Quote:
Originally Posted by buggyone
"For the typical single elderly woman, the switch would reduce her monthly benefit by $56 at age 80."
If I read the article correctly, the woman illustrated was in her early 60's and was receiving SS benefits based on her deceased husband's account. She would still be receiving yearly increases to her SS benefits but at a couple of tenths of a percent less than she currently does.
Remember that Social Security was never meant to be the only income for retirement. It is a supplemental income. The individual must take personal responsibility for retirement saving all of their working career.
|
Hi buggyone: glad to see you are well. Social Security for our generation is sacrosant. Many of us pleaded with the government long ago to release our deductions so we could invest our earnings in a manner we felt would meet our future needs. Those pleadings fell on deaf ears because politicians wanted a fund to draw from for their self-interests. Advance to today and now many of these same politicans are criticizing us for defending our investment with terms such as "entitlements" Now they are complaining that social security will go broke while inferring that greedy retirees are responsible when we know that if politicians kept their greedy hands out of the social security fund it would have been well funded. So in the end who suffers? That is obviously a rhetorical question. If the social security fund had been handled as an investment, a very conservative one at that, there would never have been a need to restrict the CPI and benefits could have been better.
Here is another example of what happens with government interference.
The End