[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by JimJohnson

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]

Originally Posted by davem4616

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]

Originally Posted by JimJohnson

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

Originally Posted by soonerforever

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]

Originally Posted by Boomer

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]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Very true