How long do you think Social Security will last in your country?

Bretrick

Bretrick

SF VIP
Location
Perth Western Australia
With immigration, so many people moving to countries, with businesses reducing their workforce, with the advent of AI taking over so many jobs, the tax base is being reduced.
Surely there will come a day when major changes will be needed.
Means testing? A threshold set, anyone with more than the threshold will not receive Social Security.
I think I will be okay, not enough net worth to not receive it.
Low income/savings people will/should be okay. Though we never really know the future.
Politicians listen to advisors and it is those people that hold our future in their hands.
Will you be okay if, down the track, social security was greatly curtailed or even removed?
 
Last edited:
I can't control it so I just hope it at least lasts till I am gone. I paid into it from
16 years old, I paid my share. My worries end there in this world.
Shocking I know, but it's the truth. When I needed help when my kids were young I was
told my husband had to move out for us to get help. We did we had to to keep our family together.
It wasn't pleasant and it wasn't easy but we did it, with no help.
 
Niceguy said:
We have a few options. Remove the ceiling based on income so high income earners pay for the entire year. Or increase the % everyone pays from their gross income
Click to expand...
While I know how hard many high earners work and how many extra hours they work far beyond 40 hours and other niceties of life that they have given up to get where they are ... they could pay a little more. But at the same time government fraud and waste should be dealt with severely including seizure of assets and investments of guilty people that get caught.
 
I have a job and can always just keep working if they cancel it, which I doubt, but they already want to put the retire age at 70 now.

In Belgium they had that if someone loses their job you get money and here it's 2 years max, but there it was just always. So for instance a man got sick. His wife took care of him and they got money and he has a nice hobby with birds, nice house. And now all of a sudden they changed it and the ones who haven't worked for 20 years get no money anymore and they say: Go work.
 
Lawrence00 said:
But at the same time government fraud and waste should be dealt with severely including seizure of assets and investments of guilty people that get caught.
Click to expand...
I agree. I have been saying this for decades. When wrongdoing occurs by politicians and civil servants, when found guilty, they should be stripped of all their assets and receive a custodial sentence not less than 5 years without parole.
 
Last century we had a forward thinking government that addressed the need to help people to provide for their retirement so that our social security system would not be overwhelmed when the boomers reached retirement age.

It was a compulsory superannuation investment scheme whereby employers contributed a percentage of workers' wages into retirement funds that could not be accessed until the age of 65. The scheme was introduced in stages, starting out at 3% of the worker's pay, but an extra cost on the employer. The plan was to incrementally raise the employers' contribution to 15%. We still haven't quite reached that figure but we are close.

Employees could also add to their superannuation account. In my case I was able to add money we had when we sold a home unit that was our major investment before compulsory superannuation was legislated.

I've been drawing down on my super account for a couple of decades and I also qualify for a part government pension. I have a comfortable life, but my assets are dwindling over time. That is how it is supposed to work. While I can, I live mainly on my superannuation retirement fund, and later on it will be the old age pension that sustains me.
 
Social Security in some form will survive.

I welcome anyone from anywhere in the world to come work and pay into the Social Security system.

I believe that the earnings cap should be removed while maintaining the maximum benefit cap.

Removing the earnings cap is a good idea and can be good for more average earners who could pay in a larger amount during high income years and less during low income years to provide a better earnings record and ultimately higher benefit at retirement.

I’m opposed to implementing means testing for people already on Social Security because it’s simply not the deal that we agreed to during our working years when we were paying into the program.

I will be fine, with the time I have left, if benefits are reduced or eliminated but I will never consider it to be a fair option to me and millions of others that paid into the system in good faith.

We need more statesmen in Washington and fewer politicians, people who are not afraid to balance the budget and right size the government without fear or concern over their own political future.
 
That's a good question B. As @Aunt Bea said, it probably will survive indefinitely, but it will have to be with reduced benefits. That first reduction in benefits which originally forecast to start in 2034 has now been predicted to start in 2032. According to which article one reads, it will either be a 23% or 24% reduction across the board. There have been members on the forum who refuse to believe it (or think it won't affect those of us who are already getting SS, but it is bound to happen for the reasons you cited B. Here's the article...keep scrolling beyond the bank advertisements.
https://money.usnews.com/money/reti...rity-cut-could-impact-your-retirement-in-2032
 
The problem is our government spends way too much money. Politicians are paid too much and get outrageous benefits. We are spending obscene amounts on military actions. Bureaucracy is rampant despite Trump's best efforts. Our government (USA) is broken and broke.

Plain and simple, we cannot afford these things. Government spending is not sustainable and taking away from social security and other public aid and programs is not going to fix anything.

The whole mess is despicable and based on greed and stupidity:(
 
When I was in the middle of my working years (age 35-40) my thought was that people should save enough to survive retirement with or without Social Security, since it's been in trouble for decades and has an uncertain future. For many, saving like that was possible in those years. I'm not at all sure the same is possible for most 40 year olds in today's workplace. I see a future 20-30 years from now as a very dreary prospect for most retirees, or the few who are able to retire at all.
 
I have faith that younger generations will figure it out with about the same results that we have had during our lifetimes.

Things may look a bit different, more mass transit, more people renting than owning, less stuff, etc… but the fundamentals of retirement saving and investing won’t change.

Avoid consumer debt and start saving when you can least afford it, stick with it.

I know that it’s easy to say and hard to do but there is nothing complicated about it.
 
Lawrence00 said:
But at the same time government fraud and waste should be dealt with severely including seizure of assets and investments of guilty people that get caught.
Click to expand...
Fraud does need to be dealt with. It is amazing each day where more is uncovered.

fraudsters should not just have a judgement to repay......... that does not get collected.
but a real way to get money back including liens seizures and even garnishment of any income or assets.

The SS system was always a supplemental income in retirement. I fear by time i can collect in about 8 years it will be less in payout then the estimated amount SS shows.
 
I did an internet search, using this question...How long can the Canada Pension Plan continue to pay benefits to seniors ?
This was the answer....https://www.google.com/search?

\q=how+long+can+the+Canada+Pension+Plan+continue+to+make+payments+to+canadian+seniots+%3F&oq=how+long+can+the+Canada+Pension+Plan+continue+to+make+payments+to+canadian+seniots+%3F&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRiPAjIHCAIQIRiPAtIBCjYyOTc0ajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBee5rBnIKoCk&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The answer is....For a least 75 more years at the present rate of investment. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board OWNS billions of dollars worth of physical investments, around the world. Some examples are, a Railway Corporation in Australia, a world wide maritime shipping corporation, a corporation that builds fire fighting aircraft, rental apartment towers in Germany, Sweden, France and Holland. Unlike the US Social Security program, the Canadian Pension Plan is not tied to government bonds or treasury bills.

In 2024, the Canada Pension Plan investment board returned a net profit of 8 percent. It has net assets of $623Billion , and $46 Billion in net gains. JIMB>
 
US Social Security is supposed to be protected (from depletion, gov't shutdowns, etc.) because it is administered through a special account. I read this recently online but I haven't researched it. I wouldn't bother because nothing in this world is 100% reliable.

My check has never been stopped or reduced by any gov't occurrence since I started drawing 7 yrs ago. Don't know if it will always be so. I agree that at any age we should work towards saving and developing ways to support ourselves in addition to or w/o SS.

You asked, Will you be okay if, down the track, social security was greatly curtailed or even removed? Like I have done throughout my life, I'll find a way to make it. I'm stronger in my faith today than I've ever been too.
 
Last edited:
The SS system will be restructured but it isn't going anywhere for a long time.

I remember my grandfather, many years ago, sitting with his newspaper in front of him talking about how the nation was split on the Social Security Act, and how half of Americans felt like it was being crammed down their throats. Him included.

That has nothing to do with this thread, it just triggered that memory.
 
_Apple_ said:
The SS system will be restructured but it isn't going anywhere for a long time.

I remember my grandfather, many years ago, sitting with his newspaper in front of him talking about how the nation was split on the Social Security Act, and how half of Americans felt like it was being crammed down their throats. Him included.

That has nothing to do with this thread, it just triggered that memory.
Click to expand...
There were similar conversations around my grandmother’s table. She and a few of her friends took outside jobs just to make sure that they had their 20 quarters paid into the Social Security system. My grandmother worked as a clerk at National Grange Insurance for those five years.

In 1967 she lived comfortably on a Social Security benefit of $57.50 and a monthly annuity of $104.00.
 
MACKTEXAS said:
When I was in the middle of my working years (age 35-40) my thought was that people should save enough to survive retirement with or without Social Security, since it's been in trouble for decades and has an uncertain future. For many, saving like that was possible in those years. I'm not at all sure the same is possible for most 40 year olds in today's workplace. I see a future 20-30 years from now as a very dreary prospect for most retirees, or the few who are able to retire at all.
Click to expand...
I have saved for 30 years, because you just didn't get that income. But if they invest it and everything crashes it's gone.
 
MACKTEXAS said:
When I was in the middle of my working years (age 35-40) my thought was that people should save enough to survive retirement with or without Social Security, since it's been in trouble for decades and has an uncertain future. For many, saving like that was possible in those years. I'm not at all sure the same is possible for most 40 year olds in today's workplace. I see a future 20-30 years from now as a very dreary prospect for most retirees, or the few who are able to retire at all.
Click to expand...
When I was a working girl (don't take that the wrong way) the average woman earned about half what the average man earned. Women were rarely hired for high-paying positions and positions with great responsibility or that demanded a lot of her time because of children and pregnancy, whether she was single or not.

I forgot where I was going with this, so I'm just going to point that out.
 
OneEyedDiva said:
That's a good question B. As @Aunt Bea said, it probably will survive indefinitely, but it will have to be with reduced benefits. That first reduction in benefits which originally forecast to start in 2034 has now been predicted to start in 2032. According to which article one reads, it will either be a 23% or 24% reduction across the board. There have been members on the forum who refuse to believe it (or think it won't affect those of us who are already getting SS, but it is bound to happen for the reasons you cited B. Here's the article...keep scrolling beyond the bank advertisements.
https://money.usnews.com/money/reti...rity-cut-could-impact-your-retirement-in-2032
Click to expand...
I don't know how this will eventually play out, but believe there would be massive political repercussions if there were a 23% reduction for current SS recipients.

My guess is it will be a combination of a small cut (maybe 10%) for some, a dramatic raise in the earnings cap, a raise in the contribution percentages paid by current workers and employers, change in the percentage of benefits given to early filers, making SS benefits fully tax-free, and perhaps other adjustments, as well.

Look for America's Social Security to be heavily discussed in the 2028, 2030 and 2032 elections, presuming they aren't addressed before then.

The possibility of a dramatic reduction in SS benefits reminds me how fortunate DH & I are to still be working part-time at something we love doing. We continue bringing in earned income and padding our retirement accounts, even at age 73.

In December, I had to take my first IRA distribution, but because of my earned income I could plunk that same amount into a different IRA. While I paid taxes on the distribution, the contribution was tax deductible. It all evened out, tax-wise.
 
Last edited:
One of these days, SS will be privatized, and once that happens, its days are numbered. A few people will get filthy rich... or the plutocrats will increase their wealth by billions, which is the more likely scenario. They'll run it into the ground, laden it with massive debt, and then phase it out.
 
_Apple_ said:
When I was a working girl (don't take that the wrong way) the average woman earned about half what the average man earned. Women were rarely hired for high-paying positions and positions with great responsibility or that demanded a lot of her time because of children and pregnancy, whether she was single or not.

I forgot where I was going with this, so I'm just going to point that out.
Click to expand...
True for many. Also a fair share of women (myself included) had significant working gaps or periods of reduced earnings while raising children.

My SS check is about 55% of my husband's but that's also partly because I filed early (65), he received 50% spousal benefits against my check for four years, and we delayed drawing against his benefits until he reached 70.

It made sense to maximize the larger check. Presuming one of us survives the other, that spouse will continue receiving the the larger amount against his benefits.
 
_Apple_ said:
When I was a working girl (don't take that the wrong way) the average woman earned about half what the average man earned. Women were rarely hired for high-paying positions and positions with great responsibility or that demanded a lot of her time because of children and pregnancy, whether she was single or not.

I forgot where I was going with this, so I'm just going to point that out.
Click to expand...
I earn the least from the group of colleagues I work with, but I had loads of fun with my kids. One colleague, who earns a lot and has a very demanding job, said that he thought it was hard, combined with his young kids and the household.

I'm glad that I only worked part time and not some high position. In Holland most women don't want to work full time nor have a high position, so no wonder these men in full time high positions earn more.

Nowadays you have a choice. You can also get a full time career and a houseman, so I never understand why they complain.
After I divorced and was alone with 3 small kids I could pick and choose. Several guys wanted to be my houseman. You go work and I'll clean the house. These guys thought I earned a lot. 2000 a month now. Then 1500 or so.

I wanted to marry one cause my brain went on a holiday and I said: What do you cost? 400 a month. 400 a month???? Wow. That's expensive. I can't even afford a dog. So then I blew it off and we went to a ditch and caught a pond snail, cause he was for free and all I could afford at the time. Later threw him back lol.
 
The grim facts:

"71.6 million people received benefits from programs administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA) in 2023."
SOURCE-> SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
_________________________________________________________________________

". . . a large portion (40 percent) of older Americans rely only on Social Security income in retirement."
SOURCE-> NIRS
_________________________________________________________________________

"Only 7% of Retirees Have . . . income from Three Sources: Social Security, a Pension and Savings"
SOURCE (same link as above; scoll down . . . ) -> NIRS
_________________________________________________________________________

[Only] "22.1% of Americans have more than $100,000 saved."
SOURCE: AOL
[Just my personal note: Without a Social Security check, that $100,000 MAY last 3-4 years with very conservative living. It would be a sad joke to consider $100,000 in savings very much toward retirement without SSA to supplement it.]
_________________________________________________________________________
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top