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 06-11-2019, 05:50 AM
 
Location: Beautiful Rhode Island
6,844 posts, read 11,111,158 times
Reputation: 6837

Advertisements

I don't understand why people would complain about having our social security program. It's one of the best plans on the planet and every person who gets it in their 60s is grateful for having participated. If anyone doesn't want it, they don't have to apply for it.

As has been pointed out, it's the growth of SSDI that's been an issue.

If you want to complain, complain about how the very wealthiest among us don't pay income taxes and how the tax falls disproportionately on the middle incomes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-11-2019, 06:03 AM
 
Location: Loudon, TN
5,769 posts, read 4,827,803 times
Reputation: 19395
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineman View Post
Because of a higher birth rate, there are far more boomers than there are those of "the invisible generation" (born 1945 & earlier). Therefor Boomers collect more $$$.
Because of a higher birth rate, there are far more boomers than there are those of "the invisible generation" (born 1945 & earlier). Therefore they PUT IN more $$$ too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 06:05 AM
 
20,725 posts, read 13,734,475 times
Reputation: 14393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollytree View Post
I don't understand why people would complain about having our social security program. It's one of the best plans on the planet and every person who gets it in their 60s is grateful for having participated. If anyone doesn't want it, they don't have to apply for it.

As has been pointed out, it's the growth of SSDI that's been an issue.

If you want to complain, complain about how the very wealthiest among us don't pay income taxes and how the tax falls disproportionately on the middle incomes.
Wealthy persons do pay income tax, in fact they pay a majority of such taxes collected along with corporations. Whether or not either pay their "fair share" depends upon who one asks on the matter.


Social Security and Medicare taxation only cover earned income, always have and that is how things were designed. Those whose income derives from unearned sources (rents, interest, capital gains, etc..) neither pay into SS, but also do not receive benefits either.


Persons who have various sources of income both earned and unearned do pay FICA taxes and as a result receive benefits. DT receives SS payments IIRC, and many highly suspect his youngest son claims as well since the Donald was quite old when his last child was born.


In any event as another posted already stated, the poor/lower income persons receive far more bang for their SS contributions than others. Low income earnings quarters are weighted higher to adjust benefits so those receiving get more than they otherwise would based on a straight average.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 06:19 AM
 
Location: Loudon, TN
5,769 posts, read 4,827,803 times
Reputation: 19395
One thing I don't understand is why they still let ex-spouses collect on their ex's earnings, even if they've been divorced from them for 30 years. Some have even re-married, and then gotten divorced again, and then that individual would still get to collect based upon the first spouse's earnings. I understand why it was put in place, but there is a need for some tweaking there. If I was making $2k a month while married to my first spouse, and got divorced after 10 years (I did), and then by the time I retired 30 years later, I was making 6 figures, why would the ex get to collect based upon all those years of my earning the big bucks when we were divorced (and he was re-married)? Since he's been divorced 4 times, in theory he could just pick whichever ex-wife would give him the highest benefit, as long as the marriage was 10 years+.

Fortunately he's older than me, so he's probably already claimed his own benefit, but this seems like a benefit that should be eliminated some X number of years after the divorce.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 06:57 AM
 
Location: east TN
265 posts, read 73,866 times
Reputation: 1024
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasperhobbs View Post
SS payouts are dependent on working people contributions to keep it going. I foresee 2 things happening n the future to continue the payouts.

1) The percentage deducted from workers paychecks increased.

2) Retirement age increased to 68, then 69 and topping at 70 to receive FRA.

When they can print money, they don't have to resort to either of those political hot potatoes. The fact it dilutes the value of the payout is lost on most people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 07:02 AM
 
2,087 posts, read 706,293 times
Reputation: 5337
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
nonsense ... that is not how insurance works nor annuities ... annuities have those who die pay for those who live. I suggest you google these things to see how it works ..you can start by looking up mortality credits.

Annuities take the money from those who die daily and throw it back in to the pool where the mortality credits are added to the payout fund . the flow rate you get is based on current interest rates and mortality credits from the future dead .
I totally agree with that description. The difference between SS and a block of annuity business written by an insurance company is that if an insurance company stopped selling annuities and has adequate reserves (which is required by regulations), it would have enough to pay all claims and expenses going forward till the last insured died.

We could not do that with SS. Part of the money being paid in by younger workers is going into the pockets of current recipients. Heck, one of my friends on FB published a video of Robert Reich talking about how to fix SS and one of his ideas was to bring in more immigrants because they could pay into SS. Reich is glib and funny and draws cute little cartoons, but ! Unless some of the payroll taxes by these new entrants are being used to subsidize payments to current recipients, this would be no help at all. Remember also that when one of the Bush presidents proposed allowing people to keep some of their SS payroll taxes in individual IRA-type accounts that they could control, this was one of the problems with it. SS NEEDED that money to pay current recipients.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 07:05 AM
 
Location: east TN
265 posts, read 73,866 times
Reputation: 1024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollytree View Post
I don't understand why people would complain about having our social security program.



Yep....as Margaret Thatcher (former British PM) said "Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money"


Ida Mae Fuller is the poster child for why it can't work. You can't have a program based on folks paying in far less than they get back and it succeed in the long run....especially with a declining population paying in. The solution will be to print the money decreasing the value of every month's payout until the money is worthless......exactly what Alan Greenspan told Congress:


"We can absolutely guarantee payment, we can not guarantee purchasing power".....you'll get your check, but it may not buy much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 07:28 AM
 
36 posts, read 11,571 times
Reputation: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tn_eddy View Post
Ida Mae Fuller is the poster child for why it can't work. You can't have a program based on folks paying in far less than they get back and it succeed in the long run....especially with a declining population paying in.
You can as long as only a very few people are like Ida; some people only make one or two life insurance payments and then die, as long as the vast majority keep paying the insurance company will make a profit.
SS needs to cut back on some of the benefits paid to people that have not paid into the system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 07:38 AM
 
71,511 posts, read 71,674,131 times
Reputation: 49088
Quote:
Originally Posted by athena53 View Post
I totally agree with that description. The difference between SS and a block of annuity business written by an insurance company is that if an insurance company stopped selling annuities and has adequate reserves (which is required by regulations), it would have enough to pay all claims and expenses going forward till the last insured died.

We could not do that with SS. Part of the money being paid in by younger workers is going into the pockets of current recipients. Heck, one of my friends on FB published a video of Robert Reich talking about how to fix SS and one of his ideas was to bring in more immigrants because they could pay into SS. Reich is glib and funny and draws cute little cartoons, but ! Unless some of the payroll taxes by these new entrants are being used to subsidize payments to current recipients, this would be no help at all. Remember also that when one of the Bush presidents proposed allowing people to keep some of their SS payroll taxes in individual IRA-type accounts that they could control, this was one of the problems with it. SS NEEDED that money to pay current recipients.
this is simply not true about having 100% reserves for insurers ....it is determined by each states insurance board ... it is also based on projected income , not projected claims . Usually, the reserve requirement amounts to 10 to 12 percent of the insurer’s revenue.


https://www.finweb.com/insurance/how...etermined.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 08:05 AM
 
2,087 posts, read 706,293 times
Reputation: 5337
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
this is simply not true about having 100% reserves for insurers ....it is determined by each states insurance board ... it is also based on projected income , not projected claims . Usually, the reserve requirement amounts to 10 to 12 percent of the insurerís revenue.


https://www.finweb.com/insurance/how...etermined.html
I agree with that link as far as ongoing business. People buy annuities, they keep paying premiums to the insurance company, they collect payments when they reach the agreed-upon age. Some people die before that age and their premiums fund the payouts to people who live long enough to collect. (Ignoring Guaranteed Minimum Death Benefits, Survivor benefits, etc.)

BUT... if you sell deferred annuities starting at age 65 to a group of 25-year olds in 2019 do any of THEIR premiums go to pay the people who are now collecting? The cash from their premiums might go out the door to the older cohort but the company still needs to set up reserves (and have assets underlying those reserves) for the promises they've made to the 25-year olds. If SS were doing that correctly the trust fund wouldn't be on the road to being empty in 2034, or whatever the latest estimate is.
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

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