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 01-29-2017, 05:26 PM
 
1,520 posts, read 969,148 times
Reputation: 2858

Advertisements

OP created an account to post this and respond once. Hmmm ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-29-2017, 05:26 PM
 
Location: On the road
5,967 posts, read 2,905,907 times
Reputation: 11417
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlantaNative1968 View Post
This is a lesson to everyone out there in their 30s and younger. Don't even consider SS as potential income in retirement.
You believe the lesson to pass on is not to consider SS as potential income in retirement, and as proof you offer the fact you'll get $1,900 as income from it?


$1,900 is a nice chunk of change, it shouldn't be your only source of retirement income but to dismiss it as nothing and shouldn't be planned for seems a bit at odds with the realities of most retirees expenses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2017, 05:31 PM
 
2,446 posts, read 2,077,630 times
Reputation: 5706
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustMike77 View Post
Well, SS may be a "crock", but in 16 months that "crock" is due to pay me $ 2,584 per month for the rest of my life according to the notices they send me. That will cover my property taxes, my boat slip, my HOA dues, my utilities and my Medicare with some left over for Vegas. Life is SWEET!
I don't understand how you can get $2,584 a month when AtlantaNaive only gets $1,900 a month and has made more money than Trump.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2017, 05:37 PM
 
Location: On the road
5,967 posts, read 2,905,907 times
Reputation: 11417
Quote:
Originally Posted by silibran View Post
Of course, Congress has chosen to raid the SS fund to pay for things they did not want to raise taxes for. That is a horse that's already out of the barn.
This isn't really true, at least not from the implied angle of politicians making secret deals to fund pet projects by withdrawing from the social security fund.

The fund is invested in US government bonds, so like all government bonds the government pays interest to the ss trust fund and upon maturity repays the balance. If I buy government bonds as part of my investment portfolio it doesn't mean the government raided my savings account for things they didn't want to raise taxes for. I loaned the US government money with full faith that they will pay it back with interest, same as social security has. Sure they might use my money to pay for a $900 toilet seat but what they do with their funds isn't something that matters to me from a ledger side.

Information on SSA funding is all quite transparent and accessible, there has been no secret diverting of SS money to pet projects of legislators.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2017, 05:38 PM
 
2,446 posts, read 2,077,630 times
Reputation: 5706
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
You believe the lesson to pass on is not to consider SS as potential income in retirement, and as proof you offer the fact you'll get $1,900 as income from it?


$1,900 is a nice chunk of change, it shouldn't be your only source of retirement income but to dismiss it as nothing and shouldn't be planned for seems a bit at odds with the realities of most retirees expenses.
I believe the original poster is long gone and being disciplined by his parents for playing on their computer without asking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2017, 05:48 PM
 
9,222 posts, read 9,289,216 times
Reputation: 28908
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlantaNative1968 View Post
If ever there were an argument for privatizing Social Security... I am 55 years old. For over 20 years I have made over six figures a year. My mother, who is still alive at 86 and is getting my deceased father's social security, receives $1200 a month from the government. My father was an uneducated blue collar worker who never made more than 8 bucks an hour base pay. He retired at 62 back in the mid 80s, so he didn't get the full benefit. My mother never worked...a home maker her entire life. So...$1200 a month...which is based on meager increases over the last 15 years. Now me, I have worked constantly since I was 15 years old, the only gap is when I took a year off while going to school when I was in my early 20s. Over 20 years now I have made over $100K a year each year. According to the SSA.gov web site, my benefit if I retire at the same age that my dad did will be $1900 a month. Yes, only $700 more than my mother who never worked and my father who was a low income worker who retired early over 30 years ago.


I am speechless. Where the heck has all our money gone for these decades paying into the government fund? This is a lesson to everyone out there in their 30s and younger. Don't even consider SS as potential income in retirement. Save as much as you possibly can as early as you can and take advantage of as many investment opportunities as you can - like 401K and Roth IRAs. Your government is squandering your social security so do not expect to get anything resembling a return on what you are paying in.
Social Security should not be privatized. If it is privatized, returns cannot be guaranteed. Social Security is one of three prongs people should have in a retirement plan. The other two are a (1) a defined benefit pension; and (2) savings which can be done individually or through a 401K plan. Since, defined benefit retirement plans are vanishing, the retirement plan now may have only two prongs for most people. Its all the more reason why Social Security should not be tampered with.

I'm sorry if you think the return on your taxes is inadequate. I like the fact the fact that social security is a sure thing. I look at is as a base that I can build on.

I would also encourage you to work to age 70, instead of 62. Your monthly benefit will be much larger.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2017, 05:57 PM
 
9,222 posts, read 9,289,216 times
Reputation: 28908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
For your information:

1. The Social Security Benefit formulas are, and have been for a long time if not always, set up to give a greater percentage return to low wage earners than to high wage earners. So what you described is the system working as it's supposed to work. Yes, it's income redistribution, and we can be in favor of that in this case or we can be opposed to it, but that's the way Congress voted it to be a long time ago.

2. As others have said, it's insurance, not an individualized account set-up in the same sense as a 401(k). Ironically, what you are complaining about allows your mother to draw benefits although she never worked. That's part of what you (and all the rest of us) have been paying Social Security taxes for all these years, so people such as your own mother will not be totally destitute in old age.

Hopefully, you are beginning to understand why your own benefits are not more than they are.
Brilliant reply, E.R. I wish I could rep you, but have to spread some around first.

So many people are benefiting from government entitlement programs (or their close family members are) and they seem to think that money grows on trees. It doesn't. Someone, somewhere has to pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2017, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Retired
648 posts, read 498,737 times
Reputation: 1057
Social Security was designed so that middle class workers would subsidize the working poor in retirement, so that the wealthy would not have to.
There should be no bend points.
The working poor should get additional retirement income from general revenues, so that the wealthy contribute to the welfare of the poor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2017, 06:55 PM
 
Location: Washington State
18,614 posts, read 9,618,463 times
Reputation: 15850
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlantaNative1968 View Post
If ever there were an argument for privatizing Social Security... I am 55 years old. For over 20 years I have made over six figures a year. My mother, who is still alive at 86 and is getting my deceased father's social security, receives $1200 a month from the government. My father was an uneducated blue collar worker who never made more than 8 bucks an hour base pay. He retired at 62 back in the mid 80s, so he didn't get the full benefit. My mother never worked...a home maker her entire life. So...$1200 a month...which is based on meager increases over the last 15 years. Now me, I have worked constantly since I was 15 years old, the only gap is when I took a year off while going to school when I was in my early 20s. Over 20 years now I have made over $100K a year each year. According to the SSA.gov web site, my benefit if I retire at the same age that my dad did will be $1900 a month. Yes, only $700 more than my mother who never worked and my father who was a low income worker who retired early over 30 years ago.


I am speechless. Where the heck has all our money gone for these decades paying into the government fund? This is a lesson to everyone out there in their 30s and younger. Don't even consider SS as potential income in retirement. Save as much as you possibly can as early as you can and take advantage of as many investment opportunities as you can - like 401K and Roth IRAs. Your government is squandering your social security so do not expect to get anything resembling a return on what you are paying in.
If you haven't read the formula for how ss is calculated, you need to do so. So it's somewhat based on the more you pay, the more you receive but it's more based on basic income for just meeting the time requirements. I've also gone over the max the last 15 years so it helps a bit, but no way will I ever get back near what I paid in. Now I fear that will put future restrictions on it based on wealth which is leading me to likely start m ss when I hit 62.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2017, 06:58 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,756,785 times
Reputation: 32309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graywhiskers View Post
Social Security was designed so that middle class workers would subsidize the working poor in retirement, so that the wealthy would not have to.
There should be no bend points.
The working poor should get additional retirement income from general revenues, so that the wealthy contribute to the welfare of the poor.
When you look at the broader picture, general tax revenues are indeed contributing to the welfare of the poor. Food stamps, subsidized housing, Medicaid (different from Medicare), senior rides and other programs are not funded through Social Security.
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
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