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.
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?
I honestly don't remember my age when the age for SS/Medicare was upped, but it didn't upset me or anybody I knew, including older people (I worked for a very large corporation), nor did the world come to an end.
The sooner you youngsters come to grips with the fact that changes must be made or you're screwed, the sooner we can move on. You can either let people like Paul Ryan fix it or you can sit and watch it dwindle away. Your choice. Vote wisely.
I say let Paul Ryan and team fix it. From what I see his choice moves toward allowing people to have more of a say as they approach retirement instead of allowing a bankrupt Govt take care of me system peeter out. I vote on my own ability than the Govt. Bully to those folks who say I shouldn't have a chance to make that decision...
Most people under 35 have no idea what retirement means period. I'm 30 and our generation is just pitiful on the retirement savings (though X and some Boomers aren't much better, probably why they want SS).
Personally, I would like to invest the money that goes to SS on my own, knowing I could do way better. The problem? I probably have more financial and economics training/knowledge then 99% of the population who would have NO CLUE on what to do. With no SS backed up by no retirement is the true ticking time bomb when the flow of money plummets in the future.
If the current GOP wants to get rid of SS, that is fine IF they can come up with a real prudent way of making people save correctly for retirement. Not sure how they could do that without forcing people to do things (in a way that would be no different then forcing people to buy healthcare).
Without some sort of late age income (be it SS or another source), the American economy will not be able to grow at all, force people to work til death, and keep the long-term job turnover rate (from retirement attrition) so low that unemployment will stay higher then it naturally should be.
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?
Sorry for butting in here. I'm in my 60s. The same rhetoric was around when I was in my 30s. SS was supposed to run out of money before we retired. Finally one time our financial advisor said "Something will be there. It may not be SS as we know it, but there will be something". Now, I'm almost ready to get SS, and it's still around. The other thing is, at 31, I wasn't thinking too much about retirement. DH and I were busy with buying a house, starting a family, etc. Ryan knows that. That's how he can sell this "pig in a poke" to younger people. If his plan came to pass, it would only be when you young people (and I have kids younger than you, nieces and nephews about your age) started staring retirement in the face that Ryan's chickens would come home to roost, to mix metaphors about farm animals, and you'd realize you have no retirement to speak of.
It is too far away. But consider that your parents who are in their 50s are the ones who are really going to be screwed over by Ryan. They paid for a benefit they won't receive. They will get only about 1/3 of what it will cost to buy insurance from private sources. No prescription cover at all. It's going to be tough on them. If they need nursing home care, the cuts to Medicaid will put that out of reach for most of them. They may end up living with you to cut costs to pay for their medical care. None of us want to be a burden to our kids and that is why we have voted for and paid for Medicare and Medicaid over the years. Ryan is ripping that away to fund tax cuts to the very wealthy. That is wrong and it should bother you.
And eventually, you will start to worry about your own golden years. The comforts of having predictable medical expenses that people have enjoyed since the 60s will be gone for you.
Sorry for butting in here. I'm in my 60s. The same rhetoric was around when I was in my 30s. SS was supposed to run out of money before we retired. Finally one time our financial advisor said "Something will be there. It may not be SS as we know it, but there will be something". Now, I'm almost ready to get SS, and it's still around. The other thing is, at 31, I wasn't thinking too much about retirement. DH and I were busy with buying a house, starting a family, etc. Ryan knows that. That's how he can sell this "pig in a poke" to younger people. If his plan came to pass, it would only be when you young people (and I have kids younger than you, nieces and nephews about your age) started staring retirement in the face that Ryan's chickens would come home to roost, to mix metaphors about farm animals, and you'd realize you have no retirement to speak of.
That is simply not true? How would that be true by simply allowing younger folks to invest a % of SS into investments. Over a long period of time, the stock market has much greater returns. If there is that much concern make the choices in bonds, munis, or mutual funds, or even dividend paying stocks. The point here, I believe I can obtain a better return. What would the problem be in allowing say, 50% of my ss into an investment. Then I would still have the traditional SS + any reurns/losses I managed on my own. If I am comfortable with that risk profile, why should someone else have a say in my reitrement.
I'm under 35. Frankly, Ryan's plans are not good for anyone unless you're wealthy: Be it social security, taxes, deduction removals, medicare/medicaid.... anything that benefit the middle class the most. His plan to "fix" social security will invariably include gutting the program that is single handedly responsible for lifting and keeping millions and millions of seniors out of poverty.
How do we know this? Because Ryan is quite literally a reverse Robin Hood.
PAY ATTENTION AMERICANS, because these neo-feudalists are trying to fleece you:
The House Republican budget for the 2013 fiscal year, passed by the House in June, would raise taxes by $1,358 for jointly-filing households earning between $50,000 and $100,000, assuming the additional income is taxed at a 10 percent rate, according to a report published earlier this summer by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, authored by its chairman, Casey.
Households with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 would see their taxes increase by $2,681, the Joint Economic Committee said.
The committee reported Ryan's budget plan would give the richest Americans -- those who make over $1 million -- a tax break of about $300,000.
Oh, yeah, and proposals are to further REDUCE capital gains income tax rate to ZERO!!!
That is simply not true? How would that be true by simply allowing younger folks to invest a % of SS into investments. Over a long period of time, the stock market has much greater returns. If there is that much concern make the choices in bonds, munis, or mutual funds, or even dividend paying stocks. The point here, I believe I can obtain a better return. What would the problem be in allowing say, 50% of my ss into an investment. Then I would still have the traditional SS + any reurns/losses I managed on my own. If I am comfortable with that risk profile, why should someone else have a say in my reitrement.
Again economic education is just not there. Period. If you allow nationwide investing you create huge risk of disaster of having the economy and the quality of life we have now plummeting.
One possible option I could see is modify SS into a hybrid long-term adjusting index tracked fund of a combination of the SP500 and Treasuries. Then throw in an annuity caveat to have a guaranteed minimum income (which would cover up to an X amount of the fund, and anything over X is bonus for you). But it has to be conservative, stable, and viable.
SS currently is not viable in its current form, but even with some acceptable and minor changes, it could become viable again through the three I's:
Index the payments to inflation, Index the retirement age to what the market is dictating, and Increase the SS tax cap (which would effect me).
That is simply not true? How would that be true by simply allowing younger folks to invest a % of SS into investments. Over a long period of time, the stock market has much greater returns. If there is that much concern make the choices in bonds, munis, or mutual funds, or even dividend paying stocks. The point here, I believe I can obtain a better return. What would the problem be in allowing say, 50% of my ss into an investment. Then I would still have the traditional SS + any reurns/losses I managed on my own. If I am comfortable with that risk profile, why should someone else have a say in my reitrement.
Keep investing on your own in addition to paying into Social Security. I do it.
ANY argument that social security isn't needed went straight out the window when so many who were ready to retire the end of the last decade suddenly found decades of investments worth diddly squat.
Why is pragmatism and REALITY such a foreign concept to the American people?
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.
