SS is not a pension. It's a contract among generations - that the younger people will pay for the older people. And the wheel will keep spinning. That's what it is.
The life expectancy of a person born in the US in 1935 was 62 years. When Social Security was created the intended recipients were those over 65. It was never intended to be a retirement plan.
There were over 30 workers for every recipient in 1935. Today there's about 3 workers for every recipient.
Like all Democrat ideas Social Security was a poorly thought out disaster that only made the problem it was supposed to fix worse.
I'm 28, and what I've already learned in life is that it comes down to balance and basic principles.
1. Take care of your health (diet & exercise).
2. Save 15% of your gross income for retirement.
3. Enjoy life now. Waiting until your 50s and 60s to start living life is a mistake. You could die tomorrow.
4. Social security means different things for different people. For my wife and I, SS will be a nice cherry on top to pay for a winter rental or some extra traveling. For some, it will be the only money they have in retirement.
It only makes sense to up the age of retirement benefits since our life expectancy has continued to go up (though we have had a hiccup of late).
There are ways to combat this, of course:
1) Plan to retire earlier and invest for that. Right now, you can get at all of your investment money with no penalties at age 59.5.
2) Set yourself up for passive (or mostly passive) income after you retire from your day job. Own rental properties, for example...and yes, depending on how you do that, that can be a pain, so you just have to decide if that's enough "hands off" for you or not.
3) Keep your investments invested, but if you retire a few years before you can or will take Social Security, have YEARS of liquid money ready to pay your expenses. So, if you don't want to take SS until age 67, retire at age 64 but have 3 years of expenses saved up outside of investment vehicles even (this allows for the unfortunate event that the stock market might tank as soon as you retire, so you don't draw from your stock investments, allowing them to recover).
Bottom line though is don't let the government tell you when you will retire. YOU decide when you will retire, and then make that happen. Downsize, move to a cheaper cost of living area, etc.
My wife is 7 years younger than I am. That gives me a 7 year head start on retirement as she will keep working to get her public school pension to vest fully. I will probably not stop working altogether, but will be done with my current job by 62. Mortgage will be paid off and we will probably move out of the big city at that point. Should be able to buy a house and maybe a second property for a summer/winter set up. Getting the full SSN will be helpful as the public school pension will not move much with inflation and my savings will be the lion's share of retirement income. So, I will probably keep working until 67 and possibly beyond, but will do something that is far less demanding than my current job and possibly shift to a different line of work just to keep that retirement age at bay with SSN.
As for the SSN program, it is very easy to fix. Even Joe Manchin has figured out that raising the income max for SSN deductions is an easy way to not only keep the program solvent but even increase benefits.
As for the SSN program, it is very easy to fix. Even Joe Manchin has figured out that raising the income max for SSN deductions is an easy way to not only keep the program solvent but even increase benefits.
Let me get this straight. You want those with higher incomes to shoulder an equivalent payroll tax burden as the rest of us? Preposterous! Unfair! Communism!
SS is not a pension. It's a contract among generations - that the younger people will pay for the older people. And the wheel will keep spinning. That's what it is.
The life expectancy of a person born in the US in 1935 was 62 years. When Social Security was created the intended recipients were those over 65. It was never intended to be a retirement plan.
There were over 30 workers for every recipient in 1935. Today there's about 3 workers for every recipient.
Like all Democrat ideas Social Security was a poorly thought out disaster that only made the problem it was supposed to fix worse.
Social Security was a vote buying Ponzi scheme.
SS is one of the most successful government programs of all time. Before it, oldsters lived in poverty or moved in with their kids. Now every adult who worked or was married to a worker has a safe annuity.
Relying on Americans to save for themselves via a privatized SS system is a laughably comic plan. They wouldn't save, they would invest poorly, they would mess it up. Having an idiot-proof system you can't opt out of is why SS works and is so popular.
That said, like any program, it needs tweaks. We do need to keep bumping up the retirement age, take off the cap and tighten up the disability benefits (which are often abused).
Social security is a pumpkin pie. Social security is a warm gun. It's fun to say random, nonsensical things!
nah it's sorta true that SS is a Ponzi scheme. People receiving benefits aren't withdrawing their own money; they are getting money from younger workers. It's literally a Ponzi scheme and would fall apart if young workers stop paying in.
What gives SS permanence is that it is the law, enforced by federal law.
It's a social contract among generations. Different from a ponzi scheme in my opinion. No one is left "holding the bag". There will need to be tweaks to ensure the health of the system...but it's certainly not a ponzi scheme.
Lawmakers, candidates and columnists who support cutting Social Security benefits and/or privatizing the program often claim that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme.” The history and facts about Ponzi schemes demonstrate that...
well we probably agree...it's not nefarious or secret but it's the same format as a ponzi scheme....that you put money in...your money goes to someone else....then when you want money out of the scheme it comes from someone else, not from your 'account.'
that's just what it is, and it's the same as a ponzi scheme. It's transparent but I still suspect c. half of recipients think they have an 'account' at SS with all the money they've put in for years. They don't.
2. I don't plan to depend on my SS for retirement. It would be a nice additional income, no matter the amount.
3. I don't have to make any decision on when to start collecting my SS. I won't even have to make a decision when I retire. The only decision I will have to make is whether to start collecting SS right away or not. I won't have to decide whether to wait for one year, two years, or five years.
The life expectancy of a person born in the US in 1935 was 62 years. When Social Security was created the intended recipients were those over 65. It was never intended to be a retirement plan.
There were over 30 workers for every recipient in 1935. Today there's about 3 workers for every recipient.
Like all Democrat ideas Social Security was a poorly thought out disaster that only made the problem it was supposed to fix worse.
Social Security was a vote buying Ponzi scheme.
SS is one of the most successful government programs of all time. Before it, oldsters lived in poverty or moved in with their kids. Now every adult who worked or was married to a worker has a safe annuity.
Relying on Americans to save for themselves via a privatized SS system is a laughably comic plan. They wouldn't save, they would invest poorly, they would mess it up. Having an idiot-proof system you can't opt out of is why SS works and is so popular.
That said, like any program, it needs tweaks. We do need to keep bumping up the retirement age, take off the cap and tighten up the disability benefits (which are often abused).
It's been a disaster from day one. The very first person to draw Social Security paid about $20 into the system and got paid over $20,000 in benefits. That's not "success" that's government waste on full display.
People would be better off putting the money in their mattress than letting the government steal it and give it to someone else with the promise that you might get 100% of your investment back if you live long enough.
well we probably agree...it's not nefarious or secret but it's the same format as a ponzi scheme....that you put money in...your money goes to someone else....then when you want money out of the scheme it comes from someone else, not from your 'account.'
that's just what it is, and it's the same as a ponzi scheme. It's transparent but I still suspect c. half of recipients think they have an 'account' at SS with all the money they've put in for years. They don't.
The fact it bears some structural similarities does not change the fact that it is fundamentally different. Why you feel the need to co-opt the rhetoric of people who want to eliminate the program is beyond me. A ponzi scheme is a scam. Social security is not. It is not going to suddenly run dry unless Republicans get their way and start stealing it from us. (In which case, yes, it would start to resemble a ponzi scheme.)
We've known for decades that SS expenditures were gradually going to increase because the share of the population receiving benefits would increase as boomers retire. Most people take social security at 62. People who are already unemployed. People who have spent decades working physically demanding jobs. When you say we need to raise the retirement age, you are literally arguing for taking away earned, promised benefits. The idea that this is necessary because the program is "unsustainable" is bogus. The program is perfectly sustainable with a few common sense tweaks. Even if no changes are made, the program will still keep paying benefits, just at a slightly reduced rate.
well we probably agree...it's not nefarious or secret but it's the same format as a ponzi scheme....that you put money in...your money goes to someone else....then when you want money out of the scheme it comes from someone else, not from your 'account.'
that's just what it is, and it's the same as a ponzi scheme. It's transparent but I still suspect c. half of recipients think they have an 'account' at SS with all the money they've put in for years. They don't.
The fact it bears some structural similarities does not change the fact that it is fundamentally different. Why you feel the need to co-opt the rhetoric of people who want to eliminate the program is beyond me. A ponzi scheme is a scam. Social security is not. It is not going to suddenly run dry unless Republicans get their way and start stealing it from us. (In which case, yes, it would start to resemble a ponzi scheme.)
We've known for decades that SS expenditures were gradually going to increase because the share of the population receiving benefits would increase as boomers retire. Most people take social security at 62. People who are already unemployed. People who have spent decades working physically demanding jobs. When you say we need to raise the retirement age, you are literally arguing for taking away earned, promised benefits. The idea that this is necessary because the program is "unsustainable" is bogus. The program is perfectly sustainable with a few common sense tweaks. Even if no changes are made, the program will still keep paying benefits, just at a slightly reduced rate.
A ponzi scheme promises a benefit by rewarding the early investors and then screwing the people that come after.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.