U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-05-2011, 01:20 AM
 
Location: San Antonio Texas
11,435 posts, read 15,989,103 times
Reputation: 5224

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
I suppose I am one of the few who think social security is one of the few things the United States has done right over the past 75 years. This will surprise many especially when you recognize I haven't made any effort to hide my right wing teabagger politics.

I don't know about you but I don't want to live in a country like Mexico where the elderly poor, the widows and children of windows are forced to beg on the streets.

A great injustice has been done to the program branding it a "retirement package" when the reality is social security is so much more.

If you think social security is such a bad deal maybe it is time to take a close look at your latest statement.

Here's mine from a year ago.


The first thing people usually look for is how much they get for retirement. I am 63 and if I quit now I would receive approximately $1,634 in monthly retirement (benefits go up by 8% per year if you hold off) but if I wait a few years that will grow to $2,057/month.

But this isn't just me I've been married to the same woman for 35 years and what about her? She is entitled to her social security too or a monthly benefit equal to 50% of what I receive whichever is greater. Since she was a stay at home mother and didn't work that much outside the home (I had the easier job) her monthly benefit is around $500/month which is smaller than 50% of my benefit so she get $1,028.50/month.

When you think somehow you won't get your money back did you figure spousal benefit too? With owning the home we live in and no bills we should be able to live pretty well on $3,085.50/month. I know men who are raising families that don't get that.

And then if I happen to die first (I probably will) my wife will lose her spousal benefit but receive my $2,057/month for as long as she lives.

So when you hear statements like "A significant number of American will NEVER live to age 70." he's right but he isn't taking into account the spouse. A very significant number of Americans from a married couple will live beyond the age of 70.

But there is a lot more to social security than getting a "retirement check".

What happens if a young married man with two children falls off the roof of his home hanging xmas tree lights and dies?

Yeah, I know he should have life insurance but many don't especially if young, married and two children ages 4 and 7. If he does have life insurance I doubt it is in the millions maybe $250k or even $500k which isn't enough.

Spread over 20 years $500k is only $25k/year and that is hardly enough for a single mother to raise two children. Then when the children are raised what does she do to support herself going back into the job market at age 50?

Social security can be likened to life insurance too. In my case if I died my wife would receive $1,515/month and each child I left behind would receive an additional $1,515/month up to a maximum of $3,536/per month. Spread that out over 20 years and social security alone is worth $848,640.

The thing about social security is it isn't all about retirement and it certainly isn't all about you!

It's insurance.

The biggest benefit for a young family is the disability insurance.

What would happen to you and your family if you developed rheumatoid arthritis so severe you could no longer work? What would happen if when you fell off the roof hanging xmas tree lights you didn't die but injuries would so severe you could never work again?

Using my statement as an example I would receive $2,007/month in benefits FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE. In addition to the $2,007 my children would receive $1,515/month for an income of $3,522/month.

Now I have a challenge for you. You can purchase disability on the insurance market but 1)it isn't cheap, 2)benefits are usually limited to 50% of your income and 3)payout limits are mostly limited to a maximum of two years. I challenge you to find a loss of income insurance policy that would pay you $1,515/month for life should you become disabled. I doubt anyone will find such an animal and if you do I doubt very many of us could afford the premium payment.

It's sad people think of social security as only a retirement system when it really is so much more and when you look at everything you get it isn't a bad deal.

Oh right, you could have invested the 15% and done better in money markets but that is what a lot of people who had their future invested with Madoff Securities, Worldcom and Enron thought too. No doubt you had people at Enron complaining like crazy over having social security taxes taken out and if only they could have invested their money with Enron their retirement would have been so much better. Ironic today that for many Social Security they once so despised is all they have.

So don't make the mistake of thinking SS is only a retirement vehicle. Yeah, there are a few problems with funding and we are living longer so maybe a cut in benefits is in order for some higher income earners. Also lifting the income limit to half a million but just to can it all is childish.
With all of the benefits that your family receives, is it any wonder that the SS system is going broke? why should your non-wage working spouse (or any non-wage working spouse) receive half of your SS check? What exactly did she contribute to the system during her lifetime?
why should the SS system pay survivors' benefits? shouldn't these ppl accept responsibility for their families and buy adequate life insurance in case the unexpected happens?

SS is a ponzi scheme that steals from single taxpayers and those who have the misfortune of dying young that never see a penny. It is legal theft.

The fairest thing to do would be to dismantle the whole thing and refund us our $$ so that we can do as we please with it and less for the lucky leeches of society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2011, 07:14 AM
 
11,934 posts, read 14,433,342 times
Reputation: 7584
Boehner isn't pulling a Boner on this one. By raising it for today's four year olds he knows there will be little voter outrage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 07:49 AM
 
21,044 posts, read 19,047,453 times
Reputation: 5929
NO one has ever missed a SS check. It is solvent until 2037...and I regularly cash my comfy SS check with no problem....and will quit receiving it(die) long before 2037.

The Repugs are , AGAIN, using scare tactics to get their hands on SS money to invest it with their cohorts on Wall Street...to pilfer the money average Anmericas invest in their future so that the wealthy can get wealthier....


Try looking up facts and the Repugs won't be so scary....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 02:28 PM
 
Location: South Jordan, Utah
6,652 posts, read 7,135,081 times
Reputation: 2840
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
I suppose I am one of the few who think social security is one of the few things the United States has done right over the past 75 years. This will surprise many especially when you recognize I haven't made any effort to hide my right wing teabagger politics.
Yes, pyramid schemes are amazingly successful, until they aren't. My dad retired in 1983 and he received back every dollar he had ever paid in income and payroll taxes in about 4 years! What a deal, it is great to be near the top of the pyramid.

The problem is the whole system is predicated on a growing and evenly distributed demographic. something we do not have and can't guarantee in the future.

Do a little research to see how those figures you site are calculated, it is the median assumption, I would not bet the farm on those coming to pass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Who?Me?! View Post
NO one has ever missed a SS check. It is solvent until 2037...and I regularly cash my comfy SS check with no problem....and will quit receiving it(die) long before 2037.

The Repugs are , AGAIN, using scare tactics to get their hands on SS money to invest it with their cohorts on Wall Street...to pilfer the money average Anmericas invest in their future so that the wealthy can get wealthier....

Try looking up facts and the Repugs won't be so scary....
I know it is easier to turn this into a republican/democrat battle since it only requires reading a script and a couple put-downs but some of us who aren't part of either team look at the facts and not emotion.

I would love to see your "facts", not just politicized articles.

I will ask you some of the questions I asked the OP (and I was ignored ???) Hopefully you will be able to provide me with the "facts" I obviously just don't know about.

Regarding your 2037 date, this is the median probability based on dozens of economic, demographic and social factors. Do you even know that SS is now running an annual deficit 8 YEARS before its median projection and years earlier than the trustees “worst case” scenario? 2037 was the date that the median of probability scenarios the trustees ran, it has also said we would have a $1 trillion surplus added between 2008-2018.

Do you know what the median unemployment rate used for the future trust fund calculation is? (the date your checks and assumed checks are based on) The very worst case assumptions made said that unemployment would NEVER be worse than 7% over the next 75 years. Oops.

Do you understand that in the trust fund calculation using the prior “surplus” which is now held in non-tradeable intergovernmental bonds; dozen’t factor in the future tax or debt cost needed to redeem those bonds?

Do you know the historical years the trustee used to build their probability models? Do you know the banding they did on the historical economic numbers?

I am sure it makes you feel better to think I am some right wing conservative reading from a script. But I sure would like to see your facts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 02:43 PM
 
1,324 posts, read 1,004,895 times
Reputation: 445
I always thought it would be 70 when I retire , I saw this coming . In high school they told us , "plan on 70" .I looked over the facts and decided it was true. No biggie for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Atlanta metro
5,645 posts, read 3,984,494 times
Reputation: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
Congratulations all you age age 50 and below folks.

You voted the GOP in. You'll likely be working to age 70 now before your benefits kick in.
So what? With people living longer and longer, 70 is not an unreasonable age to work through.

Quote:
This amounts to a 15% cut in your benefits.
Over the course of when I'll be able to use them, or the amount paid per month? I honestly never planned to retire and depend 100% on SS (nobody should) so again, this is not a major deal to me.

Quote:

John Boehner: Raise Social Security Retirement Age to 70 - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Man I hope you don't lose your job when your 65? Do you think companies like to hire 65 year olds?
Some of us create jobs (whether we own a business or we work as independent contractors), we are not wage earners who have to take what we can get. We can find something at any age, trust me.
Quote:

Do any of you have kids? How are you able to look them in they eye?
What does this even mean? I will be more than happy to look my child in the eye when he/she arrives in August.

Quote:

* SS is a well managed program . It only has a 1% administrative costs.
Yeah, too bad it's already running at a deficit. Just wait till all the boomers start collecting. Well-managed, my butt.

Quote:
* It has a small long term deficit that could be corrected with minor tax increases.
Right, just what everyone wants, more taxes. How about we just privatize the thing, or allow people to opt out?

Quote:
* The small deficit that it does have is almost a non-factor in the budget deficit. Cutting your benefits will barely make a difference in the deficit.
How can you think this? If something is in the red, that means there is more going out than going in. That predicament starts this year. It is only going to get worse. I'm 27 and I fully expect to not receive a dime of what I've paid in (much less the returns I'm supposed to get for allowing the gov't to borrow my own money).

Quote:

[The stupidity of the average American voter should be studied by poltical scientists the World over. It's epic in proportions.]
Agreed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Atlanta metro
5,645 posts, read 3,984,494 times
Reputation: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
They already raised the age to 67. It was at 65.

And you know those actuary tables you mention? If you look at them closely you'll find life expectancy went up only for the upper income group which raised the total average.

Your typical poor, lower class American is NOT living longer. The ones who most depend on SS benefits.
So you propose to screw everyone just so the poor can retire comfortably?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Atlanta metro
5,645 posts, read 3,984,494 times
Reputation: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy View Post
At this stage they should also allow people to take their money and opt out. A significant number of American will NEVER live to age 70.
People who are not yet 50 will most assuredly live to age 70. Of course, poor life choices may prohibit that, but who's fault is that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 03:04 PM
 
Location: Atlanta metro
5,645 posts, read 3,984,494 times
Reputation: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
It would take me pages and pages of post to show you how stupid your math fact was when you are dealing with a complex issue.

I'm not going to start.

Other than to ask you what objective experts recommend that we put all our retiree's money into the stock market???..LOL

NOBODY with expertise recommends that we invest a social safety program in the stock market..You got the idea from some kooky right wing source. This is what passes for right wing "wisdom".
Apparently you don't understand how the stock market works. It's meant as a long-term investment. If you let your money sit, it will bounce back no matter how much it may tank in the short-term. The people who realize this should be allowed to opt-out so they can make smart investments rather than throw money into something they may never even get back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 03:11 PM
 
Location: Sarasota FL
6,540 posts, read 8,657,547 times
Reputation: 6090
NEWS FLASH-NEWS FLASH Retirement ages changed in 1983 law. [yes, the law was changed 28 years ago, sponsored by DEMOCRAT Senator Moynihan, NY]
If you were born in 1943 to 1954 you can not received full benefits until you are 66 years of age.
If you were born in 1960+ YOU CAN NOT RECEIVE FULL BENEFITS UNTIL YOU ARE 67 years of age.
socialsecurity.gov
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top