Majority of American Seniors Would Live in Poverty if Not For Social Security

They may have, but there weren't many options other than living paycheck to paycheck when you're handicapped and have barely a 6th grade education as the result of her being in and out of hospitals with a dislocated leg (grew inside of her until a surgeon saw her at the age of 17 and operated at no cost to my grandmother).
 

rkunsaw said:
Even the highest rate of 14.6% and 6.5 million is far from a majority. Social security is part of ones retirement plan. Without social security most people would adjust their plans accordingly.
Click to expand...

This statement would indicate most ss recipients COULD "adjust" their "plans" at all. I know many who could only "adjust" their plan by discontinuing to live in shelter and eat meals. You obviously haven't experienced the high medical bills many of us have. Years ago everyone didn't have the funds to attend college so they took jobs at much lower pay than the lucky few who had degrees. Put it all together and it spells disaster to elderly who are not the haves but rather the have-nots.

 
AZ Jim said:
This statement would indicate most ss recipients COULD "adjust" their "plans" at all. I know many who could only "adjust" their plan by discontinuing to live in shelter and eat meals. You obviously haven't experienced the high medical bills many of us have. Years ago everyone didn't have the funds to attend college so they took jobs at much lower pay than the lucky few who had degrees. Put it all together and it spells disaster to elderly who are not the haves but rather the have-nots.

Click to expand...

But they pay the tax on social security out of every paycheck. If there was no social security they could put that same amount in savings and still have the same amount to live on.

There are other programs to help people who have disabilities or lose their jobs.
 
rkunsaw said:
But they pay the tax on social security out of every paycheck. If there was no social security they could put that same amount in savings and still have the same amount to live on.

There are other programs to help people who have disabilities or lose their jobs.
Click to expand...

Not true at all. You pay much less per month when you work than you collect when you retire. The unemployed do not get enough to live even modesty on. Disability covers only the disabled and if they paid into SS they have to live without disability income when eligible for SS. You are not in touch with the reality of the situation. Also the reason for forcing savings in the program is because we won't save voluntarily we are often overtaken by unexpected events and we pay them instead, etc. If SS did not exist, welfare rolls would swell and YOU and I would pay THAT bill.
 
I disagree Jim. there have been retired people since long before there was such a thing as social security. Some people saved for retirement, some didn't. No matter what their income while working, those that saved for retirement were better off than those that didn't.

If you worked and paid into social and become disabled you can draw your full social security amount without having to reach any certain age.
 
rkunsaw said:
I disagree Jim. there have been retired people since long before there was such a thing as social security. Some people saved for retirement, some didn't. No matter what their income while working, those that saved for retirement were better off than those that didn't.

If you worked and paid into social and become disabled you can draw your full social security amount without having to reach any certain age.
Click to expand...

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I respect that idea. Here is an explanation of the disability question. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-security-disability-benefits-29686.html I won't further debate the issue. Have a great day.
 
The situation in the UK is in some ways similar, and subject to a lot of debate. I assume that your Social Security is similar to our State retirement pension which is calculated on the number of years contribution a person has made. It is paid at 65 years, though this is rising. The full amount is just less than £6k pa ($10k) for a single person. The majority of people have some sort of company pension and/or savings for retirement, but some have litle or nothing and rely on the state pension (plus other benefits).

The argument comes about when some people claim that the government is heartless and unsympathetic to the low paid who are unable to save for their later years. This is countered by those who have saved, but now get a lousy return on their savings and are denied any other benefits because they have savings. The attitude seems to be that if you have money, you should shut up, look after yourself and let the government 'screw' you. Being successful in Britain is almost looked on as a crime.
 
I first started paying into SS as a 16 yr old camp counselor & between then & now & still am in my seasonal tax prep job. So in that 60 yrs there were only about 7 that I didn't contribute due to full time child rearing. I was in 2 pension plans, first for 17 years at a catholic Hosp that closed due to giving away too much free care, next at a university hospital for 7 years where they downsized my masters level job to an associates degree after I created all the procedures. Luckily both got rolled over to an IRA, which I also felt was a good program & put into that when I didn't have pension. XH frittered away all of his $ & some of mine before I wised up. What angers & sickens me is some private & public employers wanting to cut benefits to those retirees already receiving them! Serious breech of contract IMO. Seems like I always had to rely on myself & still do.
 
rkunsaw said:
The traditional company pension is all but gone but most companies offer 401k plans now which is better for both the company and the employee.
Click to expand...

The 401K program is one of the very few things the government has done in recent decades that is of benefit to the working people. I just wish this plan had been around for all my working years. I will be surprised if any companies are still offering defined pension plans in another few years....probably the only ones who will still have formal pension plans will be union members and public employees.
 
Don M. said:
The 401K program is one of the very few things the government has done in recent decades that is of benefit to the working people. I just wish this plan had been around for all my working years. I will be surprised if any companies are still offering defined pension plans in another few years....probably the only ones who will still have formal pension plans will be union members and public employees.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you think that the 401K plans are so wonderful.. They certainly are not better than the traditional pensions most companies used to offer. All 401Ks have done is to shift the risk of market fluctuation away from the Corporation to the individual retiree.. Companies were happy to be able to stop funding pensions and contribute a pittance to someone's 401K. Most times companies only match funds on a very small percentage of the employee's contribution.. They have NO risk, and your entire retirement savings is at the mercy of the Market. Pension amounts were guaranteed and the company assumed the risk.
 
The 401K offers an individual the "opportunity" to save for their retirement, and can be a very valuable means of providing extra income....but, ONLY if a person is wise enough to take advantage of such plans. I have an excellent pension, the wife and I both get SS, AND I have monthly payments coming in from my IRA, which are larger than either the pension or SS. I have been drawing out of the IRA for over 12 years, and with this latest stock market uptick, I have more money in my IRA than when I started pulling out of that fund. Over the years, I have self managed the IRA such that my annual return is in the 8% range, with only minor losses during downturns. On balance, a good IRA, with the funds properly allocated, can make a huge difference between just getting by in retirement, or living quite decently.

IMO, anyone who is working, and NOT taking advantage of a 401k is leaving a LOT of money on the table. A person doesn't need to put a whole lot aside each month....the secret is investing properly, monitoring it closely, and NOT touching it until retired. Compounding will take care of the rest.
 
I have been drawing Social Security for 18 years and the amount covers more than 100% of my fixed monthly costs. How about you? If you are now drawing SS, what percentage of your fixed monthly costs does it take care of?
 
SS quite easily covers our monthly groceries, and utilities, and routine expenses, etc. The IRA covers our extra activities....meals out, vacations, casino hopping, and general fun stuff. The pension stays in the bank, and if we need to buy a new car, or a major appliance shoots craps, or heaven forbid, we have some major medical expense, we will use that money.
 
Our only income is company pensions and social security. It's not a lot but our house, car, and truck, are all paid for. Our expenses are low and most months we can put $1,000 in our investments. We realize that while we have plenty now our investments and equity may not last too long if either of us should need to be in a nursing home, so we save as much as we can, but still don't deprive ourselves of a quality life.
 
I'm one of those workers and savers... Always have lived well beneath my means and socked money away for a rainy day. I am well set for retirement.. BUT even still, SS does figure into my budget and my retirement plan. If there no longer were SS, I would not starve or be out on the street, but my "Golden years" would become a struggle and a constant worry. WHY... after all those years of being frugal and saving and planning should I have to be penalized for my good fortune? I have paid into SS every week for 40 years. AND I should collect it.

That said, I am not breaking my arm patting myself on the back. I am where I am not only because of my hard work, but also the luck of the draw. I have been lucky enough to have excellent health.. which enabled me to work.. My kids were healthy... and I was fortunate enough to have the means and ability to obtain a degree in Nursing. Sure I worked for it, but I am not egotistical enough to believe that my good fortune did not enable me to quit my job to get my degree. I also had an affordable community college near by. Not everyone has the ability or means, OR health, to sock away the money for a rainy day.
 
Life, for most people is an endless application of "Murphy's Law"...which says "If Something Can Go Wrong, It Probably Will". Knowing that, we have always tried to plan for the worst, and be grateful if it doesn't happen. With increasing Longevity, Long Term Care is a real concern for most Seniors. Towards that end, we took out a Long Term Care policy about 20 years ago. The cost of In Home care, or a reputable Senior care facility can be quite large, so hopefully, if/when our time comes, we won't have to go broke paying for it. More and more people are having to rely on things like Reverse Mortgages, and draining their life's savings in their final years...or moving in with their kids. The "Golden Years" for so many, are starting to resemble Tarnished Brass.
 
God bless those wonderful people helping the poor in a very real way. We are supposed to love and help one another. This world will never survive unless we do. I am one of those people way below the poverty level and I am 81. I thank God for the wonderful church food banks and all those with loving, caring hearts who go out of their way to help and feed the homeless and those in need. Dear people, look around at the old folk. They are too proud to tell you they have no food. Help wherever you can and God will bless you and bring good fortune your way because Jesus says "whatsoever you do for the least of these, you do it unto me". Continue the good work it is so worth it.....Blessings to all




god bles
 
Compulsory superannuation contributions by all employers and optional additional contributions by employees, with a taxation incentive for investing, is what is ensuring that Australian seniors can afford to retire in future decades. That, plus a means tested aged pension system to make sure no-one falls below the poverty line.
 
I can attest to the fact that it's NOT as easy to get AND keep government assistance as some think it is. When my son became homeless and jobless in 2014.. he did apply and get food stamps ($250 a month) and Medicaid. I may add he had 10 years in the US Military and received housing through the VA in a homeless veterans shelter. They also helped him get a job and stay sober. The very month after he became employed, with an income over $1200 a month, he was removed from the rolls.. He also was given 2 months to find his own apartment.. The State and Feds keep track of income and assets.. SO I really find stories of people with money, or undocumented people collecting government assistance for years and years very hard to swallow.
 
I just looked up what is considered the poverty level, and it is $11,770 or under for one person. You add $4,160 for each additional person in the household.

Just how do 'they' think that small amount is suppose to cover even the basics. Rent and utilities are generally more than that.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top