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

[rie'smom]

Both DH's and my grandparents and parents are multi millionaires that didn't and don't need SS. However,they paid into it and collected and are collecting it.
If the gov't offered them the same amount of money in tax deductions,they would all have been happy to take it that way and more money would be in the SS pot. There are many people like this. Why doesn't the gov't do something like this in order to have more money available to those who might truly need it?

 

[tedhowe]

I just want to say a quick thanks to everyone for the level of discourse in this thread. I have found it enjoyable, interesting and educational to be a part of this debate - a great way to help organize my thoughts on this issue.

At the same time, I've been very impressed at the civility of the conversation. On so many of discussion boards - and sometimes even here on DIS, I would have expected a thread like this to have devolved into bickering and ranting, but the good ideas and interesting, well thought out ponts continue to come, even after 120+ posts.

Thanks all, I hope you've found my contributions worthwhile as well.

Ted

 

[MrsPete]

Very true Steve, but your Mom is from a different generation....she's a Depression Baby. Same as my in-laws....they are as frugal as frugal gets . I mean, they make each and every dollar scream.

But now, take the Baby Boomers, they haven't picked up their parents' thrifty ways, not when taken as a generation. And they're carrying, much, much more debt at an older age than any group before them. Heck, some people are going into retirement carrying mortgages, simply unheard of in earlier times. That million isn't going to carry them nearly as far.

Here's what I think will be a big problem in the future: So many people are "comfortable carrying debt" -- I just can't understand that -- that they're going to retire still carrying a mortgage and credit card balances. Those things will seriously affect the amount of money they need in retirement.

A person who retires debt-free has the option of living frugally. A person who still owes a large amount every month on previous debts does not have that option -- or doesn't have it to the same degree.

 

[ducklite]

Anne,

I totally understand the sentiment, but from my perspective, Social Security is really about a "safety net".

I'd rather I could invest my money myself and have a bigger retirement nestegg, but being an idealist, I DO feel a responsibility to help provide for those that NEED social security while I am working.

That's why as I go through the thought process in this thread I'm all for means testing. I don't see it as being penalized -- rather I see it as a blessing to be fortunate enough (should I be in another 30 years) to not NEED social security.

Ted

Then we need to immediately take it away from those who are collecting it that don't "need" it and basically turn it into welfare. Then cut the tax proportionately that we are all paying so that we can invest that much more into our personal retirement funds, because those of us who have been fiscally prudent in our younger years obviously won't be getting anything from
SS in retirement.

Anne

 

[C.Ann]

My point about "comfortable" is simply this: I don't believe it is the government's job to make sure retirees are "comfortable"...

----------------------------------

I don't know anyone who expects to be "comfortable" solely on SS, LOL - but I also don't think the government should FORCE people to contribute to SS all their adult working lives - with a PROMISE of returning "x" amount to them when they reach a certain age - and then when the time comes, saying, "Oops! Sorry.. We don't have it anymore.."

Only the government would try to get away with that - and I hope I'm dead and buried when it happens, cause there's going to be rioting in the streets..

 

[C.Ann]

Here's what I think will be a big problem in the future: So many people are "comfortable carrying debt" -- I just can't understand that -- that they're going to retire still carrying a mortgage and credit card balances. Those things will seriously affect the amount of money they need in retirement.

----------------------

Now to me, THAT would be scary!

 

[ducklite]

I just want to say a quick thanks to everyone for the level of discourse in this thread. I have found it enjoyable, interesting and educational to be a part of this debate - a great way to help organize my thoughts on this issue.

At the same time, I've been very impressed at the civility of the conversation. On so many of discussion boards - and sometimes even here on DIS, I would have expected a thread like this to have devolved into bickering and ranting, but the good ideas and interesting, well thought out ponts continue to come, even after 120+ posts.

Thanks all, I hope you've found my contributions worthwhile as well.

Ted

You beat me to it Ted, I was just about to write the same thing. This has been an intelligent, non-partisan conversation where a lot of people have shared dissenting views and no one has been chastised for an opposing thought.

Anne

 

[MrsPete]

Social Security is about making sure you are not living in poverty.

I disagree. Social Security is taking my money today. They owe me a check tomorrow -- plain and simple. What I do with that check, how much else I've saved, whether I'm eating catfood or taking my grandchildren on a Disney cruise . . . that's all MY business.

The government just needs to look after THEIR program, into which they FORCED me to pay. If they want to release me from paying into Social Security (which they won't do because I'm a middle-class cash cow), then I'll gladly take responsibility for my own poverty or success.

 

[ducklite]

----------------------

Now to me, THAT would be scary!

Make that two of us! The only debt I'll feel comfortable carrying as a retiree will be a zero percent interest loan on a new car--because to me that is a win-win situation. (I buy Saturns, so there's no mark-up when you get free finaincing, it is what it is )

Anne

 

[C.Ann]

You beat me to it Ted, I was just about to write the same thing. This has been an intelligent, non-partisan conversation where a lot of people have shared dissenting views and no one has been chastised for an opposing thought.

Anne

------------------------------------

Have to agree.. Nice civil conversation - lots of interesting aspects..

Now how about re-using those refillable mugs?

 

[ducklite]

I disagree. Social Security is taking my money today. They owe me a check tomorrow -- plain and simple. What I do with that check, how much else I've saved, whether I'm eating catfood or taking my grandchildren on a Disney cruise . . . that's all MY business.

Not to change the topic, but you'd better hope the tag fairy doens't see that one! <--laughing at the irony of the thought of her ending up with that for a tag, not the thought of Mrs. Pete eating cat food in her retirement!

Anne

 

[ducklite]

------------------------------------


Now how about re-using those refillable mugs?

Were they paid for with pre-tax savings or taxable income?

Anne

 

[MrsPete]

I know a few younger teachers down here who make less than 35K, and trust me, they struggle.

When I was a first year teacher, I made less than 20K -- but that wasn't just yesterday either. Today's first year teacher in North Carolina is earning 28,510; most of them have second jobs and/or summer jobs.

 

[C.Ann]

I disagree. Social Security is taking my money today. They owe me a check tomorrow -- plain and simple. What I do with that check, how much else I've saved, whether I'm eating catfood or taking my grandchildren on a Disney cruise . . . that's all MY business.

The government just needs to look after THEIR program, into which they FORCED me to pay. If they want to release me from paying into Social Security (which they won't do because I'm a middle-class cash cow), then I'll gladly take responsibility for my own poverty or success.

---------------------------------

Don't hold back.. Tell us how you really feel.. (Just kidding..)

By the way - I agree with you 100%.. As long as there is no ability to opt-out, then when the time comes they should PAY OUT.. Anything less than that is simple thievery..

 

[C.Ann]

Were they paid for with pre-tax savings or taxable income?

Anne

--------------------------------------

Okay.. This thread was going along just fine - and then you have to go and get all "personal"..

I ain't tellin'!!!!!!!

 

[MrsPete]

My point about "comfortable" is simply this: I don't believe it is the government's job to make sure retirees are "comfortable". This is precisely because it is a subjective measure.

I agree that it's not the government's job to make sure that retirees are comfortable -- if you think about it, it doesn't make much sense. Prior to Social Security, there was no precident for government paying old folks. It wasn't necessary that they start it.

HOWEVER, they did start such a program, and they took our money to fund it. Having started this, they now owe it to us. Anytime they want to stop it (and pay back what we've put in), it's fine with me . . . but as long as they're taking it upon themselves to run the program, they owe it to those of us who've paid in.

 

[disneysteve]

Prior to Social Security, there was no precident for government paying old folks.

1) Prior to SS, there simply weren't many "old folks" because the average life expectancy was about 67.
2) Prior to SS, the concept of retirement really didn't exist as we know it today. People worked until they died or until they were physically unable to work anymore.

It was actually the creation of SS that set a "retirement age" of 65 that has been with us ever since.

 

[disneysteve]

If people could find a way to be happy without feeling like they have to "have it all", they wouldn't have to worry about their retirement for the next 20 or 30 years.

Definition of Happiness: Being satisfied with what you have.

 

[ducklite]

1) Prior to SS, there simply weren't many "old folks" because the average life expectancy was about 67.
2) Prior to SS, the concept of retirement really didn't exist as we know it today. People worked until they died or until they were physically unable to work anymore.

It was actually the creation of SS that set a "retirement age" of 65 that has been with us ever since.

To add, families tended to live together in extended family groups with the younger taking care of the elderly, financially and physically until the end of WWII. (the begining of the baby-boom years)

Anne

 

[Reflection]

But it is not the government's responsibility to make you "comfortable" in retirement. If you want to be "comfortable" to the style that you are accustomed (whatever that may be) then you need to plan for it and save earlier in your life.

Social Security is about making sure you are not living in poverty.

......It is not the government's responsibilty to make sure you are comfortable. It is the government's responsibility to make sure your basic welfare is taken care of. Ted

Absolutely, what he said! I totally agree!