How's everybody feel about SS?

[pj86]

I am 21 and also don't (won't) count on SS.

That's partly pride, but mostly pessimism.

[Webzter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha Those of you who think it won't be around when you retire, what do you think will happen to elderly without money or very little money? A good percentage of the elderly primarily live off of their social security.

I think the minumium age will be phased in to increase to 75. Possibly a phased withdrawl cap based on net worth. Or, we're going to be faced with higher taxes to cover the shortfall. Maybe all three or something entirely different.

Life expectancy in the 1930's was under 60 years old, I believe (or close to it). So, I would think that it was established with the idea that many wouldn't live long enough to collect and those that did would need it because they were no longer able to work.

With mortality tables now showing a life expectancy of 74 years, it just feels like something is going to have to give.

[Lancelot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha Those of you who think it won't be around when you retire, what do you think will happen to elderly without money or very little money? A good percentage of the elderly primarily live off of their social security.

I agree.

IMHO the end result of abruptly ending social security would be blood in the streets

Tweaking SS? Sure. Gradual privatization? Probably. Slow strangulation (30+ year phase out) Plausible...

For the life of me, I can't imagine millions of retired (and those nearing retirement) meekly saying "Oh goodness, no more monthly SS checks. But we don't mind, we'll just suck it up and do the best we can. After all, we never really counted on receiving SS anyway."

Yeah right...

[chinaco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webzter I think the minumium age will be phased in to increase to 75. Possibly a phased withdrawl cap based on net worth. Or, we're going to be faced with higher taxes to cover the shortfall. Maybe all three or something entirely different. Life expectancy in the 1930's was under 60 years old, I believe (or close to it). So, I would think that it was established with the idea that many wouldn't live long enough to collect and those that did would need it because they were no longer able to work. With mortality tables now showing a life expectancy of 74 years, it just feels like something is going to have to give.

SS also serve other purposes like disability income (SSI).

Continuing to raise the age much further has other implications. We have people that are living longer, but many will not be able to perform their work past a certain age. Many are unable to continue working due to health decline or just age related limitations for physical types of activity (i.e., lifting, manual labor). Imagine a woman in her 50's that has worked in a ware house, she decides to retire @ 62 or 65 because she has less physical capability. While working she made $35k/yr. Now she can no longer do that at say 63 because of age (just wearing down). She is not eligible for traditional disability (if SS is boosted to 74). All she can find is part-time work in a dept-store. Now she cannot earn enough to take care of basics. The part-time work + SS allows her to continue to afford the basics. Can you imagine a 69 year old roofer (not talking about the outlier)?

IMHO - Boosting the age only works to a degree. There is probably a ceiling that realistically can be attained today. We are living longer, but we are not always in a condition that enables us to continue our jobs (depending on what you do)... Plus, with age discrimination, more and more people are getting pushed out (It does happen more often that people think ). This is a very complex problem. If we do not watch it, we will be back in the 1800's with old people destitute and begging (not an exaggeration). I believe that SS or something like it is needed.

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webzter I think the minumium age will be phased in to increase to 75. Possibly a phased withdrawl cap based on net worth. Or, we're going to be faced with higher taxes to cover the shortfall. Maybe all three or something entirely different. Life expectancy in the 1930's was under 60 years old, I believe (or close to it). So, I would think that it was established with the idea that many wouldn't live long enough to collect and those that did would need it because they were no longer able to work. With mortality tables now showing a life expectancy of 74 years, it just feels like something is going to have to give.

Unfortunately, even though life expectancy has increased, most of the increase is from the early years. Less people die young. The increases in life expectancy for those reaching 60 has increased, but not substantially.

Chinaco has a lot of good points. A number of people retire just because they don't have the health to work in their job anymore.

[Webzter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha Unfortunately, even though life expectancy has increased, most of the increase is from the early years. Less people die young. The increases in life expectancy for those reaching 60 has increased, but not substantially. Chinaco has a lot of good points. A number of people retire just because they don't have the health to work in their job anymore.

I never said anyone was retiring just because they felt like it. Although, my wife's 80 yr old grandpa who has retired from two jobs and now works part time at Home Depot for fun might disagree on people not living longer or being able to work longer.

I mentioned two other thoughts about what might happen. Do you disagree about the general thought that SS is in trouble? If not, what do you think the long term solution will be.

[Rustic23]

My guess is that most of the 'young' folks on this board will never benifit from SS. I'm not saying they won't get something, they just won't benifit. As the 20 somethings get older SS will be means tested, or/and a higher precentage will become taxable. As the taxable figure is not means tested, inflation will push all 20 somethings into the 85% catagory anyway, and by the time they retire, Congress will have made it 100%.

If you plan your retirement, LBYM, save, do without, when you retire, the government will consider you rich, and you will get less SS. The guy that blows all his money, plays hard, and retires with little, will get maximum benifits. That's what is known as being 'Fare'.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Hmm, so it seems like theres some consensus that younger folks will receive less social security, if any at all...30 to 40 years from now when they're of age.

Whats the prognosis for folks who live a little longer than they're supposed to? Someone in their 50's now thats counting on SS benefits as their safety net should they live to 100 or 120...thats even further out.

Will we pull the rug out from under the really, really old folks, or cut further into the younger retirees?

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webzter If not, what do you think the long term solution will be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 As the 20 somethings get older SS will be means tested, or/and a higher precentage will become taxable. As the taxable figure is not means tested, inflation will push all 20 somethings into the 85% catagory anyway, and by the time they retire, Congress will have made it 100%.

Means testing (more than currently exists) with additional tweaking of the CPI adjustment. From here it's just politics! Maybe a rise in the age of full eligibility, but as Martha said the human lifespan has not lengthened very much.

People physically unable to work will have to find other occupations or apply for disability. How well that will work out seems pretty speculative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 The guy that blows all his money, plays hard, and retires with little, will get maximum benifits. That's what is known as being 'Fare'.

Social Security will become a club for whose membership you won't want to qualify. The cost of paying the payroll tax, however, will be far less than the social costs of not having a safety net for the rest of society...

[lazygood4nothinbum]

does increasing immigration eventually contribute to the solvency of social security by increasing the population and therefore the workforce?

i'm 50 so ss should be there for me until at least my early 80s. i'm counting on it to make lease payments on nice new beemer vertibles. if i don't get it i'll be happy in a toyota. and by the time it runs dry i'll be in my 90s and out of gas anyway.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazygood4nothinbum does increasing immigration eventually contribute to the solvency of social security by increasing the population and therefore the workforce?

Ding ding ding!

[Rustic23]

[quote=lazygood4nothinbum;535585]does increasing immigration eventually contribute to the solvency of social security by increasing the population and therefore the workforce?
[quote]

Maybe, not so easy to answer. What if we don't increase the workforce. If economics 101 is right, wages will go up. As wages rise, SS payments increase. Will the rise in SS payments offset the increase in workforce. I doubt if anyone has looked at it. However, there is a difference between undocumented immigration that work in the cash arena, and pay no SS, and documented immigration that pay a full share. A reason to solve our ileagal imigration problem.

[FIREd]

There are just 3 ways to solve the SS/Medicare shortfall: 1) decrease benefits, 2) increase taxes or 3) a bit of both.

The problem I see is that, as boomers start retiring, AARP is about to become the most powerful lobbyist in Washington. Benefit cuts for boomers are just not going to be supported by any lawmaker in his right mind (and who wants to stand a chance to be reelected). Whether they are republicans or democrats, no retiree depending on SS and medicare would support benefit cuts for themselves (but I can see how they might support benefit cuts for the next generations who are not so politically powerful). So that leaves us with massive tax increases for workers to fund SS but mostly Medicare which is by far the costliest program of the two. So, although I support an opt-out system, I just don't see it hapenning. Guess who's gonna be left paying the bills? yeap future generations.

[73ss454]

You forgot #4, the government keeping their hands out of the general fund.

[Moemg]

When SS started there was not the divorce rate there is now .People have multiple picks on SS ,take your own ,take one of your ex -husbands ,take a dear departed spouses .Some men have two or three people collecting on their record .This needs to be changed .

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moemg Some men have two or three people collecting on their record .This needs to be changed .

Some men have two to three people taking part of their paychecks each month, too.

[FIREd]

Quote:

You forgot #4, the government keeping their hands out of the general fund.

It would help SS for sure if politicians stopped raiding the general fund. But I don't see how it would help medicare: Medicare is currently the recipient of just about 19% of the payroll taxes levied, but future obligations for the program are far larger than those for SS. Medicare is a much bigger problem than SS.

[cho oyu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 Maybe, not so easy to answer. What if we don't increase the workforce. If economics 101 is right, wages will go up. As wages rise, SS payments increase. Will the rise in SS payments offset the increase in workforce. I doubt if anyone has looked at it. However, there is a difference between undocumented immigration that work in the cash arena, and pay no SS, and documented immigration that pay a full share. A reason to solve our ileagal imigration problem.

A couple of points. Are wages, after looking at the cap for SS taxes, increasing at a rate above inflation? From what I have seen, this doesn't seem to be the case.

Regardless of input into the SS system for illegal immigrants, I think people anticipate that it is their children (and so on) who will make the biggest difference. There is a tremendous difference in birthrates between the recent immigrant population and the rest of the US population. And, legal or illegal, immigrants want their children to have US citizenship. This means that they will most likely be paying something into the SS system as they age.

Saying this, I think that governmental fiscal policy that requires an increased population to survive is a complete travesty.

[tapper]

Personally, I don't believe that retirement is a right and therefore I'd rather see social security be means tested. If you still have the capacity to work then you are not eligible.

Those that want to retire (i.e. not work) can do that as long as they have saved to allow it.

[wildcat]

[quote=lazygood4nothinbum;535585]does increasing immigration eventually contribute to the solvency of social security by increasing the population and therefore the workforce?quote]

So these immigrants won't demand the same benefits out of the system they pay into? I have a hard time believing that is the foundation of solvency. Sounds like topping off the car's oil every week without trying to fix the leak.

I think SS will be around in some form or another. It has to be. *WARNING - THIS A VERY DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW* I don't mind paying in so long as I have the opportunity to live in a country where I can accumulate such wealth.

A lot of people in the US want to collect their check no matter what their net worth reads but if I have a couple million in the bank and could live off what I have saved, keep what would be a tiny check. I suppose the difference for me is that I don't expect SS nor do I feel SS was ever guaranteed to me. It is almost as if the lock box was never real