Social Security

[Stuholden]

For years our government has been unable to address the future shortfall in Social Security funding.
Now the payroll tax is being suspended and President Trump has said if re-elected he will kill this tax; without alternative funding the Social Security Trust Fund will exhaust in 3-4 years.
Am I the only one concerned about the future of my social security checks?

[dewilson58]

You may not be the only one...........but I'm not.

[Bill32]

not a bit.....

[retiredguy123]

For years our government has been unable to address the future shortfall in Social Security funding.
Now the payroll tax is being suspended and President Trump has said if re-elected he will kill this tax; without alternative funding the Social Security Trust Fund will exhaust in 3-4 years.
Am I the only one concerned about the future of my social security checks?
There is no trust fund. No trust and no funds.

[Stu from NYC]

According to my cpa it is a postponement and he expect the funds must go back in.

So he has me continuing to withhold.

Even if they run out of fund to pay 100% they can still pay about 75%.

Hopefully they will do something to allow the funds to pay the expected amounts.

[Schaumburger]

I spoke to my employer's payroll manager about this a few days ago. My employer will not be participating in the payroll tax deferral. What benefit would this deferral be if workers have to pay this tax back by April, 2021?

[davem4616]

When he takes away my social security I will be in financial trouble.


changes to social security have traditionally been effective 'going forward' and phased in...there is NOTHING on the table right now

it is highly unlikely that your social security income will ever be affected regardless of any changes that congress may vote for...it's never been retroactive

BTW - it would take an act of congress, nothing that the 'he' (or a 'she') that you allude to could do unilaterally

[JimJohnson]

changes to social security have traditionally been effective 'going forward' and phased in...there is NOTHING on the table right now

it is highly unlikely that your social security income will ever be affected regardless of any changes that congress may vote for...it's never been retroactive

BTW - it would take an act of congress, nothing that the 'he' (or a 'she') that you allude to could do unilaterally

Thanks and I pray your right, but I have heard a lot of times that he cannot do that only to see it happen.

[Boomer]

When he takes away my social security I will be in financial trouble.

Post reported....political referencing



Nope. JimJohnson said nothing political.

But I guess post-reporting depends on whose ox is being gored.

Back to the topic of concern for the future of Social Security, this decision could grow arms and legs.

This decision could eventually threaten not just those who depend for the most part on Social Security in retirement, but also could threaten those who have invested carefully, but depend on SS to provide a buffer that keeps investors from needing to tap into their IRAs sooner rather than later. And where a Roth is concerned maybe forever.

Anyone who thinks that privatization of SS is not in the wings is kidding themselves. Another thing that could be looming in the wings is means testing — that could hit those who have been paying in for years, but have accumulated assets — though they are not super high income people, just good long range planners.

Please do not base your opinion on personal politics. Please think through how this SS decision can affect personal finances in retirement — for all of us.

Cassandra Boomer

[queasy27]

This decision could eventually threaten not just those who depend for the most part on Social Security in retirement, but also could threaten those who have invested carefully, but depend on SS to provide a buffer that keeps investors from needing to tap into their IRAs sooner rather than later.

Describes me. I have no pension and rely solely on savings and SS.

TBH I don't think it will happen, but theoretically yeah, it would cut my income in half.

[Stu from NYC]

Nope. JimJohnson said nothing political.

But I guess post-reporting depends on whose ox is being gored.

Back to the topic of concern for the future of Social Security, this decision could grow arms and legs.

This decision could eventually threaten not just those who depend for the most part on Social Security in retirement, but also could threaten those who have invested carefully, but depend on SS to provide a buffer that keeps investors from needing to tap into their IRAs sooner rather than later. And where a Roth is concerned maybe forever.

Anyone who thinks that privatization of SS is not in the wings is kidding themselves. Another thing that could be looming in the wings is means testing — that could hit those who have been paying in for years, but have accumulated assets — though they are not super high income people, just good long range planners.

Please do not base your opinion on personal politics. Please think through how this SS decision can affect personal finances in retirement — for all of us.

Cassandra Boomer

I do not see privatization happening but something must be done to make it sustainable.

It was set up to pay out at age 65 when the majority of people did not live that long.

Now that we are living well past that time enough is not coming in to maintain full payment for more than say 10 years.

Congress and President must either raise retirement age, allow people who want to do so to opt out probably sacrificing what they put in, raise the amounts paid into the system either by rate or income after which no more payments into the system or allow those who wish to to invest part of their money in some sort of mutual fund assuming some degree of risk.

Instead both parties would rather kick the can down the road. At some point action will have to be taken and the longer they take to do so the more difficult the fix will be.

[retiredguy123]

I do not see privatization happening but something must be done to make it sustainable.

It was set up to pay out at age 65 when the majority of people did not live that long.

Now that we are living well past that time enough is not coming in to maintain full payment for more than say 10 years.

Congress and President must either raise retirement age, allow people who want to do so to opt out probably sacrificing what they put in, raise the amounts paid into the system either by rate or income after which no more payments into the system or allow those who wish to to invest part of their money in some sort of mutual fund assuming some degree of risk.

Instead both parties would rather kick the can down the road. At some point action will have to be taken and the longer they take to do so the more difficult the fix will be.
Allowing people to opt out would end Social Security. Do the math. The system is designed so that high income people get ripped off for the benefit of low income people. So, if you can opt out, the high income people would opt out, and the system would collapse. Social Security is a cleverly designed welfare program.

[rjm1cc]

For years our government has been unable to address the future shortfall in Social Security funding.
Now the payroll tax is being suspended and President Trump has said if re-elected he will kill this tax; without alternative funding the Social Security Trust Fund will exhaust in 3-4 years.
Am I the only one concerned about the future of my social security checks?

I think you will find that the current retired beneficiaries of the SS system will be funded by the general treasury. If you want to reduce taxes on individuals earning very little eliminating the payroll tax will be by far the most beneficial. So this would be a tax cut for the "poor". If the treasury needs to raise more money to pay the SS benefits, and it probably will, then the tax is going to have to come from higher earning individuals.

[tophcfa]

What pi$$es me off to no end is that they call SS an entitlement. Entitlements are hand outs to people who did nothing to earn them, but somehow feel entitled to them anyways. Those of us who worked our a$$es off for many long years and had SS taken out of our checks every year are not entitled to the benefits, we are OWED the benefits. If the $$ was never taken out of our paychecks, and instead we were able to keep it and save it, we would not need SS. Stop calling it an entitlement and shore up the dam system so the people that are owed the $$ don't have to worry about a funding shortfall.

[Stu from NYC]

What pi$$es me off to no end is that they call SS an entitlement. Entitlements are hand outs to people who did nothing to earn them, but somehow feel entitled to them anyways. Those of us who worked our a$$es off for many long years and had SS taken out of our checks every year are not entitled to the benefits, we are OWED the benefits. If the $$ was never taken out of our paychecks, and instead we were able to keep it and save it, we would not need SS. Stop calling it an entitlement and shore up the dam system so the people that are owed the $$ don't have to worry about a funding shortfall.

Very true

[Stu from NYC]

Allowing people to opt out would end Social Security. Do the math. The system is designed so that high income people get ripped off for the benefit of low income people. So, if you can opt out, the high income people would opt out, and the system would collapse. Social Security is a cleverly designed welfare program.

Not so sure but not going to happen.

The best way to fix it IMHO is to raise the retirement age so as to balance people paying in and payments going out with the realization that as we all live longer and longer retirement age would have to be indexed to longevity.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

What pi$$es me off to no end is that they call SS an entitlement. Entitlements are hand outs to people who did nothing to earn them, but somehow feel entitled to them anyways. Those of us who worked our a$$es off for many long years and had SS taken out of our checks every year are not entitled to the benefits, we are OWED the benefits. If the $$ was never taken out of our paychecks, and instead we were able to keep it and save it, we would not need SS. Stop calling it an entitlement and shore up the dam system so the people that are owed the $$ don't have to worry about a funding shortfall.

I think you do not understand something - what you described, is an example of what an entitlement IS. By definition. If you ARE entitled to something - then that something is an entitlement. If you have the RIGHT to receive something - because you paid for it - then you are entitled to it by definition.

Social security is called an entitlement because it IS one, by definition. Things that people THINK they are entitled to, but aren't - are not entitlements.

[ruralgoddess]

why?

[ruralgoddess]

which is IMHO only right... plus the cap on taxable income for Social Security withholding needs to be eliminated.

[Rwirish]

This is a stupid decision by the President regardless of party affiliation.

[rmd2]

Not concerned.

[TNLAKEPANDA]

For years our government has been unable to address the future shortfall in Social Security funding.
Now the payroll tax is being suspended and President Trump has said if re-elected he will kill this tax; without alternative funding the Social Security Trust Fund will exhaust in 3-4 years.
Am I the only one concerned about the future of my social security checks?

I think that it’s time for SS to be revamped and funded differently. It should have been done year ago but every President is afraid to do it. The money we get out of SS after years of paying in in pitiful. It should be a private fund for each individual that can be passed on upon death.

[Stu from NYC]

I think you do not understand something - what you described, is an example of what an entitlement IS. By definition. If you ARE entitled to something - then that something is an entitlement. If you have the RIGHT to receive something - because you paid for it - then you are entitled to it by definition.

Social security is called an entitlement because it IS one, by definition. Things that people THINK they are entitled to, but aren't - are not entitlements.

I think you are correct in theory but wrong in practice.

Politicians will call it entitlements suggesting we are not entitled to get it under any and all circumstances. And quite a few have suggested a means test where if people earn a high income they are not entitled to collect from SS.

[dewilson58]

which is IMHO only right... plus the cap on taxable income for Social Security withholding needs to be eliminated.


Hmmmm

[Pamelah]

not a bit.....
There’s compassion for ya’ .

[noslices1]

I spoke to my employer's payroll manager about this a few days ago. My employer will not be participating in the payroll tax deferral. What benefit would this deferral be if workers have to pay this tax back by April, 2021?

There has been much miss information talked about this subject. What President Trump proposes is to defer the payment of these taxes until 2021, however, he will forgive the payment if he is re-elected. If he is not, then the new administration will probably want them paid next year. This is not the tax he will PERMANENTLY eliminate. The previous tax cuts he made in 2017 are set to expire for individuals in 2026, but will make those cuts permanent.

[Pamelah]

Allowing people to opt out would end Social Security. Do the math. The system is designed so that high income people get ripped off for the benefit of low income people. So, if you can opt out, the high income people would opt out, and the system would collapse. Social Security is a cleverly designed welfare program.
You are degrading “low income people” who WORKED to put food on the table, but didn’t make enough to invest or perhaps save much in a bank. Social Security took part of their paycheck to give back later and now “later” may disappear. Such selfish responses to this question!

[xcaligirl]

For years our government has been unable to address the future shortfall in Social Security funding.
Now the payroll tax is being suspended and President Trump has said if re-elected he will kill this tax; without alternative funding the Social Security Trust Fund will exhaust in 3-4 years.
Am I the only one concerned about the future of my social security checks?
You're not the only one. I have a problem with so many people (mainly illegal) getting SOCIAL SECURITY that they never paid into......

[4557Spahr]

Another scare tactic. I’m not worried about it.

[Bill1701]

We don't get the government we want. We get the government we deserve. With a few exceptions, none of our Congresspeople will touch this issue. It doesn't matter if they are a D or R.

[Dgodin]

For years our government has been unable to address the future shortfall in Social Security funding.
Now the payroll tax is being suspended and President Trump has said if re-elected he will kill this tax; without alternative funding the Social Security Trust Fund will exhaust in 3-4 years.
Am I the only one concerned about the future of my social security checks?
The current suspension of payroll tax collection is temporary, and worse, will have to be paid back next year. A trick played on working people who will enjoy more pay this year at the expense of a pay cut next year.
Privatization of Social security has been on the agenda for years. Expect another attempt at it.

[markhollis]

In Congress both Democrats and Republicans are against cutting Payroll Tax. It funds SS, Medicare and Medicaid, which something like 60% of nursing home residents depend upon. Employers, like our President, benefit from not having to match.

If the payroll tax were to be cut for the rest of the year, many Americans would be unable to or strained to repay.

If the payroll tax were to be cut for the rest of the year and forgiven and payroll tax was eliminated in 2021, SSI (disability payments) would stop in 2021, and SS payments would stop in 2023 (possibly 2024) and Medicare and Medicaid would be defunded.

I think it is obvious that both parties realize they will have problems with re-election if they are perceived as being the villains who stole money other Americans are entitled to. They would also be 'stealing' from themselves as they are employees. The only beneficiary of payroll tax elimination is employers.

[retiredguy123]

You are degrading “low income people” who WORKED to put food on the table, but didn’t make enough to invest or perhaps save much in a bank. Social Security took part of their paycheck to give back later and now “later” may disappear. Such selfish responses to this question!
I was not trying to degrade anyone. I was just explaining how the math works for Social Security. You may not like it, but the SS system doesn't give people's money back. It redistributes money from high income earners and gives it to low income earners. Under the current system, a typical minimum wage worker, who retires on Social Security, will receive an income that is way higher than they could ever have financed with their SS contributions. So, allowing people to opt out of the system is not possible because the high income earners would opt out and there would be no money to redistribute to the low income earners. That is just a fact.

[Donvan]

He only wants to suspend tax till end of year. There is no separate fund thanks to Johnson . It’s all in general fund . All money is all ready in one pool . Rest is just paper.

[mainelovr]

You're not the only one. I have a problem with so many people (mainly illegal) getting SOCIAL SECURITY that they never paid into......

Though not all noncitizens in this country are working within legal channels -- i.e., paying federal and/or state tax -- quite a few are. In 2010, according to data highlighted by AARP, undocumented immigrants' wage income netted Social Security approximately $12 billion in payroll taxes. Yet, the program's rules are crystal clear: noncitizens aren't able to receive Social Security benefits. Thus, numerous undocumented immigrants are likely paying into a Social Security program that'll never supply them with a red cent in benefits.
The Biggest Social Security Lies You've Believed | The Motley Fool (https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/27/the-biggest-social-security-lies-youve-believed.aspx)

[Carlsondm]

You are not the only one concerned.
Since we are personally invested in the system, it is unnerving to have the funding manipulated without our input.
Assumptions and promises don’t mean much.

[PJackpot]

I would say you are pretty much the only one. Trump wants to fund SS through other means. It does not mean the end of SS. And the payroll tax is not going to be done away with, he is initiating a deferral program, and the deferral program is for employers. Employees are still on the hook.

What does Trump'''s payroll tax deferral mean for you? | Fox Business (https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/what-does-trumps-payroll-tax-deferral-mean-for-you)

[MandoMan]

I do not see privatization happening but something must be done to make it sustainable.

It was set up to pay out at age 65 when the majority of people did not live that long.

Now that we are living well past that time enough is not coming in to maintain full payment for more than say 10 years.

Congress and President must either raise retirement age, allow people who want to do so to opt out probably sacrificing what they put in, raise the amounts paid into the system either by rate or income after which no more payments into the system or allow those who wish to to invest part of their money in some sort of mutual fund assuming some degree of risk.

Instead both parties would rather kick the can down the road. At some point action will have to be taken and the longer they take to do so the more difficult the fix will be.

You are right. The retirement age has already been raised. It was 65 for years. It is now 66. In two or three years it will be 67 for full Social Security. I waited until 66. However something like 75% of people retire as soon as they are able to, at 62, despite the greatly reduced benefits. I haven’t heard talk of THAT being changed, but perhaps I just didn’t notice.

I think that deferring the Social Security Payroll Tax is being presented as money in our pockets, but it is really a ploy to prepare us for canceling it for good. Precious few of us here would like the results. Could you get by on a 25% cut to your benefits? How about 100%? What would you give up? Dining out? Golf? Would you have to move to a mobile home somewhere? Would you have to move in with your kids, or live in a cardboard box somewhere?

What really needs to be done is to RAISE what the employer and the employees pay in Social Security taxes by 0.2% a year for ten years. That’s really all it would take to “save Social Security.”

[Rosebud1949]

Where the various policies that have been made in recent years do NOT affect those living here, they just go un-noticed.... and they will accept and vote for them.... when it hits them, then it will be too late. Saying I told you so, to them, will NOT help the rest of us.


For years our government has been unable to address the future shortfall in Social Security funding.
Now the payroll tax is being suspended and President Trump has said if re-elected he will kill this tax; without alternative funding the Social Security Trust Fund will exhaust in 3-4 years.
Am I the only one concerned about the future of my social security checks?

[mjpuleo]

i say leave the Soc. Sec. system as is

[Stu from NYC]

i say leave the Soc. Sec. system as is

And when they run out of money to pay the benefits they are paying now than what do you suggest?

We may not be around to see it but our kids will be in trouble and screwed out of the contributions they have made.

[Spsmith444]

For years our government has been unable to address the future shortfall in Social Security funding.
Now the payroll tax is being suspended and President Trump has said if re-elected he will kill this tax; without alternative funding the Social Security Trust Fund will exhaust in 3-4 years.
Am I the only one concerned about the future of my social security checks?

Nope. I retired last year (12/31/2019) at 65. Have not applied for benefits yet. Going up $16/mo as I wait. Should get 3k/mo if I start near future. No way will any political party dare touch SS.

[Stu from NYC]

You are right. The retirement age has already been raised. It was 65 for years. It is now 66. In two or three years it will be 67 for full Social Security. I waited until 66. However something like 75% of people retire as soon as they are able to, at 62, despite the greatly reduced benefits. I haven’t heard talk of THAT being changed, but perhaps I just didn’t notice.

I think that deferring the Social Security Payroll Tax is being presented as money in our pockets, but it is really a ploy to prepare us for canceling it for good. Precious few of us here would like the results. Could you get by on a 25% cut to your benefits? How about 100%? What would you give up? Dining out? Golf? Would you have to move to a mobile home somewhere? Would you have to move in with your kids, or live in a cardboard box somewhere?

What really needs to be done is to RAISE what the employer and the employees pay in Social Security taxes by 0.2% a year for ten years. That’s really all it would take to “save Social Security.”

The problem with your suggestion is that as the average life span increases will have more and more people collecting and less paying in.

67 at this point is not enough, should be about 70.

I do not see the govt ending SS. People in this country often act like sheep but end SS and would think anyone who voted to do so would quickly need a new job.

[jimjamuser]

What pi$$es me off to no end is that they call SS an entitlement. Entitlements are hand outs to people who did nothing to earn them, but somehow feel entitled to them anyways. Those of us who worked our a$$es off for many long years and had SS taken out of our checks every year are not entitled to the benefits, we are OWED the benefits. If the $$ was never taken out of our paychecks, and instead we were able to keep it and save it, we would not need SS. Stop calling it an entitlement and shore up the dam system so the people that are owed the $$ don't have to worry about a funding shortfall.
Great post. I believe that. We need more in TV Land to be like you.

[Bucco]

Great post. I believe that. We need more in TV Land to be like you.

BUT, if the the word "entitlement" is not used, even though it is simply another lie, who can we blame ????

[retiredguy123]

Though not all noncitizens in this country are working within legal channels -- i.e., paying federal and/or state tax -- quite a few are. In 2010, according to data highlighted by AARP, undocumented immigrants' wage income netted Social Security approximately $12 billion in payroll taxes. Yet, the program's rules are crystal clear: noncitizens aren't able to receive Social Security benefits. Thus, numerous undocumented immigrants are likely paying into a Social Security program that'll never supply them with a red cent in benefits.
The Biggest Social Security Lies You've Believed | The Motley Fool (https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/27/the-biggest-social-security-lies-youve-believed.aspx)
I have no problem with that.

[LoisR]

This is a stupid decision by the President regardless of party affiliation.
Best response yet. My compliments. Follow up with your November vote.

[jklfairwin]

Social Security is a very complicated issue and often provokes very heated views. The program was set up outside the regular budget with its own "trust fund" and its own revenue stream from a separate payroll tax to guard it as much as possible from the future whims of Congress. It is not a true insurance program in that it is actually the contributions of today's workers who are paying the benefits to today's retirees; they in turn will be receiving benefits paid for by tomorrows workers. It is probably the most carefully thought out, successful, and useful program ever created in the US. There are many reasonable solutions to the future minor problems of SS such as simply including all income in the payroll tax and raising or eliminating the taxable income cutoff.

If the payroll tax is eliminated, the only other source of revenue to pay benefits is the general fund and this puts the whole program subject to the whims of any new Congress and removes all stability from the program. Far better and safer to simply send out checks to everyone from the general fund as has already been done and is now being considered for extension or repeat.

[vermonster]

Allowing people to opt out would end Social Security. Do the math. The system is designed so that high income people get ripped off for the benefit of low income people. So, if you can opt out, the high income people would opt out, and the system would collapse. Social Security is a cleverly designed welfare program.
Actually it is quite the opposite. The social security part of the payroll tax is capped at an income level somewhere north of $100k; the part that covers medicare is not (although it was previously). Thus the higher your income is above the cap, the lower your effective rate of social security tax. This is known as a regressive tax, which means that the rate decreases as incomes rise. The other types of tax (in regard to their impact) are flat rate (medicare, e.g.) and progressive (the federal income tax, although it has become much less progressive than it used to be). That is why Warren Buffet decries that the effective tax rate (including all income and payroll taxes) on his income is lower that of his secretary.

[retiredguy123]

Actually it is quite the opposite. The social security part of the payroll tax is capped at an income level somewhere north of $100k; the part that covers medicare is not (although it was previously). Thus the higher your income is above the cap, the lower your effective rate of social security tax. This is known as a regressive tax, which means that the rate decreases as incomes rise. The other types of tax (in regard to their impact) are flat rate (medicare, e.g.) and progressive (the federal income tax, although it has become much less progressive than it used to be). That is why Warren Buffet decries that the effective tax rate (including all income and payroll taxes) on his income is lower that of his secretary.
You are referring to the taxes paid on income while working. That has very little to do with the monthly Social Security income that a retiree receives when they retire. A low income worker can receive as much as 90 percent of their pre-retirement income as a SS retirement income benefit. But, a high income person will only receive about 15 or 20 percent of their pre-retirement income as a retirement benefit.

Also, both low income and high income workers will receive the exact same Medicare benefit, even though the high income worker paid a lot more in Medicare taxes while working. And, after you turn 65, you have to pay a monthly premium for Medicare Part B. But, that premium is based in your income. Low income people pay about $140 per month, but high income people can pay about $400 per month for the same health insurance benefit.

So, high income workers pay more SS and Medicare taxes while working, pay a higher Medicare premium when they retire, and receive substantially less money, on a pro-rated basis, in benefits than low income workers. That is just the way math works.

[Neils]

Just print more money to fill the tank. No different that the $1,200 payments. Money from nothing.

[jmcote]

The president made it clear he will not do anything that will hurt SS. You must be getting your info from the MSM

You believe that I know of some prime real estate for sale, in the Everglades. ������

[pcacace]

The alternative funding will be the general fund. Trump said this in an article. Don’t worry about it. Your SS will be there for you. It might be different for the next generation.

[Stu from NYC]

You are referring to the taxes paid on income while working. That has very little to do with the monthly Social Security income that a retiree receives when they retire. A low income worker can receive as much as 90 percent of their pre-retirement income as a SS retirement income benefit. But, a high income person will only receive about 15 or 20 percent of their pre-retirement income as a retirement benefit.

Also, both low income and high income workers will receive the exact same Medicare benefit, even though the high income worker paid a lot more in Medicare taxes while working. And, after you turn 65, you have to pay a monthly premium for Medicare Part B. But, that premium is based in your income. Low income people pay about $140 per month, but high income people can pay about $400 per month for the same health insurance benefit.

So, high income workers pay more SS and Medicare taxes while working, pay a higher Medicare premium when they retire, and receive substantially less money, on a pro-rated basis, in benefits than low income workers. That is just the way math works.

It is even worse if still working after collecting SS. Get to pay into SS and medicare while paying for part B and a supplemental policy.

One thing I think you are overlooking. Higher income folks pay into SS up until a certain salary and than it stops. So if someone is making say $ 300,000 a year they only pay into SS for the first 150,000 or so in salary. (do not remember the cutoff as it changes year by year and no long in that category.

[ficoguy]

I think with the Corona Virus the actuaries need to look at the mortality rates and recalculate the insurance benefits. If you believe the media 200,000 beneficiaries of social security will be off the rolls very soon.....

[retiredguy123]

It is even worse if still working after collecting SS. Get to pay into SS and medicare while paying for part B and a supplemental policy.

One thing I think you are overlooking. Higher income folks pay into SS up until a certain salary and than it stops. So if someone is making say $ 300,000 a year they only pay into SS for the first 150,000 or so in salary. (do not remember the cutoff as it changes year by year and no long in that category.
Correct. The maximum salary you need to pay the Social Security tax on is $137,700. But, there is no income limit on the 1.45 percent Medicare tax. If you make the income maximum, and collect your benefit at age 62, you will only receive about 20 percent of that income in a SS retirement benefit. However, my point is that those in the lowest income bracket can receive about 90 percent of their pre-retirement income in SS retirement benefits. I am not saying it is wrong, but SS retirement benefits are greatly skewed in favor of low income workers. And the Medicare benefit is even more skewed.

[jimjamuser]

I think with the Corona Virus the actuaries need to look at the mortality rates and recalculate the insurance benefits. If you believe the media 200,000 beneficiaries of social security will be off the rolls very soon.....
It is NOT true that ONLY older people die of CV. So plenty of young people will NOT be paying into the SS system