Medicare and Social Security in big trouble

[LouderVol]

Or plan better.

the issue is that SS has become a trap. as we see from the defenders here people rely on that money, plan for it.

and they are just making themselves dependent on the ever changing, not financially secure, whims of the Fed.

 

[McDad]

i just consider it a straight up tax at this point. there is no welfare coming for me.

just another 6.2% gone.

12.4%. You end up paying both yours and your employer's share.

 

[LouderVol]

That’s the way it should be now. If they had just indexed the retirement age to life expectancy then the retirement age in America today would be 75 and we wouldn’t have a problem.

thats an interesting point. What "should" be the age of retirement, or SS benefits? Is it a reverse Logan's Run situation, congrats you outlived your expiration date, NOW you can retire?

I think, intentionally or not, tying it to average life expectancy drastically changes the tone around SS.

 

[Orangeburst]

That’s the way it should be now. If they had just indexed the retirement age to life expectancy then the retirement age in America today would be 75 and we wouldn’t have a problem.

I am a late boomer. Aint no way I make it working to 75.
More about healthcare for me and my gen

 

[LouderVol]

12.4%. You end up paying both yours and your employer's share.

end up?

 

[n_huffhines]

end up?

It's called statutory incidence. Your employer only cares about one number....how much does it cost to employ you? They don't care where the money goes, they just look at it as one lump cost. So the 6% they send direct to Uncle Sam is part of the cost of employing you...in other words, money they'd be willing to give you if the government wasn't taking it.

 

[Boston Vol]

thats an interesting point. What "should" be the age of retirement, or SS benefits? Is it a reverse Logan's Run situation, congrats you outlived your expiration date, NOW you can retire?

I think, intentionally or not, tying it to average life expectancy drastically changes the tone around SS.

That’s how it was when it was first enacted. In 1935 the average life expectancy for a man was 58. For a female it was 61. Most everyone worked until they died. SS was basically a way of letting people enjoy their last year(s) without having to work. It was never intended to be a multi-decade retirement plan. So I agree that if the retirement age was raised, it would change the tone around SS.

 

[McDad]

end up?

Yeah. The employer matches with your money (in reality).

 

[Orangeburst]

That’s how it was when it was first enacted. In 1935 the average life expectancy for a man was 58. For a female it was 61. Most everyone worked until they died. SS was basically a way of letting people enjoy their last year(s) without having to work. It was never intended to be a multi-decade retirement plan. So I agree that if the retirement age was raised, it would change the tone around SS.

This was a quick google fu..

So the original beneficiary age in 1935 was 65, correct? So it was basically a 2-5 year life ending plan and now some retirement plan. Big difference and quite a scam.

 

[walkenvol]

I’m ok with that because technically it’s my money and if I croak, I want my old lady to have it instead of some dregs of society…. Sitting around on their big nasty behinds with their Cheetos stained hands watching Oprah and judge Judy all damn day

Your talking about a survivor benefit. I was referring to the spousal benefit which is the one where a spouse who’s never contributed into the SS system can draw an additional 50% of what their spouse is drawing while they are both still alive.

 

[LouderVol]

It's called statutory incidence. Your employer only cares about one number....how much does it cost to employ you? They don't care where the money goes, they just look at it as one lump cost. So the 6% they send direct to Uncle Sam is part of the cost of employing you...in other words, money they'd be willing to give you if the government wasn't taking it.

Oh I know that part. But my point was that is already in place. We wont end up doing that, because it's already here.

 

[walkenvol]

Duplicate post

 

[DuckInAPen]

I doubt the spousal benefit comes into play anymore since most women were forced into servitude in the middle 80's or so. It's a shame how our country is running out of taxpayers and workers.

Too few see the causal relationship between the content of your first sentence and that of your second. Too many think that traditional motherhood burdens the Social Security system (which they suppose is funded more or less like their Vanguard account).

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

https://www.cbpp.org/research/socia...1-trustees-report-shows-about-social-security

Social Security Trust Fund

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Individual Changes Modifying Social Security

Sanders, Warren propose bill to extend Social Security's solvency for 75 years, increase benefits by $2,400 per year