[Michael G.]

There seems to be a change in plans surfacing about Social Security in the last 10-15 years.
Their making sure that everyone realizes that today especially now that the funds are running out.
Quote:
Social Security “is not meant to be your only source of income in retirement,”
the federal Social Security Administration cautions on its website. On average,
the retirement trust fund will replace only about 40% of the money earned in working years.

My question is, you think when S/S first started this was mentioned or discussed
so, workers realized it and started a savings on their own?

I doubt it.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Michael G.

There seems to be a change in plans surfacing about Social Security in the last 10-15 years.
Their making sure that everyone realizes that today especially now that the funds are running out.
Quote:
Social Security “is not meant to be your only source of income in retirement,”
the federal Social Security Administration cautions on its website. On average,
the retirement trust fund will replace only about 40% of the money earned in working years.

My question is, you think when S/S first started this was mentioned or discussed
so, workers realized it and started a savings on their own?

I doubt it.

Your doubt is well founded. The name says it. Social Security.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Michael G.

There seems to be a change in plans surfacing about Social Security in the last 10-15 years.
Their making sure that everyone realizes that today especially now that the funds are running out.
Quote:
Social Security “is not meant to be your only source of income in retirement,”
the federal Social Security Administration cautions on its website. On average,
the retirement trust fund will replace only about 40% of the money earned in working years.

My question is, you think when S/S first started this was mentioned or discussed
so, workers realized it and started a savings on their own?

I doubt it.

When they started it, probably not. As recently as 40 years ago, yes.

Question: Did the calculation for SS benefits change to make the benefits lower? Or, was SS always intended to replace a certain level of earnings but now that salaries have increased, that level earnings is only about 40% of current salaries? (I would bet on the latter)

[tophcfa]

Social security was never designed to fully fund retirement needs, but it is supposed to be an important part of it for the lower and middle class senior population. Unfortunately, the cost of living adjustments to SS are based on complete fantasy, and have no direct correlation to the actual inflation on the necessary essential costs for seniors (health care, food, insurance, utilities, housing, etc…. ). For most seniors, their monthly SS payments are constantly shrinking relative to their actual expenses, and that’s before 2032 when the system is project to blow through the reserves and become a pay as revenue comes in system with about a 25% reduction in payments. Unless the elected decision makers stop kicking the can down the road, and do something to shore up the systems finances, we should all prepare ourselves for significant benefit reductions in about 5 years.

[Stu from NYC]

When ss started the dirty secret was not many lived to 65 so many paid into the system and got nothing.

Still waiting for the govt to fix the system so as to not have to reduce benefits. Unfortunately they keep kicking can down the road and the same people get reelected.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Good grief. Doesn't anyone keep up with government documents anymore, or follow our country's history rather than wait for an "issue" and then read the current administration's take on the issue (I mean ANY administration at the time the issue comes up, not just this one)?

Social Security was founded to provide workers with a guaranteed income after retirement, during The Great Depression, when many workers found themselves no longer employed, and there weren't any companies hiring for whatever they were skilled at doing anymore. It was a safety-net against poverty, especially among older people who could no longer work, disadvantaged groups, and the unemployed who - because this was The Depression - could not find jobs because none were available. Or would work for half their worth, with no retirement benefits or pensions, because they had to keep food on the table and pay their rents.

Social Security was absolutely intended to BE a retirement plan for those who worked full time in jobs that didn't offer one and didn't pay much.

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by Michael G.

There seems to be a change in plans surfacing about Social Security in the last 10-15 years.
Their making sure that everyone realizes that today especially now that the funds are running out.
Quote:
Social Security “is not meant to be your only source of income in retirement,”
the federal Social Security Administration cautions on its website. On average,
the retirement trust fund will replace only about 40% of the money earned in working years.

My question is, you think when S/S first started this was mentioned or discussed
so, workers realized it and started a savings on their own?

I doubt it.

If people were paying attention, they knew that social security was never meant to be the sole source of income for retired people.

In 1938, FDR stated

“The Act does not offer anyone, either individually or collectively, an easy life--nor was it ever intended so to do. None of the sums of money paid out to individuals in assistance or in insurance will spell anything approaching abundance. But they will furnish that minimum necessity to keep a foothold; and that is the kind of protection Americans want. . ."

And in 1935 FDR stated

“It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

[retiredguy123]

The Social Security benefit calculation has always been skewed to provide low income workers a higher benefit than high income workers as a percentage of how much money they paid into the system. In that sense, it is a wealth transfer system. Basically, It is a cleverly designed welfare system. People who think we should make Social Security voluntary apparently don't understand this concept because, if it were voluntary, high income workers would opt out and the whole system would collapse.

Whatever propaganda the Government is publishing is just that: "propaganda". The Social Security benefit calculation is set by law, and only Congress can change the law.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Good grief. Doesn't anyone keep up with government documents anymore, or follow our country's history rather than wait for an "issue" and then read the current administration's take on the issue (I mean ANY administration at the time the issue comes up, not just this one)?

Social Security was founded to provide workers with a guaranteed income after retirement, during The Great Depression, when many workers found themselves no longer employed, and there weren't any companies hiring for whatever they were skilled at doing anymore. It was a safety-net against poverty, especially among older people who could no longer work, disadvantaged groups, and the unemployed who - because this was The Depression - could not find jobs because none were available. Or would work for half their worth, with no retirement benefits or pensions, because they had to keep food on the table and pay their rents.

Social Security was absolutely intended to BE a retirement plan for those who worked full time in jobs that didn't offer one and didn't pay much.

[Topspinmo]

IMO and I can have one the main problem with system fraud!

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Social security was never designed to fully fund retirement needs, but it is supposed to be an important part of it for the lower and middle class senior population. Unfortunately, the cost of living adjustments to SS are based on complete fantasy, and have no direct correlation to the actual inflation on the necessary essential costs for seniors (health care, food, insurance, utilities, housing, etc…. ). For most seniors, their monthly SS payments are constantly shrinking relative to their actual expenses, and that’s before 2032 when the system is project to blow through the reserves and become a pay as revenue comes in system with about a 25% reduction in payments. Unless the elected decision makers stop kicking the can down the road, and do something to shore up the systems finances, we should all prepare ourselves for significant benefit reductions in about 5 years.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Good grief. Doesn't anyone keep up with government documents anymore, or follow our country's history rather than wait for an "issue" and then read the current administration's take on the issue (I mean ANY administration at the time the issue comes up, not just this one)?

Social Security was founded to provide workers with a guaranteed income after retirement, during The Great Depression, when many workers found themselves no longer employed, and there weren't any companies hiring for whatever they were skilled at doing anymore. It was a safety-net against poverty, especially among older people who could no longer work, disadvantaged groups, and the unemployed who - because this was The Depression - could not find jobs because none were available. Or would work for half their worth, with no retirement benefits or pensions, because they had to keep food on the table and pay their rents.

Social Security was absolutely intended to BE a retirement plan for those who worked full time in jobs that didn't offer one and didn't pay much.

If anyone was paying attention decades ago they would have to think the SS was not going to be much of an income retirement source. That was the advice from any , all investment professionals,

[Rainger99]

When Social Security monthly retirement benefits first began in 1940, the lowest monthly benefit was about $10 per month. The highest monthly benefit was about $85 per month.

Prior to 1940, social security issued lump sum payments. The lowest payment was $0.17! Not much to retire on!

[Caymus]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

When Social Security monthly retirement benefits first began in 1940, the lowest monthly benefit was about $10 per month. The Highest monthly benefit: about $85 per month.

Prior to 1940, social security issued lump sum payments. The lowest payment was $0.17! Not much to retire on!

Plus, the life expectancy for men was about 60.

[JoelJohnson]

No one mentions that SS can be taxed at 50%-80%

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by JoelJohnson

No one mentions that SS can be taxed at 50%-80%

There's a reason for that......