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.
So to protect future generations from Social Security benefit cuts we need to make Social Security benefit cuts now?
We need to give equal weighting to all generations. We shouldn't abuse future seniors, throwing grannys under a larger bus, just so that we can foster the idea that Social Security is working. Today we say that seniors can't accept a lower rate of increase but it is fine that future seniors will get 75% of what they were promised. Mind you- they will get no COLA, chain-cpi or otherwise.
We need to give equal weighting to all generations. We shouldn't abuse future seniors, throwing grannys under a larger bus, just so that we can foster the idea that Social Security is working. Today we say that seniors can't accept a lower rate of increase but it is fine that future seniors will get 75% of what they were promised. Mind you- they will get no COLA, chain-cpi or otherwise.
But if we take immediate action future benefits for future generations won’t be as high as scheduled either.
Remember, even if the trust fund is exhausted and no other financing provided, Social Security will be able to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefits. There are also other alternatives besides cutting benefits. We could increase the income level that is subject to the payroll tax.
If people had the option put their own money pay check by pay check into an annuity - so that it would grow and compound over the years - they would be getting twice the monthly paycheck compared to social security. As it stands now - most people will get less than you put in.
I've heard this same argument so many times and it's just stupid.
Social security is not just about retirement it's about widows, orphans and even you if you were unlucky enough to be involved in an auto accident ending paralyzed from the waist down or perhaps developed rheumatoid arthritis and were no longer able to work. What if you had a stroke at age 40 (it happens) and were no longer able to work? What about your wife and two children age 16 and 12, not to mention your wife, who takes care of them and you?
I am ready to collect social security very soon as I will hit my full retirement age next year and being bored one Sunday I gathered all my paperwork together and added up what I would have in social security if I had put all the money into a savings account.
Here is my first 15 years of earnings from 1966 to 1980 just to show the methodology in how I did it.
Yeah, I didn't make much from 1966 to 1980 but what person usually does starting out?
Fast forward to today.
If I had put everything into a back savings account (yeah, I know already) I would have $642,601.28 saved up in my savings account but that does not include the taxes on the earnings so it would be somewhat less. That said let's use $642,601.28,
At full retirement age social security is estimating my benefit to be $2,300 and my wife will be getting 50% of that for a total combined social security benefit of $3,450/mo or $41,400 annually for as long as we both live.
Yeah, I know and I hear you. If only I had invested my money into Enron, World Com or Maddoff Securities not to mention K-Mart or JC Penny I would be a lot better off.
Well, as it currently stands we will get all our money back in 15 and a half years if we both live to be 80 but then some of that was for medicare so I have little doubt all we have to do is live to be 75 (just 10 years down the road for me so don't plant me yet) and I have little doubt we will get all our money back.
Then there is the insurance factor. If you think it is cheap go out and see what it cost you to insure a minimum income of say $2,000/month (make that $3,000 if married with children) for the rest of your life in the event you can no longer work due to illness or injury. But that isn't all, when you purchase that insurance make sure it has a cost of living increase built in so if you aren't able to work for 10, 20 or 30 years you get that too. That has to be worth something.
So to correct some people maybe not everyone will get all their money back but a good fair number will and then some.
Yeah well good for you. @ 52 YO and fightin cancer I wont be making it anywhere close to retirement and the pittance they will pay my children for a few years is an insult. My wife who works wont be collecting on the monies I paid in so you can thank me and her for supporting you in in your retirement. Im glad i wont be alive watching the government handout money they forcibly stole from me and my family. I wish I had that money banked and collecting interest now
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4
I've heard this same argument so many times and it's just stupid.
Social security is not just about retirement it's about widows, orphans and even you if you were unlucky enough to be involved in an auto accident ending paralyzed from the waist down or perhaps developed rheumatoid arthritis and were no longer able to work. What if you had a stroke at age 40 (it happens) and were no longer able to work? What about your wife and two children age 16 and 12, not to mention your wife, who takes care of them and you?
I am ready to collect social security very soon as I will hit my full retirement age next year and being bored one Sunday I gathered all my paperwork together and added up what I would have in social security if I had put all the money into a savings account.
Here is my first 15 years of earnings from 1966 to 1980 just to show the methodology in how I did it.
Yeah, I didn't make much from 1966 to 1980 but what person usually does starting out?
Fast forward to today.
If I had put everything into a back savings account (yeah, I know already) I would have $642,601.28 saved up in my savings account but that does not include the taxes on the earnings so it would be somewhat less. That said let's use $642,601.28,
At full retirement age social security is estimating my benefit to be $2,300 and my wife will be getting 50% of that for a total combined social security benefit of $3,450/mo or $41,400 annually for as long as we both live.
Yeah, I know and I hear you. If only I had invested my money into Enron, World Com or Maddoff Securities not to mention K-Mart or JC Penny I would be a lot better off.
Well, as it currently stands we will get all our money back in 15 and a half years if we both live to be 80 but then some of that was for medicare so I have little doubt all we have to do is live to be 75 (just 10 years down the road for me so don't plant me yet) and I have little doubt we will get all our money back.
Then there is the insurance factor. If you think it is cheap go out and see what it cost you to insure a minimum income of say $2,000/month (make that $3,000 if married with children) for the rest of your life in the event you can no longer work due to illness or injury. But that isn't all, when you purchase that insurance make sure it has a cost of living increase built in so if you aren't able to work for 10, 20 or 30 years you get that too. That has to be worth something.
So to correct some people maybe not everyone will get all their money back but a good fair number will and then some.
I gathered all my paperwork together and added up what I would have in social security if I had put all the money into a savings account.
There's one small problem with that - - - usury is mathematically unsustainable in a finite money token system. Due to the exponential equation used to calculate compound interest, you need an infinite money supply.
That means that a single contract for usury (investment) looks reasonable, when taken together, would not be possible.
Taking each number and dividing by your estimated bank balance, we get:
M1 : 3,833,171
M2 : 16,277,596
So out of 300 million Americans dutifully investing, only 5%, at most, would be able to withdraw their balance. The rest would get nada, zilch, empty set, null.
If people had the option put their own money pay check by pay check into an annuity - so that it would grow and compound over the years - they would be getting twice the monthly paycheck compared to social security. As it stands now - most people will get less than you put in.
Not only that, but under SS you GAVE your entire retirement fund to the government. And they have absolutely no legal requirement to give you a single penny back. Guaranteed that in 17 years when I hit 67, both political pressure and the low wages of the 2.1 workers supporting me will cause my promised level of benefits to be cut drastically--particularly if I saved for retirement, like a responsible person should.
With a private investment, you get the return PLUS the principle is yours to either spend down, or leave to your kids. So even if SS gave you a "return" of 10%, and your private investment only gave you a return of 5%, you'd still be WAY AHEAD with your entire retirement savings sitting in your account.
Of course, SS returns nowhere near that much--according to the SS Administration, single earning couples born in 1985 can expect a return of 4.52%. Without the "spousal benefit," single wage earners did far worse, at a little over 2%. What's your rate of return on Social Security? | Reuters
And the reason they can't let younger workers save for themselves and do far better? It's a Ponzi Scam that collapses when new people aren't flowing into the system. Yet again, we trusted government, and their absolute corruption and fiscal irresponsibility cost us big time.
Obviously folks much smarter than me when it comes to this stuff. Still, I'm in my mid 30s and always considered SS as a "bonus" when I retire. I don't expect it to be there but if it is, great. I'm doing what I can in other ways to plan ahead for retirement and at this pace I can when I'm 163.
I just wonder if people my age and younger feel this way. I don't see how you can believe otherwise.
There we go with the "taxes are theft" mantra. Taxes are the dues we pay to have a civil society.
I read two opposing arguments from conservatives. One side says that recipients are a drain on the system, as they receive far more than they pay in. The other side says that most won't get back what they pay in. Get your stories straight.
Actually both are correct... depending on who you are speaking of, and here's why. (History lesson, check for yourself)
Originally not much was taken... and people collected.
Then it was found that more was being paid out than taken in.
This happened several times as both the amounts paid in were increased, and ages were pushed back.
So you have a category of 'collectors' why both paid in the least, and collect the most.
Now you'd think that as this generation died out it would stabilize, but when you get too far behind the 8ball...
But if we take immediate action future benefits for future generations won’t be as high as scheduled either.
No kidding. Future generations won't mind the modest cut rather than taking the full cost of the cuts. If 75% is so great lets cut it to 84% today, and the problem is solved. Everyone is treated fairly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
There are also other alternatives besides cutting benefits. We could increase the income level that is subject to the payroll tax.
It really depends upon what you want Social Security to be. If you want it to be welfare, you need to say we aren't fixing Social Security. We are changing the system because the system we created doesn't work. It is suppose to be old-age insurance not welfare.
As part of that debate, we need to ask whether it makes sense to put new tax revenue to work in Social Security or use it to control the deficit. To say that Social Security doesn't add to the debt is a lie, and it is exposed here. When we raise money as a tax for SS, it is money that could have been raised as a general tax to control the debt.
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.
