Post by vanillacourage on Apr 18, 2015 18:36:43 GMT -5
How serious a threat is this? I am fucking aghast that after paying a shit ton every month in SS for 65+ years that the government could say "sorry Charlie, we've changed the rules of the game" just when it's finally your turn to benefit.
If SS is bankrupt, I don't see the alternative. It's either that or reduce everyone's benefit significantly, which means more elderly people in poverty (which of course was what SS was created to avoid).
I do not use SS as part of my retirement calculation. It will be a nice bonus if it is there. Do people who have 15+ years to retirement (and actually save for retirement so higher income) count on it? I was always told to ignore it. I really don't see an alternative. People are living longer and expenses are higher.
Even with if nothing changes, they say it will still pay ~75% of expected benefits. That's not nothing. I've heard to save based on not expecting it, so that 75% will be a bonus. But yes, I have over 15 years til retirement, saving well, but I still expect to get something. But I may have to eat my words in 22 years.
TBH, I'd give it up if it meant they stop sending me notes about how we'll get 75%. Call it what it is - old people welfare - and I will be significantly less salty about seeing how much we pay.
I also think means testing plans in the past have talked about phasing it in, so that if you are close to retirement, you get the full amount no matter what - the further away you are, the less you are guaranteed until it's full on means tested. And quite frankly, fair or not, I kind of judge anyone my age who has had the opportunity to save for retirement but factors SS into their calculation. If you don't have that option, I understand, and that's what SS should be for. But if you do have the option, we've been told since we started working that it may not be around, so I'm kind of like...this is not shocking.
Post by irishbride2 on Apr 18, 2015 19:28:05 GMT -5
Its frustrating on both sides.
We've been billing it as a savings plan since its conception. That didn't really work long term, so now it needs to be more of a welfare thing. But the transition will be damn near impossible with both sides losing their shit.
Post by karinothing on Apr 18, 2015 19:31:13 GMT -5
I get not counting on it, but I don't think it is fair to judge people that do. SS is there as a tool for people to use to save for retirement. I don't call it welfare because you pay into it. Anyway, i doubt it is going away. Disability is supposed to be out of money this year. That is 2015. Yet we are still hiring and people are still getting benefits. I guess what I am saying is I have no doubt it will get funded and nothing will change for any of us.
I'm fine with is as longs as the drug test for it.
Kidding. But death panels for sure.
SEE? I don't hate the OLDZ. I want to give them money! Well, sort of. I figure it's impossible to not give them money, I just want to quit being told about how I'm paying into SS and will get it back. Because then I will get that OLDZ attitude of thinking I'm getting a check from the money I paid in. Seriously, my grandma thinks that it is her money she is getting paid - like they kept it in some account for her. NO.
I'd much rather they just take my money, and give OLDZ who need it money to live off of and quit acting like they're doing me a favor by taking my money with this ponzi scheme.
Post by CrazyLucky on Apr 18, 2015 19:46:56 GMT -5
I have no issue with the concept. I'm sure I'll have issue with how it is decided who is old enough or poor enough. I agree that seniors making $200k/yr can live without it though.
I have no issue with the concept. I'm sure I'll have issue with how it is decided who is old enough or poor enough. I agree that seniors making $200k/yr can live without it though.
But here is my problem with means testing. The people that REALLY need SS? They are going to be the people that don't get SS because they didn't work or ever pay into it. There is a very large part of the population that isn't ever going to get SS and really there is nothing for them. So like I guess I get that millionaires don't need it, but it means testing SS really doesn't solve a rather large part of the problem with poverty and the elderly.
I'm with eclaires. Stop blowing smoke up my ass and pretending I'll see that money. Let's just call it my mandatory donation to prior generations.
It's not sustainable, and it annoys the shit out of me. I'd much rather fix it and be the one to take the hit if it means it's sustainable and not a ponzi scheme for future generations.
Do I love that we've paid into it and maybe won't get anything back? No... but it is what it is and at some point, someone has to take ownership of failed initiatives and pay the piper. If that's my generation, so be it. Continually passing the buck so we can get ours is a huge problem in this country, in my oh so humble opinion.
I have no issue with the concept. I'm sure I'll have issue with how it is decided who is old enough or poor enough. I agree that seniors making $200k/yr can live without it though.
But here is my problem with means testing. The people that REALLY need SS? They are going to be the people that don't get SS because they didn't work or ever pay into it. There is a very large part of the population that isn't ever going to get SS and really there is nothing for them. So like I guess I get that millionaires don't need it, but it means testing SS really doesn't solve a rather large part of the problem with poverty and the elderly.
Which is why we should just phase it out and make it a welfare type thing
I have no issue with the concept. I'm sure I'll have issue with how it is decided who is old enough or poor enough. I agree that seniors making $200k/yr can live without it though.
But here is my problem with means testing. The people that REALLY need SS? They are going to be the people that don't get SS because they didn't work or ever pay into it. There is a very large part of the population that isn't ever going to get SS and really there is nothing for them. So like I guess I get that millionaires don't need it, but it means testing SS really doesn't solve a rather large part of the problem with poverty and the elderly.
If we're means testing it, my opinion is that anyone who needs it should get it. It needs to be transitioned to old people welfare.
But here is my problem with means testing. The people that REALLY need SS? They are going to be the people that don't get SS because they didn't work or ever pay into it. There is a very large part of the population that isn't ever going to get SS and really there is nothing for them. So like I guess I get that millionaires don't need it, but it means testing SS really doesn't solve a rather large part of the problem with poverty and the elderly.
Which is why we should just phase it out and make it a welfare type thing
I just don't think SS is the right tool for that. I think we should keep SS the way it is (although again, I believe it will get funded, so take my view with a grain of salt). Then we expand TANF. SS IMO needs to be tied to work. While it may not give any of us incentive to work, it does give some people incentive to work AND to work on the books (meaning not only are they paying into SS but they are paying other taxes as well). So basically, leave SS tied to work and focus on expanding TANF to cover ALL low income individuals not just those with kids.
If a candidate could somehow signal anyone under 40 that they are secretly planning on overhauling SS once they're elected on a platform that they won't touch it, I'd vote that shit in. Mostly just to watch the oldz freak out that yes, it's getting fucked with because it's already fucked up.
Which is why we should just phase it out and make it a welfare type thing
I just don't think SS is the right tool for that. I think we should keep SS the way it is (although again, I believe it will get funded, so take my view with a grain of salt). Then we expand TANF. SS IMO needs to be tied to work. While it may not give any of us incentive to work, it does give some people incentive to work AND to work on the books (meaning not only are they paying into SS but they are paying other taxes as well). So basically, leave SS tied to work and focus on expanding TANF to cover ALL low income individuals not just those with kids.
Fine but then don't means test SS. If the wealthy pay in up to a certain amount they also are capped at what they take. If your goal is to have it as savings tied to work then it should be savings tied to work.
Id prefer just to have welfare expanded and let most people do their own retirement savings.
I just don't think SS is the right tool for that. I think we should keep SS the way it is (although again, I believe it will get funded, so take my view with a grain of salt). Then we expand TANF. SS IMO needs to be tied to work. While it may not give any of us incentive to work, it does give some people incentive to work AND to work on the books (meaning not only are they paying into SS but they are paying other taxes as well). So basically, leave SS tied to work and focus on expanding TANF to cover ALL low income individuals not just those with kids.
Fine but then don't means test SS. If the wealthy pay in up to a certain amount they also are capped at what they take. If your goal is to have it as savings tied to work then it should be savings tied to work.
Id prefer just to have welfare expanded and let most people do their own retirement savings.
I mean I can see the wealthy being capped at what they take (but essentially they already are, since the max amount you can get is something like $2600 or so, and that is based on how much you paid in). But I do think that SS needs to remain tired to work AND I completely understand encouraging people to use their own retirement savings vehicle, but SS is a retirement life line for many folks in low income jobs who don't have access to a work based retirement plan. It also helps out a lot of people who may not have the financial know how to seek out their own retirement plan. Or like me, who file married but separate are are essentially prohibited from contributing to a Roth.
But then again, I am defensive of SS since they pay my bills
I just don't think SS is the right tool for that. I think we should keep SS the way it is (although again, I believe it will get funded, so take my view with a grain of salt). Then we expand TANF. SS IMO needs to be tied to work. While it may not give any of us incentive to work, it does give some people incentive to work AND to work on the books (meaning not only are they paying into SS but they are paying other taxes as well). So basically, leave SS tied to work and focus on expanding TANF to cover ALL low income individuals not just those with kids.
Fine but then don't means test SS. If the wealthy pay in up to a certain amount they also are capped at what they take. If your goal is to have it as savings tied to work then it should be savings tied to work.
Id prefer just to have welfare expanded and let most people do their own retirement savings.
And how is that welfare going to be funded? My husband doesn't pay into social security, so he is ineligible to receive it. I pay into social security, so I hope it is around when I retirement, but I am not counting on it.
Fine but then don't means test SS. If the wealthy pay in up to a certain amount they also are capped at what they take. If your goal is to have it as savings tied to work then it should be savings tied to work.
Id prefer just to have welfare expanded and let most people do their own retirement savings.
And how is that welfare going to be funded? My husband doesn't pay into social security, so he is ineligible to receive it. I pay into social security, so I hope it is around when I retirement, but I am not counting on it.
And how is that welfare going to be funded? My husband doesn't pay into social security, so he is ineligible to receive it. I pay into social security, so I hope it is around when I retirement, but I am not counting on it.
More taxes less military spending
So basically what we are paying into social security now? Because that program is already under funded. I wouldn't want to cut military spending.
SS is already somewhat means-tested. The payout formula favors low income earners. I think there's a 100% chance our generation will get hosed in retirement. Whether that's by means testing (very likely) or a combo of ways (also likely) it's not going to be what it used to be. Not that it used to be a great retirement pension anyway. It has always sucked to only have SS to live on.
Fine but then don't means test SS. If the wealthy pay in up to a certain amount they also are capped at what they take. If your goal is to have it as savings tied to work then it should be savings tied to work.
Id prefer just to have welfare expanded and let most people do their own retirement savings.
And how is that welfare going to be funded? My husband doesn't pay into social security, so he is ineligible to receive it. I pay into social security, so I hope it is around when I retirement, but I am not counting on it.
A tax, like any other type of welfare.
I'd rather that then the confusion that is SS. People are incredibly ignorant on the topic and politicians use that to polarize Americans on both sides. Plus, IMO, it is not effective long term.