Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you lift the cap then you don't have to raise the age of retirement.
Right now, today, the SS is solvent. It is not in debt it is in surplus. Maybe that won't last forever but I think the reason so many programs, other then retirement, that is a drain on the system, were added is because there is a large nest egg of money and politicians can't stand just having money sit around.
The truth is that SS payment isn't exactly enough for a person to live on now, at least comfortably. So if someone wants to retire at 62 and collect SS they had better have some back up. Or live dirt poor. Add to that the requirement to buy medical insurance until they are 65 and retirement doesn't looks so easy before 65 at least.
You're making the assumption that people have an option. That isn't necessarily true. That sure isn't what we saw in the last decade. Nobody says, well, shucks, I am going to rely on social security. We didn't see that either. We saw rents skyrocket, we saw people forced into retirement, we saw pensions raided at earlier times and then try to blame the people that were to collect.
Lift the cap, let anyone who wants to decline participation.Lift the cap!
Then you have to lift the payout cap as well.
Lift the cap! The people at the top don't need it.
Lets protect the class that is busy deciding the fate of the little people? No.
Let them take that train ride as well.
If you lift the cap then you don't have to raise the age of retirement.
Again, then you are radically changing the purpose and method of Social Security. How about you offset the increase to these people by reducing their federal taxes by an equal amount?
Lift the cap and it really is that simple. There is no excuse.
If you lift the cap then you don't have to raise the age of retirement.
Right now, today, the SS is solvent. It is not in debt it is in surplus. Maybe that won't last forever but I think the reason so many programs, other then retirement, that is a drain on the system, were added is because there is a large nest egg of money and politicians can't stand just having money sit around.
The truth is that SS payment isn't exactly enough for a person to live on now, at least comfortably. So if someone wants to retire at 62 and collect SS they had better have some back up. Or live dirt poor. Add to that the requirement to buy medical insurance until they are 65 and retirement doesn't looks so easy before 65 at least.
You're making the assumption that people have an option. That isn't necessarily true. That sure isn't what we saw in the last decade. Nobody says, well, shucks, I am going to rely on social security. We didn't see that either. We saw rents skyrocket, we saw people forced into retirement, we saw pensions raided at earlier times and then try to blame the people that were to collect.
I am making no assumptions. I think I agree with you that the body does wear out on a time table that I do not see changing all that much. But that still leaves the truth that SS ALONE is not enough to live comfortably.
As you stated, if the job participation rate is increased, the solvency of social security becomes more likely...accompany that with a reduction in immigration, and we have a win-win. But it does not appear our corrupt central government has any intention of doing these things. The oligarchy owns the politicians/government...and they want cheap labor, while the politicians want the votes.But your third sentence is my point. We don't know today whether social security will survive the Baby Boom, and rapid advances in health technology will put more and more pressure on social security with time: Could you live until 1000 years old Someone probably will.
Of course we'll have to increase the retirement age with time, as life expectancies continue to increase.
Social security wasn't built to pay people for 30+ years.
This has nothing to do with "Wall Street".
Is this a trick question?
.
According to the SS administration what you have posted is not true. It is not true. If SS can survive the Baby Boom shear numbers then it seems like it might become more stable. It seems to be that job participation rate is a bigger concern then how long a person lives. And treating age as a number instead of a condition of a person seems to be a bit cold hearted. The age could be raised to 80 and SS would be completely solvent. But people would still age, and no 60 is NOT the new 40.
From the SS administration:
As Table 1 indicates, the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retirement benefits) has increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940.
Social Security History
(Increases in life expectancy are a factor in the long-range financing of Social Security; but other factors, such as the sheer size of the "baby boom" generation, and the relative proportion of workers to beneficiaries, are larger determinants of Social Security's future financial condition.)
This simply an unknown right now.
So let's put it this way: If we need to increase money to social security coffers, the fixes are clearly identifiable and relatively easy. Compared to a potential disaster like Medicare, that's at least a little comforting.
.
Being a financial planner I would think that the determination of whether or not SS will survive is a matter of numbers. Insurance companies make large sums of money using actuary tables.
Don't you make educated guess as to when your clients will be able to retire?
The facts presented are that the life expectancy has NOT risen as high as a lot of people seem to think. Living 1000 years? Really? For that to happen they need to figure out how to keep the body from naturally aging. If they do then there would be no reason for a person to retire at 65 or whatever. But until then the body still ages and although people live longer those last years can be pretty crappy.
My opinion is we need to do something about the job participation rate. The increase in SS disability payments. The downward pressure illegal and legal immigration has on wages.
Lift the cap, let anyone who wants to decline participation.Lift the cap!
Then you have to lift the payout cap as well.
Lift the cap! The people at the top don't need it.
Lets protect the class that is busy deciding the fate of the little people? No.
Let them take that train ride as well.
So basically your position is based on envy and "fuck people who have more than me"
got it.
I'm approaching the cap, and if I had my druthers, you are not getting a damn dime of my money.
Pay for your own retirement. I am.
If you lift the cap then you don't have to raise the age of retirement.
Again, then you are radically changing the purpose and method of Social Security. How about you offset the increase to these people by reducing their federal taxes by an equal amount?
Lift the cap and it really is that simple. There is no excuse.
Greedy, ain't we?
Gov Christie wants to raise retirement age. He is obviously a moron.
Christie Cut entitlements for rich hike retirement age
Here is a much better idea. A transaction tax punishes high frequency trades and short sellers.
Hey fatboy, try this first!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/b...on-financial-trades-gains-advocates.html?_r=0
Lets take a poll to see which voters prefer.
Agreed.If you lift the cap then you don't have to raise the age of retirement.
Right now, today, the SS is solvent. It is not in debt it is in surplus. Maybe that won't last forever but I think the reason so many programs, other then retirement, that is a drain on the system, were added is because there is a large nest egg of money and politicians can't stand just having money sit around.
The truth is that SS payment isn't exactly enough for a person to live on now, at least comfortably. So if someone wants to retire at 62 and collect SS they had better have some back up. Or live dirt poor. Add to that the requirement to buy medical insurance until they are 65 and retirement doesn't looks so easy before 65 at least.
You're making the assumption that people have an option. That isn't necessarily true. That sure isn't what we saw in the last decade. Nobody says, well, shucks, I am going to rely on social security. We didn't see that either. We saw rents skyrocket, we saw people forced into retirement, we saw pensions raided at earlier times and then try to blame the people that were to collect.
I am making no assumptions. I think I agree with you that the body does wear out on a time table that I do not see changing all that much. But that still leaves the truth that SS ALONE is not enough to live comfortably.
The body wears out? They will not hire them. They are forced into retirement.
From 2011:
Unemployment has hit baby-boomers especially hard. For those over 55, the jobless rate has doubled since the recession began, to 6.8 percent. In real terms, that's more than 2 million people, many of whom once had good-paying, white-collar jobs.
And the older you are when you lose a job, the harder it is to find a new one, CBS News correspondent Byron Pitts reports.
If effort and optimism were gold, Eric Garner would be a rich man.
"I'm the busiest unemployed guy I know," Garner said. "I mean, I work a 12-hour day. I just want to get paid for it."
For the past year, Garner's full time job has been looking for a job. He's out of bed by 6 a.m., searching the web, emailing resumes by 6:15.
He has 50 different resumes, he says, because he customizes the resume that he sends out for each employer.
Garner was laid off from a financial services firm in 2010. Since then he's had a few bites, a few interviews, but still no offers.
How is it possible that someone who is college educated, working on a masters degree, with 32 years of work experience can't find a job?
For unemployed over 50 jobs especially scarce - CBS News
2014:
Over 50 working against time in America s harsh job market Star Tribune
Agreed.If you lift the cap then you don't have to raise the age of retirement.
Right now, today, the SS is solvent. It is not in debt it is in surplus. Maybe that won't last forever but I think the reason so many programs, other then retirement, that is a drain on the system, were added is because there is a large nest egg of money and politicians can't stand just having money sit around.
The truth is that SS payment isn't exactly enough for a person to live on now, at least comfortably. So if someone wants to retire at 62 and collect SS they had better have some back up. Or live dirt poor. Add to that the requirement to buy medical insurance until they are 65 and retirement doesn't looks so easy before 65 at least.
You're making the assumption that people have an option. That isn't necessarily true. That sure isn't what we saw in the last decade. Nobody says, well, shucks, I am going to rely on social security. We didn't see that either. We saw rents skyrocket, we saw people forced into retirement, we saw pensions raided at earlier times and then try to blame the people that were to collect.
I am making no assumptions. I think I agree with you that the body does wear out on a time table that I do not see changing all that much. But that still leaves the truth that SS ALONE is not enough to live comfortably.
The body wears out? They will not hire them. They are forced into retirement.
From 2011:
Unemployment has hit baby-boomers especially hard. For those over 55, the jobless rate has doubled since the recession began, to 6.8 percent. In real terms, that's more than 2 million people, many of whom once had good-paying, white-collar jobs.
And the older you are when you lose a job, the harder it is to find a new one, CBS News correspondent Byron Pitts reports.
If effort and optimism were gold, Eric Garner would be a rich man.
"I'm the busiest unemployed guy I know," Garner said. "I mean, I work a 12-hour day. I just want to get paid for it."
For the past year, Garner's full time job has been looking for a job. He's out of bed by 6 a.m., searching the web, emailing resumes by 6:15.
He has 50 different resumes, he says, because he customizes the resume that he sends out for each employer.
Garner was laid off from a financial services firm in 2010. Since then he's had a few bites, a few interviews, but still no offers.
How is it possible that someone who is college educated, working on a masters degree, with 32 years of work experience can't find a job?
For unemployed over 50 jobs especially scarce - CBS News
2014:
Over 50 working against time in America s harsh job market Star Tribune
Why is the baby boom retiring early in huge numbers, when many have little retirement savings? I suspect many gave up trying to find a good paying job. If the economy was humming, would they be retiring?
And yes America has a health problem, with many of us obese. It is tough to get a job when you are 60 and fat, particularly in a weak job market.
Lift the cap, let anyone who wants to decline participation.Then you have to lift the payout cap as well.
Lift the cap! The people at the top don't need it.
Lets protect the class that is busy deciding the fate of the little people? No.
Let them take that train ride as well.
So basically your position is based on envy and "fuck people who have more than me"
got it.
I'm approaching the cap, and if I had my druthers, you are not getting a damn dime of my money.
Pay for your own retirement. I am.
Absolutely not. What I dislike tremendously is the lies that are associated with this game.
When pensions were solid and normal then we had a bunch of dingalings that couldn't stand the fact that there was money that they couldn't access. Move to 401K. They brought in their little gold tooth smile folks with pie charts to justify it. Remember this? Remember that little game? So that changed.
When pensions were held by the state, and they came up short, we learned that they came up short because elected officials had raided or moved the money. They stood up on stages and played a little sham game of it's those that are set to collect their pensions are the bad guys. You had to dig to find out that the money had been raided. Remember that?
It's like playing a video game of shoot down the myths. You have no problem reciting rhetoric of unions bad or whatever bs meme that the Rs and Ds like to kick out. You have a real hard time taking a stand for the actual people that are working.
Lift the cap, let anyone who wants to decline participation.Lift the cap! The people at the top don't need it.
Lets protect the class that is busy deciding the fate of the little people? No.
Let them take that train ride as well.
So basically your position is based on envy and "fuck people who have more than me"
got it.
I'm approaching the cap, and if I had my druthers, you are not getting a damn dime of my money.
Pay for your own retirement. I am.
Absolutely not. What I dislike tremendously is the lies that are associated with this game.
When pensions were solid and normal then we had a bunch of dingalings that couldn't stand the fact that there was money that they couldn't access. Move to 401K. They brought in their little gold tooth smile folks with pie charts to justify it. Remember this? Remember that little game? So that changed.
When pensions were held by the state, and they came up short, we learned that they came up short because elected officials had raided or moved the money. They stood up on stages and played a little sham game of it's those that are set to collect their pensions are the bad guys. You had to dig to find out that the money had been raided. Remember that?
It's like playing a video game of shoot down the myths. You have no problem reciting rhetoric of unions bad or whatever bs meme that the Rs and Ds like to kick out. You have a real hard time taking a stand for the actual people that are working.
PUBLIC unions are bad because of the exact reason you stated above. When a pension plan assumes it can just get more money from taxes, it is run poorly. Construction Unions own their own pensions, and they know they have to keep up with contributions or they will go insolvent.
My 401k is humming along nicely. at age 40 I have $235,000 in it.
If you lift the cap then you don't have to raise the age of retirement.
Again, then you are radically changing the purpose and method of Social Security. How about you offset the increase to these people by reducing their federal taxes by an equal amount?
Lift the cap and it really is that simple. There is no excuse.
Greedy, ain't we?
No. Fed up with your bullshit.
Lift the cap, let anyone who wants to decline participation.
Lets protect the class that is busy deciding the fate of the little people? No.
Let them take that train ride as well.
So basically your position is based on envy and "fuck people who have more than me"
got it.
I'm approaching the cap, and if I had my druthers, you are not getting a damn dime of my money.
Pay for your own retirement. I am.
Absolutely not. What I dislike tremendously is the lies that are associated with this game.
When pensions were solid and normal then we had a bunch of dingalings that couldn't stand the fact that there was money that they couldn't access. Move to 401K. They brought in their little gold tooth smile folks with pie charts to justify it. Remember this? Remember that little game? So that changed.
When pensions were held by the state, and they came up short, we learned that they came up short because elected officials had raided or moved the money. They stood up on stages and played a little sham game of it's those that are set to collect their pensions are the bad guys. You had to dig to find out that the money had been raided. Remember that?
It's like playing a video game of shoot down the myths. You have no problem reciting rhetoric of unions bad or whatever bs meme that the Rs and Ds like to kick out. You have a real hard time taking a stand for the actual people that are working.
PUBLIC unions are bad because of the exact reason you stated above. When a pension plan assumes it can just get more money from taxes, it is run poorly. Construction Unions own their own pensions, and they know they have to keep up with contributions or they will go insolvent.
My 401k is humming along nicely. at age 40 I have $235,000 in it.
Yes, because the world revolves around you. Got it.
If you lift the cap then you don't have to raise the age of retirement.
Again, then you are radically changing the purpose and method of Social Security. How about you offset the increase to these people by reducing their federal taxes by an equal amount?
Lift the cap and it really is that simple. There is no excuse.
Greedy, ain't we?
No. Fed up with your bullshit.
All I read in your posts is "Gimme Gimme Gimme"
Lets protect the class that is busy deciding the fate of the little people? No.
Let them take that train ride as well.
So basically your position is based on envy and "fuck people who have more than me"
got it.
I'm approaching the cap, and if I had my druthers, you are not getting a damn dime of my money.
Pay for your own retirement. I am.
Absolutely not. What I dislike tremendously is the lies that are associated with this game.
When pensions were solid and normal then we had a bunch of dingalings that couldn't stand the fact that there was money that they couldn't access. Move to 401K. They brought in their little gold tooth smile folks with pie charts to justify it. Remember this? Remember that little game? So that changed.
When pensions were held by the state, and they came up short, we learned that they came up short because elected officials had raided or moved the money. They stood up on stages and played a little sham game of it's those that are set to collect their pensions are the bad guys. You had to dig to find out that the money had been raided. Remember that?
It's like playing a video game of shoot down the myths. You have no problem reciting rhetoric of unions bad or whatever bs meme that the Rs and Ds like to kick out. You have a real hard time taking a stand for the actual people that are working.
PUBLIC unions are bad because of the exact reason you stated above. When a pension plan assumes it can just get more money from taxes, it is run poorly. Construction Unions own their own pensions, and they know they have to keep up with contributions or they will go insolvent.
My 401k is humming along nicely. at age 40 I have $235,000 in it.
Yes, because the world revolves around you. Got it.
Coming from a greedy POS like you that's comical.
Again, then you are radically changing the purpose and method of Social Security. How about you offset the increase to these people by reducing their federal taxes by an equal amount?
Lift the cap and it really is that simple. There is no excuse.
Greedy, ain't we?
No. Fed up with your bullshit.
All I read in your posts is "Gimme Gimme Gimme"
If you got off your ass and started paying attention to what was going on around you and started working towards solutions prior to the age of retirement besides union killing and reciting memes from Town Hall then you wouldn't see that. As it stands that's all you are prepared to hear.
So basically your position is based on envy and "fuck people who have more than me"
got it.
I'm approaching the cap, and if I had my druthers, you are not getting a damn dime of my money.
Pay for your own retirement. I am.
Absolutely not. What I dislike tremendously is the lies that are associated with this game.
When pensions were solid and normal then we had a bunch of dingalings that couldn't stand the fact that there was money that they couldn't access. Move to 401K. They brought in their little gold tooth smile folks with pie charts to justify it. Remember this? Remember that little game? So that changed.
When pensions were held by the state, and they came up short, we learned that they came up short because elected officials had raided or moved the money. They stood up on stages and played a little sham game of it's those that are set to collect their pensions are the bad guys. You had to dig to find out that the money had been raided. Remember that?
It's like playing a video game of shoot down the myths. You have no problem reciting rhetoric of unions bad or whatever bs meme that the Rs and Ds like to kick out. You have a real hard time taking a stand for the actual people that are working.
PUBLIC unions are bad because of the exact reason you stated above. When a pension plan assumes it can just get more money from taxes, it is run poorly. Construction Unions own their own pensions, and they know they have to keep up with contributions or they will go insolvent.
My 401k is humming along nicely. at age 40 I have $235,000 in it.
Yes, because the world revolves around you. Got it.
Coming from a greedy POS like you that's comical.
You're a fucking child. You got anything else that's even remotely relevant?
