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 question to ask is, "why are they stuck in the lower class?".
it is not my fault they dropped out of high school or had babies before they got an education.
You make your bed, you lie in it.
This is the Land of Opportunity. If someone does not take advantage of the opportunities out there, that is not my problem.
This is pretty rude and presumptuous.
Not everyone has the same gifts as far as being smart goes.
You also need people to work at the lower end jobs.
It doesn't mean that they dropped out of school or are lazy or any specific trait you want to blame them for.
The majority do as well as they can.
I will get nothing. Given that the system is going broke, those making over $250-$500K will get nothing.
It doesn't matter if you make $120k or $500k, the amount you put in will the same and your benefit will be the same. Studies have concluded that it could pay 70% of currently promised benefits into the forseeable future with no adjustments, and meet full with relatively minor adjustments.
You might not see all your benefits, you might see slightly less of them, or you might be taxed a little more, but you're not going to see no benefits, nor have any proposal for means-testing ever gained any traction.
Quote:
But that is not the point- what I will get. The point is that the system is headed to insolvency.
I agree with you completely in that due to life expectancy and demographic changes adjustments are necessary.
Quote:
No one is "preventing" people from retiring. The only people that are preventing people from retiriing is themselves. If they have not saved enough- keep working. That is what happened in previous generations. Take more time off along the way, but don't count on a government parachute and a sunny life of lethagy in Florida or Arizona. That is all gone.
Honestly I think I will prefer working then hanging out anyway. After 2 weeks of doing nothing I get pretty bored. I know a lot of people who have related stories of how their parents or someone they knew aged very quickly once they retired, because they did not feel useful anymore.
I'm with you man. I'm still saving for and planning on retiring very early just because it would give me the choice, the freedom.
If I want to take volunteer at the no-kill animal rescue shelter instead of commuting to a cubicle every day I can, if I want to go do a Spanish immersion program in Guatemala for three months I can, if I want to move to a small town that doesn't have a lot of opportunities in my career field I can. And so on.
Well that opinion contradicts your desire to not have the retirement age raised. Because if that opt is allowed then you can bet your bottom dollar that no one is going to be collecting social security at age 65 or even age 70.
No...I am saying that somebody has to do something for those of us who have invested for years and for those just coming into the system...I don't blame them for wanting to opt out. Again, the whole point of the thread is the money coming out of our checks for SS is never going to be seen. Not just for "luxury" of retirement. Read the statistics of where we are heading with health. Alzheimer's will be rampant because of the longevity. Hmmm...so what good is SS going to do me if the age limits keep going up to the point that I won't even be ABLE to work til full retirement age before I don't even get the full benefit. Again,NOT entitlement....EARNED.
And stop ranting about how I should have been saving...some of us DID save and because of the economic turns we have had, NOT OUR FAULT have come upon hard times. Again, count your lucky blessings if you have come thru unscaved, but one day you may find yourself in a situation of less fortune. It's not about MY lack of preparation it's about SS's lack of preparation and waste. I wasn't a sit at home wife...I work and will work til I die probably. As another poster noted...what about what benefits are allowed to those spouses that have never been employed. Now THAT's entitlement!
There is no easy answer, but the reason I agreed with the younger set about opting out is, they will have it even worse. I don't blame them, but I don't think what is being proposed will allow provisions for those who fall into my category.
Don't even get me started on how we always come to the aid of other countries before fixing our own failed systems such as SS, but it has a lot to do with where we are. At some point we need to fix the USA systems that are in place first before we keep giving handouts to everyone else.
Not everyone has the same gifts as far as being smart goes.
You also need people to work at the lower end jobs.
It doesn't mean that they dropped out of school or are lazy or any specific trait you want to blame them for.
The majority do as well as they can.
In my experience, hard work is more important than brains. The guy next door to me has ADD and is worth about $50 million- he never went to college. The guy across the street from me is worth about $300 million and never went to college. Stop whining and get to work.
If one is blessed with intelligence and a work ethic, then you are blessed. However, hard work is definately more important than intelligence, unless someone is well below average intelligence.
- keep raising the age every few years
- allow people to opt out and not have to pay the SS tax
- abolish Social Security entirely
I personally prefer the 2nd option. Allow those who don't want to pay for other people's retirement to opt out ... but don't force them to continue paying the SS tax.
I am 22 years old. I lose over $1,500/year for something that WILL be GONE by the time I am 50 much less 70. Let me opt out and keep MY money. If you can't save for yourself then that's your problem, not mine.
I am one of the few that don't bash social security.
I could retire on reduced benefits now but I need to wait. If I retire now I'd receive $1,450/mo, if I wait to 66 it would be $2,040/mo but if I work just 4 more years it would increase to $2,700. I need to wait until I am 70 and I am lucky I have the sort of job where I can do that.
It's perturbing when the younger generation accuses us baby boomers that somehow we're getting something we never paid for. I went through my social security statements and coupled with what was paid in with the employer and self employment tax I've had about $280,000 deposited into "my account" that I know doesn't exist. That $280,000 averages $120/week for the past 45 years.
If I had $280,000 in the bank earning 2% withdrawing $2,700/mo it would last me 9 years and 6 months just a few months short of my 80th birthday.
Will I see 80? It's a toss up. Some in my situation will and some won't.
Ok, so all those years "my account" didn't earn interest. If I had deposited $518/mo for 40 years earning an average of 6% I would have $1,031,603.15 in my account right now so was I ripped off?
In strict terms of retirement I was but social security isn't just old age and retirement.
What if, when I was 35, had I suffered debilitating arthritis and been unable to work? What if I had fallen off my roof, broke my back and ended up in a wheel chair? What would my young family with young children have done?
What if I had died leaving my wife with a $500,000 life insurance policy when I was 35 years old?
Most likely the $500,000 would not have lasted through 20 years putting kids through college. Earning 6% withdrawing $2,600 a month (not enough to send kids through college) it would have lasted my wife 29.9 years and then, when she reached 65 years old and broke, what would she do then?
I hear what you are saying. "get a million dollar policy" but in 1980 half a million was considered large and what will one million today look like in 40 years?
Then there is the disability insurance. If I were disabled today my family would receive a little over $3,000 per month and if you think that is cheap go price some disability insurance paying $3,000 per month for as long as you live. You won't be able to find it and if it were available (it isn't) you could not afford it.
Social security isn't just for you it's for your your family too. When you look at everything it isn't a bad deal.
And "saving money"? Always a great idea but money invested can always disappear just ask the victims of Bernie Madoff.
So stay in social security and if you want a real sweet deal I would advise a young person to save a matching portion of their income in a retirement account.
Oh but it is now and you WILL be taxed to insure that everyone ends up being equalized..everyone is a winner.
So, work harder because more people are falling lower on the scale. 47% do not pay Federal income tax yet 100% are entitled to the benefits.
This could be because Social Security taxes are paid by anyone who receives a paycheck (that is 100% of people who work), and you don't get those back in refunds. Social Security has nothing to do with federal income tax. Why shouldn't the working poor be entitled to Social Security? They've paid into it with every paycheck.
This OP is absolutely right. First, let the scum in Washington repay every penny that was stolen from Social Security to fund "other" programs, with interest. In 1983 we all got catastropic reductions in promised benefits and huge increases in SS taxes, most of which was stolen every year to pay for ongoing massive government overspending (of course, even that wasn't enough, they had to borrow $13 trillion more for the insane spending spree that benefits NOBODY with a real job).
Then, we can talk about reducing the benefits of those of us who have paid the ridiculous 1983 rates of SS and FICA (7.65% today x 2 because the employer must contribute half = 15.3%) for most of our working lives.
Keep allowing Republicrat government to run things, and we get a lower and lower quality of life every year, for everyone, until America makes the slums of Calcutta look like the height of luxury living.
Libertarian Revolution, anyone? Or are you happy because you're already retired (or almost), so who cares about future generations?
In 1983 we all got catastropic reductions in promised benefits and huge increases in SS taxes
What catastrophic reduction in benefits? Wasn't the main change from that bill making it taxable income? The amount most people get in social security, after standard deduction and personal exemption, is hardly impacted to a level I'd call catastrophic. Huge increase in taxes was a gradual change from 7% to 7.65% over a six year timeframe, right? This 0.65% is the huge crippling increase you're talking about?
Quote:
Libertarian Revolution, anyone? Or are you happy because you're already retired (or almost), so who cares about future generations?
I'd certainly not sign up based on big alarmist words that don't really align very well with facts.
Libertarian Revolution, anyone? Or are you happy because you're already retired (or almost), so who cares about future generations?
Would it have a conservative flavor to it?
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.
