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 09-01-2017, 06:31 PM
 
4,431 posts, read 2,608,360 times
Reputation: 10299

Advertisements

As I always understood it, social SECURITY was to provide seniors with SECURITY...for the basics of life.

It WAS to provide the basics, additional income was to come from pensions and the final leg of the " tripod of retirement income" was to be their own savings.

The problem IS, many can't save as they'd like, many don't have pensions any more.

I am near the end of the boomers, born the year before the boomers ended. But because I am born 1960 and after, we are screwed out of 1/3 of the POTENTIAL SS I would get if I was born BEFORE 1960. My OH, who doesn't have as an extensive work history as I, could potentially get the SAME benefit, or HIGHER than I for working LESS than I, as my OH was born in 1959.

DURING the early and mid 80s I was always well above minimum wage, received regular raises and saved money. Then come 1989, and the depression ( mild if you want to call it that), my wages more or less froze. I'm making about $1.50 more than I was in 1989, and about the same $1.50 over minimum wage now. I should be making $20-22/hr or so if I was to make the equivalent today of what I was making in 1989. But am I? Resounding NO. In other words, minimum wage has doubled, but I'm making just over it, compared to making double minimum wage in 1989. Same state, similar job, different decade, BIG difference.

I WAS able to save money for my share of the retirement tripod.

But I have NEVER worked where I had a pension. Pensions were on their way out for my types of jobs in 1980 when I started working. Saving into a 401k meant I was carrying, or trying to carry TWO legs of the tripod. BUT it had the employer match. The very first 401k I had, the employer match was $1for $1, then it was cut back to $0.50 match per dollar I put in. The next 401k at a different job the match was $0.25 for only the first 5% I put away. The worst match I ever had was $0.03 on the first 1% I put into it! It WAS free money, but wasn't worth the effort to put it into the 401 plan!!! I could do better saving on my own in my money market account, or CDs, or even risking in the stock market.

Now I had several severe medical issues that caused me to go through all my savings and retirement, paying the penalty for early withdrawal. So I was forced to use those funds to stay alive.

Now I can't save anywhere near what I was able to save in the 80s, now I can't afford the "extras" I used to could in the 80s ( vacation Every year to Disney world fir a week, then to visit my grandma for a week before leaving FL for home in the NE, an expensive brand new vehicle, and other extras as examples of what I used to do), all the while saving money for retirement. Those days are gone. Now a major vacation went from every year to every 3-5 years, to every 5-8 years to now I think I can go on one every 8-10 years. Sure I can do weekenders, but nothing major for 8-10 to 10 years?

Now I'm in my 50s, my OH has two part time jobs that still don't come close to full time, and due to those medical issues I have/have had SSDI for years, but now am forced to work a part time job to my physical limitations, just to really get by. We now have FOUR incomes instead of just two, one for each of us.i am a "working person with disabilities", as opposed to just disabled. I have to be because eventually my SSDI would turn to permanent SS, and would be a pittance in 20 years or so. It already IS a pittance. That's why I've had to go back to work, I can not physically or mentally handle full time.

Even without the medical issues, I would be in the same or similar boat to what I am now.

So I've worked full time, or part time or off and on for 30 years, and don't have what I was forcast to have when I started earning a full-time paycheck at the age of 18(well I started at 17, as I graduated from high school at 17).

So I am to rely on SS for not just 1/3 of my retirement income, but more like 75% or more of my retirement income. More are in the same kind of boat, na, canoe I'm in today due to corporate GREEd, and the 1%-ers fleecing the money from the 99%-ers.

In.my retirement years, there won't BE any economy, the 99%-ers WON'T have it to spend to make the economy go round and round.

Sad that I have to rely on the SECURITY for basic life needs to become my MAJOR support just to afford those basic needs.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-01-2017, 08:06 PM
 
Location: DFW - Coppell / Las Colinas
31,985 posts, read 36,613,387 times
Reputation: 38584
Quote:
Originally Posted by galaxyhi View Post
As I always understood it, social SECURITY was to provide seniors with SECURITY...for the basics of life.

It WAS to provide the basics, additional income was to come from pensions and the final leg of the " tripod of retirement income" was to be their own savings.

The problem IS, many can't save as they'd like, many don't have pensions any more.

I am near the end of the boomers, born the year before the boomers ended. But because I am born 1960 and after, we are screwed out of 1/3 of the POTENTIAL SS I would get if I was born BEFORE 1960. My OH, who doesn't have as an extensive work history as I, could potentially get the SAME benefit, or HIGHER than I for working LESS than I, as my OH was born in 1959.



Now I had several severe medical issues that caused me to go through all my savings and retirement, paying the penalty for early withdrawal. So I was forced to use those funds to stay alive.


Sad that I have to rely on the SECURITY for basic life needs to become my MAJOR support just to afford those basic needs.
Just think, 70+ years ago you might be begging in the streets or dead by the time you reached 50.

Me, I'd be grateful that I lived in a system where I could get some health care and support. That to me would be some security.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2017, 02:36 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, AK
7,236 posts, read 4,128,251 times
Reputation: 15605
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
It is impossible for Social Security to be a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme one eventually runs out of other peoples money but in the case of Social Security it will NEVER run out because they can simply print more which they will do.
Printing money has its limitations too, as the Weimar Republic found out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2017, 05:43 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,729,443 times
Reputation: 32304
Quote:
Originally Posted by galaxyhi View Post
As I always understood it, social SECURITY was to provide seniors with SECURITY...for the basics of life.

It WAS to provide the basics, additional income was to come from pensions and the final leg of the " tripod of retirement income" was to be their own savings.

The problem IS, many can't save as they'd like, many don't have pensions any more.

I am near the end of the boomers, born the year before the boomers ended. But because I am born 1960 and after, we are screwed out of 1/3 of the POTENTIAL SS I would get if I was born BEFORE 1960. My OH, who doesn't have as an extensive work history as I, could potentially get the SAME benefit, or HIGHER than I for working LESS than I, as my OH was born in 1959.

DURING the early and mid 80s I was always well above minimum wage, received regular raises and saved money. Then come 1989, and the depression ( mild if you want to call it that), my wages more or less froze. I'm making about $1.50 more than I was in 1989, and about the same $1.50 over minimum wage now. I should be making $20-22/hr or so if I was to make the equivalent today of what I was making in 1989. But am I? Resounding NO. In other words, minimum wage has doubled, but I'm making just over it, compared to making double minimum wage in 1989. Same state, similar job, different decade, BIG difference.

I WAS able to save money for my share of the retirement tripod.

But I have NEVER worked where I had a pension. Pensions were on their way out for my types of jobs in 1980 when I started working. Saving into a 401k meant I was carrying, or trying to carry TWO legs of the tripod. BUT it had the employer match. The very first 401k I had, the employer match was $1for $1, then it was cut back to $0.50 match per dollar I put in. The next 401k at a different job the match was $0.25 for only the first 5% I put away. The worst match I ever had was $0.03 on the first 1% I put into it! It WAS free money, but wasn't worth the effort to put it into the 401 plan!!! I could do better saving on my own in my money market account, or CDs, or even risking in the stock market.

Now I had several severe medical issues that caused me to go through all my savings and retirement, paying the penalty for early withdrawal. So I was forced to use those funds to stay alive.

Now I can't save anywhere near what I was able to save in the 80s, now I can't afford the "extras" I used to could in the 80s ( vacation Every year to Disney world fir a week, then to visit my grandma for a week before leaving FL for home in the NE, an expensive brand new vehicle, and other extras as examples of what I used to do), all the while saving money for retirement. Those days are gone. Now a major vacation went from every year to every 3-5 years, to every 5-8 years to now I think I can go on one every 8-10 years. Sure I can do weekenders, but nothing major for 8-10 to 10 years?

Now I'm in my 50s, my OH has two part time jobs that still don't come close to full time, and due to those medical issues I have/have had SSDI for years, but now am forced to work a part time job to my physical limitations, just to really get by. We now have FOUR incomes instead of just two, one for each of us.i am a "working person with disabilities", as opposed to just disabled. I have to be because eventually my SSDI would turn to permanent SS, and would be a pittance in 20 years or so. It already IS a pittance. That's why I've had to go back to work, I can not physically or mentally handle full time.

Even without the medical issues, I would be in the same or similar boat to what I am now.

So I've worked full time, or part time or off and on for 30 years, and don't have what I was forcast to have when I started earning a full-time paycheck at the age of 18(well I started at 17, as I graduated from high school at 17).

So I am to rely on SS for not just 1/3 of my retirement income, but more like 75% or more of my retirement income. More are in the same kind of boat, na, canoe I'm in today due to corporate GREEd, and the 1%-ers fleecing the money from the 99%-ers.

In.my retirement years, there won't BE any economy, the 99%-ers WON'T have it to spend to make the economy go round and round.

Sad that I have to rely on the SECURITY for basic life needs to become my MAJOR support just to afford those basic needs.


You have been through some very rough times, and I do not wish to make light of that. However, you did contradict yourself if you read the two parts of your post which I bolded above. In the first bolded section, you say you used ALL your savings and retirement funds to pay medical expenses. Then in the second part, you say that didn't really make any difference. But yes, it DID make a difference. Your retirement wouldn't be looking so bleak if you still had that considerable amount of money which you spent on medical costs. In addition, that money would have grown in the meantime.


Your bitterness may be understandable, but it has caused you to mis-state certain facts. Here I am talking about the 1%-ers and the 99%-ers. If you care to look all that up, which I am too lazy to do right now, you will find that a person who is, say, at the top 10% level is very well off indeed, and that a person at the top 20% level is also doing quite well. A 50%-er is not really that badly off either.


As for the economy of the future, I don't worry much about it, because most people will still have money to spend to "make it go round and round" as you say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2017, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Land of Free Johnson-Weld-2016
6,473 posts, read 13,945,676 times
Reputation: 6436
Your bitterness may be understandable, but it has caused you to mis-state certain facts...
Escort rider, I'm stealing this for my account motto.
Such a quotable quote.
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