It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Social "Security" - Will it be there for YOU ??

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tman2135
Right now we're about at 2 workers to fund 1 recipient. I'm 32, and I am pretty confident that by the time I am 45 we will be at 1 worker funding 1 recipient.

After that we will then see 1 worker funding 2 recipients and it will continue to expand in the wrong direction. That is the point at which the entire system is no longer sustainable.


Thanks! That's the ratio I was looking for.




posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I believe that your generation wants More. My generation wanted a guarantee. Many of our parents were born in the depression and the stories of old people eating dog food are very true.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: peter_kandra

Do the numbers count that old people and the disabled die.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
I saw this video earlier today. I'm going to put it here since it fits.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: peter_kandra

Do the numbers count that old people and the disabled die.



I'm not sure what you mean, but certainly the ratio of current workers per retiree gets updated periodically as benefit collectors pass away and new retirees start to collect, etc..
.
I listed a few suggestions that would at least increase the solvency of the SS trust fund for a few more years. None of them are extreme and have been floated around for years.

Just out of curiosity, how would you overhaul SS?



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: peter_kandra

I would not privatize it. If I believe in anything, I believe bankers could not resist using that money for their private benefits. I watched that video with Ron Paul and I like the idea of keeping it a separate account the lawmakers can't dip into.

ETA What I meant, the disabled do not live long lives usually and people still die regularly at about 69. If their numbers begin to outweigh healthy young workers, we have serious problems that are not being addressed.
edit on 2-12-2016 by MOMof3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: peter_kandra

I would not privatize it. If I believe in anything, I believe bankers could not resist using that money for their private benefits. I watched that video with Ron Paul and I like the idea of keeping it a separate account the lawmakers can't dip into.

ETA What I meant, the disabled do not live long lives usually and people still die regularly at about 69. If their numbers begin to outweigh healthy young workers, we have serious problems that are not being addressed.


Good point. I'm strictly talking about extending the retirement age for healthy people. Someone disabled prior to that age would be eligible for their benefits just like they are now.

I do like the idea of a separate account invested in US treasuries or something ultra safe, but I'd also like to couple that with being able to invest a portion of mine more aggressively in the market...maybe a max of 20% of the account value. Certain people may have a higher tolerance for risk.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: kosmicjack
Not sure it will be there but I have saved every check stub -ever - since my teens and keep track of my SS tax. If it's not there, I'm suing somebody.


Read the fine print... the money isn't there. Social security is not an investment vehicle like you putting money into your 401k that is solely yours and can be passed on to your heirs. The government takes your money and pays it to someone else. They hope that by the time you retire, they will have others money to confiscate to pay to you or that you die before the money they payout exceeds what you actually contributed.

In other words, it is a ponzi scheme. Any bank, fund manger, etc would be in jail. What do you think Bernie Madoff is in jail for?

The biggest problem with social security is that people are living much longer so they are drawing benefits far in excess of their contributions. It is simply unsustainable mathematically. This is also why most government pensions are also insolvent.

Real retirement planning has you contributing some amount of money up until retirement. That money is invested over the years and grows. This is why every financial planner tells you to start contributing / investing as soon as you can. At some point, you will have say contributed $500,000. However, over time, it may have grown to say $1.5 million due to good investment returns.

So now you have $1.5 million in the bank. This investment should be throwing off interest and dividend income that you live off... say if the your annual return is 10%, you can live off $150k or your can also draw down the principal balance. When you die, you can leave the money to your kids to give them a headstart in life or keep sustaining your spouse.

Some type of social retirement net is needed, but the current system is extremely flawed. The average person would be much better off if their money was not taken for social security and then actually invested on their behalf. The problem is so many progressives and much of the public is financially illiterate. This is why you always hear the cries about "privatizing" social security is bad....



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

I understand the good points of privatizing. My parents experienced the great depression. I experienced the great recession and many recessions. What laws are in place that would guarantee that the funds would not just "disappear" in the hands of private investors or bankers for the next retirees in 30 years?



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Edumakated

I understand the good points of privatizing. My parents experienced the great depression. I experienced the great recession and many recessions. What laws are in place that would guarantee that the funds would not just "disappear" in the hands of private investors or bankers for the next retirees in 30 years?



If the money is invested, there is a risk of loss. That is what investing is... The higher the return, the greater the risk. The best way to minimize risk is to diversify. Typically, the younger you are the more risk you should incur and as you age, you decrease risk. Even with the periodic downturns, most are still better off. D

All I could see doing is limiting what fund managers can invest in, but that even has it own pitfalls because there is no guarantee the allowable investments aren't experiencing a downtown while other prohibited investments aren't.

I could see some type of pension setup which essentially guarantees a certain payout or return (whether real or not) and the fund managers are free to make the investments they believe will get the best returns.

I don't believe government does enough to encourage people to take care of themselves. There should be greater tax incentives for investing in your own retirement. Instead of limiting tax free annual contributions to 17,500 or whatever it is for a 401k now, it should be raised to like $50k/yr. In addition, instead a mortgage interest deduction, it should be a PRINCIPLE deduction to encourage people to payoff their homes to put them in a better financial position.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Not sure how old you think I am, but for the record I'm 53.

My parents lived through the great depression, and this was one of the motivating factors angering my father in the OP.

You say I want more? More than dog food, after working an entire career? God damned right I do!!!!



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Sorry about your dad. I am 66, draw my soc sec, and I have a private pension that I started to contribute to in the 70's as an employee. I do not feel any anger how it turned out for my retirement. And I really appreciate medicare.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Heres to looking forward to Dementia.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   
it will probably be there but the real question is will it even be worth collecting? They keep cutting back on the monthly payouts,by the time most people retire inflation and spending cuts will make it hardly worth while to fill out all the government paperwork to collect social security.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I'm sad and disappointed this thread hasn't gotten more support, traffic and reads.

Are we that apathetic? Are we unwilling to stand up anymore?

It's sad. We have a distant prayer to fix this, just a shallow glimmering candle way off in the distance. If we run to that flame we will extinguish it, from the wind of our actions (it's a metaphor). No, we need to take measured steps to never, EVER, let the flame of the future be extinguished.

Democrat or Republican, this is about "Security", security of the future, and for future generations.

How can we not see this? How can we not appreciate the importance of this? (it is "TRILLIONS" of dollars!)

Or, have people just become apathetic to the word "trillion"...it's a word which does NOT belong in our civilized world.

Trillions!



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   
My husband's not too worried about SS, he's looking forward to working until he dies on the clock (seriously) He may begrudgingly work PT and draw on SS if it's there if he MUST cut hours back, but he's insanely bored if he's not working now. Days off can be a real bitch, he gets annoying bored. I can only imagine how fun an annoyingly bored old fart will be, ugh.
He'll be able to draw at the earliest in 17 or so years, ain't no way he's going to sit on his duff in his 60's, I can't see him kicking back and he simply won't, he has to keep busy or it drives him loony, "So f*^%ing what if I'm on an oxygen tank in a wheelchair, I'm clocking the hell in. Somebody else can retire into daily boredom, that's not my idea of magical, fulfilling golden years."

The older I get, the more I can see where he's coming from. We don't need a dual income right now, but I'm fine with working to pitch in if/when we need to. The older the kids get, the more likely it is I'll get back into the work force for something to do in the next few years. I can't see just sitting around doing nothing in 30+ years, I don't craft or garden. I'd be so effing bored out of my skull.

Funny family history note regarding retiring and POVs: my maternal grandfather never retired, either. Never met him, died way before my time, but family members say he railed against retirees back in the day and dubbed them lazy AF. He literally suddenly keeled over and died clocked in at his factory inspecting the products. Well, there's a way to go out happy I suppose, he worked his entire life at the same factory and loved it.
My dad is of the same vein, but he was forced to retire due to major heart surgery. He hates retirement and wishes badly he was healthy enough to get back into any job at all (very fragile heart still) He says it's a crock an he's never been so bored in his life, lol. I actually hear that from a lot of elderly (my dad's in his 70's) so there's probably a lot more to it than us youngins want to admit.

Quick edit: Come to think of it, my maternal great-grandfather died the same way as my maternal grandfather -- clocked in at his factory, too. Operating a press one minute, checked out the next. He made the newspaper for dying on the job of old age back then, we still have the clipping.
edit on 12/2/2016 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Nobody in my recent family history has reached the retirement age- so I don't see myself getting to be old enough to get paid back.
Not that it matters, every dollar I put in today will be worth 10% at best of it's current value by the time I'd get it back anyhow... but then, I guess that's a moot argument- it will be 1:1 payer:taker soon, and since they're letting other fingers into the pie it will dilute further.

If USD is around in twenty years, Social Security won't be.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join