How social security system really works

[Disir]

I'm not planning on it but I have seen repeatedly the damage done by greedy little gambling financial advisers. You should never privatize any aspect of it.

Those "greedy little gambling financial advisers" got me a retirement income of 5 digits a month. And I retired 10 years early, and didn't get Social Security. I must admit that for most of those years I had a self-directed IRA and bought and sold stocks myself. My company 401K was handled by one of those "greedy" investment firms, and when I early retired I got a little over $500,000 payout that I put in an IRA to avoid paying income taxes on it.

Congratulations. Then, clearly, there is no need for you to hijack SS.


I watched a lot of people lose everything from this past financial crisis from those greedy financial advisers.

I have seen my portfolio drop as much as 50% twice. It is now back up to where it was in 2007. And it is a shame that people lose money in the stock market, but it is like any other investment. You win some you lose some. That is the reason for diversifying your investments. How is your collection of Beanie Babies doing?

I paid the premiums for Social Security and I intend to collecting the benefits that I paid for. It has nothing to do with my need, and perhaps you need to look up the word 'hijack' unless you are a shithead and meant it as a insult.

You win some and you lose some?

Gambling.

Listen. Once upon a time people went to work and put their money in a pension.

Couldn't stand the fact that there was all that money that the greedy financial advisers couldn't get their little grubby paws on. So, they held classes and brought pie charts and graphs and moved the money. Remember that?

Talked about having control. So, all of these people that were well trained in their career now had beautiful plans with alleged control when they had zero background in the stock market.

The world doesn't revolve around you. I'm glad you made out like a bandit.

Do not destroy what we have in place for situations like the one we just had simply because you think it's skippy.

What you call gambling, I call investing. Those that have zero background in the market should definitely not invest in the market. It is not difficult to get a prospectus from a company that someone is interested in before deciding to buy their stock or not.

Once upon a time company pensions were provided to employees and they were free of charge. A number of years ago many companies went to a 401K plan where the employee could put a certain percentage of his gross pay into the plan and the company matched part of the investment. Most 401K's allowed the employee to pick the investments such as 40% stocks, 40% bonds and 20% money market or any other combination they preferred. I considered the 'gamblers' those that chose 100% stocks, and didn't go that route.

One of the advantages was the employee contribution to and earnings of the 401K plan were not taxable until the money was withdrawn at retirement.

I have no desire to destroy anything, but I do see an opportunity that was missed to increase the ROI for millions that are locked in to a bankrupt Social Security system.

Win some/lose some is gambling.

What did they say this last round? Don't count on retiring on 401K. It's called playing with other people's money.
Don t depend on your employer for retirement - MarketWatch

The message changes as needed.

The businesses didn't just go the way of the 401k. They were talked into it and then forced everyone else to do it because it was a swell idea. A swell idea with graphs and pie charts.

Even so, Too Tall, the beneficiaries of SS are real people. They have real needs. They aren't just walking dollar signs.

 

[TooTall]

Those "greedy little gambling financial advisers" got me a retirement income of 5 digits a month. And I retired 10 years early, and didn't get Social Security. I must admit that for most of those years I had a self-directed IRA and bought and sold stocks myself. My company 401K was handled by one of those "greedy" investment firms, and when I early retired I got a little over $500,000 payout that I put in an IRA to avoid paying income taxes on it.

Congratulations. Then, clearly, there is no need for you to hijack SS.


I watched a lot of people lose everything from this past financial crisis from those greedy financial advisers.

I have seen my portfolio drop as much as 50% twice. It is now back up to where it was in 2007. And it is a shame that people lose money in the stock market, but it is like any other investment. You win some you lose some. That is the reason for diversifying your investments. How is your collection of Beanie Babies doing?

I paid the premiums for Social Security and I intend to collecting the benefits that I paid for. It has nothing to do with my need, and perhaps you need to look up the word 'hijack' unless you are a shithead and meant it as a insult.

You win some and you lose some?

Gambling.

Listen. Once upon a time people went to work and put their money in a pension.

Couldn't stand the fact that there was all that money that the greedy financial advisers couldn't get their little grubby paws on. So, they held classes and brought pie charts and graphs and moved the money. Remember that?

Talked about having control. So, all of these people that were well trained in their career now had beautiful plans with alleged control when they had zero background in the stock market.

The world doesn't revolve around you. I'm glad you made out like a bandit.

Do not destroy what we have in place for situations like the one we just had simply because you think it's skippy.

What you call gambling, I call investing. Those that have zero background in the market should definitely not invest in the market. It is not difficult to get a prospectus from a company that someone is interested in before deciding to buy their stock or not.

Once upon a time company pensions were provided to employees and they were free of charge. A number of years ago many companies went to a 401K plan where the employee could put a certain percentage of his gross pay into the plan and the company matched part of the investment. Most 401K's allowed the employee to pick the investments such as 40% stocks, 40% bonds and 20% money market or any other combination they preferred. I considered the 'gamblers' those that chose 100% stocks, and didn't go that route.

One of the advantages was the employee contribution to and earnings of the 401K plan were not taxable until the money was withdrawn at retirement.

I have no desire to destroy anything, but I do see an opportunity that was missed to increase the ROI for millions that are locked in to a bankrupt Social Security system.

Win some/lose some is gambling.

What did they say this last round? Don't count on retiring on 401K. It's called playing with other people's money.
Don t depend on your employer for retirement - MarketWatch

The message changes as needed.

The businesses didn't just go the way of the 401k. They were talked into it and then forced everyone else to do it because it was a swell idea. A swell idea with graphs and pie charts.

Even so, Too Tall, the beneficiaries of SS are real people. They have real needs. They aren't just walking dollar signs.

Those who are depending on Social Security for retirement are in a system that may go bankrupt in the near future. Soc Sec is not self sustaining and hasn't been for quite a number of years. Soc Sec was designed as a supplement to retirement income in old age and has turned in to an unsustainable welfare program.

Any one who doesn't work for a company that has a 401K plan should change jobs IMHO. I thought I told you, you don't retire on a 401K plan. When you retire you get a lump sum payout of all the money you invested, all of the matching funds and all of the earnings. Now you get to decide what you do with that money. For most people, it would be to put it in an IRA and take the minimum required distribution each year. That, with Social Security as a supplement, as long as it lasts, is the way it is supposed to work. Investing in IRA puts the money in dozens of different companies, so if one company goes bankrupt, it has minimal affect on the IRA. I take my MRD monthly, and have the taxes withheld, much like dollar cost averaging in reverse.

 

[Disir]

Congratulations. Then, clearly, there is no need for you to hijack SS.


I watched a lot of people lose everything from this past financial crisis from those greedy financial advisers.

I have seen my portfolio drop as much as 50% twice. It is now back up to where it was in 2007. And it is a shame that people lose money in the stock market, but it is like any other investment. You win some you lose some. That is the reason for diversifying your investments. How is your collection of Beanie Babies doing?

I paid the premiums for Social Security and I intend to collecting the benefits that I paid for. It has nothing to do with my need, and perhaps you need to look up the word 'hijack' unless you are a shithead and meant it as a insult.

You win some and you lose some?

Gambling.

Listen. Once upon a time people went to work and put their money in a pension.

Couldn't stand the fact that there was all that money that the greedy financial advisers couldn't get their little grubby paws on. So, they held classes and brought pie charts and graphs and moved the money. Remember that?

Talked about having control. So, all of these people that were well trained in their career now had beautiful plans with alleged control when they had zero background in the stock market.

The world doesn't revolve around you. I'm glad you made out like a bandit.

Do not destroy what we have in place for situations like the one we just had simply because you think it's skippy.

What you call gambling, I call investing. Those that have zero background in the market should definitely not invest in the market. It is not difficult to get a prospectus from a company that someone is interested in before deciding to buy their stock or not.

Once upon a time company pensions were provided to employees and they were free of charge. A number of years ago many companies went to a 401K plan where the employee could put a certain percentage of his gross pay into the plan and the company matched part of the investment. Most 401K's allowed the employee to pick the investments such as 40% stocks, 40% bonds and 20% money market or any other combination they preferred. I considered the 'gamblers' those that chose 100% stocks, and didn't go that route.

One of the advantages was the employee contribution to and earnings of the 401K plan were not taxable until the money was withdrawn at retirement.

I have no desire to destroy anything, but I do see an opportunity that was missed to increase the ROI for millions that are locked in to a bankrupt Social Security system.

Win some/lose some is gambling.

What did they say this last round? Don't count on retiring on 401K. It's called playing with other people's money.
Don t depend on your employer for retirement - MarketWatch

The message changes as needed.

The businesses didn't just go the way of the 401k. They were talked into it and then forced everyone else to do it because it was a swell idea. A swell idea with graphs and pie charts.

Even so, Too Tall, the beneficiaries of SS are real people. They have real needs. They aren't just walking dollar signs.

Those who are depending on Social Security for retirement are in a system that may go bankrupt in the near future. Soc Sec is not self sustaining and hasn't been for quite a number of years. Soc Sec was designed as a supplement to retirement income in old age and has turned in to an unsustainable welfare program.

Any one who doesn't work for a company that has a 401K plan should change jobs IMHO. I thought I told you, you don't retire on a 401K plan. When you retire you get a lump sum payout of all the money you invested, all of the matching funds and all of the earnings. Now you get to decide what you do with that money. For most people, it would be to put it in an IRA and take the minimum required distribution each year. That, with Social Security as a supplement, as long as it lasts, is the way it is supposed to work. Investing in IRA puts the money in dozens of different companies, so if one company goes bankrupt, it has minimal affect on the IRA. I take my MRD monthly, and have the taxes withheld, much like dollar cost averaging in reverse.

It's currently self sustaining. If there are any fears then lift the cap. It really is that simple.

 

[Andylusion]

I have seen my portfolio drop as much as 50% twice. It is now back up to where it was in 2007. And it is a shame that people lose money in the stock market, but it is like any other investment. You win some you lose some. That is the reason for diversifying your investments. How is your collection of Beanie Babies doing?

I paid the premiums for Social Security and I intend to collecting the benefits that I paid for. It has nothing to do with my need, and perhaps you need to look up the word 'hijack' unless you are a shithead and meant it as a insult.

You win some and you lose some?

Gambling.

Listen. Once upon a time people went to work and put their money in a pension.

Couldn't stand the fact that there was all that money that the greedy financial advisers couldn't get their little grubby paws on. So, they held classes and brought pie charts and graphs and moved the money. Remember that?

Talked about having control. So, all of these people that were well trained in their career now had beautiful plans with alleged control when they had zero background in the stock market.

The world doesn't revolve around you. I'm glad you made out like a bandit.

Do not destroy what we have in place for situations like the one we just had simply because you think it's skippy.

What you call gambling, I call investing. Those that have zero background in the market should definitely not invest in the market. It is not difficult to get a prospectus from a company that someone is interested in before deciding to buy their stock or not.

Once upon a time company pensions were provided to employees and they were free of charge. A number of years ago many companies went to a 401K plan where the employee could put a certain percentage of his gross pay into the plan and the company matched part of the investment. Most 401K's allowed the employee to pick the investments such as 40% stocks, 40% bonds and 20% money market or any other combination they preferred. I considered the 'gamblers' those that chose 100% stocks, and didn't go that route.

One of the advantages was the employee contribution to and earnings of the 401K plan were not taxable until the money was withdrawn at retirement.

I have no desire to destroy anything, but I do see an opportunity that was missed to increase the ROI for millions that are locked in to a bankrupt Social Security system.

Win some/lose some is gambling.

What did they say this last round? Don't count on retiring on 401K. It's called playing with other people's money.
Don t depend on your employer for retirement - MarketWatch

The message changes as needed.

The businesses didn't just go the way of the 401k. They were talked into it and then forced everyone else to do it because it was a swell idea. A swell idea with graphs and pie charts.

Even so, Too Tall, the beneficiaries of SS are real people. They have real needs. They aren't just walking dollar signs.

Those who are depending on Social Security for retirement are in a system that may go bankrupt in the near future. Soc Sec is not self sustaining and hasn't been for quite a number of years. Soc Sec was designed as a supplement to retirement income in old age and has turned in to an unsustainable welfare program.

Any one who doesn't work for a company that has a 401K plan should change jobs IMHO. I thought I told you, you don't retire on a 401K plan. When you retire you get a lump sum payout of all the money you invested, all of the matching funds and all of the earnings. Now you get to decide what you do with that money. For most people, it would be to put it in an IRA and take the minimum required distribution each year. That, with Social Security as a supplement, as long as it lasts, is the way it is supposed to work. Investing in IRA puts the money in dozens of different companies, so if one company goes bankrupt, it has minimal affect on the IRA. I take my MRD monthly, and have the taxes withheld, much like dollar cost averaging in reverse.

It's currently self sustaining. If there are any fears then lift the cap. It really is that simple.

I don't understand this. Hundreds of articles all say, and have said for years, that Social Security is NOT self sustaining. How can you even type out 'it's currently self sustaining' and think everyone else on the planet, is so entirely stupid, as to believe you?

 

[Disir]

You win some and you lose some?

Gambling.

Listen. Once upon a time people went to work and put their money in a pension.

Couldn't stand the fact that there was all that money that the greedy financial advisers couldn't get their little grubby paws on. So, they held classes and brought pie charts and graphs and moved the money. Remember that?

Talked about having control. So, all of these people that were well trained in their career now had beautiful plans with alleged control when they had zero background in the stock market.

The world doesn't revolve around you. I'm glad you made out like a bandit.

Do not destroy what we have in place for situations like the one we just had simply because you think it's skippy.

What you call gambling, I call investing. Those that have zero background in the market should definitely not invest in the market. It is not difficult to get a prospectus from a company that someone is interested in before deciding to buy their stock or not.

Once upon a time company pensions were provided to employees and they were free of charge. A number of years ago many companies went to a 401K plan where the employee could put a certain percentage of his gross pay into the plan and the company matched part of the investment. Most 401K's allowed the employee to pick the investments such as 40% stocks, 40% bonds and 20% money market or any other combination they preferred. I considered the 'gamblers' those that chose 100% stocks, and didn't go that route.

One of the advantages was the employee contribution to and earnings of the 401K plan were not taxable until the money was withdrawn at retirement.

I have no desire to destroy anything, but I do see an opportunity that was missed to increase the ROI for millions that are locked in to a bankrupt Social Security system.

Win some/lose some is gambling.

What did they say this last round? Don't count on retiring on 401K. It's called playing with other people's money.
Don t depend on your employer for retirement - MarketWatch

The message changes as needed.

The businesses didn't just go the way of the 401k. They were talked into it and then forced everyone else to do it because it was a swell idea. A swell idea with graphs and pie charts.

Even so, Too Tall, the beneficiaries of SS are real people. They have real needs. They aren't just walking dollar signs.

Those who are depending on Social Security for retirement are in a system that may go bankrupt in the near future. Soc Sec is not self sustaining and hasn't been for quite a number of years. Soc Sec was designed as a supplement to retirement income in old age and has turned in to an unsustainable welfare program.

Any one who doesn't work for a company that has a 401K plan should change jobs IMHO. I thought I told you, you don't retire on a 401K plan. When you retire you get a lump sum payout of all the money you invested, all of the matching funds and all of the earnings. Now you get to decide what you do with that money. For most people, it would be to put it in an IRA and take the minimum required distribution each year. That, with Social Security as a supplement, as long as it lasts, is the way it is supposed to work. Investing in IRA puts the money in dozens of different companies, so if one company goes bankrupt, it has minimal affect on the IRA. I take my MRD monthly, and have the taxes withheld, much like dollar cost averaging in reverse.

It's currently self sustaining. If there are any fears then lift the cap. It really is that simple.

I don't understand this. Hundreds of articles all say, and have said for years, that Social Security is NOT self sustaining. How can you even type out 'it's currently self sustaining' and think everyone else on the planet, is so entirely stupid, as to believe you?

You don't understand because you are repeating a lie. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. It's solvent until 2033 and operates allegedly at 75% at 2050. Lift the cap. It really is that simple.

 

[TooTall]

I have seen my portfolio drop as much as 50% twice. It is now back up to where it was in 2007. And it is a shame that people lose money in the stock market, but it is like any other investment. You win some you lose some. That is the reason for diversifying your investments. How is your collection of Beanie Babies doing?

I paid the premiums for Social Security and I intend to collecting the benefits that I paid for. It has nothing to do with my need, and perhaps you need to look up the word 'hijack' unless you are a shithead and meant it as a insult.

You win some and you lose some?

Gambling.

Listen. Once upon a time people went to work and put their money in a pension.

Couldn't stand the fact that there was all that money that the greedy financial advisers couldn't get their little grubby paws on. So, they held classes and brought pie charts and graphs and moved the money. Remember that?

Talked about having control. So, all of these people that were well trained in their career now had beautiful plans with alleged control when they had zero background in the stock market.

The world doesn't revolve around you. I'm glad you made out like a bandit.

Do not destroy what we have in place for situations like the one we just had simply because you think it's skippy.

What you call gambling, I call investing. Those that have zero background in the market should definitely not invest in the market. It is not difficult to get a prospectus from a company that someone is interested in before deciding to buy their stock or not.

Once upon a time company pensions were provided to employees and they were free of charge. A number of years ago many companies went to a 401K plan where the employee could put a certain percentage of his gross pay into the plan and the company matched part of the investment. Most 401K's allowed the employee to pick the investments such as 40% stocks, 40% bonds and 20% money market or any other combination they preferred. I considered the 'gamblers' those that chose 100% stocks, and didn't go that route.

One of the advantages was the employee contribution to and earnings of the 401K plan were not taxable until the money was withdrawn at retirement.

I have no desire to destroy anything, but I do see an opportunity that was missed to increase the ROI for millions that are locked in to a bankrupt Social Security system.

Win some/lose some is gambling.

What did they say this last round? Don't count on retiring on 401K. It's called playing with other people's money.
Don t depend on your employer for retirement - MarketWatch

The message changes as needed.

The businesses didn't just go the way of the 401k. They were talked into it and then forced everyone else to do it because it was a swell idea. A swell idea with graphs and pie charts.

Even so, Too Tall, the beneficiaries of SS are real people. They have real needs. They aren't just walking dollar signs.

Those who are depending on Social Security for retirement are in a system that may go bankrupt in the near future. Soc Sec is not self sustaining and hasn't been for quite a number of years. Soc Sec was designed as a supplement to retirement income in old age and has turned in to an unsustainable welfare program.

Any one who doesn't work for a company that has a 401K plan should change jobs IMHO. I thought I told you, you don't retire on a 401K plan. When you retire you get a lump sum payout of all the money you invested, all of the matching funds and all of the earnings. Now you get to decide what you do with that money. For most people, it would be to put it in an IRA and take the minimum required distribution each year. That, with Social Security as a supplement, as long as it lasts, is the way it is supposed to work. Investing in IRA puts the money in dozens of different companies, so if one company goes bankrupt, it has minimal affect on the IRA. I take my MRD monthly, and have the taxes withheld, much like dollar cost averaging in reverse.

It's currently self sustaining. If there are any fears then lift the cap. It really is that simple.

What possible good would lifting the cap do?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Huh? I'm not familiar with that part of the program, and I'm pretty familiar with the program

Let's say that you work and your wife is a stay at home parent. You retire and begin to collect Social security. She doesn't have enough quarters or none at all. She uses yours. She gets a check that is equal to half of your social security check.
Retirement Planner Benefits For Your Spouse

Ah yes... spousal benefits.

Teaming up to tackle the world is advantageous with regards to both Social Security and the tax code.

It's no wonder that the gays have their panties in a twist about getting their partnerships legally recognized.

I don't blame them one damn bit. ​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In transition to independent living the dignity of risk for the mentally ill - The Washington Post

CONCORD, N.C. — On his 26th morning of independence, Kelvin Cook made a huge pot of coffee and ate oatmeal off a plate. His Social Security check had not arrived and he was down to $5. He had a cellphone plugged into a wall, but it was out of minutes. Rent was overdue. He was out of his five prescriptions, including the anti-psychotic that had suppressed the symptoms of his schizophrenia for the past year, and now he felt sluggish.

Look at this guy, then, remember promises which mr President gave to all of us. Social Security system should make our life better, but in fact... People with serious mental illness can't get their meds. Good job.

really? now hiding your hate behind caring for the mentally ill?

shame on you

 

[Disir]

You win some and you lose some?

Gambling.

Listen. Once upon a time people went to work and put their money in a pension.

Couldn't stand the fact that there was all that money that the greedy financial advisers couldn't get their little grubby paws on. So, they held classes and brought pie charts and graphs and moved the money. Remember that?

Talked about having control. So, all of these people that were well trained in their career now had beautiful plans with alleged control when they had zero background in the stock market.

The world doesn't revolve around you. I'm glad you made out like a bandit.

Do not destroy what we have in place for situations like the one we just had simply because you think it's skippy.

What you call gambling, I call investing. Those that have zero background in the market should definitely not invest in the market. It is not difficult to get a prospectus from a company that someone is interested in before deciding to buy their stock or not.

Once upon a time company pensions were provided to employees and they were free of charge. A number of years ago many companies went to a 401K plan where the employee could put a certain percentage of his gross pay into the plan and the company matched part of the investment. Most 401K's allowed the employee to pick the investments such as 40% stocks, 40% bonds and 20% money market or any other combination they preferred. I considered the 'gamblers' those that chose 100% stocks, and didn't go that route.

One of the advantages was the employee contribution to and earnings of the 401K plan were not taxable until the money was withdrawn at retirement.

I have no desire to destroy anything, but I do see an opportunity that was missed to increase the ROI for millions that are locked in to a bankrupt Social Security system.

Win some/lose some is gambling.

What did they say this last round? Don't count on retiring on 401K. It's called playing with other people's money.
Don t depend on your employer for retirement - MarketWatch

The message changes as needed.

The businesses didn't just go the way of the 401k. They were talked into it and then forced everyone else to do it because it was a swell idea. A swell idea with graphs and pie charts.

Even so, Too Tall, the beneficiaries of SS are real people. They have real needs. They aren't just walking dollar signs.

Those who are depending on Social Security for retirement are in a system that may go bankrupt in the near future. Soc Sec is not self sustaining and hasn't been for quite a number of years. Soc Sec was designed as a supplement to retirement income in old age and has turned in to an unsustainable welfare program.

Any one who doesn't work for a company that has a 401K plan should change jobs IMHO. I thought I told you, you don't retire on a 401K plan. When you retire you get a lump sum payout of all the money you invested, all of the matching funds and all of the earnings. Now you get to decide what you do with that money. For most people, it would be to put it in an IRA and take the minimum required distribution each year. That, with Social Security as a supplement, as long as it lasts, is the way it is supposed to work. Investing in IRA puts the money in dozens of different companies, so if one company goes bankrupt, it has minimal affect on the IRA. I take my MRD monthly, and have the taxes withheld, much like dollar cost averaging in reverse.

It's currently self sustaining. If there are any fears then lift the cap. It really is that simple.

What possible good would lifting the cap do?

Close the long term funding gap.

 

[TooTall]

What you call gambling, I call investing. Those that have zero background in the market should definitely not invest in the market. It is not difficult to get a prospectus from a company that someone is interested in before deciding to buy their stock or not.

Once upon a time company pensions were provided to employees and they were free of charge. A number of years ago many companies went to a 401K plan where the employee could put a certain percentage of his gross pay into the plan and the company matched part of the investment. Most 401K's allowed the employee to pick the investments such as 40% stocks, 40% bonds and 20% money market or any other combination they preferred. I considered the 'gamblers' those that chose 100% stocks, and didn't go that route.

One of the advantages was the employee contribution to and earnings of the 401K plan were not taxable until the money was withdrawn at retirement.

I have no desire to destroy anything, but I do see an opportunity that was missed to increase the ROI for millions that are locked in to a bankrupt Social Security system.

Win some/lose some is gambling.

What did they say this last round? Don't count on retiring on 401K. It's called playing with other people's money.
Don t depend on your employer for retirement - MarketWatch

The message changes as needed.

The businesses didn't just go the way of the 401k. They were talked into it and then forced everyone else to do it because it was a swell idea. A swell idea with graphs and pie charts.

Even so, Too Tall, the beneficiaries of SS are real people. They have real needs. They aren't just walking dollar signs.

Those who are depending on Social Security for retirement are in a system that may go bankrupt in the near future. Soc Sec is not self sustaining and hasn't been for quite a number of years. Soc Sec was designed as a supplement to retirement income in old age and has turned in to an unsustainable welfare program.

Any one who doesn't work for a company that has a 401K plan should change jobs IMHO. I thought I told you, you don't retire on a 401K plan. When you retire you get a lump sum payout of all the money you invested, all of the matching funds and all of the earnings. Now you get to decide what you do with that money. For most people, it would be to put it in an IRA and take the minimum required distribution each year. That, with Social Security as a supplement, as long as it lasts, is the way it is supposed to work. Investing in IRA puts the money in dozens of different companies, so if one company goes bankrupt, it has minimal affect on the IRA. I take my MRD monthly, and have the taxes withheld, much like dollar cost averaging in reverse.

It's currently self sustaining. If there are any fears then lift the cap. It really is that simple.

What possible good would lifting the cap do?

Close the long term funding gap.

Raising the cap on contributions paid in also raises the benefits paid out. No net gain there.

 

[TooTall]

Raising the cap on contributions paid in also raises the benefits paid out. No net gain there.
Here is why I say that. If you retire with an annual wage of $30,000, you can expect to get $1,390 a month benefit. If you retire with an annual wage of $104,000 you will get $3,649 a month. Work history could affect the amount slightly. If you make $1,000,0000 you still only get $3,649, since you paid the maximum premium that is capped at $104,000 income.
If they raise the cap up to $200,000, the formula they use for the benefits would increase in proportion to the increase in premiums. The benefit at $200,000 would probably go to over $7,000 monthly.
That is my reasoning for saying raising the cap would have very little if any affect on the long term funding gap. Feel free to correct any errors you may find.

 

[Dad2three]

Raising the cap on contributions paid in also raises the benefits paid out. No net gain there.
Here is why I say that. If you retire with an annual wage of $30,000, you can expect to get $1,390 a month benefit. If you retire with an annual wage of $104,000 you will get $3,649 a month. Work history could affect the amount slightly. If you make $1,000,0000 you still only get $3,649, since you paid the maximum premium that is capped at $104,000 income.
If they raise the cap up to $200,000, the formula they use for the benefits would increase in proportion to the increase in premiums. The benefit at $200,000 would probably go to over $7,000 monthly.
That is my reasoning for saying raising the cap would have very little if any affect on the long term funding gap. Feel free to correct any errors you may find.

Or we could just cap the payouts?