ADVERTISEMENT

Civil Discussion: Social Security

Do you think SS will be around when you retire

  • Definitely

    Votes: 92 26.7%
  • In a reduced fashion

    Votes: 94 27.2%
  • I'm not counting on it at all

    Votes: 111 32.2%
  • Screw the Gamecocks and their crappy coach

    Votes: 48 13.9%

  • Total voters
    345

scott in nashville

The Jack Dunlap Club
Gold Member
Jan 10, 2011
8,218
25,099
113
Nashville, TN
In my quest to make sure my parents are cared for and solvent, I have been reading quite a lot about Social Security. Since they are in their 70s, they will be fine with the current system since it will remain solvent until 2035. They have a nice nest egg, but they still use their SS.

From my viewpoint, GenX may end up with reduced benefits and Millenials even moreso. It seems that there are multiple options on the table that "fix" SS. Like upping the tax rate from 12.4% to 14 (split between contributor and employer) and removing the cap of ~$130k to $400k. I try to focus my retirement on not needing it, but I have to admit, I've paid in a LOT to it, so it would be nice to get something.

Do you think SS will be around when you retire? Are you concerned? What other options do you find interesting?
 
It will still be around when I'm eligible, but benefits will likely be a negative rate of return compared to what I paid in.

Increasing the tax, or capping the amount taxed, but not increasing the annual benefits level will cause that negative rate to explode.
 
Have been getting a SS ck for 20 years now so guess I would have to say it's gonna be around when I retire. I contributed into fund for some 50 years and thankfully I was wise enough to also invest in a 401k along with other investments or my retirement would be very sad if depending only on what I get from my ss ck.
 
It will still be around when I'm eligible, but benefits will likely be a negative rate of return compared to what I paid in.

Increasing the tax, or capping the amount taxed, but not increasing the annual benefits level will cause that negative rate to explode.

I guess I never thought it would ever have a positive rate of return. That's an interesting viewpoint.
 
In my 30s, so my answer is hell no it won’t be around. Who knows what the answer to solve it is though. Lots of options but to talk about reforming it is a political nightmare so no one is Washington wants to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: southerncaltiger
I believe I will get something when eligible in 12 years, but I have never factored it into my retirement planning. A little extra for beer and betting.

I echo this sentiment about never having factored it into my retirement. Anything I get will be gravy on top of what I'm already putting aside/investing.
 
I guess I never thought it would ever have a positive rate of return. That's an interesting viewpoint.

Benefits will not be going up (other than COLA) so it all depends on how long you are able to receive benefits. Eligible at 65 and live to 90, you'll get out more than you put in. Baby boomers are almost assuredly getting more than they put in.

Later generations where they raise the eligibility age will likely lose out no matter how long they live.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scott in nashville
I think it will be there when I am around (in some form), however, if they gave me the option to quit contributing and invest myself, I would jump on it even if they said you can only get 50% of what you would have gotten.

BTW: Screw the Gamecocks is the answer
 
At 32 years old I think Carolina and their crap coach have a better chance of winning a National Championship than I have getting my SS benefits.
 
Look at your SS letter you get every year and see what you've put into it. Then build a spreadsheet and pretend you invested that same amount in the S&P 500 Mutual Fund until you are 60.

It'll make you sick to see how much $ you'd have. Retirement wouldn't be an issue for anyone.
 
Last edited:
In my quest to make sure my parents are cared for and solvent, I have been reading quite a lot about Social Security. Since they are in their 70s, they will be fine with the current system since it will remain solvent until 2035. They have a nice nest egg, but they still use their SS.

From my viewpoint, GenX may end up with reduced benefits and Millenials even moreso. It seems that there are multiple options on the table that "fix" SS. Like upping the tax rate from 12.4% to 14 (split between contributor and employer) and removing the cap of ~$130k to $400k. I try to focus my retirement on not needing it, but I have to admit, I've paid in a LOT to it, so it would be nice to get something.

Do you think SS will be around when you retire? Are you concerned? What other options do you find interesting?

it has been shown that the FED will print money to stabilize society. What makes one think they would let Social Security lapse?

We are knee deep in MMT and social security will be a part of that. Social Security will be funded for the foreseeable future imo.
 
All I know is if we would've elected Al Gore in 2000, we wouldn't be having this debate. He was going to put SS in lock-box and throw away the key. ;)

KindheartedFickleIchneumonfly-size_restricted.gif
 
Look at your SS letter you get every year and see what you've put into it. The build a spreadsheet and pretend you invested that same amount in the S&P 500 Mutual Fund until you are 60.

It'll make you sick to see how much $ you'd have. Retirement wouldn't be an issue for anyone.

I have been saying for 20 years I thought there should be an option where you opt out of the Social Security program completely (meaning no benefit ever) in return for keeping the amount taken out of your paycheck. You would have to have it invested in an IRA or something like that.

The Social Security system would still have the employer portion to use to provide some type of benefit to lower income people in retirement.

I know it would never fly but it seems like it would help the program.
 
Look at your SS letter you get every year and see what you've put into it. The build a spreadsheet and pretend you invested that same amount in the S&P 500 Mutual Fund until you are 60.

It'll make you sick to see how much $ you'd have. Retirement wouldn't be an issue for anyone.

I think much of it stems from people being undisciplined or unable to save for retirement. I like the idea above of being able to opt out (but if you do, your employer shouldn't be on the hook either). A government program is unfortunately needed here as a backstop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: southerncaltiger
In my quest to make sure my parents are cared for and solvent, I have been reading quite a lot about Social Security. Since they are in their 70s, they will be fine with the current system since it will remain solvent until 2035. They have a nice nest egg, but they still use their SS.

From my viewpoint, GenX may end up with reduced benefits and Millenials even moreso. It seems that there are multiple options on the table that "fix" SS. Like upping the tax rate from 12.4% to 14 (split between contributor and employer) and removing the cap of ~$130k to $400k. I try to focus my retirement on not needing it, but I have to admit, I've paid in a LOT to it, so it would be nice to get something.

Do you think SS will be around when you retire? Are you concerned? What other options do you find interesting?
If you are a fan of social security and Medicare or have a loved one on it, you should be opposed to the payroll tax cut Trump is enthralled with. It would gut funding for the two programs and accelerate their insolvency for no meaningful impact on the economy.

To answer your question, if you arent retiring very soon, you probably need to plan on a benefit of about 80% of what it is projected for you when you retire, and that is assuming no Trump payroll tax cut.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad72
What everyone fails to mention is that SS was never meant to be a full time retirement fund. It was designed to be a supplement to retirement. If they would return the money redistributed, in the 70's the Feds dumped the SS funding into the general fund, it would have enough to fund true pensions for its entirety. However since they put the allocated funds into the general fund and the government can't sustain a balance budget it has increasingly indebted us all. It will never be removed or reduced as it is an entitlement program and they never go away. In fact the opposite has actually occurred (see below link). It's all scare tactics. I have been listening to the SS debate for 40 years......same crap different day.

https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/info-2020/colas-history.html
 
A shock - Medicare is not free at 65, but a premium and is based on retirement income. The premiums for a retired couple can be substantial.
 
Last edited:
It needs to be constantly adjusted, especially if we are going to go to these lengths to keep the oldies alive. Retirement age has only increased by like 2 years while life expectancy by 15. Adjustments must be made
 
In my quest to make sure my parents are cared for and solvent, I have been reading quite a lot about Social Security. Since they are in their 70s, they will be fine with the current system since it will remain solvent until 2035. They have a nice nest egg, but they still use their SS.

From my viewpoint, GenX may end up with reduced benefits and Millenials even moreso. It seems that there are multiple options on the table that "fix" SS. Like upping the tax rate from 12.4% to 14 (split between contributor and employer) and removing the cap of ~$130k to $400k. I try to focus my retirement on not needing it, but I have to admit, I've paid in a LOT to it, so it would be nice to get something.

Do you think SS will be around when you retire? Are you concerned? What other options do you find interesting?

56 and it should be around for at least the early part of my retirement. Like others have said, in collaboration with our 20+ year financial advisor, we set up the models as if zero contributions were coming from SS. Aggressive investing. Did it make things tight, especially after we moved back to SoCal in 2005? Hell, yes. Hard to maintain financial goals when feeding a huge mortgage payment on a very modest house.
I didn’t land in electric utility land by accident; 401k + Cash Balance Acct (“pension”) + stability was a BIG part of why I chose it after I left consulting at Fluor Daniel.
I’m OK with removing $132k cap; I’m ok with paying more if it helps keep it solvent longer; not going to lie... I like the fatter take home pay after mid-August.
 
I think much of it stems from people being undisciplined or unable to save for retirement. I like the idea above of being able to opt out (but if you do, your employer shouldn't be on the hook either). A government program is unfortunately needed here as a backstop.
I agree with you. I'd be hard press to say I wouldn't want to use my investment cash flow to spend on "now" expenses. And there are certainly those American who don't have excess to invest.

That said....whould it be better:
1) To have the government direct you to invest a certain % of your income an IRA (or another investment vehicle) that's in your name and that you control. The investment would be automatic from your paycheck to this investment. If you don't invest the minimum based on your salary, you face a penalty from the government.

or

2) Have the government automatically take money out of your paycheck. Put it in a group account that is not an asset in your name. Therefore you don't have any equitity on the books for its value. If you die early, it's not an asset to pass to your heirs. The money taken from you is used to pay the generation ahead of you. The money given to you is from the generation behind you. And if collect payment and die, it ends. Aka Social Security. Oh and let's not forget the huge government infrastruction required to manage and run all of this that we all pay for.

SS is a broken model. It was enacted when lifespans were much shorter than they are today. Now it's old people welfare. Politicians are scared to address the issue when its a fairly easy fix. Grandfather some year group to be on the SS model for their life. Create a newer model for a younger generation to participate in. Yeah it'd be an expensive change for a number of years, but we have to do something different.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you. I'd be hard press to say I wouldn't want to use my investment cash flow to spend on "now" expenses. And there are certainly those American who don't have excess to invest.

That said....whould it be better:
1) To have the government direct you to invest a certain % of you in an IRA (or another investment vehicle) that's in your name and that you control. The investment would be automatic from your paycheck to this investment. If you don't invest the minimum based on your salary, you face a penalty from the government.

or

2) Have the government automatically take money out of your paycheck. Put it in a group account that is not an asset in your name. Therefore you don't have any equitity on the books for its value. If you die early, it's not an asset to pass to your heirs. The money taken from you is used to pay the generation ahead of you. The money given to you will receive is from the generation behind you. And if collect payment and die, it ends. Aka Social Security. Oh and let's not forget the huge government infrastruction required to manage and run all of this that we all pay for.

SS is a broken model. It was enacted when lifespans were much shorter than they are today. Now it's old people welfare. Politicians are scared to address the issue when its a fairly easy fix. Grandfather some year group to by on the SS model for their life. Create a newer model for a younger generation to participate in. Yeah it'd be an expense change for a number of years, but we have to do something different.

Yep, we agree completely. It's a totally broken model. Like a poster above said, no one will have the political stones to fix it/nuke it/be creative so the can just gets kicked down the road.
 
Get rid of it and let me invest it myself.

I don't have any issue with that at all. The question becomes how do you stop it? Do you say that anyone born after X date is no longer eligible for legacy SS?

Companies do this all the time. Employees that start after a certain date are no longer pension eligible. That's what they'll have to start doing with SS.
 
I agree that removing the $132k cap would be huge in funding it, however the taxes paid will just be a reason to increase entitlement programs that are currently funded by SS. Those programs are part of the socioeconomic restructuring that has been taking place for 80+ years starting with "The New Deal". We know the term today as a redistribution of wealth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pvilletigerfan
IMO if there was ever a reason to print money in this country it's now and only to refund everyone $ for $ for what they contributed minus what people receiving it have been paid back and end SS now. It would be a huge stimulus to the economy.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT