Is Social Security a failed experiment? (salary, military, retirement, money)

[Shizzles]

It seems that everyplace it is tried, the idea of the government trying to run a pension system has run into serious liquidity issues. Greece is all but certain to defalut and the levees are cracking in Spain, Italy and the UK. Our SS system, along with Medicare, is said to be short 50 trilllion in future fiscal outlays.

Do you think the age of state funded Social Security is over? What do you think should happen to people working jobs too low-paying to genuinley save for retirement?

[hnsq]

Originally Posted by Shizzles

It seems that everyplace it is tried, the idea of the government trying to run a pension system has run into serious liquidity issues. Greece is all but certain to defalut and the levees are cracking in Spain, Italy and the UK. Our SS system, along with Medicare, is said to be short 50 trilllion in future fiscal outlays.

Do you think the age of state funded Social Security is over? What do you think should happen to people working jobs too low-paying to genuinley save for retirement?

I firmly believe it is a failed experiment. I am 24 years old and am planning to never get a dime from SS when I retire. In my opinion, betting that it will be around in 40-50 years is nothing short of foolish.

I think SS should be phased out. There should be an an opt-out option to start.

I don't think people's retirement is the government's problem. People are responsible for their own retirement plans, and the government should not make any effort to try to help citizens with it.

[Pandamonium]

I would lay money, (I already am) that social security will be around when you retire. They said the same thing when I was coming up. What I realized is that the side that is saying that the most are those who would stand to profit the most if there was a change.

What people do not realize is that you are considered an "older worker" at the age of 40. Although, studies show there is only a slight decrease in physical operations. You can raise the retirement age but it isn't the people who are trying to retire, it is the corporations that force people to retire so they can get out of benefits and vacation time that is earned, and after 30 years your salary. Or they move you to part time positions which will force a drop in everything. You lose your house, your benefits, your vehicles. Social Security serves a purpose.

In this aspect, it is capitalism which is the failure. But nobody want's to see that.

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by hnsq

I firmly believe it is a failed experiment. I am 24 years old and am planning to never get a dime from SS when I retire. In my opinion, betting that it will be around in 40-50 years is nothing short of foolish.

I think SS should be phased out. There should be an an opt-out option to start.

I don't think people's retirement is the government's problem. People are responsible for their own retirement plans, and the government should not make any effort to try to help citizens with it.

I'm almost 50, and am quite certain that SS will be around when I retire, but will be worth very little.

So I spend all my earning years having about 16% of my income confiscated by the government, and I will never receive back more than a small fraction of that money.

Some retirement investment plan that is!

[hnsq]

Originally Posted by Pandamonium

I would lay money, (I already am) that social security will be around when you retire. They said the same thing when I was coming up. What I realized is that the side that is saying that the most are those who would stand to profit the most if there was a change.

What people do not realize is that you are considered an "older worker" at the age of 40. Although, studies show there is only a slight decrease in physical operations. You can raise the retirement age but it isn't the people who are trying to retire, it is the corporations that force people to retire so they can get out of benefits and vacation time that is earned, and after 30 years your salary. Or they move you to part time positions which will force a drop in everything. You lose your house, your benefits, your vehicles. Social Security serves a purpose.

In this aspect, it is capitalism which is the failure. But nobody want's to see that.

You create your own worth. I know 50 year olds in my company who are are invaluable to the business because of the work they do. The company practically forces them to not retire and keep working. I also know 50 year olds who keep their head down, do what they are told and wouldn't be missed (or could easily be replaced!) if they were laid off.

Capitalism isn't a failure, people are failures. People always need to make sure the company has a reason to want them to work.

Social security protects those who are too lazy to protect their own careers.

Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks

I'm almost 50, and am quite certain that SS will be around when I retire, but will be worth very little.

So I spend all my earning years having about 16% of my income confiscated by the government, and I will never receive back more than a small fraction of that money.

Some retirement investment plan that is!

I wish I could have the money I pay into SS for my own investments.

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by hnsq

I wish I could have the money I pay into SS for my own investments.

I agree 100%!

The problem is that there are far too many people who are too stupid, too lazy, or too undisciplined to actually use their earnings instead of wasting them.

Many poor people are poor because of choices, nothing else. Not all of them, no. But many. Probably most.

[jtur88]

Why don't you ask this question to a person 75 years old who worked hard all his life and was barely able to put a roof over the heads of his family. Ask him how Social Security has destroyed his life and proven itself to be an utter failure.

While imperfect, Social Security was intended to provide for everyone, using a fairly simplified set of guidelines to apply to everyone. The fact that you have the personal acumen and discipline to have provided for yourself, does not mean you have the right to deny everyone an assurance of a retirement security. The utter selfishness of the elite knows no bounds.

[Memphis1979]

If they'd take the social security money out of the general fund, and put it in its own account, it'd be fine.

The problem is, we are spending ourselves into debt, for a military thats 9 times bigger than the next nation down, and over 4 times the entire worlds military expenses.

Why not cut back on military spending, to where we are only spending twice what the rest of the world is, and keep our entitlement programs?

[TheViking85]

...let me get this straight... It's normal in America to retire in your 50's???

[JoanD'Arc]

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

If they'd take the social security money out of the general fund, and put it in its own account, it'd be fine.

You have hit the nail on the head. I do believe SS has it's own fund, but money is taken from it to shore up the general fund.

If "borrowing" from SS was not allowed, ever, we would not be having the liquidity problems we have now... IMHO.