Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-09-2013, 11:22 AM   #41
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 943
Interesting concept of "moral dilemma" when it comes to government payments/SS. I suppose I would have found this a question worth contemplating if the payments in had been voluntary. As the "contributions" were mandatory I see ZERO moral dilemma, but if you do, feel free to follow your conscience...
__________________

__________________
LARS is offline   Reply With Quote
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 08-09-2013, 11:50 AM   #42
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
travelover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,889
Why leave the distribution of your untaken benefits to chance? I, who have spend a lifetime of gambling, chasing women and drinking, definitely need your money. PM me for an address to send the checks to.
__________________

__________________
Yes, I have achieved work / life balance.
travelover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 11:58 AM   #43
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Mulligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelover View Post
Why leave the distribution of your untaken benefits to chance? I, who have spend a lifetime of gambling, chasing women and drinking, definitely need your money. PM me for an address to send the checks to.
I think that is a disability check you need to file for. While I have not lost a step of speed in concern of gambling, I have found your other two vices much harder to stay up with as I have gotten older.
__________________
Mulligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 12:41 PM   #44
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
travelover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
I think that is a disability check you need to file for. While I have not lost a step of speed in concern of gambling, I have found your other two vices much harder to stay up with as I have gotten older.
The OP can call it what ever they want, as long as they sign the back before they forward the check.
__________________
Yes, I have achieved work / life balance.
travelover is offline   Reply With Quote
DItto
Old 08-09-2013, 04:44 PM   #45
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Suburban Woods in Ohio
Posts: 503
DItto

Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
Why a moral problem?

If my friend and I both made the income, hence the same SS contribution, but he never saved any money in his 401k while I did, why should I subsidize him now?

The reason I had been saving is that I can have extra beyond SS for more comfort in my old age. It is called delayed gratification, and it is good to encourage people to save and to invest. It is not good to punish savers.

If I have extra, I would rather give to charities (which I do) than to spendthrifts. Or I can leave to my children, who are paying into SS to subsidize those spendthrifts too.

If SS benefits have to be cut to avoid heavy lifting by younger generations, then cut mine and my friend's equally. Watching him suffer will teach youngsters to save. That's a good moral lesson.

+1 Those who have failed to learn the rewards of delayed gratification may still have the chance to learn that important lesson. Many of us could only ER because of lifetimes of LBYM, teaching ourselves basic investing, continual frugality/doing without the toys many of the "Joneses" bought (either on credit, or by living paycheck to paycheck). We "did without" during our working years, so that we would not "do without" in our elder years. We made those choices.

Those who used their $ differently (and did not save) were free to make that choice.....and enjoy that lifestyle. To me, freedom at 59 was way more important than extra "toys" in my '30's and '40s.

FWIW
__________________
"Everything becomes more itself." --C.S. Lewis
LitGal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 05:20 PM   #46
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
gauss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,709
OP sets up a false proposition when he claims:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shanky View Post
Given the next generation will have to pay more to benefit less, some may say taking Social Security ...
SS could be fixed by lifting the income cap on high income individuals. In 2013 any earned income over $113,700 is not subject to Social Security withholding. Why do only the middle and lower income folks pay 6% of their income to Social Security but the high income earners do not?

No need to cut benefits to future generations or raise their tax rates.

-gauss
__________________
gauss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 05:28 PM   #47
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 844
Quote:
Originally Posted by gauss View Post
OP sets up a false proposition when he claims:



SS could be fixed by lifting the income cap on high income individuals. In 2013 any earned income over $113,700 is not subject to Social Security withholding. Why do only the middle and lower income folks pay 6% of their income to Social Security but the high income earners do not?

No need to cut benefits to future generations or raise their tax rates.

-gauss
Yes and no, if you remove the cap on contributions, do you also remove the cap on payments you can collect? Would we then have very rich folks getting $50,000/month SS checks when they retire? I don't see how or why you would have a cap on contributions, but not on payouts.

And if there is a cap on neither, you don't really solve any problem do you? You take more money in on one hand, but pay more money out with the other.
__________________
farmerEd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 06:27 PM   #48
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,420
I do not know if they would plan to cap the distributions or not, but it still helps even if there is not.

As SS benefit formula is regressive, it's OK to pay very rich folks $50K/month, if we took in from them $100K/month while they were working. Of course, some people would gloss over that last fact, and lament that SS is a welfare for the rich.
__________________
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 06:36 PM   #49
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 620
Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerEd View Post
Yes and no, if you remove the cap on contributions, do you also remove the cap on payments you can collect? Would we then have very rich folks getting $50,000/month SS checks when they retire? I don't see how or why you would have a cap on contributions, but not on payouts.

And if there is a cap on neither, you don't really solve any problem do you? You take more money in on one hand, but pay more money out with the other.
Removing the cap on both would actually help, due to the redistributive nature (from higher to lower earners) of the payments. Presently, for the amount you earned per month in excess of $4,768, you only get 15% back in SS payments (vs 90% up to $791 and 32% from $791 to $4,768).
__________________
Which Roger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 08:20 PM   #50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,281
Who keeps saying that getting posters on this forum to agree on anything is like herding cats?

I think this is about as close to consensus as one can come! I also think the OP just had a semi-interesting question, until he inserted "moral dilemma". Then it turned into a judgement.

I'm more concerned about the "moral dilemma" of those who chose frequent new cars, fancy vacations, and lots of (relatively) conspicuous consumption over the principles of LBYM, saving, and learning about investing, who are now dependent on that SS check. Maybe the govt will need to reduce those payments in the future. Most of us will survive, but those others will be hurt. Maybe they should have acted more 'morally' in regards to their own future?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 08:47 PM   #51
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shanky View Post
Given the next generation will have to pay more to benefit less, some may say taking Social Security when you don't even need it presents a moral dilemma.
By no means is that a given, nor is it even likely. What is likely is that productivity increases, standards of living increase, and the payroll tax in the future is a larger nominal dollar amount of a much larger income and the benefits of younger generations will be greater in real terms. Even in Japan, where the real GDP has not grown since the early 90's, the per capita GDP has indeed grown because productivity has continued to grow, for example, Toyota sells fewer cars than GM, has less revenue than GM, and makes three times the profit.

I know that some folks on this board are unable to grasp the concept of productivity increases and the effect on future funding of SS. The following graphs should help demonstrate the effect of productivity increases on GDP in Japan, a percentage of which goes to retirement benefits recipients. (BTW, during the periods shown the population of Japan has grown, not shrunk, although it will shrink in the future.)



__________________
Khufu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 08:57 PM   #52
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,420
But your chart shows that Japanese GDP has been stagnant or rather fluctuating since 1994. On top of that, the annotation is that the number is not corrected for inflation.

Japan has been in a deflation, but the chart is in US dollars. And from Jan 1994 to Jan 2009, a dollar has shrunken down to $0.69.

It suggested that the productivity increase in Japan stopped in 1994, and has been declining since. Once the factory automation was completed, perhaps there was little more they could do.

PS. Just thought of another more likely reason: the number of workers has been declining, while productivity stays constant or does not improve enough to compensate. That's the problem that faces the developed nations.

In another thread, we talked about the big state pension in California. They are currently spending a 1.9%WR, so what's the problem? The projection is that in 2030, a mere 17 years away, the payout will quadruple from where it is today. Hence the big problem with demographic changes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khufu View Post
I know that some folks on this board are unable to grasp the concept of productivity increases and the effect on future funding of SS. The following graphs should help demonstrate the effect of productivity increases on GDP in Japan, a percentage of which goes to retirement benefits recipients.
__________________
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 09:35 PM   #53
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Thousand Oaks
Posts: 220
As others have already said, if I leave any money on the table, the government WILL, absolutely, (make no mistake) spend my money stupidly.

I'd rather make that decision myself. It will be my last.
__________________
chilkoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 09:55 PM   #54
Full time employment: Posting here.
gcgang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shanky View Post
taking Social Security when you don't even need it presents a moral dilemma. .
I'm financially in good shape, but morally I'm bankrupt. Gimme the money.
__________________
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. YB
gcgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 10:00 PM   #55
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
timo2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Rio Rancho
Posts: 1,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shanky View Post
We have many posters on this board who say that they have achieved FIRE, and do not actually need SS. Given the next generation will have to pay more to benefit less, some may say taking Social Security when you don't even need it presents a moral dilemma. We all have the choice not to file for benefits, but I do not hear about very many taking turning it down. (other than by dying younger than expected).

Anyone here considering not filing for benefits? I know many will reply they ""earned" the benefits, but that is not my point.

I'd say your question pushed a major button here!!!
__________________
"We live the lives we lead because of the thoughts we think" Michael O’Neill
timo2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2013, 05:21 AM   #56
Moderator
Walt34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern WV Panhandle
Posts: 16,539
No moral dilemma for me. I'd been paying into it since 1967 and not by choice so getting the ROI seems like a no-brainer. Perhaps not a great ROI, or maybe it will be, but one nonetheless so I'll take it.
__________________
I heard the call to do nothing. So I answered it.
Walt34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2013, 08:35 AM   #57
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
No moral dilemma for me either. And that goes double, because I will be claiming both US SS and UK state pension.....
__________________
“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Current AA: 65% Equity Funds / 20% Bonds / 7% Stable Value /3% Cash / 5% TIAA Traditional
Retired Mar 2014 at age 52, target WR: 0.0%,
Income from pension and rent
nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2013, 08:35 AM   #58
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 348
Not claiming SS is the same as leaving money on the table for the gubmint to spend as it sees fit.
Tell you what, show me where the gubmint is taking seriously the problem of "moral hazard" and I'll consider taking seriously the OP's point on "moral dilemma".
__________________
zedd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2013, 08:45 AM   #59
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerEd View Post
Yes and no, if you remove the cap on contributions, do you also remove the cap on payments you can collect? Would we then have very rich folks getting $50,000/month SS checks when they retire? I don't see how or why you would have a cap on contributions, but not on payouts.

And if there is a cap on neither, you don't really solve any problem do you? You take more money in on one hand, but pay more money out with the other.

The upper income cap on FICA should be removed. Then I would also change SS payments to be proportional to the number of years you've contributed and not linked to the amount you've contributed over the years. This is how the UK does things to ensure those that worked for low wages get a livable benefit. I know this is heresy in the US, but as a socialist it just seems like a decent thing to do.
__________________
“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Current AA: 65% Equity Funds / 20% Bonds / 7% Stable Value /3% Cash / 5% TIAA Traditional
Retired Mar 2014 at age 52, target WR: 0.0%,
Income from pension and rent
nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2013, 09:39 AM   #60
Recycles dryer sheets
Larro Darro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Altha
Posts: 161
The question for me is not if, but when I will start drawing. To wait for full SS at age 67 means 14 1/2 more years. I go back and forth on this one all the time. More is good, but sooner is better. Like the ad on TV says, it's my money and I want it now.

I am doing my part to save SS. When I see a group of smokers outside a door, puffing away, I stop to say thanks. If it wasn't for Lotto, drinking and smoking, most poor folks wouldn't pay much tax other than SS.
__________________

__________________
Make good money, five dollars a day.
Made anymore, I might move away.
Larro Darro is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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 04:53 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.