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 06-14-2019, 05:13 PM
 
Location: New York
1,382 posts, read 267,329 times
Reputation: 1035

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
not yet, anyway.


The thinking typically goes that boomers have put undue pressure on the system because of the size of their generation.

About 10,000 people turn 65 every day. Many of those individuals are claiming Social Security retirement benefits, which has created the perception that they are draining the system.

However, the Center for Retirement Research found the boomer cohort born between 1946 and 1964 will actually have paid more into the system than they will receive in benefits.

There is a group of retirees, however, who did receive more money than they contributed: people who lived through the Great Depression of the 1930s. Thatís because they generally worked for fewer years before collecting benefits.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/10/its-...-security.html

I totally agree with that. Life expectancy jumped after WWII. The 50s saw the biggest jump in income as a percentage per capita.


My grandmother who was a dancer back in the vaudeville era worked for just a few years (3-4). My grandfather worked until he was 65 retiring in 73', she never worked again (it was a different time). He lived another 22 years collecting SS. When he passed my grandmother collected a percentage of his SS until she passed 20 years later. I figure she took in about $300,000 + her medicare, though she didn't use much of that until her last 4-5 years.


I and my wife are boomers. I guarantee we will have put far more in than we will most likely receive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-14-2019, 08:28 PM
 
1,739 posts, read 591,669 times
Reputation: 1334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Their methodology leaves a lot to be desired.

This is just another moronic propaganda piece by people who don't understand.

Social Security is an insurance plan. It is not, nor has it ever been, an investment plan. It's merely a supplement to your employer plan and your own personal savings and investments.

If you were in a position where your employer did not have a retirement plan, then you'll have to rely on your personal savings and investments and your insurance benefits. If you weren't able to save or invest, then it's probably a good thing you have an insurance plan.
If SS were an insurance policy, then those least likely to draw from it would pay the lowest premiums. Instead, the payroll tax rate is only slightly regressive, more than made up for by the benefit formula, which is highly progressive. Social security is closer to a transfer payment than an insurance policy.

If someone is wealthy enough to fund their own retirement, they have self-insured and have no need for social security. Moreover, this situation can be forecasted out decades in advance with reasonable confidence. For career-ending accidents there are other kinds of insurance that cost a fraction of SS. There isn't much risk with retirement planning compared to something like auto accidents, fires, etc. where the insurance model is correct.

Social security does not pool unknown risk, it transfers known risk. That's not insurance.

It's a paygo pension subsidy that is that way because of political realities in the 1930s. Calling it "social insurance" is using an imprecise political term designed to obfuscate. Insurance implies that running out of money during retirement is an unexpected event, when for most people it is completely predictable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2019, 08:52 PM
 
Location: Boston
7,811 posts, read 2,272,799 times
Reputation: 5561
I worked 35 years and don't get any SS. Only paid into it for 33 quarters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2019, 11:57 AM
 
Location: The South
5,214 posts, read 3,628,854 times
Reputation: 7896
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeddy View Post
I worked 35 years and don't get any SS. Only paid into it for 33 quarters.
There must be a story here, care to share?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2019, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Places you dream of
20,199 posts, read 12,109,645 times
Reputation: 8767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
I am 71. I have lived longer than my parents and grandparents did. All my close friends are gone. The "greatest generation" that I knew, all died in their 50s and 60s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boneyard1962 View Post
And that is exactly why Ill start pulling mine the day I am eligible. My financial guy checked the math. Ill be 76 before If I waited until 67 for it to catch up. Chances are I will be dead by then.
Iím double dipping. Working getting my full check now and paying off all my bills and creating my oasis for when I do retire. People said wait until then - I said hell no - donít trust the govt with my SS money. If I die nobody gets mine, so I will enjoy it now. The worse, when I get too old, my sons will have to see where they park me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2019, 02:44 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,883 posts, read 14,224,806 times
Reputation: 16076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originalist View Post
I totally agree with that. Life expectancy jumped after WWII.
Life-Expectancy is irrelevant.

If you knew what you were talking about, then you'd know that Social Security was never based on Life-Expectancy.

It was based on Life-Expectancy at Age 65.

Huge difference.

Your "jump" in Life-Expectancy at Age 65 after WW II was 0.2 years for men and 0.7 years for women.

That's not exactly a jump.

What you fail to understand is that at the time Social Security went into effect, each beneficiary had 159.4 workers paying for those benefits.

By 1945, each beneficiary was supported by 41.9 workers.

By 1950, each beneficiary was supported by 16.5 workers.

By 1955, it dropped in half to each beneficiary supported by 8.6 workers.

By 1960, each beneficiary was supported by 5.1 workers.

In 1965, each beneficiary was supported by 4 workers.

By 1975 it was 3.3 workers supporting one beneficiary.

That's where it stayed for 35 years, until 2010.

Do you not see a pattern there? Because it's pretty damn obvious.

Now and for the next 100-200 years, you'll have 2.0 to 2.2 workers paying for each beneficiary.

That's actually the good news, because it's stabilized and will never change.

Social Security is just 6th Grade Math:

Revenues = #Workers * Wages * FICA Tax

See? It's not Quantum String Theory.

You're short 11 Million workers.

If you find jobs tomorrow by 8:00 AM for the 5.5 Million currently unemployed, and you sent your military to foreign countries, bombed them, kidnapped 5.5 Million people, brought them back to the US and got jobs for them by 8:00 AM tomorrow and your unemployment rate was 0% for the next 100-200 everything would be peachy.

Except, you can't do that.

You can't increase wages, because you're 11 Million workers short, and the wage increase would need to be substantial, and the only thing it would do is cause massive Wage Inflation, and any increase in wages would be offset by the increase in Social Security benefits, since benefits are tied to wages.

You can increase the FICA tax 1.8%-2.2% and that would be the last tax increase for the next 100-200 years and problem solved.

The Silent Generation suffered a 520% FICA tax increase and they survived.

The Boomers and Tweeners had a 76% FICA tax increase and they survived.

So an increase of ~42% is not going to ruin people's lives or cause economic collapse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist View Post
If someone is wealthy...
You mean the 8.7% of American workers -- not Americans, but American workers -- who earn $100,000 or more per year?

What are the other 91.3% of workers who earn less than $100,000/year supposed to do?

Hell, I thought investments put everyone on Easy Street.
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

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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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