SS Sustainability without reduction now at 2029

[mamadogmamacat]

Depends upon what we each mean by "significant". Based on this: "Thereafter, scheduled tax income is projected to be sufficient to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through the end of the projection period in 2090",
It seems many here could simply assume they can safely receive at least 75% of their projected benefit through at least 2090. If their calculations indicate that is sufficient, based on other income sources.

[Independent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Major Tom "Hope for the best and plan for the worst" is a good guideline, I think. I'd manage without SS, but am certainly looking forward to having that extra allowance as the cherry on top of my later years.

+1

We could get along without SS. But, life will be much more comfortable if we get it. I'll be 82 in 2029. There's a good chance I won't be alive then. If I am, I'm guessing congress will be kinder to the very old folk.

[youbet]

I'd like to see them take the welfare-like aspects of SS out of the program and focus the remaining funds on the retirement benefit aspects.

The welfare-like benefits of SS should have been separate programs from the get-go and they are very expensive to SS. Blending pensions and welfare is not smart IMHO.

[braumeister]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckanut Seriously, when I ran Firecalc before retiring I put in my SS income as 75% of what the SS Admin said I could expect to get. In that way the 'haircut' is already factored in to my plans.

Exactly what I did. I also used 80% of my portfolio.
I am such a wimp.
But I've always slept well at night.

[meierlde]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet I'd like to see them take the welfare-like aspects of SS out of the program and focus the remaining funds on the retirement benefit aspects. The welfare-like benefits of SS should have been separate programs from the get-go and they are very expensive to SS. Blending pensions and welfare is not smart IMHO.

Oh you mean like the spousal benefit for those who did not work? Or the benefit if one has kids under 18 when you start social security?

[Hyperborea]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakewood90712 A resurgence in domestic manufacturing with accompanying higher paying jobs as compared to service sector jobs and S.S payroll takes would fix this I.M.O. The rising tide lifts most boats, along with the S.S, payroll tax boat. Not likely to happen. I have no worries for myself, but big worries for those following behind me.

The robots doing the majority of the work in that domestic factory wouldn't be paying social security. There's no other way that manufacturing jobs are coming back unless US workers are willing to lower their wage requirements a lot.

[Just_Steve]

Quote:

Originally Posted by meierlde Or the benefit if one has kids under 18 when you start social security?

This one would be a good start, why should the taxpayer support these kids because the parent does not want to work?

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by meierlde Oh you mean like the spousal benefit for those who did not work? Or the benefit if one has kids under 18 when you start social security?

Those would be a start. Disability SSI also comes to mind. If folks, like kids, the disabled or never-worked spouses need financial help to not be in poverty, fine. But make those cases welfare, not SS, programs. Those entitlements were added to SS with little thought as to how to fund them.

[marko]

To me this reinforces the "age 62 take the money and run" strategy.

[growing_older]

Color me more pessimistic. Lifting the cap and possibly adding another bend point to further reduce benefits for people paying the top FICA would shore up the program, but there doesn't seem to be any political will to make that happen. I'm already trapped working for health insurance and paying FICA that will have zero impact on my ultimate SS benefits.

While the projections say that the program could pay 75% of benefits if no reforms are made, it is unlikely that the 75% rate will be evenly distributed. I anticipate sliding scale cuts so that lower benefit levels are little affected and those near the top brackets, especially those with any retirement savings will take bigger cuts. Probably much bigger, so that the overall 75% rate can be maintained in aggregate.

[Huston55]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet I'd like to see them take the welfare-like aspects of SS out of the program and focus the remaining funds on the retirement benefit aspects. The welfare-like benefits of SS should have been separate programs from the get-go and they are very expensive to SS. Blending pensions and welfare is not smart IMHO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet Those would be a start. Disability SSI also comes to mind. If folks, like kids, the disabled or never-worked spouses need financial help to not be in poverty, fine. But make those cases welfare, not SS, programs. Those entitlements were added to SS with little thought as to how to fund them.

What about survivor benefits? Would you also cut those?

[Huston55]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet I'd like to see them take the welfare-like aspects of SS out of the program and focus the remaining funds on the retirement benefit aspects. The welfare-like benefits of SS should have been separate programs from the get-go and they are very expensive to SS. Blending pensions and welfare is not smart IMHO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by meierlde Oh you mean like the spousal benefit for those who did not work? Or the benefit if one has kids under 18 when you start social security?

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet Those would be a start. Disability SSI also comes to mind. If folks, like kids, the disabled or never-worked spouses need financial help to not be in poverty, fine. But make those cases welfare, not SS, programs. Those entitlements were added to SS with little thought as to how to fund them.

Not to divert us into a political discussion but, for clarity of this thread...The "SS" in this thread title "SS (Social Security) Sustainability..." stands for "Old Age, Survivors & Disability Insurance" (OASDI); the official name of the program.

Each aspect of "OASDI" was part of the original program & enacting legislation and, while there were certainly differing opinions on the program when it was originally enacted, there was clearly a lot of thought put into what to provide and how to fund it; including those aspects described as "welfare" above. It was always intended to include features for "Old Age" (pension), "Survivors" (spouses, working & non-working + kids), and "Disability" (those disabled & unable to work).

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huston55 Not to divert us into a political discussion but, for clarity of this thread...The "SS" in this thread title "SS (Social Security) Sustainability..." stands for "Old Age, Survivors & Disability Insurance" (OASDI); the official name of the program. Each aspect of "OASDI" was part of the original program & enacting legislation and, while there were certainly differing opinions on the program when it was originally enacted, there was clearly a lot of thought put into what to provide and how to fund it; including those aspects described as "welfare" above. It was always intended to include features for "Old Age" (pension), "Survivors" (spouses, working & non-working + kids), and "Disability" (those disabled & unable to work).

There was no disability component to SS when it was founded in 1935. There is an informative article about the history of SS right on the SS site. The "D" in OASDI was added during the Eisenhower administration.

I stand with my opinion. I'd like to see the pension and welfare aspacts of SS managed and funded separately. IMHO it's a mistake to lump them together.

[Fedup]

I once supported the proposal to privatize SS. But after the Great Recession, no more talk of that.

[Winemaker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by meierlde Oh you mean like the spousal benefit for those who did not work?

My mother almost had a stroke when she found out she had a benefit coming. She quit working 3 months before I was born, and never since. When DF and her went to get up to leave SS office when they signed up for DF's benefit, the clerk told them to sit back down and signed mom up. She put up a fight, she thought she was going to get caught up in a fraud. She saved the checks in a separate account for a while as she thought she would have to return the money.

[Z3Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marko To me this reinforces the "age 62 take the money and run" strategy.

+1

[iloveyoga]

My husband is all signed up to get his at age 62, first check comes in August. It was an easy decision.

[Andre1969]

I've always run two sets of numbers for early retirement...one assuming I got full SS and pension, and one assuming I'd get nothing. A couple years ago, I took the pension out of the equation by taking a buyout. It would have been a small pension...$349 per month starting at age 65, in 2035, but not adjusted for inflation. $349 wasn't much when I was working for that company, is even less now, and might buy a case of cheap beer by the time 2035 rolls around. Anyway, the buyout was around $14K.

This morning, I just re-ran the numbers. Right now, assuming full SS funding, and taking it early at 62, I have a 94.6% chance of success of retiring at 50, and a 100% chance of success if I hold off until age 51. This is assuming I max out my 401k until I retire, and a budget of $60K per year when I retire, which is more than I live off of now.

Anyway, my projected SS is around $15,500 annually if I leave the workforce at 50, and ~$19000 if I wait until 51. If I assume no SS whatsoever, then my success rate of living off of $60K per year drops to 79.6% if I retire at 50, $83.9% if I retire at 51. But, if I hold out just a bit longer, it goes up to 93.5% at 52, and 97.8% at 53.

So, taking SS out of the equation completely only pushes my retirement back around 2 years, if I still want that lifestyle. On the flip side, if I want to take a financial haircut instead of pushing my retirement date back, if I drop to $55K per year, my success rate is 87.1% at 50, 97.8% at 51.

Chances are, they won't take SS away completely, but instead mess with it by either raising the contribution rate, reducing the benefit somewhat, changing the way they calculate inflation, or some combination thereof. So, I'm not *too* worried about it affecting my retirement plans. I'll be annoyed, since I paid into it all those years, but it won't be the end of the world for me.

[FmrLurker]

Has anyone ever heard of a proposal to reduce the size of the SSA workforce? Seems like with all the automation available today, we ought to push for that.

[Lakewood90712]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FmrLurker Has anyone ever heard of a proposal to reduce the size of the SSA workforce? Seems like with all the automation available today, we ought to push for that.

That would be about the worst thing IMO. Much of it is already automated. The SS program is not simple when you get into specific benefits for an individual, older "Customers" dealing with the system. It's easy to get estimated benefits online, but when you need absolute info and help, you need humans.

Even the private pension systems who mostly outsource the function use humans for most tasks due to these factors. Humans always check the automated actuary calculations for "issues" before assigning a benefit payment.