Saving Social Security (job, war, best, bill)

[Europeanflava]

This all could be fixed if the goverment would just give everybody a guaranteed monthly check of atleast $500 regardless of age, income level, job occupation, ect.


Since it probably won't happen you will forever have people going nuts about who deserves social security over who.

[Haakon]

Originally Posted by WestCobb

I'd prefer them not to be in poverty, but the reality is that well over half of my generation and the generations that follow us will be in poverty when we're seniors. If boomers elected to share the wealth (which obviously they will never do) perhaps SS would be there for future generations.

That is 100% YOUR FAULT. If you didn't save enough for retirement you have no one to blame but yourself, but you won't it's always someone elses fault, someone elses responsibility. Anyone born in the last 40 years who plans on relying on SS to completely fund their retirement is a fool who deserves what they get, for DECADES it's been common knowledge that SS doesn't pay enough to retire on and people need to fund their own retirement. You can't expect the rest of society to take care of everything for you.

[~HecateWhisperCat~]

There need to be changes in the system to fund it is all. People are going to have to contribute more and the age you can retire will have to be raised.

[LakeLifePA]

I promise to think of WestCobb and how mad he is when I retire with my 401k (government funded TSP), pension and social security benefits (civil service retirees in FERS get a social security supplement before they are eligible at 62) in less than 9 years at age 60. How's that for only thinking of someone other than myself?

[aus10]

Originally Posted by ~HecateWhisperCat~

There need to be changes in the system to fund it is all. People are going to have to contribute more and the age you can retire will have to be raised.

I'm just curious if you'll be happy with a police or fire department force full of 70+ year olds? Think! Think! Not everyone of us sets at a cushy desk job shuffling paper all day. After 30 years a physical job starts taking its toll on a body. It can't do what it used to for most of us. And hate to break it to you... you will get old too. I can't imagine what another 30 years of hard physical work would do to a couple of my loved ones..... They've worked hard (and will still continue to do so for about 15 more years) and between SS, pension, and private investments they deserve to be able to give the body a bit of rest....

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by WestCobb

... They should give up Social Security. They should lead the charge to pass a bill that anyone born between the years of 1945 and 1965 should not get paid any Social Security benefits.

When I was about 20, I realized Social Security wasn't something to be depended upon. Indeed, my idea of retirement was to stop working & have my income go up, not to have it go down to SS levels.

So I arranged my financial affairs under the presumption that Social Security would not be available to me (or anyone else).

I semi-retired by 45 and fully retired a few years later (well, I'm of the opinion that there is no such thing as retirement; you just change what you do every day). I invest, and I donate sizeable amounts - for example, I donated the capital for a new building on campus (which now bears my name) at my Alma Mater, I've endowed 4 professorial chairs (one at my undergrad, one at my wife's, one at my grad school, and one at my wife's grad school). I've funded merit-based scholarships.

My wife & I are still too young to file for Social Security. If we ever receive any, the remainder after taxes will just be donated.

Originally Posted by WestCobb

... This would save the program for their children and grandchildren...

I think more changes would be required to "save the program" . Politicians fundamental nature is to spend, and spend they do. All that SS money sent to the federal government is gone, never to return. All that exists is a bunch of IOUs from the government to someday repay this money. It will never happen.

Moreover, the entire premise of Social Security is questionable. Others have written:

I believe Social Security should be entirely phased out, because the premise of Social Security is fundamentally flawed on four counts:

• It incorrectly assumes a "right" to retirement.
• It is based on an economically unsustainable principle of annuity/pension payments for life.
• It is not an enumerated power of the federal government to tax citizens and employers and put those monies into forced retirement savings accounts.
• The savings earned for retirement are forfeited if the person dies before retirement age, with no provision for full payment to the beneficiary's heirs.

Read more at A Plan to Phase Out (Abolish) Social Security - Freedom Outpost

[WestCobb]

Originally Posted by Haakon

That is 100% YOUR FAULT. If you didn't save enough for retirement you have no one to blame but yourself, but you won't it's always someone elses fault, someone elses responsibility. Anyone born in the last 40 years who plans on relying on SS to completely fund their retirement is a fool who deserves what they get, for DECADES it's been common knowledge that SS doesn't pay enough to retire on and people need to fund their own retirement. You can't expect the rest of society to take care of everything for you.

Typical boomer entitlement with a side of whine. Our benefits will be greatly reduced but it's our fault we have to pay your fat SS checks out of our meager wage stagnated salaries leaving little left to save.

[WestCobb]

Originally Posted by Robert20170

I promise to think of WestCobb and how mad he is when I retire with my 401k (government funded TSP), pension and social security benefits (civil service retirees in FERS get a social security supplement before they are eligible at 62) in less than 9 years at age 60. How's that for only thinking of someone other than myself?

Nine years? Don't be surprised if your benefits are reduced before cross the finish line.

[monkeywrenching]

Originally Posted by WestCobb

I have paid into social security my whole life too, but the money will be used by boomers by the time I can draw benefits. For once, just once, I'd like Boomers not to ruin something for future generations. I know this goes against their grain, but I think they should show some leadership on this.

I retired at age 48, and have no plans at all of drawing on socialized security when I can get it at age 62. by the time I can get it, i figure the house of cards will have toppled by then, and socialized security will be no longer in use in any place.

the biggest fix that i can see, is to take SS out of the general fund and force the feds to make good on their IOU's.

[Cruzincat]

Originally Posted by WestCobb

I think we can all agree that Boomers had it better than any generation of Americans. They had access to the best job market, lowest house prices, best opportunities for higher education at the lowest prices, etc. They didn't do anything to deserve the privilege they got, but they didn't ask for it either. They were just fortunate.

To those whom much has been given much is expected, and I expect more from the Boomers than what we've currently gotten. At this moment in time, they have the opportunity to do something truly magnanimous. They should give up Social Security. They should lead the charge to pass a bill that anyone born between the years of 1945 and 1965 should not get paid any Social Security benefits. This would save the program for their children and grandchildren, and for once, they wouldn't be acting like a swarm of locusts laying waste to America's wealth before it can be enjoyed by future generations.

I also think conservatives who hate big government should also choose to not get their benefits as a protest regardless of when they were born.

What do you think? Good idea?

Why not look to what programs or general approach to government messed things up for the post boom population and change things back to the way they were during the boom period?