Will Republicans end social security?

[WorldWatcher]

Have you ever tried to actually do the math before? As it stands now, you have to live to be nearly 100 before you'd get out of Social Security everything you've been taxed, assuming you retire at 67 years old.

I just did the math. Just logged into my SSA account and reviewed my contributions, payout = contributions in 6.5 years if i retire at 66 years 10 months (@100%).


>>>>

 

[SwimExpert]

AS I said... no thank you! I'd rather take the monthly payments until I die, at least then, I'll get my money back with interest.

and sorry, your bs doesn't fly...first you say govt should just give us back the money we paid in to it....and now you say there IS NONE of our money that we paid in to it....

make up your mind....

Yes, you are correct that you will get that money back and more if you live the average lifespan. But every year or two years, SS sends out a pamphlet telling what you (and your employer) contributed to the plan, and how much you will get in return if you retire at X age. Now take that pamphlet to a reputable investment agent, and ask him or her to figure out what you would be worth today (and at retirement) had you invested that money in a conservative stock plan. You'd be shocked.

If I die on my 65th birthday the day after I retire, my family will get all of my assets. My nephew and niece will get my home. They will get my rental property. They will get my car and all the content of my house. They will get my IRA account, checking account, savings accounts. What they will not see is one red cent of all my SS contributions. That's gone. POOF!

I agree that part stinks....too bad we can't buy in to for a small fee, some kind of insurance that could pay the spouse in addition to their own, social security from the dead spouse.

if your wife is younger than you when you die, she can collect death benefits, if your children are still underage they'll get benefits too...but that's about it...unless your wife never worked she will be able to draw 1/2 of YOUR full social security, the rest of her life...and as said...even if she never worked....

The death benefit is a whopping $255. And as for survivor's benefits, that's not as simple as you seem to think. Widows are only eligible for survivor's benefits if they are at least 60 years old; or caring for an underage or disabled child of the deceased spouse; or at least 50 years old and currently disabled. The amount they receive varies.

Why can't you people get it through your heads that SS is not insurance, and it's not free money pulled out of ether? Where is the money going to come from in your fairy tale idea?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Here's your $200,000. Sorry we're broke that's all we can afford.

No thanks. I'll take the monthly check instead.

If you are going to convince older Americans to end SS you are going to have to allow us to break even after having the money taken from out compensation packages.


>>>>

 

[Toro]

No.

 

[sealybobo]

Here's your $200,000. Sorry we're broke that's all we can afford.

No thanks. I'll take the monthly check instead.

If you are going to convince older Americans to end SS you are going to have to allow us to break even after having the money taken from out compensation packages.


>>>>

If they tell the American people sorry we can't afford any more the American people will bend over and take it. Seniors will cry the most and the younger you are the less you will care.

If they made these cuts in 2021 what could you do? People forget after a couple years. Hell a couple months.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If they tell the American people sorry we can't afford any more the American people will bend over and take it. Seniors will cry the most and the younger you are the less you will care.

If they made these cuts in 2021 what could you do? People forget after a couple years. Hell a couple months.

Offer us a fair deal conversion to private annuity, and many of use would jump at the chance.

The figure I cited early represents an annuity that replaces my SS check with an annuity check at the same value for 25 years.

SS will pay back my principal in 6.5 years with no interest. If compound interest were applied to account for growth then it would take 14 years of SS to break even on my "investment". With the annuity I'd be funded for 25 years (my Mom and Dad are both alive and in their 90's so I come from long lived stock). On the condition the lump some was not subject to State or Federal tax, cost goes up if taxes are to be factored in.

The American people would come out ahead on the deal with me.


>>>>

 

[Care4all]

I agree that part stinks....too bad we can't buy in to for a small fee, some kind of insurance that could pay the spouse in addition to their own, social security from the dead spouse.

if your wife is younger than you when you die, she can collect death benefits, if your children are still underage they'll get benefits too...but that's about it...unless your wife never worked she will be able to draw 1/2 of YOUR full social security, the rest of her life...and as said...even if she never worked....

But isn't that one of the many reasons it's going broke?????

Honestly Ray, the main reason it is supposedly going broke, is because the surplus Social security funds have been used to give the Bush tax cuts, and used to pay for the budget, that income tax revenues were suppose to pay for....

And income tax payers, (the wealthiest) do NOT want to pay back the social security tax surpluses that was borrowed so to say for the budget and their income tax cuts, back to social security...

 

[SwimExpert]

It wasn't discussed during the elections but does any one doubt SS is going to be put on the chopping block?

No way one usmb Republican will say they like and want to keep SS.

And if they want to at least tell us in 2019 so we can vote on it.

Social Security will end itself, it's bankrupt.

Isn't that because the politicians raided it? Then they need to put back what the took.

*sigh*

Yet another person who doesn't know the first thing about Social Security.

When people talk about "raiding" the SS trust, what they are talking about is the practice of intra-governmental borrowing. When the SS trust has extra money, the government basically loans itself money by borrowing from the SS Trust via bonds with finite periods. The SS Trust accounts for a sizable portion of our national debt. When the bonds are paid back, a small amount of interest is accrued, and that interest pays for operational costs of the SS program. Making SS Trust funds available for loaning is required by law when assets reach a certain point. But sometimes the government will use this intra-governmental borrowing practice when it is not required, or even when it's not advisable. Thus, they are "raiding" Social Security, or so the sound byte goes. It's really much more mundane that it's made to sound. The only real concern is that the government has a habit of letting outstanding bonds ride, which raises the question of whether the government ever intends to pay them back. The answer is: yes. The main reason why bonds are allowed to "ride" is because as soon as they're repaid to the Trust, the level of assets on hand will require that new bonds be issued anyway. So mainly it's a reduction of paperwork. Though it does might deprive the Trust of the sliver of interest that would be gained by issuing new bonds. Still, it's a drop in the bucket at the end of the day.

It is an entirely different matter from the solvency of Social Security as a whole. The solvency problems assume that there is no outstanding cash owed to the SS Trust. It's a simple input/output arithmetic problem. You cannot pay out $10 if you bring in $5. Social Security is not magic, people. It's not free money that falls from the heavens. It is tangible. It is finite. And it WILL go bankrupt.

 

[mudwhistle]

It wasn't discussed during the elections but does any one doubt SS is going to be put on the chopping block?

No way one usmb Republican will say they like and want to keep SS.

And if they want to at least tell us in 2019 so we can vote on it.

Obama weakened SS and Hillary was intending on swamping it with millions of new foreign beneficiaries bankrupting it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Honestly Ray, the main reason it is supposedly going broke, is because the surplus Social security funds have been used to give the Bush tax cuts, and used to pay for the budget, that income tax revenues were suppose to pay for....

And income tax payers, (the wealthiest) do NOT want to pay back the social security tax surpluses that was borrowed so to say for the budget and their income tax cuts, back to social security...

Why should the wealthy pay back money borrowed from SS by Presidents? Speaking of which, SS has been robbed by far more Presidents than Bush. Believe it or not, it's been going on for a long time now.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Or what if they said you couldn't retire till 70?

Or what if they froze your amount and you never got any cost of living increases.

Republicans are going to cut ss and Medicare. The question is how much. Maybe a little now and more in his second term

DumBama robbed Medicare for his phony healthcare plan, and where do you think the money came from to lower taxes on our paychecks during DumBama's first term? That's right, he lowered SS contributions from employers and employees in essence robbing the fund of money it was supposed to take in.

 

[SwimExpert]

If you are going to convince older Americans to end SS you are going to have to allow us to break even after having the money taken from out compensation packages.

Why? Why can't the Baby Boomers take responsibility for their own mess? You expect us to walk away with nothing.

 

[sealybobo]

It wasn't discussed during the elections but does any one doubt SS is going to be put on the chopping block?

No way one usmb Republican will say they like and want to keep SS.

And if they want to at least tell us in 2019 so we can vote on it.

Social Security will end itself, it's bankrupt.

Isn't that because the politicians raided it? Then they need to put back what the took.

*sigh*

Yet another person who doesn't know the first thing about Social Security.

When people talk about "raiding" the SS trust, what they are talking about is the practice of intra-governmental borrowing. When the SS trust has extra money, the government basically loans itself money by borrowing from the SS Trust via bonds with finite periods. The SS Trust accounts for a sizable portion of our national debt. When the bonds are paid back, a small amount of interest is accrued, and that interest pays for operational costs of the SS program. Making SS Trust funds available for loaning is required by law when assets reach a certain point. But sometimes the government will use this intra-governmental borrowing practice when it is not required, or even when it's not advisable. Thus, they are "raiding" Social Security, or so the sound byte goes. It's really much more mundane that it's made to sound. The only real concern is that the government has a habit of letting outstanding bonds ride, which raises the question of whether the government ever intends to pay them back. The answer is: yes. The main reason why bonds are allowed to "ride" is because as soon as they're repaid to the Trust, the level of assets on hand will require that new bonds be issued anyway. So mainly it's a reduction of paperwork. Though it does might deprive the Trust of the sliver of interest that would be gained by issuing new bonds. Still, it's a drop in the bucket at the end of the day.

It is an entirely different matter from the solvency of Social Security as a whole. The solvency problems assume that there is no outstanding cash owed to the SS Trust. It's a simple input/output arithmetic problem. You cannot pay out $10 if you bring in $5. Social Security is not magic, people. It's not free money that falls from the heavens. It is tangible. It is finite. And it WILL go bankrupt.

All I know is when people are freaking out 2 or 5 or 8 years from now don't say I didn't warn you.

Or if going after SS isn't the reason Republicans lose power. They will push to far eventually.

We may go back to the days before unions, social security and Medicare. When America was "great"

 

[sealybobo]

Or what if they said you couldn't retire till 70?

Or what if they froze your amount and you never got any cost of living increases.

Republicans are going to cut ss and Medicare. The question is how much. Maybe a little now and more in his second term

DumBama robbed Medicare for his phony healthcare plan, and where do you think the money came from to lower taxes on our paychecks during DumBama's first term? That's right, he lowered SS contributions from employers and employees in essence robbing the fund of money it was supposed to take in.

You wouldn't end the bush tax cuts that were meant to expire in the first place

 

[sealybobo]

If you are going to convince older Americans to end SS you are going to have to allow us to break even after having the money taken from out compensation packages.

Why? Why can't the Baby Boomers take responsibility for their own mess? You expect us to walk away with nothing.

And any baby boomer receiving a pension shouldn't be getting social security too

 

[WorldWatcher]

If you are going to convince older Americans to end SS you are going to have to allow us to break even after having the money taken from out compensation packages.

Why? Why can't the Baby Boomers take responsibility for their own mess? You expect us to walk away with nothing.

"Walk away with nothing" - Hyperbole much.

The Truth About Social Security's Solvency And You

"It’s Not Going Bankrupt

Social Security isn’t bankrupt. Social Security will be there when it’s time for younger boomers, Gen X’ers, Millennials and younger generations to file for benefits."​

Get back to us when you are 65 (or maybe 70 by that time) and have paid into the system like we will have for 50 years and have some chicken little decry your ability to provide a roof over your head, health care, etc. so they can have an XBox 3000.

I'll leave you with this, since I have to go to bed since I work for a living and have to get up in the morning and yes part of those earnings will go in to SS paying benefits to your mom and dad or grandparents.

SS is PART of the retirement planing for my wife and I, we won't be rich when we retire by any stretch but we'll make ends meet as we always have even during the lean years. We'll have 8 sources of income during retirement. Two will be 403B's (government worker equivalent of a 401K) the other 6 will be military retirements, State pensions, and SS. (We also put money away in IRA's, but that is our travel money for a couple of trips we owe ourselves.)

Anyone relying solely on SS for retirement is a fool.

>>>>

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why would I want to do away with something I have paying into my entire working life?

Why would I want to do away with something that is 1/3 of my income?

Why you question it Op? Let us guess you are a 45 year old smuck who claims disability

 

[SwimExpert]

"Walk away with nothing" - Hyperbole much.

No.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You wouldn't end the bush tax cuts that were meant to expire in the first place

That has nothing to do with what I said. DumBama's Pork Bill included a reduction on SS payroll contributions which robbed the fund of money. Bush's tax cuts had nothing to do with Social Security contributions.

 

[regent]

It wasn't discussed during the elections but does any one doubt SS is going to be put on the chopping block?

No way one usmb Republican will say they like and want to keep SS.

And if they want to at least tell us in 2019 so we can vote on it.

Social Security will end itself, it's bankrupt.

Isn't that because the politicians raided it? Then they need to put back what the took.

*sigh*

Yet another person who doesn't know the first thing about Social Security.

When people talk about "raiding" the SS trust, what they are talking about is the practice of intra-governmental borrowing. When the SS trust has extra money, the government basically loans itself money by borrowing from the SS Trust via bonds with finite periods. The SS Trust accounts for a sizable portion of our national debt. When the bonds are paid back, a small amount of interest is accrued, and that interest pays for operational costs of the SS program. Making SS Trust funds available for loaning is required by law when assets reach a certain point. But sometimes the government will use this intra-governmental borrowing practice when it is not required, or even when it's not advisable. Thus, they are "raiding" Social Security, or so the sound byte goes. It's really much more mundane that it's made to sound. The only real concern is that the government has a habit of letting outstanding bonds ride, which raises the question of whether the government ever intends to pay them back. The answer is: yes. The main reason why bonds are allowed to "ride" is because as soon as they're repaid to the Trust, the level of assets on hand will require that new bonds be issued anyway. So mainly it's a reduction of paperwork. Though it does might deprive the Trust of the sliver of interest that would be gained by issuing new bonds. Still, it's a drop in the bucket at the end of the day.

It is an entirely different matter from the solvency of Social Security as a whole. The solvency problems assume that there is no outstanding cash owed to the SS Trust. It's a simple input/output arithmetic problem. You cannot pay out $10 if you bring in $5. Social Security is not magic, people. It's not free money that falls from the heavens. It is tangible. It is finite. And it WILL go bankrupt.

All I know is when people are freaking out 2 or 5 or 8 years from now don't say I didn't warn you.

Or if going after SS isn't the reason Republicans lose power. They will push to far eventually.

We may go back to the days before unions, social security and Medicare. When America was "great"

At least then the County poor houses were truly gardens of Eden. Add to that, the poor farms allowed its inhabitants to learn an occupation and even help work about the town. Kids were encouraged to work in factories and all was great, ah, if we could only go back, maybe Trump?