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.
How do you define "most"? The article states that the couple it's referring to earned the "average" US earnings. Average does not mean most as the average can change drastically depending on what's on the low and high side of the spectrum.
The low-income will get more in SS benefits than they pay in SS taxes. Hence, the most.
And the article was careful to state that the average US income over the time frame SS taxes would be paid was used to compute the totals.
Not sure how you could have misunderstood any of it.
Quote:
While it would not surprise me that we'll be going over that hill soon I don't see evidence that "most" people who started retiring recently are losing money. The article itself states that people on the lower end of the earning spectrum will likely come out ahead.
The middle class and above lose money on SS. Only the low-income come out ahead.
The poorer the population, the higher the fertility rate.
Countries with the most social benefits tend to have a substantially lower birth rate than countries with no social benefits.
That’s in populations subject to natural selection.
The gloomy fertility rate in the US is not a product of natural selection; it was a matter of government/public policy that has been at least 50 years in the making. That’s an Interference of Man ... selection ...
100 years from now, the chapter in the history textbooks regarding the years 1960’s- ? Will be titled “Never Forget ... That we almost Forgot ...”
I found this to be hypocritical coming from the GOP. We see it here every day. Do not have babies unless you can afford them. Guess what? Many people can't afford health insurance, good schools, daycare, etc. Don't complain when you get what you ask for.
If we get rid of the illegal aliens and they haul tail with their anchor babies, we'll need some new citizens! Illegal aliens have babies, and we pay for the delivery through "emergency" medical services and then pay to raise the kids. Once they are gone and no longer adding to the welfare rolls, there should be more for the rest of us when we aren't paying out that $135 billion a year for their presence.
That’s in populations subject to natural selection.
The gloomy fertility rate in the US is not a product of natural selection; it was a matter of government/public policy that has been at least 50 years in the making. That’s an Interference of Man ... selection ...
100 years from now, the chapter in the history textbooks regarding the years 1960’s- ? Will be titled “Never Forget ... That we almost Forgot ...”
Eh?
What "government/public policy" are you referring?
I'll say it again since the message seems to have been lost upon some; certain demographic of females are *NOT* interested in having babies to satisfy government whims or needs. Equally many men aren't interested in marrying/siring children "just because" either.
This pre-1960's world some of you want the USA returned to mainly benefited one class of persons; white males. Women were basically still chattel and tied to their biology, something that was used to push (and keep them) in the home. It also compelled them to marry whether they truly wanted to or not because it was one of least bad choices.
None of this even touched upon the cruel fate of "unwed" mothers. Most where treated little better than criminals; locked up and forced or otherwise to give up their children, then latter sold off into marriage as "damaged goods".
That and or the infamous "shot gun weddings" where a man was forced to take a wife because of his "mistake". This largely never ended well for the woman. Yes, she got some sort of social redemption and legitimacy for her child; but it also meant being wed to a man that perhaps didn't love or even want her for "life". From this came the fist, belt, and or other abuses including being publicly humiliated on a routine basis as the husband took his pleasures elsewhere. If and or when such a wife complained she was reminded of how she "trapped" her husband into marriage. If things got really nasty battles reached a level of comments regarding her virtue (or lack of it), since if *SHE* hadn't gotten pregnant none of this would have happened.
Some of you need to put down that Margaret Atwood novel, and or watching film media of same.
Obviously the lower one's earnings paid in over thirty-five years means you also paid *less* in payroll taxes (FICA). But you'll get far more than paid in from Social Security, especially if such a person lives long enough and or has an equally low income spouse who can claim as well.
OTOH it stands to reason those who have high earnings paid *MORE* (via taxes) into SS than they likely will be getting back for the inverse of reasons above. Again benefits are skewed towards lower income so earnings over a certain amount are basically a wash.
SS is *NOT* like an IRA, Roth or any other sort of investment/savings/retirement account. That is you do not get more out of it by putting more in after a certain level is reached.
As have mentioned because everyone pays the same rates, there are ways to game the system (so to speak). Married persons get more out of SS than singles. Ditto for those with children.
The main only other way to extract *more* out of SS is via longevity. That is for the beneficiary and or his (or her) spouse to live decades longer than actuarial tables would otherwise imply.
Consider also many moderate to low income persons cannot (or will not) delay filing for SS, and will do so upon reaching minimum retirement age. Meanwhile someone with other assets, is still employed, etc.... and does not *need* SS can delay until 67 or even 70. Waiting that long means yes, their benefits will be larger, but statistically their lifespan and thus time on SS may be shorter.
I read the article, it's your interpretation that neither I, nor you seem to be able to make much sense of.
Perhaps this will clarify it for you:
Quote:
"As recently as 1985, workers at every income level could retire and expect to get more in benefits than they paid in Social Security taxes, though they didn't do quite as well as their parents and grandparents.
Not anymore.
A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank.
Social Security benefits are progressive, so most low-income workers retiring today still will get slightly more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Most high-income workers started getting less in benefits than they paid in taxes in the 1990s, according to data from the Social Security Administration."
What I read, that without any reforms we'll get about 75% of what we would have if we could collect before 2030. It won't just disappear, it'll just have to pay out less than what we're projected to get under the current model.
It's probably no coincidence that the new tax cuts for the working class expire in 2026. Someone will have to pick up the slack.
Regarding Paul Ryan's statement, I myself think it is scary to hear any politician (regardless of party) telling people they should have babies for the good of the country.
You should have children because you want them, can afford them, and are capable of being a responsible parent.
We won't need so many people to care for the elderly in the future. Robots will change bedpans along with flipping burgers. Alexa, change my diaper.
Someone's still going to have to pay for Alexa and your diaper.
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.
