Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
SS is unsustainable as it currently exists. That is a FACT. You can ignore it, but the fact remains the same. Privatization may not be the answer, but it's a better one than sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to the facts.
All you seniors already drawing SS or close to doing so have worked for your benefits and deserve to get them. But some of you don't seem to care that your kids and grandkids will one day be at the same place and they won't get what they worked for and contributed to. That's not OK.
Is anyone willing to help right the ship or are we all just going to insist on getting our share while watching it sink?
No, it's NOT a fact. Social Security is solvent for decades and can be made more solvent by merely raising the income level subject to SSA taxes. We don't have to privatize SSA in order to fix it. That would be like burning down the village in order to save it. CBO States Social Security is Solvent Until 2038
It seems to me (I'm 31) and a lot of people I know, that people under about 35 have no expectation of social security and Medicare being around when they reach retirement age. Because of this, we seem to have much less of an issue with people touching them and aren't really as concerned about Paul Ryan's plan as people a bit older than ourselves. This seems to apply even to those who don't otherwise support the Republicans. Is it me just being weird or does anybody else notice this too?
To be honest this is why the phrase "No one 55+ will be affected" is I think the most terrifying phase when SS or Medicare is being discussed.
I tend to think that it means I am going to have to pay for current benefits for 55+ for the next 30 years or so, but I am not going to get anything close to what I paid for.
No, it's NOT a fact. Social Security is solvent for decades and can be made more solvent by merely raising the income level subject to SSA taxes. We don't have to privatize SSA in order to fix it. That would be like burning down the village in order to save it. CBO States Social Security is Solvent Until 2038
Estimates on when SS goes belly up (under the current funding) vary between 2024 and 2038.
As I said in my last post, I don't know if privatization is a good idea or not. I tend to think not.
If I had my way, I'd like to see the solution involve some sacrifice on the part of everyone:
Government - No longer can "borrow" from the SS Trust fund. Hands off.
Current Retirees - Reduce a bit the yearly increases for the wealthiest seniors.
Future Retirees - Begin to increase the retirement ages again. I have to work until I'm 67 currently. Pretty sure I could make it to 68, 69 or even 70.
Future Retirees/Businesses - Raise the SS taxes by a small percent. Last increase was in 1982 and was a whopping 73% increase. No need for anything even close to that.
We're all culpable for electing the idiots that stole 4.7 Trillion from the SS Trust fund. I think we all should pay for our poor judgement.
The major problem is that the retirement age is set too low. We have people retire at 65 and sit around for another 20 years when they could be working part time as a cashier in a store or a restaurant, Walmart greeter, working on a part time basis at their previous full time employee, etc.
The retirement age needs to be raise to AT LEAST 70 for full benefits, 68 for partial benefits. If not 72 and 70 respectively. People are living longer than ever and it's not the 1930s anymore. When Socialist Security was created by FDR the average lifespan was only 66 so retirement at 63 made sense. Today the average lifespan is into the late 70s/early 80s and retirement is currently only 66.
Well then, instead of having young generations paying for future generations, allow those of us contributing to maintain control away from Govt....in a seperate acount that the Govt can't touch..
I would hate to contribute and at age 70 realize there are not enough people contributing to pay for my retirement...
Oh, my PhD is in Biology....it will be awhile before anyting related to telomere research allows us to live to be 120 on average, although disease prvention will help in the short term...
Mastering th genetic-biochemical basis of aging with the possibility of arresting or reversing aging doesn't have to happen for us to have a huge problem. The Baby Boom generation started retiring and becoming Medicare eligable in 2011 which is 65 years and 9 months after after the end of WW 2. hence 1946 when the baby boom started . The Baby Boom is usually taken to have lasted until 1964 so we haven't seen the worst of the surge coming in Medicare costs in the out years!. So all you under 55s are going to have to figure out how you are going to pay for this if you are lucky only a trillion or two dollars a year burden. This is before you can put even a nickel towards your own retirement healthcare! Now if you are smarter than I hope you are, you will reject this Ryan-Romney snake oil and leave Medicare and SS alone because then your kids and maybe their kids will be paying the taxes to cover your Medicare.
The major problem is that the retirement age is set too low. We have people retire at 65 and sit around for another 20 years when they could be working part time as a cashier in a store or a restaurant, Walmart greeter, working on a part time basis at their previous full time employee, etc.
The retirement age needs to be raise to AT LEAST 70 for full benefits, 68 for partial benefits. If not 72 and 70 respectively. People are living longer than ever and it's not the 1930s anymore. When Socialist Security was created by FDR the average lifespan was only 66 so retirement at 63 made sense. Today the average lifespan is into the late 70s/early 80s and retirement is currently only 66.
You illustrate a certain blindness to the fact that we also have a lot of 20 and 30 somethings sitting around doing nothing or advancing their careers as workers on the late night shift at 7/11 or Mickey Ds.
Many of these people are degreeed professionals but it doesn't really matter. The last thing you might want to do is keep high paying jobs in the hands of our seniors who believe they are indispensible and are being paid top dollar. In my profession "Physics" most tenured senior scientists still think they are on the top of their game and never want to quit or retire. They also get paid the equivalent of 2-3 junior hires. I know a lot of scientistys who have made it who want to die with their boots on. So this might be a problem if you think the new blood or ideas a a good thing in American science. But in the end this doesn't really matter because who runs American science these days , you guessed it aging grey hairs who have tenure and who still are the decision makers! Retirement where do you come up with such silliness!
Thanks for a good laugh! It's your choice for the stock market to go down? Oh, you mean your choice to retire? Although there are no more mandatory retirements out there, one cannot always "wait out" the stock market. And there are layoffs. I think you're very young if you think you will never have a health problem that makes it difficult to work, etc.
Actually, you are more the comodian....why can't one wait to retire? Is one forced to stop working..not really. No, I am not young, but not old....and what does that have anything to do with allowing people a chance to invest part of their ss? Again, you are not answering my question. You are saying people should not be allowed to take part of their SS and invest, as your perception that it is too much risk. I am saying, you, nor the GOvt should not tell me how much risk I can take with my own money.
No, it's NOT a fact. Social Security is solvent for decades and can be made more solvent by merely raising the income level subject to SSA taxes. We don't have to privatize SSA in order to fix it. That would be like burning down the village in order to save it. CBO States Social Security is Solvent Until 2038
So your suggesting, raising income level to ss taxes, but not allowing those who put more in to get more out? I pass on that idea..if you want me to put more in, let me keep the money I put in instead of redistributing it to keep SS solvent....
I'm late twenties and there's no way I support Ryan's plan. We can and should reform Medicare and the whole health system, but privatizing Medicare doesn't help.
You illustrate a certain blindness to the fact that we also have a lot of 20 and 30 somethings sitting around doing nothing or advancing their careers as workers on the late night shift at 7/11 or Mickey Ds.
Many of these people are degreeed professionals but it doesn't really matter. The last thing you might want to do is keep high paying jobs in the hands of our seniors who believe they are indispensible and are being paid top dollar. In my profession "Physics" most tenured senior scientists still think they are on the top of their game and never want to quit or retire. They also get paid the equivalent of 2-3 junior hires. I know a lot of scientistys who have made it who want to die with their boots on. So this might be a problem if you think the new blood or ideas a a good thing in American science. But in the end this doesn't really matter because who runs American science these days , you guessed it aging grey hairs who have tenure and who still are the decision makers! Retirement where do you come up with such silliness!
You have a good point and I repped you for it. But, there is another side to this as well. Older people often have no choice about working longer. The get laid off in downturns or because they cost more than younger employees or their skills become dated and they have a very difficult time getting back into the workforce due to age discrimination. How many companies do you see with 70 yo sales people. The older ones end up taking menial jobs bagging groceries or stocking shelves - jobs needed by younger Americans who lack the skills and education to hold more demanding positions. So while it is great for some to call for working longer, the reality is that is not really an attractive option for the reasons you mention as well as the fact that it is darn near impossible to remain employed in a good paying job until age 70 in our society. Maybe we need to come to grips with the idea that we need to help older Americans after the inevitable squeeze out of the workforce to have some financial stability instead of squandering our treasure on wars and tax cuts for billionaires.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
