High earners/savers: How do you feel about social security?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to benefit from SS in a few years. I spent many years scraping by as a journalist, always paying into the system. Spouse and I are now pretty well set financially, but the thousands each month to which we will be entitled is not just chump change--it will pay for groceries, gas, home repairs, etc. It may even allow our investments to grow untouched, which is important because at least one of us will likely need assisted living.

And you like everyone who has paid in should be entitled to what they earned for sS. It's a program everyone pays into.
Just because you manage to save for retirement doesn't change that.

You paid in to support current retirees. Future workers will pay in to support you as a retiree.

How many times does this need to be repeated.

I get that. But just because we were high earners and saved does not mean we shouldn't get our "SS support payout" for our retirement. Fact is everyone is entitled to their SS even if they were a higher earner

I agree with this. I think the math should be straightforward. You put in x/you get y without any other commentary.

Maybe there should be an option for those who wish to forgo their SS and a plan for how it could be used for the most needy. But that would be ripe for trouble and a hot mess.

The math on your federal income, property and state tax (if applicable) isn’t straightforward in terms of how it is spent. Why should it be for this?

I think what needs to be reiterated is that SS exists primarily to keep elderly people out of poverty, which is what the plan was designed for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to benefit from SS in a few years. I spent many years scraping by as a journalist, always paying into the system. Spouse and I are now pretty well set financially, but the thousands each month to which we will be entitled is not just chump change--it will pay for groceries, gas, home repairs, etc. It may even allow our investments to grow untouched, which is important because at least one of us will likely need assisted living.

And you like everyone who has paid in should be entitled to what they earned for sS. It's a program everyone pays into.
Just because you manage to save for retirement doesn't change that.

You paid in to support current retirees. Future workers will pay in to support you as a retiree.

How many times does this need to be repeated.

I get that. But just because we were high earners and saved does not mean we shouldn't get our "SS support payout" for our retirement. Fact is everyone is entitled to their SS even if they were a higher earner

I agree with this. I think the math should be straightforward. You put in x/you get y without any other commentary.

Maybe there should be an option for those who wish to forgo their SS and a plan for how it could be used for the most needy. But that would be ripe for trouble and a hot mess.

The math on your federal income, property and state tax (if applicable) isn’t straightforward in terms of how it is spent. Why should it be for this?

I think what needs to be reiterated is that SS exists primarily to keep elderly people out of poverty, which is what the plan was designed for.

Then needs to be rolled into a more generalized government revenue source. The way it is currently a line-item payroll deduction is never going to sit well with people if you try to tell them it’s not for them.

[Anonymous]

I ignore SS as a source when calculating what’s needed for retirement. However, even if SS becomes insolvent, it’ll still payout at 75% or so, so something will probably be there. It just seems too iffy to count on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I ignore SS as a source when calculating what’s needed for retirement. However, even if SS becomes insolvent, it’ll still payout at 75% or so, so something will probably be there. It just seems too iffy to count on.

Yeah that seems like a pretty reasonable estimate of where things will land if/when a political agreement can ever be reached. That's the sort of haircut that will probably eventually be needed (or close enough).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to benefit from SS in a few years. I spent many years scraping by as a journalist, always paying into the system. Spouse and I are now pretty well set financially, but the thousands each month to which we will be entitled is not just chump change--it will pay for groceries, gas, home repairs, etc. It may even allow our investments to grow untouched, which is important because at least one of us will likely need assisted living.

And you like everyone who has paid in should be entitled to what they earned for sS. It's a program everyone pays into.
Just because you manage to save for retirement doesn't change that.

You paid in to support current retirees. Future workers will pay in to support you as a retiree.

How many times does this need to be repeated.

I get that. But just because we were high earners and saved does not mean we shouldn't get our "SS support payout" for our retirement. Fact is everyone is entitled to their SS even if they were a higher earner

I agree with this. I think the math should be straightforward. You put in x/you get y without any other commentary.

Maybe there should be an option for those who wish to forgo their SS and a plan for how it could be used for the most needy. But that would be ripe for trouble and a hot mess.

The math on your federal income, property and state tax (if applicable) isn’t straightforward in terms of how it is spent. Why should it be for this?

I think what needs to be reiterated is that SS exists primarily to keep elderly people out of poverty, which is what the plan was designed for.

Then needs to be rolled into a more generalized government revenue source. The way it is currently a line-item payroll deduction is never going to sit well with people if you try to tell them it’s not for them.

It is for you. But you need to think of it for you in the same way that unemployment benefits are you. You pay into the system for those, also. And if you are fortunate, you never get that money back. But if you get laid off, it's there.

SS is even better because you will definitely get some of that money back no matter what. But you will only *need* it if you are either unlucky or dumb (and being dumb with money is a form of bad luck -- some people just have no common sense, who knows why). If you reach retirement and your SS is just a nice to have, great, you win at life. But if you reach retirement age and it's a necessity, well thank goodness it's there. Just like unemployment benefits -- you don't want to be in the position of needing them, but if you are in that position, thank goodness you can get them.

Do you get it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to benefit from SS in a few years. I spent many years scraping by as a journalist, always paying into the system. Spouse and I are now pretty well set financially, but the thousands each month to which we will be entitled is not just chump change--it will pay for groceries, gas, home repairs, etc. It may even allow our investments to grow untouched, which is important because at least one of us will likely need assisted living.

And you like everyone who has paid in should be entitled to what they earned for sS. It's a program everyone pays into.
Just because you manage to save for retirement doesn't change that.

You paid in to support current retirees. Future workers will pay in to support you as a retiree.

How many times does this need to be repeated.

I get that. But just because we were high earners and saved does not mean we shouldn't get our "SS support payout" for our retirement. Fact is everyone is entitled to their SS even if they were a higher earner

Is anyone even suggestion that you wouldn't get SS at all if you have retirement to rely on? No.

The proposal is to cap payouts so that some people who technically earned higher benefits would forgo them to keep the program solvent. The number of people who actually paid enough into the system to get more than 50k/year or 100k/couple/year is very small. Most of the people on this thread complaining about it likely would not even qualify for more than that.

There is no proposal to eliminate SS for higher earners. Just to cap payouts. So that SS can continue to exist as a program at all. Would you rather no one gets SS at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to benefit from SS in a few years. I spent many years scraping by as a journalist, always paying into the system. Spouse and I are now pretty well set financially, but the thousands each month to which we will be entitled is not just chump change--it will pay for groceries, gas, home repairs, etc. It may even allow our investments to grow untouched, which is important because at least one of us will likely need assisted living.

And you like everyone who has paid in should be entitled to what they earned for sS. It's a program everyone pays into.
Just because you manage to save for retirement doesn't change that.

You paid in to support current retirees. Future workers will pay in to support you as a retiree.

How many times does this need to be repeated.

I get that. But just because we were high earners and saved does not mean we shouldn't get our "SS support payout" for our retirement. Fact is everyone is entitled to their SS even if they were a higher earner

I agree with this. I think the math should be straightforward. You put in x/you get y without any other commentary.

Maybe there should be an option for those who wish to forgo their SS and a plan for how it could be used for the most needy. But that would be ripe for trouble and a hot mess.

The math on your federal income, property and state tax (if applicable) isn’t straightforward in terms of how it is spent. Why should it be for this?

I think what needs to be reiterated is that SS exists primarily to keep elderly people out of poverty, which is what the plan was designed for.

There is a calculator on the SS website. It should be the same for all. There are other programs that are poverty based.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to benefit from SS in a few years. I spent many years scraping by as a journalist, always paying into the system. Spouse and I are now pretty well set financially, but the thousands each month to which we will be entitled is not just chump change--it will pay for groceries, gas, home repairs, etc. It may even allow our investments to grow untouched, which is important because at least one of us will likely need assisted living.

And you like everyone who has paid in should be entitled to what they earned for sS. It's a program everyone pays into.
Just because you manage to save for retirement doesn't change that.

You paid in to support current retirees. Future workers will pay in to support you as a retiree.

How many times does this need to be repeated.

I get that. But just because we were high earners and saved does not mean we shouldn't get our "SS support payout" for our retirement. Fact is everyone is entitled to their SS even if they were a higher earner

I agree with this. I think the math should be straightforward. You put in x/you get y without any other commentary.

Maybe there should be an option for those who wish to forgo their SS and a plan for how it could be used for the most needy. But that would be ripe for trouble and a hot mess.

The math on your federal income, property and state tax (if applicable) isn’t straightforward in terms of how it is spent. Why should it be for this?

I think what needs to be reiterated is that SS exists primarily to keep elderly people out of poverty, which is what the plan was designed for.

Then needs to be rolled into a more generalized government revenue source. The way it is currently a line-item payroll deduction is never going to sit well with people if you try to tell them it’s not for them.

It is for you. But you need to think of it for you in the same way that unemployment benefits are you. You pay into the system for those, also. And if you are fortunate, you never get that money back. But if you get laid off, it's there.

SS is even better because you will definitely get some of that money back no matter what. But you will only *need* it if you are either unlucky or dumb (and being dumb with money is a form of bad luck -- some people just have no common sense, who knows why). If you reach retirement and your SS is just a nice to have, great, you win at life. But if you reach retirement age and it's a necessity, well thank goodness it's there. Just like unemployment benefits -- you don't want to be in the position of needing them, but if you are in that position, thank goodness you can get them.

Do you get it?

I understand your point. I do not agree. Unemployment is billed as insurance and it’s not a line item. SS is. You don’t change the rules in the middle of the game. You change it going forward - not retroactively.

OP asked how we feel. We are answering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to benefit from SS in a few years. I spent many years scraping by as a journalist, always paying into the system. Spouse and I are now pretty well set financially, but the thousands each month to which we will be entitled is not just chump change--it will pay for groceries, gas, home repairs, etc. It may even allow our investments to grow untouched, which is important because at least one of us will likely need assisted living.

And you like everyone who has paid in should be entitled to what they earned for sS. It's a program everyone pays into.
Just because you manage to save for retirement doesn't change that.

You paid in to support current retirees. Future workers will pay in to support you as a retiree.

How many times does this need to be repeated.

I get that. But just because we were high earners and saved does not mean we shouldn't get our "SS support payout" for our retirement. Fact is everyone is entitled to their SS even if they were a higher earner

I agree with this. I think the math should be straightforward. You put in x/you get y without any other commentary.

Maybe there should be an option for those who wish to forgo their SS and a plan for how it could be used for the most needy. But that would be ripe for trouble and a hot mess.

The math on your federal income, property and state tax (if applicable) isn’t straightforward in terms of how it is spent. Why should it be for this?

I think what needs to be reiterated is that SS exists primarily to keep elderly people out of poverty, which is what the plan was designed for.

There is a calculator on the SS website. It should be the same for all. There are other programs that are poverty based.

Don’t even know what you are saying. SS is by far the largest income contributor for poor elderly people.

Are you saying everyone should receive the same amount of SS? Thats one idea put forth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to benefit from SS in a few years. I spent many years scraping by as a journalist, always paying into the system. Spouse and I are now pretty well set financially, but the thousands each month to which we will be entitled is not just chump change--it will pay for groceries, gas, home repairs, etc. It may even allow our investments to grow untouched, which is important because at least one of us will likely need assisted living.

And you like everyone who has paid in should be entitled to what they earned for sS. It's a program everyone pays into.
Just because you manage to save for retirement doesn't change that.

You paid in to support current retirees. Future workers will pay in to support you as a retiree.

How many times does this need to be repeated.

I get that. But just because we were high earners and saved does not mean we shouldn't get our "SS support payout" for our retirement. Fact is everyone is entitled to their SS even if they were a higher earner

I agree with this. I think the math should be straightforward. You put in x/you get y without any other commentary.

Maybe there should be an option for those who wish to forgo their SS and a plan for how it could be used for the most needy. But that would be ripe for trouble and a hot mess.

The math on your federal income, property and state tax (if applicable) isn’t straightforward in terms of how it is spent. Why should it be for this?

I think what needs to be reiterated is that SS exists primarily to keep elderly people out of poverty, which is what the plan was designed for.

Then needs to be rolled into a more generalized government revenue source. The way it is currently a line-item payroll deduction is never going to sit well with people if you try to tell them it’s not for them.

It is for you. But you need to think of it for you in the same way that unemployment benefits are you. You pay into the system for those, also. And if you are fortunate, you never get that money back. But if you get laid off, it's there.

SS is even better because you will definitely get some of that money back no matter what. But you will only *need* it if you are either unlucky or dumb (and being dumb with money is a form of bad luck -- some people just have no common sense, who knows why). If you reach retirement and your SS is just a nice to have, great, you win at life. But if you reach retirement age and it's a necessity, well thank goodness it's there. Just like unemployment benefits -- you don't want to be in the position of needing them, but if you are in that position, thank goodness you can get them.

Do you get it?

I understand your point. I do not agree. Unemployment is billed as insurance and it’s not a line item. SS is. You don’t change the rules in the middle of the game. You change it going forward - not retroactively.

OP asked how we feel. We are answering.

Disability payments also come out of SS taxes which is similar to unemployment insurance and SS makes payments to spouses / young kids if a working spouse dies.

The problem is the vast majority of people don’t actually understand the game or the current rules.

[Anonymous]

I'n 50. Starting in my teen years, my dad always told me that SS would not be available to me. Now I know that he was right. It's a ponzi scheme, but at least I won't be in the streets.

[Anonymous]

I assume it will be totally zeroed out by the time I retire. That’s been my base case since starting work at 25

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to benefit from SS in a few years. I spent many years scraping by as a journalist, always paying into the system. Spouse and I are now pretty well set financially, but the thousands each month to which we will be entitled is not just chump change--it will pay for groceries, gas, home repairs, etc. It may even allow our investments to grow untouched, which is important because at least one of us will likely need assisted living.

And you like everyone who has paid in should be entitled to what they earned for sS. It's a program everyone pays into.
Just because you manage to save for retirement doesn't change that.

You paid in to support current retirees. Future workers will pay in to support you as a retiree.

How many times does this need to be repeated.

I get that. But just because we were high earners and saved does not mean we shouldn't get our "SS support payout" for our retirement. Fact is everyone is entitled to their SS even if they were a higher earner

I agree with this. I think the math should be straightforward. You put in x/you get y without any other commentary.

Maybe there should be an option for those who wish to forgo their SS and a plan for how it could be used for the most needy. But that would be ripe for trouble and a hot mess.

The math on your federal income, property and state tax (if applicable) isn’t straightforward in terms of how it is spent. Why should it be for this?

I think what needs to be reiterated is that SS exists primarily to keep elderly people out of poverty, which is what the plan was designed for.

There is a calculator on the SS website. It should be the same for all. There are other programs that are poverty based.

Don’t even know what you are saying. SS is by far the largest income contributor for poor elderly people.

Are you saying everyone should receive the same amount of SS? Thats one idea put forth.

SS is based on an algorithm. We contribute, our employers contribute, and we receive the contributions based on math. Everyone is entitled to their SS.

For those who can’t survive on SS as calculated, there is SSI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I assume it will be totally zeroed out by the time I retire. That’s been my base case since starting work at 25

That’s dumb. The idea that SS will not be there in the future was started by rich Republicans so that people would eventually go along with their plan to weaken/eliminate it. By believing them you are making it more likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to benefit from SS in a few years. I spent many years scraping by as a journalist, always paying into the system. Spouse and I are now pretty well set financially, but the thousands each month to which we will be entitled is not just chump change--it will pay for groceries, gas, home repairs, etc. It may even allow our investments to grow untouched, which is important because at least one of us will likely need assisted living.

And you like everyone who has paid in should be entitled to what they earned for sS. It's a program everyone pays into.
Just because you manage to save for retirement doesn't change that.

You paid in to support current retirees. Future workers will pay in to support you as a retiree.

How many times does this need to be repeated.

I get that. But just because we were high earners and saved does not mean we shouldn't get our "SS support payout" for our retirement. Fact is everyone is entitled to their SS even if they were a higher earner

I agree with this. I think the math should be straightforward. You put in x/you get y without any other commentary.

Maybe there should be an option for those who wish to forgo their SS and a plan for how it could be used for the most needy. But that would be ripe for trouble and a hot mess.

The math on your federal income, property and state tax (if applicable) isn’t straightforward in terms of how it is spent. Why should it be for this?

I think what needs to be reiterated is that SS exists primarily to keep elderly people out of poverty, which is what the plan was designed for.

There is a calculator on the SS website. It should be the same for all. There are other programs that are poverty based.

Don’t even know what you are saying. SS is by far the largest income contributor for poor elderly people.

Are you saying everyone should receive the same amount of SS? Thats one idea put forth.

SS is based on an algorithm. We contribute, our employers contribute, and we receive the contributions based on math. Everyone is entitled to their SS.

For those who can’t survive on SS as calculated, there is SSI.

It’s not that easy. My Dad’s SS is about $1500/month. His housing alone is 1000. He does not qualify for SSI. He doesn’t even qualify for heating assistance etc. because he has some equity in a cheap house (not here) that would be dumb to sell because rent on a 1br apartment would cost more than his mortgage.