What would you do? Please don't make this thread political, but it's something for all of us to ponder.
Social Security goes broke and can't be funded 7 years from now.
- Thread starter Peetz Pool Boy
- Start date
If someone had insufficient savings or pension, the only option would be to find a job. I don't say that to be a wise guy. There wouldn't be much else a person could do.
"Social Security Cannot Go Bankrupt" - Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2014/08/14/social-security-cannot-go-bankrupt/#121b8f367f85
SS can definitely go bankrupt. If the trust fund can't pay 100% of its obligations it would technically be bankrupt. Of course that's not likely because the govt could cut benefits, raise taxes, loan it money, or just give it money (print money).
I would raise tax threshold and lower COLAs but that's a sensitive issue. I would also clamp down on SS disability eligibility. That's grown out of control in recent years.
SS was always a Ponzi scheme. Now that the Baby Boomers are retiring, the scheme has been exposed. Bernie Madoff will spend the rest of his life in prison for doing was the U.S. government has been doing since the FDR administration.
well it doesn't help that the government has "borrowed" $2.7 trillion from the fund . . .
They raised the rates on us Boomers so we could pay for increased benefits back in 1983. That was supposed to be the fix. It lead to higher amounts in the SS trust fund, which they invested in US bonds. Had they not invested those excess funds, the cry would be that they let the money sit without gaining any interest. Seems like a no-win situation.
Next year's average COLA is $2.50/month. That will be offset by a larger increase in Medicare.
Next year's average COLA is $2.50/month. That will be offset by a larger increase in Medicare.
$2.50/month increase? $2.50 meant something back when I started paying into SS. For example, 25 ice cream sandwiches.
Let in more illegal aliens to pay into the system. Simple. Next question.
How does Forbes know more about financial stuff than the average internet wanker?
NO. SS went bankrupt 5 years ago, oops, 10 years ago, oops, 15 years ago, oops, 20 years ago, and so on.
I hope my point is made
That being said some changes should be made, means testing (scares a lot of seniors), SS collected for ALL income, gradually move the retirement age up. OK, ALL fixed, Next "problem".
BUT the BEST answer is BLOW UP CONGRESS (self serving a-holes).
That wouldn't help if illegals could also collect benefits from the system.
That's a down the road problem, which you again, fix, by letting in more illegal aliens.
there's really no hole in your plan, sir. there seems to be an endless supply of illegal aliens in the world, at least according to some party propaganda.
SS is already somewhat means tested in that benefits are excluded from AGO for lower incomes and mostly included for higher incomes.NO. SS went bankrupt 5 years ago, oops, 10 years ago, oops, 15 years ago, oops, 20 years ago, and so on.
I hope my point is made
That being said some changes should be made, means testing (scares a lot of seniors), SS collected for ALL income, gradually move the retirement age up. OK, ALL fixed, Next "problem".
BUT the BEST answer is BLOW UP CONGRESS (self serving a-holes).
There is a big disincentive to save for your own retirement if the government turns around and says you already have enough.
Do you think people should lose SS benefits if they have a nice government or union pension?
No, no, no. Any means testing would of course exclude any collectively bargained benefit.
So do the "business's" that HIRE illegals get a TAX right off ?? I'm sure things are GOOD for those that hire them !!!! Maybe THAT is the PROBLEM.
IF MEANS testing had a fair threshold THEN we would be on to something. But I do realize that is subjective and where to find fairness ? Congress ???????
It is so difficult for the poor to save at all. As for those with a little better income, sometimes it is a choice, especially for MElennials
(maybe saving should be mandated? another gain for "socialism"), especially for MElennials
IF MEANS testing had a fair threshold THEN we would be on to something. But I do realize that is subjective and where to find fairness ? Congress ???????
It is so difficult for the poor to save at all. As for those with a little better income, sometimes it is a choice, especially for MElennials
(maybe saving should be mandated? another gain for "socialism"), especially for MElennials
Are you advocating turning the retirement portion of SS into a forced 401k style plan as opposed to a pretty crappy annuity based on a ponzi style set up?
^^^^
This. Better to have our retirement money handled by the bungling, but more-or-less-accountable-to-the-voters Feds than the Wall Street types who, to put it mildly, do not have our best interests in mind.
Put politicians, judges and all bureaucrat leaches on SS instead of sucking blood from the taxpayers.
I think more gradual increase SS tax limits, which is now $118,500, there's no increase in 2016, and some means test. My two siblings, have income in retirement of about $100,000 and might take a reduced social security. However, withdrawal from 401k, should not be included in the means test. When they are forced to withdraw from the 401k, it may forced to withdraw $150-250,000 in additional income each year.
Hypothetically, I'd take my last check and by an AR-15. I'd then make multiple large contributions to the government's coffers via the estate tax.
It's burning at both ends, because while the baby boomers are adding large numbers to the ranks of the retired, the millennials who everyone is counting on to put money into the system are hit with a sluggish economy and huge college loan debts.
So a union pension is sacred but a guy that saves for his own retirement is screwed.
So you and I are the exact same age and over the years have earned the same exact dollars.....we contributed the same exact amount to Soc Security.
One of us saved well, invested well, lived prudently and is now filthy rich.
The other of us spent it all as it came in and never saved a single penny.
Sorry, there is no reason in hell the rich guy's benefit should be reduced in any way shape or form. Sorry, taxing some people's SS benefit and not others is just not right.....never has been.....never will be.
One of us saved well, invested well, lived prudently and is now filthy rich.
The other of us spent it all as it came in and never saved a single penny.
Sorry, there is no reason in hell the rich guy's benefit should be reduced in any way shape or form. Sorry, taxing some people's SS benefit and not others is just not right.....never has been.....never will be.
Thanks for pointing out the truth. Put the money back in that was stolen.
I would raise tax threshold and lower COLAs but that's a sensitive issue. I would also clamp down on SS disability eligibility.
No need to do that, the economy has plenty of slack that could be used to produce whatever is needed for SS recipients.
No. SS will be just fine, our economies productivity has increased enough that we can supply the baby boomers with the stuff they need in retirement along with everything needed by people working.
Well the federal can always pay back any debts owed in dollars. So that is not a problem.
The real problem is why did we collect 2.7 trillion dollars more from workers than was needed to fulfill the needs of retirees? That is just plain stupid, we removed purchasing power from workers for no reason at all.
NO. SS went bankrupt 5 years ago, oops, 10 years ago, oops, 15 years ago, oops, 20 years ago, and so on.
I hope my point is made
That being said some changes should be made, means testing (scares a lot of seniors), SS collected for ALL income, gradually move the retirement age up. OK, ALL fixed, Next "problem".
BUT the BEST answer is BLOW UP CONGRESS (self serving a-holes).
Why? SS just shifts real resources from workers to retirees. You want to free up more resources for retirees while simultaneously providing the them with less benefits. All that will do is increases unemployment and suffering for retirees.
We have millions of young people who want to work creating all kinds of "stuff". At the same time we have older people that should not have to work anymore that still need to consume "stuff". It's insanity to deny older people the stuff they need to live on while denying younger people jobs.
