Holy Social Security

[bshole]

This is a terrible idea. Life expectancy has been increasing for wealthy people, not for the poor that Social Security is designed to help. Why would you cut poor people's benefits because rich people are living longer? I thought you were all about helping the poor?

Um..... yea I guess we could go with your idea of doing nothing and then have the whole system go bankrupt right about the time I retire.

I have no problem working until I am 72 before retiring. My parents just retired at the age of 75. I do not consider it hardship to work that long before retirement and I don't think it is an imposition too great to impose on my countrymen. We as Americans have to do something for the next generation. Holding off on SS benefits for a few extra years is the very least we can do.

 

[Exterous]

I do! Look at chart 3. Gains in life expectancy have gone overwhelmingly to wealthier people. Individuals in the top economic half have seen an increase of approximately 6 years of life while those in the bottom half have seen an increase of 1.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp108.html

Edited while reading the distribution selections

 

[fskimospy]

Um..... yea I guess we could go with your idea of doing nothing and then have the whole system go bankrupt right about the time I retire.

I have no problem working until I am 72 before retiring. My parents just retired at the age of 75. I do not consider it hardship to work that long before retirement and I don't think it is an imposition too great to impose on my countrymen. We as Americans have to do something for the next generation. Holding off on SS benefits for a few extra years is the very least we can do.

Hahaha. The guy who thinks that fighting global warming is an immoral attack on the poor has no problem with screwing over the poor if he thinks it will affect his pocketbook. Some morality you've got there.

 

[fskimospy]

I was hoping for data a tad more recent than 1912-1941

It's for people BORN in 1941. The data is recent.

 

[Brovane]

Well, it's not broken after all for starters. :whiste:

Allowing the current system to be voluntary would break it if it wasn't broken already.

 

[xBiffx]

Allowing the current system to be voluntary would break it if it wasn't broken already.

Fine. Why should I be forced to contribute to retirement twice? I get no say in one of them so don't suggest that I should not be contributing to my 401k or IRA to fix that either.

 

[bshole]

Hahaha. The guy who thinks that fighting global warming is an immoral attack on the poor has no problem with screwing over the poor if he thinks it will affect his pocketbook. Some morality you've got there.

How the heck does raising the retirement age screw over the poor? They get a paycheck for an extra 7 years and they have a guaranteed social security safety net to boot. SS going bankrupt would be the absolute worst thing that could happen to the poor. I would raise the retirement age precisely because I care about the poor. Acting like there isn't a massive and catastrophic age demographic problem will not make the problem go away. I am willing to man up and work an extra 7 years for my fellow Americans, apparently that is a bridge too far for yourself. Ah well, we all can't be patriots can we?

 

[fskimospy]

How the heck does raising the retirement age screw over the poor? They get a paycheck for an extra 7 years and they have a guaranteed social security safety net to boot. SS going bankrupt would be the absolute worst thing that could happen to the poor. I would raise the retirement age precisely because I care about the poor. Acting like there isn't a massive and catastrophic age demographic problem will not make the problem go away. I am willing to man up and work an extra 7 years for my fellow Americans, apparently that is a bridge too far for yourself. Ah well, we all can't be patriots can we?

Because they pay into it for those extra years and then die before collecting a dime. This isn't rocket science.

Also, Social Security isn't going bankrupt.

It's abundantly clear you don't give a shit about the poor.

 

[Mai72]

Does anyone think social security is going to be there for us when we are set to retire in 30-40 years? I doubt it.

The republicans are at fault as well. Chris Christie has underfunded the teacher's pension since he has been in office. Currently, there is no money left. I can only imagine whats going to happen when people start to retire and there is no money left! interesting times.

The lesson is don't put your retirement n the hands of the US government. They will leave you high and dry. Be proactive. Learn how to invest properly. Most people won't heed the advice and they will expect government to fix their woes. They are in for a world of hurt.

 

[fskimospy]

Does anyone think social security is going to be there for us when we are set to retire in 30-40 years? I doubt it.

The republicans are at fault as well. Chris Christie has underfunded the teacher's pension since he has been in office. Currently, there is no money left. I can only imagine what's going to happen when people start to retire and there is no money left! interesting times.

The lesson is don't put your retirement n the hands of the US government. They will leave you high ans dry. Be proactive. Learn how to invest properly. Most people won't heed the advice and they will expect government to fix their woes. They are in for a world of hurt.

Of course it will be there.

First of all, it is literally impossible for Social Security to go bankrupt. That is simply an illogical idea.

Secondly, it's quite likely that economic growth and increases in productivity will be enough to push Social Security over this demographic bubble with no changes. Even if there are required changes however, it will take the form of modest benefit reductions.

The lesson here is, Social Security will be just fine.

 

[Mai72]

How the heck does raising the retirement age screw over the poor? They get a paycheck for an extra 7 years and they have a guaranteed social security safety net to boot. SS going bankrupt would be the absolute worst thing that could happen to the poor. I would raise the retirement age precisely because I care about the poor. Acting like there isn't a massive and catastrophic age demographic problem will not make the problem go away. I am willing to man up and work an extra 7 years for my fellow Americans, apparently that is a bridge too far for yourself. Ah well, we all can't be patriots can we?

Barring illness, I don't want to retire at 65. I want to be productive and active as I get older. I think the reason people come down with cancer and heart disease is because they become sedentary. Look at people like Jack Lalanne. The guy was 94 years old and he was still involved. He was still working. Look at the current retired American. Their lifestyle consist of watching Fox News, and sitting on their ass all day.

Who would you rather be?

*Obviously, there are people who lead productive lives into retirement. I was just using these two examples.

 

[TheSlamma]

Same here my 401k has fully recovered and then some since 2008. My 5 year rate of return is currently at 14.5%, not bad.

And it will nose dive again next time there is a down economy and then back up and then back down. No doomsday here that is just the trend. Where will the economy fall when you hit 67?

 

[bshole]

Because they pay into it for those extra years and then die before collecting a dime. This isn't rocket science.

Also, Social Security isn't going bankrupt.

It's abundantly clear you don't give a shit about the poor.

Ok I get it. You want to measure who has the longer "care about the poor" dick. Well I don't have the figures for the exact number of hours and dollars I have donated to worthy causes in the past year, I would have to do some research on that. You give me your numbers FIRST and then I will tell you what my numbers are.

 

[fskimospy]

Ok I get it. You want to measure who has the longer "care about the poor" dick. Well I don't have the figures for the exact number of hours and dollars I have donated to worthy causes in the past year, I would have to do some research on that. You give me your numbers FIRST and then I will tell you what my numbers are.

I don't give even a single shit about which one of us 'cares more about the poor'. I'm simply telling you what a hypocrite you are for claiming to care about the poor and then saying that we should change social security in a way that screws them over.

It's funny to watch you lose your shit about climate change policy that might take a few dollars out of their pocket but are totally ok with a policy that will take many many thousands of dollars out of their pockets.

 

[Brovane]

And it will nose dive again next time there is a down economy and then back up and then back down. No doomsday here that is just the trend. Where will the economy fall when you hit 67?

That is why you change your allocation as you near retirement age into more conservative funds. Right now I am in 100% stocks but that is because my time horizon is long so I am ok with that exposure. I hate hearing the people that are in 100% stocks at age 60 and complain when their 401k takes a nosedive in a down economy. Why the F$%k where you 100% invested in stocks at age 60 or age 65? They even have targeted funds now. You choice a fund that best fits when you plan to retire and the fund handles the movement of assets into more conservative investments as you near retirement age for you.

 

[Brovane]

Fine. Why should I be forced to contribute to retirement twice? I get no say in one of them so don't suggest that I should not be contributing to my 401k or IRA to fix that either.

So people that are currently depending on Social Security income are SOL? What do you mean by contributing to retirement twice? You mean both Social Security and 401k/IRA?

 

[bshole]

I don't give even a single shit about which one of us 'cares more about the poor'. I'm simply telling you what a hypocrite you are for claiming to care about the poor and then saying that we should change social security in a way that screws them over.

It's funny to watch you lose your shit about climate change policy that might take a few dollars out of their pocket but are totally ok with a policy that will take many many thousands of dollars out of their pockets.

See that is where we disagree. I believe that saving entitlement programs from bankruptcy is helping the poor. You believe that they can't go bankrupt. I disagree with that. I just don't see any way to make the numbers work when there are two taxable workers for each retiree..... a situation which America will be very close to in about 20 years. My solution would wipe out that problem utterly and completely.

http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_022812.html

 

[xBiffx]

So people that are currently depending on Social Security income are SOL? What do you mean by contributing to retirement twice? You mean both Social Security and 401k/IRA?

If its pay as you go, why would they be shit out of luck? I pay my way, they paid theirs.

Yes to your question.

 

[Exterous]

It's for people BORN in 1941. The data is recent.

A mistake on my part. My intent was to compare with todays numbers and it seems I omitted a very important 'today' or 'recently' in my post. As such your post didn't answer the question I had in my head but did answer the question I actually typed

It is unfortunate that the data does not go beyond 2001 (its also a shame there are only two income brackets) although it does support your point. However only 55% of people were reaching the SS age when the program was instituted vs 76% today. Going off of table 4 a decent number of those will be from the bottom half group and given that that age group continues to increase regardless of income level it would still seem prudent to increase the eligability age

 

[Brovane]

If its pay as you go, why would they be shit out of luck? I pay my way, they paid theirs.

Yes to your question.

I think you are a little confused as to what pay as you go means in this context. The current people retired pay for a previous generation to retire and right now we are paying for the current retired generation. They did pay theirs except the money was used to pay for somebody else.

Social Security funds are not invested on behalf of beneficiaries. Instead, current receipts are used to pay current benefits (the system known as "pay-as-you-go"), as is typical of some insurance and defined-benefit plans.

Social Security is a good balance to 401k/IRA's since it offers guaranteed monthly income regardless of how your investments do in a 401k/IRA.

 

[xBiffx]

I think you are a little confused as to what pay as you go means in this context. The current people retired pay for a previous generation to retire and right now we are paying for the current retired generation. They did pay theirs except the money was used to pay for somebody else.

And that is why its referred to as a Ponzi scheme all the time. That doesn't even make sense to operate like that. When I contribute to my 401k, its mine, not everyone else who is retiring today.

Social Security is a good balance to 401k/IRA's since it offers guaranteed monthly income regardless of how your investments do in a 401k/IRA.

Social Security is becoming less and less of a guarantee for those people not close to retirement age. My 401k is more of a guarantee at this point, especially because I can do things to change that for the better. I can't do that with SS.

 

[Brovane]

And that is why its referred to as a Ponzi scheme all the time. That doesn't even make sense to operate like that. When I contribute to my 401k, its mine, not everyone else who is retiring today.

I don't disagree that it doesn't make sense. However the question becomes how do we fix it while still trying to be fair? To tell people that paid into Social Security when they where working that they are SOL now isn't the way to to go about it.

Social Security is becoming less and less of a guarantee for those people not close to retirement age. My 401k is more of a guarantee at this point, especially because I can do things to change that for the better. I can't do that with SS.

Social Security is still more of guarantee because even worse case scenario and the system was alloweed to break. Social Security could still pay out 75% of promised benefits through a 75 year projection (Which is as far as they go).

 

[fskimospy]

See that is where we disagree. I believe that saving entitlement programs from bankruptcy is helping the poor. You believe that they can't go bankrupt. I disagree with that.

Well then you don't understand how the US government works. Social Security cannot go bankrupt as a simple statement of logic.

I just don't see any way to make the numbers work when there are two taxable workers for each retiree..... a situation which America will be very close to in about 20 years. My solution would wipe out that problem utterly and completely.

http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_022812.html

Productivity per worker has more than tripled since 1960, which would make the productivity adjusted number of workers per retiree higher now than in 1960.

So yeah. That about settles that.

 

[fskimospy]

A mistake on my part. My intent was to compare with todays numbers and it seems I omitted a very important 'today' or 'recently' in my post. As such your post didn't answer the question I had in my head but did answer the question I actually typed

It is unfortunate that the data does not go beyond 2001 (its also a shame there are only two income brackets) although it does support your point. However only 55% of people were reaching the SS age when the program was instituted vs 76% today. Going off of table 4 a decent number of those will be from the bottom half group and given that that age group continues to increase regardless of income level it would still seem prudent to increase the eligability age

But considering that the poor need social security much more than the rich, does it make sense to cut the poor's social security because the rich are living longer?

 

[xBiffx]

I don't disagree that it doesn't make sense. However the question becomes how do we fix it while still trying to be fair? To tell people that paid into Social Security when they where working that they are SOL now isn't the way to to go about it.

Fairness obviously isn't a part of the equation with Social Security so I'm not going to start making it either. You have to start at some point to ween people out of it. For starters I'd say, anyone below the age of 30 doesn't contribute anymore, and gets no benefits either. Let the above 30 crowd fend for themselves until they all die off.