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 11-17-2018, 03:56 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,879 posts, read 42,096,122 times
Reputation: 43281

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
No, they won't. VERY few people wait until 70 (4% of women and 2% of men) , even if they say that they plan to - I can't imagine many would go later than that.

I wonder if it's because so many can't afford to wait and for the rest it makes up such a small percentage of their retirement income that they just don't bother?
Although "work" has changed from pushing stuff around to, in many cases, pushing electrons most people are worn out by 70. Keep in mind that denotes a work life of 50 years +/-.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-17-2018, 04:38 PM
 
71,501 posts, read 71,674,131 times
Reputation: 49079
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddm2k View Post
"the trust fund represents a legal obligation of the federal government to program beneficiaries. the government has borrowed nearly $2.8 trillion as of 2014 from the trust fund and used the money for other purposes. Under current law, when the program goes into an annual cash deficit, the government has to seek alternate funding beyond the payroll taxes dedicated to the program to cover the shortfall. This reduces the trust fund balance to the extent this occurs. the program deficits are expected to exhaust the fund by 2034. Thereafter, since social security is only authorized to pay beneficiaries what it collects in payroll taxes dedicated to the program, program payouts will fall by an estimated 21%."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social..._fund#overview
this is false! it is against the law . wikipedia is filled with wrong information. ss actually address this misinformation on their website .

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lets-de...security-myth/


from the ss website directly .

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."
Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

Last edited by mathjak107; 11-17-2018 at 04:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2018, 05:09 PM
 
3,723 posts, read 2,132,968 times
Reputation: 4304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
And that is a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eaton53 View Post
That's because Congress knows the money that wasn't deducted will be spent and not saved or invested.
There will be a whole generation of destitute people with no income who are too old to work.

As a Millennial, I have been paying SS deductions for the better part of 2 decades and counting and there won't be any SS for me when I get to retirement age. How is that a good deal for me? I've wanted to opt out of deductions my entire working life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2018, 05:20 PM
 
3,247 posts, read 845,371 times
Reputation: 3763
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ312 View Post
As a Millennial, I have been paying SS deductions for the better part of 2 decades and counting and there won't be any SS for me when I get to retirement age. How is that a good deal for me? I've wanted to opt out of deductions my entire working life.
Work for the railroad and your SS will be replaced by the Railroad Retirement Fund. Only type of work that will do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2018, 05:33 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
494 posts, read 381,978 times
Reputation: 1212
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddm2k View Post
Work for the railroad and your SS will be replaced by the Railroad Retirement Fund. Only type of work that will do it.

Or certain State and Local Governments - but then you'd be paying into THEIR retirement system instead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2018, 05:47 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
3,609 posts, read 1,625,423 times
Reputation: 6122
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ312 View Post
Throughout the entirety of my working career, I have been unhappy with paying the SS deductions from my paycheck. I wish that Millennials and Generation Z were allowed to opt out of SS deductions. I remember being upset as a teenager about SS deductions. No one in Congress has ever supported the idea.
Why do Xers get lumped in with the boomers? What do you think made us so cynical?

By the time all is said and done, wife and I, who are both self employed, will have paid $1M into this fiasco. As others have said, it will not be completely empty as contributions will continue, but the boomers can outvote is 2 to 1 will overwhelmingly vote to avoid a small cut now for all in lieu of dumping a much larger cut on the generation that follows, and the oldest boomers that survive. State and local pension plans are in an even worse situation.

The government will likely respond with more taxes or medical price controls. That’s negative for markets. If the long term outlook becomes bearish, sentiment tends to steer investment decisions, exacerbating the issue.

Remember the plan is to draw capital back to the US. To make the US the best place to sell to the US.

Right or wrong, honorably or not, a plan to attempt to partially grow and partially cut into a solution just got derailed, and the market is trying to determine the impact. In the meantime the fed can claim easy victory on holding the line in a growing environment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2018, 05:49 PM
 
Location: A safe distance from San Francisco
8,542 posts, read 6,140,235 times
Reputation: 8468
Quote:
Originally Posted by djplourd View Post
https://www.fedsmith.com/2018/09/09/...cial-security/

Saving Social Security comes down to two choices. We can cut the benefits of those who have already paid an enormous price to fix Social Security once, or we can ask workers who donít believe that they will ever get paid to contribute more.

Authorís note: Readers are going to ask about increasing the cap on taxable wages. I suspect that some change in the tax base is unavoidable, but (1) Eliminating the cap doesnít fix the problem. It does not even officially kick the can anymore. (2) The policy introduces structural changes to the program which will over time crash the program. This solution appeals to the people who wish to throw other peopleís money at the problem. I am happy to take questions in the comments.
Forty years ago many were skeptical that boomers would ever see Social Security. By the early 80s, Social Security denial (that it would survive) was almost a fad.

It survived and millions who swore they'd never see it are getting it today. The short answer is yes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2018, 05:51 PM
 
3,247 posts, read 845,371 times
Reputation: 3763
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyInSD View Post
Or certain State and Local Governments - but then you'd be paying into THEIR retirement system instead.
Right but THEIR retirement system doesn't pay SSDI benefits to the disabled who collect for 4-5x longer than they've worked...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2018, 06:25 PM
 
3,723 posts, read 2,132,968 times
Reputation: 4304
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
Forty years ago many were skeptical that boomers would ever see Social Security. By the early 80s, Social Security denial (that it would survive) was almost a fad.

It survived and millions who swore they'd never see it are getting it today. The short answer is yes.
My Boomer mom was a part of that in the 1980s as mentioned earlier and is now collecting.


Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
Why do Xers get lumped in with the boomers? What do you think made us so cynical?

In a lot of generational discussions, Gen X is not discussed at length because it is a comparatively smaller generation. X'ers day in the sun in terms of cultural importance is now a part of the past. A lot of Millennials are now even past their primes culturally. Generation Z is the rising generation as its oldest members are now in their early 20s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2018, 07:05 PM
 
581 posts, read 177,818 times
Reputation: 2167
IMHO, Social Security is an extremely important system and keeps millions out of poverty; we need to keep it solvent as it is part of the glue that keeps us together as a Republic.

That being said, I believe the system is in trouble primarily because of faulty assumptions made over the years with respect to longevity. The contributions to the system simply did not keep up with the fact that we are living much longer today than when the program was started. So, we "all" need to take the hit on fixing it. Personally, I'd like to see the annual inflation increase reduced by some small amount, this would affect people collecting today and in the future, and have a large impact due to the time factor on money.

That being said, a popular sentiment is that Social Security is upside down due to the large increase of immigrants coming into the country since the 1970's - the scenario starts with "Someone immigrates here, brings his parents over, puts them to work at minimum wage in their convenience store for the minimum period, and then they start collecting SS". I'd like to see someone knowledgeable provide the real statistics on this. Another negative influence on the system has been the rapid rise of folks getting disability payments, a lot of which has been attributed to the lousy job climate after the 2008 recession.

I've had a theory for a while that the country is going to take a major financial hit when the boomers finally retire and those contributions stop flowing into the system, their replacements are likely to be paid at lower wages and benefits, and there will be a noticeable shortfall. And, with so many people having saved so little on their own, most middle-class folks are going to have to slash their standard of living if their only income is social security. Bottom line, I see a major economic slowdown coming in the next ten or fifteen years - how can it not take the stock market with it?
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