Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-06-2012, 11:48 AM   #21
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
DFW_M5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,982
The following article appeared in our local paper this morning indicating that today's retirees are the first to not receive back what they paid into SS. I for one didn't realize that, notwithstanding all the debate about restructing SS.

Is Social Security still a good deal for workers? | Nation | News from Fort Worth, Dalla...
__________________

__________________
DFW_M5 is offline  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 08-06-2012, 11:54 AM   #22
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFW_M5 View Post
The following article appeared in our local paper this morning indicating that today's retirees are the first to not receive back what they paid into SS. I for one didn't realize that, notwithstanding all the debate about restructing SS.

Is Social Security still a good deal for workers? | Nation | News from Fort Worth, Dalla...
Is there an echo here? Hint: see post 18
__________________

__________________
MichaelB is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 12:03 PM   #23
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud
As for shared sacrifice, I would be more than willing to pay say 10% more in income tax IF they cut REAL spending by 20%... not the fake spending cuts, but spending 20% less money next year than you spent this year... and get rid of a lot of those tax credits that do very little for the money that is spent...
This of course won't happen. The Budget Control Act, the cutting part of the "fiscal cliff", will cut 65 billion from the FY 2013 budget. That is about 5% of this year's deficit, or 1.7% of the FY 2013 proposed budget. With the fiscal cliff in place, defense pending would only increase by 0.1%, rather than the estimated 1.8% in various budget proposals. These sort of tremendous cuts are Certain Doom according to assorted talking heads and Congresscritters.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...estraint_0.pdf

Bear in mind that the big impact numbers that the yammerheads go on about are over a ten year period, and are back loaded in many cases.

Other cuts and expiring tax changes not part of the Budget Control Act have a bigger impact on next years budget. Cuts in unemployment benefits as that patch expires lowers spending by 26 billion, and scheduled Medicare payment cuts lower spending by 11 billion. Expiration of the Bush era tax cuts raise 221 billion in revenue, and the end of the employee payroll tax cut brings in 95 billion.
__________________
M Paquette is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 12:07 PM   #24
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
DFW_M5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Is there an echo here? Hint: see post 18
Oops, sorry I missed that post. That said, nothing wrong with repeating for emphasis
__________________
DFW_M5 is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 12:08 PM   #25
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Is there an echo here? Hint: see post 18
Heck, see my post from just after midnight

Social Security not deal it once was for workers

Of course, "somebody" saw little value in it at the time ...
__________________
rescueme is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 12:11 PM   #26
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack
I agree with Ziggy.



If you're "59, 60, 61 years old" or "with a 4-5 year horizon" and it comes as a surprise to you that you're Soc Sec benefits may not be what earlier projections have shown, you're not paying attention. "Suddenly" - you must be joking...


It isn't that the SS benefits may not be according to earlier projections.

My point is that SS benefits may not be according to what they are projected NOW, looking 2-4 years into the future.

How is it right to change someone's current 2-4 year projections being so close to retirement?

I"m fine with making changes for those who have time to recoup and adjust to different expectations.

How is it fair to make changes to something you've paid into for 45 years and, literally months away, have them change the benefits?
__________________
Living well is the best revenge!
Retired @ 52 in 2005
marko is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 12:21 PM   #27
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by marko View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
I agree with Ziggy.

If you're "59, 60, 61 years old" or "with a 4-5 year horizon" and it comes as a surprise to you that you're Soc Sec benefits may not be what earlier projections have shown, you're not paying attention. "Suddenly" - you must be joking...
It isn't that the SS benefits may not be according to earlier projections.

My point is that SS benefits may not be according to what they are projected NOW, looking 2-4 years into the future.

How is it right to change someone's current 2-4 year projections being so close to retirement? Because they know that now as you state, and it shouldn't be a surprise, we've known for years if not decades something was going to have to give. May have to delay retirement or plan on spending less. Working people have lost jobs, their houses and whatever else - they've had to make radical adjustments too. You want to ask them to pay more to support their parents generation?

I"m fine with making changes for those who have time to recoup and adjust to different expectations.

How is it fair to make changes to something you've paid into for 45 years and, literally months away, have them change the benefits?
OK, I'll be more direct, how do you plan to pay for maintaining benefits? Other than making our children/grandchildren pay more...then we can talk about "fair", "right", "selfish" - your words.
__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 12:22 PM   #28
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
MasterBlaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by marko View Post
How is it fair to make changes to something you've paid into for 45 years and, literally months away, have them change the benefits?
It isn't fair. But we are broke so changes are coming.

You will be part of the solution... Like it or not.

And by the way, Do you really care whether they cut SS or jack tax rates (on you) up. Either way you'll have less. The effect is the same.
__________________
MasterBlaster is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 12:28 PM   #29
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by rescueme View Post
Heck, see my post from just after midnight

Social Security not deal it once was for workers

Of course, "somebody" saw little value in it at the time ...
You obviously posted in the wrong thread.
__________________
MichaelB is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 12:35 PM   #30
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,708
I guess I'm confused.

This is the "Finanically Independent, Retired Early" site isn't it? I've learned a lot about financials, retiring early, taxes, investments and such here.

Suddenly a lot of people here seem in favor of cutting SS benefits (which I personally don't need) in favor of "the children" (which I dont have) due to a national debt (which I didn't approve of creating).

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but it seems to me that a site that focuses on helping people retire might have participants more sympathetic to the cause.

I fully understand that we're broke. They WILL cut our SS AND raise our taxes to the detriment of those who are retired and the rest of those who want to.

I just find it interesting that so many here are so negative on a "paid into" benefit that has helped a lot of people RE.
__________________
Living well is the best revenge!
Retired @ 52 in 2005
marko is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 12:37 PM   #31
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,487
Did anyone read the blogpost linked in the original post?

"Another Voice for Social Security Means Testing" is a blogpost defense against a proposal the blogger attributes to someone else (Bill Keller, here) Following that link back to the original article that started this whole discussion, Keller wrote:
Quote:
So the question is not whether entitlements have to be brought under control, but how
then
Quote:
FELLOW boomers, we have done more than our share to make this mess. Itís not our fault that there are a lot of us, but we have resisted any move to fix the system. We should make a sensible reform of entitlements our generationís cause. We should stiffen the spines of our politicians, and push lobby groups like A.A.R.P. to climb out of the bunker and lead. (And, by the way, we should resist the boomer temptation to take every cent of the reform from the pockets of our kids.) We should keep the heat on Congress and the president to double down on the cost-saving provisions in Obamacare.
He didnít suggest means testing, the blogger did, and then attributed it to Keller. So the blogger creates a straw man that never was, makes up a lazy defense (it's hard). This thread picks up where the blogger left off and now its about changing the rules with just a few years to go.

Talk about thread drift.
__________________
MichaelB is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 12:38 PM   #32
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
gauss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bestwifeever View Post
Good news for the younger generation: boomers retiring today have for the most part paid more into Social Security than they will get back, so the whippersnappers are off the hook for paying for us! Now the younger folks can just worry that they will be paying even more into the system than they will get back.

Retiring soon? You probably paid more in taxes than you will get in Social Security benefits - chicagotribune.com


Are they comparing the SS benefits to only what the employee pays in taxes, or are they lumping in the employers share also?

Seems a bit deceptive if it is the latter and they don't mention this.
__________________
gauss is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 12:41 PM   #33
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
FinanceDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
As for shared sacrifice, I would be more than willing to pay say 10% more in income tax IF they cut REAL spending by 20%... not the fake spending cuts, but spending 20% less money next year than you spent this year... and get rid of a lot of those tax credits that do very little for the money that is spent...
+1

I think the $5 billion annual subsidy for ethanol is 1 thing that could go away and noone would care but the corn growers. Would anyone buy E85 if it was the same cost as the real stuff? Didn't think so..........
__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)


This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
FinanceDude is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 12:42 PM   #34
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
You obviously posted in the wrong thread.
Yeah, I do that a lot.

A mind (especially an old one) is a terrible thing to waste ...
__________________
rescueme is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 12:43 PM   #35
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 1,878
I suspected SS would be means tested at some point, and I have not included SS in my planning. But as the article mentions it may be easier said than done. It seems crazy for Bill Gates to collect a SS check just because he paid into the system. Maybe they could adjust how they tax SS benefits so it's all taken back above a certain income level.

There was an article this weekend about SS and the gvmnt "raiding" the money.

Three Things You Know about Social Security That Aren't True - CBS News
__________________
rbmrtn is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 12:47 PM   #36
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by gauss View Post
Are they comparing the SS benefits to only what the employee pays in taxes, or are they lumping in the employers share also?
I would say they are counting total contributions, since the total amount reflects just under what I/DW contributed, plus the match from our respective employers after some 40+ years of contributions for each of us, and the article refers to a "couple".
__________________
rescueme is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 12:47 PM   #37
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by marko View Post
If people have 15, 20, 25 years to adjust to new rules, that's one thing. To screw those with a 4-5 year horizon...how can that be fair?
Because they're the ones who got us into this mess.

It wasn't the 20 year olds or the 30 year olds that passed all those deficit budgets and refused to address the elephant in the room that is unsustainable entitlement programs. It was the Boomers.
__________________
kombat is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 12:47 PM   #38
Dryer sheet aficionado
noone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinanceDude View Post
I think the $5 billion annual subsidy for ethanol is 1 thing that could go away and noone would care but the corn growers. Would anyone buy E85 if it was the same cost as the real stuff? Didn't think so..........
There you go again, dragging me into the discussion when I'm not even remotely interested.

And what the heck does ethanol have to do with Social Security? You been sipping the E85 again?
__________________
Noone knows everything
noone is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 01:09 PM   #39
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by marko View Post
I guess I'm confused.

This is the "Finanically Independent, Retired Early" site isn't it? I've learned a lot about financials, retiring early, taxes, investments and such here. Me too.

Suddenly a lot of people here seem in favor of cutting SS benefits (which I personally don't need) in favor of "the children" (which I dont have) due to a national debt (which I didn't approve of creating). No one is in favor of cutting benefits, but our fiscal imbalance has to be addressed, and it can't be done without modifying entitlements in the mix. We don't have children either, but it's still not fair IMO to expect other peoples children to pay more to preserve benefits that were "promised" to me and all seniors when we've known (or should have) something was going to have to give. I started planning many years ago and I never used the full Soc Sec projections they sent me, I've known they may be reduced and planned accordingly all along. For anyone about to retire who is surprised they may not receive the benefits that are being projected today is being disingenuous, and that's being kind.

The debt belongs to all of us like it or not, you approved through your representatives like the rest of us.


Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but it seems to me that a site that focuses on helping people retire might have participants more sympathetic to the cause. The site does a great job of focusing on helping people retire. But IMO that doesn't mean helping retirees maintain unrealistic benefits at the expense of generations to follow, that's what the AARP is for.

I fully understand that we're broke. They WILL cut our SS AND raise our taxes to the detriment of those who are retired and the rest of those who want to.

I just find it interesting that so many here are so negative on a "paid into" benefit that has helped a lot of people RE. All true, but you understand it's a paygo system. What we all paid in was spent shortly after it was received.
Speaking for myself only...
__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is offline  
Old 08-06-2012, 01:10 PM   #40
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,487
Generation blame and unrelated taxes discussions have led to the closing of this thread.


__________________

__________________
MichaelB is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:27 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.