"Entitled Selfishness": Great article on the dismal future of Social Security

[goofyforlife]

Oh, don't misunderstand me....I'd be pretty darned peeved too if I don't receive SS.....just pointing out that this problem is going to be awfully difficult to solve by a bunch of politicians who depend on us to vote them into office . And so what will happen....well, I'm betting that nothing happens for quite awhile. And that will only prolong the inevitable pain....

What i'd like to see (or maybe not) is what will happen when we reach a point at which certain age groups (probably me) will be told "whoops, there's no money for you. We're still giving money to people two years older than you but not you. Sorry we stole your money all along but you get nothing. Here's a welfare app but you made too much money last year for that. Maybe you can sell your house"

 

[MrsPete]

At the end of paying for something which was advertised as a retirement benefit, it seems strange to me that it is being described as "selfish" to collect benefits.

I agree. It's kind of like going to the grocery store checkout with a full cart of groceries. You pay for your groceries, and it's NOT SELFISH to expect to put those bags into your car and take them home for your family.

 

[golden1]

There is a huge shift in corporate responsibility and no one ever talks about it. Yeah, it's wonderful that they're all lowering costs and reducing overhead, but in the long run, you're still paying for it....you get cheap goods now but astronomical living expenses later. Think about it.

This is so true! So many can't see the big picture. The economic climate in the US has changed quietly over the last 20 years.

AS far as SS is concerned, everyone can talk until they are blue in the face about how they deserve this and that but that does not change the fact that there is a large group of people who are going to retire soon. They are living longer and they are being supported by a much smaller population (Gen X and younger). Health care is only going to get more expensive. Basically, something has to change because Gen X will not be capable of supporting the Boomers. And the Boomers are not saving either.

I am 33 and I am terrified. I plan on SS not being there and I plan on working until I am 70.

 

[ducklite]

I don't know that that's ALWAYS the right choice. I work for the state, and the teachers' pension plan is about as safe as anything out there.

My great-grandmother lived to be 95, her sister lived to be 93, my grandmother is amazingly healthy today at 94 . . . I expect to retire from my teaching job at 57, and I could easily collect my pension for 35-40 years. On a teacher's salary, it'd be awfully hard for me to save enough to equal what I will likely collect.

While I fully expect to collect my pension, I'm not "putting all my eggs in one basket". My husband and I also have 401Ks and personal savings as well as a paid-for house. And Social Security. If my pension were to disappear, it would definitely hurt my retirement plans, but I wouldn't be eating cat food.

I don't think I'm lacking in common sense in these decisions.

I was working in the private sector. Do you really for one minute think that taking the cash wasn't the right choice with that info? Have you spoken to anyone who retired from Enron, IBM, or a host of other companies who ahve changed their pension plans mid-stream?

Anne

Anne

 

[tinker&belle]

I was working in the private sector. Do you really for one minute think that taking the cash wasn't the right choice with that info? Have you spoken to anyone who retired from Enron, IBM, or a host of other companies who ahve changed their pension plans mid-stream?

Anne

Anne

In my state the law makers feel free to dip out of the teacher's pension plan whenever they are short. I teach, but at a university, so I am not on a pension plan. I have a 503 (b) and my husband has a 401k. We are on the tail end of genX (25 and 26). We are saving for retirement, and using riskier choices to try to build wealth in these stocks while we are young so there is more to use to for growth when we get older. We don't expect SS to be there, never really have, but we look at it as being a nice bonus if it is there when we get there. I just don't trust it to be there and I'm not gambling my retirement on it.

 

[ducklite]

For those of you saving for your retirement outside of employer sponsored plans, how are you doing so?

I've put about half of mine into conservative FDIC insured CD based IRA's with three different banks/credit unions. I've put the other half into two different mutual fund based investment account IRA's with two different companies, and have made sure that the primary funds they have invested in are very different.

I should still be able to eat and keep a roof over my head in the worst case scenario, which would be losing it all but those FDIC insured CD's. My financial advisor thinks I'm crazy, because he feels I should be more aggressive with that money. But I can sleep at night knowing that I won't have to choose between buying my medicine and eating in my retirement. And to me that's peace of mind is worth more than having a bunch of "extras" in my retirement.

Anne

 

[tinker&belle]

For those of you saving for your retirement outside of employer sponsored plans, how are you doing so?

I've put about half of mine into conservative FDIC insured CD based IRA's with three different banks/credit unions. I've put the other half into two different mutual fund based investment account IRA's with two different companies, and have made sure that the primary funds they have invested in are very different.

I should still be able to eat and keep a roof over my head in the worst case scenario, which would be losing it all but those FDIC insured CD's. My financial advisor thinks I'm crazy, because he feels I should be more aggressive with that money. But I can sleep at night knowing that I won't have to choose between buying my medicine and eating in my retirement. And to me that's peace of mind is worth more than having a bunch of "extras" in my retirement.

Anne

Anne-
From reading your posts it sounds like your doing the right thing. My husband is a CPA and he says how risky you are should be in proportion to your age. It sounds like for the stage of life you are in (I've read many of your post and I think you are a little younger than my mother), this is the right thing to do. I think you have a child who is about 19/20 or so? For your child, he would want to be riskier since he has a longer time to recoup lost from risk so the risky stocks would have the most opportunity to even out and have the most growth.

 

[ducklite]

Anne-
From reading your posts it sounds like your doing the right thing. My husband is a CPA and he says how risky you are should be in proportion to your age. It sounds like for the stage of life you are in (I've read many of your post and I think you are a little younger than my mother), this is the right thing to do. I think you have a child who is about 19/20 or so? For your child, he would want to be riskier since he has a longer time to recoup lost from risk so the risky stocks would have the most opportunity to even out and have the most growth.

I'm in my mid-40's, and my DH is the same age. We both have "safe" IRA's, plus 401K's, with half in bonds and other conservative funds, and the other half fairly agressive. He'll also be eligible for a pension, although we aren't counting on that or SS.

Our son contributes 10% of his income to his 401K (doing it now while he'll never miss it!) and is set up with five funds of 20% each that range from bonds to super agressive (read risky).

Anne

 

[mrsltg]

Frankly it's highly doubtful that I'll live long enough after I retire at 67 to come close to recouping with the governemnt has taken from me all these years with the promise of a payout in my senior years. The end year boomers are the ones who will have paid in the longest and gotten nothing for it--the ones who will get screwed.

Anne

With all due respect I believe it's those after the boomers that are really going to get it... I've been working seriously for 10 years (pt jobs before that for 7). I have paid $60,000+ as of last June and we're still rolling. I am eligible to retire in 2042 right when the predicition is that SS will be gone. It's makes me sick to think about it....

 

[dvcgirl]

With all due respect I believe it's those after the boomers that are really going to get it... I've been working seriously for 10 years (pt jobs before that for 7). I have paid $60,000+ as of last June and we're still rolling. I am eligible to retire in 2042 right when the predicition is that SS will be gone. It's makes me sick to think about it....

This is what Ben Stein says on the topic..."The retired Baby Boomers are going to be living well compared to the Gen Xers, because the bones will be picked completely clean by the time they retire."

And trust me, he doesn't think that the majority of boomers will have nearly the retirement that their parents had. Those will pensions will do fine, but the median wealth for households 55 to 64 in 2000 was $112,000....subtract home equity and they had $32,000. Yes, it's likely that the number went up due to the real estate boom, but still, we're seeing some retraction there now, and the grand majority of their money needs to be unlocked by unloading the house. It's not a viable plan for most.

He also says..."Yes, you cans till retire comfortably!", that's the name of his book in fact . And so how do you do this....outsave your peers. If it seems that everyone around you is putting away a tiny sliver of their income than your instincts would be correct. Pensions are becoming ancient history and so the work of saving and investing has been left to the individual worker. The only problem is that the individual worker decided that he'd buy a plasma TV and go to Disney World. Retirement....eh....he'll worry about that tomorrow.

 

[pearlieq]

With all due respect I believe it's those after the boomers that are really going to get it...

That's about my expectation too. I think the system will work OK for my mom (born 1947) but I (born 1979) expect to get rogered but good!

I'm fully in favor of raising the retirment age on social security. I think that will bring it much closer in line with how it was originally intended.

To be honest, thought, I'm more worried about Medicare than social security. With our current healthcare mess and the outrageous cost of private insurance, I'm not sure what I'd do if Medicare wasn't there when I retire. Even if I have plenty of savings to sustain my expenses for the rest of my life, one good serious illness could wipe them out in a couple of years.

That's what's scaring me these days...

 

[Belle5]

problem is that the individual worker decided that he'd buy a plasma TV and go to Disney World.

This is where he stopped preachin' and went to meddlin' !!!

 

[ducklite]

I'm fully in favor of raising the retirment age on social security. I think that will bring it much closer in line with how it was originally intended.

I'd actually rather see the benefit lowered. There are a lot of people who will not live to see 70, let alone 75. I don't want to have to work until I'm 70. I doubt if I'll live past 80, if I get that far.

Raising the age penalizes those who have worked and contributed and saved. Lowering the benefit is much more equitable, those it punishes the most are those who couldn't be bothered to save on thier own. To my peers who haven't even put $5 away for retirement, enjoy that wide screen now, because you won't be able to pay the power bill to run it in 30 years. And don't expect a hand-out because you were foolish and irresponsible.

Anne

 

[Taylors6]

Lots and lots of great points here ladies! I agree with the majority...we are mid thirties...you know that age group that are being prepared to get the screws by them constantly telling us there will be nothing there for us right about retirement age. I think also if they can not guarantee the deal as its been put forth we atleast deserve the right to choose whether or not we want to "gamble" in their game. One thing I always reflect on is what would our country do if they did even end SSI and SS disability to most cases- we all realize how many people there are just abusing the system ( I know this
1st hand- they granted my father disability and all it did was enabled him to drink himself to death quicker-atleast without it he had to stay solid enough to do some work for his money) so if they cut it...then we have all these people with no income...what is the country going to end up doing?

What a mess we have made by forgetting that government money is not "free". We are paying for it!

Believe me...I wish they would cut it...and don't even get me started on food stamps (I work at Aldi's...so I see the abuse there daily) I can't imagine how much money could be saved just by weeding out the abusers and forcing them to provide for themselves.

 

[ducklite]

Believe me...I wish they would cut it...and don't even get me started on food stamps (I work at Aldi's...so I see the abuse there daily) I can't imagine how much money could be saved just by weeding out the abusers and forcing them to provide for themselves.

It's too bad that food stamps don't work more like the WIC program where they get what is basically a coupon for very specific nutritious foods in specific quantities. That would stop most of the abuse. It's never going to be completely ended, but I would imagine that if they administered the program like that it would cut out 80% of the current abuse. That's probably the better part of half a billion dollars a year.

The sad thing is that food stamps were meant only as a supplement to give the poor the opportunity to purchase nutritional foods. They were never meant to be the sole supplier of food. Social Security was also only supposed to be a stop gap to supplement other savings, not be an entire paycheck.

Anne

 

[meandtheguys2]

It's too bad that food stamps don't work more like the WIC program where they get what is basically a coupon for very specific nutritious foods in specific quantities. That would stop most of the abuse. It's never going to be completely ended, but I would imagine that if they administered the program like that it would cut out 80% of the current abuse. That's probably the better part of half a billion dollars a year.

The sad thing is that food stamps were meant only as a supplement to give the poor the opportunity to purchase nutritional foods.

Anne

I agree. Toss in some some education about nutrition, also.

 

[ducklite]

I agree. Toss in some some education about nutrition, also.

Agred! I want to think that before a woman can receive WIC she needs to attend a class on nutrition.

Anne

 

[DVCajun]

He also says..."Yes, you cans till retire comfortably!", that's the name of his book in fact . And so how do you do this....outsave your peers. If it seems that everyone around you is putting away a tiny sliver of their income than your instincts would be correct. Pensions are becoming ancient history and so the work of saving and investing has been left to the individual worker. The only problem is that the individual worker decided that he'd buy a plasma TV and go to Disney World. Retirement....eh....he'll worry about that tomorrow.

That's all well and good, but a HUGE chunk of my potential savings is being taken and given to a retiree somewhere! I'd like to have that back to put into savings, please!

 

[dvcgirl]

That's all well and good, but a HUGE chunk of my potential savings is being taken and given to a retiree somewhere! I'd like to have that back to put into savings, please!

Well, 7.65% of our income (up to $97,500) goes to SS and medicare. Invested properly over a lifetime of work....yep, it would be a nice chunk of change.

 

[Chicago526]

At this point, my biggest concern is medical care. If the government told me that they were going to cover the majority of my health needs in retirement, but not give me a dime of SS, I'd actually be okay with that. I can afford to save for my retirement, what I can't afford is to save for my health care needs. SS can go away as far as I'm concerned, as long as it's replaced by decent health coverage. DH and I will be fine w/out SS, but if Medicare goes bye-bye we are screwed with a capitol "S". DH has diabeties, what the hell are we supposed to do? Neither of us will have company sponsered health plans in retirement, so if Medicare isn't there, I don't how we'll keep DH alive and still eat. No one would insure him. His medicine costs a fortune NOW, I don't want to think about what it will cost in 30-40 years....