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.
a valid and sound argument to not believe gov needs to nurse someone in retirement.
What do we do when your karma catches up with you and you get wiped out by medical bills? Are you suggesting we should just leave you in the gutter to rot? That wouldn't be fair to the general public, because they shouldn't have to smell anything so disgusting. Even if the medical bills themselves don't wipe you out, you might be unable to manage your finances because of being too sick. That lack of management can wipe you out. Or you could have a long string of financial disasters. What if someone fraudulently withdraws money from your checking account, causing your homeowner's insurance premium to bounce, and something happens at your home causing you to get sued for more than you have, while your insurance is temporarily not in effect? What if an ID thief finds a way to steal your entire portfolio?
The reason we need SS is not just for compassion to lazy bums who fell on hard times because of incredible disasters, but also to keep them from being a problem to the general public.
And besides that, people argue as if the issue were whether people need SS, when the real issue is that there are plans to steal the SS from them, which they already paid for. Only a very naive person would believe privatizing SS isn't going to involve stealing a lot of money from the people who would have benefited from SS, which should be their right, since they paid for it and were promised it, as what they would get for the money they paid.
If it only privatizes the SS of young people, where is the money going to come from, to pay old people, without simply stealing their money from them?
If someone is going to experience that much hardship because their SS benefits are cut by $182/month then it is their fault.
Good point. So go ahead and steal the $182 from them. It's their fault, not the fault of the thieves. Just because the victim paid for their SS, and was promised it in return for those payments, is no reason not to steal the money from them and blame them for it. They should have known stealing money from poor people is what the 1% and their cronies are all about.
[quote=cruisetheworld;46200177]If someone is going to experience that much hardship because their SS benefits are cut by $182/month then it is their fault.
What a pathetic thing to say. $182 less for someone on a very tight budget is a big hit.
If someone is going to experience that much hardship because their SS benefits are cut by $182/month then it is their fault. 100% entirely THEIR fault. They should have worked longer, delayed receiving benefits, and saved more. SS was ALWAYS meant to supplement a pension ( if available AND personal savings). SS was NEVER meant to be a retirees only form of retirement income.
THose of us who saved religiously from day 1 and now have investment portfolios in the $$millions were prepared for any eventual cuts in SS. We scrimped, we saved, we saved , and then you know what we did? We saved some more! We didn't spend every last dime of our paychecks. We didn't buy the latest and greatest new gadgets. We didn't have more children than we could afford. It's called individual responsibility.
You scrimped until you were old and bitter?! And NOW you can finally "cruise the world" and no one had better step in your way? And if they do it is purely THEIR fault? I don't think anyone has said SS should be people's only retirement but if you make minimum wage all your life it just might be....and shame on you for acting like $200 a month should mean nothing to them just because it means nothing to you - oh, one meal for you and the missus? Rough....you do know that if you worked, you get SS because you EARNED it.
BTW, you don't buy gadgets because you don't care about them and don't need them, apparently. Find something comparable instead of THAT old trope. EVERYONE spends on SOMETHING and then begrudges others on the THING that they decide to spend on.
You scrimped until you were old and bitter?! And NOW you can finally "cruise the world" and no one had better step in your way? And if they do it is purely THEIR fault? I don't think anyone has said SS should be people's only retirement but if you make minimum wage all your life it just might be....and shame on you for acting like $200 a month should mean nothing to them just because it means nothing to you - oh, one meal for you and the missus? Rough....you do know that if you worked, you get SS because you EARNED it.
BTW, you don't buy gadgets because you don't care about them and don't need them, apparently. Find something comparable instead of THAT old trope. EVERYONE spends on SOMETHING and then begrudges others on the THING that they decide to spend on.
In fairness, Social Security is very progressive. That minimum wage person, assuming they live an average life expectancy, pulls out far more than they ever contribute. If your typical career earnings are more than $60K (2016 dollars), you end up putting more than you ever take out. If your typical career earnings are more than $118,500, you and your employer contribute far more than you'll ever get in Social Security checks. I don't have a problem with it but it's inaccurate to say that a low income person "earned" it. They earned a small piece of it.
The Social Security program, in the long term, is only 70% funded. They're not going to kill the program. They're not going to reduce benefits. They will eventually implement what the bipartisan commission has recommended. The full retirement age will bump up a couple of years (a slight cut in benefits). Payroll taxes will go up 1% for both employee and employer. The income cap at $118,500 will get phased out. What happens between now and then is basic political posturing. No Congressman is going to vote for an across the board 30% cut in Social Security benefits. They'd get lynched.
In fairness, Social Security is very progressive. That minimum wage person, assuming they live an average life expectancy, pulls out far more than they ever contribute. If your typical career earnings are more than $60K (2016 dollars), you end up putting more than you ever take out. If your typical career earnings are more than $118,500, you and your employer contribute far more than you'll ever get in Social Security checks. I don't have a problem with it but it's inaccurate to say that a low income person "earned" it. They earned a small piece of it.
The Social Security program, in the long term, is only 70% funded. They're not going to kill the program. They're not going to reduce benefits. They will eventually implement what the bipartisan commission has recommended. The full retirement age will bump up a couple of years (a slight cut in benefits). Payroll taxes will go up 1% for both employee and employer. The income cap at $118,500 will get phased out. What happens between now and then is basic political posturing. No Congressman is going to vote for an across the board 30% cut in Social Security benefits. They'd get lynched.
I understand that...I also understand that EVERYONE gets more than they put in because the employer adds half and there is the small matter of investment returns.
Employees get very few "guarantees" from their employers ("at will" employment, and all that) so if I work then by golly I HAVE earned my SS, the same as everyone else.
And I do wish we'd stop talking about lynching and not re-electing those nasty anti-SSers. Truth is that any changes won't be couched in such clear terms as "30% cut" and no one will even remind the public when it's election time because that's not what journalists do any more.
In fairness, Social Security is very progressive. That minimum wage person, assuming they live an average life expectancy, pulls out far more than they ever contribute...
The Social Security program, in the long term, is only 70% funded.
How much people get, vs how much they contribute, is not a valid excuse to steal the money from them. It's as if I sold you a car for $1000 then sued you because it was actually worth $5000 and I wanted the other $4000. Poor people got a good deal with SS, but it's not a valid excuse to steal the money from them.
The 70% funding is not the fault of the beneficiaries. It's caused by our political system, which needs to be repaired. If we hide its faults and blame innocent people for those faults, how is it ever going to get repaired? Only if we let its faults become obvious. The 70% funding is because politicians are motivated to do whatever will benefit people sooner and/or more obviously, at the expense of whatever will hurt them farther in the future and/or less obviously.
You scrimped until you were old and bitter?! And NOW you can finally "cruise the world" and no one had better step in your way? And if they do it is purely THEIR fault? I don't think anyone has said SS should be people's only retirement but if you make minimum wage all your life it just might be....and shame on you for acting like $200 a month should mean nothing to them just because it means nothing to you - oh, one meal for you and the missus? Rough....you do know that if you worked, you get SS because you EARNED it.
BTW, you don't buy gadgets because you don't care about them and don't need them, apparently. Find something comparable instead of THAT old trope. EVERYONE spends on SOMETHING and then begrudges others on the THING that they decide to spend on.
Ohhh Really??? What about a retiree who dies soon after he starts collecting SS? No surviving spouse?
He collected a few checks but nowhere near what he paid into the system. Oops too bad for him! The dead pay for the living. How is that fair? So your statement is false. You earned it but you don't always
get to keep it! Not so with my IRA money. When I die it becomes part of my estate and will pass to my children and will not be seized by the gov't. So I say privatize SS. The sooner the better. Everyone have their own individual SS account that becomes part of their estate and can pass on to future generations.
Ohhhh by the way.... old and bitter? Hardly! I am typing this on my tablet on my veranda on the ship as we are in port at MArtinique. Free wifi. So I do have a few gadgets. The temp. is 84 degrees with scattered clouds.
What's the weather where you are?
If you are a top earner, there is just no way that you are going to get more from SS than you put in.
It depends on how you do the math.
I should retire with 35 years of max contributions. In 2016 dollars at $7,347 per year for me and $7,347 for my employer, that's $514,290. If I defer to age 70 and live to age 83, I break even. My mom is 84. My dad made it to 85. My maternal grandfather made it to 86. I'm affluent and have access to good health care so the odds are pretty good that I'll at least break even on Social Security.
If you assume some kind of return on that money, then yeah, I wouldn't even break even if it were in something with poor return like savings bonds.
If you don't adjust for inflation, the actual cash that went in breaks even far sooner than that. My 1985 maximum contribution was 6.2% of $39,600.
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.
