Social Security Pros & Cons

[Lynne]

"Social Security Pros & Cons" is the thread, not a debate as to anything else.

BTW we have 4 sons who already have more $ in their retirement / 401K's than we do. Because we educated them on the things you're stating.

 

[DTB]

If none of that bothers you and you somehow think that you "earned" what you receive in so-called benefits, then good for you but do realize that we are all collectively leaving our children with a crap future as the outstanding federal debt works out to over $160,000 per taxpayer and over $62,500 per citizen...and the biggest budget items in the federal government budget are Medicare and Social Security. The really odd thing is that the wealthiest (net worth) age group by far of all Americans is senior citizens (people over 65), yet the younger generations are being used to subsidize the older, wealthier generations....there is something seriously wrong with that.

If I get a fraction of what I've paid in how is that not earned?

Why would it be odd that seniors who have worked, saved and invested for 40+ years have the highest net worth?

I find it odd when seniors are not well off.

 

[EddieB]

I a

"Social Security Pros & Cons" is the thread, not a debate as to anything else.

Thanks, and I agree. I will leave the debate to others, although I fully understand their argument.

 

[residentialguy]

I've been working & paying since I was 16. I'll be 62 late January and will happily receive a monthly installment of a very small portion of what I've paid in. I've Never asked or received any Govt assistance!

To be honest I'm somewhat insulted at your response.

It wasn't an attack against SS. Just the opposite. What is insulting that SS is rumored to run out of money....don't seem to hear rumors that welfare is running out of money. Workers are running out of their own money yet free-loaders seem to be just fine. That's insulting.

 

[timd354]

Why would it be odd that seniors who have worked, saved and invested for 40+ years have the highest net worth?

Its not odd....what is odd is that younger generations with a lower net worth is being used to subsidize an older generation with higher net worth.

Just think how much more money people like you and I would have set aside to take care of ourselves in retirement without the need of any gov't help if we had not been forced to subsidize the generations who were older than us.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

I find it odd when seniors are not well off.

Go thru divorce or major medical crisis after age 40 and makes perfect sense.

 

[timd354]

If I get a fraction of what I've paid in how is that not earned?

While is possible that some people such as yourself may collect less then what you paid in, from an overall perspective, the older generations have spent far more than they ever paid into government, that is why the future generations have been left behind a $20 trillion debt. No matter how you try to justify, it simply cannot be disputed from a factual and logical standpoint that the older generations have robbed the generations that came after them. Unfortunately, this has created a culture in which everyone just wants to get what they see as coming to them and the future generations can be damned. Thus, things will just continue onward as they are until the whole system flies apart in an ugly manner, whether it is through some combination of hyper-inflation, the collapse of the economy, default on the national debt, and/or the eventual subversion of the republican form of government.

 

[Noreen]

Go thru divorce or major medical crisis after age 40 and makes perfect sense.

Thank you, and I have friends who's entire retirement funds in say a money mutual fund ( one of which was $750,000) lost it all in the "mess" of 2008 +/-... Another friend lost over $1M in the "traders fever" time. I also know people who were conservative with winnings.

 

[PL1957]

Just think how much more money people like you and I would have set aside to take care of ourselves in retirement without the need of any gov't help if we had not been forced to subsidize the generations who were older than us.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to think that FICA contributions would have been saved instead of spent.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

riends who's entire retirement funds in say a money mutual fund

There were people who lost 70% of their money in the dot.com bubble, mainly from "diversification" in funds not so diverse after all. A tech fund, Asia fund, and growth fund were basically all based on same basket of stocks. My CPA / investment advisor counseled many of his tax clients who bought stock from bank stock brokers who were poor advisors. No doubt some got "safe" bonds and real estate only to crash again 8 years later in RE and earn zero in bonds.