Should the Social Security and Medicare Age be Raised

[Blues Man]

But that’s where you want retirement to go…and only based on what you contribute

Save your investment advice for Trump U drop outs

WHat?

I retried at age 51 and no thanks to the Social Security SCAM

If I had control over all the money the ******* government stole from me to fund a fake trust fund I'd have at least 3 times more money in my portfolio than I do now

 

[g5000]

IDGAF about Trump or your obsession with him

You and I both know just how credulous Trumptards are when it comes to bleeving total horseshit.

They are wide open to being conned by a horde of hucksters if they were left to their own devices investing for their own retirement.

Just look at the crap they peddle in the stores on the right wing web sites. Snake oil by the ton.

And when they ended up broke at 65, they would be beating down the doors of Congress to give them a handout.

 

[Blues Man]

Oddly I’m getting almost 3 times that

and you still got ripped off you're just too stupid to know it.

and FYI the average SS payment is just under 1200 a month.

Got to keep those poor people poor

 

[Blues Man]

You and I both know just how credulous Trumptards are when it comes to bleeving total horseshit.

They are wide open to being conned by a horde of hucksters if they were left to their own devices investing for their own retirement.

Just look at the crap they peddle in the stores on the right wing web sites. Snake oil by the ton.

And when they ended up broke at 65, they would be beating down the doors of Congress to give them a handout.

What about IDGAF do you not understand?

 

[tahuyaman]

Read the garbage posted on this thread dumbass

Troll alert.

 

[g5000]

and you still got ripped off you're just too stupid to know it.

and FYI the average SS payment is just under 1200 a month.

Got to keep those poor people poor

In fact, the average retired worker receives $1,558.54 each month – 8 percent more than Social Security recipients as a whole.

What Is The Average Social Security Check? | Bankrate

Find out how much your Social Security payments could grow over time.

www.bankrate.com

 

[Lesh]

You and I both know just how credulous Trumptards are when it comes to bleeving total horseshit.

They are wide open to being conned by a horde of hucksters if they were left to their own devices investing for their own retirement.

Just look at the crap they peddle in the stores on the right wing web sites. Snake oil by the ton.

And when they ended up broke at 65, they would be beating down the doors of Congress to give them a handout.

Kinda what happened in Chile when they privatized

 

[Lesh]

WHat?

I retried at age 51 and no thanks to the Social Security SCAM

If I had control over all the money the ******* government stole from me to fund a fake trust fund I'd have at least 3 times more money in my portfolio than I do now

But to hear you talk you’re doing really well. How much do you NEED? Is enough ever enough?

 

[Flopper]

And for how long, a year or two?

So what's better, planning your retirement with your invested funds at 55 or 60 and chance having to wait another year or two before you can withdraw, or work until 67 with a guaranteed low payout that you're stuck with the rest of your life with the exception of cost of living increases?

Ray, haven't run into you in a long time. I was wondering what happen to you. Sorry about the Bengals. I was pulling for them.

But getting back to your question, it is a calculated risk. I wouldn't even try to make a suggestion because I don't know anything about your income expenses, investments , etc. However whatever you do, try to wait till you are 59 1/2 before dawning out any money from retirement funds as you will be subject to a 10% penalty. Plus, you will be paying income taxes on the funds you withdraw unless it's a Roth IRA. What might be an even bigger problem is the money you draw out of retirement to live on to 67 is not going be there to grow through your retirement years. If you are in good health, living on just social security for 10, 20, or 30 years your retirement would be a very very long time because s.s will provide you with subsistence but not much else. Remember most people outlive their retirement.

The wife and I both retired at 59 1/2 so we drew from our 401Ks , IRAs and a pension paying taxes but no penalty. We elected to take Social Security at 65 which was the normal retirement age. So we had to provide our own health insurance for 6 years and that made health cost much more expensive than we planed. For us, retiring early was a good decision because we had more than enough to live on for at least 30 years and wanted to travel while we young enough to enjoy it.

 

[Flopper]

You cannot buy the same treasury bills that the government buys to cover the looting of Social Security

It is a separate class of bond that only the government can buy from itself

That alone should sound fishy to everyone.

Why would I want to?
If I want to invest in treasuries I can do so from treasurydirect.gov for little as $100.

Treasury Bills — TreasuryDirect

www.treasurydirect.gov

The treasury bills bought by Social Security are the same as those bought by the public with one exception they can not be sold on the open market thus they are call Special Issue Treasury Bills. They carry the same guarantee of payment as the one you might buy and carry almost the same interest rate although it calculated differently.

Few budgetary concepts generate as much unintended confusion and deliberate misinformation as the Social Security trust funds which are required to invest in Special Issue Treasury Bills. This subject has been discussed over and over for many years. If you want to discuss the subject, I suggest you start a new topic. You will find plenty of people interested in it. I for one am not. I've been there many times.

 

[woodwork201]

That "12.4" is a fantasy to start with

Employers are mandated to contribute half of that into Social Security.

There's no way in hell they would voluntarily contribute that if they didn't have to

It's all part of the calculated cost of payroll. If it didn't go into Social Security it would go into paychecks - at last a good portion of it. Competition for talent might lead them to donate even more. My employer donates a lot to my 401-K, far more than 6.2%.

 

[Lesh]

If it didn't go into Social Security it would go into paychecks

Nope. Right in the employers pocket

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray, haven't run into you in a long time. I was wondering what happen to you. Sorry about the Bengals. I was pulling for them.

But getting back to your question, it is a calculated risk. I wouldn't even try to make a suggestion because I don't know anything about your income expenses, investments , etc. However whatever you do, try to wait till you are 59 1/2 before dawning out any money from retirement funds as you will be subject to a 10% penalty. Plus, you will be paying income taxes on the funds you withdraw unless it's a Roth IRA. What might be an even bigger problem is the money you draw out of retirement to live on to 67 is not going be there to grow through your retirement years. If you are in good health, living on just social security for 10, 20, or 30 years your retirement would be a very very long time because s.s will provide you with subsistence but not much else. Remember most people outlive their retirement.

The wife and I both retired at 59 1/2 so we drew from our 401Ks , IRAs and a pension paying taxes but no penalty. We elected to take Social Security at 65 which was the normal retirement age. So we had to provide our own health insurance for 6 years and that made health cost much more expensive than we planed. For us, retiring early was a good decision because we had more than enough to live on for at least 30 years and wanted to travel while we young enough to enjoy it.

Great to see you as well Flopper. I guess we are just in different topics because I'm here all the time.

I'm 61 so I'm a little beyond the 59.5 year line but I was applying for disability during that time and looked into it in case disability was going to take forever. Luckily they approved me right away so I didn't touch it. However I'm not going to make it to retirement age anyway. The Dr. said I only had a few more years to live if I'm lucky and the chemo is working well. But unless I need it when I become helpless, I'm going to have a few bucks to leave to my surviving family members.

What we were discussing is how to get out of this Ponzi scheme created for us so that younger people have a chance at saving for retirement. Obviously government let us down and the program really can't be saved unless it's provided for by the general fund. However we just hit the 30 trillion dollar in debt mark and I'm afraid if it goes any further it may be the end of this country as we know it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why?

We really need to make up our minds whether to treat people like adults, or assume we're all hapless children and need to the government to "oversee" all our personal decisions.

I'm not speaking for myself, but I know there are a lot of people not smart enough to study their investments. Why do you think we have SS today anyway? So we would need government to give us approved companies to handle our money instead of government so people don't make bad investments and they end up with nothing at retirement time. It would be almost foolproof that way.

 

[dblack]

I'm not speaking for myself, but I know there are a lot of people not smart enough to study their investments. Why do you think we have SS today anyway?

Because controlling your retirement money gives Congress lots of power. And they've been able to convince the rubes that it's necessary.

So we would need government to give us approved companies to handle our money instead of government so people don't make bad investments and they end up with nothing at retirement time. It would be almost foolproof that way.

LOL - sure man. Cause they just don't let fools in government. That's not allowed. Never, ever happens.

 

[beagle9]

However, a bond IS an IOU. That is what they are, the government takes your money and then spends it with the promise of paying back later.

And because it is an intra governmental bond, they pretend that IOU does not represent a liability. So the question becomes, if the 'trust fund' holds assets then who has them as a liability?

No one according to the government which is exactly why the 'trust fund' is an accounting gimmick and a lie. There is no way around that, ALL financial assets, assets that are not representative of actual hard assets that exist in the real world, represent a liability for the one that is supposed to pay when that asset comes due. Except the trust fund, apparently those are paid back in magical fairy dust...

This is exactly why I say that the senior's (if government truly wanted to insulate them, and to incentivize the youth into not fearing or disrespecting the aging process or the prospect of getting old in America), then it surely could do just that. Otherwise why limit or control the magical fairy dust to only fall into the wrong hands to continually be abused ?? lol

 

[beagle9]

Because the government charged me for a product. It said that it will take X money now and in return I will get Y later. That means I have PAID for that product. It is MINE, if the government saved the money or not is actually irrelevant. Just like if I offered you a couch if you were to pay me 10 bucks a month for the next 2 years and then did not give you the couch after those 2 years.

This is the problem with these types of programs, they take money now for promises that they cannot deliver on. If the government ASKED me, you might have a point but instead they forced me to buy the product.

You bet your ass after they took all that cash from me at the point of a gun I am going to take the benefits, if any, that I can when it comes time for me to collect.

As far as it being equivalent to paying extra on your taxes (or simply giving the government money that they are not demanding) it is the same thing because that is what you are stating people should do with that product they were forced to buy - give it back to the government.

That money is theirs, they paid for the benefit. Not taking it is the same as giving government your money. It is flatly unreasonable to force people to pay into a program and then tell them that they should refuse to draw the benefits that they were required to pay for.

And it really is this simple.... Thanks

The government see's the money as serving the greater good when it steals it, and for whatever reason it gives. The problem also, is that it doesn't ask us if it is ok to steal it for the supposed greater good if need be, so our voice in government is then canceled because our "we the people government" was never a "we the people government"..

 

[Blues Man]

In fact, the average retired worker receives $1,558.54 each month – 8 percent more than Social Security recipients as a whole.

What Is The Average Social Security Check? | Bankrate

Find out how much your Social Security payments could grow over time.

www.bankrate.com

wow a whole 300 bucks a month more

BFD

 

[Blues Man]

Nope. Right in the employers pocket

Wrong again

You leave the contribution requirements alone the only think that changes is that people gwt to choose where their money goes and the ******* government can't touch the money

 

[Blues Man]

It's all part of the calculated cost of payroll. If it didn't go into Social Security it would go into paychecks - at last a good portion of it. Competition for talent might lead them to donate even more. My employer donates a lot to my 401-K, far more than 6.2%.

No one here said anything about ending the contribution or employer matches under the current system.

The only change would be that people get to choose where their money is invested and the government has to keep its greedy hands off