Social Security defecits predicted to run deficits 2010-2011

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Is a person who pays taxes for that many decades worth so little to you?
Is it a crime to not die 3 years after retiring?

a) it's an insurance program against dying destitute - not a long term savings program for each individual

b) it's not an issue of caring about people, it's an issue of what's economically feasible and what SS was originally put in place to do (i.e. it was NOT created to fund decades long retirements for the total population)

c) people do need to reconcile to the idea of working longer. It makes no sense for healthy people to be retired for years upon years and expecting others to fund that retirement while they could still be working.

Agreed. Also think we could be doing more to encourage retirement savings. The "tax free" savings incentives are ridiculously low for the self-employed or those working for small businesses with no access to official 401K type programs. My husband can put 3x as much money away in his 401K as I can in my IRA.

[Anonymous]

We were all promised by the govt when they took that money out of our checks that we would get it back, plus the money our employer put in, which was earmarked for each of us.

I can't support now, because the govt screwed up the management of those funds, saying, "oh well you are too rich and you don't need YOUR OWN money back that we took from you under false pretenses....".

If they want to end the program as it exists now, fine. But don't deny me the SS money I've already paid in under one set of rules.....

I can agree with raising the age. I read an article the other day that most babies born in this century can expect to live to be 100!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We were all promised by the govt when they took that money out of our checks that we would get it back, plus the money our employer put in, which was earmarked for each of us.

I can't support now, because the govt screwed up the management of those funds, saying, "oh well you are too rich and you don't need YOUR OWN money back that we took from you under false pretenses....".

If they want to end the program as it exists now, fine. But don't deny me the SS money I've already paid in under one set of rules.....

I can agree with raising the age. I read an article the other day that most babies born in this century can expect to live to be 100!

The idea that social security ever was a savings plan is a complete falsehood. You aren't even contributing close to the amount that the government will pay out to you, even when you include your employer. The fiscal math has always has been based on the notion that some people would pay money in and not get anything back out. The only difference was that the government expected many people to die before they could collect. In the future, it may be wealthy people who don't get paid.

In other words it is an insurance program. It is no more or less fair than your term life insurance policy. In this case, you are paying for insurance against being destitute in your old age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We were all promised by the govt when they took that money out of our checks that we would get it back, plus the money our employer put in, which was earmarked for each of us.

Pp is right. This is a myth. The money you put is is not earmarked for you. It goes to support the current program and beneficiaries.

[Anonymous]

What happened to the freedom of choice.
Not everyone can work after 65.
Old people get tired. Performance is not what you expect.
There is age discrimination.
Who wants to hire a 66 year old engineer, when there are younger candidates available?

What about the old people in jobs that require physical exertion?
This is not so clear cut.