Should Social Security Raise Its Retirement Age

Help Support CattleToday:

cross_7

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
3,855
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Oklahoma
Should Social Security Raise Its Retirement Age

Social Security is an essential part of how people make ends meet in retirement. But some business leaders, including the CEOs of AT&T (NYSE: T ) , Caesars Entertainment (NASDAQ: CZR ) , and several other major corporations, believe raising retirement age would save the program from financial trouble in the future.

I aint the sharpest tool in the shed, but if you take in ss from working people and raise the age limit as to when they can retire, so you are taking in for a longer period of time and paying out for a shorter time or not at all because some will die before they ever get chance to collect, so yes it should work but how does that help the poor working man ?

In doing so doesn't this make ss a very expensive insurance policy against disability and not a retirement plan
I mean if I choose to retire at 62 and the age limit for ss is 70 then I can't see it as a form of retirement savings.
So the only benefit I see is it is a disability insurance and I don't see it being that great, if you were disabled you couldn't live of ss alone or if you did if wouldn't be much of a living.
I had much rather have my ss contributions paid into a personal retirement plan so that I could plan for my own future, but that's not an option because ss has been robbed over the years so they depend on the incoming contributions to pay the people drawing today because everything they paid in was stolen/mismanaged.
The whole government system is broken
 
They should privatize it and let people worry about their own money and no one elses. In the top three points you can see why the govt would strongly oppose it. Im not for taking any benefits away from people who have put in for all these years. Changing the rules at the end is not fair to them. I am for letting people have a privatized option or a govt option.

The benefits of privatizing Social Security are:
■Your money stays your money. You are putting money aside for your use. You don't pay someone else's benefits with the hope and promise that someone will come along later to pay your benefits.
■Unused funds can be inherited. Right now you could pay into Social Security your entire working life and die before you ever receive benefits. Or you die after only receiving a small benefit. If Social Security was privatized the money you set aside could be passed on.
■The government can't reduce or withdraw your benefits. You would own your account. As it stands now you have no right to Social Security benefits. The government can change the rules at any time. If it were privatized you would not be at the mercy of the government to allow you to have your money.

Funding Private Accounts

The average wage in the US in 2009 was about $41,000. A person earning this amount would contribute just under $98 per week to Social Security. (Half as payroll deductions, half as employer match).

Now not all of Social Security payments are paid out as retirement payments. Disabled workers and survivors of deceased workers also receive benefits. Disability and life insurance would cover these needs and can be purchased fairly cheaply for most people. But for simplicity we will leave these benefits in the current system. About 66% of benefit payments pay retirement benefits and 34% pay everything else. We will use that same break down the example.

Using these same percentages Joe Average earning $41,000 would sock away $53 per week into his own personal Social Security retirement account. (The other $27 would fund the current disability and survivor benefits of Social Security. Or, if the whole thing were privatized that $27 per week could be used to purchase life and disability insurance.)

Now the tricky part. How much would that leave Joe Average in retirement? That's tough to say since he isn't likely to graduate from school, get a job earning $41,000, and make that amount for his entire life until he retires. He will most likely get a job earning less than that, then get raises and promotions along the way. But since we don't know the specifics we will do the less than perfect thing and say that he made $41,000 for his whole life. We will say he started working at 22 and will retire at 65. We will also say that Joe Average would like his retirement savings to last him until he is 95.

The 4.2% employee contribution is reduced for 2011 from 6.2%. If we use the "normal" 6.2% contribution and move the beginning working age to 25, we get almost the same results below. Just sayin'.

We will run two scenerios. One with "reasonable" numbers and then one very conservative numbers.

The "Reasonable" Scenerio

$53 per week invested at 8% interest for 43 years yields him $1,029,237. Once he is in retirement he decides to take less risk and moves his entire balance to safer investments. He earns 4% while retired.

Joe Average would be able to withdraw $4,913 a month for his entire 30 year retirement. That is $3,574 per month more than the estimated $1,339 Social Security payment he would receive. (To estimate benefits I used the birthday of May 1, 1980. Earnings of $41,000. Retirement in May 2045. And Today's Dollars)

The "Conservative" Scenerio

The opponents of privatizing Social Security argue that the average person can't get good returns from the stock market. They liken it to gambling. I disagree with this. Over the last 40 years the stock market has seen a gain of 11.2%. Will the stock market go up 11.2% over the next 40 years? Only time will tell. So let's play into the opponents view that it's not possible for Joe Average to get even reasonable gains of 8%.

So let's say that Joe Conservative invested $53 per week and earned 6% for 43 years. He would have $557,178. At age 65 he takes all his money and puts it into a savings account earning 2% at a local bank.

With $557,178 earning 2% per year Joe Average could withdraw $2,059 a month and his money would last him 30 years. This is $720 more than the estimated $1,339 he would receive from Social Security.

What about taxes, you ask? In the conservative example, if Joe Average were paying his regular income tax rate (using 2011 tax brackets) he would owe a total of $3,281 a year if he had no deductions, or $273 per month. This is still above what he would be receiving from Social Security. In the reasonable example, Joe Average would owe$10,864 or $905 per month. Again, he would still be better off than under the current Social Security system. However since Social Security payments receive tax breaks I would like to think they still would under a privatized system. But who knows?

http://moneytalkscoaching.com/2011/05/a ... -security/
 
How will I get the chance to grow the money that I put in for the last 50 years? Sounds good in theory but not to practical to replace it. Do you just say that SS doesn't exist anymore and you all are on your own?
 
Not sure the ins and outs and outs and ends, but I don't pay social security. I have paid 40 quarters in my life, and will draw something. I just know what.
 
Pensions scare me as much as ss
Edit
The whole thing worries me
Economic collapse, Inflation, but the inflated tax rates and the "new taxes"that keep coming worry me the most
When the the government no longer has the ability to borrow it's going to get ugly
Yea I know doom be gloom :D
 
cross_7":1y434k0z said:
Pensions scare me as much as ss

They scare me to, but I'm going to step out on that limb here in a few years, and see if it breaks. I'll be 49. Six years after that, I will be able to get to my tax differed savings. Hopefully it will sustain me, if the other should fail.
 
Just give me a lump sum payment back from what I have paid in, plus what I have paid for Medicare and call it done. You can keep the interest.

Call the whole deal off. The ruling class can't manage their way around a cup of coffee, much less trillions of dollar$.
 
cross_7":bev01xod said:
Pensions scare me as much as ss
Edit
The whole thing worries me
Economic collapse, Inflation, but the inflated tax rates and the "new taxes"that keep coming worry me the most
When the the government no longer has the ability to borrow it's going to get ugly
Yea I know doom be gloom :D

My way of escaping from reality
Ogallala Trail by Dusty Richards
 
LONG-RANGE ACTUARIAL DEFICIT OF THE OASI, DI, AND HI TRUST FUNDS
Actuarial deficit (As a percentage of taxable payroll)
Social Security Retirement (OASI) -2.4% Social Security Disability (DI) - .32% Medicare (HI) - 1.11%

The projected 75-year actuarial deficit for the combined Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds is 2.72 percent of taxable payroll, up from 2.67 percent projected in last year's report.

Social Security's total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period by the amounts shown above.

As it has since 2008, the Medicare (HI) Trust Fund will pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures than it receives in income in all years until reserve depletion.

FAT CHANCE OF THIS
Conclusion - Lawmakers should address the financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will leave more options and more time available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Lawmakers need to act soon to avoid reduced payments to DI beneficiaries three years from now.

From:
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
 
Now retired. Funny how we want to take away what we were promised and worked toward for generations and now they want to change the rules and take away the benefits we worked for.

Okay. Let's keep it equal.

Let's do the same for every single government employee who has retired with any of their retirement benefits. Including the once independent Supreme Court, all retired Presidents as well as the retired house members and Congress.

But knowing how one party doesn't believe in Equality for anyone but themselves, I shouldn't hold my breath.
 
Raise retirement age....No... a "life expectancy table" is already used to calculate your benefit.
 
Something to Think About
November 7, 2013
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
walterewilliams.com

According to a recent Fox News poll, 73 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country, up 20 points from 2012. Americans sense that there's a lot going wrong in our nation, but most don't have a clue about the true nature of our problem. If they had a clue, most would have little stomach for what would be necessary to arrest our national decline. Let's look at it.

Between two-thirds and three-quarters of federal spending, in contravention of the U.S. Constitution, can be described as Congress taking the earnings or property of one American to give to another, to whom it does not belong. You say, "Williams, what do you mean?" Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there's no Santa Claus or tooth fairy who gives it resources. The fact that Congress has no resources of its very own forces us to recognize that the only way Congress can give one American one dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- confiscate that dollar from some other American through the tax code.

If any American did privately what Congress does publicly, he'd be condemned as an ordinary thief. Taking what belongs to one American to give to another is theft, and the receiver is a recipient of stolen property. Most Americans would suffer considerable anguish and cognitive dissonance seeing themselves as recipients of stolen property, so congressional theft has to be euphemized and given a respectable name. That respectable name is "entitlement." Merriam-Webster defines entitlement as "the condition of having a right to have, do, or get something." For example, I am entitled to walk into the house that I own. I am entitled to drive the car that I own. The challenging question is whether I am also entitled to what you or some other American owns.

Let's look at a few of these entitlements. More than 40 percent of federal spending is for entitlements for the elderly in the forms of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, housing and other assistance programs. The Office of Management and Budget calculates that total entitlement spending comes to about 62 percent of federal spending. Military spending totals 19 percent of federal spending. By the way, putting those two figures into historical perspective demonstrates the success we've had becoming a handout nation. In 1962, military expenditures were almost 50 percent of the federal budget, and entitlement spending was a mere 31 percent. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that entitlement spending will consume all federal tax revenue by 2048.

Entitlement spending is not the only form of legalized theft. The Department of Agriculture gives billions of dollars to farmers. The departments of Energy and Commerce give billions of dollars and subsidized loans to corporations. In fact, every Cabinet-level department in Washington is in charge of handing out at least one kind of subsidy or special privilege. Most federal non-defense "discretionary spending" by Congress is for handouts.

Despite the fact that today's increasing levels of federal government spending are unsustainable, there is little evidence that Americans have the willingness to do anything about it. Any politician who'd even talk about significantly reining in unsustainable entitlement spending would be run out of town. Any politician telling the American people they must pay higher taxes to support handout spending, instead of concealing spending through deficits and running up the national debt and inflation, would also be run out of town. Can you imagine what the American people would do to a presidential candidate who'd declare, as James Madison did in a 1794 speech to the House of Representatives, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government"?

If we are to be able to avoid ultimate collapse, it's going to take a moral reawakening and renewed constitutional respect -- not by politicians but by the American people. The prospect of that happening may be whistlin' "Dixie."


email: [email protected]
 
It ain't gonna happen. Our leaders can't even pass a budget, they just pass another resolution and kick the can down the road.

Too many takers and not enough workers and the politians need to be term limited.

But it won't happen. Maybe its time to "go gault".
 
I would love to be standing next to the next idiot that calls SS an entitlement, with a baseball bat in my hand. Can someone explain to me how something that I and my employers paid into for 45 years can be considered an entitlement?

Wanna know why SS is broke, three words...........The Great Society. Thank you LBJ you socialist, vote buying,nanny state, ahole!
 
I believe it is an entitlement when you can get social security to pay you for your fibromyalgia, your "depression", your kids ADD and all the other stuff that is sucking the system dry. Its ridiculous. If all these people are as sick as they say they are then maybe we ought to start being humane and start putting them down then I bet the numbers claiming "disabled" would go down dramatically.
 
Jogeephus":ljv2el09 said:
I believe it is an entitlement when you can get social security to pay you for your fibromyalgia, your "depression", your kids ADD and all the other stuff that is sucking the system dry. Its ridiculous. If all these people are as sick as they say they are then maybe we ought to start being humane and start putting them down then I bet the numbers claiming "disabled" would go down dramatically.
I am not alone!!!!!!! Praise God
 
3waycross":3i5td2ae said:
I would love to be standing next to the next idiot that calls SS an entitlement, with a baseball bat in my hand. Can someone explain to me how something that I and my employers paid into for 45 years can be considered an entitlement?

Wanna know why SS is broke, three words...........The Great Society. Thank you LBJ you socialist, vote buying,nanny state, ahole!

You are correct. It is not, or rather should not be, an entitlement. Yes, LBJ was an ahole. I will add that the "program" does entitle many people to many things, and they did not contribute to......
 
This is wrong on so many levels but no one in the gov't seems to care or police the abuse. A few years ago I took a guy pig hunting and we must have walked five hard miles hunting. The next week I see him at a function in the school gymnasium and he is hobbling with a cane. I ask him what the cane was all about and he told me he was handicapped and couldn't walk without it. :shock:
 
Top