Social Security Will Be Insolvent in 10 Years

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, force. That's what you're for, by stripping women of their sovereignty over their uteruses, preventing them by force of arms (legal government mandate, enforced by law enforcement), from ending their pregnancies early in gestation. They have to do it in a back alley with a coat hanger or travel to another state, spending thousands of dollars. You shouldn't have the right to force women to remain pregnant.

Right, like forcing a woman to not kill her 6-year-old.

 

[the watcher]

Social security was initially an attempt at preparing working people for their future, and I think there is a different future in mind now.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Right, like forcing a woman to not kill her 6-year-old.

??????

 

[TruthNotBS]

Is it an insult if it's true?

The key factor that makes something an insult is the intention behind it and the effect it has on the recipient, rather than the factual accuracy of the statement. Even if a statement is true, if it is delivered in a manner meant to demean, belittle, or otherwise cause emotional distress, it is an insult.

 

[initforme]

Social security has been the biggest factor in making america exceptional. Take it away and take the exceptional label away.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Social security has been the biggest factor in making america exceptional. Take it away and take the exceptional label away.

The biggest factor?

 

[App'z]

WAS THERE a time in France that you worked for life for the company you worked for?

Social Security and the Federal Reserve system are sort of Connected AT the HIP. The Law is the LAW. Ya Politicians steal from the poor and you got to give back to the POOR. Politics be dammed. It doesn't matter how much money a government prints as long as it's the end all. Sure, it's now going to be in the Cloud. ha-ha Nothing behind it but the Gross of the Economy. Which Billionaires will also come to despise cause its hard to keep that hidden forever. Pay up Archole's.

 

[DGS49]

Congress lacks the Article I power to create a national, compulsory retirement program. The program is therefore unconstitutional according to the Tenth Amendment.

But Congress was able to dodge the USSC bullet with an interesting gambit: SS is not funded by "tax dollars." It is funded by "Payroll Taxes" which go into a virtual "trust fund," from which monthly (and other) disbursements are made. This is why your contributions to SS (FICA Tax) are not deductible under your Federal Income Taxes. Funding for SS (and Medicare) CANNOT BE COMMINGLED WITH FIT REVENUES. In that sense, the SS "crisis" has nothing to do with the budget deficit and little to do with the National Debt (depending on how you look at it).

If nothing is done to change the Payroll Taxes and disbursement schedule, the SS Trust Fund will be depleted within a few years - I haven't checked the math recently. But it's nothing to worry about. Congresspersons know that (a) old bastards vote, and (b) if you fuck with their SS checks, you will die (politically) faster than you can say, "What the FUCK?"

So Congress will presently sit down in a dark, private, "smoke-filled room." and sort it out. The maximum income that is subject to FICA tax will certainly increase, and the cap might be eliminated altogether. It is possible but not likely that the Employer's contribution to SS will increase a bit. It is likely that the retirement age(s) will be incrementally increased. Don't be surprised if you have to wait until age 70 before you get "full" SS benefits. Don't be surprised if the "retire at 62" option goes away. The formula for the annual COLA might change. It is possible that SS will be partly "means tested," which is to say that if you have millions in assets or other retirement income, your cost of living increases may be frozen for a time.

But regardless, NOBODY's CHECKS WILL BE REDUCED. Anybody who tries to tell you that "SS will be reduced," or that "Republicans are trying to cut your SS," is a liar.

I find myself Wintering (did you know that was a verb?) in Florida, and I personally find it galling that 90% of these thousands of multi-million dollar condo's are second homes, owned by people who are drawing SS checks every month. They don't need it, and they shouldn't get it. Sorry.

 

[initforme]

The biggest factor?

Without a doubt

 

[FredVegbarfuss]

Through my life there was the justification for money taken from paychecks for social security being for the security to me that I would have back when I was older because I would not be as responsible myself and I am older. It is proven to me that government should not be trusted. I am more trustworthy than government is and I would take care of myself better than government would. It can all burn down, we could do better.

 

[YoursTruly]

Through my life there was the justification for money taken from paychecks for social security being for the security to me that I would have back when I was older because I would not be as responsible myself and I am older. It is proven to me that government should not be trusted. I am more trustworthy than government is and I would take care of myself better than government would. It can all burn down, we could do better.

SS takes very little from one's paycheck. But the benefits of getting it back are great. If you're pretty well off and don't need the money, you can give to your grandkids and help them pay for college or something equally important.
Or if the universe kicks your butt during retirement, you can use it to help make ends meet.

All of that is above what financial decisions you make before you qualify for SS.

BTW, the US Treasury owes the SS administration about $2 trillion.

 

[task0778]

But regardless, NOBODY's CHECKS WILL BE REDUCED. Anybody who tries to tell you that "SS will be reduced," or that "Republicans are trying to cut your SS," is a liar.

I agree with most everything you said with a couple of exceptions like this one. Right now, the SSA benefits will be reduced if no changes are made and one might think that Congress will act before that happens. BUT - politics these days is more interested in getting power if they are the minority party and keeping it if they are in the majority. What is in our best interests comes in a distant 2nd, and so I would not guarantee that no one's checks will be reduced. If whichever party is in the minority determines that politically it is in their best interests to stonewall the SSA changes needed as leverage to get themselves elected then I wouldn't be surprised if that happened. IOW, I do not trust Congress to fix SSA.

I personally find it galling that 90% of these thousands of multi-million dollar condo's are second homes, owned by people who are drawing SS checks every month. They don't need it, and they shouldn't get it.

I feel ya, bro. But if they paid in then I'm not sure they shouldn't get a check like everyone else. Some would claim that if they earned it then they should get it. And there might be some question of the constitutionality of setting an upper boundary for benefits. What Congress could do though is raise taxes on the rich so they can claw back that money that was paid out. Not saying they should or shouldn't, but aren't we kinda talking about a little social engineering here? Trying to even out the distribution of wealth? IMHO, that is not something that Congress should be doing. That is a step in the direction of socialism IMHO.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SS takes very little from one's paycheck. But the benefits of getting it back are great. If you're pretty well off and don't need the money, you can give to your grandkids and help them pay for college or something equally important.
Or if the universe kicks your butt during retirement, you can use it to help make ends meet.

All of that is above what financial decisions you make before you qualify for SS.

BTW, the US Treasury owes the SS administration about $2 trillion.

SS takes very little from one's paycheck.

Only 12.4% of your income.

 

[80zephyr]

SS takes very little from one's paycheck. But the benefits of getting it back are great. If you're pretty well off and don't need the money, you can give to your grandkids and help them pay for college or something equally important.
Or if the universe kicks your butt during retirement, you can use it to help make ends meet.

All of that is above what financial decisions you make before you qualify for SS.

BTW, the US Treasury owes the SS administration about $2 trillion.

Or, if you die on your 65th birthday, you can leave your grandkids penniless.

 

[sealybobo]

Through my life there was the justification for money taken from paychecks for social security being for the security to me that I would have back when I was older because I would not be as responsible myself and I am older. It is proven to me that government should not be trusted. I am more trustworthy than government is and I would take care of myself better than government would. It can all burn down, we could do better.

Well you may be the exception to the rule. Because many, many, MANY Americans won't have a dime saved by the time they are 65, or 67 if they aren't forced to save.

Let's look at the median

60-somethings​

• Average net worth: $1,675,214 (ages 60-64), $1,836,884 (ages 65-69)
• Median net worth: $394,010 (ages 60-64), $394,300 (ages 65-69)

So the Median person in their 60's has $400,000 saved. That includes their $200,000 home. So they don't have very much money. Only $200K

If you didn't take out social security, those people would not save it. It's a fact. Most of them will just spend it and end up at age 69 with the same $400,000.

Also consider your employer pays 6% into your social security and you pay 6%. So if we do away with social security, does the employer still have to give you that 6%? Let's say you make $60K a year and they do have to pay you that 6%. And you DO have to save the 12% till you retire, but it's yours and if you die at age 59, your family gets the money. I like that idea. But it works out to be $7000 a year. Plus interest.

To calculate how much $7,000 a year for 30 years would amount to with interest, you need to consider an assumed interest rate. Assuming a moderate 5% annual interest rate, contributing $7,000 per year for 30 years would result in a total of $318,000 at the end of the period, with a significant portion coming from accumulated interest.

So I would agree with you a better way would be to still force everyone to save 12%. 6% you ya and 6% your employer matches. But it goes into your account. And if you die your family gets it. You still can't touch the money till you are 59.5 years old. Just like 401K's. You can touch a 401K but you will be penalized. With this new SS, you can't touch it before 59.5.

 

[80zephyr]

Well you may be the exception to the rule. Because many, many, MANY Americans won't have a dime saved by the time they are 65, or 67 if they aren't forced to save.

Let's look at the median

60-somethings​

• Average net worth: $1,675,214 (ages 60-64), $1,836,884 (ages 65-69)
• Median net worth: $394,010 (ages 60-64), $394,300 (ages 65-69)

So the Median person in their 60's has $400,000 saved. That includes their $200,000 home. So they don't have very much money. Only $200K

If you didn't take out social security, those people would not save it. It's a fact. Most of them will just spend it and end up at age 69 with the same $400,000.

Also consider your employer pays 6% into your social security and you pay 6%. So if we do away with social security, does the employer still have to give you that 6%? Let's say you make $60K a year and they do have to pay you that 6%. And you DO have to save the 12% till you retire, but it's yours and if you die at age 59, your family gets the money. I like that idea. But it works out to be $7000 a year. Plus interest.

To calculate how much $7,000 a year for 30 years would amount to with interest, you need to consider an assumed interest rate. Assuming a moderate 5% annual interest rate, contributing $7,000 per year for 30 years would result in a total of $318,000 at the end of the period, with a significant portion coming from accumulated interest.

So I would agree with you a better way would be to still force everyone to save 12%. 6% you ya and 6% your employer matches. But it goes into your account. And if you die your family gets it. You still can't touch the money till you are 59.5 years old. Just like 401K's. You can touch a 401K but you will be penalized. With this new SS, you can't touch it before 59.5.

They are being forced to save it now. They can be forced to save it in their own fund as well.

 

[sealybobo]

They are being forced to save it now. They can be forced to save it in their own fund as well.

I like social security. The idea that if I live to be 100, I'll keep getting paid, but if I die at 61, I get nothing. All of us in that same boat. I think it sounds like a great program.

But what we are talking about sounds even better.

Here's one concern. Did you know that 401K's were supposed to be ON TOP of pensions? They weren't supposed to replace them. My fear would be that this new social security would replace 401K.

Like, I get 4% match on my 401K now. And I just learned that the employer pays 6% into my social security too? If they do what we are talking about the 401K will go away. Or they'll combine them into one thing. So in the end I'm going to lose 4%.

 

[80zephyr]

I like social security. The idea that if I live to be 100, I'll keep getting paid, but if I die at 61, I get nothing. All of us in that same boat. I think it sounds like a great program.

But what we are talking about sounds even better.

Here's one concern. Did you know that 401K's were supposed to be ON TOP of pensions? They weren't supposed to replace them. My fear would be that this new social security would replace 401K.

Like, I get 4% match on my 401K now. And I just learned that the employer pays 6% into my social security too? If they do what we are talking about the 401K will go away. Or they'll combine them into one thing. So in the end I'm going to lose 4%.

Changes can be made to keep the program self sufficient.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I like social security. The idea that if I live to be 100, I'll keep getting paid, but if I die at 61, I get nothing. All of us in that same boat. I think it sounds like a great program.

But what we are talking about sounds even better.

Here's one concern. Did you know that 401K's were supposed to be ON TOP of pensions? They weren't supposed to replace them. My fear would be that this new social security would replace 401K.

Like, I get 4% match on my 401K now. And I just learned that the employer pays 6% into my social security too? If they do what we are talking about the 401K will go away. Or they'll combine them into one thing. So in the end I'm going to lose 4%.

Here's one concern. Did you know that 401K's were supposed to be ON TOP of pensions? They weren't supposed to replace them.

Companies can't afford to pay pensions for 30 or 40 years.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Companies can't afford to pay pensions for 30 or 40 years.

Let me address this because it is correct in part and incorrect in part.

First of all retirement programs fall into two broad categories Defined Benefit (i.e. Pensions) and Defined Contributions (i.e. savings such as 401Ks).

You are correct in that companies couldn't pay old school pensions, because the companies often didn't fund pension programs properly. They kept the pensions in-house as part of operating funds and costs. That was bad. But there is nothing wrong with Defined Benefit programs as long as those programs are properly funded through the employees life cycle and managed by 3rd parties independent of the company. When the employee retires under the rules of employment, they no longer have a relationship with the company and the 3rd Party manger actually pays the annuity pension.

There is no real difference between properly managed Defined Benefit Pension and a Defined Contribution Lifetime Annuity.

I'm retiring this year, I can keep my Defined Contribution in my employer 401K and draw it out on a schedule I determine, or I can convert it to a lifetime pension (in the Defined Contribution world it's called a lifetime annuity) - which is functionally a pension - for the rest of my life. Depending on the option I can have a Lifetime Annuity that Ends, A Lifetime Annuity with Spousal Survivorship, A Lifetime Annuity with a Beneficiary Guarantee Period.

The problems wasn't the "pension" (Defined Benefit), the problem was the companies didn't fund the pension programs and keep the pension programs separate from their control.

WW