PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. - Over the past 50 years, the Greatest Generation has learned to get by through wars, a depression, and a few recessions. So they are not daunted by the prospect of no increase in their Social Security payments.
They are puzzled, though.
If her check were bigger, 76-year-old Agnes Conti might be able to spring for a better cut of meat for her pot roast. She could afford to send her nine grandchildren more than $20 for their birthdays and Christmas. She'd be able to buy some nice new clothes, like she sees on QVC, not what she settles for at Walmart.
I don't know why congress gets paid at all, they haven't done much to deserve it lately
I haven't read anything yet about imigrants getting SS, but if they paid in... While I don't agree with the SS program, I do think you should get something back if you were forced to pay in, at the very least an equal ammount to what you forked over. I think that is the single biggest hurdle to real SS reform, so many people are already invested in the program it makes any real change difficult without screwing someone, but if they don't change something then everyone will get screwed when the money runs out.
I think that our younger people are generally better prepared for retirement (or at least more knowledgable on financial matters and investment) than the current generation of SS recipients, so hopefully that will lessen the impact when the SS Ponzi sinks.
But i do wonder how congress can justifie there pay raise ?
The same way the administrators at the college where I work continually get 5% raises while those of us that actually do some work in the classroom have had four zero years in the past seven years and are in another one this year.
Apparantly enough congressmen thought the same way, there is legislation (already passed senate) to stop automatic pay raises, and also other legislation to stop the 2010 pay raise.
If the actual cost of living went down, but Social Security payments (or your salary) goes unchanged, the effect is an greater increase than the normal cost of living increase. In addition, revenue from payroll taxes is way down. The result is the ponzi scheme will begin to fail even sooner than previously predicted. But, as long as they can force people to pay into it...
I will pay SS gladly my husband Floyd Stormer CWO3 he died in 1999 he left me with half of his SS and half of his pension I make about $2200 a month God Bless Floyd no pay raise for me
I haven't addressed you before, but I've noted that you mentioned your great depression experiences on your Grandfather's farm several times and was moved by your tale. If you wanted to share your experience with others, the NY Times is collecting the experiences of others who lived through that trauma. This is the link to their video library, and has buttons for both contacting them or "working for them," if you're interested.
The SS system is flawed. My father-in-law receives a check and paid in all his life. My mother-in-law never paid a dime in, yet she receives a monthly check. I was very vocal with her that she never paid in to it so she shouldn't receive it. I wonder how many millions/billions of dollars are being paid out to people who never contributed and don't need it.
The mother-in-law recieves benefits based on her husbands (or former husbands) having paid it. I think that is fair, it's not like housekeeping and child rearing is not work. I suppose we could force the spouse with an outside income to pay a salary to the housekeeping child raising spouse, then to deduct the payroll tax, federal and state income tax, send 1099's, etc...
Social Security is not supposed to be need based. The best justification for it, is it forces people to "save" for their own retirement. Of course, it never was enough to provide a comfortable retirement, but better than nothing, and a nice supplement if you were smart enough to save and invest, or at least raise kids that will help you out in your old age.
And, of course the money that get taken in by Social Security is not saved. Most of the revenue coming in is immediatly sent out to current retirees (and widows, disabled, etc). Any exess is "invested" in government bonds, in other words, the government sucks up any exess and spends it on other stuff. Now that the payroll tax is taking in less than the system is sending out in benefits, it's cashing in some of it's government bonds, adding to the budget deficit. What happens when the bonds run out is debatable, but this Ponzi scheme is too big to crash, so the politicians won't let it happen.
He's still alive, still married to her and receiving all his benefits. She never worked or paid in to the system. When she turned 62 (I think), they went to the office and signed her up. She immediately started getting checks and he still got his same amount. How is the government responsible for paying for years of housing keeping and child rearing in your own home?
I'm not saying you have to force them to work outside the home, but if you don't contribute to the system then no money. Kind of like a 401K, if you've never contributed to one then you can't draw on something that's not there when you retire. Simple math, no contributions, no money and the fund will be gone in a few years because of this. The people who are paying in now will have nothing.
I suppose we could force the spouse with an outside income to pay a salary to the housekeeping child raising spouse
...wouldn't it be HALF of the salary, since the stay at home spouse would we responsible for 'half' of the work anyways? Then wouldn't you deduct half of the cost of groceries, half of the costs of rent/mortgage, insurance, vehicle, gas, utilities, clothes, haircuts, etc etc? Probably at the very best a wash for the stay at home.......
(ducking incoming for that)
..but yes, SS credits earned by one spouse is available for use of other spouse and/or dependants in some situations. That is the current system.
It's an expensive, pretty bad insurance program, stacked against you ... think about it...
You are betting - 15% of your income over years of productive lifetime - that a) you'll live to start collecting it, b) that what you collect will be enough to sustain you in your later years (if you live that long), and c) that your ROI will be recouped to justify the cost; and d) that it will still be there when you get there.
Okay - let's look at the odds... a) worked 50 years... say average (low ball) annual income subject to SS tax was 30,000 per year. That's 1 1/2 million dollars earned (said it was low ball). That means you paid (your 7.5 percent, your employers 7.5 percent that could have/should have been in your wages) $225,000 for your SOCIAL Security Insurance. Let's say you get 1200 per month when you retire (if you make it that far) or $14400 per year. That means you have to live about 15 1/2 years past retirement to recoup your premiums.
Of course, no growth on your 1/4 million... your premium over 50 years didn't earn any interest. Average age for a male (forget the demographics of black, hispanic, etc) is near 77. So if I retire on time (age 66) I have to make 81-82 to break even.
Now... my wife is paying into it too... If I don't make it... she gets the higher of either her SS or my SS - but no beneficiary pay out or return of premium, and certainly will NOT ever recoup the combined contributions of myself and herself.
And it's mandatory... you don't have a choice. You can't opt out.
It's hard to understand why SS is going broke if it was just an insurance program... the government should have been making money off the premiums... but it's not insurance... and too many folks who didn't contribute to it are taking out... educational benefits, disability benefits... etc etc.
AND IF YOU were prudent during your 50 years - and truly figured SocSec was a supplement at best - they are now talking about MEANS testing... which means you socked away savings, investments, 401/403 whatever - and because you did such a good job there - you don't need as much SocSec benefit now...
Yeah... I love it. That's why - I plan to take early SocSec the moment I can... before it's gone and before the government defaults on that promise too in order to give my benefits to others as a political/vote payoff...
It also discriminates against persons of color. Since persons of African ancestry are more likely to suffer from hypertension and other diseases, they have a shorter life expectancy, and therefore collect less in Social Security benefits. If 15% of their lifetime earnings had been invested in the stock market or even saved in an interest bearing bank account, they would have at least as much in retirement income and have a nice chunk of money to pass on to their heirs.
One of my economics professors, who happened to be black, liked to point out the racial discriminination aspect of it.
sc
