Jump to content

Social Security running out of money and time


Recommended Posts

           There are some interesting idea's here but in the end nothing will work.  As soon as you save money on Social Security the politicians will spend it on something else.  If they did not start dipping into the fund like it was an endless piggy bank years ago, it might have had a chance to sustain itself.   I use dipping into the fund loosely because there is no fund.  Just another IOU.

          If push comes to shove, it will be interesting how the limited amount of government dollars get distributed.  Who gets the money first?  Those on Social Security, those on Government Pensions or those on Welfare?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This issue has been known for some time and largely ignored through many successive Presidencies and control by each party. Since the program is so popular ( and why wouldn’t it be ? It’s your money that you paid into the system and should expect to receive. Whether you could have saved more on your own ( or if you actually would have is more likely) is irrelevant here: the program was designed to replace about 40% of your annual income while you were working. The trade off ( in theory) was it was guaranteed and not subject to the whims and vagaries of the stock market , which could cost you a big chunk of your savings if unlucky. Your personal savings would fill in the gap of what you needed to live comfortably in retirement. Anyone who says they don’t want this money is not being serious unless they are fabulously wealthy ; but this also doesn’t matter- it’s their money too. The average life expectancy in the US is under 79 years old. For comparison , it’s about 81 in the UK and 84 in Japan. If you’re lucky enough to make it to 102, good for you and enjoy collecting SS- there aren’t many like you and expectancy is actually going down. Collecting at 62 is fine; the SS payout to you will be reduced for the entire length of time you collect. However , an actuary would likely tell you that you should take it at 62 and retire if you can. The longer you work past 62 , your life expectancy will decline. 

 The reason neither party has wanted to address the issue is simple: votes. Misinformation abounds, and whoever proposes changes ( which are needed - but the problem is fixable) will be portrayed as being against seniors - a powerful voting block. To fix the program a few important changes should be made. A combination of an increase in the age to collect based on birth year , some increase in the cap on wages subject to FICA are likely among them. Any major change to the program for the future would have to be put in place at another time. This is the system we’ve paid into and will have for the foreseeable future. Note The US population has increased even after Roe v Wade fwiw. 

On 5/3/2019 at 8:11 AM, Tiberius said:

Yes. And I also realize that the tax cuts don't pay for themselves

Since a tax cut is simply allowing citizens to keep more of their own money, it doesn’t need to be “ paid for”. Rather, our government needs to reduce spending to account for it. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2019 at 5:56 AM, VaMilBill said:

I’m relatively young. I wish I could opt out of Social Security and just lose out on the money I’ve paid into it the last 10 years. I would end up saving way more of it myself than I would be receiving when I’m older. 

 

Sure but SS wasn't put in place for merely the responsible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boatdrinks said:

This issue has been known for some time and largely ignored through many successive Presidencies and control by each party. Since the program is so popular ( and why wouldn’t it be ? It’s your money that you paid into the system and should expect to receive. Whether you could have saved more on your own ( or if you actually would have is more likely) is irrelevant here: the program was designed to replace about 40% of your annual income while you were working. The trade off ( in theory) was it was guaranteed and not subject to the whims and vagaries of the stock market , which could cost you a big chunk of your savings if unlucky. Your personal savings would fill in the gap of what you needed to live comfortably in retirement. Anyone who says they don’t want this money is not being serious unless they are fabulously wealthy ; but this also doesn’t matter- it’s their money too. The average life expectancy in the US is under 79 years old. For comparison , it’s about 81 in the UK and 84 in Japan. If you’re lucky enough to make it to 102, good for you and enjoy collecting SS- there aren’t many like you and expectancy is actually going down. Collecting at 62 is fine; the SS payout to you will be reduced for the entire length of time you collect. However , an actuary would likely tell you that you should take it at 62 and retire if you can. The longer you work past 62 , your life expectancy will decline. 

 The reason neither party has wanted to address the issue is simple: votes. Misinformation abounds, and whoever proposes changes ( which are needed - but the problem is fixable) will be portrayed as being against seniors - a powerful voting block. To fix the program a few important changes should be made. A combination of an increase in the age to collect based on birth year , some increase in the cap on wages subject to FICA are likely among them. Any major change to the program for the future would have to be put in place at another time. This is the system we’ve paid into and will have for the foreseeable future. Note The US population has increased even after Roe v Wade fwiw. 

Since a tax cut is simply allowing citizens to keep more of their own money, it doesn’t need to be “ paid for”. Rather, our government needs to reduce spending to account for it. 

 

There is a lot more to consider regarding when to take SS than just actuarial tables.  Taking it at 62 is a mistake in a lot of situations.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chef Jim said:

 

There is a lot more to consider regarding when to take SS than just actuarial tables.  Taking it at 62 is a mistake in a lot of situations.  

It certainly can be. It can also be a mistake for many to wait and take a decade or longer to make up the difference. There simply is no one size fits all answer to that question. As you point out, there are many variables involved including personal financial situation, health and family medical history. My overall point was more about the program itself . Chiefly that there isn’t much issue with the status of the program due to some folks choosing a reduced benefit beginning at their earliest eligibility. The funding issue is more a demographic one and worsened by years of “ kicking the can down the road” instead of making incremental changes earlier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Azalin said:

If I could just get back the money that both I and my employers paid on my behalf over the years, I'd be more than satisfied.

 

Doesn't work that way, wishing for it seems as useless as wishing the 2016 election didn’t happen

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Social Security is one of the most revered and misunderstood programs in the Federal Government. All it really’s ever been is the government taking your earnings and saving them for you because they don’t believe you’ll save them for yourself. Unfortunately they couldn’t start a program like that without the first group of people already having that money set aside so they had to fund it by having the next generation fund the generation before it. It’s NOT your money you get back! It’s your KIDS money. And, it’s a really bad return, since the government can’t invest in anything with a high risk portfolio. In short...it was a bad idea to begin with and time and tradition hasn’t made it any better!

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Azalin said:

If I could just get back the money that both I and my employers paid on my behalf over the years, I'd be more than satisfied.

 

i'm willing to let them keep what i have already been compelled to contribute in exchange for releasing me from their program

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If only there was something they could have done in 2001 with that budget surplus.  Like a box to lock the money in or something. 

 

 

1 hour ago, /dev/null said:

 

i'm willing to let them keep what i have already been compelled to contribute in exchange for releasing me from their program

 

 

Or too bad someone didn’t have the idea of personal accounts for individuals to privately contribute into. Hmmmmm.

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

Doesn't work that way, wishing for it seems as useless as wishing the 2016 election didn’t happen

 

 

 

You miss the point completely, but thanks for the input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Azalin said:

 

You miss the point completely, but thanks for the input.

 

yes, you want to rewrite the Social Security system right now on your command.

 

what will be your first command?  to whom will you send this email?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

yes, you want to rewrite the Social Security system right now on your command.

 

what will be your first command?  to whom will you send this email?

 

That's not what I said at all. Go back and read it again.

 

 

2 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

i couldn't even raise one eyebrow to pretend to give a rat's ass

 

 

You care enough to double down with some pretty ignorant crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Azalin said:

That's not what I said at all. Go back and read it again.

 

 

 

You care enough to double down with some pretty ignorant crap.

 

He’s neither serious, nor decent.

 

The next time he makes a positive or intelligent contribution will be the first.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...