Social Security is a hoorible deal. especiallt for poor people

[Winchester]

Not only do you not make money, you actually lose it. And when you did, nothing goes to your heirs.


View attachment 67236415

Hmmm, poor people do not pay $404,377 into SS.

 

[OldFatGuy]

There are simple shorter term fixes for SS until/if something else comes up. I would advocate raising the cap. I remember way back when I first hit the point that I'd maxed out contributions resulting in a larger paycheck for the rest of the year. It does go up, but it can go up more. I would like to see estimates of how high it would need to be to get to 2050 or so without issues.

The real issue that needs to be addressed is Medicare - all parts. That one is a lot harder because in our medical system there are few cost controls.

Are you on medicare?

I am. It isn't worth spit.

I receive superb medical care, because I can afford to pay the bills and I use doctors who have opted out, the best in their respective fields. I've attended the funerals of two close friends within the past 3 weeks, of my age, because they only had medicare and supplemental policies.

The future health needs of this nation needs be commenced prior to conception. When that happens and it is followed through throughout life, no one will bicker about the costs. Of course, that won't happen, there is too much money to be made because it won't happen.

 

[KLATTU]

Hmmm, poor people do not pay $404,377 into SS.

who said any such thing?

 

[smallvoice]

Maybe "delusional" as you call it, but it should be MY choice, not the government.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Not only do you not make money, you actually lose it. And when you did, nothing goes to your heirs.


View attachment 67236415

That leaves out some very important parts of Social Security - disability benefits and mandatory 'investing'.

The second is perhaps the most important - if a worker actually would invest that average $8K/year every year then after 50 years they would have their $1.2M fund but if they waited only 10 years (say until age 28) to start working/investing then that private 'nest egg' would be significantly reduced while their SS would not be negatively affected at all (since it is based on the highest 35 years of earnings). Of course, there is also the problem of who pays for current (or near current) Social Security beneficiaries if payroll tax 'contributions' are stopped.

 

[Winchester]

who said any such thing?

Your thread title would indicate so. People on the lower end of the wage scale make out much better on SS "returns".

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Are you on medicare?

I am. It isn't worth spit.

I receive superb medical care, because I can afford to pay the bills and I use doctors who have opted out, the best in their respective fields. I've attended the funerals of two close friends within the past 3 weeks, of my age, because they only had medicare and supplemental policies.

The future health needs of this nation needs be commenced prior to conception. When that happens and it is followed through throughout life, no one will bicker about the costs. Of course, that won't happen, there is too much money to be made because it won't happen.

No, I'm not on it yet. But I'll (if it exists) be eligible in a few years. I know many doctors have opted out because their costs are high and Medicare doesn't cover them sufficiently. I do have relatives who depend on it, however. Whether they have supplemental coverage, I'm not sure. Probably. Medicare IS covering a nursing home for an uncle on my wife's side. He has no supplemental. I know, because we handle his paperwork nightmares.

You are right, a lot of people are making good livings off the current broken system so it's not likely to change before it collapses and people start to really suffer. Band aides won't work. The whole thing needs to be overhauled.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

That leaves out some very important parts of Social Security - disability benefits and mandatory 'investing'.

The second is perhaps the most important - if a worker actually would invest that average $8K/year every year then after 50 years they would have their $1.2M fund but if they waited only 10 years (say until age 28) to start working/investing then that private 'nest egg' would be significantly reduced while their SS would not be negatively affected at all (since it is based on the highest 35 years of earnings). Of course, there is also the problem of who pays for current (or near current) Social Security beneficiaries if payroll tax 'contributions' are stopped.

Exactly. The current system needs to be tapered off. I only expect it to be a supplement, but there are people who can't make ends meet without it.

 

[KLATTU]

Your thread title would indicate so. People on the lower end of the wage scale make out much better on SS "returns".

The returns are low for everydoy. that's worse for poor people since rich people have other soources of retirement income .

Also the current system allows for no transfer of wealth to heirs

That is the single biggest reason why the rich get richer.

 

[OldFatGuy]

No, I'm not on it yet. But I'll (if it exists) be eligible in a few years. I know many doctors have opted out because their costs are high and Medicare doesn't cover them sufficiently. I do have relatives who depend on it, however. Whether they have supplemental coverage, I'm not sure. Probably. Medicare IS covering a nursing home for an uncle on my wife's side. He has no supplemental. I know, because we handle his paperwork nightmares.

You are right, a lot of people are making good livings off the current broken system so it's not likely to change before it collapses and people start to really suffer. Band aides won't work. The whole thing needs to be overhauled.

You'll find your uncle in the nursing home is also on medicaid.

Not overhauled, replaced. And everyone needs to stop crying about costs. One less multibillion-dollar navy ship or high altitude stealth bomber that can fly when it rains.

 

[UtahBill]

Exactly. The current system needs to be tapered off. I only expect it to be a supplement, but there are people who can't make ends meet without it.

And if you warned them decades earlier they would still not be able to make ends meet. 2 of my siblings, in fact. They can't see any reason to look beyond today.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

You'll find your uncle in the nursing home is also on medicaid.

Not overhauled, replaced. And everyone needs to stop crying about costs. One less multibillion-dollar navy ship or high altitude stealth bomber that can fly when it rains.

He is on Medicaid. We had to manipulate his finances in order to get him qualified. Sorry for the mixup.

I'm actually of the opinion that there are a ridiculous number of no-value-add sucks, along with absurd markups (hospitals are notorious) in out HC system. It would cause a lot of crying if the leeches were removed, but that would definitely bring costs down.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

And if you warned them decades earlier they would still not be able to make ends meet. 2 of my siblings, in fact. They can't see any reason to look beyond today.

You are right. Human nature + libertarianism doesn't work for many old people. People with the means to plan who just don't plan I have little sympathy for. There are many who lack that means, however.

 

[OldFatGuy]

He is on Medicaid. We had to manipulate his finances in order to get him qualified. Sorry for the mixup.

I'm actually of the opinion that there are a ridiculous number of no-value-add sucks, along with absurd markups (hospitals are notorious) in out HC system. It would cause a lot of crying if the leeches were removed, but that would definitely bring costs down.

Nothing to be sorry about. He's likely benefitting from both. Nursing homes and social services are excellent when filling out forms and advising relatives.

 

[Conservative]

Well, if you dispute the fact that when taxes are cut revenue falls, we can't have a serious conversation. Debate requires a common set of facts.

Perhaps if Exxon cut their gas prices by 20% they'd earn more money? Or Mars candy might cut their candy bar prices in half and profits would skyrocket!

Such hatred and ignorance about tax cuts and people keeping more of what they earn. Treasury data proves you to be nothing but a partisan leftwing hack and WRONG

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Nothing to be sorry about. He's likely benefitting from both. Nursing homes and social services are excellent when filling out forms and advising relatives.

The homes we dealt with were/are good, the government agencies and their requirements were a nightmare. They seemed to evolve every time we talked to someone new. 1 hour on hold was not unusual.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Exactly. The current system needs to be tapered off. I only expect it to be a supplement, but there are people who can't make ends meet without it.

Much the same (as that bolded above) could be said for working at (or very near) the minimum wage. The reason that the current system is in place is that putting aside sufficient savings for retirement is simply not being done by far too many folks.

I'm not sure how we could 'taper off' of Social Security when we are not willing to 'taper off' from spending more on the other "safety net" programs and many are keen to add UHC and 'free' college/trade school to that mix.

Who’s Banking on Social Security?
Nearly nine out of 10 Americans aged 65 or older currently receive Social Security. The Social Security Administration estimates that 21% of married couples and 43% of single seniors rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income. According to a 2015 Gallup poll, 36% of near-retirees say they expect Social Security to be a major source of income once they retire. (For more, see How Social Security Works After Retirement.)

Income and the time frame to save for retirement seem to be major factors in determining who’s going to be more dependent on Social Security. In the Gallup poll, for example, 48% of non-retirees aged 55 and older and 45% of those making less than $30,000 said that Social Security would account for a large chunk of their retirement income. (For more, see Top 6 Myths About Social Security Benefits.)

When Social Security is your primary or only source of funds in retirement, it takes some creativity to make those dollars go further. Making certain adjustments can help you to navigate retirement without leaving like you’re feeling broke. Here are four concrete steps you can take.

Read more: How to Have a Comfortable Retirement on Social Security Alone | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/articl...ement-social-security-alone.asp#ixzz5OHVFHBue

 

[OldFatGuy]

The homes we dealt with were/are good, the government agencies and their requirements were a nightmare. They seemed to evolve every time we talked to someone new. 1 hour on hold was not unusual.

Just don't request the IRS to do your tax forms, even if it is a free service.

 

[Carleen]

Social Security: $39 Billion Deficit in 2014, Insolvent by 2035

Social Security’s main program, also known as Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI), ran a $39 billion deficit in 2014, closing out five years of consecutive cash-flow deficits as the program’s unfunded obligations continue to grow.[1] According to the 2015 annual Trustees’ Report, the 75-year unfunded obligation of the Social Security OASI Trust Fund is $9.43 trillion, a $70 billion increase from last year’s unfunded obligation of $9.36 trillion.[2] After including federal debt obligations recorded as assets to the Social Security trust fund of $2.73 trillion, Social Security’s total 75-year unfunded obligation is nearly $12.2 trillion.

The Social Security OASI program is projected to reach insolvency in 2035. This means that the program is expected to have only enough revenue from payroll taxes, interest on the Trust Fund balance, and repayment of borrowed Trust Fund dollars to pay out scheduled benefits until 2035. This is one year later than projected in last year’s report.[3]

If no action is taken to improve Social Security’s solvency before its Trust Fund runs dry, benefits will either be delayed or reduced across the board by 23 percent. Congress should avoid indiscriminate benefit cuts which would harm the most vulnerable beneficiarie

View attachment 67238111s the most by adopting commonsense reforms that modernize the outdated Social Security program.

Ok you don't like private accounts.
But what are you going to do to fix the current **UNSUSTAINABLE***system? Benefit cuts?
Big tax increases?

What else is there?

Have churches start paying tax.

 

[MTAtech]

Such hatred and ignorance about tax cuts and people keeping more of what they earn. Treasury data proves you to be nothing but a partisan leftwing hack and WRONG

'YOU JUST HATE TAX-CUT {and the rich keeping more of their money}!' Ah, the *argument* one retreats to when they can't defend tax-cuts for the rich that are paid for by the middle class. "Partisan," "Hack," I hear you. This can't be argued with you on rational grounds but with all the moral injustices in the world, you choose to fight for the rich to keep more of their money.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

You don't seem to understand the point of social security. It's the security part. You see private investments might work out better for you about 9 times out of 10, but it's that 10th time when the stock market crashes like it did under Bush, and probably will again under Trump and you lose everything you had when you're too old to make more that gets you. The goal of SS is to prevent the worse case scenario and take the risk out of the portfolio entirely.

You're also assuming that people would, in fact, invest that money in private accounts if it was optional. That is delusional.

I wonder how mandatory investment in US savings bonds would compare.

 

[chuckiechan]

Social Security: $39 Billion Deficit in 2014, Insolvent by 2035

Social Security’s main program, also known as Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI), ran a $39 billion deficit in 2014, closing out five years of consecutive cash-flow deficits as the program’s unfunded obligations continue to grow.[1] According to the 2015 annual Trustees’ Report, the 75-year unfunded obligation of the Social Security OASI Trust Fund is $9.43 trillion, a $70 billion increase from last year’s unfunded obligation of $9.36 trillion.[2] After including federal debt obligations recorded as assets to the Social Security trust fund of $2.73 trillion, Social Security’s total 75-year unfunded obligation is nearly $12.2 trillion.

The Social Security OASI program is projected to reach insolvency in 2035. This means that the program is expected to have only enough revenue from payroll taxes, interest on the Trust Fund balance, and repayment of borrowed Trust Fund dollars to pay out scheduled benefits until 2035. This is one year later than projected in last year’s report.[3]

If no action is taken to improve Social Security’s solvency before its Trust Fund runs dry, benefits will either be delayed or reduced across the board by 23 percent. Congress should avoid indiscriminate benefit cuts which would harm the most vulnerable beneficiarie

View attachment 67238111s the most by adopting commonsense reforms that modernize the outdated Social Security program.

Ok you don't like private accounts.
But what are you going to do to fix the current **UNSUSTAINABLE***system? Benefit cuts?
Big tax increases?

What else is there?

Actually, Social Security with Medicare is socialism for the elderly. Let that be a warning to all!

 

[Conservative]

'YOU JUST HATE TAX-CUT {and the rich keeping more of their money}!' Ah, the *argument* one retreats to when they can't defend tax-cuts for the rich that are paid for by the middle class. "Partisan," "Hack," I hear you. This can't be argued with you on rational grounds but with all the moral injustices in the world, you choose to fight for the rich to keep more of their money.

Allowing people to keep more of what they earn sure bothers you. Maybe if you changed your attitude, worked harder you would be in the same boat and get to keep more of what you earn as well. Your problem now seems to be that you aren't making much money but are jealous of what others make and have vs. you. Jealousy is a terrible trait to have but you are full of it.

 

[jaeger19]

Not only do you not make money, you actually lose it. And when you did, nothing goes to your heirs.


View attachment 67236415

Yawn..not this load of crap again.

Tell you what.. you find that investment that guarantees to pay me 30 years from now.. regardless of market performance..

AND guarantees to pay me tomorrow at the same level if I get disabled.

And you would have a point.. otherwise.. Social security is a very good deal...

 

[jaeger19]

Allowing people to keep more of what they earn sure bothers you. .

It seems to bother you too. you call for increasing peoples federal taxes.. MR.. "you need to pay more to the federal government".