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.
I agree. But, honestly, something has to done. I want everyone to get as much of what they've "paid in" as possible, but it's unrealistic to expect that everyone will get everything.
Sadly, I think the solution will simply be more debt. I don't think this is an issue anyone in Washington really has the balls to actually do anything about. Sure, they talk about it and make us think they're going to do something, but I don't think they ever will.
I don't see why everyone can't sacrafice just a little. Those very close to retirement seem to be off limits, and I understand the logic, but to say we're changing it for everyone younger than 55 is a bit arbitrary also. My dad is 54, and if SS changes for him, that changes the next 8 years of his life not in a small way. Why not have people over 60 work something like 3 more months, or 6 more months, than inititally planned? Then start gradually pushing the retirement age a tad up for each year younger?
Then, increase the cieling on taxable income for Social Security. it cuts off at $106,000ish right now, right? Why? What's the logic behind that?
It would be nice to see the calculated benefits fixed also. It's out of whack with real inflation - i forget the exact flaw right now and don't feel like looking it up, but i think it was a change in the 70s or 80s that caused this flaw.
Then, with those things done, maybe look into educating people on the positives and negatives of deferring collection of Social Security, so that fewer people take it at the earliest age (not sure what the numbers are on when most choose to collect).
What group would be drastically impacted if we made those changes? Maybe the group that makes more than the current taxable ceiling, because they would be paying more taxes? But overall, I think that it's pretty fair.
He doesn't like SS but wants a transition and an opt-out for younger workers. Funding is still the big question but at least he has the guts to voice something and with a transition allows for both to exist while one is phased out.
that would essentially bankrupt SS for the population that's collecting. It's a nice idea, in theory, but Bush tried this, more or less, already and the public did not like it.
please even people who picked the safest investments in their 401k lost money. all homes across the board belonging to both young and old lost half or more of it's value. the difference between someone in their 30 or 40 who lost most of their retirement and someone in their late 60's is the younger person has time to make up the loss the older person does not
someone in their late 60s at the time of the crash should not have "lost most of their retirement" because they should have been in far less risky investments. My father is 54, and my mother 59. They lost about 20% of their 401k at the worst time, and have already gained that back. As my dad passes 55, he'll scale back the risk in his 401k. As for their home, it didn't drop anywhere close to half of it's value. At it's peak, it was worth maybe $250,000. Right now, it's worth around $200,000.
I don't see why everyone can't sacrafice just a little. Those very close to retirement seem to be off limits, and I understand the logic, but to say we're changing it for everyone younger than 55 is a bit arbitrary also. My dad is 54, and if SS changes for him, that changes the next 8 years of his life not in a small way. Why not have people over 60 work something like 3 more months, or 6 more months, than inititally planned? Then start gradually pushing the retirement age a tad up for each year younger?
Then, increase the cieling on taxable income for Social Security. it cuts off at $106,000ish right now, right? Why? What's the logic behind that?
It would be nice to see the calculated benefits fixed also. It's out of whack with real inflation - i forget the exact flaw right now and don't feel like looking it up, but i think it was a change in the 70s or 80s that caused this flaw.
Then, with those things done, maybe look into educating people on the positives and negatives of deferring collection of Social Security, so that fewer people take it at the earliest age (not sure what the numbers are on when most choose to collect).
What group would be drastically impacted if we made those changes? Maybe the group that makes more than the current taxable ceiling, because they would be paying more taxes? But overall, I think that it's pretty fair.
You can't change SS for those already in the system. What you need to do is change it when people are born like they did the last time.
Now it ranges from 65 to 66.5 for when you can receive full benefits.
I don't know why they haven't been gradually changing the full retirement benefits age. Leave early retirement at 62 alone and slowly up the full retirement age by 6 months every 5 years. That would stagger full retirement benefits. But they should also consider a cap.....no one want to have to work til 80 to receive full benefits.
As a generation, I'm starting to believe that boomers may be mentally ill.
Everyday I hear another crazy story or experience one myself.
Today it was a 67 year old electrical union worker who has 40 years worth of pension and already collects SS. He's still on the job. Why? Does he need the money? He's just bored and hasn't much else to do. Meanwhile there are hundreds of young guys with young families waiting i the queue for their shot.
A few days ago it was a 62 year old who made decent money up until a few years ago. Now he's working for 30k a year and complains that he gets paid too little. Meanwhile, he's kind of slow and not that great with computers and I'm sure an early 20's kid could use that job and do much better.
What'd he do with all the money he made prior? He and his wife acquired a substantial mortgage in their 50's. They could afford it, so it wasn't so bad. What'd they do next? Instead of paying off the mortgage, they've put in over 200k into upgrading the house. Upgrading for who? For their corpses? I don't know. So now he ******* and moans about still having to work and being paid too little! Picture that.
I could go on and on about greedy, self entitled, and irrational boomers but I'd never end. Maybe life was a little too easy for them in the America of the 50's-late 90's.
And now, we younger generations are still going to have to pay for them for the next 20 years since they dominate the upper echelons of government. Good luck getting them to sacrifice some of their entitlements for the betterment of younger Americans.
Rant over, thanks for listening.
Well, it is hard for you to understand, when you get to be 60 plus then others will see if you believe the same way when they tell you move aside old men. Right now I do not expect you to understand. Take care.
you quoted my post so that is what I was going by. my point was old people lost money in both 401's and their homes. if you are not contesting home values have dropped then how can you say old folks didn't lose much? many people use the equity in their homes as a retirement plan. so once the home has no value they have not much to retire on and need to continue to work. all stock market investments even the low risk stocks are risky. should no one invest in the stock market? should we all keep our money under a mattress?
well, wait...when you say these old folks' homes lost value, you're referring to the value they lost from 2006 - now...but ignoring the fact that my neighbor who paid $12,000 for his home decades ago can sell it for $400,000 right now. It's a shame he can't sell it for $500,000 like he could have gotten for it in 2006, but I think he's doing alright in either case.
Right I know that one. Even conservative strategies called for more risk as interest rates went down. Even Money and Kiplingers were saying a 50 year old could handle 60% risk.And you blame the people who followed this advice crazy ?
Taking more risk was being advised because we were in such "good times".
From Money Magazine Sept. 2009:
"If you held a mix of 35% U.S. stocks, 25% foreign stocks, 10% cash, and 30% fixed income (including government and high-quality corporate bonds), you would have lost just 28% between Sept. 1, 2008, and the market's bottom of March 9. By comparison, the S&P 500 was down nearly 50%."
if that mix earned them 6% annually from March 9, 2009 forward, they'd be fully recovered within 6 years (assuming it's someone still working, not drawing down) without considering contributions at all.
The people who suffered the most were the ones who were just about to retire, and needed to adjust what they were drawing from their account, to allow for the account to recover.
It was bad, but it wasn't nearly as bad as people like to make it out to be.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,140,525 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp
Then, with those things done, maybe look into educating people on the positives and negatives of deferring collection of Social Security, so that fewer people take it at the earliest age (not sure what the numbers are on when most choose to collect).
Just as a side note... my husbands pension account has already done this... (raised the retirement age). Used to be able to draw full pension @ 62. They recently upped the age to 67. If you want to retire @ 62 you lose 3% per year... That is just another reason that folks like us will be working longer. Folks like us MIGHT have been able to put off taking SS at a certain age, but no longer. Not only do we have to wait longer to receive them, but the benefit amount has been decreased as well. So what we thought would be a pension that would sustain us, has turned into a.. well.. a we'll be lucky to eat lifestyle. And luckily, we have a few more years to keep saving now that we've fed, clothed and educated the kid and taken care of 3 sick elderly parents. Yeah... we've had it easy... wonder why we just didn't save more, and give more of our money to the federal government...
As a generation, I'm starting to believe that boomers may be mentally ill.
Everyday I hear another crazy story or experience one myself.
Today it was a 67 year old electrical union worker who has 40 years worth of pension and already collects SS. He's still on the job. Why? Does he need the money? He's just bored and hasn't much else to do. Meanwhile there are hundreds of young guys with young families waiting i the queue for their shot.
A few days ago it was a 62 year old who made decent money up until a few years ago. Now he's working for 30k a year and complains that he gets paid too little. Meanwhile, he's kind of slow and not that great with computers and I'm sure an early 20's kid could use that job and do much better.
What'd he do with all the money he made prior? He and his wife acquired a substantial mortgage in their 50's. They could afford it, so it wasn't so bad. What'd they do next? Instead of paying off the mortgage, they've put in over 200k into upgrading the house. Upgrading for who? For their corpses? I don't know. So now he ******* and moans about still having to work and being paid too little! Picture that.
I could go on and on about greedy, self entitled, and irrational boomers but I'd never end. Maybe life was a little too easy for them in the America of the 50's-late 90's.
And now, we younger generations are still going to have to pay for them for the next 20 years since they dominate the upper echelons of government. Good luck getting them to sacrifice some of their entitlements for the betterment of younger Americans.
Rant over, thanks for listening.
I'm a boomer and never had it easy. I worked for everything I have as did my wife. Why on earth would I ever want to "save" some for you. Go work 40 years for yourself then cry about it. We paid for our social security and retirements and then some. Just what I need to do, give it to you.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,140,525 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfabuck
I'm a boomer and never had it easy. I worked for everything I have as did my wife. Why on earth would I ever want to "save" some for you. Go work 40 years for yourself then cry about it. We paid for our social security and retirements and then some. Just what I need to do, give it to you.
They don't want us to give them anything... (well at least not Social Security).. they just don't want to have to continue paying it in for us, like we did for the generation before us. And they don't care that we lose our money... you know us.. poor ungrateful boomers...
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.
