[midiwiz]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

You really think that a seven year time frame is way too long? 2018 was not that long ago.

And what do you think will change? We have to cut benefits, increase taxes, or do both.

that's a very miopic view of the situation. Both of those will not work, it's been tried before and failed to fix anything. you have FAR too much faith in congress. Currently there is nothing wrong, and maybe since things have recently passed that will keep certain congressional parties/people's hands out of the till the fund will do what it was supposed to do WITHOUT intervention.

[justjim]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

In order to implement changes in 2032, the legislation has to be passed now(ish). And it has to give working people time to prepare for those changes, so as to minimize that "pain" of the change.

My point is - there are lots of ways to keep the program going. There is no singular "fix" that will fix everything. Increasing the early retirement age is one possible step. So is eliminating the cap for payroll deductions. Increasing the percentage taken from payroll an additional 1%, with half of the percentage paid by the employer and the other half paid by the employee, is another possible step. Reducing the max age for increases from 70 to 69 is another possible step. Raising the FRA to 66 is another possible step.

A singular change will need to be much more drastic, to have the intended result. But small changes to all these different aspects will be less "painful" and have a greater overall impact to the result.

Amen!

[Moderator]

No political references are allowed on the website.

Users are not allowed to direct comments toward another user.

Direct them to the topic. Violation of these rules can lead to account termination and ban.

[GWilliams]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

I hope this will not happen. But if it does, it will create major problems.


Social Security Warning Issued as Retirees Could Face $18,000 Cut - Newsweek

The USA is 32 trillion in debt after collecting taxes. Who wants to spend more?

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by Aces4

So you want people to subscribe to another Ponzi scheme, the stock market, IMHO. The market is way overvalued at this point with prices accelerating so "the market" can keep the ever hungry investors fed. Can you not see how wildly overvalued the market would be with your plan for everyone in the US to invest? This is not an answer. We scrimped and saved too and I agree about the overspenders and not savers. But the ridiculous rates of the stock market are just as bad as the overspenders.

The average rate of return from the markets over their long history is about 7.5- 8%, compound that and you have a good return, certainly better that your return from SS

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

The average rate of return from the markets over their long history is about 7.5- 8%, compound that and you have a good return, certainly better that your return from SS

I’d like to see the numbers on that.

Markets have down years, SS does not.

Drawing down funds from my marketplace accounts means I could eventually hit $0, SS never hits $0.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

The average rate of return from the markets over their long history is about 7.5- 8%, compound that and you have a good return, certainly better that your return from SS

Not sure what numbers you're looking at, but here's mine (rounded):

Between my payroll deduction and employer contribution, I've paid in just under $60,000 in social security taxes.

I'm getting $40 more per month in social security payments than I did when I started getting them, just 1.5 years ago. I anticipate around $20 more per month for 2026. Regardless:

At the current total of my social security checks, I will have received 100% of what I put in, and what my employer put in, by the 7th year of collecting social security checks. I won't even be 70 years old yet, at that point, because I started getting them when I was 62.

This means that all the checks I receive after I turn 70, will be "in addition" to what I/my employer paid in. If I live to be 90, that'll mean 100% of what I get post 70-years-old will be "profit." I dunno - seems like a pretty good deal to me. Get a 100% return on your initial investment in 7 years after the start of the payout, and then keep getting steady monthly checks for the next 20 (or more) years.

[Caymus]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Not sure what numbers you're looking at, but here's mine (rounded):

Between my payroll deduction and employer contribution, I've paid in just under $60,000 in social security taxes.

I'm getting $40 more per month in social security payments than I did when I started getting them, just 1.5 years ago. I anticipate around $20 more per month for 2026. Regardless:

At the current total of my social security checks, I will have received 100% of what I put in, and what my employer put in, by the 7th year of collecting social security checks. I won't even be 70 years old yet, at that point, because I started getting them when I was 62.

This means that all the checks I receive after I turn 70, will be "in addition" to what I/my employer paid in. If I live to be 90, that'll mean 100% of what I get post 70-years-old will be "profit." I dunno - seems like a pretty good deal to me. Get a 100% return on your initial investment in 7 years after the start of the payout, and then keep getting steady monthly checks for the next 20 (or more) years.

Not true for everybody. It is a progressive system for benefits. Lower lifetime incomes have higher % payouts.

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Not sure what numbers you're looking at, but here's mine (rounded):

Between my payroll deduction and employer contribution, I've paid in just under $60,000 in social security taxes.

I'm getting $40 more per month in social security payments than I did when I started getting them, just 1.5 years ago. I anticipate around $20 more per month for 2026. Regardless:

At the current total of my social security checks, I will have received 100% of what I put in, and what my employer put in, by the 7th year of collecting social security checks. I won't even be 70 years old yet, at that point, because I started getting them when I was 62.

This means that all the checks I receive after I turn 70, will be "in addition" to what I/my employer paid in. If I live to be 90, that'll mean 100% of what I get post 70-years-old will be "profit." I dunno - seems like a pretty good deal to me. Get a 100% return on your initial investment in 7 years after the start of the payout, and then keep getting steady monthly checks for the next 20 (or more) years.

This narrative totally ignores the time value of money and the interest, dividends and capital gains one can obtain over the years. It is similar to pitches I used to hear from whole life insurance salesmen 50 years ago.

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

The average rate of return from the markets over their long history is about 7.5- 8%, compound that and you have a good return, certainly better that your return from SS

And one big blip in the market and all that money is gone in an instant. Nothing like everyone sitting at the craps table for retirement benefits.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

This narrative totally ignores the time value of money and the interest, dividends and capital gains one can obtain over the years. It is similar to pitches I used to hear from whole life insurance salesmen 50 years ago.

Beat me to it, any analysis that ignores that is completely irrelevant.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

This narrative totally ignores the time value of money and the interest, dividends and capital gains one can obtain over the years. It is similar to pitches I used to hear from whole life insurance salesmen 50 years ago.

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Beat me to it, any analysis that ignores that is completely irrelevant.

It would be interesting to see what would have happened if my SS contributions had been invested in the market over the years.

Simple math says that if I live at least as long as my father I will get a 500% return on the money I paid into SS. More complex math says that number is low due to SS payouts increasing with inflation.

I’m pretty happy with the guaranteed income rather than the market risk.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

This narrative totally ignores the time value of money and the interest, dividends and capital gains one can obtain over the years. It is similar to pitches I used to hear from whole life insurance salesmen 50 years ago.

Zero, zero, and zero. When you have an incredibly low income, you can't afford the fees associated with financial planning. Plus, because the yearly payout is so low, there's zero tax on it (this was before this year's bill). When you can only afford to put $4 every week aside, you're not going to be convincing a financial planner to help you invest it - unless he's also a financial scammer. I was glad that Social Security took just $2/week from my paycheck, and made my employer pay the other $2/week and now I reap the rewards.

[ElDiabloJoe]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Actually, it's more like paying $50 for a $10 hamburger so the government can play Robin Hood and give 4 other people who produced nothing a hamburger on your dime.

This is exactly how I feel about taxes. I pay enough tax to pay for part of a first responder, yet instead of doing that the government gives warm breakfasts to illegal students and their parents (even on weekends!), then blesses them with free cell phones and airtime plans also. I don't get so much as a thank you, instead I get glares of entitlement telling me to shut up and give more.

[SoCalGal]

Originally Posted by biker1

Treasury issued special T-Bills to the SSA for these excess funds. [...] These special T-Bills are now being cashed in to pay benefits as the current SS taxes are less than benefits paid. Essentially, the Government goes out and borrows money from world markets to pay off these special T-Bills as Government expenditures exceed Government revenue.

The U.S. Treasury doesn't issue T-Bills (Treasury bills) to the Social Security Administration (SSA). Instead, it issues special-issue Treasury securities, which are not marketable (they can't be sold on the open market). These are special bonds, not typical T-Bills (which are short-term securities typically maturing in a year or less). These special securities earn interest and represent the Social Security Trust Fund surplus. Once issued, the government can't redeem them early (i.e., can't “call” them before maturity, like callable corporate bonds). While they're not callable by the Treasury, the SSA can redeem them on demand to pay Social Security benefits. Think of it like an intragovernmental IOU: the Trust Fund has the right to cash in the bonds whenever it needs to — and the Treasury must come up with the money (via taxes or borrowing). Social Security’s holdings are a special case, and that’s why they can be “cashed in” before maturity to cover benefit payments.