Social Security benefits when we retire

Eliot Rosewater

Who here thinks that social security benefits will be available when they retire? Most of us are far from retirement so this means 20-30 years from now. Those who don't think they'll be available - What would you do to fix the system?

Ahnimus

don't gimme no wrote:

Who here thinks that social security benefits will be available when they retire? Most of us are far from retirement so this means 20-30 years from now. Those who don't think they'll be available - What would you do to fix the system?

Well, it's kind of sad, I got my pay stub right here, hold on...

I paid $53.11 into the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) this pay alone.

Supposing I work until I am 65 and I started working when I was 18.

I will have paid nearly $60,000 into CPP by the time I retire. It won't be there when I retire. I also paid $22.58 to Employment Insurance and $206.47 in Federal Income Tax.

To fix it, I would get rid of programs like mother's allowance, disability for lazy people, etc... I'd make natives pay tax of some sort.

I don't know what you gotta do in the states though. I guess none of this really applies down there.

Commy

don't gimme no wrote:

Who here thinks that social security benefits will be available when they retire? Most of us are far from retirement so this means 20-30 years from now. Those who don't think they'll be available - What would you do to fix the system?

Bush: "By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt."

In what the BBC calls "highly unusual," a State of the Union Speech was interrupted by a chorus of "No's," booing, and heckles from some of the members of Congress in attendance. This happened immediately after the above Bush lie. As Shields mentioned on the PBS wrap-up, and as Brooks concurred, if adjustments are not made, by 2042, as they have been made before, 3/4 of the funds promised would still be available. The entire system would neither be exhausted nor bankrupt. -- Politex, 02.03.05

Eliot Rosewater

Commy wrote:

Bush: "By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt."

In what the BBC calls "highly unusual," a State of the Union Speech was interrupted by a chorus of "No's," booing, and heckles from some of the members of Congress in attendance. This happened immediately after the above Bush lie. As Shields mentioned on the PBS wrap-up, and as Brooks concurred, if adjustments are not made, by 2042, as they have been made before, 3/4 of the funds promised would still be available. The entire system would neither be exhausted nor bankrupt. -- Politex, 02.03.05

got a link for that?

Commy

don't gimme no wrote:

got a link for that?

http://www.bushwatch.net/bushlies.htm

Eliot Rosewater

Commy wrote:

http://www.bushwatch.net/bushlies.htm

Thanks, what about this PBS wrap-up you mentioned? I just want to see something more credible....Shields and Brooks....didn't she once marry Andre Agassi? No, but really, by chance do you have more information than just that link because it doesn't seem to back up it's claim too well?

The Illinoisemakers

Start taking the matter into your own hands. That's what I'm doing. Start putting away a little money every month to invest in your retirement. With Bush not getting anywhere on his social security reform and Congress' lack of attention towards the problem, I'm not going to bank on them taking care of me. This is only my little personal approach towards the problem. On a larger scale, I think personal savings accounts are a good idea. The money you earned during your life should be your money when you get older and need it. It's more a matter of how to transition from the old system to a new one and keep people from falling through the cracks.

Eliot Rosewater

The Illinoisemakers wrote:

Start taking the matter into your own hands. That's what I'm doing. Start putting away a little money every month to invest in your retirement. With Bush not getting anywhere on his social security reform and Congress' lack of attention towards the problem, I'm not going to bank on them taking care of me. This is only my little personal approach towards the problem. On a larger scale, I think personal savings accounts are a good idea. The money you earned during your life should be your money when you get older and need it. It's more a matter of how to transition from the old system to a new one and keep people from falling through the cracks.

I agree with you, but I don't think social security is a hopeless cause. What are some suggestions to fix it?

Commy

don't gimme no wrote:

Thanks, what about this PBS wrap-up you mentioned? I just want to see something more credible....Shields and Brooks....didn't she once marry Andre Agassi? No, but really, by chance do you have more information than just that link because it doesn't seem to back up it's claim too well?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005312.php

know1

I see a lot of grey areas in a lot of topics, but this Social Security deal is the biggest scam ever. Anyone who believes it shouldn't be modified or even completely done away with is not thinking straight.

At this point, it is NOT Social Security. It's just another tax - i.e. money that is taken from us that we'll never see.

And yes, I'm not counting on one penny of it when I retire. If I get anything, it will be a bonus.

RainDog

know1 wrote:

I see a lot of grey areas in a lot of topics, but this Social Security deal is the biggest scam ever. Anyone who believes it shouldn't be modified or even completely done away with is not thinking straight.

At this point, it is NOT Social Security. It's just another tax - i.e. money that is taken from us that we'll never see.

And yes, I'm not counting on one penny of it when I retire. If I get anything, it will be a bonus.

Funny that. I'll have to let my grandparents know that the money they've been receiving isn't in fact Social Security. That the money they paid into the system was all stolen from them, and that these checks must be coming from somewhere else.

Social Security has been modified before, and if necessary can be modified again. However, it is not the massive failure those on the right like to make it out to be. You will be getting a few pennies from it, know, don't worry.

monkey spanker

i am a middle class factory worker that pays about $73 a week into social security. and its not going to be there when i retire, if it is..i will get a NEGATIVE return on my investment. i am, of course, saving for my own retirement so its not a huge deal. i know that i am sipmly paying a $73 a week tax for peple that won't save. people need to quit relying on the gov't for everything.

sliverstain

monkey spanker wrote:

i am a middle class factory worker that pays about $73 a week into social security. and its not going to be there when i retire, if it is..i will get a NEGATIVE return on my investment. i am, of course, saving for my own retirement so its not a huge deal. i know that i am sipmly paying a $73 a week tax for peple that won't save. people need to quit relying on the gov't for everything.

No, were paying a tax to a goverment that blows it all on war and tax cuts for those who do not need it.

Oh, btw, how can a factory worker be middle class? Seems like an oxymoron to me!

And, too, if people could rely on goverment to stand up to big business who take the blue collar jobs to countries and their EPZ zones, if it would tax those bastard multinationals like they should, then maybe everyone would have a job at a decent, living wage, and those people that do, would have no need to go on welfare.

Eliot Rosewater

For those of you who believe we won't have benefits when we retire, I'm looking for possible solutions. If anyone can offer their suggestions I'd appreciate it.

farfromglorified

don't gimme no wrote:

For those of you who believe we won't have benefits when we retire, I'm looking for possible solutions. If anyone can offer their suggestions I'd appreciate it.

Here's a possible solution: stop stealing the money in the first place.

There are tens of thousands of my dollars sitting in a government trust fund somewhere earning 2% interest until someone else decides to steal it. If I had been permitted to keep that money, I certainly would have no one to blame but myself if I "don't have benefits when I retire".

thankyougrandma

I recently received a nice paper from the Quebec govt. showing me how much money i currently have for my retirement through govt. social security programs, i loved it, i might retire at 45 (only i won't see that money before 65 i think)...

JOEJOEJOE

don't gimme no wrote:

For those of you who believe we won't have benefits when we retire, I'm looking for possible solutions. If anyone can offer their suggestions I'd appreciate it.

To the best of your ability, max-out your 401K...that will save you money on current year taxes, and hoepfully, your employer will match a portion.

Also, a Roth IRA is a great bargain......the distributions your receive when you retire will be tax free.

If you do have a 401K, etc, take an active role in managing your investements.

moeaholic

i'm in my mid 30's and haven't counted on social security being around for me since i got out of high school. 401k, man. find a company that matches 100% up to a certain percentage you put in, then put in that percentage.

Eliot Rosewater

I appreciate all who have posted on this thread. However, I'm writing an essay on this and was hoping for a bit more input. I agree that one shouldn't count on social security benefits. I do have a 401k and I invest as much as possible into it every single payday. I manage the investments myself and hope I'm making sound decisions.

But...there are people who will need social security or something similar. Inevitably certain people need financial benefits, especially when we live in such a rich/poor society where trends suggest it's only getting richer and poorer. I find some sort of social security program imperative to maintain some sort of social responsibility.

So....I guess this isn't an individual thing, like everyone has been thinking. I'm thinking larger than just me or you, but the nation as a whole. Something is needed. Not everyone has a 401k. Some people will need help when they're older. Can anyone please offer their opinion on how to make this a possibility? Even if it's just sticking with what we've got....I dunno. I know that I respect a lot of you guys and I know that many of you are incredibly intelligent, that's why I'm asking this question here. I'm glad the train is up and running so we can talk about this some more.

farfromglorified

don't gimme no wrote:

I appreciate all who have posted on this thread. However, I'm writing an essay on this and was hoping for a bit more input. I agree that one shouldn't count on social security benefits. I do have a 401k and I invest as much as possible into it every single payday. I manage the investments myself and hope I'm making sound decisions.

But...there are people who will need social security or something similar. Inevitably certain people need financial benefits, especially when we live in such a rich/poor society where trends suggest it's only getting richer and poorer. I find some sort of social security program imperative to maintain some sort of social responsibility.

So....I guess this isn't an individual thing, like everyone has been thinking. I'm thinking larger than just me or you, but the nation as a whole. Something is needed. Not everyone has a 401k. Some people will need help when they're older. Can anyone please offer their opinion on how to make this a possibility? Even if it's just sticking with what we've got....I dunno. I know that I respect a lot of you guys and I know that many of you are incredibly intelligent, that's why I'm asking this question here. I'm glad the train is up and running so we can talk about this some more.

Your entire message here seems to imply that just because "some people" will "need financial benefits" it becomes the responsibility of other people to provide those benefits. You appear to refer to this as "some sort of social responsibility".

Let me ask you this: what about the "social responsibility" of those in need? Theoretically speaking, the person you're demanding provide the financial benefit has already provided much to society if his/her money was earned honestly by trading with other members of society for mutual benefit. However, I see no evidence that your person in need has provided any comparable benefit to society. Or does "social responsibility" only apply to someone who is rich?

Eliot Rosewater

farfromglorified wrote:

Your entire message here seems to imply that just because "some people" will "need financial benefits" it becomes the responsibility of other people to provide those benefits. You appear to refer to this as "some sort of social responsibility".

Let me ask you this: what about the "social responsibility" of those in need? Theoretically speaking, the person you're demanding provide the financial benefit has already provided much to society if his/her money was earned honestly by trading with other members of society for mutual benefit. However, I see no evidence that your person in need has provided any comparable benefit to society. Or does "social responsibility" only apply to someone who is rich?

Absolutely not. Social responsibility applies to everyone. *But* it's my belief that as this country is becoming more and more split between rich and poor that the financial aspect of social responsibilty is weighing on the rich. I'm not saying that's perfect, I'm not saying it's how it needs to be. I'm saying that's my belief. A couple of weeks ago I may argue this point more, but in light of recent forum closures I'm gonna try to stick to the topic. I'm not here to argue whether or not it's seen as a social responsibility, but rather looking for solutions to what some consider a problem with social security.