How do you feel about Social Security??

[mcconnellboys]

Correct, and until the entire premise of the program is changed to make it simply a "tax," and the benefits of it yet another government hand-out, then my money is just that - MINE. The only "needs" test ever advertised to my generation for qualifying to draw on MY money was my own personal disability, need of my dependants if I were not able to support them any more, or my retirement needs. This is not another income tax that gets redistributed as government sees fit....

[JFSinIL]

I don't think it will be around by the time we need it - SillyAutismMan does get the stipend for disabled folks, although that is not projected to last his lifetime, either (and is not enough for him to live on, independently, even if he was so capable.)

[mamajudy]

The money we are paying in today is supporting those who are collecting SS checks now. We are in our 50's, and we don't expect to get our money back.

 

Another thought: The baby boom generation is now retiring and collecting, but they did not have enough children themselves to support them. There are way too many people collecting checks for the relatively few workers to support.

[Mrs Mungo]

That is irrevelant.

 

It *is* relevant to what you said, which was:

We could have done SO much better investing that money ourselves.

 

That is not necessarily true, especially when the odds are stacked against individual investors. It is glorified gambling. We have money in the stock market too, but it cannot be relied upon any more than SS.

[mcconnellboys]

We're highly diversified and our earnings right now still suck. In fact, we lost about 10k out of our oldest son's savings for college right before he got ready to go to school. That's money we lost and can not regain because we transferred his money into something safer at that point. We felt we had to or risk losing it all. I think that the stock market has become a shell game that benefits insiders but not so much (or so often) the larger public that invests in it. It seems to disappear as easily as the money we pour into our government....

[YLVD]

Maybe. I honestly hope to be in Canada by that time.

 

P.S. Whether people are wealthy or not, if they've paid into the system, they should get it back. SS is in a crisis, not because it wasn't well-planned, but because it has been raided to pay off debts incurred by, among other things, expensive wars.

 

:iagree:

 

I personally have never thought that I would receive any. But, I totally agree with all of this.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Whether or not I die before I get it or if I have no one to leave it too has nothing to do with a "means" test. Early death or lack of dependents has nothing to do with my making or saving enough money to not "need" social security. I could be Bill Gates and have a fortune and social security is still mine to receive just like anyone else, that is why I had to pay it in the first place.

 

Yes but social security is not ours in the sense that we cannot bequeath it to someone as we can with our retirement accounts. It simply is not the same as there are some who never get "their" money due to untimely death or lack of dependents. It is not our money to do with as we please.

 

All I am proposing as a reasonable way to shore up social security IMO is to raise the income caps for social security taxes and very generous means tests. IMO the Bill Gates of this world will not miss social security. My grandfather would not have missed social security nor would I had I been that rich. I would rather see that money benefit those less fortunate. OTOH, IMO if there were means testing, then it should be very generous in that having a million or so saved for retirement is really not a lot of money and therefore should not disqualify one from social security:)

 

I am strongly against raising the age of eligibility for social security because many jobs are back breaking such as nursing. I think it is unfair to expect those with physically demanding jobs to continue to work until they are 70. I do think shoring up social security is critical for the well being of our country.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Yes but social security is not ours in the sense that we cannot bequeath it to someone as we can with our retirement accounts. It simply is not the same as there are some who never get "their" money due to untimely death or lack of dependents. It is not our money to do with as we please.

 

All I am proposing as a reasonable way to shore up social security IMO is to raise the income caps for social security taxes and very generous means tests. IMO the Bill Gates of this world will not miss social security. My grandfather would not have missed social security nor would I had I been that rich. I would rather see that money benefit those less fortunate. OTOH, IMO if there were means testing, then it should be very generous in that having a million or so saved for retirement is really not a lot of money and therefore should not disqualify one from social security:)

 

I am strongly against raising the age of eligibility for social security because many jobs are back breaking such as nursing. I think it is unfair to expect those with physically demanding jobs to continue to work until they are 70. I do think shoring up social security is critical for the well being of our country.

 

Two separate arguments.

 

There are conditions where it can go to next of kin when you die. I do know children who have received benefits after the death of a parent. But again, this is an argument that is irrelevant when debating the merits of "means" testing.

 

Saying that someone is so rich they won't miss their SS payment is ridiculous. The money is being held in trust for them. If they feel as you do they are free to send an equivalent amount every month to the charity of their choice. But the money is still their's to receive. The point of social security is that you earn it during your pre-retirement years. It is not another form of welfare but rather a forced retirement savings program.

[cdrumm4448]

My neighbors are doing FSBOs. Realtors who are interested offer to work with them for a much more reasonable fee. It just isn't worth 6% of $450K to sell a home, especially when there are additional fees to the bank and so forth. A senior who doesn't have the energy to do a FSBO would rather stay in the home and use their SS to pay the taxes, instead of forking over in the neighborhood of $25K for the typical 3 house showings and 2 ads with poor camera shots in a free weekly rag in three months time before the house sells. That's not to say I don't respect your realtor skills..I just think $25K is pretty high for the actual hours and skills involved.

 

For me personally, I have an affordable desirable home in a desireable location. There isn't a home here that hasn't sold in 30 days FSBO thanks to NY's restrictive zoning laws making homes with city water & sewer very very desireable.

 

So , that's my perspective. I'm sure it seems strange in your location, but in mine it's a rational decision for seniors. The tax difference between a 450K home and a 200K starter isn't much different, so chucking the realtor several years worth of taxes isn't doable on a short time horizon. They stay in the big home and then close off the rooms to keep it heated, maybe they take out a reverse mortgage. If they had a flat rate that billed clerical work at a clerical price and marketing work at a nonManhattan marketing price, seniors might choose differently to get out from the maintenance.

 

Our company does not allow that type of arrangement and it is severely frowned upon by our association. I'm sure you realize that half of that 5% is paid out to the buyers' agent in a typical deal. Of that 2.5% that my side of the deal keeps, a split applies. New agents are around 50/50. Established agents are 60/40 generally. Of the remaining amount I have to pay taxes (especially double SS!) and what I spent to market the home. Coldwell Banker, as do most companies, makes a Realtor pay for EVERYTHING. Signs, nametags, cards, direct mail, your website, voicemail, phonecalls, copies.

 

So, that $450,000 deal you were talking about would go something like this: commission knocked to 5% (4% if I double dip it). $22,500 split with the buyers' agent leaves $11,250 minus company split leaves $6,750 minus approximately 30% in tax leaves $4,725 minus marketing leaves around $3,725 (as you can easily spend $1,000 marketing a home in that price range.)

 

I'm sure you wouldn't want you or your DH's salary reduced for the reasons you mentioned.

[cdrumm4448]

It *is* relevant to what you said, which was:

 

 

That is not necessarily true, especially when the odds are stacked against individual investors. It is glorified gambling. We have money in the stock market too, but it cannot be relied upon any more than SS.

 

I AM aware of our track record for investing and I CAN tell you that we consistently do very well.

 

And nothing in this world is guaranteed, but with knowledge and hard work you can go far investing yourself. It's leveraging risk. But, relying on SS to be there is about at high a risk as you can take.

[cdrumm4448]

We're highly diversified and our earnings right now still suck. In fact, we lost about 10k out of our oldest son's savings for college right before he got ready to go to school. That's money we lost and can not regain because we transferred his money into something safer at that point. We felt we had to or risk losing it all. I think that the stock market has become a shell game that benefits insiders but not so much (or so often) the larger public that invests in it. It seems to disappear as easily as the money we pour into our government....

 

We are not insiders. We're regular working people. My DH doesn't have a crystal ball; he didn't graduate from college. Anyone can do what we've done.

[cdrumm4448]

The words "forced retirement" are repulsive.

 

No one had to force us to save for retirement. We do it in spite of all the money the government takes from us "for our own benefit."

[Serenade]

 

DH and I, in our mid-30s, have NEVER EVER NOT ONCE thought that we will get a dime from SS. We pay in with each paycheck but we've been raised in an era in which everyone has always talked about "the SS crisis". I don't know anyone may age (in my circle, anyway) who thinks they will get any SS. We are all trying to save for ourselves.

 

 

ITA. My DH and I are in our 40s and 50s, and we have always felt the same way. Our retirement plan doesn't include anything from SS.

[Serenade]

 

I think that the stock market has become a shell game that benefits insiders but not so much (or so often) the larger public that invests in it. It seems to disappear as easily as the money we pour into our government....

Ain't it the truth? There is so much manipulation going on that only benefits a select few.

[cindergretta]

Personally, I have a lot of hostile feelings toward SS. :glare: I don't understand why it is only paid on the first $XXX amount of income and not after that. I don't like that my mother and my bil both recieve disability money from SS that they do NOT need. My mother was a SAHM (as am I) and became disabled a few years back. She got a *huge* check to start off with and now receives a monthly check. But none of it is used for living expenses. It is all "spending money." She has like 45 pairs of shoes, for example. When she sees a shoe she likes that comes in mulitple colors, she buys all of them. I don't like the fact that my dh (through payroll deductions) is paying for her to have more shoes than she can wear while we struggle to buy each of our dc one pair. Ditto my bil. He lives with mil and his check funds all his many hobbies. He has all this money to "play" with while others are actually trying to live on theirs. IOW, these people are sucking money out of a broken system that they didn't pay in AND don't need. :glare: I don't love it, in the words of my 6 y/o.

 

Dh and I are saving for our own retirement. We expect nothing from the gov't when we get to retirement. If we got something, cool. But that certainly isn't our "retirement plan!" ;)

[justamouse]

 

That is not necessarily true, especially when the odds are stacked against individual investors. It is glorified gambling. We have money in the stock market too, but it cannot be relied upon any more than SS.

 

We're in too, and it IS glorified gambling. I watched my Aunt and Uncle lose almost all of their retirement in one day.

 

Can you imagine if everyone pulled out of SS and invested-and those stocks tanked? Or if people just took it and spent it? It would be ugly.

Edited June 19, 2011 by justamouse

[Mrs Mungo]

You know, mouse, some people just obviously *do not* care and are downright offended with any kind of good if the whole discussion to the point of using a bunch of inflammatory rhetoric and untrue statements to to get their point across. I give up.

 

There are *plenty* of places in the world with little to no government. I am not sure why people who despise being governed don't move there.

[5Wizards]

I AM aware of our track record for investing and I CAN tell you that we consistently do very well.

 

And nothing in this world is guaranteed, but with knowledge and hard work you can go far investing yourself. It's leveraging risk. But, relying on SS to be there is about at high a risk as you can take.

 

I sincerely hope that you continue to do well and prosper. However, there are people who do this for a living (investing) who have knowledge and hard work who still make bad investments. And markets fail. It's a risk, and seeing as you state you've made over 20% every year (if I'm remembering correctly...not going back to check), I'm guessing that you have a pretty aggressive portfolio, which means that you take on quite a bit if risk. There's nothing wrong with that. To assume though that everyone who works hard and does their investment homework will consistently see their stocks perform in such a manner is naive in my opinion.

 

Anyway, again, I do wish you the best of luck and hope that you never experience a huge loss.

Edited June 19, 2011 by 5Wizards

[monk17]

Random thoughts without reading the entire thread:

 

Nobody pays into SS like a piggy bank, you're just paying for current payments. It should be paid on all income. SS has raised the elderly out of poverty. It's the tax everybody pays, so tired of hearing 46% of Americans pay no tax, unless your income is all capital gains! If you've made money consistently in the stock market you haven't been at it long enough! It should be means tested, see comment above about no piggy bank.

 

It could be fixed by raising retirement to 67, means testing and raising the payroll tax to 200K or unlimited (really get gutsy and tie it to capital gains!

[Laura Corin]

It believes that the current system (low basic pension plus means-tested top up) penalises those who have built up savings. The policy being mooted is to raise the basic pension for everyone. The difference in cost, supposedly, will be covered by the reduced administration if the means test is abolished. I don't know if this will go through.

 

Laura

[monk17]

It believes that the current system (low basic pension plus means-tested top up) penalises those who have built up savings. The policy being mooted is to raise the basic pension for everyone. The difference in cost, supposedly, will be covered by the reduced administration if the means test is abolished. I don't know if this will go through.

 

Laura

 

Easy fix, raise the net worth requirement to the upper 15% of the population, very few people would sacrifice that type of wealth for SS payments. Right away you chipped 15% of the SS rolls. You can tweak this occasionally until you have the right number.

 

The philosophy that you are quoting sounds very similar to the Laffer curve philosophy which has shown to be incorrect multiple times. I have my doubts significant numbers of people reduce there wealth so they can get SS or whatever the Brits call it. There will always be folks that game the system, the goal should be to reduce those who are gaming the system while not hurting those that truly have a need. But I'm willing to compromise with the upper 15% number.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Random thoughts without reading the entire thread:

 

Nobody pays into SS like a piggy bank, you're just paying for current payments. It should be paid on all income. SS has raised the elderly out of poverty. It's the tax everybody pays, so tired of hearing 46% of Americans pay no tax, unless your income is all capital gains! If you've made money consistently in the stock market you haven't been at it long enough! It should be means tested, see comment above about no piggy bank.

 

It could be fixed by raising retirement to 67, means testing and raising the payroll tax to 200K or unlimited (really get gutsy and tie it to capital gains!

 

:iagree::iagree: I am still a iffy on raising the age of retirement since itn is already 67 for full retirement for those my old. I think there should still be an option for early social security as there is now for those with back breaking jobs:( I am a nurse and cannot imagine doing nursing at 67 since it is back breaking. I know there are plenty of other jobs that are the same way:(.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Personally, I have a lot of hostile feelings toward SS. :glare: I don't understand why it is only paid on the first $XXX amount of income and not after that. I don't like that my mother and my bil both recieve disability money from SS that they do NOT need. My mother was a SAHM (as am I) and became disabled a few years back. She got a *huge* check to start off with and now receives a monthly check. But none of it is used for living expenses. It is all "spending money." She has like 45 pairs of shoes, for example. When she sees a shoe she likes that comes in mulitple colors, she buys all of them. I don't like the fact that my dh (through payroll deductions) is paying for her to have more shoes than she can wear while we struggle to buy each of our dc one pair. Ditto my bil. He lives with mil and his check funds all his many hobbies. He has all this money to "play" with while others are actually trying to live on theirs. IOW, these people are sucking money out of a broken system that they didn't pay in AND don't need. :glare: I don't love it, in the words of my 6 y/o.

 

 

Dh and I are saving for our own retirement. We expect nothing from the gov't when we get to retirement. If we got something, cool. But that certainly isn't our "retirement plan!" ;)

 

 

I don't like abusers as well but from what I have heard there are many, many people who cannot get social security disability when they truly need it. I have heard that it is quite typical for a person to have to appeal rulings against them receiving disability since they are usually turned down even with catastrophic conditions:( In fact, I have heard of many dying before they could even get disability:(

 

IMO it is wrong to punish the whole class for a couple of bad apples. Instead reform the system to prevent abuses. Unfortunately, there will always be a small number of abusers but I still see that as no reason to take away truly needed and beneficial social safety nets for our country.

[Heidi]

No. Not only am I not counting on it, the very idea offends me.

:iagree:

[monk17]

:iagree::iagree: I am still a iffy on raising the age of retirement since itn is already 67 for full retirement for those my old. I think there should still be an option for early social security as there is now for those with back breaking jobs:( I am a nurse and cannot imagine doing nursing at 67 since it is back breaking. I know there are plenty of other jobs that are the same way:(.

 

You're probably right, I'm not sure how to implement allowances for physically challenging jobs. Kind of a problem that we are living longer but can't physically do what we use to do! My wife is an ARNP which lets her get into less demanding areas of nursing. I realize that's not an option for everyone, but maybe you could start to do case management or something not as physically demanding.

Whoever says hard work never kiled anyone is wrong!

[m0mmaBuck]

Given that the program is broke already, I think anyone who is still expecting to receive the money when they retire is delusional. Are the people who paid into it entitled to it? Sure they are. But when the program is only holding on to "IOU's" from a government that is trillions of dollars in debt, the prospect for pay-out is grim.

[monk17]

Given that the program is broke already, I think anyone who is still expecting to receive the money when they retire is delusional. Are the people who paid into it entitled to it? Sure they are. But when the program is only holding on to "IOU's" from a government that is trillions of dollars in debt, the prospect for pay-out is grim.

 

How do you figure the program is broke? Current payments are used to pay current bills, last I saw it's solvent until 2037. IOU's are payable by the government.

 

Long term solvvency is another problem, but we have them about fixed here on this board!

[m0mmaBuck]

How do you figure the program is broke? Current payments are used to pay current bills, last I saw it's solvent until 2037. IOU's are payable by the government.

 

Long term solvvency is another problem, but we have them about fixed here on this board!

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html

 

"This year (ie. 2010), the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

 

The payout is expected to be even greater for 2011 with even less taxes collected due to the state of the economy. (Less people working and lower wages = fewer tax dollars collected).

 

Re: the "trust fund" in place to help retain solvency of the program until about 2037 BUT: "Although Social Security is often said to have a “trust fund,†the term really serves as an accounting device, to track the pay-as-you-go program’s revenue and outlays over time. Its so-called balance is, in fact, a history of its vast cash flows: the sum of all of its revenue in the past, minus all of its outlays. The balance is currently about $2.5 trillion because after the early 1980s the program had surplus revenue, year after year. Now that accumulated revenue will slowly start to shrink, as outlays start to exceed revenue. By law, Social Security cannot pay out more than its balance in any given year. "

 

The trust fund is held in the form of government bonds and the interest is paid out by the US Treasury from tax dollars paid in by the taxpayers.

Every article I've read RE: Social Security taking in more than it pays out takes into account interest paid on the trust fund by the Treasury when looking at Social Security's "income." They don't look at straight taxes in and payment out but rather Social Security taxes in PLUS tax dollars used by the Treasury to pay the interest on the trust fund. (For example: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/04/15/social-security-isnt-broke-but-we-still-ought-to-fix-it/So) 2010 was the first time it wasnt a straight "taxes in, payments out" system. They had to use some of the interest (from the US Treasury which, last time I checked, wasn't doing all so well) to pay out all of the benefits. 2011 is set to look worse. So even though there is this trust fund (again, in the form of bonds from our broke government) that gets paid interest (from the Treasury of our broke government), the tax revenue in no longer pays the bills and the back up plan of government bonds receiving government interest payments isn't what I would consider a solid financial plan.

[mcconnellboys]

My husband is on top of our investments at all times. He is a CPA, CIA, CMA, CISA. We've still lost money....

[Joyofsixreboot]

Well, my dad refuses it. He isn't rich but it offends him. I've always assumed the government will spend it all before I get any.

[Josie]

I'm not asking what to do about SS. I'm asking, what are your personal feelings about it??

 

My grandparents (who are wealthy) expect to get that check every month as promised. They are OFFENDED by the idea that they might not.

 

Your grandparents paid into the system, so they should get what they were promised. The lack of forethought and planning by the government shouldn't affect the promise. Oh, I could say a lot more, but I would probably get banned!

 

What are your thoughts? Do you think you'll get a SS check someday?

 

Well, I pay into the system, so I should get my benefit. Now, will I? Good question!

[Susan in TN]

I'm not expecting it. Frankly, I'm a little ticked off that my parents and in-laws who now collect S.S. have to pay federal income taxes on it. I mean, give me a break!

 

I'm hoping that dh and I can hone skills in our areas of interest and remain healthy so we can continue working well into our retirement years.

[Josie]

I used to work for an actuarial firm that dealt with retirement plans exclusively. One of the actuaries I worked with said that you would cry if you saw how much more you would have at retirement if you had been allowed to invest for yourself the money that was taken out of your paycheck for SS. He said the average person would have 3-5 times more every month than they will with SS.

 

Plus, you could leave the balance of your account to your children when you pass on. The only way SS pays to family is to surviving spouses or minor children.

 

Yep!!!:iagree:

[monk17]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html

 

"This year (ie. 2010), the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

 

The payout is expected to be even greater for 2011 with even less taxes collected due to the state of the economy. (Less people working and lower wages = fewer tax dollars collected).

 

Re: the "trust fund" in place to help retain solvency of the program until about 2037 BUT: "Although Social Security is often said to have a “trust fund,†the term really serves as an accounting device, to track the pay-as-you-go program’s revenue and outlays over time. Its so-called balance is, in fact, a history of its vast cash flows: the sum of all of its revenue in the past, minus all of its outlays. The balance is currently about $2.5 trillion because after the early 1980s the program had surplus revenue, year after year. Now that accumulated revenue will slowly start to shrink, as outlays start to exceed revenue. By law, Social Security cannot pay out more than its balance in any given year. "

 

The trust fund is held in the form of government bonds and the interest is paid out by the US Treasury from tax dollars paid in by the taxpayers.

Every article I've read RE: Social Security taking in more than it pays out takes into account interest paid on the trust fund by the Treasury when looking at Social Security's "income." They don't look at straight taxes in and payment out but rather Social Security taxes in PLUS tax dollars used by the Treasury to pay the interest on the trust fund. (For example: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/04/15/social-security-isnt-broke-but-we-still-ought-to-fix-it/So) 2010 was the first time it wasnt a straight "taxes in, payments out" system. They had to use some of the interest (from the US Treasury which, last time I checked, wasn't doing all so well) to pay out all of the benefits. 2011 is set to look worse. So even though there is this trust fund (again, in the form of bonds from our broke government) that gets paid interest (from the Treasury of our broke government), the tax revenue in no longer pays the bills and the back up plan of government bonds receiving government interest payments isn't what I would consider a solid financial plan.

 

All true not disputing, but an IOU is an IOU and the government must either raise taxes or cut somewhere else to at least the amount it borrowed from Social Security, when that is done SS is solvent. Lots of places to cut that aren't politically popular that have not been borrowed.

[cindergretta]

I don't like abusers as well but from what I have heard there are many, many people who cannot get social security disability when they truly need it. I have heard that it is quite typical for a person to have to appeal rulings against them receiving disability since they are usually turned down even with catastrophic conditions:( In fact, I have heard of many dying before they could even get disability:(

 

IMO it is wrong to punish the whole class for a couple of bad apples. Instead reform the system to prevent abuses. Unfortunately, there will always be a small number of abusers but I still see that as no reason to take away truly needed and beneficial social safety nets for our country.

 

I'm sorry, I really wasn't clear. I do NOT want SS taken away from the disabled. Not at all. I just feel like if it is to be claimed, there should be a need beyond simply being disabled. It should be used to either replace income lost due to disability OR used to help support someone who is permanently disabled and needs help meeting living expenses. But simply receiving is for no other reason than you have a disability is a burden on the system, kwim?

[m0mmaBuck]

All true not disputing, but an IOU is an IOU and the government must either raise taxes or cut somewhere else to at least the amount it borrowed from Social Security, when that is done SS is solvent. Lots of places to cut that aren't politically popular that have not been borrowed.

 

I do agree. I was just looking at the situation as is... and looking at our government as it tends to function. Those in power don't tend to look at the money as belonging to the taxpayer or to a specific program. They seem to view it as theirs to do with as they may, shuffling money and diverting funds with little care toward IOU's or future shortcomings. And those politically unpopular cuts and tax hikes aren't likely to be within their purview because they tend to cost votes at re-election time, and that's only a few months away! G-d help us all!

[MBM]

I used to work for an actuarial firm that dealt with retirement plans exclusively. One of the actuaries I worked with said that you would cry if you saw how much more you would have at retirement if you had been allowed to invest for yourself the money that was taken out of your paycheck for SS. He said the average person would have 3-5 times more every month than they will with SS.

 

Plus, you could leave the balance of your account to your children when you pass on. The only way SS pays to family is to surviving spouses or minor children.

 

Many pension benefit actuaries would not agree with that. Yes, some individuals might make 3 to 5 times more, but others would lose their shirts. I know people who've lost almost everything even though they were fairly well diversified. While some *can* do well with their investments, others don't. That is the reality.

 

The numbers and solutions I trust the most are the ones put out by SS's Chief Actuary.

[Laura Corin]

She suggested that since (in the UK, at least) blue collar workers start work earlier and don't live as long as white collar workers, the age to start taking state pensions (SS equivalent) should be based on years worked, rather than age. If you start work at 16, then you get your pension 45 years later at 61; if you go to university and then start work at 22, you get your pension at 67.

 

She acknowledged that there would be anomalies, but she suggested that it would be a lot less anomalous than the current system with a single pensionable age.

 

What do you think?

 

Laura

[Mrs Mungo]

I think here in the US there might be too many people who work full time while in college. I did. My dh did and at a physically demanding job.

[OH_Homeschooler]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remudamom

No. Not only am I not counting on it, the very idea offends me.

 

 

This is interesting to me (the being offended part). Would you mind explaining a bit? If you'd rather not, no problem.

 

Someone else agreed that the idea offends them, and I'd also like to know why. I don't get it, it's not welfare. We get notices every year from the SSA saying what our benefits would be, given what we've paid in at this point in our lives.

 

Why is it offensive to expect to get that money, especially when we are reminded annually that it is coming?

[Mrs Mungo]

Someone else agreed that the idea offends them, and I'd also like to know why. I don't get it, it's not welfare. We get notices every year from the SSA saying what our benefits would be, given what we've paid in at this point in our lives.

 

Why is it offensive to expect to get that money, especially when we are reminded annually that it is coming?

 

They believe the government taking money and then returning it to people when they are old implies that they don't know how to manage their money, take care of themselves, invest for themselves and so forth. They (it seems to me) believe that hard work will *always* get you ahead, that you can save and plan for any eventuality, that you should take care of yourself, that everything should be based upon survival of the fittest.

[ColoNative]

We personally are planning for our own retirement and don't expect to get anything back from the govt. We do not depend on the govt. because the govt. is irresponsible with it's spending, saving and giving out of money. We want our retirement to be in our hands, not the govt. Govt. is necessary for many things, but we don't believe they have our best interest when it comes to SS.

 

Melody

[vonfirmath]

I'm not asking what to do about SS. I'm asking, what are your personal feelings about it??

 

My grandparents (who are wealthy) expect to get that check every month as promised. They are OFFENDED by the idea that they might not.

 

My parents, who are in their 50s, are counting on SS for their retirement. They have nothing saved as far as I know.

 

My parents are in their 60s and do not believe they will get Social Security -- that's how I was raised. That there was a problem and not to count on it and so they have worked to NOT count on it being there.

[OH_Homeschooler]

They believe the government taking money and then returning it to people when they are old implies that they don't know how to manage their money, take care of themselves, invest for themselves and so forth. They (it seems to me) believe that hard work will *always* get you ahead, that you can save and plan for any eventuality, that you should take care of yourself, that everything should be based upon survival of the fittest.

 

Ah, thank you.

 

But (for those who are offended)...since you DO have to pay into it, does it offend you to think you deserve to see it back when it's your turn?

[Colleen]

I may have a somewhat unique perspective on this issue.

 

I have been a stay at home mom since we had our first child who is almost 12 years old. My husband had always worked, and had a 401K, in which he contributed 10% of his paychecks. We used to joke about how we would never see a dime of the social security that he payed every week, and it was a good thing that he had a 401k plan. Then, last year he died. I am so grateful for social security, because it allows me to continue to be a stay at home, home-schooling mom to my children.

Just wanted to say I'm so very sorry about your husband's passing. I'm glad you have some sense of financial security. Best to you.

[Colleen]

 

They (it seems to me) believe that hard work will *always* get you ahead, that you can save and plan for any eventuality, that you should take care of yourself, that everything should be based upon survival of the fittest.

You mean it shouldn't? I am all astonishment!;)

 

[Mrs Mungo]

You mean it shouldn't? I am all astonishment!;)

 

:D

[KidsHappen]

There are *plenty* of places in the world with little to no government. I am not sure why people who despise being governed don't move there.

 

Because the rest of the world won't have us? :D

[cdrumm4448]

You know, mouse, some people just obviously *do not* care and are downright offended with any kind of good if the whole discussion to the point of using a bunch of inflammatory rhetoric and untrue statements to to get their point across. I give up.

 

There are *plenty* of places in the world with little to no government. I am not sure why people who despise being governed don't move there.

 

There are plenty of governments around the world that take care of people cradle to grave (China comes to mind). I am not sure why people who despise independence don't move there.

[cdrumm4448]

If you've made money consistently in the stock market you haven't been at it long enough!

 

That is absolutely an incorrect statement.

 

We've done well for just that reason.