American elderly about to be thrown under the bus

[Yarddog]

I just read the statistics that most wealth in the country is held by a small group of people. I'm talking about millionaires - people who aren't going to be hurt by a cut. I just read that the middle class is devolving into the poor class. If they cut SS some elderly may find themselves out in the street.

Here is a site to help see what retirees will make.

https://www-fool-com.cdn.ampproject...average-social-security-at-age-62-66-and.aspx

 

[JIMINZ]

It seems that you be what the average American makes a year. She did say Jan and Joe Average.

That would be about $60, 000 total.

.
I would say then, I am not Joe average.

Well that would be $45,000 more than I ever made in a year.

I now get from SS $1,100 per month as my only income, and I put on an average $200,00 in the bank every month.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Cuts benefits FOR THE RICHEST BENEFICIARIES.

Would not every liberal here start turning cartwheels in the belief that the Democrats' approach might have been adopted by the Republicans in this instance?

The article also points out that Trump pledged not to cut benefits, regardless of that 2016 proposal.

So now, all those folks who hate him can: 1) choose to say he is a liar, claiming that he certainly will cut benefits...or else 2) explain why doing what the Democrats have always advocated as their solution to every fiscal problem--soak the rich--is suddenly not what they want.

IMHO, assuming it will be done, they should decrease 30% from the richest, and redistribute it to the poorest on SS, afterall, programs like food stamps are income based (and in need of an overhaul).

One thing I think our President should try to push through is an increase in minimum wage, it's long overdue and I think it was part of his campaign platform if I remember correctly.

Overall though, SS benefits should actually be increased across the board, it's ridiculous, people spend their whole lives slaving for employers, only to hit a financial brick wall when they become elderly. It is their money they put into SS, so it is not like a handout. Even so, there is always a portion of people who for whatever reason may not have been able to put as much or so much into SS, and should at least receive a poor but livable income, key word is livable which means keeping up with inflation, something minimum wage is woefully short of.

 

[angeltrue]

Very well sourced article . /sarcasm

Social security is not going to be cut. You heard it here first.

I read it elsewhere which is why it concerned me.

 

[angeltrue]

.
I would say then, I am not Joe average.

Well that would be $45,000 more than I ever made in a year.

I now get from SS $1,100 per month as my only income, and I put on an average $200,00 in the bank every month.

You don't have to answer if you don't want to, but do you mind telling us if you are living comfortable on that amount? I don't know enough as I haven't researched it for long, but if they cut your SS 25% you might not be able to make it. I don't know if it's a proposed across the board cut or a cut only for the wealthy.

Social Security remains insolvent. The trust fund will run out in 2034 at which point all beneficiaries will face a sudden 21% benefit cut. -Committee For Responsible Federal Budget

http://www.crfb.org/socialsecurityreformer/

 

[angeltrue]

IMHO, assuming it will be done, they should decrease 30% from the richest, and redistribute it to the poorest on SS, afterall, programs like food stamps are income based (and in need of an overhaul).

One thing I think our President should try to push through is an increase in minimum wage, it's long overdue and I think it was part of his campaign platform if I remember correctly.

Overall though, SS benefits should actually be increased across the board, it's ridiculous, people spend their whole lives slaving for employers, only to hit a financial brick wall when they become elderly. It is their money they put into SS, so it is not like a handout. Even so, there is always a portion of people who for whatever reason may not have been able to put as much or so much into SS, and should at least receive a poor but livable income, key word is livable which means keeping up with inflation, something minimum wage is woefully short of.

Yes, wages have stayed flat since 2007 http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...rs-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

One of my children is in college and working and the wages being paid are obscene, they're so low. It's so bad that we have to help financially and we have to watch money. It's unfair what is being done with these low wages - no one can survive on $11 an hour. Wages should raise, but mass immigration holds wages down because migrants will work for less money. When I was looking for a job online I was forced to compete with people in other countries who would work for extremely low pay. I couldn't compete. That's why these companies all want workers from India and elsewhere. The Indians have a paid lobbyist in Washington advocating for them to be hired over Americans.
Americans had better wake up because when their children and grandchildren seek work they're going to have to compete with a tsunami of foreigners. Americans have been sold down the river.

 

[Albion]

I just read the statistics that most wealth in the country is held by a small group of people. I'm talking about millionaires - people who aren't going to be hurt by a cut. I just read that the middle class is devolving into the poor class. If they cut SS some elderly may find themselves out in the street.

The article you gave us spoke of a plan to cut the benefits only for the wealthy, so from what you have been saying about who you think should suffer any cuts and who, on the other hand, needs to be protected from cuts in their benefits...

...that plan should have you cheering.

 

[Albion]

IMHO, assuming it will be done, they should decrease 30% from the richest, and redistribute it to the poorest on SS, afterall, programs like food stamps are income based (and in need of an overhaul).

The SS system is already heavily weighted towards the poorest people, however. And I do mean heavily.

Overall though, SS benefits should actually be increased across the board, it's ridiculous, people spend their whole lives slaving for employers, only to hit a financial brick wall when they become elderly. It is their money they put into SS, so it is not like a handout.

To some degree, it is. The money put into the system is far less than what the beneficiary gets back...unless of course he dies before retiring or shortly thereafter. Even then, his widow, and even children in some cases, may draw benefits for many years on his account.

Even so, there is always a portion of people who for whatever reason may not have been able to put as much or so much into SS, and should at least receive a poor but livable income, key word is livable which means keeping up with inflation, something minimum wage is woefully short of.

Keep in mind that Social Security was never meant to be--nor was it sold as--a living wage in retirement.

The purpose was to supplement whatever else the retiree had coming in from investments or private pension programs. However, human nature being what it is, many people do not make such provisions for their retirement.

 

[dysert]

Here is a site to help see what retirees will make.

https://www-fool-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.fool.com/amp/retirement/2018/01/20/heres-the-average-social-security-at-age-62-66-and.aspx?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/01/20/heres-the-average-social-security-at-age-62-66-and.aspx

Why concern yourself with what the average is? You can find out what your particular SS benefit will be by going to https://www.ssa.gov/

 

[mama2one]

I wonder then, if SS is going to be cut, that it would be best for people to take SS at earliest possible age rather than wait until full retirement age?


doen't everyone get statements in the mail from SS that says how much they will receive?
we've been getting them for yrs as a way to check that they've recorded wages correctly

 

[dysert]

I wonder then, if SS is going to be cut, that it would be best for people to take SS at earliest possible age rather than wait until full retirement age?


doen't everyone get statements in the mail from SS that says how much they will receive?
we've been getting them for yrs as a way to check that they've recorded wages correctly

In the past, when they've made changes to SS (e.g., changing what constituted "full retirement age"), they've always phased it in so that the people close to retirement weren't affected. As a general rule, it's best to keep working until you hit full retirement age to get the maximum benefit.

They may have stopped mailing the SS documents now that you can get yours online whenever you want.

 

[Albion]

I wonder then, if SS is going to be cut, that it would be best for people to take SS at earliest possible age rather than wait until full retirement age?

That has LONG been a question every person nearing retirement age has needed to answer.

There are several big problems with it, though.

IS there going to be such a cut as we have been talking about here? More likely there will be a series of little cuts. That is the historic pattern. Or if not that, then the big cut may well be put off by Congress for another ten years or so, since the system is still solvent.

If there are big cuts, whom will they fall on? The particular plan we have been talking about here proposed cutting only for the richest recipients. Are you one of them...or not?

How much do you need the retirement money when you are still in your 60s?

How long are you going to live after retirement?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

The SS system is already heavily weighted towards the poorest people, however. And I do mean heavily.

To some degree, it is. The money put into the system is far less than what the beneficiary gets back...unless of course he dies before retiring or shortly thereafter. Even then, his widow, and even children in some cases, may draw benefits for many years on his account.

Keep in mind that Social Security was never meant to be--nor was it sold as--a living wage in retirement.

The purpose was to supplement whatever else the retiree had coming in from investments or private pension programs. However, human nature being what it is, many people do not make such provisions for their retirement.

As a general rule, the government would rather people die before paying a dime of SS. Has always been the case. Family may still benefit, but look at the cost. Increases in age for SS is a proverbial slap in the face to workers. Typical government strategies to opt out of paying back.

 

[mama2one]

How long are you going to live after retirement?

there's no way of knowing how long anyone will live but husband and my grandma's lived into 80's and all our parents are still alive and one of our parents has a sibling 10 yrs older that is still alive

but when I try to figure if we will have enough at retirement, I calculate to 85

husband says he can't ever retire cause we are have an elementary school child

 

[dqhall]

Medicare is spending more than it takes in payroll taxes. Medicare might be bankrupt within 8 years.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/m...to-fund-for-first-time-in-36-years-2018-06-05

Social Security is expected to be bankrupt in 16 years:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-bankrupt-trustees-spending-column/682015002/

Six month FDIC insured certificates of deposit are paying about 2% interest. Some investments pay more, but are not insured.

 

[mama2one]

Six month FDIC insured certificates of deposit are paying about 2% interest. Some investments pay more, but are not insured.

CD rates are stinky but that's where we stick our tax refunds as a way to save for kid's college
don't want to risk losing it

 

[Albion]

there's no way of knowing how long anyone will live but husband and my grandma's lived into 80's and all our parents are still alive and one of our parents has a sibling 10 yrs older that is still alive

but when I try to figure if we will have enough at retirement, I calculate to 85

There are actually too many variables in this for a quick response, but you can always stop in to a SS office and ask how the figures add up, given a range of scenarios. People seem to think, wrongly, that they can only go in if they are applying for benefits or else that the SS administration has a vested interest in persuading people one way or the other if given the chance.

husband says he can't ever retire cause we are have an elementary school child

But if he retires and applies for SS benefits, that child becomes eligible for benefits, too. Choose not to retire and claim benefits, then that would not be the case. But of course, this presumes that it compensates for giving up his wages by retiring from employment.

 

[Yarddog]

Why concern yourself with what the average is? You can find out what your particular SS benefit will be by going to https://www.ssa.gov/

I wasn't worried about an average. I responded to a post about someone who who made a comment about the average Joe.

 

[Archivist]

The first person to collect Social Security was Ida May Fuller. She worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.

Does that explain why Social Security is running out of money? Because of the increasing life expectancy, too many people have collected far more out of Social Security than they ever paid in.

 

[Albion]

The first person to collect Social Security was Ida May Fuller. She worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.

Does that explain why Social Security is running out of money? Because of the increasing life expectancy, too many people have collected far more out of Social Security than they ever paid in.

Well, not really. Yes, that was the way the very first beneficiaries--and for the next decade or so--got on. That was because the government rightly concluded that it couldn't set up a retirement system during the Depression and then tell people they couldn't get any retirement benefits, despite their age, until the trust fun had built up to some level.

However, all that passed away decades ago. Today, some get a windfall and some do not collect what they put in. That's because of the unpredictability of life, when each of us will die and so on. Its also because that is the nature of insurance. You may pay for fire insurance all your life but never have a fire. Were you cheated because of that?