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.
More than half of seniors depend solely on SS. So like it or not, end SS and the tent cities will fill up fast. The facts are the facts.
Boompa:
----------------------------------------
others: I am on S.S. disability and NO....repeat NO, pension other than a rinky dink $70 a month from an hourly job.
I'll have S.S. + $70...whoopee.........and I am eligible for Medicare part B, right now ans can not afford the premium. I'll have to take it at age 65, since there will be financial penalties if you fail to be insured one way or the other.
I'm flattered to be thought of as roughly the same age. I have two kids 10 years older than you. I'm talking about the post-WWII parents in the modest but comfortable middle class. My parents and most parents like them did not have pensions, unless they worked for a big corporation or the city. They "paid in" to SS rightfully expecting to see that money again in their old age. We do pay in today, don't we?
We must run in different circles. I don't know anyone in my middle class neck of the woods (that also includes upper/old money class) who "drive new cars/own their own homes/take vacations and yet not save a dime for their own retirement." Now, money is tight for many, many retirees and they are conservative with spending.
I guess my point is that very, very few people start to put a plan together for retirement in their 20s. At most income levels people can save. For example, I am 24 and cannot financially afford to take care of children as well as save for retirement, so I will not have kids until I can afford it. Many people do not have this kind of attitude. Current beneficiaries should obviously continue to receive benefits, however they should be phased out over time, or at the very least make pay-in optional. Forced investment into a non-lucrative retirement plan is not attractive to me, it is negative opportunity cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa
More than half of seniors depend solely on SS. So like it or not, end SS and the tent cities will fill up fast. The facts are the facts.
But here is the thing - SS comes out of your paycheck and gives a little over a 2% ROI. If a person invested the money they paid into SS on their own, given historical market rates they would be better off. The people who rely on SS are the same people who do not spend time studying how to financially take care of themselves.
But here is the thing - SS comes out of your paycheck and gives a little over a 2% ROI. If a person invested the money they paid into SS on their own, given historical market rates they would be better off.
There is a good reason for this, and it is not that Social Security is mis-managed. It is because, in addition to the retirement benefits, our payroll deductions are paying for insurance for survivors in case we die early and for disability in case we become disabled. If it were just the retirement only, of course the benefits would be better.
There is a good reason for this, and it is not that Social Security is mis-managed. It is because, in addition to the retirement benefits, our payroll deductions are paying for insurance for survivors in case we die early and for disability in case we become disabled. If it were just the retirement only, of course the benefits would be better.
I think you missed the point. SS is an underfunded program that doesn't perform even to market rate! How would that be a good investment decision by any stretch of the imagination?
Another Libertarian idea that is nice is theory but unless you are willing to have millions of seniors living in tent cities starving Social Security must remain solvent and the best way to do that is to remove the cap on the Wage Tax. Remember that the Baby Boom is an anomaly, it will pass. Fifty years from now the baby boom will be gone and the percentage of seniors will decrease
Another Libertarian idea that is nice is theory but unless you are willing to have millions of seniors living in tent cities starving Social Security must remain solvent and the best way to do that is to remove the cap on the Wage Tax. Remember that the Baby Boom is an anomaly, it will pass. Fifty years from now the baby boom will be gone and the percentage of seniors will decrease
that tax should be removed or the cap raised......raised UP....not up.
SS is an underfunded program that doesn't perform even to market rate!
What is this ordained "market rate" you speak of? According to what index? Over what period of time? Who figures it? Is it a physical constant like the speed of light or Pi? Is it guaranteed to continue indefinitely until the end of time?
Does that include Hoover Dam? Better warn all those folks downstream.
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.
I'm talking about the post-WWII parents in the modest but comfortable middle class. My parents and most parents like them did not have pensions, unless they worked for a big corporation or the city. They "paid in" to SS rightfully expecting to see that money again in their old age. We do pay in today, don't we? 
Market Rant
Along with all the infrastructure it built ...
