Could you retire without social security?

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem Exactly. And you can do your part like I am, by lowering the expectations of these whippersnappers so they get used to the idea of paying more and getting less. That leaves more for those who got to the trough first. Now, scoot over, you're on my hoof!

mooooooove over, brother..

[Urchina]

The only logical working assumption any of us under 40 should have is that SS won't be there, so we'd better be planning on living without it.

[foxfirev5]

I count on social security about as much as my other income sources. Anything can happen. I managed around the mega corp elimination of our pension but am unwilling and running out of time to readjust to an elimination of ss. If I were to take a too conservative appoach to the subject I would never retire.

[saluki9]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinker25 What is this boomer hate that is becoming so vocal? I really don't understand it (it's not just in this post - I see this more and more). I don't mean it as a criticism of this poster, because it's being said a lot. My experience of the 30 - 40 somethings is that they spend a hell of a lot more than I ever did if they make a lot of money, and save very little. I don't mean to generalize but this IS my experience. I retired by bringing my lunch to work, not getting coffee at Starbucks, eating at home, maxing out all savings plans, and living below my means. I don't see that happening a lot outside this forum.

Well, for one it has nothing to do with you bringing your lunch to work, and a lot to do with your generation (elected officials, not you specifically) not fixing something that is obviously broken while you still have time to fix it.

I don't blame boomers specifically, the last two generations did the same thing, only the future outcome wasn't so obvious as it is now.

I look forward to some day being able to screw my own children and grand children. As far as government benefits are concerned, it's a right of passage in this country.

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saluki9 I don't blame boomers specifically, the last two generations did the same thing, only the future outcome wasn't so obvious as it is now.

You have GOT to be kidding. I remember reading about "the future outcome" back in the early 1960's. It was very obvious, though the idea of ever even considering leaving the elderly hanging out to dry hadn't quite caught on then AFAIK.

So feel free to blame any generation you like. Or how about no generation.

[saluki9]

Quote:

Originally Posted by W2R Or how about no generation.

Why? Are underfunded pension benefits a creation of nature?

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saluki9 Why? Are underfunded pension benefits a creation of nature?

Never mind - - your mind is obviously made up if you can't see anything but generational blame here. I'm bowing out. Have a nice day!

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound If I can trust that future market returns are like those of the past and that FIRECalc can be trusted, then yes, I can live on my savings alone. Sorry to disillusion you, but "The Supreme Court has established that no one has any legal right to Social Security benefits. The Court decided, in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), that "entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right"." For more info, see Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), from which I cited the above excerpt. Specifically, the Court said that SS is not at all like an annuity contract. It said that "A person covered by the Social Security Act has not such a right in old-age benefit payments as would make every defeasance of "accrued" interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." The government, or actually Congress, "expressly reserved the right to alter, amend or repeal any provision of the (Social Security) Act."

I have not been in this thread for awhile... and had to backtrack to find this post since I read a reference to it later...

True... your SS payments are not an annuity contract... but that is more a legal argument than a practicle one....

We paid in to SS with a promise of receiving something back on that 'investment'... it was presented as old age and survivor insurance.... so, us getting back money is not an 'entitlement' or 'welfare'...

The earned income credit is just wealth transfer... they did not pay in anything, but are getting a benefit... to me, completely different... no matter what the court might say on the ability of Congress to change the rules of SS...

[Bestwifeever]

YouTube - Billy Joel - We Didn't Start The Fire

[East Texas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 79protons This would tend to indicate that we should actually cut SS now for people near or at retirement so that it can be increased (instead of decreased) for this younger generation who are going to need it more.

I planned and saved and lived below / within my financial means so I could have a comfortable retirement. I should not be expected to subsidize someone who chose otherwise.

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saluki9 Well, for one it has nothing to do with you bringing your lunch to work, and a lot to do with your generation (elected officials, not you specifically) not fixing something that is obviously broken while you still have time to fix it. I don't blame boomers specifically, the last two generations did the same thing, only the future outcome wasn't so obvious as it is now. I look forward to some day being able to screw my own children and grand children. As far as government benefits are concerned, it's a right of passage in this country.

Whoa, dude! Righteous postslamming those greedy boo-boo's! Major angst download! Stressed over SS or just a 5-Hour Energy rush? Working too hard at GameStop? Too much caffeine? Like, maybe you need to take a break from those $6 double-shot Sumatran fair-trade mochalatte espressos you've been slamming while blogging from the free Starbucks wi-fi hotspot. Scooter on over to AGE or Third Millennium Headquarters to lick chai-flavored virtual fundraising envelopes and make prank phone calls to those avaricious AARP members. Meritorious post, bro, a double-knuckle bump!

Oh, and here's a link you may want to discuss at the next "Don't Undermine My Benefits- Axe Social Security!" podcast blamestorming meeting. Just don't tell them you got it from a boomer on the geezerweb and you'll be like, totally golden.

The Generation Gambit

[jeeper]

I retired, but a long way for us to SS. I was thinking of SS as a hedge for inflation, medical, etc. If life would go on without it, prolly so, but we would sure feel the lack of it. Ahhh geeze, the question does raise questions...

[Retire2013]

I am still 17 years from being eligible for receiving SS so by that time the system may not have any money left in it so my spreadsheet has no line for SS or any pension. I am trying to fund ER solely from investment income. I would be thrilled if I can receive something from SS when the time comes, just not counting on it.

[Independent]

I'm looking for another option on the poll. "Didn't need SS to meet our basic spending, but I still would have deferred retirement without SS because SS is part of our margin for safety or for extras."

[youbet]

I could have retired without SS but would have needed to either work longer or retire on a smaller budget. I definitely could not spend at the same level as today without SS.

[Independent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saluki9 Why? Are underfunded pension benefits a creation of nature?

No, but they go back a long time in human history. I'd guess that as soon as agriculture produced enough "surplus" to make it possible, human families supported their elderly even after those elderly were putting less into the economic pot than they were taking out. The first farmer who said "A lot of children may be a burden today, but at least I'll have someone to care for me in my old age" was building an underfunded pension system.

In the 20th century, most industrialized countries partially shifted this from an informal, family-based system to a formal government-based system. People who cared for their own parents directly eventually found that their children were caring for them as well, but using government as an intermediary. It seemed "fairer" and "more dignified" to people who were familiar with both systems, but those are subjective words.

From a macro perspective, all old age support systems are "underfunded", because so many of the economic goods that old people use have to be produced at about the same time as they are used. No pension scheme completely avoids that issue.

[chinaco]

Wow.... everyone around 40+ and under seems to be willing to concede what they have paid in and rollover??

You paid into it... you should get it. Make sure you make it clear to your senators and representative that you expect them to deal with the problem.

[73ss454]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinaco Wow.... everyone around 40+ and under seems to be willing to concede what they have paid in and rollover?? You paid into it... you should get it. Make sure you make it clear to your senators and representative that you expect them to deal with the problem.

The problem is that the Senators and Representatives "ARE" the problem.
They need to keep their grubby hands off our money.

[chinaco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 73ss454 The problem is that the Senators and Representatives "ARE" the problem. They need to keep their grubby hands off our money.

SS will be adjusted and taxes raised to make sure the program is solvent.

Medicare seems to be the bigger problem. Taxes will be raised and the premium for medicare will be raised.

Expect FICA increases.

[DeborahB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 73ss454 Wait a second, I didn't spend it all on hookers and coke, I drank Pepsi. Come April when I turn 62 I'm really going to go nuts. I'm going to surprise DW with a divorce, and go for lunch at Hooters.

+1
I have never had to pay for sex... nor do I know anyone who did. (Why would they - hell, we gave it away for free!) I also prefer Pepsi...