Old Pharts are crushing us :-(

[lets-retire]

If the young people don't think it will be there for them then they should plan accordingly.

While I can't disagree with your statement here from my point of view the pain should be spread among several generations. The boomers, through no fault of theirs, will kill SS. So far an actual attempt at fixing the program was shouted down as "being unfair" because it's not a guaranteed paycheck and some of the younger boomers might have to sacrifice. Well it didn't get fixed and all of the boomers will receive their checks. It should also be noted that no alternative was offered to try to fix the system. What I find irritating is the boomers were responsible for the sexual and drug revolution of the sixties, which to me seem like a time of excess. They were responsible for the "party" of the eighties, which also seem like a period of excess. Now When the youngest of the boomers are asked to give up a little, their response is "NO, I will not give anything up. I've paid my dues and earned my SS." To me it almost seems like the boomers never got past the excesses of their lives and wish to continue it into their retirement that they have not saved for. Like I explain to my son, retirement is not for the poor it is for the rich. Just because someone reaches 62, 65, 70, whatever, does not mean they can retire. If someone did not work hard and save while they were young so they can afford to retire they must continue working or take a reduced lifestyle.

The X'ers and beyond will have to take a big bite of the fecal sandwich and take reduced or no benefits, or pay much higher taxes. It is obvious that nothing will be done to fix the system, other than raising taxes, from the current bunch of loonies in Washington. So as normal the X'ers and beyond will wait quietly, seething, until it is their time, which should start within the next few years. Hopefully then many issues will be fixed.

 

[73ss454]

Lets retire, we all have an opinion.

I must have missed what you are talking about during the 60's and 80's. Worked and broke my a$$ my whole life and I can't wait to spend my SS $.

As far as giving anything up, I for one don't like when the rules to the game are changed when the game is almost over.

 

[Jay_Gatsby]

Lets retire, we all have an opinion.

I must have missed what you are talking about during the 60's and 80's. Worked and broke my a$$ my whole life and I can't wait to spend my SS $.

As far as giving anything up, I for one don't like when the rules to the game are changed when the game is almost over.

Nobody likes the rules to be changed, but I don't see any problem with extending out the age to qualify for SS and Medicare. People are living longer, and while that sounds like extending the finish line when you're in the last mile, it's been done before and will be done again. Remember, any change in the rules for you is also a change in the rules for Gen X. True, Gen X has more time to save, but so do many Boomers. In fact, now is probably the best time to move the finish line -- before the bulk of the Boomers retire. Perhaps a phased in approach for extending the finish line would work. The longer you have until you reach 62, the further out the finish line can be moved. That way, you'll still have time to save a little more and take advantage of catch-up retirement savings allowances.

 

[Goonie]

Let's see......hmmmm...... Since the "Boomers" are pretty well content with the way SS is set up now, leave it "as is" for them. And since it seems that it's the "Gen X'ers" doing most of the complaining about the "Boomers" wanting to collect the SS that has been promised them, how about raising the SS tax on the "Gen X'ers" (and beyond), and extending the SS qualifying age for them.

That way the "Boomers" get what they want, and the "Gen X'ers" get what they want. Therefore, it's a "Win-Win" situation! Right?


BTW........I'm a FIRE'd "Boomer".......and when I hit 62, I want my money!!!

 

[ziggy29]

No debate screams "clash of self-serving intergenerational self-interest" like the issue of "fixing" SS. Every generation points a finger at every other one, and in particular (IMO) the older generations refuse any solution that causes them to share any of the pain.

 

[73ss454]

I'm 58 and retired, part of my calculations so I could retire contain the taking of SS at 62.

Jay, you are suggesting that you want to move the bar. If you want to move yours so be it but don't touch mine.

 

[happy2bretired]

I paid in to SS, a little less than 40 credits, before I began working for the federal government at age 24. My husband paid in to SS for probably 20-25 years but died before collecting anything. Since I have a federal pension I don't believe I will be eligible to collect any of my husband's or my own SS....you young 'ens can have my share.

 

[lets-retire]

I must have missed what you are talking about during the 60's and 80's. Worked and broke my a$$ my whole life and I can't wait to spend my SS $.

I don't know, but from what I've been told if you remember the 60's then you didn't experience the 60's. Since you say you think you might have missed it then I guess I can rest my case. The 80's have largely been touted as a decade of overindulgence. Granted many on this board probably do not fit in the category of overindulging, most people from the 80's do.

The mindset that many boomers seem to have is I paid into it my whole life and I want it back, I don't care what happens to anybody else, as long as I get mine. I think what many boomers are missing is the fact that EVERYONE has paid into the system and unfortunately soon after the boomer's start to kick it the system will be done. Leaving nothing for the people coming after, who also paid into the system their whole lives. Without at least one of two things happening the system is finished. We must either pay more taxes or cut benefits. Since the boomers are firmly against cutting benefits, at all, that leaves raising taxes until the boomers are past and a younger crown with all of their idiots come in and change the system. How much can we raise them without seriously hurting the economy?

73--Enjoy your SS, I doubt it will be here for the rest of the younger crowd. I'm glad we can make your early retirement so good. So much for leaving things better for people who follow.

 

[73ss454]

You are right, I want what a worked for. I have every intension of enjoying it. Maybe if you would worry why the politicos are taking the money out and put a stop to it you would have something left when it's you turn. Amazing that you think anyone would give up what they worked for at the last minute.

If you are one of the lucky ones who have a pension and someone changed it at the last minute what would you say.

 

[Lusitan]

73ss454, here's a question for you. The numbers are abstract but they illustrate the issue ...

It's essentially like you have two choices:

(A) Boomers give up 15% of their expected benefits, while Gen X and Gen Y give up 25% of their future benefits (without any reduction in SS taxes).

(B) Boomers keep 100% of their expected benefits, while Gen X and Gen Y give up 40% of their future benefits (without any reduction in SS taxes).

Your comments seem to make it pretty clear that you'd choose B. Perhaps not surprising, but realize that this is what your choice is - it's "I want 100% of what I worked for, and the rest of you aren't my problem."

We all want "what we've worked for". Boomers will get 100% of "what they've worked for"; Gen-X will get 60% of "what they've worked for". Sucks? Yes. Fair? No.

An alternative would be Boomers get 85% of what they've worked for while Gen-X gets 75% of what they've worked for. Sucks? Yes. Fair? Not completely, but more so.

It won't happen. But Boomers who think they're taking the high road by insisting on 100% of their expected benefits should be reminded of the facts.

 

[Jay_Gatsby]

You are right, I want what a worked for. I have every intension of enjoying it. Maybe if you would worry why the politicos are taking the money out and put a stop to it you would have something left when it's you turn. Amazing that you think anyone would give up what they worked for at the last minute.

If you are one of the lucky ones who have a pension and someone changed it at the last minute what would you say.

We are worried about the politicos -- most of whom were or are YOUR generation. Your contemporaries hold the reins of power, and as a retiree (and probably a member of AARP for the discounts) you have both the time and money to make your voice heard in Washington, D.C.

Adjustments MUST be made to keep the system solvent for future generations. My prior post discussed a phased in approach. What's your bright idea for fixing things?

 

[73ss454]

Lusitan, I choose B. That's what I planned for and that's what I need.

Jay, if you want change than your generation has to change it. Too late in the game for me and I don't want a change at this point. If I had the time as you do to put this change into my plans then I would feel differently about it.

My bright idea is keep the politicians hands out of our till. They want to use our money for everything but it is there for. I put my share there and I want to take it out, simple as that.

 

[ziggy29]

Adjustments MUST be made to keep the system solvent for future generations. My prior post discussed a phased in approach. What's your bright idea for fixing things?

I think we need to look at a phased-out change as well. Long term, I think SS should be transformed into a more need-based system with much lower payroll taxes to support only those who need it.

People pay 12.4% into Social Security (shared with their employer unless self-employed, but in reality the employee pays for it with reduced salary) now. If a 25-year-old could pay only 5% to fund current benefits and future needs-based benefits, would investing that 7.4% difference for 40 years make up for the SS benefits they'd lose? I would say yes, most likely it would and then some.

Obviously, math that works for someone who is 25 would not for someone who is 55, and a phased out or tiered approach would be necessary. I am just taking guesses at ages and percentages to make it work, but in principle, here's what I'd do (don't get hung up on specific numbers):

* Folks over about age 50 would be mostly grandfathered into the current system, but more affluent future recipients might have to forego a percentage of their benefit. They would continue to pay 12.4% into SS while they are w*rking since they are still "in the program".

* Folks under about 35 are no longer part of the program. In exchange they would have their SS taxes cut to 5% which would contribute toward paying current benefits as well as future benefits based on need. The other 7.4% would be invested in an appropriate lifecycle fund (perhaps using the TSP as a model) until at least age 62, at which time it could be rolled into an IRA or annuitized.

* Folks between 35 and 50 would be the "transition" generation. They are far enough away from retirement that making alternate plans isn't a catastrophe, but have paid enough into the system that it's not right to cut them out completely. This group would either have to "buy in" to the SS program with considerably reduced benefits compared to today, or else they could accept a lump-sum "buyout" from the SS program which they could roll into an IRA (again modeled after the TSP). If they "bought in" to SS they would receive reduced benefits but still pay 12.4%. If they allowed themselves to be bought out they would only pay 5% from here on out but would not receive any SS benefits.

No serious reform is possible unless all generations share some of the pain. I think such a tiered approach shares some of the pain but also acknowledges that the youngest workers of today have plenty of time to "come out ahead" by opting out and investing for themselves.

Of course this is too much like "personal accounts" so it would be DOA according to Reid and Pelosi.

 

[ziggy29]

Jay, if you want change than your generation has to change it. Too late in the game for me and I don't want a change at this point. If I had the time as you do to put this change into my plans then I would feel differently about it.

And I will oppose any reform that does not share the pain across all generations.

Isn't it wonderful what an unsustainable Ponzi scheme has done for intergenerational relations?

I doubt you'd just "accept" getting screwed if you were younger, by the way.

 

[Jay_Gatsby]

Interesting FAQ from the SSA:

Social Security's Future - FAQs

 

[73ss454]

Ziggy, exactly, I do not accept getting screwed. That hits the nail on the head alright. I would hope that you also don't accept it.

 

[lets-retire]

Ziggy, exactly, I do not accept getting screwed. That hits the nail on the head alright. I would hope that you also don't accept it.

We really don't have a choice in the matter, we get to pay full price, then we get much lowered, if any, benefits. By the time the X'ers are in a position to do something it will be too late to do much. The Dems don't seem to willing or interested in changing the system other than raising taxes to pay for it. Bush offered something, but it was shot down and nothing else was proposed. Since Bush's proposal was the "first shot" I seriously doubt he thought it would pass unchanged, similar to the tax plan recently proposed. I think both ideas were thrown out to provide something to debate and work with, not as the perfect plan.

 

[FinanceDude]

We really don't have a choice in the matter, we get to pay full price, then we get much lowered, if any, benefits. By the time the X'ers are in a position to do something it will be too late to do much.

Welcome to the real world. Turns out all those 60+ year old Senators that DON'T pay into or get SS could care less............wonder what would happen if we had term and/or age limits in Congress??

The Dems don't seem to willing or interested in changing the system other than raising taxes to pay for it.

NOONE is going to do ANYTHING about funding SS until the 11th hour. That's a certain way to end your political career...........

Bush offered something, but it was shot down and nothing else was proposed. Since Bush's proposal was the "first shot" I seriously doubt he thought it would pass unchanged, similar to the tax plan recently proposed. I think both ideas were thrown out to provide something to debate and work with, not as the perfect plan.

Pretty much everything Bush has proposed has been shot down, no surprise. And before the Dems on here pound the table about Bush getting everything he wanted on the war, what has the DEMOCRATIC majority Congress done about cutting war spending,etc?? Crickets...........

 

[Khan]

Welcome to the real world. Turns out all those 60+ year old Senators that DON'T pay into or get SS could care less............wonder what would happen if we had term and/or age limits in Congress??

All senators (and reps) pay into SSA.

 

[Goonie]

I'm with 73ss454, hands down! I'm in in for ME, always have been, always will be. During all of my adult life, no one has been watching out for me, except for me. That's life, and I'm not complaining about it! As it applies to SS, I'm still watching out for me......and will continue to do so.

I don't know whether 73ss454 is an AARP member or not, but I am. I'm not in it for the discounts, I'm in for the lobbying power. It's amazing what a bunch of geezers and blue-hairs can accomplish, not because they're older, but because they've figured out how to band together as a united front to fight for what they (we) want. There's no reason why the younger generations couldn't do the same thing!

I fought all of my w*rking life for the benefit of myself as well as my fellow co-w*rkers and peers. Over the years I willingly gave up some of my benefits so that younger employees could gain better benefits. The general response from the younger ones was, "You should have given up more". At that point I realized that I should have given up NOTHING! I still hold that attitude, and I'm not foreseeing any change. I have no heirs, and thus I really have no vested interest in what happens to future generations. I don't relish the thought of anyone getting the short end of the stick, but I'm more adamant about not getting the short end of the stick myself.

Since the "Boomers" are pretty well content with the way SS is set up now, leave it "as is" for them. And since it seems that it's the "Gen X'ers" doing most of the complaining about the "Boomers" wanting to collect the SS that has been promised them, how about raising the SS tax on the "Gen X'ers" (and beyond), and extending the SS qualifying age for them.

That way the "Boomers" get what they want, and the "Gen X'ers" get what they want. Therefore, it's a "Win-Win" situation! Right?

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!

 

[youbet]

I paid in to SS, a little less than 40 credits, before I began working for the federal government at age 24. My husband paid in to SS for probably 20-25 years but died before collecting anything. Since I have a federal pension I don't believe I will be eligible to collect any of my husband's or my own SS....you young 'ens can have my share.

Not correct. Go to the SS site and read about WEP and GPO. Your benefits from your husband could be eliminated under GPO, but your own benefits can only be reduced under WEP.

 

[Jay_Gatsby]

Such strong words from Goonie and 73ss454!

Yet I can't help but point out that their positions, as well as many other folks in this country, suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of SS. According to the SSA website, Social Security is a "pay-as-you-go" system with today's taxpayers paying for the benefits of today's retirees. That means what you paid in IS NOT what you get out.

What we're really talking about here is an ENTITLEMENT. Like any entitlement granted by the Government, it can be reduced or taken away. The fact that people have paid into the SS system through working is irrelevant, because most other government entitlement programs are funded through taxes which are also paid in through working. Thus, SS payments made by workers and their employers are really nothing more than an additional tax, with no guaranty of a refund when you retire.

 

[73ss454]

Such strong words from Goonie and 73ss454!

Yet I can't help but point out that their positions, as well as many other folks in this country, suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of SS. According to the SSA website, Social Security is a "pay-as-you-go" system with today's taxpayers paying for the benefits of today's retirees. That means what you paid in IS NOT what you get out.

What we're really talking about here is an ENTITLEMENT. Like any entitlement granted by the Government, it can be reduced or taken away. The fact that people have paid into the SS system through working is Iirrelevant, because most other government entitlement programs are funded through taxes which are also paid in through working. Thus, SS payments made by workers and their employers are really nothing more than an additional tax, with no guaranty of a refund when you retire.

No misunderstanding, I paid all my life and it's almost time to collect. I'm not going to lay down and give up what I feel is coming to me. They may take it away as you point out but I'll be yelling and screaming all the way.

I also don't think I'll ever get out what I paid in but I'll give it a shot.

I don't belong to AARP but they do lobby for us as Goonie points out. When you guys get to be around 49 look in the mail for your applications. Then join up and they'll fight for you when your time comes.

 

[armor99]

Isn't it wonderful what an unsustainable Ponzi scheme has done for intergenerational relations?

Well said Ziggy29... I am glad to see that at least a few others see this for what it really is... a giant Ponzi scheme. And of course in any Ponzi scheme, or any pyramid scheme for that matter, everyone at the top (in this case retirees) wants it, and everyone toward the bottom (younger workers) hate it. But at this point in time, the ones getting benifits out of it are about to vastly exceed those that are paying into it. So the whole Ponzi scheme is about to crumble, as it was destined to from the start. Perhaps hastened a bit due to the sheer numbers of baby boomers retiring. I completely understand that older workers and retirees want ALL of the benefits that they worked for. I also understand that I WAY do not want to pay into a system that in the future I am being told will have no benefit for me. In this battle, both sides are equally correct. And neither side is being altruistic about it. (Although I have never beleived in altruism anyway). With all of the various options and outcomes being bad, I like the idea of "sharing the pain" the best. That way Social security can eventually be phased out in such a way that is sensible.

 

[Lusitan]

Strong words from Goonie, indeed, but honest words; I respect that. I understand Goonie's point of view, although I don't agree with it. But it's refreshing to hear someone speaking honestly for the Boomers on this point. And Goonie's post does exactly that.