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 08-17-2019, 12:36 PM
 
11,070 posts, read 9,462,386 times
Reputation: 6776

Advertisements

Let's get away from the weather tangent.

Assuming the original premise is correct (that there are a large percentage of baby boomers hitting retirement with little or no savings, and little or no other retirement income besides Social Security), what will be the political implications of this?

Fold into this the fact that the Social Security trust fund has essentially been spend down funding the huge deficits the general fund has been running for decades, and large tax increase will be necessary to keep paying those benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-17-2019, 12:49 PM
 
Location: SoCal
13,840 posts, read 6,596,086 times
Reputation: 10412
Did you see the thread recently about retiring in Mexico for $1000 a month.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2019, 01:37 PM
 
100 posts, read 27,853 times
Reputation: 411
Oh well. You reap what you sow.

Besides, there are all sorts of programs for impoverished elderly people such as subsidized senior housing, food stamps, etc. I feel sorry for people in poor third world countries who end up on the streets in old age, not self-indulgent boomers in the U.S. who didn't bother to save for retirement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2019, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
8,101 posts, read 4,955,028 times
Reputation: 29596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surfer Guy View Post
Oh well. You reap what you sow.

Besides, there are all sorts of programs for impoverished elderly people such as subsidized senior housing, food stamps, etc.

Not to mention Medicaid or "Extra Help" with Medicare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2019, 06:56 PM
 
2,490 posts, read 638,796 times
Reputation: 4333
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
Assuming the original premise is correct (that there are a large percentage of baby boomers hitting retirement with little or no savings, and little or no other retirement income besides Social Security), what will be the political implications of this?
I'm not so sure the original premise is particularly reliable. I'm sure there are many who are ill-prepared, financially, and of course they will have many financial difficulties. At the same time, I don't believe there is a large swath of boomers attempting to retire with little or no assets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:47 PM
 
Location: Forest bathing
1,672 posts, read 1,004,698 times
Reputation: 3930
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShadow View Post
I looked it up and I scored a 6! Fortunately higher risk doesn't always predict outcome. I'm very happy to be the exception to the rule.
My score was 5. We are retired and doing fine as we are frugal and a paid off home. You and I did okay despite the abuse and other traumatizing events. I often wonder how much better I could have done with out the childhood that has been characterized as Severe Childhood Trauma. I am glad you are okay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:39 AM
 
14,287 posts, read 7,630,536 times
Reputation: 26120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surfer Guy View Post
Oh well. You reap what you sow.

Besides, there are all sorts of programs for impoverished elderly people such as subsidized senior housing, food stamps, etc. I feel sorry for people in poor third world countries who end up on the streets in old age, not self-indulgent boomers in the U.S. who didn't bother to save for retirement.
The number of people age 65+ is expected to almost double from todayís 50 million to 95 million in 2060. The resources arenít there to cope with the elderly poor. There is no mass project to construct elderly housing. Most Medicaid-funded nursing homes are barely surviving and itís more likely they close than the private sector invest to double capacity. The states, or at least the affluent ones, pay 50% of the Medicaid bill. Right now, long term care is about 30% of Medicaid spending. It is going to be more than half in 30 years and crush state budgets. Medicare isnít funded properly. Social Security isnít funded properly. A late boomer isnít going to be receiving the same elderly safety net when they run out of money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:17 AM
 
Location: Grove City, Ohio
10,169 posts, read 12,474,979 times
Reputation: 14126
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
Let's get away from the weather tangent.

Assuming the original premise is correct (that there are a large percentage of baby boomers hitting retirement with little or no savings, and little or no other retirement income besides Social Security), what will be the political implications of this?

Fold into this the fact that the Social Security trust fund has essentially been spend down funding the huge deficits the general fund has been running for decades, and large tax increase will be necessary to keep paying those benefits.
From The Motley Fool

The No-Nonsense Way to Save Social Security
No frills here. Just a simple solution right under the noses of lawmakers that would fix Social Security for 75 years.


Quote:
In 2016, based on the estimates of the Trustees, the actuarial deficit stood at 2.66% over the next 75 years. In easy-to-understand terms, a 2.66% increase to the payroll tax instituted in 2016 should be enough, based on the estimates of the Trustees, to keep Social Security payouts on their current trajectory without a reduction.
That is a total 2.66% which, when split between the employee and employer, comes to just 1.33% which works out to less than $14 extra in payroll taxes per week.

What I find amazing is the number of people crying over the demise of private pensions but the thought of a couple extra bucks to social security is unthinkable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:28 AM
 
14,287 posts, read 7,630,536 times
Reputation: 26120
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
What I find amazing is the number of people crying over the demise of private pensions but the thought of a couple extra bucks to social security is unthinkable.

The Social Security program is pretty much cash flow neutral right now. There is absolutely no reason to hike payroll taxes today since the money will merely get "borrowed" and spent as general funds. It's totally reasonable that corporate America and the affluent people who own the stock are fighting any tax hike and advocating mass cuts in the program. They pay 50% of it. Every extra dollar they pay in payroll taxes is a dollar less profit.


Personally, I think the Social Security tax rate should be changed to make it variable. Keep the program cash flow neutral. In 2020, it might need to go from 6.2% to 6.3%. Stop the whole charade of "Trust Fund". That money was spent years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:56 AM
 
2,371 posts, read 830,217 times
Reputation: 6066
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
The number of people age 65+ is expected to almost double from todayís 50 million to 95 million in 2060. The resources arenít there to cope with the elderly poor. There is no mass project to construct elderly housing. Most Medicaid-funded nursing homes are barely surviving and itís more likely they close than the private sector invest to double capacity. The states, or at least the affluent ones, pay 50% of the Medicaid bill. Right now, long term care is about 30% of Medicaid spending. It is going to be more than half in 30 years and crush state budgets. Medicare isnít funded properly. Social Security isnít funded properly. A late boomer isnít going to be receiving the same elderly safety net when they run out of money.
This is my concern. As states find it harder and harder to pay for LTC for all the elderly who don't have funds, care will deteriorate and eligibility requirements will be tightened. And the rest of us will be taxed more to pay for 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

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