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.
In 2015 the median income is $52,250
Using the quick calculator on the SS website, a salary of $36,000 would result in a Social Security benefit of $1108.
Net pay (after tax but no deductions for health care or other benefits) for $36,000 a year is about $29,822 or $2485 a month. I suppose in some states you could save money if you were living on $621 a week, I think it is a vast overstatement to infer that 'everyone' could.
I made more than the median wage in the 70's and 80's and could not save more than 3 or 4 thousand dollars because I was a single mom, paying a mortgage and paying for child care for my boys while I worked. At that time I intentionally went to work for a public agency because I wanted a pension. After my kids were raised I began saving, but I would not have been able to save enough to retire without that pension.
She lives on 18k now. How is it possible that she was unable to save when her income was 36k, but yet now lives on half that. Those two "facts" seem to contradict each other, don't they?
I think your estimate of her working income is a bit low as her net benefit already has Medicare premium deducted, but let's go with it.
If she had saved/invested 2k per year while living on 34k, and assuming 35 years at 7% and a 4% withdrawal rate, she would now have another 11k of annual income. That would have made quite a difference to her lifestyle now.
Please do not take creative license with my statements. I did not "infer that everyone could" (save for retirement, I suppose you mean). What I stated was that SS benefits are not intended to replace 100% of anyone's income. Do you dispute this?
And yes, I know all about how challenging it can be to be a single mom with two kids and a mortgage, fitting that description myself.
She lives on 18k now. How is it possible that she was unable to save when her income was 36k, but yet now lives on half that. Those two "facts" seem to contradict each other, don't they?
I think your estimate of her working income is a bit low as her net benefit already has Medicare premium deducted, but let's go with it.
If she had saved/invested 2k per year while living on 34k, and assuming 35 years at 7% and a 4% withdrawal rate, she would now have another 11k of annual income. That would have made quite a difference to her lifestyle now.
Please do not take creative license with my statements. I did not "infer that everyone could" (save for retirement, I suppose you mean). What I stated was that SS benefits are not intended to replace 100% of anyone's income. Do you dispute this?
And yes, I know all about how challenging it can be to be a single mom with two kids and a mortgage, fitting that description myself.
1/2 of her gross is not 1/2 of her net, but I don't want to argue about that..it's what it is.
And I don't disagree that SS was not intended to replace 100% of a persons income, I never did dispute that. I just get really tired of hearing about how situations where people are truly living on an extraordinarily limited income are due to some shortcoming or lack of character. I'm way too sensitive about that, and I admit that because I am inundated with comments of that nature on C-D.
Maybe rather than dispute whether Granny can live on SS alone, or both of us doing clever calculations to argue over whether or not she could have actually saved money... maybe we should have a discussion about what WE can do to convince our congressional reps that there needs to be a system where people without pensions pay part of their income into a 401k, make it mandatory but give some small tax offset to reduce the damage to their take home pay if they are low income. Or, encourage collective bargaining and let a unionized workforce find a solution to this by working this out in concert with their employers. I don't have all the answers, but I know that a good number of people are victims of circumstances rather than a lack of character or intelligence.
1/2 of her gross is not 1/2 of her net, but I don't want to argue about that..it's what it is.
And I don't disagree that SS was not intended to replace 100% of a persons income, I never did dispute that. I just get really tired of hearing about how situations where people are truly living on an extraordinarily limited income are due to some shortcoming or lack of character. I'm way too sensitive about that, and I admit that because I am inundated with comments of that nature on C-D.
Maybe rather than dispute whether Granny can live on SS alone, or both of us doing clever calculations to argue over whether or not she could have actually saved money... maybe we should have a discussion about what WE can do to convince our congressional reps that there needs to be a system where people without pensions pay part of their income into a 401k, make it mandatory but give some small tax offset to reduce the damage to their take home pay if they are low income. Or, encourage collective bargaining and let a unionized workforce find a solution to this by working this out in concert with their employers. I don't have all the answers, but I know that a good number of people are victims of circumstances rather than a lack of character or intelligence.
I wouldn't trust such a system. Why? The government would raid it too just like everything else.
I wouldn't trust such a system. Why? The government would raid it too just like everything else.
I don't even want to tell you how much we lost when the too big to fail banks collapsed, so given the choice between trusting them, and trusting the government I choose the latter.
1/2 of her gross is not 1/2 of her net, but I don't want to argue about that..it's what it is.
And I don't disagree that SS was not intended to replace 100% of a persons income, I never did dispute that. I just get really tired of hearing about how situations where people are truly living on an extraordinarily limited income are due to some shortcoming or lack of character. I'm way too sensitive about that, and I admit that because I am inundated with comments of that nature on C-D.
Maybe rather than dispute whether Granny can live on SS alone, or both of us doing clever calculations to argue over whether or not she could have actually saved money... maybe we should have a discussion about what WE can do to convince our congressional reps that there needs to be a system where people without pensions pay part of their income into a 401k, make it mandatory but give some small tax offset to reduce the damage to their take home pay if they are low income. Or, encourage collective bargaining and let a unionized workforce find a solution to this by working this out in concert with their employers. I don't have all the answers, but I know that a good number of people are victims of circumstances rather than a lack of character or intelligence.
Yeah, I don't feel I need to justify other people's comments.
Everyone with earned income has the option of contributing to their own IRA, traditional or Roth or both. There are the tax breaks built into the accounts, plus the Retirement Savers Credit for those who are low income.
One great option available for those with not much to get started is the company Betterment. There are no account minimums, you can open an account with $.01. The fees at Betterment are quite reasonable; they invest via etfs and add an additional layer of fees for themselves. Even so, the fee structure is substantially lower than many employer retirement plans (401k, 403b, etc.).
My point was simply that if there is indeed an abundance of fraud occurring, as others have suggested, that it's not because Average Joe/Jane is submitting an application expecting instantaneous addition to the doles.
"Others" have no idea what they are talking about. They've made their opinions facts based on anecdotes.
The truth is that you never even see most people who are disabled since they are homebound.
She lives on 18k now. How is it possible that she was unable to save when her income was 36k, but yet now lives on half that. Those two "facts" seem to contradict each other, don't they?
I think your estimate of her working income is a bit low as her net benefit already has Medicare premium deducted, but let's go with it.
If she had saved/invested 2k per year while living on 34k, and assuming 35 years at 7% and a 4% withdrawal rate, she would now have another 11k of annual income. That would have made quite a difference to her lifestyle now.
Please do not take creative license with my statements. I did not "infer that everyone could" (save for retirement, I suppose you mean). What I stated was that SS benefits are not intended to replace 100% of anyone's income. Do you dispute this?
And yes, I know all about how challenging it can be to be a single mom with two kids and a mortgage, fitting that description myself.
Those facts are ABSOLUTELY CONGRUENT. If we wanted to punish everyone who has made financial missteps, there would not be a stone left to throw. I'm disgusted to live in a society that we punish the disable for becoming disabled. (And yes, i would move to Norway if it were not for the weather!)
Just because YOU are able to accomplish more than most in your situation, that does not give you license to self-righteously judge those who not as good at planning, spending, impulse control, organizing, basic math, etc.
I can touch my tongue to my nose but don't judge those who can't.
Those facts are ABSOLUTELY CONGRUENT. If we wanted to punish everyone who has made financial missteps, there would not be a stone left to throw. I'm disgusted to live in a society that we punish the disable for becoming disabled. (And yes, i would move to Norway if it were not for the weather!)
Just because YOU are able to accomplish more than most in your situation, that does not give you license to self-righteously judge those who not as good at planning, spending, impulse control, organizing, basic math, etc.
I can touch my tongue to my nose but don't judge those who can't.
It's not about judging or calling others self-righteous or punishing anyone; it's just math.
Those facts are ABSOLUTELY CONGRUENT. If we wanted to punish everyone who has made financial missteps, there would not be a stone left to throw. I'm disgusted to live in a society that we punish the disable for becoming disabled. (And yes, i would move to Norway if it were not for the weather!)
Just because YOU are able to accomplish more than most in your situation, that does not give you license to self-righteously judge those who not as good at planning, spending, impulse control, organizing, basic math, etc.
I can touch my tongue to my nose but don't judge those who can't.
What do you think? If this happens, I feel bad for those who truly need it to survive.
Not to be grim, but I don't think folks will survive till then, let alone be able to utilize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Stranger
It won't happen.
Heh, without having read your post after this one, I thought you meant SSDI would be gone with no funds left by then The reasons I can't fathom, but with our government and the way things are going in general, use your imagination.
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.
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.
The reasons I can't fathom, but with our government and the way things are going in general, use your imagination.
