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 11-11-2018, 07:04 PM
 
5,908 posts, read 2,025,973 times
Reputation: 5548

Advertisements

This Ponzi scam needs to end. Shut it down and give the stolen funds back to the victims.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-11-2018, 07:35 PM
 
Location: NC Piedmont
3,911 posts, read 2,880,277 times
Reputation: 6291
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieHere View Post
Some 80s something in my bridge club still ski, they often brag about the discount seniors get in Utah. But they are Swiss, very independent, reasonably healthy.
They are outliers; what he is proposing is playing the odds. The odds say it is unlikely that you will still be active in your 80s even if you take good care of yourself. It's not like you ca't be active and enjoy life with a limited budget. I have been a fisherman and owned and used some kind of watercraft, usually paddlecraft, nearly all my adult life. If you aren't picky about high end gear, they are pretty cheap hobbies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2018, 07:47 PM
 
Location: NC Piedmont
3,911 posts, read 2,880,277 times
Reputation: 6291
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantompilot View Post
This Ponzi scam needs to end. Shut it down and give the stolen funds back to the victims.
I disagree with the first sentence, but will set that debate aside for now. Lets look at your second sentence - what you propose is impossible. They can't give everyone their money back because it isn't there. I have been a high earner and I am closing on 30 max years. I am not going to get back what I put in but that's okay because that's how it is supposed to work. It's a social program, not a retirement investment fund. I am supposed to help pay for people who weren't as fortunate. This is not a con game they suddenly sprang on me; this has been clear to me for my entire career. It will provide me with a reasonable amount of money but if I wanted to plan for a more comfortable retirement, I needed to start saving money myself and I did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2018, 07:51 PM
 
Location: Idaho
4,628 posts, read 4,470,900 times
Reputation: 9060
^^^

Don't forget that our employers put in as much as we worker bees did. Are they going to get their money back too?
__________________


Moderator posts will always be Red and can only be discussed via Direct Message.
C-D Home page, TOS (Terms of Service), How to Search, FAQ's, Posting Guide
Moderator of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Guns and Hunting, and Weather


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2018, 07:54 PM
 
Location: Idaho
4,628 posts, read 4,470,900 times
Reputation: 9060
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRR View Post
Social Security better not run out of cash. I applied last month to have my benefits start December 1 with my first check in January.
I've decided to apply after the first of the year, with my first check coming in either March or April. I'll be age 67 1/2.
__________________


Moderator posts will always be Red and can only be discussed via Direct Message.
C-D Home page, TOS (Terms of Service), How to Search, FAQ's, Posting Guide
Moderator of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Guns and Hunting, and Weather


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2018, 08:01 PM
 
Location: NC Piedmont
3,911 posts, read 2,880,277 times
Reputation: 6291
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
From my perspective, the big laugh is anyone thinking that there is actually a Social Security Trust Fund. That money has already been spent. Itís politically impossible to cut benefits so taxes are going up eventually to pay for it. The program is 75% funded so itís not way off like many other government programs. The payout is massively progressive so it makes no sense to privatize it. The bottom 50% would starve.
It's largely semantics; a fund can have a balance without actually having cash to cover it. If you have a savings account with a large balance, they don't just hold it for you. They loan it out in mortgages and invest it in businesses. Sometimes they even buy government bonds, like the SSA does.

The balance is in guaranteed bonds and the federal government has never defaulted on them. They pay it back as the SSA needs it. Now what they are doing is blaming the SSA for making them pay it back faster than they would like and pointing out that if they pay it off as quickly the SSA will need all of it, it will be due to the SSA spending it a lot faster than they are bringing it in. Those currently in power want to shrink expenses, but the only way to do that is by breaking promises. Those at or near retirement don't like that. The other extreme for making it solvent is to start taking more without promising more. There isn't an answer that everyone is going to like
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2018, 08:21 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,745 posts, read 4,220,203 times
Reputation: 6866
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
This author does not understand actuarial science. The author does not understand even the basics of government funding.

For example, in the quote from the article that you posted:



Taxing away benefits does happen, but is irrelevant. The federal income tax revenue generated from taxing social security benefits does not go to the Social Security trust fund. Nor should it. As with all federal income tax revenue, it goes to the Treasury and is spent by our esteed Congress. It never goes to the Social Security Trust Fund.

The Motley Fool article printed by USA Today is not economic analysis. It is not financial analysis. I can't believe anyone reads this tripe, let alone writes it.
The revenue generated from taxing Social Security benefits is applied to the OASDI and Medicare Trust funds.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/

"Taxation of Social Security benefits is another source of income for the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Beneficiaries with incomes above $25,000 for individuals (or $32,000 for married couples filing jointly) pay income taxes on up to 50 percent of their benefits, with the revenues going to the OASDI trust funds. This income from taxation of benefits made up about 4 percent of Social Securityís income in 2017. Those with incomes above $34,000 (or $44,000 for married couples filing jointly) pay income taxes on up to 85 percent of benefits, with the additional revenues going to the Medicare trust fund. This income from taxation of benefits made up about 8 percent of HI Trust Fund income in 2017."

Nevertheless, I agree the USA Today article is ridiculous.

After watching way too many Social Security Committee hearings on CSpan last year, I can attest that the current crop of Republicans are only focusing on protecting the low income beneficiary while the Dems are intent on providing full benefits for all. Nothing new here, really.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2018, 08:31 PM
 
3,196 posts, read 1,816,163 times
Reputation: 8438
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
A much better reform is to raise retirement age.
In a world where people live longer by staying young longer AND healthier than ever before, I would agree. But today’s average 70 year old is no better equipped to continue a full time job than the 70 year olds from 20 or 50 years ago. The increase in average life span is in large part due to reductions in early death, not a general increase in the health of the elderly.

In addition, many people who lose their position after 55 or 60, due to no fault of their own, are simply unable to find comparable employment due to age discrimination, along with employers demanding a laundry list of bloated and unnecessary requirements that these older candidates are currently unable to fill and too old to be economically re-educated in.

When a 60 year-old middle manager at Sears Holdings is let go, she is very unlikely to find a position paying a living wage in her, or really any, field. What is she supposed to do to survive until she is 70, or whatever age you have in mind?

Last edited by rugrats2001; 11-11-2018 at 08:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2018, 08:43 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
101 posts, read 42,145 times
Reputation: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
A much better reform is to raise retirement age.
An even better way is to do both, raise the retirement age, and eliminate or raise the wage cap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2018, 02:27 AM
 
71,652 posts, read 71,801,099 times
Reputation: 49241
Make Ssdi part of welfare .. done ,the systems fixed
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