Community Chat

[151949]

@stevieb - People who do not save for their retirement comfort can expect , when they are no longer able to continue to work, to have a very much diminished standard of living, and it truely is that simple. Even max Social security is not a ton of money considering the cost of living these days. Even if we had gotten a $20 or $30 raise it would not significantly affect anyones standard of living. In the old days a person's children took in their parents and cared for them in their elderly years. Now a days they stick them in a nursing home.Our society has changed - it's everyone for themselves - so you had better plan to look after yourself in your elderly years.

[Kalli]

I just had a conversation with my brother concerning SS.  As a tax accountant, he feels that in order for SS to survive, we will either have to work longer, change the receiving age to 70 or accept less in monthly SS payments.  Or a combination of these. 

He also feels that there will come a point in time when younger folks will revolt against being made to pay more and more $ into a system from which they may never be able to draw.  I read from an online source that there are currently only 3 workers for each SS recipient and that by 2035, that will be down to 2.  In 1950 there were 16 workers for each SS recipient and back then many folks were living until about age 68.  Now they are living until about 78, so collecting longer.

The SS money I paid all my working years has already been spent on my parents' generation.  And the SS money I will receive, is being funded by current workers.

[Maudelyn]

Increase the social security payroll tax cap.  MIllionaires and billionaires pay no social security tax on any earned income over $118,500.  That needs to end. Those who can well afford to contribute to the system that helped create their wealth need to pay more.

[151949]

I believe additional good advice is - when you are paying into your 401k (or whatever plan you are offered by your employer) they give you a few choices of mutual funds you can apply that money to. Every few years when you get it up to say $10,000 or whatever - move it from those funds and have your own financial person invest it for you. We lost a lot of money over the years to our ignorance about investments etc and just leaving our money with whomever our employers suggested. You can move it to a different account as long as you do not take any of the funds it will still be tax free and have all the benefits it had with your company, and YOU get to have a lot more say in what is done with your money. For instance - we have only a tiny amount of our savings in the stock market but the vast majority of ours is in municipal bonds where the earnings are lower but our funds are safer in case the market dives again. Someone else may want to gamble the majority on the stock market to try to make their money grow. Personal choice.

[stevieb]

---

@151949 wrote:

@stevieb - People who do not save for their retirement comfort can expect , when they are no longer able to continue to work, to have a very much diminished standard of living, and it truely is that simple. Even max Social security is not a ton of money considering the cost of living these days. Even if we had gotten a $20 or $30 raise it would not significantly affect anyones standard of living. In the old days a person's children took in their parents and cared for them in their elderly years. Now a days they stick them in a nursing home.Our society has changed - it's everyone for themselves - so you had better plan to look after yourself in your elderly years.

---

Yep @151949 I'm aware of all of that... though I don't think it's always that simple of clear-cut... I'm not on SS and when I am I won't rely on it exclusively. That said, I don't think it's the case that everyone going into old age and is struggling didn't necessarily try to plan ahead. Life often throws people curve balls and most people aren't fortunate enough to plan for ever possible scenario... Besides which, the issue here is not retirement planning but the SS Cola...  It's not whether or not SS was ever intended to be the sole source of anyone's income.  And the 'raise' is a joke. It's an insult. When I look at how the powers that be at all levels spend the money we 'dontate' to them, it makes me shudder and last time I looked, I'm still allowed to say so... In too many instances, I think their priorities are whacked...

[stevieb]

---

@151949 wrote:

---

@stevieb wrote:

---

@151949 wrote:

I just googled "how many Americans are currently receiving social security?" and the answer was 60 million. So for every $1 raise the government has to come up with 60 million dollars - our "paltry" $5 raise will cost 3 billion dollars a month.

---

Which is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to how government... federal, state and local... spends most of our 'contributions'... It is what it is and the COLA is a freakin' pittance.

---

So I'm interested in how much YOU think you should have gotten and where do you think that money would come from when multiplied by 60 million.

---

As noted, I'm not drawing it...

Where do they get it from... Oh, I don't know, perhaps from among the thousands of over-funded programs being offered, so many of which are wasteful, unnecessary and accomplishing little of substance...

[Cakers3]

---

@Maudelyn wrote:

Increase the social security payroll tax cap.  MIllionaires and billionaires pay no social security tax on any earned income over $118,500.  That needs to end. Those who can well afford to contribute to the system that helped create their wealth need to pay more.

---

@Maudelyn  As long as the resulting increase in funds are not used to increase Congressional spending.   We have too many IOU's in the SS pot as it is.

Any increase in SS funds would have to be firmly designated as SS funds.  Keep in mind that getting rid of the cap would also push families at certain levels of income into an almost 50% tax bracket.

Perhaps a sliding scale for upwards of a certain income level would be more fair.

[151949]

 I agree , there needs to be a law banning the government from using SS funds for other things and never paying it back. That is the real issue with SS and why there aren't enough funds.

[terrier3]

---

@Kalli wrote:

I just had a conversation with my brother concerning SS.  As a tax accountant, he feels that in order for SS to survive, we will either have to work longer, change the receiving age to 70 or accept less in monthly SS payments.  Or a combination of these. 

He also feels that there will come a point in time when younger folks will revolt against being made to pay more and more $ into a system from which they may never be able to draw.  I read from an online source that there are currently only 3 workers for each SS recipient and that by 2035, that will be down to 2.  In 1950 there were 16 workers for each SS recipient and back then many folks were living until about age 68.  Now they are living until about 78, so collecting longer.

The SS money I paid all my working years has already been spent on my parents' generation.  And the SS money I will receive, is being funded by current workers.

---

The answer is simple - we need to eliminate the ceiling on SS contributions.

It's currently around the 120K level - so people who make more do not contribute more - it's one of the only REGRESSIVE taxes we have.

If there was no ceiling on contributions - the overall rate could go down to 3-4% (giving individuals who earn less than 120k a year a break)...and SS would be solvent - forever.