Anonymous wrote:SS, in its current form, is projected to run dry by 2034. (And while some people are talking about increasing benefits, it's obvious we need to cut.) From what I understand, a couple of minor "tweaks" can save the program. What would you be willing to sacrifice? I would vote for three changes:

1) Gradually increase the full retirement age to 68. ?There should be no change for people within 10 years of retirement, but for others, we could add a month every year until we get to 68. When SS was introduced, people barely lived 5 years past retirement age (on average), and now we have people claiming for 20 to 30 years.

2) Increase the cap on the amount people pay the SS tax.

3) Lower the benefits for people in the uppermost brackets - in retirement - by about 25%. My parents have a retirement income of about $150k - no pensions, just responsible lifelong savings and investments - and they tell me they wouldn't miss a SS cut of a few hundred dollars a month.

Opinions?

Anonymous wrote:8:15 here. My mom has a Jitterbug and this does seem like a problem.

You're also talking about the progressive benefit formula. Do you have a source for your numbers on contributions vs. benefits, because they don't seem right.

Anonymous wrote:8:15 here. My mom has a Jitterbug and this does seem like a problem.

You're also talking about the progressive benefit formula. Do you have a source for your numbers on contributions vs. benefits, because they don't seem right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are way down in the weeds. The thing is insolvent and you're arguing about mowing the lawn while the house is on fire.

It's not insolvent. When the trust fund runs out in 2034 or so, there will still be enough money to pay 75% of benefits forever. The trust fund was an add-on created by Ronald Reagan so he could kick the can down the road by raising taxes without cutting benefits while getting credit for being a fiscal conservative. But we should go back to what it was before, a pay-as-you-go system, just by balancing income and outflow. And I repeat if we DO NOTHING, there will be a 25% cut in benefits, but the system will last forever.

Well, a 25% cut wouldn't hurt the upper income retirees! but those who depend on SS for a significant portion if their retiree income (if not all of it) would really suffer. As it is, we have people trying to get by on $1000 a month. (Even if ones house is paid off, that's quite a struggle.)

So what's your definition of upper income retirees? Have you checked actual contributions to social security v payouts? ie low income pay ins get a much better return. Payments have no basis in reality. Just like anyone earning more than 85k after retirement pays higher medicare. And that premium becomes huge with a top add on cost of more than 450/month per individual.

It's like earned income tax credit- just money legislated to go in or out.

Recently posted the above in italics. To Wharton Grad- benefits don't relate to pay-in . When you see what goes in and what comes out only simplistic language suffices. Economics? Finance? really based on strokes of a pen and votes.

F off, you and your buddy are ignorant blowhards. It's hard to even understand what you just wrote.

Signed, Wharton grad

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you write things like "those of us who actually allocate capital for a living generally refer to it as investment risk" you can kinda see how people think you're a money manager.

You do also start every.single.post of yours with an attack on someone else's intelligence.

Money manager is one possible explanation, but not the only one. And to accuse me of self-interest is not a reasonable play.

i did not attaxk until PP ranted at me with wild and false accusations. Don't blame me for defending myself.

Please. This was a really interesting convo until you started bashing someone who disagrees with you. I've tried to return us to the subject, by defending someone's grandma no less. Please grow up and let us get back to discussing SS.

You are confused and unduly agitated.

You were defending someone's grandma? LMAO

Ok, I am the pp who asked the woman about how her grandmother received benefits for 50 years. The other person you are referencing is someone else. Which I told you in another post when you asked if I was that person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you write things like "those of us who actually allocate capital for a living generally refer to it as investment risk" you can kinda see how people think you're a money manager.

You do also start every.single.post of yours with an attack on someone else's intelligence.

Money manager is one possible explanation, but not the only one. And to accuse me of self-interest is not a reasonable play.

i did not attaxk until PP ranted at me with wild and false accusations. Don't blame me for defending myself.

Please. This was a really interesting convo until you started bashing someone who disagrees with you. I've tried to return us to the subject, by defending someone's grandma no less. Please grow up and let us get back to discussing SS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you write things like "those of us who actually allocate capital for a living generally refer to it as investment risk" you can kinda see how people think you're a money manager.

You do also start every.single.post of yours with an attack on someone else's intelligence.

Money manager is one possible explanation, but not the only one. And to accuse me of self-interest is not a reasonable play.

i did not attaxk until PP ranted at me with wild and false accusations. Don't blame me for defending myself.

Anonymous wrote:When you write things like "those of us who actually allocate capital for a living generally refer to it as investment risk" you can kinda see how people think you're a money manager.

You do also start every.single.post of yours with an attack on someone else's intelligence.

Anonymous wrote:Furthermore, why are you claiming you "further showed" anything, when you didn't? I did the math for you. Anybody reading the last page can see that. This all sort of boggles the mind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I would stop the ability to claim SS if you've never paid in.

Who gets SS if they don't pay in? I thought you had to have 40 quarters of earning, and the benefit is figured in your top 35 years.

DH grandma got SS for decades after her husband died. She never worked a job a day in her life. I'm certain she was not a citizen but drew a check for almost 50 years.

50 years? Did she live to be 110?

The spouse and survivor benefits are based on your spouse's work. You don't have to have worked yourself and it looks like you don't have to be a citizen, although I'm not sure about that. If he died when she was 35, 40, 50, and she didn't remarry, they'd pay her benefits.

Social Security was created in the 1930s when the typical family had a working dad and a non-working mom. It may be time to revisit that.

I understand the way it works. And if 'grandma' was young when grandpa died she drew only until the youngest child hit 16 ( http://fsrcpa.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Social-Security-Blackout-Period.pdf ) and she would go through a blackout if the child hit that age before she hit the 60's.

That said, my great grandmother drew for 32 years after her husband died but she lived to a 100. She was not representative of the norm however.

So grandpa died when her youngest was 1 and she was 45. 15 years later her youngest ages off and she's 60 and can claim her own. Done.

Actually, Social Security used to pay through college. They only cut it back to 16 a few decades ago. So grandpa could have died when her youngest was 1 and she was 39. Then 21 years later the youngest graduates college and she's 60.

Also you can get widows benefits when you're 50 if you're disabled.

Although why we're obsessing over PP's poor grandma is beyond me.

I never said it was impossible, as I further showed, just wanted pp to expound because it would have been rare. Oh, and in your scenario grandma would have to live to 95. Which isn't usual. LOL

Look, either PP's grandmother lived to 95 (you said your own grandmother lived to 100), or PP misremembered. It happens to all of us and it's no big deal, certainly not worth all your effort to expose PP's supposed forgetfulness.

Are you the same PP who has been picking fights with several others here, calling them insane and stupid? Picking fights with the last remaining poster over their grandmother's age of death just isn't healthy. May I suggest you take the rest of the night off and come back tomorrow when you're refreshed and in a better state of mind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I would stop the ability to claim SS if you've never paid in.

Who gets SS if they don't pay in? I thought you had to have 40 quarters of earning, and the benefit is figured in your top 35 years.

DH grandma got SS for decades after her husband died. She never worked a job a day in her life. I'm certain she was not a citizen but drew a check for almost 50 years.

50 years? Did she live to be 110?

The spouse and survivor benefits are based on your spouse's work. You don't have to have worked yourself and it looks like you don't have to be a citizen, although I'm not sure about that. If he died when she was 35, 40, 50, and she didn't remarry, they'd pay her benefits.

Social Security was created in the 1930s when the typical family had a working dad and a non-working mom. It may be time to revisit that.

I understand the way it works. And if 'grandma' was young when grandpa died she drew only until the youngest child hit 16 ( http://fsrcpa.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Social-Security-Blackout-Period.pdf ) and she would go through a blackout if the child hit that age before she hit the 60's.

That said, my great grandmother drew for 32 years after her husband died but she lived to a 100. She was not representative of the norm however.

So grandpa died when her youngest was 1 and she was 45. 15 years later her youngest ages off and she's 60 and can claim her own. Done.

Actually, Social Security used to pay through college. They only cut it back to 16 a few decades ago. So grandpa could have died when her youngest was 1 and she was 39. Then 21 years later the youngest graduates college and she's 60.

Also you can get widows benefits when you're 50 if you're disabled.

Although why we're obsessing over PP's poor grandma is beyond me.

I never said it was impossible, as I further showed, just wanted pp to expound because it would have been rare. Oh, and in your scenario grandma would have to live to 95. Which isn't usual. LOL

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I would stop the ability to claim SS if you've never paid in.

Who gets SS if they don't pay in? I thought you had to have 40 quarters of earning, and the benefit is figured in your top 35 years.

DH grandma got SS for decades after her husband died. She never worked a job a day in her life. I'm certain she was not a citizen but drew a check for almost 50 years.

50 years? Did she live to be 110?

The spouse and survivor benefits are based on your spouse's work. You don't have to have worked yourself and it looks like you don't have to be a citizen, although I'm not sure about that. If he died when she was 35, 40, 50, and she didn't remarry, they'd pay her benefits.

Social Security was created in the 1930s when the typical family had a working dad and a non-working mom. It may be time to revisit that.

I understand the way it works. And if 'grandma' was young when grandpa died she drew only until the youngest child hit 16 ( http://fsrcpa.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Social-Security-Blackout-Period.pdf ) and she would go through a blackout if the child hit that age before she hit the 60's.

That said, my great grandmother drew for 32 years after her husband died but she lived to a 100. She was not representative of the norm however.

So grandpa died when her youngest was 1 and she was 45. 15 years later her youngest ages off and she's 60 and can claim her own. Done.

Actually, Social Security used to pay through college. They only cut it back to 16 a few decades ago. So grandpa could have died when her youngest was 1 and she was 39. Then 21 years later the youngest graduates college and she's 60.

Also you can get widows benefits when you're 50 if you're disabled.

Although why we're obsessing over PP's poor grandma is beyond me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I would stop the ability to claim SS if you've never paid in.

Who gets SS if they don't pay in? I thought you had to have 40 quarters of earning, and the benefit is figured in your top 35 years.

DH grandma got SS for decades after her husband died. She never worked a job a day in her life. I'm certain she was not a citizen but drew a check for almost 50 years.

50 years? Did she live to be 110?

The spouse and survivor benefits are based on your spouse's work. You don't have to have worked yourself and it looks like you don't have to be a citizen, although I'm not sure about that. If he died when she was 35, 40, 50, and she didn't remarry, they'd pay her benefits.

Social Security was created in the 1930s when the typical family had a working dad and a non-working mom. It may be time to revisit that.

I understand the way it works. And if 'grandma' was young when grandpa died she drew only until the youngest child hit 16 ( http://fsrcpa.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Social-Security-Blackout-Period.pdf ) and she would go through a blackout if the child hit that age before she hit the 60's.

That said, my great grandmother drew for 32 years after her husband died but she lived to a 100. She was not representative of the norm however.