U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [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 08-01-2011, 08:19 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
21,549 posts, read 44,115,619 times
Reputation: 15165

Advertisements

LOL - Vegas Joe - well, wait until you've worked 52 years, are almost 70, with SS 50% of your retirement income, and now have to prepare for the day you might not get your money on time. I can survive for a while, but that's not the point. Why should I have to keep extra cash reserves available for that possibility? If the Treasury doesn't have the funds, it will need to prioritize payments. That day is coming, if not this year, in the near future. This new 'deal' really doesn't reduce spending, it only reduces the rate of growth of spending. Big difference. This whole fracas will be upon us again in another year.

By my reckoning, with modest interest of 3.5% over 52 years, my SS "account" should now be worth $400,000. I think I'd like that TODAY. Thousand dollar bills will be just fine.

Last edited by Ariadne22; 08-01-2011 at 08:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-01-2011, 08:21 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,772,783 times
Reputation: 32309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Joe View Post
Let me put it as clear as I can- they had best LEAVE their Goddam hands OFF my benefits. I will tell you right now that if those sons of beetchs TOUCH it we need to march up there with torches and pitchforks and clean that place the hell out. Senator Reid is going to look pretty damn funny trying to walk around DC with my boot stuck in his ass. I have worked too long and paid too much into that system. As if I had any choice about it. I have worked since I was 15 years old. Never been unemployed for even ONE day for 40 years now. The bastards already robbed me of 2 years when they raised the age to 67. LEAVE IS ALONE!
Sounds like you are 55 now. When changes were made in Social Security in the past, they were never written so as to affect people as close to retirement as you are. The thought behind this was to let younger people know way ahead of time so they can adjust their thinking and their planning. Of course the past is not the future, but even the proposals that have surfaced over the past couple of years have generally protected people your age. I doubt you'll have to go looking for Senator Reid or anybody else in Washington, especially as the politicians seem to want to kick this can down the road as long as possible (unwisely, in my opinion). So by the time they finally do something you'll be even older, and even safer from the changes if I am correct about all this. By the way, congratulations on your excellent work ethic!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2011, 08:22 PM
 
Location: The Brightest City On Earth
1,282 posts, read 1,627,081 times
Reputation: 576
One thing I think was a big mistake was when Bill Clinton removed the earnings cap. It should have been perhaps raised but not removed. If people wish to continue to work they should not collect full benefits. After all, SS is a RETIREMENT program and not simply an extra check you get for making it to 65 years old.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2011, 08:31 PM
 
Location: The Brightest City On Earth
1,282 posts, read 1,627,081 times
Reputation: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Sounds like you are 55 now. When changes were made in Social Security in the past, they were never written so as to affect people as close to retirement as you are. The thought behind this was to let younger people know way ahead of time so they can adjust their thinking and their planning. Of course the past is not the future, but even the proposals that have surfaced over the past couple of years have generally protected people your age. I doubt you'll have to go looking for Senator Reid or anybody else in Washington, especially as the politicians seem to want to kick this can down the road as long as possible (unwisely, in my opinion). So by the time they finally do something you'll be even older, and even safer from the changes if I am correct about all this. By the way, congratulations on your excellent work ethic!
I am actually 53 so I guess I should have said 37 years but by the time I can leave the work force since my age is 66 years and 8 months, I will have worked over 50 years if I live that long. Messing with the benefits for younger people does not ensure they are safe for 50+ people. If anything, it makes them less safe because it will certainly turn young workers against the program. They will rightfully question why they are saddled with a program that will not benefit them and you will eventually see it scrapped in favor of private accounts which is what I think certain people want to happen. And I am a Republican but quite frankly I am getting a bit sick of the extreme right wing that seems to be taking over this party. The fact I have always worked is not because of any ethic I have but because I have been pretty lucky to have not held jobs in cyclical industries where you get laid off all the time. In my business, when things are bad, you work 40 hours a week. When things are good, you work 60 or more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2011, 08:34 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,772,783 times
Reputation: 32309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Joe View Post
One thing I think was a big mistake was when Bill Clinton removed the earnings cap. It should have been perhaps raised but not removed. If people wish to continue to work they should not collect full benefits. After all, SS is a RETIREMENT program and not simply an extra check you get for making it to 65 years old.
Joe, make that 66 years old for most of us posting here and 67 years old for you younger folks. (Those are the "full retirement ages" after which the earnings limitation no longer applies). Of course my technical correction does not invalidate your main point, although I don't think I agree with it.

I wonder how many people continue to earn at levels beyond the earnings limitations once they have reached full retirement age? That would be an interesting statistic. Are there very many working full time or close to full time at age 66 and beyond? I really don't know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2011, 08:36 PM
 
Location: The Brightest City On Earth
1,282 posts, read 1,627,081 times
Reputation: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifa View Post
Yes it depends on how you look at the numbers, and throwing numbers around is a really easy way to fool people. The dangerous myth says that modern medicine has delayed the onset of old age for the average person, and therefore we are capable of working longer.

But the increased number of men living to 77 could be explained mostly by the decrease in infant mortality that occurred since the mid 20th century.

Children are vulnerable to bacterial infections because their immune systems are still developing. Without antibiotic treatment, children whose immune systems are weaker are more likely to die. Individuals who reach adulthood are relatively strong.

Antibiotic treatments dramatically reduced infant mortality. Now almost every child survives to adulthood, whether their immune system is relatively strong or relatively weak.

This probably results in higher rates of illness in general, but that is not the point (and no, I don't advocate letting infants die, just stating the obvious).

Anyway, whenever infant mortality is ignored, longevity calculations are misleading. A 30% increase in men surviving to 77 sounds great. And of course the brainwashed American public assumes it's because of Crestor.

Americans are NOT living longer healthier lives. Infant mortality has been lowered to almost zero, contributing to population growth. So there are more old people, and more people in general. And baby boomers are getting old, adding to the increase.

Does the fact that there are more old people now justify raising the SS age? The problems of aging are just as bad now as they ever were, there has been no improvement in that whatsoever.

The dangerous myth says that people used to start collecting SS at 65 and then they usually died by 66. So the program was not expensive.

NOT TRUE. They included infant mortality in the average. In reality, people started SS at 65 and then continued to live almost the same as now. Except for smokers -- that is the big factor that increased average adult longevity.
The biggest reason people live longer than they did back then is because of vaccines that got rid of nasty things like Polio that used to thin the population out. Cancer deaths are less too because back then everybody smoked and now only the stupid smoke.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2011, 08:37 PM
 
Location: The Brightest City On Earth
1,282 posts, read 1,627,081 times
Reputation: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Joe, make that 66 years old for most of us posting here and 67 years old for you younger folks. (Those are the "full retirement ages" after which the earnings limitation no longer applies). Of course my technical correction does not invalidate your main point, although I don't think I agree with it.

I wonder how many people continue to earn at levels beyond the earnings limitations once they have reached full retirement age? That would be an interesting statistic. Are there very many working full time or close to full time at age 66 and beyond? I really don't know.
From my experience, many people do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2011, 08:39 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
21,549 posts, read 44,115,619 times
Reputation: 15165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Joe View Post
One thing I think was a big mistake was when Bill Clinton removed the earnings cap. It should have been perhaps raised but not removed. If people wish to continue to work they should not collect full benefits. After all, SS is a RETIREMENT program and not simply an extra check you get for making it to 65 years old.
Well, I worked 1.5 years past full retirement age, collected SS and saved every penny and more, simply because my retirement savings weren't where they needed to be. I'd still be working if my employer hadn't done massive layoffs. Of course, there are NO JOBS for people my age. Which is why I'm opposed to raising the FRA and the Medicare age.

Tonight I heard one guy say what President Obama should have done was not capitulated and instead prioritize payments. One suggestion he had was delaying SS payments to high-income people.

Of Escort Rider's suggestions I think #1 and #4 are fine. The other two, not, unless adjusting the COLA means adjusting it in FAVOR of seniors in terms of where they spend THEIR money - medical, food, utilities.

Quote:
1. Reduce benefits for higher income earners
2. Increase retirement age to reflect gains in life expectancy
3. Improve calculation of COLA's
4. Adjust the spousal benefit calculation
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2011, 08:41 PM
 
Location: The Brightest City On Earth
1,282 posts, read 1,627,081 times
Reputation: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
Two female co-workers I knew who died in their 50s were very unhealthy, extremely overweight (making very bad food choices, which I observed daily) and had enormous family stress - much of it self-inflicted. One was a diabetic with cancer, the other had a stroke. In both those cases, no underage dependents, so SS kept all their contributions.

I also worked with a highly educated, intelligent, very fit man, who developed cancer in his spine and died at the age of 53. No underage dependents, here, either.

Also knew of a very young lawyer - mid 30s - who died at his desk, burning the midnight oil, fighting off a takeover attempt for his clients. Talked to him one day, he was gone the next. Left kids, so wife and kids had some help from SS.

Ya' never know.
You never know. True that. BUT there are some you can make a pretty good guess at. If people are obese, smoke, drink excessively and eat nothing but McDonalds every day, they will die. And their SS contributions can be considered a "stupidity tax".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2011, 08:45 PM
 
Location: The Brightest City On Earth
1,282 posts, read 1,627,081 times
Reputation: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
Well, I worked 1.5 years past full retirement age, collected SS and saved every penny and more, simply because my retirement savings weren't where they needed to be. I'd still be working if my employer hadn't done massive layoffs. Of course, there are NO JOBS for people my age. Which is why I'm opposed to raising the FRA and the Medicare age.

Tonight I heard one guy say what President Obama should have done was not capitulated and instead prioritize payments. One suggestion he had was delaying SS payments to high-income people.

Of Escort Rider's suggestions I think #1 and #4 are fine. The other two, not, unless adjusting the COLA means adjusting it in FAVOR of seniors in terms of what they spend THEIR money - medical, food, utilities.
The words "President" and "Obama" should never be used together. The man is worthless. President implies leadership and he has provided zero of that. Don't trust him to defend SS or Medicare. He will sell you out in a second if it means getting "a deal".
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 > Retirement
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