3 Statistics About Social Security That Are Frightening

[imawhosure]

Exactly! We have been forced to pay & many have died without collecting a dime. I'll be close to 70 years old by the time I start seeing any benefits. Shit will hit the fan if they don't pay! .

What makes me laugh are all these so called experts telling baby boomers don't take your social security at 62...wait until at least 66 if not 70, because your monthly check will be so much higher. Yippee!!!

Fuck that. If you die before 70, you just got screwed.

I intend to take at 62 and apparently most boomers are doing just that.

Too bad. Evidently you really hate what you do.
I'm 75 and still enjoy my business that I work everyday (not 8 hours... but keep my finger in the pie...).
As a retired friend of mine said.."I regret retiring because working kept my mind sharp. Now I'm bored and growing senile"!
A suggestion I intend to follow... not retire!
Not the retiring type: meet the people still working in their 70s, 80s and 90s
At 92, Jean Miller is still taking coats at Vidal Sassoon, while immunologist Ivan Roitt, 87, is a department head: meet the workers with no plans tfo clock off

View attachment 169643
Social Security History

Silly. Why would you make conclusions about me, when you don't know me.

I retired nearly five years ago. Not because I disliked what I did, but because I could. My sweet beautiful wife and I always saved, controlled our expenses, lived below our means, made great investments in real estate, and made a lot of money. So, I decided to retire. We are about to travel North America in our motor home. I have many hobbies and stay very busy.

If you are so weak minded that you can't find something to keep your mind sharp other than work, good for you.

You wrote "I intend to take at 62 and apparently most boomers are doing just that"

I misunderstood your above statement as it sounded as if you didn't like what you were doing and wanted to quit as soon as you could afford to i.e. have SS/Medicare pay your
living expenses.
Sorry about that.
So why are you taking SS at age 62? Why don't you do something with that money that can improve the world rather than selfishly spend it on a gas traveling in a 8mpg motor home visiting sites and events that are already on the internet?
But if you are old-fashioned enough to no longer feel motivated to develop projects that will improve human existence that's your choice for sure.
I for one am daily challenged by the ignorance of people regarding our economy, finance, etc. and you are a perfect example of someone who never took any chances to
improve the world. Again different strokes for different folks and I never was critical of your decision except it was the mind set of people that aren't happy in their job.
That's why I made that comment. And of course with your "hobbies" I'm sure they are challenging your intellectual growth!

WTF! Really?

I intend to enjoy life. I worked hard and raised two great children. I did my share.

Hey Gipper.....motorhome? I have a 5th wheeler with a big diesel truck, lol. Getting ready to leave for Florida the end of this month, to do my little mid-term poll job, and lay in the sun.

Nope, I am not saving the world anymore either in the winter, but I am helping keep the economy going. Probably helping create a few jobs to boot too.

While there, I am going to try and get a sit down with Dan Bongino. Am going to try and invite the guy to our annual cookout we have at the resort we stay at in Fort Myer's. If he is not on Fox that day, maybe I will get him there.

 

[NightFox]

I think you are right. Many people do not know how to control their expenses. They spend what they make and more. Then when one loses a job, they quickly are in the poor house. I don't understand people like this.

My father had nothing during the Great Depression. He often went days with almost nothing to eat, as a very young boy. He instilled the values of no debt and saving money, in me. .

Don't look now but I think you solved your own mystery ......

You don't "understand people like this" because for the most part "people like this" did not have the values instilled in them regarding consumption and savings that you received from parents that went through the Great Depression, they have no concept of what REAL widespread economic hardship looks like and thus little incentive to defer consumption in order to secure against it.

Agreed, but why do people not save for the future or for the possibility of financial hardship? I think this is reckless. It is common sense to at least have some money set aside, should something happen. One doesn't have to experience hardship to know that if you have too much debt and you lose your job, you are going to be in big trouble.

I agree with you that it's reckless (and irresponsible) behavior, however it's all about incentives; they have little incentive to defer consumption to secure against something they have little understanding of and little reason to expect will happen. Human nature dictates that we naturally want immediate gratification and without strong incentives against it (and our society is riddled with very strong incentives for immediate gratification) the most likely outcome is that human beings won't defer consumption.

The interesting part (to me) is that based on my own observations, savings creates a benign cycle in people whereby the more they manage to save the more they are incentivized to save, in other words once they get the ball rolling and accumulate some compounding assets the more incentivized they become to defer consumption in favor of savings.

 

[gipper]

What makes me laugh are all these so called experts telling baby boomers don't take your social security at 62...wait until at least 66 if not 70, because your monthly check will be so much higher. Yippee!!!

Fuck that. If you die before 70, you just got screwed.

I intend to take at 62 and apparently most boomers are doing just that.

Too bad. Evidently you really hate what you do.
I'm 75 and still enjoy my business that I work everyday (not 8 hours... but keep my finger in the pie...).
As a retired friend of mine said.."I regret retiring because working kept my mind sharp. Now I'm bored and growing senile"!
A suggestion I intend to follow... not retire!
Not the retiring type: meet the people still working in their 70s, 80s and 90s
At 92, Jean Miller is still taking coats at Vidal Sassoon, while immunologist Ivan Roitt, 87, is a department head: meet the workers with no plans tfo clock off

View attachment 169643
Social Security History

Silly. Why would you make conclusions about me, when you don't know me.

I retired nearly five years ago. Not because I disliked what I did, but because I could. My sweet beautiful wife and I always saved, controlled our expenses, lived below our means, made great investments in real estate, and made a lot of money. So, I decided to retire. We are about to travel North America in our motor home. I have many hobbies and stay very busy.

If you are so weak minded that you can't find something to keep your mind sharp other than work, good for you.

You wrote "I intend to take at 62 and apparently most boomers are doing just that"

I misunderstood your above statement as it sounded as if you didn't like what you were doing and wanted to quit as soon as you could afford to i.e. have SS/Medicare pay your
living expenses.
Sorry about that.
So why are you taking SS at age 62? Why don't you do something with that money that can improve the world rather than selfishly spend it on a gas traveling in a 8mpg motor home visiting sites and events that are already on the internet?
But if you are old-fashioned enough to no longer feel motivated to develop projects that will improve human existence that's your choice for sure.
I for one am daily challenged by the ignorance of people regarding our economy, finance, etc. and you are a perfect example of someone who never took any chances to
improve the world. Again different strokes for different folks and I never was critical of your decision except it was the mind set of people that aren't happy in their job.
That's why I made that comment. And of course with your "hobbies" I'm sure they are challenging your intellectual growth!

WTF! Really?

I intend to enjoy life. I worked hard and raised two great children. I did my share.

Hey Gipper.....motorhome? I have a 5th wheeler with a big diesel truck, lol. Getting ready to leave for Florida the end of this month, to do my little mid-term poll job, and lay in the sun.

Nope, I am not saving the world anymore either in the winter, but I am helping keep the economy going. Probably helping create a few jobs to boot too.

While there, I am going to try and get a sit down with Dan Bongino. Am going to try and invite the guy to our annual cookout we have at the resort we stay at in Fort Myer's. If he is not on Fox that day, maybe I will get him there.

Sounds like a very good plan. South Florida in the winter is a wonderful place to be. Now if they could only do something about the traffic.

 

[gipper]

I think you are right. Many people do not know how to control their expenses. They spend what they make and more. Then when one loses a job, they quickly are in the poor house. I don't understand people like this.

My father had nothing during the Great Depression. He often went days with almost nothing to eat, as a very young boy. He instilled the values of no debt and saving money, in me. .

Don't look now but I think you solved your own mystery ......

You don't "understand people like this" because for the most part "people like this" did not have the values instilled in them regarding consumption and savings that you received from parents that went through the Great Depression, they have no concept of what REAL widespread economic hardship looks like and thus little incentive to defer consumption in order to secure against it.

Agreed, but why do people not save for the future or for the possibility of financial hardship? I think this is reckless. It is common sense to at least have some money set aside, should something happen. One doesn't have to experience hardship to know that if you have too much debt and you lose your job, you are going to be in big trouble.

I agree with you that it's reckless (and irresponsible) behavior, however it's all about incentives; they have little incentive to defer consumption to secure against something they have little understanding of and little reason to expect will happen. Human nature dictates that we naturally want immediate gratification and without strong incentives against it (and our society is riddled with very strong incentives for immediate gratification) the most likely outcome is that human beings won't defer consumption.

The interesting part (to me) is that based on my own observations, savings creates a benign cycle in people whereby the more they manage to save the more they are incentivized to save, in other words once they get the ball rolling and accumulate some compounding assets the more incentivized they become to defer consumption in favor of savings.

Agree. I am not into immediate gratification. Generally never was.

I never expected to retire early or accumulate a nice nest egg. I am thankful I have.

I tell my children all the time, plan to retire at 50. So...you better start saving and investing now.

 

[imawhosure]

Too bad. Evidently you really hate what you do.
I'm 75 and still enjoy my business that I work everyday (not 8 hours... but keep my finger in the pie...).
As a retired friend of mine said.."I regret retiring because working kept my mind sharp. Now I'm bored and growing senile"!
A suggestion I intend to follow... not retire!
Not the retiring type: meet the people still working in their 70s, 80s and 90s
At 92, Jean Miller is still taking coats at Vidal Sassoon, while immunologist Ivan Roitt, 87, is a department head: meet the workers with no plans tfo clock off

View attachment 169643
Social Security History

Silly. Why would you make conclusions about me, when you don't know me.

I retired nearly five years ago. Not because I disliked what I did, but because I could. My sweet beautiful wife and I always saved, controlled our expenses, lived below our means, made great investments in real estate, and made a lot of money. So, I decided to retire. We are about to travel North America in our motor home. I have many hobbies and stay very busy.

If you are so weak minded that you can't find something to keep your mind sharp other than work, good for you.

You wrote "I intend to take at 62 and apparently most boomers are doing just that"

I misunderstood your above statement as it sounded as if you didn't like what you were doing and wanted to quit as soon as you could afford to i.e. have SS/Medicare pay your
living expenses.
Sorry about that.
So why are you taking SS at age 62? Why don't you do something with that money that can improve the world rather than selfishly spend it on a gas traveling in a 8mpg motor home visiting sites and events that are already on the internet?
But if you are old-fashioned enough to no longer feel motivated to develop projects that will improve human existence that's your choice for sure.
I for one am daily challenged by the ignorance of people regarding our economy, finance, etc. and you are a perfect example of someone who never took any chances to
improve the world. Again different strokes for different folks and I never was critical of your decision except it was the mind set of people that aren't happy in their job.
That's why I made that comment. And of course with your "hobbies" I'm sure they are challenging your intellectual growth!

WTF! Really?

I intend to enjoy life. I worked hard and raised two great children. I did my share.

Hey Gipper.....motorhome? I have a 5th wheeler with a big diesel truck, lol. Getting ready to leave for Florida the end of this month, to do my little mid-term poll job, and lay in the sun.

Nope, I am not saving the world anymore either in the winter, but I am helping keep the economy going. Probably helping create a few jobs to boot too.

While there, I am going to try and get a sit down with Dan Bongino. Am going to try and invite the guy to our annual cookout we have at the resort we stay at in Fort Myer's. If he is not on Fox that day, maybe I will get him there.

Sounds like a very good plan. South Florida in the winter is a wonderful place to be. Now if they could only do something about the traffic.

Yeah, the traffic sucks there. We stay right off Tamiami Drive at a resort, which is actually RT 41. Four lanes of traffic in each direction, what a nightmare. Every year I go there, I am amazed at all the S.S. recipients, who actually did the right thing and saved. Large motorhomes, 125,000 dollar 5th wheelers, and boy, do they enjoy life! Young people think they can party, lol!

But here is the thing---------->many of them are STILL business owners. We sit and talk all the time at the pool about politics, economics, etc. That is really where I get my real life examples from that I use on here. And they are from all over the country, except possibly the West. Most of those people winter in AZ.

The most amazing thing I discovered from going there for 7 years is-------->all of the conservatives, and at least 2/3rds of the liberal business owners, hated what Obama did to the economy. Oh, most of the liberals there liked the social policy of Obama, but even they admitted he didn't have a clue on the economy.

Last year, after Trump got elected, everyone of those people.......all of them..........hoped he would follow through with some kind of tax cut to help the economy out of the doldrums. The only 2 people bitching somewhat, were business owners of a siding, and roofing company, worried about illegal immigration policies, but they too were for tax cuts.

So I am looking forward to getting there, and finding their take on how things are going from all of them. I figure real world examples of American business, is far better than theoretical nonsense, from many people who just sit and think, and never ran anything!

If I can get a decent Wi-Fi signal after the hurricane, I will keep you posted!

 

[gipper]

Silly. Why would you make conclusions about me, when you don't know me.

I retired nearly five years ago. Not because I disliked what I did, but because I could. My sweet beautiful wife and I always saved, controlled our expenses, lived below our means, made great investments in real estate, and made a lot of money. So, I decided to retire. We are about to travel North America in our motor home. I have many hobbies and stay very busy.

If you are so weak minded that you can't find something to keep your mind sharp other than work, good for you.

You wrote "I intend to take at 62 and apparently most boomers are doing just that"

I misunderstood your above statement as it sounded as if you didn't like what you were doing and wanted to quit as soon as you could afford to i.e. have SS/Medicare pay your
living expenses.
Sorry about that.
So why are you taking SS at age 62? Why don't you do something with that money that can improve the world rather than selfishly spend it on a gas traveling in a 8mpg motor home visiting sites and events that are already on the internet?
But if you are old-fashioned enough to no longer feel motivated to develop projects that will improve human existence that's your choice for sure.
I for one am daily challenged by the ignorance of people regarding our economy, finance, etc. and you are a perfect example of someone who never took any chances to
improve the world. Again different strokes for different folks and I never was critical of your decision except it was the mind set of people that aren't happy in their job.
That's why I made that comment. And of course with your "hobbies" I'm sure they are challenging your intellectual growth!

WTF! Really?

I intend to enjoy life. I worked hard and raised two great children. I did my share.

Hey Gipper.....motorhome? I have a 5th wheeler with a big diesel truck, lol. Getting ready to leave for Florida the end of this month, to do my little mid-term poll job, and lay in the sun.

Nope, I am not saving the world anymore either in the winter, but I am helping keep the economy going. Probably helping create a few jobs to boot too.

While there, I am going to try and get a sit down with Dan Bongino. Am going to try and invite the guy to our annual cookout we have at the resort we stay at in Fort Myer's. If he is not on Fox that day, maybe I will get him there.

Sounds like a very good plan. South Florida in the winter is a wonderful place to be. Now if they could only do something about the traffic.

Yeah, the traffic sucks there. We stay right off Tamiami Drive at a resort, which is actually RT 41. Four lanes of traffic in each direction, what a nightmare. Every year I go there, I am amazed at all the S.S. recipients, who actually did the right thing and saved. Large motorhomes, 125,000 dollar 5th wheelers, and boy, do they enjoy life! Young people think they can party, lol!

But here is the thing---------->many of them are STILL business owners. We sit and talk all the time at the pool about politics, economics, etc. That is really where I get my real life examples from that I use on here. And they are from all over the country, except possibly the West. Most of those people winter in AZ.

The most amazing thing I discovered from going there for 7 years is-------->all of the conservatives, and at least 2/3rds of the liberal business owners, hated what Obama did to the economy. Oh, most of the liberals there liked the social policy of Obama, but even they admitted he didn't have a clue on the economy.

Last year, after Trump got elected, everyone of those people.......all of them..........hoped he would follow through with some kind of tax cut to help the economy out of the doldrums. The only 2 people bitching somewhat, were business owners of a siding, and roofing company, worried about illegal immigration policies, but they too were for tax cuts.

So I am looking forward to getting there, and finding their take on how things are going from all of them. I figure real world examples of American business, is far better than theoretical nonsense, from many people who just sit and think, and never ran anything!

If I can get a decent Wi-Fi signal after the hurricane, I will keep you posted!

Yeah the Tamiami is crazy. I know right where you are. We spent a lot of time in Venice, just off the Tamami. It amazes me the number of people living and vacationing in Florida.

I have yet to meet a small business owner who thought Obama's economic policies were good. He seemed to be a war with these people. They might like his social policies, but hated his economic ones.

 

[healthmyths]

Silly. Why would you make conclusions about me, when you don't know me.

I retired nearly five years ago. Not because I disliked what I did, but because I could. My sweet beautiful wife and I always saved, controlled our expenses, lived below our means, made great investments in real estate, and made a lot of money. So, I decided to retire. We are about to travel North America in our motor home. I have many hobbies and stay very busy.

If you are so weak minded that you can't find something to keep your mind sharp other than work, good for you.

You wrote "I intend to take at 62 and apparently most boomers are doing just that"

I misunderstood your above statement as it sounded as if you didn't like what you were doing and wanted to quit as soon as you could afford to i.e. have SS/Medicare pay your
living expenses.
Sorry about that.
So why are you taking SS at age 62? Why don't you do something with that money that can improve the world rather than selfishly spend it on a gas traveling in a 8mpg motor home visiting sites and events that are already on the internet?
But if you are old-fashioned enough to no longer feel motivated to develop projects that will improve human existence that's your choice for sure.
I for one am daily challenged by the ignorance of people regarding our economy, finance, etc. and you are a perfect example of someone who never took any chances to
improve the world. Again different strokes for different folks and I never was critical of your decision except it was the mind set of people that aren't happy in their job.
That's why I made that comment. And of course with your "hobbies" I'm sure they are challenging your intellectual growth!

WTF! Really?

I intend to enjoy life. I worked hard and raised two great children. I did my share.

Hey Gipper.....motorhome? I have a 5th wheeler with a big diesel truck, lol. Getting ready to leave for Florida the end of this month, to do my little mid-term poll job, and lay in the sun.

Nope, I am not saving the world anymore either in the winter, but I am helping keep the economy going. Probably helping create a few jobs to boot too.

While there, I am going to try and get a sit down with Dan Bongino. Am going to try and invite the guy to our annual cookout we have at the resort we stay at in Fort Myer's. If he is not on Fox that day, maybe I will get him there.

Sounds like a very good plan. South Florida in the winter is a wonderful place to be. Now if they could only do something about the traffic.

Yeah, the traffic sucks there. We stay right off Tamiami Drive at a resort, which is actually RT 41. Four lanes of traffic in each direction, what a nightmare. Every year I go there, I am amazed at all the S.S. recipients, who actually did the right thing and saved. Large motorhomes, 125,000 dollar 5th wheelers, and boy, do they enjoy life! Young people think they can party, lol!

But here is the thing---------->many of them are STILL business owners. We sit and talk all the time at the pool about politics, economics, etc. That is really where I get my real life examples from that I use on here. And they are from all over the country, except possibly the West. Most of those people winter in AZ.

The most amazing thing I discovered from going there for 7 years is-------->all of the conservatives, and at least 2/3rds of the liberal business owners, hated what Obama did to the economy. Oh, most of the liberals there liked the social policy of Obama, but even they admitted he didn't have a clue on the economy.

Last year, after Trump got elected, everyone of those people.......all of them..........hoped he would follow through with some kind of tax cut to help the economy out of the doldrums. The only 2 people bitching somewhat, were business owners of a siding, and roofing company, worried about illegal immigration policies, but they too were for tax cuts.

So I am looking forward to getting there, and finding their take on how things are going from all of them. I figure real world examples of American business, is far better than theoretical nonsense, from many people who just sit and think, and never ran anything!

If I can get a decent Wi-Fi signal after the hurricane, I will keep you posted!

Your point about Obama being anti-business is validated by Obama's OWN words!

Plus I just put this together the other day and note how Obama's lack of signing federal oil leases dovetails with the above comment about wanting America to be Brazil's best oil customer! In just one year Trump signed nearly 2 times the amount in oil lease sales!

 

[healthmyths]

You wrote "I intend to take at 62 and apparently most boomers are doing just that"

I misunderstood your above statement as it sounded as if you didn't like what you were doing and wanted to quit as soon as you could afford to i.e. have SS/Medicare pay your
living expenses.
Sorry about that.
So why are you taking SS at age 62? Why don't you do something with that money that can improve the world rather than selfishly spend it on a gas traveling in a 8mpg motor home visiting sites and events that are already on the internet?
But if you are old-fashioned enough to no longer feel motivated to develop projects that will improve human existence that's your choice for sure.
I for one am daily challenged by the ignorance of people regarding our economy, finance, etc. and you are a perfect example of someone who never took any chances to
improve the world. Again different strokes for different folks and I never was critical of your decision except it was the mind set of people that aren't happy in their job.
That's why I made that comment. And of course with your "hobbies" I'm sure they are challenging your intellectual growth!

WTF! Really?

I intend to enjoy life. I worked hard and raised two great children. I did my share.

Hey Gipper.....motorhome? I have a 5th wheeler with a big diesel truck, lol. Getting ready to leave for Florida the end of this month, to do my little mid-term poll job, and lay in the sun.

Nope, I am not saving the world anymore either in the winter, but I am helping keep the economy going. Probably helping create a few jobs to boot too.

While there, I am going to try and get a sit down with Dan Bongino. Am going to try and invite the guy to our annual cookout we have at the resort we stay at in Fort Myer's. If he is not on Fox that day, maybe I will get him there.

Sounds like a very good plan. South Florida in the winter is a wonderful place to be. Now if they could only do something about the traffic.

Yeah, the traffic sucks there. We stay right off Tamiami Drive at a resort, which is actually RT 41. Four lanes of traffic in each direction, what a nightmare. Every year I go there, I am amazed at all the S.S. recipients, who actually did the right thing and saved. Large motorhomes, 125,000 dollar 5th wheelers, and boy, do they enjoy life! Young people think they can party, lol!

But here is the thing---------->many of them are STILL business owners. We sit and talk all the time at the pool about politics, economics, etc. That is really where I get my real life examples from that I use on here. And they are from all over the country, except possibly the West. Most of those people winter in AZ.

The most amazing thing I discovered from going there for 7 years is-------->all of the conservatives, and at least 2/3rds of the liberal business owners, hated what Obama did to the economy. Oh, most of the liberals there liked the social policy of Obama, but even they admitted he didn't have a clue on the economy.

Last year, after Trump got elected, everyone of those people.......all of them..........hoped he would follow through with some kind of tax cut to help the economy out of the doldrums. The only 2 people bitching somewhat, were business owners of a siding, and roofing company, worried about illegal immigration policies, but they too were for tax cuts.

So I am looking forward to getting there, and finding their take on how things are going from all of them. I figure real world examples of American business, is far better than theoretical nonsense, from many people who just sit and think, and never ran anything!

If I can get a decent Wi-Fi signal after the hurricane, I will keep you posted!

Yeah the Tamiami is crazy. I know right where you are. We spent a lot of time in Venice, just off the Tamami. It amazes me the number of people living and vacationing in Florida.

I have yet to meet a small business owner who thought Obama's economic policies were good. He seemed to be a war with these people. They might like his social policies, but hated his economic ones.

I live in Florida part time also primarily though for the Medicare Advantage (MA) programs which are one of the more successful Medicare improvements DONE under GWB in the
Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. MA plans in Florida are so competitive that unlike Texas the other state I have a place my MA plan actually pays back to SS almost 90% of the Part B premium that is usually deducted from SS. Plus I was in the hospital in Tx a couple years ago for 3 days... $40,000 bill... I paid $200. Again due to my MA. I'd strongly encourage any of you that may want to declare Florida as home and are eligible for Medicare to look into MAs. Plus they will get better under Trump! Obama hated them because most of them are for profit and made profits. Dummy Obama didn't realize that those profits were taxed by Government so there was additional revenue coming back.
Plus unlike traditional Medicare with fraud running about 10% of Medicare's budget with MAs there is no fraud! Medicare simply pays a flat monthly fee to the MA and it is up to the MA to manage the health costs. Again...thanks to GWB and the 2003 Act!

 

[beagle9]

Everyone is trying to treat the symptoms, because they are too chickenshit to cure the disease.

We are living longer, we should be working longer.

Our politicians needs to grow some fucking balls and raise the retirement age.

Time to wake the fuck up and smell the coffee.

Also, don't start at 45, not fair.

Why?

Because obviously when the program was put in, EVERYBODY paid into the system that was not retired.

Doubt me on how it correlates?

Then explain how it fell from 41.9 in 1945, and within 5 years it was 16.5!

I will tell you why----------->because once S.S. was passed, everyone that could retired, lol!

You DO realize that unless you admit the truth of the birthrate, then what you are saying that one of your idols; FDR, created a nonsensical package that could NEVER work-)

The percentage of Americans over the age of 65 in 1935 (when SS was created) was 5.4%.

The percentage of Americans over the age of 65 in 1965 (when Medicare was added) was 9%. This is where I get my index figure from.

Today, the percentage of Americans over the age of 65 is 15%.

This is an unsustainable trend.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

Didn't say you were 100% wrong. I am not even suggesting that.

What I am telling you is-------->the birthrate has also fallen dramatically. The equation is negative on both sides. More entering retirement, less being born to pay into the system.

If the amount each worker paid was constant, then this ratio would be more meaningful. It the benefits were constant, the ratio would be meaningful. Seniors benefits are not constant. So we value a ratio which doesn't tell us about the earnings power of the system or the cost to run it. This is how little people think about the system.

. Ok so you say that nobody is paying in the same which makes it not constant right, so why isn't the government subsidizing the ones who can't pay into it in the same way (the poor workers), and keep the money constant or equal going in on the front end of it for all that work a job ? Forgive me if I'm out of my league here.

 

[beagle9]

Raising (or better yet, eliminating) the earnings cap will solve all those problems.

Nope. Not even close.

There is no earnings cap for the Medicare payroll tax. Only for the SS payroll tax, and it isn't enough to make up the looming massive shortfall. Nowhere near enough.

We need to raise the eligibility age for SS and Medicare to 70, and then index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer. Common sense.

Your premise is wrong. We aren't living longer. More of us are living average. These are vastly different issues.

In 1940, a 65 year-old expected to live around 13 years in retirement. After cost increases of 15 to 25 fold, we live about 19 years in retirement. That is falling at this point because we are increasing the retirement age at this point. You are suggesting that we increase the retirement age of people who are already working 2 additional years to get roughly the same length of benefits.

Again, 5.4% of the population was over 65 in 1935, 9% of the population was over 65 in 1965, 15% of the population is over 65 today. Thus my 9 percent index.

We are most definitely living longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

Can I bring up the obvious? In 1935, the program covered 1/2 of the work-force. By 1950, only 15% of those 65 and older were eligible for benefits. You can't compare ratios from the 1930s with today. It isn't apples and oranges. It is apples and auto parts.

That only adds more value to my point. A smaller and smaller percentage of workers supporting an ever increasing percentage of retirees.

. Whose retiring ? No one I know, and what about the death to life ratio going on in the program ? Any stats on that, and how does that shape and reshape the programs viability ? Nothing is fluid about it, and that could be where the deceptiveness lay in the numbers, and now the deceptiveness is looking to be increased by raising the age in so that more people will die before drawing on it ?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Everyone is trying to treat the symptoms, because they are too chickenshit to cure the disease.

We are living longer, we should be working longer.

Our politicians needs to grow some fucking balls and raise the retirement age.

Time to wake the fuck up and smell the coffee.

Also, don't start at 45, not fair.

Why?

Because obviously when the program was put in, EVERYBODY paid into the system that was not retired.

Doubt me on how it correlates?

Then explain how it fell from 41.9 in 1945, and within 5 years it was 16.5!

I will tell you why----------->because once S.S. was passed, everyone that could retired, lol!

You DO realize that unless you admit the truth of the birthrate, then what you are saying that one of your idols; FDR, created a nonsensical package that could NEVER work-)

The percentage of Americans over the age of 65 in 1935 (when SS was created) was 5.4%.

The percentage of Americans over the age of 65 in 1965 (when Medicare was added) was 9%. This is where I get my index figure from.

Today, the percentage of Americans over the age of 65 is 15%.

This is an unsustainable trend.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

Didn't say you were 100% wrong. I am not even suggesting that.

What I am telling you is-------->the birthrate has also fallen dramatically. The equation is negative on both sides. More entering retirement, less being born to pay into the system.

If the amount each worker paid was constant, then this ratio would be more meaningful. It the benefits were constant, the ratio would be meaningful. Seniors benefits are not constant. So we value a ratio which doesn't tell us about the earnings power of the system or the cost to run it. This is how little people think about the system.

. Ok so you say that nobody is paying in the same which makes it not constant right, so why isn't the government subsidizing the ones who can't pay into it in the same way (the poor workers), and keep the money constant or equal going in on the front end of it for all that work a job ? Forgive me if I'm out of my league here.

Not exactly. People are obsessed with the worker to retiree ratio from 1950 or 1940 or some other irrelevant date. This ratio looks meaningful, but has serious drawbacks. It assumes that the contribution per worker remains the same, and it doesn't. The cost of beneficiaries is not constant decade to decade. The ratio has the appearance of relevance so politicians use it. The ratio does not explain the crisis. It is a means of getting the public to accept the consequences of the crisis.

FDR was pretty clear. He wanted the rich to pay more for their benefits, but not subsidize the poor. The poor get a very good deal on this program - it is highly progressive. The rich get a less good deal, and frankly they do lose money much to FDR's chagrin. The reason that FDR didn't like subsidizes was because he knew that these subsidies would make the program dependent upon politics. He didn't want that. Of course the program has changed a lot since inception. It has become what FDR opposed. The battle now is over how much...

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Nope. Not even close.

There is no earnings cap for the Medicare payroll tax. Only for the SS payroll tax, and it isn't enough to make up the looming massive shortfall. Nowhere near enough.

We need to raise the eligibility age for SS and Medicare to 70, and then index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer. Common sense.

Your premise is wrong. We aren't living longer. More of us are living average. These are vastly different issues.

In 1940, a 65 year-old expected to live around 13 years in retirement. After cost increases of 15 to 25 fold, we live about 19 years in retirement. That is falling at this point because we are increasing the retirement age at this point. You are suggesting that we increase the retirement age of people who are already working 2 additional years to get roughly the same length of benefits.

Again, 5.4% of the population was over 65 in 1935, 9% of the population was over 65 in 1965, 15% of the population is over 65 today. Thus my 9 percent index.

We are most definitely living longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

Can I bring up the obvious? In 1935, the program covered 1/2 of the work-force. By 1950, only 15% of those 65 and older were eligible for benefits. You can't compare ratios from the 1930s with today. It isn't apples and oranges. It is apples and auto parts.

That only adds more value to my point. A smaller and smaller percentage of workers supporting an ever increasing percentage of retirees.

. Whose retiring ? No one I know, and what about the death to life ratio going on in the program ? Any stats on that, and how does that shape and reshape the programs viability ? Nothing is fluid about it, and that could be where the deceptiveness lay in the numbers, and now the deceptiveness is looking to be increased by raising the age in so that more people will die before drawing on it ?

There are two key stats. The likelihood of a 30 year-old (ie someone who has attained eligibility) of reaching retirement age, and the life expectancy of the retiree at retirement age. Both are increasing, but no one is looking at these measures. The problem with Social Security is more Americans are living average. This is kryptonite to SS.

 

[healthmyths]

Your premise is wrong. We aren't living longer. More of us are living average. These are vastly different issues.

In 1940, a 65 year-old expected to live around 13 years in retirement. After cost increases of 15 to 25 fold, we live about 19 years in retirement. That is falling at this point because we are increasing the retirement age at this point. You are suggesting that we increase the retirement age of people who are already working 2 additional years to get roughly the same length of benefits.

Again, 5.4% of the population was over 65 in 1935, 9% of the population was over 65 in 1965, 15% of the population is over 65 today. Thus my 9 percent index.

We are most definitely living longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

Can I bring up the obvious? In 1935, the program covered 1/2 of the work-force. By 1950, only 15% of those 65 and older were eligible for benefits. You can't compare ratios from the 1930s with today. It isn't apples and oranges. It is apples and auto parts.

That only adds more value to my point. A smaller and smaller percentage of workers supporting an ever increasing percentage of retirees.

. Whose retiring ? No one I know, and what about the death to life ratio going on in the program ? Any stats on that, and how does that shape and reshape the programs viability ? Nothing is fluid about it, and that could be where the deceptiveness lay in the numbers, and now the deceptiveness is looking to be increased by raising the age in so that more people will die before drawing on it ?

There are two key stats. The likelihood of a 30 year-old (ie someone who has attained eligibility) of reaching retirement age, and the life expectancy of the retiree at retirement age. Both are increasing, but no one is looking at these measures. The problem with Social Security is more Americans are living average. This is kryptonite to SS.

Let's use some facts directly from the Trustees' Report https://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2017/tr2017.pdf

A) Under the Trustees’ intermediate assumptions, Social Security’s total income is projected to exceed its total cost through 2021, as it has for every year since 1982. The 2016 excess of total income over cost for the year was $35 billion
NOTE: this is based on 2016 SS revenue... Remember ... 2016 was the last year of the anti-business,anti-American President!
Federal tax revenue for 2017 was $192 billion more than 2016. Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?
Plus we didn't have a president that discouraged businesses by telling them to go bankrupt, or want to put 1,400 companies out of business, reducing federal revenue by $100B a year while throwing 450,000 people out of work.

B) With more people working more FICA payments by both employees and what again most people including many on this board don't seem to know is that the EMPLOYER matches!
It is truly sad that Obama and his anti-business attitude DIDN"T seem to comprehend that EMPLOYERS match employees payments into FICA! Maybe if he had to pay as an
employer that tax he'd appreciate the concept of higher employment and lower operating costs!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

SS is funded until 2034. By that time, the bulk of the boomers will be gone.
The largest threat to long term solvency is wage stagnation.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Raising (or better yet, eliminating) the earnings cap will solve all those problems.

If a rich guy pays twice the tax with no cap, he accrues twice the benefit.
How does that solve the problem?

No. The max benefit is the same for those fully insured, (vested) regardless of wealth.

 

[healthmyths]

SS is funded until 2034. By that time, the bulk of the boomers will be gone.
The largest threat to long term solvency is wage stagnation.

I don't believe you. You made that number up.
I provided you a link to the last SS Trustees' report... here tell me on what page does the report state "SS is funded until 2034"?
Page 3 states:
Under the Trustees’ intermediate assumptions, projected OASDI cost will exceed total income by increasing amounts starting in 2022, and the
dollar level of the hypothetical combined trust fund reserves declines until reserves become depleted in 2034.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2017/tr2017.pdf

No by that time the total SS system will have NO money to pay out as the reserves will be depleted.
And your assumption the bulk of baby boomers??? "Baby boomers" were born in the early to mid 1940s... so 2034 - 1943 (me!!!) is 91 years old.
My dad died when he was 90... the expected life span of men born in 1943 is about 90 years or 2034!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Raising (or better yet, eliminating) the earnings cap will solve all those problems.

If a rich guy pays twice the tax with no cap, he accrues twice the benefit.
How does that solve the problem?

No. The max benefit is the same for those fully insured, (vested) regardless of wealth.

Turn it into more of a welfare program, that'll guarantee its popularity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SS is funded until 2034. By that time, the bulk of the boomers will be gone.
The largest threat to long term solvency is wage stagnation.

I don't believe you. You made that number up.
I provided you a link to the last SS Trustees' report... here tell me on what page does the report state "SS is funded until 2034"?
Page 3 states:
Under the Trustees’ intermediate assumptions, projected OASDI cost will exceed total income by increasing amounts starting in 2022, and the
dollar level of the hypothetical combined trust fund reserves declines until reserves become depleted in 2034.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2017/tr2017.pdf

No by that time the total SS system will have NO money to pay out as the reserves will be depleted.
And your assumption the bulk of baby boomers??? "Baby boomers" were born in the early to mid 1940s... so 2034 - 1943 (me!!!) is 91 years old.
My dad died when he was 90... the expected life span of men born in 1943 is about 90 years or 2034!

No by that time the total SS system will have NO money to pay out as the reserves will be depleted.

They don't need reserves to pay out the money collected at that point.
With no reserves, they will have to reduce payouts to match the revenue at that point.

 

[healthmyths]

SS is funded until 2034. By that time, the bulk of the boomers will be gone.
The largest threat to long term solvency is wage stagnation.

I don't believe you. You made that number up.
I provided you a link to the last SS Trustees' report... here tell me on what page does the report state "SS is funded until 2034"?
Page 3 states:
Under the Trustees’ intermediate assumptions, projected OASDI cost will exceed total income by increasing amounts starting in 2022, and the
dollar level of the hypothetical combined trust fund reserves declines until reserves become depleted in 2034.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2017/tr2017.pdf

No by that time the total SS system will have NO money to pay out as the reserves will be depleted.
And your assumption the bulk of baby boomers??? "Baby boomers" were born in the early to mid 1940s... so 2034 - 1943 (me!!!) is 91 years old.
My dad died when he was 90... the expected life span of men born in 1943 is about 90 years or 2034!

No by that time the total SS system will have NO money to pay out as the reserves will be depleted.

They don't need reserves to pay out the money collected at that point.
With no reserves, they will have to reduce payouts to match the revenue at that point.

Right.

 

[regent]

SS is funded until 2034. By that time, the bulk of the boomers will be gone.
The largest threat to long term solvency is wage stagnation.

I don't believe you. You made that number up.
I provided you a link to the last SS Trustees' report... here tell me on what page does the report state "SS is funded until 2034"?
Page 3 states:
Under the Trustees’ intermediate assumptions, projected OASDI cost will exceed total income by increasing amounts starting in 2022, and the
dollar level of the hypothetical combined trust fund reserves declines until reserves become depleted in 2034.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2017/tr2017.pdf

No by that time the total SS system will have NO money to pay out as the reserves will be depleted.
And your assumption the bulk of baby boomers??? "Baby boomers" were born in the early to mid 1940s... so 2034 - 1943 (me!!!) is 91 years old.
My dad died when he was 90... the expected life span of men born in 1943 is about 90 years or 2034!

No by that time the total SS system will have NO money to pay out as the reserves will be depleted.

They don't need reserves to pay out the money collected at that point.
With no reserves, they will have to reduce payouts to match the revenue at that point.

Right.

Wonder why SS has been such a threat to conservatives? They have moved from their socialism-communism theme to: no money in the till. Yet every month the checks have been going out. Conservative politicians even tried the privatization thing, but few bought it. What is so evil about Social Security?