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 don't know the precise figures, but I've read that half of those who receive Social Security, have no other source of income. And currently, half of those in the U.S. who are close to retirement age, have no savings.
You are correct.
Most people go through life and during periods of unemployment, use up all their savings.
If anything, Social Security should be strengthened to replace a larger amount of income.
I think Congress will be reluctant to actually cut Social Security.
For most Americans (and especially Rural Republicans) it's all they've got!
"Keep your Gubmint outta my Social Security"
Congress had no problem ditching the "file and suspend" and "restricted application" rules for all applicants who were not 62 last year. (Forgive me if I got the age wrong; at any rate, the cutoff age was years older than me and many others who were counting on those benefits as part of our retirement strategy.)
I'd call those cuts painful for many who were counting on those strategies to make ends meet. There was no debate prior to the cuts, either. Also, as far as I could see, there were no repercussions for making the cuts. So perhaps now they're emboldened.
I don't know the precise figures, but I've read that half of those who receive Social Security, have no other source of income. And currently, half of those in the U.S. who are close to retirement age, have no savings.
Private pensions have essentially been eliminated from the retirement system. The exception to this are government employees.
Many private companies have 401K plans, but the average employee doesn't have enough in these to make a substantial difference when it comes to retirement. Also, the value of these plans depends on the vagaries of the securities market.
Of course, large numbers of people rely on social security.
These things were never promised to them. I don't know where they got the idea, because I remember being a child in the early 90s and my mother who is now close to retirement getting statements on what she was entitled to. On the bottom is said something to the effect of this is not a retirement plan, you should have a retirement plan in place. I can't remember the exact wording. This wouldn't the first time the age was adjusted. Social security isn't a retirement plan and was never meant to be one. It only came into being when many elderly people were literally homeless. I feel bad if they can't afford their homes and car payments, but they have options. There is free (to them) transportation for the elderly. I think it's called access something. There's also senior housing that is income based. If they wanted to keep their homes and cares, they should have planned and doubled checked things.
[mod cut]
The bottom line of this reasoning is tantamount to accusing ordinary folks of being irresponsible for not having "enough" retirement savings ... what? in the hundreds of thousands $ or millions $ even??? ... when they hit their 60's.
The fact is this: millions of decent ordinary Americans were prevented from saving as much as they could have due to factors beyond their control ... divorce, family illness, bad investments, being victims of crimes and embezzlement, unemployment during recent Recessions in the 1990s and the great one in 2008.
Please don't lecture me about not buying my home until I was in my late 40s (and it won't be paid off until for another 15 years) ... but as a working class blue collar type of guy I was not able to buy one until then.
By the way "free public transportation" is a reality here in Philly because we have SEPTA; but my favorite uncle -83 years old - in NYC only gets a senior discount on using buses and the subway and still has to pay something like $1.25 per trip ... and he has a lot of doctor's appointments. My point ... MOST seniors do not get free transportation, just us lucky ones who live in cities where it is available.
Last edited by volosong; 12-11-2016 at 07:09 PM..
Reason: inflammatory, personal attack
Housing and transportation aren't the only expenses that the elderly have to deal with. Healthcare (Medicare is NOT free, and God only knows whether it'll be around in a few years), prescription drug costs (which could easily be in the hundreds for a senior), clothes, food... All essential items. Great to say "they should have planned and double checked things", but not everyone has/had the resources to save more, get a better job, whatever.
It was a lot easier to things back then. Are you really telling the generation with huge college debt (you need a degree for min wage jobs now a days) and insane real estate rates to feel bad for people who didn't save and plan for the future? That generation bankrupted mine. I don't feel bad for them as they were their own undoing. Yes, I know a lot about medical expenses, because I've never been able to afford health care.
The bottom line of this reasoning is tantamount to accusing ordinary folks of being irresponsible for not having "enough" retirement savings ... what? in the hundreds of thousands $ or millions $ even??? ... when they hit their 60's.
The fact is this: millions of decent ordinary Americans were prevented from saving as much as they could have due to factors beyond their control ... divorce, family illness, bad investments, being victims of crimes and embezzlement, unemployment during recent Recessions in the 1990s and the great one in 2008.
Please don't lecture me about not buying my home until I was in my late 40s (and it won't be paid off until for another 15 years) ... but as a working class blue collar type of guy I was not able to buy one until then.
By the way "free public transportation" is a reality here in Philly because we have SEPTA; but my favorite uncle -83 years old - in NYC only gets a senior discount on using buses and the subway and still has to pay something like $1.25 per trip ... and he has a lot of doctor's appointments. My point ... MOST seniors do not get free transportation, just us lucky ones who live in cities where it is available.
This is my whole point. People can't be bothered to plan and then complain. As I said earlier, things were easier and cheaper then. It's not that you or your uncle don't "know" of these services. It's more convenient to have a car you can't afford than to plan your trips around free services.
As I've said there is housing and services based on need/income for the elderly. Now, if you want to live in a home you can't afford instead of senior housing, that's not the tax payer's'/government's problem.
The fact is this: millions of decent ordinary Americans were prevented from saving as much as they could have due to factors beyond their control ... divorce, family illness, bad investments, being victims of crimes and embezzlement, unemployment during recent Recessions in the 1990s and the great one in 2008.
I am concerned about this proposal. I do understand that SS may need some changes but there are ways to tweak it that don't involve extreme cuts. One of the concerns is that this bill will cut benefits significantly for current beneficiaries who are not in a position usually to go earn some extra money. And, if you couple with potential increases to Medicare if privatization goes through it could be a real hit. I actually did some playing with the future budget to see what would happen to us if these cuts went through and if Medicare went up. Yes, we could survive (depends upon the Medicare increase), but our discretionary spending would take a big hit and we would need to downsize severely. Losing, say, 30% of income isn't trivial for most people and we are not in a position to suddenly go get more. Would we starve? No. But, we retired with the idea of having a retirement at a certain lifestyle and to suddenly go from that to something significantly different would be painful. Particularly when I don't think there is a necessity to have this kind of solution.
Those currently making at the upper end of SS ($2600/mo) would not suffer because to be bringing in that much in SS each month means they not only earned a lot but invested a lot and probably have good pensions as well
Many, many seniors bringing in say $1400 from SS and depending largely on that most likely have small pensions or none at all, unless they were say teachers who are bringing in a good chunk of their former salaries, and those who didn't pay in b/c they elected not to due to self-funding. These are the people who will suffer quite a bit, as even a 10% cut will bring down their small incomes and they'll have to spend their savings a lot faster.
Which will shoot gov't in the foot, b/c that will mean higher need for social assistance programs, the very ones that Republicans want to do away with. Food and rent assistance, etc would have to be forthcoming or a lot of seniors will be on the streets. Churches and other charitable orgs would not be able to keep up.
It was a lot easier to things back then. Are you really telling the generation with huge college debt (you need a degree for min wage jobs now a days) and insane real estate rates to feel bad for people who didn't save and plan for the future? That generation bankrupted mine. I don't feel bad for them as they were their own undoing. Yes, I know a lot about medical expenses, because I've never been able to afford health care.
Plenty of people my age (60's) had huge college debts to pay off too. And insane real estate rates? What are mortgage rates now; in the 3.5-4% range? Mortgage rates in the early 80's were in the double digits. Insane real estate PRICES? That I'd agree on, but a lot depends on where you're looking. New York, Boston, San Francisco - heck, even Denver right now - yes. But go to Phoenix or Houston or Dallas and real estate prices seem much more reasonable.
As I've said there is housing and services based on need/income for the elderly. Now, if you want to live in a home you can't afford instead of senior housing, that's not the tax payer's'/government's problem.
Affordable/subsidized senior housing typically has 3 to 5 year waiting lists. If you sell your home and make a profit, that easily impacts your eligibility or rent amount. And where does one live in the interim? Who rents to elderly with no job income and very little in SS? No owner I know.
And don't forget the fact that MANY social service programs will suffer deep funding cuts. Those who voted for this new administration, who fall into the lowest income bracket, are going to be much challenged along with others.
Reductions, if they do happen, won't take place overnight, which is why I asked earlier whether vulnerable seniors might now be making changes to their housing or locations now, in anticipation of what seems like a growing possibility.
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.
That generation bankrupted mine. I don't feel bad for them as they were their own undoing. Yes, I know a lot about medical expenses, because I've never been able to afford health care.