Social Security

[piasabird]

Do you think these changes in social security are a good Idea?

http://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/12/17/surprise-republicans-just-introduced-a-bill-that-w.aspx

One think I dont like about politicians is they keep wanting to raise the retirement age higher and higher. This legislation wants to raise it to 69.

Every time they raise the retirement age, what they fail to realize is that millions of people will not be able to work till they are 69 and all of those people will end up on disability anyway, which is similar to drawing social security. Do you think you will be able to work till you are 69? Even if you can, that just makes it harder for young people to find work. Also, often older people with more job experience are paid more due to longevity raises, etc. That ends up costing people more money. This is too complicated an issue to just white wash it with a simple answer. For instance an awful lot of normal people with bills to pay are dead long before they reach the age of 70. Just read the newspaper.

Some other ideas might be a good Idea.

My age is 59 currently. So I know that this is a very difficult problem with some people living till they reach the age of 90 or more, but that takes a lot of good health insurance to live that long. I am not sure obama care will be good enough to reach these older ages. Also if people have less children that means they will get less help in their old age from their family. In the long run things often come down to how much money you make and save in your life time. So do all us average people end up supporting a few rich people who live longer or what? Maybe we should limit the length of time people can receive benefits or taper them off as people get older. I have previously thought 20 years of benefits should be the limit, which could be extended by receiving a smaller monthly benefit. We should really be forcing people to save more money for retirement.

 

[Mai72]

Social Security was never meant to be the sole source of a person's retirement plan. It was meant to supplement ones nest egg. That's it. The issue is you have many Americans who don't have anything saved or they have too little. So, SS becomes their only means of income. I've seen this issue with certain family members. Add the fact that people are living much longer. 90 is a realistic age. I just had an uncle who passed away this summer. He was 93 years old. His wife is 89.

I will probably work till I'm 70. God willing. I don't buy that the old should retire so they can let the young work. There is plenty of work to go around. IMO, that's a scarity mindset. There are plenty of jobs and there are plenty of people who still produce at an advanced age. Trump is a great example. At 70, he hustles more than many of the 25 year olds today. He was flying to at least 3 events a day during the last 2 weeks of his campaign. You have to admit that is frekin impressive.

Something needs to be done with our social security. It's been mismanaged and abused for some time now.

 

[Mai72]

We can't force people to save more for retirement. I will say this. The education system in America does a horrible job educating students on financing. They are never taught why they should start saving at an early age. They are never taught about the compound effect. They are never taught that they should look for investments at an early age. They are never taught to save more than you spend. And there is a reason why this never happens. It's because the US government wants to breed spenders, not savers.

I've had to recondition the way I save and spend money. I've done this by investing my time in books. By investing in myself I've been able to save more and I watch where my money goes at all times. I've also had a mom who loved to spend money. It was infectious. So you see. It's really up to the individual to save. It's their responsibility, not the government.

Saving money is unpopular because we live in a world of instant gratification. You want something? You can shop online in 5 minutes. Gotta have that iPhone? That will be $700. With unlimited data? That's $100 a month. Car, apartment/home, clothes, etc... It's no wonder that many people don't have anything saved at retirement. Most live for the NOW and never think about the future.

 

[IronWing]

We had another thread on this bill last week. The bill addresses SS deficits by reducing the effectiveness of the program. It goes back to that old saying, "Ships are safest while in harbor, but that is not what ships are for." The bill fails to address the underlying structural problem of the SS scheme which is less of the GDP is subject to SS taxation than had been the case in the past due to wage stagnation and the shift of national income to the very wealthy. Between the SS salary cap and capital gains, SS loses its tax base.

 

[pauldun170]

It's what republicans want and that's what Republican Voters want.
As per GOP website
"Government should not be in the this business and money locked up in the SS systems should be placed in private industry. Preferably managed and invested in companies of people I am friends with. If more money is invested in private industry then jobs and stuff. For those who fail to invest on their own and do not have savings then that is obviously 'inner city' or welfare people who are trying to make you into homosexual atheist. Benghazi. Clinton rapists. War on Christmas. Islamic terror. Russia is our friend because they do the Chuck Norris"

 

[agent00f]

Social Security was never meant to be the sole source of a person's retirement plan. It was meant to supplement ones nest egg. That's it. The issue is you have many Americans who don't have anything saved or they have too little. So, SS becomes their only means of income. I've seen this issue with certain family members. Add the fact that people are living much longer. 90 is a realistic age. I just had an uncle who passed away this summer. He was 93 years old. His wife is 89.

I will probably work till I'm 70. God willing. I don't buy that the old should retire so they can let the young work. There is plenty of work to go around. IMO, that's a scarity mindset. There are plenty of jobs and there are plenty of people who still produce at an advanced age. Trump is a great example. At 70, he hustles more than many of the 25 year olds today. He was flying to at least 3 events a day during the last 2 weeks of his campaign. You have to admit that is frekin impressive.

Something needs to be done with our social security. It's been mismanaged and abused for some time now.

What's amusing about raising the retirement age is it has the greater effect on Trump's new blue collar base. Not real easy to do physical labor as they approach 70.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is always hope. If Donald Trump can be President, anybody can.

 

[Jaskalas]

My two parents in their 60s are incapable of physical labor as work.
If it wasn't for social security they would have already been "out on the street" via losing everything.
These changes are geared towards forcing people into abject poverty with zero income. That is something I must oppose.
America can afford better than telling people to "eat cake".

 

[fskimospy]

We can't force people to save more for retirement. I will say this. The education system in America does a horrible job educating students on financing. They are never taught why they should start saving at an early age. They are never taught about the compound effect. They are never taught that they should look for investments at an early age. They are never taught to save more than you spend. And there is a reason why this never happens. It's because the US government wants to breed spenders, not savers.

I've had to recondition the way I save and spend money. I've done this by investing my time in books. By investing in myself I've been able to save more and I watch where my money goes at all times. I've also had a mom who loved to spend money. It was infectious. So you see. It's really up to the individual to save. It's their responsibility, not the government.

Saving money is unpopular because we live in a world of instant gratification. You want something? You can shop online in 5 minutes. Gotta have that iPhone? That will be $700. With unlimited data? That's $100 a month. Car, apartment/home, clothes, etc... It's no wonder that many people don't have anything saved at retirement. Most live for the NOW and never think about the future.

Sadly, research shows that financial education has little effect on people's financial choices.

http://www.nefe.org/Portals/0/WhatWeProvide/PrimaryResearch/PDF/CU Final Report.pdf

We find that interventions to improve financial literacy explain only 0.1% of the variance in financial behavior. Correlational studies that measure financial literacy find larger effects on financial behaviors. We conduct three empirical studies and we find that these effects of financial literacy diminish dramatically when one controls for psychological traits that have been omitted in prior research or when one uses instrumental variables analysis. Our findings suggest the need for re-examination of public policy around how financial education is used to improve financial decision-making.

Having our schools teach more of it won't work most likely. What this really means to me at least is that we need to increase the benefits from social security or otherwise create savings systems that rely less on individual conscious choice. This seems to be a behavioral psychology problem more than an education/math problem.

 

[agent00f]

There is always hope. If Donald Trump can be President, anybody can.

Well, not everyone is will to stoop that low; McCain/Romney would've had a good chance if they went full birther and such.

 

[Balt]

Many older Americans have bought into this fantasy that we can somehow maintain/increase Social Security, Medicare, spend more on defense, and still balance the budget through cuts to what's left of the budget. All of this is going to be accomplished without any tax increases. In fact, somehow it's going to be accomplished with tax cuts.

I've kind of lost sympathy at this point. It is sort of interesting though that Republican proposals could lead a lot of their voting base to an earlier grave, though they are usually careful to say that people already on these programs won't be affected.

 

[Darwin333]

Sadly social security isn't the problem. Medicare and Medicaid are the true problems which we will very soon be unable to afford because of the underlying medical costs and their continuing rise.

 

[OutHouse]

My two parents in their 60s are incapable of physical labor as work.
If it wasn't for social security they would have already been "out on the street" via losing everything.
These changes are geared towards forcing people into abject poverty with zero income. That is something I must oppose.
America can afford better than telling people to "eat cake".

this 100%

 

[MajinCry]

When old people sit on their asses all day, living off of free Gubment money and knitting jumpers, they shouldn't expect much.

Or is it just reds that are the problem?

 

[child of wonder]

My retirement strategy is to assume Social Security will either not exist in 25 years or I will "make too much" to benefit from the 6.2% I and my employer have paid in my entire working life.

Ponzi scheme.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Do you think these changes in social security are a good Idea?

http://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/12/17/surprise-republicans-just-introduced-a-bill-that-w.aspx

One think I dont like about politicians is they keep wanting to raise the retirement age higher and higher. This legislation wants to raise it to 69.

Every time they raise the retirement age, what they fail to realize is that millions of people will not be able to work till they are 69 and all of those people will end up on disability anyway, which is similar to drawing social security. Do you think you will be able to work till you are 69? Even if you can, that just makes it harder for young people to find work. Also, often older people with more job experience are paid more due to longevity raises, etc. That ends up costing people more money. This is too complicated an issue to just white wash it with a simple answer. For instance an awful lot of normal people with bills to pay are dead long before they reach the age of 70. Just read the newspaper.

Some other ideas might be a good Idea.

My age is 59 currently. So I know that this is a very difficult problem with some people living till they reach the age of 90 or more, but that takes a lot of good health insurance to live that long. I am not sure obama care will be good enough to reach these older ages. Also if people have less children that means they will get less help in their old age from their family. In the long run things often come down to how much money you make and save in your life time. So do all us average people end up supporting a few rich people who live longer or what? Maybe we should limit the length of time people can receive benefits or taper them off as people get older. I have previously thought 20 years of benefits should be the limit, which could be extended by receiving a smaller monthly benefit. We should really be forcing people to save more money for retirement.

Yeah but if we take away EPA and labor protections along with medicaid and other social programs poor people will die faster and stop breathing all the rich people's air. Thinning the herd is necessary to keep costs down.

 

[1sikbITCH]

What's amusing about raising the retirement age is it has the greater effect on Trump's new blue collar base. Not real easy to do physical labor as they approach 70.

Well the plan is that they will die much earlier and nobody will be able to cash in anyhow. Not a lot of geriatric coal miners around.

 

[boomerang]

It's what republicans want and that's what Republican Voters want.
As per GOP website
"Government should not be in the this business and money locked up in the SS systems should be placed in private industry. Preferably managed and invested in companies of people I am friends with. If more money is invested in private industry then jobs and stuff. For those who fail to invest on their own and do not have savings then that is obviously 'inner city' or welfare people who are trying to make you into homosexual atheist. Benghazi. Clinton rapists. War on Christmas. Islamic terror. Russia is our friend because they do the Chuck Norris"

Ah, another one of "those" Sunday's at your place, eh?

 

[MovingTarget]

SS must change as people live longer and longer to remain solvent. However, that does NOT mean raising the retirement age. Just because people live longer lives on average than they did decades or centuries ago does not mean that their physical ability to continue a job/career does as well. To force people to work their entire lives only to spend the final few years in abject poverty is imho, cruel. This is EXACTLY what happened before SS was enacted. There is no real reason why we must insist that someone spend their entire life in the work force. Social Security should go back to 65 and stay there. Beyond that, we should eliminate the cap on SS income taxation. Other reforms have been proposed as well and should be considered.

More to the point, for many people, SS is their ONLY source of income. This is going to happen for some, as SS is a type of safety net. Ideally, it is part of a "3-legged stool" for retirement, with the other two legs being personal investments/savings (401k, IRAs, etc.) and Company pensions. Pensions have gone the way of the dodo or been stolen out from under many retirees. Many do not have access to the more complicated investing/savings systems like 401ks or do not make enough to access them by default. Hence, SS is more heavily relied upon by retirees, with that trend looking to increase.

Personally, I do everything I can to save and invest in the hopes that SS will not be "necessary" for me. However, I am comforted by the fact that such a system exists should the worst happen. I still have 30+ years left in the workforce under the current rules. With the economic climate I have seen over the course of my life, I see SS as money well spent as part of the social contract between the younger and older generations.

 

[Sonikku]

It's a sour pickle for the poor to be certain. While the middle and upperclass live longer, the working poor are dropping dead sooner. Worse, while the well to do are still in school, those same working poor are already in the work force. They pay into the system longer but are more often dying before they collect, or if they do collect do so for fewer years than the rest. Of course, the poor vote for Democrats not Republicans so it's no loss for the GoP.

I think what frustrates me most is that they'll sell deep cuts as a heroic stand or sacrifice they're making that could cost them votes in the name of keeping the system sustainable when it's really just a component of their scheme to shift tax money away from social programs for the many and towards more ultra lucrative government contracts and subsidies for big business and the military complex.

 

[pauldun170]

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...-drops-for-first-time-in-decades-report-finds
Retire at 70
Collect benefits
Die at 78
Profit

Hopefully, they can chip away at medicare to help bring that average life expectancy down.

 

[allisolm]

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...-drops-for-first-time-in-decades-report-finds
Retire at 70
Collect benefits
Die at 78
Profit

Except Social Security says that, if you're male and reach the age of 70 this year, you can expect to live to 85.4. And that number increases the younger you are now. If you're 40 now and live to 70, expectancy is 87.1, although that could change in the 30 years from now that it takes the 40 yr-old to reach 70.
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/population/longevity.html

 

[Jhhnn]

We had another thread on this bill last week. The bill addresses SS deficits by reducing the effectiveness of the program. It goes back to that old saying, "Ships are safest while in harbor, but that is not what ships are for." The bill fails to address the underlying structural problem of the SS scheme which is less of the GDP is subject to SS taxation than had been the case in the past due to wage stagnation and the shift of national income to the very wealthy. Between the SS salary cap and capital gains, SS loses its tax base.

Absolutely correct. The obvious answer is to raise the salary cap in some way or another. It's really just a matter of greed. Everybody wishes they could exceed the salary cap so we keep it around, like some golden ring that's just out of reach for 90% of us every year. Why middle class people oppose raising it is some truly bizarre form of brainwashing. They seem to think it would be more painful for high earners to pay the full rate than it is for themselves.

SS is a very important component of retirement even for people who've done well & have some assets. That & medicare make or break the deal. It's more than that for a lot of people simply because of the way Capitalism works. Otherwise, they'd have nothing.

 

[IronWing]

I've been thinking about this some more. The Rep plan mirrors the direst prediction put forth by the SSA. If no action is taken, the SS fund can only pay out 75% of promised benefits in 2034ish. The Republican plan reduces benefits to this level and the Republicans declare "We fixed SS, hurrah for us." Their plan normalizes and blesses the disaster.

 

[Svnla]

Even the SS administration said if nothing is done, current payout for retirees and benefit receivers can not continue. Sooner than later.

Don't let me start with the unfunded liability problems with Federal, State, County, and City levels. In the TRILLION and TRILLION USD. Yike.