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
You can’t trust the majority of Americans to save for their own retirement. Go look at the statistics, people are terrible at saving. SS will never go away. If it does they will have to come up with another program like guaranteed income for those who spent every penny they ever made.
 
My idea for SS that I don't think will go anywhere because it would be detrimental to politicians re-elections.

SS was never meant for the amount of time people are living these days. I think when it started, they were expecting about 3 years of paying out on average. I think when an age group hits 55, the gov't tells them what the average life expectancy is for their year group and then subtracts some number - 3, 5, 10 years - whatever is sustainable. That is when you can get SS. If you can afford to retire before that - great. If you need SS to survive in retirement, then you will need to work longer. Tell everyone now so they can plan accordingly for what they save vs spend to prepare for retirement.

Personally, I plan to retire at 62 whether it is there or not.

Bones
 
  • Like
Reactions: scott in nashville
A shock - Medicare is not free at 65, but a premium and is based on retirement income. The premiums for a retiredmretired couple can be substantial.

Very true, and they base your premium on your tax return that is two years old - be sure to file the form to get it reduced if your retirement income is significantly below your prior income.
 
In my quest to

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

Yep. SS is here and I am retired!

FWIW, back in the mid-70s I and all my friends were sure Social Security would NOT be here when we retired. But it is.

Somewhere and somehow the system will change, but it'll be here when you retire.

But the amount you get will not be large. Right now the maximum payment at age 65 works out to about $36,000 per year less medicare expenses. That's too much money to ignore or laugh at, but you better be planning on what you will accumulate before you retire. If you want a nice retirement, YOU are going to have to carry yourself. SS will be a nice sweetner but it isn't how you want to live.
 
Yep. SS is here and I am retired!

FWIW, back in the mid-70s I and all my friends were sure Social Security would NOT be here when we retired. But it is.

Somewhere and somehow the system will change, but it'll be here when you retire.

But the amount you get will not be large. Right now the maximum payment at age 65 works out to about $36,000 per year less medicare expenses. That's too much money to ignore or laugh at, but you better be planning on what you will accumulate before you retire. If you want a nice retirement, YOU are going to have to carry yourself. SS will be a nice sweetner but it isn't how you want to live.

That’s great perspective! I don’t plan on SS at all, but if I do get it, my kids and charities will benefit from the extra money. My wife and I have paid in significantly, so we would double dip.
 
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.
They didn't save a penny and going through SS right now. But in terms of saving money for retirement, these new generations are saying hold my beer....
 
  • Like
Reactions: CUFam98
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?

LOL. Unless our Government changes its' spots, I'm golden. But I've paid into it for over 45 years...both as an employee and an employer. Best not screw with my SS.
 
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.

What if you aren’t a fan of SS? I mean, mathematically, it’s some of the worst money I spend each year. Negative ROR, no enjoyment.
 
If the government can print 2 trillion dollars and pass it out like candy then they can print 2 trillion and pass it out to the ones that worked and paid into it.

Amen. I am Gen X so still a ways off, but close enough to think about it. And I think I said the other day, screw that just take a third of that 3 trillion and help shore up SS- doing that would benefit the citizens more than $1200 right now (IMHO).

I would advocate for putting a plan in place that funds SS for those retiring through 2045. Do that now, and revisit in 15 years. The odds are that SS will have to be replaced in the 40s if not before because of changes in Longevity .....and coupled with increases in Healthspan....it will be time to rethink it all.

Not to mention other changes to society due to automation and the increasing rate of technological advancement impacting the world as we know it.

The world is and will change profoundly and faster than at any time in history over the next few decades. Lots of upheaval and change. People hate and resist change.

That is- of course- assuming the US survives as a Country that long.
 
Last edited:
  • I voted reduced.
  • I’m concerned they will raise or eliminate the cap on contributions. This is already a terrible, terrible retirement vehicle compared to others and I know the benefit will be capped, so putting even more in is a horrible idea.
  • I’m concerned they will means test the benefit on the future - whether by income, tax returns, retirement account balances, etc. Very bad idea. You put it in, you get it out. You should not be penalized for responsible saving elsewhere.
  • As stated by others ITT, SS provides a horrendous ROI. The entire country would be so much better off if you just had to put the money in an IRA and pay a small disability insurance premium. Very basic workers would retire millionaires. You want to create real change in underserved communities? Let them invest 12% of their income compounded for 50 years (18 to 68). That’s real, generational change.
  • But this is typical of government - lots of theory with bad management, poor results and unintended consequences.
 
You can’t trust the majority of Americans to save for their own retirement. Go look at the statistics, people are terrible at saving. SS will never go away. If it does they will have to come up with another program like guaranteed income for those who spent every penny they ever made.

That is because we have created a Enabled society. We don't let people truly fail for their non-efforts. But if we truly think that we cannot condition people to be more responsible then force them into saving money but for the sake of sanity quit taxing them in hopes of salvaging a failed system.
 
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.

im in favor of taking ss off budget and requiring employers to give that 6.7% to the employee as a raise.

taking ss off budget so democrats can spend it on other stuff to keep ss solvent.
 
I voted definitely. I did not think SS would be there for me 30 years ago. I can't draw any money now because of income but next year when I reach 66 plus I can and I will, God willing. My wife starts drawing in January when she goes on Medicare.

I have max out paying into SS for at least 30 plus years so it's like $36,000 a year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scott in nashville
SS is going to exist as long as the US dollar remains the exchange currency of the world and the US military maintains its dominance. Assuming these things there will be no political will to remove benefits that support people who have paid into significantly throughout their working careers. This issue is simply a political hook for banter just like the deficit. There is no reason for the US to run a budget surplus but yet politicians will worry you incessantly about a deficit if you care to listen. Inflation is a real concern, but the actual numbers are irrelevant as long as inflation is held in check. As an individual it is wise to assume SS could be eliminated, but also reasonable for you to expect the government to continue
 
not a chance ...... started working at 15 and don't expect to see any of it
 
What if you aren’t a fan of SS? I mean, mathematically, it’s some of the worst money I spend each year. Negative ROR, no enjoyment.
Its not just about your personal investment and return. Its about the society you choose to live in. Without social security and Medicare, what would the country you live in look like? For a huge portion of Americans, both are the differenece in them living on the street and dying of disease and illnesses that they can't afford to have treated. And if that was the case, what civil unrest do you expect? How many people just on this board do you think would be financially crushed if their parents had no social security or Medicare? A lot. You think most people are just going to continue to let you live the life you live with the things you have while they or their loved ones die and starve?

Can Social Security and Medicare be improved? Yes. Do our politicians have the intellect, resolve, and bipartisanship needed to make improvements? I dont think so. The last thing we should do is bankrupt both with an eliminationnof the payroll tax and have nothing just so you can get a better return on those SS dollars.
 
Its not just about your personal investment and return. Its about the society you choose to live in. Without social security and Medicare, what would the country you live in look like? For a huge portion of Americans, both are the differenece in them living on the street and dying of disease and illnesses that they can't afford to have treated. And if that was the case, what civil unrest do you expect? How many people just on this board do you think would be financially crushed if their parents had no social security or Medicare? A lot. You think most people are just going to continue to let you live the life you live with the things you have while they or their loved ones die and starve?

Lets set Medicare to the side, I agree we need to keep some sort of old age/high cost insurance program. Once you are over around 55 you are actuarialy insurable anyway. Use the 6.2% the employer pays to prop up Medicare.

But to you other points, but since workers that started in the labor force in the 1960s there is no reason that Social Security should be the safety net anymore. If you just set aside the 6.2% Social Security tax that every worker has been paying in for their entire working life, there is no reason that someone can't retire and live on their own at a similar level they did when they were working. This live on the street narrative is 1) because of poor planning and 2) the social security tax.

The median household income is 61,000 now. Younger workers will make less, older workers will make more but we can use it as an average. 6.2% of $61,000 is around $315/month. Over 40 years of working, if you set aside $315 a month at a modest 7% interest rate thats almost 750,000 nest egg when you retire.

If you retired today making 61,000, your monthly benefit from Social Security would be about $1500/month (from SSA.gov calculator). You would have to live to be 106 years old to receive $750,000 in benefits.

Lets say you never made the median income until you retired and only were taxed on average $150/month. Thats still a $350,000 nest egg. You'd have to live to be almost 85 to spend it all at $1500/month.

The US worker would be better off scrapping Social Security and just mandating 6.2% of their wages to be set aside in a trust fund. Basically the George Bush plan in the 2000s.

The other factor in this equation is, that money is yours. If you die before you run out of funds, it goes to your heirs. Thats generational wealth that could change families for decades.
 
Its not just about your personal investment and return. Its about the society you choose to live in. Without social security and Medicare, what would the country you live in look like? For a huge portion of Americans, both are the differenece in them living on the street and dying of disease and illnesses that they can't afford to have treated. And if that was the case, what civil unrest do you expect? How many people just on this board do you think would be financially crushed if their parents had no social security or Medicare? A lot. You think most people are just going to continue to let you live the life you live with the things you have while they or their loved ones die and starve?

Can Social Security and Medicare be improved? Yes. Do our politicians have the intellect, resolve, and bipartisanship needed to make improvements? I dont think so. The last thing we should do is bankrupt both with an eliminationnof the payroll tax and have nothing just so you can get a better return on those SS dollars.

I understand all of that. And I'm not suggesting you defund the program and leave those people on the street. But you said, "If you are a fan of social security..." I pointed out that I am not a fan and listed the reasons why in my reply and a subsequent reply.

If we really cared about the society we live in, we would look for ways to help people build their personal wealth untethered to the government. Imagine what a worker could do if they invested 10%+ of their income, compounded for 50 years (age 18-68). Even for the lowest paid among us, the result is a 7 figure number. That is real, generational change to their financial security and family's well-being.

I also find this interesting:

Do our politicians have the intellect, resolve, and bipartisanship needed to make improvements? I dont think so.

So we mutually acknowledge that our government and its leaders are incapable of properly managing an existing entitlement program, but there are those who support a party that wants to expand government entitlements and control into new parts of our life, such as U65 healthcare, college tuition, etc. Can you believe it?
 
Lets set Medicare to the side, I agree we need to keep some sort of old age/high cost insurance program. Once you are over around 55 you are actuarialy insurable anyway. Use the 6.2% the employer pays to prop up Medicare.

But to you other points, but since workers that started in the labor force in the 1960s there is no reason that Social Security should be the safety net anymore. If you just set aside the 6.2% Social Security tax that every worker has been paying in for their entire working life, there is no reason that someone can't retire and live on their own at a similar level they did when they were working. This live on the street narrative is 1) because of poor planning and 2) the social security tax.

The median household income is 61,000 now. Younger workers will make less, older workers will make more but we can use it as an average. 6.2% of $61,000 is around $315/month. Over 40 years of working, if you set aside $315 a month at a modest 7% interest rate thats almost 750,000 nest egg when you retire.

If you retired today making 61,000, your monthly benefit from Social Security would be about $1500/month (from SSA.gov calculator). You would have to live to be 106 years old to receive $750,000 in benefits.

Lets say you never made the median income until you retired and only were taxed on average $150/month. Thats still a $350,000 nest egg. You'd have to live to be almost 85 to spend it all at $1500/month.

The US worker would be better off scrapping Social Security and just mandating 6.2% of their wages to be set aside in a trust fund. Basically the George Bush plan in the 2000s.

The other factor in this equation is, that money is yours. If you die before you run out of funds, it goes to your heirs. Thats generational wealth that could change families for decades.
So you think that the average American has the ability to manage a trust fund and get a 7% return?I'm here to tell you they can't. The majority of Americans don't know the first thing about investing. Most don't even have real savings on their own outside of SS and if they do it is a company managed 401k. Someone is going to have to do it for them. That someone is going to have to be the government. And if you let people opt out of having the government drive that investment, how do you determine who is capable and who is not? Again, most people are incapable.

What happens when someone invests in a high risk stock portfolio and the market crashes right before retirement like in 2008 or in 2020. We had a quick rebound in 2020, but how many of those folks may have moved their money on the decline and missed out on the rebound? Now who pays for them to stay off of the street in retirement? Expecting every American to manage a 7% return on an investment portfolio is crazy talk. We have had a good 10 year run in the markets, but that won't continue forever.

Also, how are you going to mandate a 6.2% savings rate? The only way to do that is with a payroll tax just like social security savings are mandated. So. What is the difference?

Essentially you are left with lobbying for an individual to be able to assume more risk with their portion of their social security. I am fine with that to a degree, but it is still social security and it cant be everything because that isnt even possible. Savings would still need to be collected through a payroll tax just the same as SS to enforce those savings. The investment options would have to be conservative and measured to protect against big dips, and to protect people from themselves. So, you still have social security, you just get a little more say in the investment of your social security. But, the bigger questions is where does the money come from to give everyone their pot of money to start this individually driven investment account? The trust fund isn't close to being sufficient for that. Social Security for those retired and drawing today is funded largely by the workforce we have contributing today and the same is true into the future. There isnt a nice stash of cash sitting somehwere with your name on it based on what you contributed. There is an IOU that is funded by future SS taxes. If you get what you are contributing, how do the people retired today get what they contributed?

But the kost fatal flaw of many people is they assume every American is like them. They are not. Most Americans don't have the financial security or competence to manage a retirement account like you or I can. Social Security is a safety net to keep people off of the streets and keep them from starving once they cant work any longer. It is a safety net, not an investment portfolio like you or I have and it can never be that and provide that safety net.
 
What if you aren’t a fan of SS? I mean, mathematically, it’s some of the worst money I spend each year. Negative ROR, no enjoyment.

Due to its unknown end date, there is no way to actually know its ROR as the 'Return' is unknown. With SS, live to 100 and it likely turns out pretty good ROR, become disabled early in life, big winner; die with multiple young dependents, big winner. As an investment, it's like gambling, you can win big or lose big-- but it wasn't designed as an investment vehicle. Think of it as disability and early death insurance with a modest return of premium.
 
Due to its unknown end date, there is no way to actually know its ROR as the 'Return' is unknown. With SS, live to 100 and it likely turns out pretty good ROR, become disabled early in life, big winner; die with multiple young dependents, big winner. As an investment, it's like gambling, you can win big or lose big-- but it wasn't designed as an investment vehicle. Think of it as disability and early death insurance with a modest return of premium.

That's expensive insurance.

Here's a scenario:
  • $30K starting income
  • 50 years to contribute and compound (a18-a68)
  • 3% annual income increase
  • 12.4% retirement contribution
Ending balance?

$2+ million

It's unfortunate that entitlement programs rob lower income Americans of the ability to build generational wealth.
 
So you think that the average American has the ability to manage a trust fund and get a 7% return?I'm here to tell you they can't. The majority of Americans don't know the first thing about investing. Most don't even have real savings on their own outside of SS and if they do it is a company managed 401k. Someone is going to have to do it for them. That someone is going to have to be the government. And if you let people opt out of having the government drive that investment, how do you determine who is capable and who is not? Again, most people are incapable.

What happens when someone invests in a high risk stock portfolio and the market crashes right before retirement like in 2008 or in 2020. We had a quick rebound in 2020, but how many of those folks may have moved their money on the decline and missed out on the rebound? Now who pays for them to stay off of the street in retirement? Expecting every American to manage a 7% return on an investment portfolio is crazy talk. We have had a good 10 year run in the markets, but that won't continue forever.

Also, how are you going to mandate a 6.2% savings rate? The only way to do that is with a payroll tax just like social security savings are mandated. So. What is the difference?

Essentially you are left with lobbying for an individual to be able to assume more risk with their portion of their social security. I am fine with that to a degree, but it is still social security. It is still collected through a payroll tax just the same. The investment options would have to be conservative and measured to protect against big dips, and to protect people from themselves. So, you still have social security, you just get a little more say in the investment of your social security.

You are assuming every American is like you. They are not. Most Americans don't have the financial security or competence to manage a retirement account like you or I can. Social Security is a safety net to keep people off of the streets and keep them from starving once they cant work any longer. That is it.

No I don't assume that the majority of americans can manage a portfolio. Unlike my TI brethren, I don't even assume I can do it. I stash away all that I can, but I know I'm not smart enough and don't have the time to play the market. I have a financial advisor that helps me pick funds for 401ks and other investments. Theres a 6 page thread on penny stocks, I'm not even sure what a penny stock is. JC Penny is closing stores, so it can't be that Penny stock. :)

I would certainly mandate a 6.2% hold back/tax/directed investment/automatic payroll deduction, whatever you want to call it. Now way in hell I would just give it to the employee as a 6.2% raise. If they are paying the SS tax, they wouldn't notice that instead of going to a black hole, they are going into some sort of trust or "mutual fund share" that is managed on their behalf. Part of the reason I used a 7% interest rate is that most of the conservative "target date funds" can hit that number or better, especially over 40 years. Have some funds approved/licensed by the government and direct your 6.2% into that. The only choice anyone has is picking the date you think you might retire.

Its the same theory of companies going away from defined benefit pension plans to defined contributions like 401k.

The benefits of setting aside 6.2% in something you own instead of going to SS are:
1) rate of growth/time value of money
2) wealth actually owned by the individual that can be passed down
3) won't even begin to try to quantify the benefits of 6.2% of wages going back into the market and what businesses could do to grow the workforce in the US.


Take that employer 6.2% and put it all into Medicare. Shore that up. increase benefits and increase payments to providers. Give Medicare beneficiaries more coverage and more provider choices. Or use it to pay premiums on MA plans on behalf of seniors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PKPTigers12
SS will just become the “here...don’t starve or become homeless” plan eventually.
 
That's expensive insurance.

Here's a scenario:
  • $30K starting income
  • 50 years to contribute and compound (a18-a68)
  • 3% annual income increase
  • 12.4% retirement contribution
Ending balance?

$2+ million

It's unfortunate that entitlement programs rob lower income Americans of the ability to build generational wealth.

No doubt expensive insurance, but not much different than the completely wasted premiums I paid for term life early in my career or STD/LTD today. At least with SS, there may be some return of premium later.

Taking care of the great unwashed comes at a cost. The only question: is the SS program the cheapest way to address the insurance issues and the (very) modest retirement benefits?

(BTW, love the assumptions: compound interest is undefeated and most people don't work 50 years- especially those with more physically demanding and lower paying jobs. Many low income workers would love a 3% annual raise, some would even envy a $30k annual income or even stable income. It's this group SS is designed for, not degree holding, professional, upperclass workers).

I am not defending SS as an investment (can't be done with a straight face). As for lower income (or even most middle income) Americans- there is no way they save 12.4% of their income without it being withheld by the government. If the government is involved, then forget good returns. Would it be better as a forced 'IRA'?- probably (need to see the strings attached, investment options, tax liability and withdrawal/bequest policies). As for the loss of progessivity of the program, not an issue for me, but it would be for millions. Plus the disability/early death insurance portion would need subsidization- those most likely to collect either of those generally have lower wages (not many 6 figure workers in high early death/injury occupations).

I don't like the government in this role, but realize that this is an issue to simply hold your nose on as the need for something is required. I have my personal plans, but don't have a global answer. In the end, I view SS as a general tax, whatever I receive later is a bonus.
 
im in favor of taking ss off budget and requiring employers to give that 6.7% to the employee as a raise.

taking ss off budget so democrats can spend it on other stuff to keep ss solvent.

In 1990 when the SS Trust Funds were taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

BLUF: Congres doesn't spend this money.
 
That's expensive insurance.

Here's a scenario:
  • $30K starting income
  • 50 years to contribute and compound (a18-a68)
  • 3% annual income increase
  • 12.4% retirement contribution
Ending balance?

$2+ million

It's unfortunate that entitlement programs rob lower income Americans of the ability to build generational wealth.
Good math. The problem is someone making $30k doesn't have 12.4% to contribute to retirement. They're just trying to put a roof over their head and food on the plate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange 77
Good math. The problem is someone making $30k doesn't have 12.4% to contribute to retirement. They're just trying to put a roof over their head and food on the plate.

I used 12.4% because that's what the government takes for SS between the employee and employer contributions. So it is already being paid today - this just highlights how inefficient it's being used by the government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PawsFan_
Good math. The problem is someone making $30k doesn't have 12.4% to contribute to retirement. They're just trying to put a roof over their head and food on the plate.

They already are. Comes out of their check every time (and from their employer at the same time). Its not an ADDITIONAL 12.4%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PawsFan_
You mean like a ponzi scheme?
Yes... except it is a legal ponzi scheme. :) Everyone knows that it is a ponzi scheme. At some point in the future, whether 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 years, some are not going to get their money back. The assumption is that it won't matter because none of us will exist any longer and won't need it. But, that is the reality of why everyone can't take their cut and invest it now. If everyone asks for their money now, to create their own portfolio, it would crumble. That is how all ponzi schemes crumble.

It is also why sustainable population growth is necessary and why many countries are begging people to immigrate there. If our population starts to decline, we have major problems. Have babies or else encourage practical immigration if you want your full social security and Medicare benefits.
 
Yes... except it is a legal ponzi scheme. :) Everyone knows that it is a ponzi scheme. At some point in the future, whether 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 years, some are not going to get their money back. The assumption is that it won't matter because none of us will exist any longer and won't need it. But, that is the reality of why everyone can't take their cut and invest it now. If everyone asks for their money now, to create their own portfolio, it would crumble. That is how all ponzi schemes crumble.

It is also why sustainable population growth is necessary and why many countries are begging people to immigrate there. If our population starts to decline, we have major problems. Have babies or else encourage practical immigration if you want your full social security and Medicare benefits.

I have 2 boys, so I've done my part, ha.

I just don't get how we can all sit around and acknowledge that this is a poorly run, inefficient program that faces eventual collapse (whether 50, 100, etc years from now), but people will continue to support new entitlement programs that will be poorly run, inefficient and face eventual collapse.
 
But, that is the reality of why everyone can't take their cut and invest it now. If everyone asks for their money now, to create their own portfolio, it would crumble. That is how all ponzi schemes crumble.

It would have to be phased in. No doubt. But that is easy to do. Lock in the benefits at the time they move into the investment side. Phase the tax vs investment percentage over time.

I'm almost 45, so basically half way in my working life. Lets say my benefits would be $2500/month (projecting to 2040 from the $1500 I looked up earlier).
My guaranteed SS benefit in 2040 (again, I don't even know when I'm technically eligible, so go with me here) would be $1250. The reminder of my benefits are from the 6.2% from here forward.


Or...just print more freakin money with a purty Social Security stamp on it. That seems like a solution to everything. ;)
 
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?
Capping SS contributions is so dumb ill never understand it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1Clemzunfan
Capping SS contributions is so dumb ill never understand it.

Uh, no it's not. It's a safety net program. Once you reach a certain level of contribution, you have fully funded your share of the safety net. And of course there's the cap on distributions, so capping contributions is totally logical.

Having unlimited, forced contributions and capped distributions is so dumb I will never understand it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CUFam98
A little math fun. I started work in 1989.

So if I had invested $1 in an S&P 500 Mutual fund in 1990. I did not make any additional investment.

In 2019, that $1 would have grown to $12.86. Adjusted for the annual effects of inflation, it still would have grown to $8.90.

That a safe 7.9% rate of return for doing nothing but better on the US economy over the long haul.
It is also why sustainable population growth is necessary and why many countries are begging people to immigrate there. If our population starts to decline, we have major problems. Have babies or else encourage practical immigration if you want your full social security and Medicare benefits.
Very true and sad. Unfortunately economic growth in most places has more to do with population growth than "making and selling stuff." China is in a tough spot because it's population growth is in decline.

Unfortuantely with population growth come other problems: the environment, the disparity between have and have nots, and the global competition for resources. All of this end in bad place for people.

But hey....it's football season.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT