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

RambleTamble said:
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.
Click to expand...
Because private enterprises are subject to competition and consumer pressure, and government-run agencies aren't, I expect a privately owned and operated SS system would be more efficient and a lot more friendly.

Hasn't the government "run it into the ground"? They keep saying they have, though not with those exact words.
 
_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'm not sure where you were going either. My wife earned far less than me, consequently her benefit was smaller than mine. However, had she outlived me [which she did not] she could have applied for my benefit.

SSA
 
MACKTEXAS said:
I'm not sure where you were going either. My wife earned far less than me, consequently her benefit was smaller than mine. However, had she outlived me [which she did not] she could have applied for my benefit.

SSA
Click to expand...
You reminded me of where I was going. An unmarried woman who worked between the 50s and 2010s isn't likely to receive enough SS benefits to keep a roof over her head and groceries in the fridge. Far too many of them are homeless right now.

I know 2 women who married not long before retiring from their jobs mainly because of social security. Wait...more accurately, mainly because of the income gap.
 
_Apple_ said:
You reminded me of where I was going. An unmarried woman who worked between the 50s and 2010s isn't likely to receive enough SS benefits to keep a roof over her head and groceries in the fridge. Far too many of them are homeless right now.

I know 2 women who married not long before retiring from their jobs mainly because of social security. Wait...more accurately, mainly because of the income gap.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's sadly true, since the benefit is based on what was paid into the system during their working years. They will not likely have enough money in savings to offset the shortfall from SSA. I strongly believe in saving for retirement, while at the same time recognizing that there are people not earning enough to do so.
 
StarSong said:
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.
Click to expand...
I certainly hope you are right Star! It will be interesting indeed to see how this plays out. It's good that you and your husband are able to still work, continue to contribute to your nest egg and manage your RMDs the way you do. I've been retired for 28 years, yet still continued to fund my retirement nest egg.

Because I had the presence of mind to ignore "experts" about who should convert to a Roth, I did a conversion a couple of decades ago. One of the best financial moves I ever made. Since a good portion of my investments are in that account and since I've been sending my RMD distributions to a qualified charitable organization (St. Jude) for the last six years, those distributions are also tax free, Therefore, I pay very little in taxes on my investments.
 
I believe SS will certainly have cuts in the future. I'd be financially OK if it was cut but will certainly feel cheated not receiving the benefit I expect, I did my part paying in all these years so expect the government to hold up their end of the deal.

When the cuts happen I would hope us seniors are given some tax breaks to make up for the shortfall. Maybe no tax on our retirement account withdraws, especially when we hit RMD age. Or how about making SS benefits tax free for both state and federal regardless of other earnings, that way SS recipients don't have to be watching earned income trying to avoid tax levels or Medicare premium increases.
 
I'll probably get in trouble for this...

Social security is controlled by the US government, Congress makes any changes or amendments. So this could be classified as political?

The post about gun control laws in Canada was deleted. Again, politicians make any changes or amendments to gun laws.
In either case we are not talking about Democrats vs Republicans or other political beliefs. Both topics are about changes with consequences that directly affect many individuals.

I guess I'm a dumbass because I fail to see the difference. If either thread became hostile I could see the need for intervention.

I can see where this post could be viewed as hostile, but that is not my intent. So based on consistent forum policy maybe this thread should be deleted?
 
outlander said:
I can see where this post could be viewed as hostile, but that is not my intent. So based on consistent forum policy maybe this thread should be deleted?
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, you mentioned in the gun control thread that it was apt to be deleted as being political.

Before even posting it, you knew gun control was controversial, the YouTube presentation itself was controversial, and that the thread may have overstepped the line.

Political threads here are often similar to Supreme Court Jusice Potter Stewart's description of hard core pornography in a 1st Amendment decision regarding obscene material. "I shall not today attempt to further define (hard care pornography)... but I know it when I see it."
 
@StarSong

The line needs to be clarified and consistent. It is biased considering the many other threads that have a political flavor.

For example in my family and circle of friends the Social Security Administration's policies are highly controversial.
 
Last edited:
Please this thread with whataboutisms because of an inexact line between what is and isn't political discussion. The category for that question is: Forum Support & Suggestions. Or you can contact Matrix directly in a PM.

In his post defining politics, Matrix said, "Politics is not allowed on this forum, political posts and threads that easily lead to political debate will be edited, removed or locked without notice. Members who continually violate this rule may have their accounts terminated without notice."
 
RambleTamble said:
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.
Click to expand...
I've noticed you're not a big fan of capitalism...too bad but I really like your comments on many subjects and often agree with you.
 
Lara said:
Our government is far from broke. But disagreements over releasing the money being held from necessities is an issue, like TSA funding and Homeland Security funding. Meanwhile I'm quite sure Social Security will be protected under the current administration.
Click to expand...
Er, we are $40 trillion in debt. We have no prospect for getting out of debt. Debt service is about $1 trillion a year. And we are adding to that debt at about $1.5 trillion a year.

To me, that's broke. If we were a household, a company, a state or a city we would be bankrupt.
 
Irishdude said:
I've noticed you're not a big fan of capitalism...too bad but I really like your comments on many subjects and often agree with you.
Click to expand...
No, actually I'm a big fan of capitalism, but capitalism will never work for Social Security. It will destroy it, just like it destroyed our healthcare system.

Capitalism requires competition to work effectively, but deregulation and lack of antitrust law enforcement has all but eliminated competition in many realms of our economy. Our system has been totally corrupted by big money influence on policy, and I don't see anything indicating that same thing won't happen to SS if it gets privatized.

Social Security is a pretty well run program. It just needs a little tweaking to keep it solvent, but there are those who want to profit from it as apposed to keeping it solvent, and they're the ones who want to privatize it. They don't have any intention of allowing it to continue as a safety net.
 
RambleTamble said:
No, actually I'm a big fan of capitalism, but capitalism will never work for Social Security. It will destroy it, just like it destroyed our healthcare system.

Capitalism requires competition to work effectively, but deregulation and lack of antitrust law enforcement has all but eliminated competition in many realms of our economy. Our system has been totally corrupted by big money influence on policy, and I don't see anything indicating that same thing won't happen to SS if it gets privatized.

Social Security is a pretty well run program. It just needs a little tweaking to keep it solvent, but there are those who want to profit from it as apposed to keeping it solvent, and they're the ones who want to privatize it. They don't have any intention of allowing it to continue as a safety net.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree at all. Thank you RT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top