U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [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 01-03-2013, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Keosauqua, Iowa
9,258 posts, read 17,898,021 times
Reputation: 12592

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes View Post
Is it beyond comprehension that a program could be set up to take this into account?
Theoretically, no. Realistically, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes View Post
Where on earth do you get this idea? Unless right-wing bonkos kill SS for political and ideological reasons, it will certainly, beyond any shadow of a doubt, be around when you retire. What you need to worry about is the cost of medical care, including (but not limited to) Medicare.
By 2037 Social Security will only be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits. Sure, that's a lot better than nothing; but why should I have to settle for 75%?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-03-2013, 11:27 AM
Status: "ABCDEFGplus" (set 11 days ago)
 
18,843 posts, read 16,680,948 times
Reputation: 7345
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
It wasn't increased; it reverted back to where it was 2 years ago.

That was a "tax holiday", not a tax change and was only supposed to be in place for 1 year.
FICA funds your future retirement. We should have been upset that it was lowered to begin with.
If anything it should be raised IMHO. With pensions gone and 401K savings lackluster, future generations are going to depended on SS as their primary retirement income, not as supplemental retirement income.

And 2% doesn't amount to much really if you do the math..$20/week for a $50K/year salary.

Hitting yourself in the head with a hammer 5 times a day and then going to 4 times a day is an improvement. Too bad it was a temporary improvement. FICA doesn't fund squat. What retirement capacity does it create? Its a tax and a regressive one. It will be a 2% body blow where advanced economies are ecstatic to see 3%. Letting this reset is the center piece of its stupidity.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 11:28 AM
Status: "ABCDEFGplus" (set 11 days ago)
 
18,843 posts, read 16,680,948 times
Reputation: 7345
Quote:
Originally Posted by duster1979 View Post
Theoretically, no. Realistically, yes.



By 2037 Social Security will only be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits. Sure, that's a lot better than nothing; but why should I have to settle for 75%?
75% of what? What does that even mean 30 years from now?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Keosauqua, Iowa
9,258 posts, read 17,898,021 times
Reputation: 12592
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
75% of what? What does that even mean 30 years from now?
By "scheduled benefits" I assume it's talking about what the report you get from SSA periodically says you'll get based on their forecast. Which as far as I know doesn't account for inflation, so it may be more like 50% adjusted for that.

Again, that's just as assumption. The info came from moveon.org and didn't really state what it was based on.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 11:55 AM
 
2,981 posts, read 3,752,534 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by duster1979 View Post
Theoretically, no. Realistically, yes.



By 2037 Social Security will only be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits. Sure, that's a lot better than nothing; but why should I have to settle for 75%?
If reason prevails, you will not have to settle for 75%. The solvency of Social Security is one of our least challenging National problems - it can be fixed very easily (again if reason, rather than right-wing extremism, prevails). Worry about the cost of health care, not the solvency of SS.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 11:58 AM
 
2,981 posts, read 3,752,534 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by duster1979 View Post
By "scheduled benefits" I assume it's talking about what the report you get from SSA periodically says you'll get based on their forecast. Which as far as I know doesn't account for inflation, so it may be more like 50% adjusted for that.

Again, that's just as assumption. The info came from moveon.org and didn't really state what it was based on.

NO, NO, NO! Inflation is taken into account with the 75% number. Wouldn't it be worth your trouble to find this out yourself before jumping to a conclusion that SS is doomed? To get even the most rudimentary knowledge regarding the subject?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 12:03 PM
 
2,981 posts, read 3,752,534 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
Hitting yourself in the head with a hammer 5 times a day and then going to 4 times a day is an improvement. Too bad it was a temporary improvement. FICA doesn't fund squat. What retirement capacity does it create? Its a tax and a regressive one. It will be a 2% body blow where advanced economies are ecstatic to see 3%. Letting this reset is the center piece of its stupidity.
What on earth are you trying to say? Who is hitting whom with a hammer? What does "squat" mean? What, exactly, is a "body blow" to the economy? FICA raises a huge amount of money to fund the SS programs. Money is a store of value for the future; that's fundamental to the concept of money.

Last edited by Hamish Forbes; 01-03-2013 at 12:11 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 12:17 PM
 
Location: Keosauqua, Iowa
9,258 posts, read 17,898,021 times
Reputation: 12592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes View Post
Money is a store of value for the future; that's fundamental to the concept of money.
How is Social Security supposed to represent a "store of value" when I'm only going to get 75% of what's coming to me when I retire?

And even when it works the way it's supposed to it's not all that great. My mom is a perfect example. She lives on nothing but Social security and has no savings to speak of. She retired early (then later reentered the workforce) and is in good health at 86, so she will probably end up drawing about $250K is benefits before she kicks the bucket.

If she had been allowed to invest the earnings that she paid into FICA all the years she worked into an investment vehicle earning only average returns, she would have had close to $500K in the bank when she finally quit working; she could have lived more comfortably off the interest than she does drawing SSI and would have had something to leave behind (or she could have spent the whole wad, makes no difference to me).

Social Security was introduced to provide something for those who lost everything during the depression. It was never meant to be permanent, but unfortunately it became a sacred political football and a crutch for those who choose not to plan for the future.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 12:36 PM
 
2,981 posts, read 3,752,534 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by duster1979 View Post
How is Social Security supposed to represent a "store of value" when I'm only going to get 75% of what's coming to me when I retire?

And even when it works the way it's supposed to it's not all that great. My mom is a perfect example. She lives on nothing but Social security and has no savings to speak of. She retired early (then later reentered the workforce) and is in good health at 86, so she will probably end up drawing about $250K is benefits before she kicks the bucket.

If she had been allowed to invest the earnings that she paid into FICA all the years she worked into an investment vehicle earning only average returns, she would have had close to $500K in the bank when she finally quit working; she could have lived more comfortably off the interest than she does drawing SSI and would have had something to leave behind (or she could have spent the whole wad, makes no difference to me).

Social Security was introduced to provide something for those who lost everything during the depression. It was never meant to be permanent, but unfortunately it became a sacred political football and a crutch for those who choose not to plan for the future.
I call bull**** -- let's see the numbers, year by year. As for "living off the interest" from $500K in the bank -- do you have any idea of what interest rates are today? She would be lucky to be drawing $5000 per year from $500K in the bank. Dividends on the S&P 500 are a little more than 2%, which would give Mom about 11,000 per year.

Last edited by Hamish Forbes; 01-03-2013 at 12:50 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Keosauqua, Iowa
9,258 posts, read 17,898,021 times
Reputation: 12592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes View Post
I call bull**** -- let's see the numbers, year by year.
I'm not going to all that trouble, but I should back up and say that that figure represents the Social Security contributions of both my parents, not just my mom. I only mentioned her before because she's the only one still living. My dad was one who really got the short end of the Social Security stick; he retired at 62 and died at 64.

Quote:
As for "living off the interest" from $500K in the bank -- do you have any idea of what interest rates are today? She would be lucky to be drawing $5000 per year from $500K in the bank. Dividends on the S&P 500 are a little more than 2%, which would give Mom about 11,000 per year.
I'll concede this in part. I worked up this illustration several years ago when privatization was being discussed heavily and interest rates were higher. Today she would indeed have to draw on the principle to match her Social Security income. But even if it drew no interest she'd still live better off the cash savings than Social Security.
Rate this post positively 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 > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top