President Reagan as part of a deal to extend unemployment benefits for a season in 1982 or 1983. And under President Clinton, they expanded the taxation by a lot.
This is definitely going to continue as people live longer and longer.
P
pnewton
Guest
Unless things change, one of which could be the gradual raising of the age in which benefits are paid in accordance with the longer life span and the better health of many of in their sixties.
A
Augustinian
Guest
One thing which is hurting Social Security’s solvency is that over the past decade or so they’ve been relaxing the criteria for people to receive benefits on the basis of disability.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
A recent report showed that the millennial population now outnumber the baby-boomers, so the ratios of worker to beneficiary are already changing for the better.
The issue has been the federal government borrowing off SS revenues to fund wars and tax cuts.
If the members of Congress were only going to get SS retirement instead of their congressional pensions, it would alive and well.
Jim
The issue has been the federal government borrowing off SS revenues to fund wars and tax cuts.
If the members of Congress were only going to get SS retirement instead of their congressional pensions, it would alive and well.
Jim
K
kkerwin1
Guest
I am a state employee who works for the state agency contracted by SSA to make disability decisions. Specifically, I adjudicate those cases for a living.
One of the things that frustrates me in the current disability determination process is this: at ages 50 and again at 55, it becomes easier to obtain disability benefits. When the full retirement age was increased from 65 to 67 years, the ages required to fall into these categories for disability did not also increase.
Another thing that bugs me: when we evaluate people suffering from visual impairments, we evaluate their best-corrected vision. When we evaluate someone suffering from hearing impairments, we use their uncorrected hearing.
Last edited:
P
Peeps
Guest
I think that most younger baby boomers (born in the late 1950s/early 1960s) and the Gen X and Y and the millennials, are not counting on SS as a major source of their old-age income.
Nowadays, there are a lot of options for people to invest in for their retirement. All the younger people I know, and most of the people in their early 60s (me) have been taking advantage of those options for years, and should have a decent nest-egg to live on. Also, most of us have had it hammered into our brains that we need to be debt-free and have our mortgages paid off before we retire.
Also, many of us do plan to work until we are in our mid-late 60s, or even longer if we are physically and mentally able to do so.
My husband and I are kind of hoping that SS will be an “extra” rather than our primary income.
What I’m kind of worried about is all the younger people in their 20s and even their 30s who have never held down a viable job and are still living with their parents. They’re not chipping in much for their own SS, let alone helping pay for the Boomers’ huge SS bill, and they’re not putting money into a 401K, IRA, stocks, real estate, or any other retirement savings package. Yikes! At least they should have their parent’s home as a financial asset, right? (I think?).
Nowadays, there are a lot of options for people to invest in for their retirement. All the younger people I know, and most of the people in their early 60s (me) have been taking advantage of those options for years, and should have a decent nest-egg to live on. Also, most of us have had it hammered into our brains that we need to be debt-free and have our mortgages paid off before we retire.
Also, many of us do plan to work until we are in our mid-late 60s, or even longer if we are physically and mentally able to do so.
My husband and I are kind of hoping that SS will be an “extra” rather than our primary income.
What I’m kind of worried about is all the younger people in their 20s and even their 30s who have never held down a viable job and are still living with their parents. They’re not chipping in much for their own SS, let alone helping pay for the Boomers’ huge SS bill, and they’re not putting money into a 401K, IRA, stocks, real estate, or any other retirement savings package. Yikes! At least they should have their parent’s home as a financial asset, right? (I think?).
V
Vico
Guest
Last edited:
K
KyPerson
Guest
I’m not going to retire until I am 70. And then I hope to get a part time job.
D
DENNYINMI
Guest
The pensions and benefits of congressional leaders should be audited and scrutinized for the means to curtail what they currently have. Slicing from the top due to the top currently benefitting the most from major tax breaks simply makes the most fiscal sense than always looking at the low to middle wage earner. Perhaps some want to work well into their 70’s, I would prefer not to. Social security is a system we’ve paid into for decades for many of us and we still are. Entitlement is not the same as welfare or a system of tax burden, it is exactly what it is referred to as all that paid into it are indeed "entitled’ to receive from it.
J
joeybaggz
Guest
It has been stated any number of times that social security is solvent through, I think it is somewhere in the late 2020’s or early 30’s. By that time, many of the recipients (those turning 65 in 2010 and incrementally later) will exit the system. I think some minor adjustments need to be made, but I am confident it will be figured out.
Of course we could stop sending billions of dollars to governments that hate us, in addition to other spending measures.
And, the article that Kushner, Donald Trump’s son in law made 1.7million dollars and pays no income tax doesn’t really sit well. We do need at least a minimum tax for all citizens.
Personally, I think Mitch McConnell is floating this idea of cutting Social Security so that Trump can come out and say he will veto any measure that harms any senior citizen on social security. He will be a hero to everyone over 65 and guess who is running for re election in a couple years.
Of course we could stop sending billions of dollars to governments that hate us, in addition to other spending measures.
And, the article that Kushner, Donald Trump’s son in law made 1.7million dollars and pays no income tax doesn’t really sit well. We do need at least a minimum tax for all citizens.
Personally, I think Mitch McConnell is floating this idea of cutting Social Security so that Trump can come out and say he will veto any measure that harms any senior citizen on social security. He will be a hero to everyone over 65 and guess who is running for re election in a couple years.
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, and I’ve seen a few who match this description. What is even more worrisome is that they seem entirely clueless as to their precarious financial condition. If I were the parent I would think twice about signing the home over to them. They would probably monetize it and then lose it.
D
dochawk
Guest
D
DENNYINMI
Guest
The “insane” system in some cases is the only measure of income for some of our elderly population. We can never hurt our elderly by decreasing or removing a sole source of income for them, but I don’t believe that’s what you have in mind, feel free to correct me if I am incorrect in this assumption.
I’m looking at the stock market which is down 10% in the past month, and even my conservative brokerage account lost 200.00 dollars. Memories (which you would know well as an economist) of Enron, and other scandals come to mind for many of us near retirement. Regulations have made this less of an issue (we can thank the government in this case), and rightly so. It lessens the nightmares of a yahoo loosing 40 years of retirement investing.
Risk is fine with years yet to loose and regain in the market, but for pre-retirees and those entering within the next few years social security is a staple. I say that without shame, and it best not diminish. Any political party wanting to do away with it or reduce it has to contemplate career suicide, and rightly so.
P
Peeps
Guest
It might be worth considering that expectation of length of life for a man or woman in the U.S. has actually decreased in recent years.
Depending on which study you read, around 50% of adults are either significantly overweight or actually obese. The BMI is well over 35% for many of us. We are inactive to the point where many of us get no physical activity other than walking around our house or workplace, and walking out to our car or public transport before and after work. Many of our jobs are sedentary, as are many of our hobbies.
We continue to develop high rates of diabetes, heart disease, and osteoarthritis, all of which make it more difficult to be eat less and be more active. (When we can’t move well, we tend to have less leisure activities available to us; e.g., walking through a museum . So instead, we go out to eat as our “recreation!”)
The electronic devices as well as TV keep many of us from sleeping as much as we should. Also, the stress of our jobs and of our daily lives makes it difficult for many of us to fall asleep and stay asleep.
PLUS–we spend a lot of energy and bra(name removed by moderator)ower (and money) chasing after “climate change” as we fear that this will eventually destroy us all. But in reality, the increasing resistance of bacteria to antibiotics means that we will all die of a simple Strep infection long before we die of any climate change causes! This is a true crisis, but I have never yet seen a politician include “full funding for more research on antibiotic research” in his or her campaign! And I have yet to see a celebrity or movie star take up the cause of “antibiotic resistance.” Only a few nerdly microbiologists appear on talk shows and present the facts, but once the journalists realize that this isn’t a Democrat vs. Republican thing, and no sex is involved (other than the reproduction of bacteria!), they visibly lose interest and hurry the interview to a quick end.
I know I sound like Gloom Prophet Al Gore. My point is that perhaps all our worries about SS and funding of our older years won’t matter, if we all die in our 60s or earlier like people used to.
Depending on which study you read, around 50% of adults are either significantly overweight or actually obese. The BMI is well over 35% for many of us. We are inactive to the point where many of us get no physical activity other than walking around our house or workplace, and walking out to our car or public transport before and after work. Many of our jobs are sedentary, as are many of our hobbies.
We continue to develop high rates of diabetes, heart disease, and osteoarthritis, all of which make it more difficult to be eat less and be more active. (When we can’t move well, we tend to have less leisure activities available to us; e.g., walking through a museum . So instead, we go out to eat as our “recreation!”)
The electronic devices as well as TV keep many of us from sleeping as much as we should. Also, the stress of our jobs and of our daily lives makes it difficult for many of us to fall asleep and stay asleep.
PLUS–we spend a lot of energy and bra(name removed by moderator)ower (and money) chasing after “climate change” as we fear that this will eventually destroy us all. But in reality, the increasing resistance of bacteria to antibiotics means that we will all die of a simple Strep infection long before we die of any climate change causes! This is a true crisis, but I have never yet seen a politician include “full funding for more research on antibiotic research” in his or her campaign! And I have yet to see a celebrity or movie star take up the cause of “antibiotic resistance.” Only a few nerdly microbiologists appear on talk shows and present the facts, but once the journalists realize that this isn’t a Democrat vs. Republican thing, and no sex is involved (other than the reproduction of bacteria!), they visibly lose interest and hurry the interview to a quick end.
I know I sound like Gloom Prophet Al Gore. My point is that perhaps all our worries about SS and funding of our older years won’t matter, if we all die in our 60s or earlier like people used to.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
Not everyone. I love my country and my children and grandchildren. As someone directly affected by this, I would rather work a little long for the sake of both.
You are probably right, and it will eventual be the undoing of any democracy, in that people are more inclined to vote for what gets them personally the most money, as opposed to any other issue.
R
RCIAGraduate
Guest
I’m all for encouraging and providing incentives the savings rate (like with retirement accounts) but what if someone gets defrauded like with what happened with the Madoff scandal? Additionally, while fluctuations may help some retired folks in some years, what about those who have to retire but end up doing so in a tough time (like let’s say during a bust such as the 2008 crash)? And what about those who can’t afford to get good investment help? Additionally, wouldn’t transitioning the system also be a challenge as well?
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
I’m certainly not suggesting decreasing it, but rather replacing it with something sane.
When economists sat down and ran the math a few years ago, they found that, using historical stock market returns for the 20th century, the benefits paid out today could have been fully funded with 25% of the amounts actually collected
One year, or even ten year, returns are irrelevant for this type of planning. I’m about halfway through my 75 year plan.
For SS, though, it’s still more than a 50 year planning horizon. Given that term, the US economy is about the safest and least risky thing you can come up with.
Heck, this kind of reform moved Chile from developing banana republic to a modern economy while it was at it . . .
Chile solved all of these.
Roughly, they told everyone under 30 “thanks, but you know the system was worthless” and tossed them into the new system; offered optional buyouts for the next group, and the government ate the pension costs for the pre-retirees and retirees.
About ten companies were licensed, including an ultra-conservative one run by the government.
50% (75%) of the money had to be invested domestically.
A guaranteed minimum pension was established.
Workers had to put in 10% of their paycheck (less than our 15%–the notion the the employer “pays” half is pure fiction; it lowers wages by exactly that amount in all but a few uncommon cases).
If you hit the retirement age and your fund wasn’t enough to fund an annuity for the minimum pension, the government covered the difference.
If you could afford to buy an annuity at some multiple (1.5x?) of the minimum, you could choose to do so and retire regardless of age.
If you hit twice the amount to buy it, you could optionally stop contributing.
(continued)
- Status