54 year old tells me he won't get Social Security if Romney is Elected.

A 54 year old man thinks if Romney is elected that he will never see Social Security checks because he is 54. It is incredible how clueless the masses are. Romneys/Ryans plan for saving Social Security means if you are 55+ you keep the same plan currently available. If younger, you choose. But irregardless people apparently think whatever a POTUS has in his head becomes law as soon as they take office. They are oblivious of the House/Senate and the fact that it would take years to put a bill like that together, get it passed and signed into law. The man would probably be 58 by the time it got passed or at least put into effect. Even then he would have a choice to take it the way it currently exists. It is leading me to believe more and more that half the country should not be allowed to vote until they pass a test on how government actually works.

reply to post by jimmiec


Oh the irony!

I'm 49 and can guarantee that if Obama is re-elected, I'll never see it.

Though, to be honest, if Romeny is elected, I doubt I'll see it either.

we're all pretty much screwed no matter who gets elected.

reply to post by beezzer


Correct, for those of us below 50 or 55, if you believe you will ever see social security benefits, you're a fool. Irrespective of who is elected next (or even after them). The difference between the two candidates is that Romney is offering an alternative...we can actually invest the money that is currently being robbed from us under the guise of "social security" (which is actually being used to spend willy-nilly while still increasing the national debt) and which we will never benefit from and instead invest it in an alternative, privately administered retirement fund.

Of course, the opposing side wants to accuse him of "privatizing" social security. That's not what he's saying. He is saying we should have the freedom to choose instead of being robbed blind with no voice in the matter and no hope of a return on our "investment".

I have said for years that if they would just stop social security withdrawals today, I would say "okay, you stole this much money from me, use it to take care of who you can until its gone" (it's already gone), but just don't steal anymore from me and let me make my own choices. My 401k would be more than double what it is now had I been able to invest that money the way I choose.

reply to post by Valhall


I have always considered social security just another way for the government to determine where you live, what you eat, drink, buy, by how much they "allot" back to you.

I'd be giddy if they stopped taking social security!

Come on how many bank robbers think about SS it's only honest working people get a clue and start an new career. Paid for by

reply to post by beezzer


You and me both, beez. It's taxation without representation. And when you view it as not being applied to all people (only those that work), it's unconstitutional. The moment the SS funds were taken to spend elsewhere, without a concurrent decrease in government spending, it became nothing but a general fund tax that is unconstitutional as far as I'm concerned.

And now...they want to take a big chunk of it to fund Medicaid. Which means that a tax on a person for working is used to benefit a person who doesn't work, may never have worked, and therefore has no claim to "entitlement" of those funds.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by jimmiec

 

Oh the irony!

I'm 49 and can guarantee that if Obama is re-elected, I'll never see it.

Though, to be honest, if Romeny is elected, I doubt I'll see it either.

Most baby boomers are getting ready to collect. If what you propose happens, prepare for war with a lot of blue/gray headed people!

I was trying to look up statistics for people being able to collect as of 2013, and haven't found that yet, but I did find a few other interesting tidbits here:

baby-boomer-retirement.blogspot.com... -security-changes-in-2013.html

Yay, LOL people get an increase but:

The 1.7% increase is not as much as the 3.6% cost of living adjustment that was received in 2012. However, since Social Security recipients did not receive any cost of living increase in either 2010 or 2011, it is helpful to be getting any increase at all this coming year.

And:

Unless the government takes steps to change it, the temporary payroll tax cut will expire at the end of this year, meaning that workers will once again return to paying 6.2 % of their income for Social Security, rather than the 4.2 percent that we have been paying for the past couple of years. For many workers, this will mean a substantial decrease in the amount of their take-home pay.

I could quote more here, but people on SS should read this article for more information, as to what the maximum benefit will be as of 2013...oh and also, as of March 1st, 2013 people will not be able to receive a paper check in the mail anymore.........

Be wise and research this stuff. Nobody is ever too young to not worry about it and do so.

Interesting and timely thread for my question. This year puts me in the official SS claim age, for early retirement, that is.

I've been receiving notices from SS, practically begging me to file for early retirement, which I won't, as it would be much less than if I wait for full retirement age. Why should I file for early retirement, and lose all those benefits I've spent my whole life paying into. I'm working for myself now, and don't need to file, yet the letters extolling the benefits of early retirement keep coming. Is anyone else getting pressured to take the ding with early retirement? Why would SS even be pushing this concept.


Des

Is Social Security Going Bankrupt?

No, it's not. Apparently you all naysayers don't understand how it works.

If you define "bankrupt" as not being able to pay your obligations in full, then you might argue Social Security will be bankrupt come 2042, using projections from the Social Security trustees, or 2052, using estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.

That's when they project the system will have exhausted its surplus, which it will begin tapping in 2018 when there is less revenue than needed to cover promised benefits. (Click here to read about the half-truths regarding that surplus.)

By that logic, though, you also might argue that the U.S. government - with its roughly half-trillion-dollar deficit - is or will be bankrupt.

Some people have the impression that "bankrupt" means penniless. A full 50 percent of non-retired respondents in a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll said they didn't think Social Security would be able to pay them a benefit when they retire.

Not true, according to government estimates.

The system still will be taking in enough revenue to cover 75 percent to 80 percent of what is currently promised.

What's more, even if benefits were reduced to that level, they still would be higher in today's dollars than what current retirees are getting, according to CBO estimates.

See the link for more half truths/exaggerations about Social Security.

And, for what it's worth, people, YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY gets paid BY THE PEOPLE WORKING AFTER YOU RETIRE. Those people who are working are the ones being taxed to pay for it. It is NOT a "private savings account".

When all of us "Baby Boomers" are retired, it's our kids who will be paying for our benefits. The simple fact is that the benefits depend on WORKING AMERICANS. You don't have a "personal account" with the money you "paid in."

He is most likely correct that he will not see social security, however he is incorrect in thinking any candidate will keep it for him.

If social security exists in ten years, the benefits it pays out will be significantly less, and the age people will be eligible will be higher and the reason is simple. We are broke as hell, and entitlements as of today take 100 percent of our income to fund. Entitlements as they stand are projected to rise sharply as the baby boomers retire and medical costs continue to increase 8 percent per year as they have the last 30 years. Combine that with the fact our ability to borrow is nearly gone and you have a guarantee entitlements will have to be cut significantly.

Nobody can keep the entitlements as they are, they are simply too expensive. It is math and is really not debatable.

You are completely ignorant if you really believe Ryan's plan accomplishes anything. First He claims we will grow 5 percent a year for twenty years straight, that has never happened before, even right after WWII when we were the manufacturing giant of the whole world. Second he believes we will still be able to run a deficit, we won't. Third his estimates for entitlement cost increases are seriously low.

Ryan is the worst kind of liar, he is claiming he can fix the most serious issue this nation faces when he knows he can't all for political gain.

Originally posted by Destinyone
Interesting and timely thread for my question. This year puts me in the official SS claim age, for early retirement, that is.

I've been receiving notices from SS, practically begging me to file for early retirement, which I won't, as it would be much less than if I wait for full retirement age. Why should I file for early retirement, and lose all those benefits I've spent my whole life paying into. I'm working for myself now, and don't need to file, yet the letters extolling the benefits of early retirement keep coming. Is anyone else getting pressured to take the ding with early retirement? Why would SS even be pushing this concept.


Des

Hmmmm, in the link I provided it says the average age for retirement is going to be around 66. I knew my Dad took early retirement in the late 80's at 62, and that he later regretted it, even though an early retirement was best for him at the time due to health issues.

Any way you can scan your letter and post it here without your personal information?

Social Security was supposed to be a nest egg. Something completely stable that you could count on in the future when you got old. Old people were supposed to have all their bills paid by the time they retired and be able to live on the Social Security. Savings was necessary to cover burial expenses so you didn't burden your kids and they didn't have to sell the family home to bury you.

Along came pensions. People had another nest egg that was as stable as the company they worked for. Unions made sure the money was secure in the pensions. Pensions created a situation where the elderly could help their children more to get started or they could actually enjoy their retired years. Pensions were not paid for by employers, they are actually paid by consumers in the end.

Then came IRA's. Put your money into the most unsecure thing in the world, being managed by some very crafty people who tell us that everything is secure when it really is not. I remember the old saying about the stock market, invest only what you can afford to lose. Trouble is that if you have money in the banks, that money is also invested by the banks into the stock market. All pensions are invested in stocks and bonds also, everything is at risk.

What is going to happen? Not only is Social security going to collapse because all the money is gone, so is the market where everyones pensions are. We are setting ourselves up for failure. Nothing in this countries financial sector is secure anymore. I guess we are all in the same boat called the Titanic.

reply to post by wildtimes


Bullcrap. The fund has been imaginary since the day the money was taken to spend more rather than reduce the deficit.

And, yes, Mr. Wizard, we know how it is supposed to work. We also know that there aren't enough employed workers to fund the retiring workers. So where, in your bankrupt government, are you going to pay them from?

Oh, yeah, you'll just print more money right? Well, when the inflation rate goes double digits and the increase in social security is 1.7% per year (if that), then we'll be back to the 1970's when the elderly were eating cat food and dog food because they couldn't afford to buy meat.

Some of us lived through that period...you can't snow us.

Originally posted by wildtimes




When all of us "Baby Boomers" are retired, it's our kids who will be paying for our benefits. The simple fact is that the benefits depend on WORKING AMERICANS. You don't have a "personal account" with the money you "paid in."

Yes, that's why I posted what I did in my last post. Our working Americans are in for one heck of a heaping tax jump on their paycheck deductions....sooooooon!

And no, while people don't have a "personal account," on what they paid in, the amount they collect is based on past work history and what they contributed. So, in essence if a person did not pay in much, they won't get much either.

reply to post by Valhall

And, yes, Mr. Wizard, we know how it is supposed to work. We also know that there aren't enough employed workers to fund the retiring workers. So where, in your bankrupt government, are you going to pay them from?

"Mr. Wizard"? Really?

Not everyone does know, Mr. Smart-mouth; and it's not MY bankrupt government.
:shk:
That was really uncalled for. At least I'm doing research, because I am concerned, and I'm turning 54 this month.

My kids are now in the workforce, and if there are FEWER working Americans in America (which happens when jobs get outsourced to other countries and "profits" go into bank accounts in the Cayman Islands), it will not be good.

But, carry on with your snide fear-mongering. I didn't start the process, I'm only trying to get by and not be too bamboozled by sensationalist rumors. "You don't frighten me,with your silly knees-bent, running-around, advancing behavior."

Plus, I'm a woman.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by Valhall

 

And, yes, Mr. Wizard, we know how it is supposed to work. We also know that there aren't enough employed workers to fund the retiring workers. So where, in your bankrupt government, are you going to pay them from?

"Mr. Wizard"? Really?

Not everyone does know, Mr. Smart-mouth; and it's not MY bankrupt government.
:shk:


Plus, I'm a woman.

...So am I. And if sticking with the facts of the situation is considered by you to be "fear-mongering bent-knee'd behavior" so be it...that's what I'll be in your eyes sister.

reply to post by jimmiec


The guy is probably getting his information from the Communist Traitors at the AARP.

They are putting the old folks in harms way every time you turn around.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Valhall

 

I have always considered social security just another way for the government to determine where you live, what you eat, drink, buy, by how much they "allot" back to you.

I'd be giddy if they stopped taking social security!

edit on 4-11-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

And many other people feel the same way as you do Beez.

In fact we have tried that way in the past but it resulted in a little problem.

At the end of a generation or two you have this seemingly never ending supply of old people cluttering up the streets and dying in the gutters because they squandered everything and now they have no place to go and certainly nobody wants them.

This is a way to assure a minimum of basic care that they pay for themselves during their working lives.

Other wise you end up with an abundance of elderly starving, destitute and dying... littering the open areas where the children play. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. The SS program turns out to be practical, cost effective and most importantly, humane.

I'm 55 and was always told i would never see it. As it stands it can not be sustained. SS needs an overhaul to keep it going. Personally i will never file for SS. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination but i just figure it took care of my grandparents and parents so thats where the money they took out of my checks went.