Will Millennials Get Social Security? (55, states, relative, retirees)
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.
Saving Social Security comes down to two choices. We can cut the benefits of those who have already paid an enormous price to fix Social Security once, or we can ask workers who don’t believe that they will ever get paid to contribute more.
Author’s note: Readers are going to ask about increasing the cap on taxable wages. I suspect that some change in the tax base is unavoidable, but (1) Eliminating the cap doesn’t fix the problem. It does not even officially kick the can anymore. (2) The policy introduces structural changes to the program which will over time crash the program. This solution appeals to the people who wish to throw other people’s money at the problem. I am happy to take questions in the comments.
Saving Social Security comes down to two choices. We can cut the benefits of those who have already paid an enormous price to fix Social Security once, or we can ask workers who don’t believe that they will ever get paid to contribute more.
Author’s note: Readers are going to ask about increasing the cap on taxable wages. I suspect that some change in the tax base is unavoidable, but (1) Eliminating the cap doesn’t fix the problem. It does not even officially kick the can anymore. (2) The policy introduces structural changes to the program which will over time crash the program. This solution appeals to the people who wish to throw other people’s money at the problem. I am happy to take questions in the comments.
My advice is save like you will not be getting it.
To be perfectly honest I'm looking at it as something that would be nice but I'm not betting the farm on it and I'm 49. I'd really like to see it just go away and everyone has the option to take those monies and put it into something self funded but the problem is where do you cut it off? Which generation do you screw over?
Most retirees are going to be more concerned about getting theirs. They're not really concerned about what millennials will be getting long after they're gone.
To be perfectly honest I'm looking at it as something that would be nice but I'm not betting the farm on it and I'm 49. I'd really like to see it just go away and everyone has the option to take those monies and put it into something self funded but the problem is where do you cut it off? Which generation do you screw over?
Senator Paul Ryan had a proposal if you were 55 or older you had nothing to worry about. That proposal was popular LOL.
To be perfectly honest I'm looking at it as something that would be nice but I'm not betting the farm on it and I'm 49. I'd really like to see it just go away and everyone has the option to take those monies and put it into something self funded but the problem is where do you cut it off? Which generation do you screw over?
Why 'cut it off' and screw over anyone? That sounds like a typical political solution, and not one that would work. Self-funding DOES NOT WORK when 50% of America struggles to make ends meet.
Seems a better way would be to introduce methods to phase different generations out of the systems into better, more fiscally responsible ones. If we ever get some adults involved, it would require a massive effort to design newer, better planned mechanisms to allow younger generations to invest or save in, while allowing older generations to transition-out of the current systems. Those already vested in the system stay, those halfway into retirement can phase over to the new systems with growing benefits while phasing out of the existing system with phase-reduced benefits. Easy? Hell No. It would take years of serious planning by new agencies to do. It would require non-partisan input from some serious financial wizards representing different industries, but the result would afford some national financial stability instead of just lobbing a grenade into SS. Considering what is at stake here, spending a billion or two over a few years to set it up would save literally trillions in the long run.
America put a man on the moon in less than ten years when it actually became a priority, and we didn't have any of the technology in place before we started. Plus, it was ALL unknowns:we did not fathom what the challenges would be. Of course, that was in the day when America was The United States, and anything was possible- not like today.
I'm sure the Millennials will be receiving something when it's their turn to retire. How much, though, we can't say, for two reasons: the Millennials are a big demographic cohort, and we don't know how large the subsequent generations will be when the Millennials retire, and we don't know what the relative wealth of the US will be at that time.
No one, of any age, should be counting on Social Security to fully fund their retirement. Best to just treat it as an extra.
Why 'cut it off' and screw over anyone? That sounds like a typical political solution, and not one that would work. Self-funding DOES NOT WORK when 50% of America struggles to make ends meet.
Seems a better way would be to introduce methods to phase different generations out of the systems into better, more fiscally responsible ones. If we ever get some adults involved, it would require a massive effort to design newer, better planned mechanisms to allow younger generations to invest or save in, while allowing older generations to transition-out of the current systems. Those already vested in the system stay, those halfway into retirement can phase over to the new systems with growing benefits while phasing out of the existing system with phase-reduced benefits. Easy? Hell No. It would take years of serious planning by new agencies to do. It would require non-partisan input from some serious financial wizards representing different industries, but the result would afford some national financial stability instead of just lobbing a grenade into SS. Considering what is at stake here, spending a billion or two over a few years to set it up would save literally trillions in the long run.
America put a man on the moon in less than ten years when it actually became a priority, and we didn't have any of the technology in place before we started. Plus, it was ALL unknowns:we did not fathom what the challenges would be. Of course, that was in the day when America was The United States, and anything was possible- not like today.
It'll probably still be around in some form, probably at a later age and with reduced benefits compared to what people are used to now.
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.
