Are you worried about your parents losing social security?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG the ignorance. It is not a ponzi scheme as it is government regulated by payroll and has an insured input of $$ as long as it is administered well (and yes that does include rooting out fraud- but last I heard, firing employees won't help with any of that).

SS has a huge legacy of trust associated with it. To remove the trust that those who contributed to it and planned for it and now rely on it is truly 'banana republic'

Agree it's not a ponzi scheme, but it was never marketed correctly to the general public (at least not in recent memory).

Your contributions don't pay for your SS...your contributions pay for current retirees and the system anticipated each generation of workers being larger than the current generation of retirees and much lower life expectancy.

Think about it...how much $$$s did the first SS recipients contribute to the system? If you answered $0, you would be correct.

I was listening to a radio story, and unless something changes (raise the minimum retirement age, raise the amount of $$$s that can be taxed, raise the tax rate, etc.) then SS benefits will automatically have to be cut by like 21% in 6-7 years based on how the system currently works.

You do not sound informed. All they have to do is remove the cap.

You sound like a dipshit. That was one of the options but it requires a change in the law to do so.

Absent that, SS payments will be automatically cut 21%.

They don't get cut "automatically." Changes will have to be made and voted on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope. Not the least bit concerned. They have pensions and savings and never really relied on SS to begin with. The same for DH and I. We don’t include it in any financial planning.

Well, la di da

Well you asked. Sorry you didnt plan better.

Where are their pensions from?

Teachers in a deeply blue state.

[Anonymous]

The bigger issue is that the tech bros will privatize Social Security by allowing the govt SS fund to be invested in the stock market. Republicans tried that in the 90s but cooler and wiser heads prevailed. But this time around, I worry. Where are the guardrails now?

Plus the SEC is embracing crypto. Can you imagine the Social Security fund invested in crypto? Ugh….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG the ignorance. It is not a ponzi scheme as it is government regulated by payroll and has an insured input of $$ as long as it is administered well (and yes that does include rooting out fraud- but last I heard, firing employees won't help with any of that).

SS has a huge legacy of trust associated with it. To remove the trust that those who contributed to it and planned for it and now rely on it is truly 'banana republic'

Agree it's not a ponzi scheme, but it was never marketed correctly to the general public (at least not in recent memory).

Your contributions don't pay for your SS...your contributions pay for current retirees and the system anticipated each generation of workers being larger than the current generation of retirees and much lower life expectancy.

Think about it...how much $$$s did the first SS recipients contribute to the system? If you answered $0, you would be correct.

I was listening to a radio story, and unless something changes (raise the minimum retirement age, raise the amount of $$$s that can be taxed, raise the tax rate, etc.) then SS benefits will automatically have to be cut by like 21% in 6-7 years based on how the system currently works.

You do not sound informed. All they have to do is remove the cap.

You sound like a dipshit. That was one of the options but it requires a change in the law to do so.

Absent that, SS payments will be automatically cut 21%.

They don't get cut "automatically." Changes will have to be made and voted on.

Just like the 83% of USAID contracts that have just been summarily stopped?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The bigger issue is that the tech bros will privatize Social Security by allowing the govt SS fund to be invested in the stock market. Republicans tried that in the 90s but cooler and wiser heads prevailed. But this time around, I worry. Where are the guardrails now?

Plus the SEC is embracing crypto. Can you imagine the Social Security fund invested in crypto? Ugh….

And they'll make folks pay to get their checks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I'm worried about myself not getting social security which I've paid into and Boomers have stolen.

That's mistake #1 assuming it was going to be there for you in the first place.

Fine, but that is not Trump and Musk's decision.

Let the chicken livered Congressmen put their name down as the ones who killed Social Security.

Whether you think SS should be reduced/changed, the way in which it is being done it wrong. That is the key. So don't just keel over and say oh well I knew it wasn't going to be there. They are ROBBING from you through unorthodox channels. That is the issue.

I assumed we wouldn't be getting it way before Trump took office.

Wise decision

Is there anything else you didn't think you were getting? Like Freedom of Speech, ACA, being told if there is an outbreak near you, tornado or hurricane warnings, not having sewage in your drinking water.

That way you will be prepared not to be disappointed

+1

Great post!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope. Not the least bit concerned. They have pensions and savings and never really relied on SS to begin with. The same for DH and I. We don’t include it in any financial planning.

Well, la di da

Well you asked. Sorry you didnt plan better.

Where are their pensions from?

You do realize that most private sector employers booted their employees to 401(k)s decades ago, effectively slicing a benefit from their teams. Right?

You do realize that PP was replying to a poster above who wrote. Perhaps by reading thoroughly and completely, you can gain the full picture before replying in ignorance.

"Nope. Not the least bit concerned. They have pensions and savings and never really relied on SS to begin with. The same for DH and I. We don’t include it in any financial planning."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This won't affect older people. Who it probably will affect are younger people when the government either pushes the benefits age back and/or reduces the amount to receive, or even take away the cap, making the wealthy pay more (which they wouldn't get back) which would pay for more of the less fortunate.

The system was never meant to pay out for decades. Most people retired and died back in the day.

SSI needs to be reformed.

Why do you suggestions all hurt the workers who earn the least?

SSI can be reformed and fixed by taxing people who earn more than $176,000.

Funny how that's never one of your recommendations...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG the ignorance. It is not a ponzi scheme as it is government regulated by payroll and has an insured input of $$ as long as it is administered well (and yes that does include rooting out fraud- but last I heard, firing employees won't help with any of that).

SS has a huge legacy of trust associated with it. To remove the trust that those who contributed to it and planned for it and now rely on it is truly 'banana republic'

Agree it's not a ponzi scheme, but it was never marketed correctly to the general public (at least not in recent memory).

Your contributions don't pay for your SS...your contributions pay for current retirees and the system anticipated each generation of workers being larger than the current generation of retirees and much lower life expectancy.

Think about it...how much $$$s did the first SS recipients contribute to the system? If you answered $0, you would be correct.

I was listening to a radio story, and unless something changes (raise the minimum retirement age, raise the amount of $$$s that can be taxed, raise the tax rate, etc.) then SS benefits will automatically have to be cut by like 21% in 6-7 years based on how the system currently works.

You do not sound informed. All they have to do is remove the cap.

You sound like a dipshit. That was one of the options but it requires a change in the law to do so.

Absent that, SS payments will be automatically cut 21%.

They don't get cut "automatically." Changes will have to be made and voted on.

The same way fed workers don't get fired without being voted on?

The same way government contracts don't get cancelled willy nilly by teen coders wearing backpacks and earning $190K a year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope. Not the least bit concerned. They have pensions and savings and never really relied on SS to begin with. The same for DH and I. We don’t include it in any financial planning.

Well, la di da

Well you asked. Sorry you didnt plan better.

Where are their pensions from?

Teachers in a deeply blue state.

Trump said he will wipe blue states "off the map." Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Wonkette has an amusing and scary piece about Musk wanting to take away SS.

Musk says lots of dead people are on the rolls. Um, yes? They aren't getting money though. They are just in the database, so why are you mentioning this? Oh, I know. To make people think there is fraud!


https://www.wonkette.com/p/elon-musk-eyeballing-you-and-your

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not worried at all because my parents are still alive.

Constant fear mongering is getting tiresome.

What does being alive have to do with it? If they are dead, they wouldn't need it.
What are you even talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope. Not the least bit concerned. They have pensions and savings and never really relied on SS to begin with. The same for DH and I. We don’t include it in any financial planning.

Well, la di da

Well you asked. Sorry you didnt plan better.

Where are their pensions from?

You do realize that most private sector employers booted their employees to 401(k)s decades ago, effectively slicing a benefit from their teams. Right?

You do realize that PP was replying to a poster above who wrote. Perhaps by reading thoroughly and completely, you can gain the full picture before replying in ignorance.

"Nope. Not the least bit concerned. They have pensions and savings and never really relied on SS to begin with. The same for DH and I. We don’t include it in any financial planning."

But most people now do not have pensions, let alone a 401(k) or 403(b). So SS may be no concern for that poster, but is for most folks.

[Anonymous]

Feel like the eldercare forum is suspended in time without a lot of folks here realizing that 3 pillars of elder care - Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security - are not long for this world. Forcing every person eligible to receive THEIR Social Security to have to drive hours to reach an office where they cannot get an appointment is maddening. Allowing private equity to get their hands on this money because it is "not doing anything for the economy" is maddening. Thinking that paying $120K/year for memory care out of most Americans' pocket is maddening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope. Not the least bit concerned. They have pensions and savings and never really relied on SS to begin with. The same for DH and I. We don’t include it in any financial planning.

Well, la di da

Well you asked. Sorry you didnt plan better.

Where are their pensions from?

Teachers in a deeply blue state.

Trump said he will wipe blue states "off the map." Good luck.

He’s insane.