Author Topic: Retirement & Social Security  (Read 217 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2759
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Retirement & Social Security
« on: August 10, 2018, 07:54:53 AM »
The average American has just $84,000 saved for retirement with a third of Americans having less than $5000 saved. A third of Baby Boomers have less than $25,000 saved. Social Security's savings fund is due to run out of money by 2034 meaning a significant cut in benefits for all Americans.

I'm curious what everyone thinks should be done, if anything, about the two main sources of retirement income, personal savings (401k, IRAs, etc) and Social Security benefits. There is clearly a crisis coming for Baby Boomers in the near term. As they age, a significant portion will not have enough money to live in their later years when they need assisted living care, straining government programs meant to help them beyond just SS.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4455
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2018, 07:58:45 AM »
I dunno.  That's a tough one.  People need to learn how to save and not spend, and to not go into debt.  But society at large doesn't want to do that.  If, as a nation as a whole, we don't want to make the sacrifices that it takes to take care of ourselves, should the government do it for us?  It may sound cold, but I don't see that as a viable solution.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2759
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2018, 08:03:33 AM »
For me, the easy one is Social Security. It was originally designed to provide about 5 year worth of retirement income based on the average life expectancy at the time. Now the average life expectancy is about 18 years after first benefits can be received at 62. I think they need to push the earliest age to get benefits back to 65 soon with it going up from there to somewhere between 67-70 over time. I think it make sense to set full benefits (now available at 67) based on X years from the average life expectancy with it resetting every 5 years or something. I think 10 years is a reasonable expectation for benefits for the average person. Not knowing the financials of all of it, I'm not sure how that would impact the long term stability of the system, but it's a start.

For personal savings, this is one where I struggle between personal responsibility and the reality that taxpayers will subsidize the expenses of people who don't save enough (beyond just SS). I don't want to have to pay even higher taxes based on other's shortsightedness and also don't want to just say "screw you, go and die" to those without the money to afford care in their elder years. I think some level of forced savings, with the ability to invest it as the individual sees fit, is not a terrible idea. I can see 5% of income automatically entered into a 401k or IRA for everyone. That's nowhere near what would be necessary, but it's a start.

If, as a nation as a whole, we don't want to make the sacrifices that it takes to take care of ourselves, should the government do it for us?  It may sound cold, but I don't see that as a viable solution.
Even as a relatively liberal person, I'm with you. I'm fine with SS ensuring that everyone has at least something to live off of, but it shouldn't ever be more than just a supplement to personal savings.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2018, 08:09:06 AM by lordxizor »

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4455
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2018, 08:09:07 AM »
For me, the easy one is Social Security. It was originally designed to provide about 5 year worth of retirement income based on the average life expectancy at the time. Now the average life expectancy is about 18 years after first benefits can be received at 62. I think they need to push the earliest age to get benefits back to 65 soon with it going up from there to somewhere between 67-70 over time. I think it make sense to set full benefits (now available at 67) based on X years from the average life expectancy with it resetting every 5 years or something. I think 10 years is a reasonable expectation for benefits for the average person. Not knowing the financials of all of it, I'm not sure how that would impact the long term stability of the system, but it's a start.

I suppose.  I have a problem with the system in general.  But if we are going to have it, what you propose seems to make sense on the macro level. 

For personal savings, this is one where I struggle between personal responsibility and the reality that taxpayers will subsidize the expenses of people who don't save enough (beyond just SS). I don't want to have to pay even higher taxes based on other's shortsightedness and also don't want to just say "screw you, go and die" to those without the money to afford care in their elder years. I think some level of forced savings, with the ability to invest it as the individual sees fit, is not a terrible idea. I can see 5% of income automatically entered into a 401k or IRA for everyone. That's nowhere near what would be necessary, but it's a start.

Yeah, that sounds pretty similar to my mindset as well. 
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2759
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2018, 08:11:17 AM »
For me, the easy one is Social Security. It was originally designed to provide about 5 year worth of retirement income based on the average life expectancy at the time. Now the average life expectancy is about 18 years after first benefits can be received at 62. I think they need to push the earliest age to get benefits back to 65 soon with it going up from there to somewhere between 67-70 over time. I think it make sense to set full benefits (now available at 67) based on X years from the average life expectancy with it resetting every 5 years or something. I think 10 years is a reasonable expectation for benefits for the average person. Not knowing the financials of all of it, I'm not sure how that would impact the long term stability of the system, but it's a start.

I suppose.  I have a problem with the system in general.  But if we are going to have it, what you propose seems to make sense on the macro level. 
Is it the idea that the government provides any any retirement assistance at all or the particulars of SS that you have a problem with?

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11839
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2018, 08:12:19 AM »
My wife is a teacher and pays $0 towards Social Security. Instead, she pays into her own retirement via her Union and I wonít get into details but when she turns 53 she can retire with 80% of her pay each month the rest of her life or wait until sheís 57 for 100%

In short....I think Ďweí should be able to opt out of paying into Social Security and pay into our own private savings like my wifeís teachers union does. Itís my understanding anyway I personally will not see a penny of Social Security thanks to the plundering itís taken from Congress using it as their own piggy bank over the course of itís history.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11839
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2018, 08:14:54 AM »
For me, the easy one is Social Security. It was originally designed to provide about 5 year worth of retirement income based on the average life expectancy at the time. Now the average life expectancy is about 18 years after first benefits can be received at 62. I think they need to push the earliest age to get benefits back to 65 soon with it going up from there to somewhere between 67-70 over time. I think it make sense to set full benefits (now available at 67) based on X years from the average life expectancy with it resetting every 5 years or something. I think 10 years is a reasonable expectation for benefits for the average person. Not knowing the financials of all of it, I'm not sure how that would impact the long term stability of the system, but it's a start.

I suppose.  I have a problem with the system in general.  But if we are going to have it, what you propose seems to make sense on the macro level. 
Is it the idea that the government provides any any retirement assistance at all or the particulars of SS that you have a problem with?

Thatís where Iím at. I just donít think itís their responsibility.....and....theyíve proven they canít handle the responsibility. Allow Ďmeí to choose how and where I want my $400 plus dollars a month to be invested for my retirement.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2759
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2018, 08:16:41 AM »
My wife is a teacher and pays $0 towards Social Security. Instead, she pays into her own retirement via her Union and I wonít get into details but when she turns 53 she can retire with 80% of her pay each month the rest of her life or wait until sheís 57 for 100%

In short....I think Ďweí should be able to opt out of paying into Social Security and pay into our own private savings like my wifeís teachers union does. Itís my understanding anyway I personally will not see a penny of Social Security thanks to the plundering itís taken from Congress using it as their own piggy bank over the course of itís history.
You'll likely see some SS benefits, just not the full amount you see on your annual statements. Current estimates are 75%, but I personally assume I'll see 50%. Though I'm saving as if I'll see nothing.

I agree with being able to opt out of SS if you can prove you're saving another way. I think that makes a lot of sense.

Thatís where Iím at. I just donít think itís their responsibility.....and....theyíve proven they canít handle the responsibility. Allow Ďmeí to choose how and where I want my $400 plus dollars a month to be invested for my retirement.
I can see phasing out SS over the next couple of decades along with a forced savings situation. We couldn't just cut off SS since millions of people have lived their lives knowing it would be there. I suppose cutting it off and giving everyone a cut to invest in their own way would work.

The thing with forced savings though is that it would have to be completely unavailable for use until retirement otherwise people will find all kinds of excuses to pull it out for dumb, shortsighted reasons.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20131
  • Gender: Male
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2018, 08:18:24 AM »
The one thing my father hammered into my head as early as he could was for me to start my 401K the day I became eligible. He always said his biggest regret was not starting his until he was 30. I started one two weeks after my 21st birthday, contributing 10% of my gross at the time. These days I put in 7% of my gross and the employer matches up to their 6% max. I'm sitting at just over $70K in mine just a few months out from 30. I find myself often wondering if even that's a good enough start.

I know a bunch of people that either don't contribute to one at all, or don't do more than 2% or so. The people that only do 2% are the ones I don't understand. They have the money, but I think they feel like that by contributing the 2%, it's better than nothing. The people I know that don't contribute anything at all, I feel for them. They work jobs that pay $21Kish a year before tax and have next to nothing left over after life's basic expenses. They're regularly choosing between running the A/C so they could sleep or buying food the next day. They skip going to the doctor because they can't afford the $23 co-pay. When you're resorting to living with your lights off 95% of the day to keep your electric bill down, I can understand not contributing to a 401K plan.

It's going to be interesting to see play out for sure. If I make it to retirement age, there's going to be a lot of people hurting.

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11839
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2018, 08:21:53 AM »
My wife is a teacher and pays $0 towards Social Security. Instead, she pays into her own retirement via her Union and I wonít get into details but when she turns 53 she can retire with 80% of her pay each month the rest of her life or wait until sheís 57 for 100%

In short....I think Ďweí should be able to opt out of paying into Social Security and pay into our own private savings like my wifeís teachers union does. Itís my understanding anyway I personally will not see a penny of Social Security thanks to the plundering itís taken from Congress using it as their own piggy bank over the course of itís history.
You'll likely see some SS benefits, just not the full amount you see on your annual statements. Current estimates are 75%, but I personally assume I'll see 50%. Though I'm saving as if I'll see nothing.

I agree with being able to opt out of SS if you can prove you're saving another way. I think that makes a lot of sense.

Yeah, Iím not holding my breath  :lol   My retirement plan does not included any $$$ from Social Security. If/when I get there and I actually get some $$$ from it....thatíll be a bonus. But, Iím not counting on receiving any. I donít have that much faith in our government.

The issue is....there is no Fín way the government will allow us to opt out. Itís a source of revenue for them. Sure theyíre supposed to replace it...but are they really all that concerned to make sure they do? I donít think so. Itís like me taking a $20 from my kids piggy bank. I always tell myself ďIíll put another $20 in there...just need this right NOWĒ Then I never do...usually the thought process is ďall the crap Iíve bought and done for them....I donít need to replace that $20Ē

In short. I have zero faith in our government to provide me a retirement I deserve after paying into their system.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2759
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2018, 08:23:44 AM »
The one thing my father hammered into my head as early as he could was for me to start my 401K the day I became eligible. He always said his biggest regret was not starting his until he was 30. I started one two weeks after my 21st birthday, contributing 10% of my gross at the time. These days I put in 7% of my gross and the employer matches up to their 6% max. I'm sitting at just over $70K in mine just a few months out from 30. I find myself often wondering if even that's a good enough start.

I know a bunch of people that either don't contribute to one at all, or don't do more than 2% or so. The people that only do 2% are the ones I don't understand. They have the money, but I think they feel like that by contributing the 2%, it's better than nothing. The people I know that don't contribute anything at all, I feel for them. They work jobs that pay $21Kish a year before tax and have next to nothing left over after life's basic expenses. They're regularly choosing between running the A/C so they could sleep or buying food the next day. They skip going to the doctor because they can't afford the $23 co-pay. When you're resorting to living with your lights off 95% of the day to keep your electric bill down, I can understand not contributing to a 401K plan.

It's going to be interesting to see play out for sure. If I make it to retirement age, there's going to be a lot of people hurting.
I've personally been saving 10%, including may employer match, since day one at 22 as well and have been increasing it significantly in recent years. Currently I'm at 20% and plan to increase it as much as possible every year until I max out both my 401k and Roth IRA at which point I'll start piling more into my mortgage to get that paid off early. I have the goal of being financially independent as early as possible though. Currently on pace for my mid to upper 50s. 10% all along is not enough to retire at 65 and maintain your current lifestyle. 15% is better if you start in your 20s.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4455
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2018, 08:41:50 AM »
For me, the easy one is Social Security. It was originally designed to provide about 5 year worth of retirement income based on the average life expectancy at the time. Now the average life expectancy is about 18 years after first benefits can be received at 62. I think they need to push the earliest age to get benefits back to 65 soon with it going up from there to somewhere between 67-70 over time. I think it make sense to set full benefits (now available at 67) based on X years from the average life expectancy with it resetting every 5 years or something. I think 10 years is a reasonable expectation for benefits for the average person. Not knowing the financials of all of it, I'm not sure how that would impact the long term stability of the system, but it's a start.

I suppose.  I have a problem with the system in general.  But if we are going to have it, what you propose seems to make sense on the macro level. 
Is it the idea that the government provides any any retirement assistance at all or the particulars of SS that you have a problem with?

I guess I more or less align with what GMD said.  But I am not opposed to government assistance in general.  It's just that it isn't really "assistance" to me, because assistance implies that the person being assisted has made a concerted effort, and through circumstances out of his/her control, just isn't able to quiet get what they need.  I don't really have a problem with the government stepping in and bridging the gap.  But in practice, that isn't what our system has become.

As far as the government's ability (or lack thereof) to manage it responsibly, that's another issue altogether.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13160
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2018, 08:48:16 AM »
For me, the easy one is Social Security. It was originally designed to provide about 5 year worth of retirement income based on the average life expectancy at the time. Now the average life expectancy is about 18 years after first benefits can be received at 62. I think they need to push the earliest age to get benefits back to 65 soon with it going up from there to somewhere between 67-70 over time. I think it make sense to set full benefits (now available at 67) based on X years from the average life expectancy with it resetting every 5 years or something. I think 10 years is a reasonable expectation for benefits for the average person. Not knowing the financials of all of it, I'm not sure how that would impact the long term stability of the system, but it's a start.

I'm sorry if this sounds dick-ish, because I don't mean it that way, but isn't part of the problem that people who DIDN'T "know the financials", and "didn't know if [whatever] would impact the long term stability of the system" started dicking with it?  We've got too many people that can't rub two quarters together making trillion dollar decisions at the government level, and frankly, while I absolutely do not want to "see people die" (that's moralizing we don't need in a reasonable debate) I absolutely do not want to trust my retirement in the hands of the government.   

Quote
If, as a nation as a whole, we don't want to make the sacrifices that it takes to take care of ourselves, should the government do it for us?  It may sound cold, but I don't see that as a viable solution.
Even as a relatively liberal person, I'm with you. I'm fine with SS ensuring that everyone has at least something to live off of, but it shouldn't ever be more than just a supplement to personal savings.

Well, bear in mind that SS is a hybrid program.  If I claim off of social security - meaning "me", Stadler, who's been paying in diligently since 1988, and has maxed out his contribution pretty much for the past 20 years at least - it's money I earned.  No gifts, no handouts, but money I earned, and was deferred by Federal law (albeit with a tax benefit) until I'm whatever the age is now to start claiming.   There are those - both those that simply didn't earn enough, or those, like my brothers' ex-father-in-law who thought he was clever and was "beating The Man!", who chose to underreport his earning to avoid, well, The Man - that won't be pulling THEIR money, but rather that part that is subsidized by the government, and some portion of MY contributions.    These should, in my view, be handled differently.  LEAVE MY MONEY ALONE.  It's bad enough that I don't get to pick the investments (but having said that, maybe not) but don't start using my money to fund people who have no intention of contributing, but EVERY intention of milking the teat thinking that "it's the government, I'm not hurting anybody!".   

EDIT:  Fun fact:  if you put the letter 'x' inside these brackets - [ ] - you get a square, indented bullet!  Yay, formatting!

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20638
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2018, 09:17:01 AM »
For me, the easy one is Social Security. It was originally designed to provide about 5 year worth of retirement income based on the average life expectancy at the time. Now the average life expectancy is about 18 years after first benefits can be received at 62. I think they need to push the earliest age to get benefits back to 65 soon with it going up from there to somewhere between 67-70 over time. I think it make sense to set full benefits (now available at 67) based on X years from the average life expectancy with it resetting every 5 years or something. I think 10 years is a reasonable expectation for benefits for the average person. Not knowing the financials of all of it, I'm not sure how that would impact the long term stability of the system, but it's a start.

I'm sorry if this sounds dick-ish, because I don't mean it that way, but isn't part of the problem that people who DIDN'T "know the financials", and "didn't know if [whatever] would impact the long term stability of the system" started dicking with it?  We've got too many people that can't rub two quarters together making trillion dollar decisions at the government level, and frankly, while I absolutely do not want to "see people die" (that's moralizing we don't need in a reasonable debate) I absolutely do not want to trust my retirement in the hands of the government.   
Isn't it also the case that if we allow people who "don't know the financials" to opt out and invest for themselves because "it's ma money!" is a problem unto itself? Myself, I don't trust SS money to every guy who thinks he's the next Warren Buffet. But I suppose that's the difference. I don't view SS as an every man for himself proposition.

Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13160
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2018, 09:24:11 AM »
The one thing my father hammered into my head as early as he could was for me to start my 401K the day I became eligible. He always said his biggest regret was not starting his until he was 30. I started one two weeks after my 21st birthday, contributing 10% of my gross at the time. These days I put in 7% of my gross and the employer matches up to their 6% max. I'm sitting at just over $70K in mine just a few months out from 30. I find myself often wondering if even that's a good enough start.

I know a bunch of people that either don't contribute to one at all, or don't do more than 2% or so. The people that only do 2% are the ones I don't understand. They have the money, but I think they feel like that by contributing the 2%, it's better than nothing. The people I know that don't contribute anything at all, I feel for them. They work jobs that pay $21Kish a year before tax and have next to nothing left over after life's basic expenses. They're regularly choosing between running the A/C so they could sleep or buying food the next day. They skip going to the doctor because they can't afford the $23 co-pay. When you're resorting to living with your lights off 95% of the day to keep your electric bill down, I can understand not contributing to a 401K plan.

It's going to be interesting to see play out for sure. If I make it to retirement age, there's going to be a lot of people hurting.

Son (I'm kidding, but I say that for effect), listen to the old man:  DO NOT TOUCH IT FOR ANY REASON.   Fight that urge.   If you're considering it, go out and drink or kick a dog, or bang a waitress.  Smoke meth.  I don't care, just DON'T TOUCH THAT PRINCIPLE.   I always maxed out my contributions, and took the free money that is an employer contribution, but during my divorce (and the short time leading up to it, when I was laid off) I tapped into it, and it's perhaps my biggest (maybe my only) regret.   I'll be okay, but only ok, and I'm a LOT worse off than I would have been. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13160
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2018, 09:27:01 AM »
For me, the easy one is Social Security. It was originally designed to provide about 5 year worth of retirement income based on the average life expectancy at the time. Now the average life expectancy is about 18 years after first benefits can be received at 62. I think they need to push the earliest age to get benefits back to 65 soon with it going up from there to somewhere between 67-70 over time. I think it make sense to set full benefits (now available at 67) based on X years from the average life expectancy with it resetting every 5 years or something. I think 10 years is a reasonable expectation for benefits for the average person. Not knowing the financials of all of it, I'm not sure how that would impact the long term stability of the system, but it's a start.

I'm sorry if this sounds dick-ish, because I don't mean it that way, but isn't part of the problem that people who DIDN'T "know the financials", and "didn't know if [whatever] would impact the long term stability of the system" started dicking with it?  We've got too many people that can't rub two quarters together making trillion dollar decisions at the government level, and frankly, while I absolutely do not want to "see people die" (that's moralizing we don't need in a reasonable debate) I absolutely do not want to trust my retirement in the hands of the government.   
Isn't it also the case that if we allow people who "don't know the financials" to opt out and invest for themselves because "it's ma money!" is a problem unto itself? Myself, I don't trust SS money to every guy who thinks he's the next Warren Buffet. But I suppose that's the difference. I don't view SS as an every man for himself proposition.

Well, it is, of course, and good call catching that.  As you might guess, though, if someone pulls their money and blows it all on soy bean futures, that's kind of on them.   I don't trust the money like that either, but at some point we can't protect everyone from everything, least of all themselves.   

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20638
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2018, 09:37:08 AM »
For me, the easy one is Social Security. It was originally designed to provide about 5 year worth of retirement income based on the average life expectancy at the time. Now the average life expectancy is about 18 years after first benefits can be received at 62. I think they need to push the earliest age to get benefits back to 65 soon with it going up from there to somewhere between 67-70 over time. I think it make sense to set full benefits (now available at 67) based on X years from the average life expectancy with it resetting every 5 years or something. I think 10 years is a reasonable expectation for benefits for the average person. Not knowing the financials of all of it, I'm not sure how that would impact the long term stability of the system, but it's a start.

I'm sorry if this sounds dick-ish, because I don't mean it that way, but isn't part of the problem that people who DIDN'T "know the financials", and "didn't know if [whatever] would impact the long term stability of the system" started dicking with it?  We've got too many people that can't rub two quarters together making trillion dollar decisions at the government level, and frankly, while I absolutely do not want to "see people die" (that's moralizing we don't need in a reasonable debate) I absolutely do not want to trust my retirement in the hands of the government.   
Isn't it also the case that if we allow people who "don't know the financials" to opt out and invest for themselves because "it's ma money!" is a problem unto itself? Myself, I don't trust SS money to every guy who thinks he's the next Warren Buffet. But I suppose that's the difference. I don't view SS as an every man for himself proposition.
Well, it is, of course, and good call catching that.  As you might guess, though, if someone pulls their money and blows it all on soy bean futures, that's kind of on them.   I don't trust the money like that either, but at some point we can't protect everyone from everything, least of all themselves.
It's on the rest of us too, though. Unless we're willing to let them starve to death under a bridge somewhere. This is a social welfare program that we've all come to think is all about ME!  It's not. Myself, I look at it as a system that helps my mom and dad get by so I don't have to saddle the load myself. I can help them in other ways without having to bankroll them. I'm fine with that.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2759
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2018, 09:50:25 AM »
For me, the easy one is Social Security. It was originally designed to provide about 5 year worth of retirement income based on the average life expectancy at the time. Now the average life expectancy is about 18 years after first benefits can be received at 62. I think they need to push the earliest age to get benefits back to 65 soon with it going up from there to somewhere between 67-70 over time. I think it make sense to set full benefits (now available at 67) based on X years from the average life expectancy with it resetting every 5 years or something. I think 10 years is a reasonable expectation for benefits for the average person. Not knowing the financials of all of it, I'm not sure how that would impact the long term stability of the system, but it's a start.

I'm sorry if this sounds dick-ish, because I don't mean it that way, but isn't part of the problem that people who DIDN'T "know the financials", and "didn't know if [whatever] would impact the long term stability of the system" started dicking with it?  We've got too many people that can't rub two quarters together making trillion dollar decisions at the government level, and frankly, while I absolutely do not want to "see people die" (that's moralizing we don't need in a reasonable debate) I absolutely do not want to trust my retirement in the hands of the government.   
Totally agree. I threw in that statement for me as in "someone with actual financial knowledge would need to work out the particulars and details and could completely throw out my idea if it isn't financially feasible.

It's on the rest of us too, though. Unless we're willing to let them starve to death under a bridge somewhere. This is a social welfare program that we've all come to think is all about ME!  It's not. Myself, I look at it as a system that helps my mom and dad get by so I don't have to saddle the load myself. I can help them in other ways without having to bankroll them. I'm fine with that.
This is really the sticking point. In theory I'm all for letting people make their own choices, but in reality, without SS, >50% of people would be working until they no longer physically could and then would be living under a bridge or with family. People in general are absolutely terrible at saving for the long term and in a way SS is a forced retirement savings plan, albeit a poorly managed one. I don't want it to have to be my problem that my parents didn't save for retirement and are now dependent on me to take care of them (not reality for me, but it is for many). That's where SS is nice. It lightens the load on everyone.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6332
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2018, 10:58:16 AM »
Hey a new discussion here with sound reasoning and insight from various members!

My wife is a teacher and pays $0 towards Social Security. Instead, she pays into her own retirement via her Union and I wonít get into details but when she turns 53 she can retire with 80% of her pay each month the rest of her life or wait until sheís 57 for 100%

Is that a state thing? My wife is also a teacher and contributes to SS. She also has a plan with her union - the payout is set up differently that yours but it's the same premise.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline JayOctavarium

  • I used to be a whorejerk
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8802
  • Gender: Male
  • But then I took a Hef to the knee...
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2018, 11:16:11 AM »
Hey a new discussion here with sound reasoning and insight from various members!

My wife is a teacher and pays $0 towards Social Security. Instead, she pays into her own retirement via her Union and I wonít get into details but when she turns 53 she can retire with 80% of her pay each month the rest of her life or wait until sheís 57 for 100%

Is that a state thing? My wife is also a teacher and contributes to SS. She also has a plan with her union - the payout is set up differently that yours but it's the same premise.

As far as I know, at least in CA, if you participate in CALPERS, the state ran pension program, you do not have the ability to pay into SS. That was a factor I looked at when I was looking into my short lived job with the county. I lucked out, because there we had both the county pension system to pay into (which is one of the last ones that hasn't folded into CALPERS), as well as SS. I was stoked, because I was paying in more money, but (in theory, if SS is still a thing when I retire), I'd be getting 2x back.

I just don't understand what they were trying to achieve with any part of the song, either individually or as a whole. You know what? It's the Platypus of Dream Theater songs. That bill doesn't go with that tail, or that strange little furry body, or those webbed feet, and oh god why does it have venomous spurs!? And then you find out it lays eggs too. The difference is that the Platypus is somehow functional despite being a crazy mishmash or leftover animal pieces

-BlobVanDam on "Scarred"

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13160
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #20 on: August 10, 2018, 11:31:12 AM »
For me, the easy one is Social Security. It was originally designed to provide about 5 year worth of retirement income based on the average life expectancy at the time. Now the average life expectancy is about 18 years after first benefits can be received at 62. I think they need to push the earliest age to get benefits back to 65 soon with it going up from there to somewhere between 67-70 over time. I think it make sense to set full benefits (now available at 67) based on X years from the average life expectancy with it resetting every 5 years or something. I think 10 years is a reasonable expectation for benefits for the average person. Not knowing the financials of all of it, I'm not sure how that would impact the long term stability of the system, but it's a start.

I'm sorry if this sounds dick-ish, because I don't mean it that way, but isn't part of the problem that people who DIDN'T "know the financials", and "didn't know if [whatever] would impact the long term stability of the system" started dicking with it?  We've got too many people that can't rub two quarters together making trillion dollar decisions at the government level, and frankly, while I absolutely do not want to "see people die" (that's moralizing we don't need in a reasonable debate) I absolutely do not want to trust my retirement in the hands of the government.   
Isn't it also the case that if we allow people who "don't know the financials" to opt out and invest for themselves because "it's ma money!" is a problem unto itself? Myself, I don't trust SS money to every guy who thinks he's the next Warren Buffet. But I suppose that's the difference. I don't view SS as an every man for himself proposition.
Well, it is, of course, and good call catching that.  As you might guess, though, if someone pulls their money and blows it all on soy bean futures, that's kind of on them.   I don't trust the money like that either, but at some point we can't protect everyone from everything, least of all themselves.
It's on the rest of us too, though. Unless we're willing to let them starve to death under a bridge somewhere. This is a social welfare program that we've all come to think is all about ME!  It's not. Myself, I look at it as a system that helps my mom and dad get by so I don't have to saddle the load myself. I can help them in other ways without having to bankroll them. I'm fine with that.

I agree 100%, if we assume that we're going to help them regardless.    I wasn't making that assumption.   Not that I would "let them die", but at some point we have to make that threshold decision:  are we going to provide a minimum safety net to everyone?  If so, then it has to stay the way it is.  Or, figure out what the minimum is, and let the people play with whatever they have "on top of that".  I say "Play" but it's sardonic.  It shouldn't be a game, or a gamble.  Perhaps we can limit the number of options?  I don't know.  But any scheme we adopt is a DIRECT result of the assumptions going in, and we have to agree on those to start with.  The rest will follow. 

I seem to think that, at heart, we agree on this, we're just sort of halfway talking past each other a little (inadvertently).   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13160
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #21 on: August 10, 2018, 11:34:47 AM »
And let me go on record by saying:  I'm not a blind-eyed optimist, but I think the idea that "SS will run out of money and we're fucked" is leaning to the "chicken little" side of the equation.  Both parties have shown absolutely ZERO aversion to debt or to deficit-spending economic programs.  I find it hard to believe that, at least in the short term, we're going to see any massive disruption. 

Offline kaos2900

  • Posts: 2345
  • Gender: Male
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #22 on: August 10, 2018, 12:09:22 PM »
And let me go on record by saying:  I'm not a blind-eyed optimist, but I think the idea that "SS will run out of money and we're fucked" is leaning to the "chicken little" side of the equation.  Both parties have shown absolutely ZERO aversion to debt or to deficit-spending economic programs.  I find it hard to believe that, at least in the short term, we're going to see any massive disruption.

I was just going to say Stadler, if the government is sure that SS is going run out in 19 years why the hell would I (who is a few weeks short of 34) having to pay in if I'm not going to get any benefit from it? I get it's not all about me and I don't want to have to rely on it but that seems like a bitter pill to swallow nonetheless.

I just recently became financially stable enough to max out my 401k contribution to get all of my employer match (10% from me plus 6% from employer). I'm currently estimated to have a surplus of $1300 per month. It took awhile and I consider myself to be very fortunate to be in this situation. That being said I'm balancing out my financials to be responsible but with the underlying idea that I could die any day. Best case scenario I've got a 31 years of work left. A lot of bad shit could happen any second that could render my saving pointless. I also don't want to leave my kids in debt for having to take care of me until I die. My goal is to stay at 10% and pay off my mortgage as soon as possible and eventually sell my house and us the equity to add to my retirement.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20638
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #23 on: August 10, 2018, 12:26:40 PM »
And let me go on record by saying:  I'm not a blind-eyed optimist, but I think the idea that "SS will run out of money and we're fucked" is leaning to the "chicken little" side of the equation.  Both parties have shown absolutely ZERO aversion to debt or to deficit-spending economic programs.  I find it hard to believe that, at least in the short term, we're going to see any massive disruption.
It certainly does seem like we've been hearing about the imminent demise of SS for a very long time.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2759
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #24 on: August 10, 2018, 12:46:37 PM »
The dumb thing is everyone acts like SS running out of money means it's over and done, no one gets anything. The media even makes it sound this way at times. However, all that will happen is that the savings in gone. They will continue to pay out SS checks equal to what they're bringing in, which will be reduced from what is promised to us now, but is not nothing.

Offline kaos2900

  • Posts: 2345
  • Gender: Male
Re: Retirement & Social Security
« Reply #25 on: August 10, 2018, 01:27:04 PM »
I think what will happen is that the payout amount will decrease and the working age to be eligible will increase.  I'd be surprised if the whole program goes away but who knows.