Totally off topic - Social Security

[Loyal Coug1]

I thought this might be fun. Below is a link to a CNN article discussing the impending "insolvency" Of SS and Medicare.

As the good (retired and now getting SS) accountant that I am, I can't help but laugh about the supposed "trust funds" that are going to go sideways soon. The truth is, there is no trust fund. It's an accounting gimmick. The surpluses to date just went into the overall federal budget over the years and were spent on whatever. There is no fund. So when it "goes insolvent", that just means that taxes must be raised to fund it. Just like taxes benefitted from all those decades of surpluses. Dirty little secret that No one talks about.

Americans are so F-ing oblivious and stupid.

Analysis: Medicare and Social Security insolvency is right around the corner

The cold, hard, actuarial truth is that within five years, the trust fund that funds Medicare hospital coverage (Medicare Part A) will have a zero balance.

www.cnn.com

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Loyal, it never hurts to get another civics lesson in accounting.

Just a couple of thoughts. There is never such thing as a "fund" that is dedicated unless it is completely walled off from other aspects of the system. Otherwise it is simply an accounting practice to show a theoretical allocation. I would not call that a gimmick; it is simply a theoretical amount allocated. You are right when you laugh at the language used, since it is not what I (as an engineer) consider to be accurate, nor especially useful. The labels used are somewhat misleading.

As for social security solvency, my expectation is that the income will always be funded, but it will be made fully taxable and in that way it will be re-apportioned across various income levels.

 

[Cougini5591]

I thought this might be fun. Below is a link to a CNN article discussing the impending "insolvency" Of SS and Medicare.

As the good (retired and now getting SS) accountant that I am, I can't help but laugh about the supposed "trust funds" that are going to go sideways soon. The truth is, there is no trust fund. It's an accounting gimmick. The surpluses to date just went into the overall federal budget over the years and were spent on whatever. There is no fund. So when it "goes insolvent", that just means that taxes must be raised to fund it. Just like taxes benefitted from all those decades of surpluses. Dirty little secret that No one talks about.

Americans are so F-ing oblivious and stupid.

Analysis: Medicare and Social Security insolvency is right around the corner

The cold, hard, actuarial truth is that within five years, the trust fund that funds Medicare hospital coverage (Medicare Part A) will have a zero balance.

www.cnn.com

So help me God...

I will never understand how it's MY money going into MY retirement, but I can't put it where I want it to be.

I have no problem with separating money out into different categories to help different people, different needs, but again... my retirement money should be MY retirement money.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

So help me God...

I will never understand how it's MY money going into MY retirement, but I can't put it where I want it to be.

I have no problem with separating money out into different categories to help different people, different needs, but again... my retirement money should be MY retirement money.

The whole thing is a big scam. Stupid people supporting a system that was set up entirely to increase the money available for greedy, corrupt, psychopathic elected officials to waste and build up our dependency on their corrupt schemes.

War in Ukraine anyone?

 

[Observer11]

Loyal, it never hurts to get another civics lesson in accounting.

Just a couple of thoughts. There is never such thing as a "fund" that is dedicated unless it is completely walled off from other aspects of the system. Otherwise it is simply an accounting practice to show a theoretical allocation. I would not call that a gimmick; it is simply a theoretical amount allocated. You are right when you laugh at the language used, since it is not what I (as an engineer) consider to be accurate, nor especially useful. The labels used are somewhat misleading.

As for social security solvency, my expectation is that the income will always be funded, but it will be made fully taxable and in that way it will be re-apportioned across various income levels.

That is somewhat correct -and the only reason I'm way too conversant in this is that my wife is one of the premier government financial professionals in the state - if not the entire country.

There are statutes that prohibit utilizing funds outside their designated use. While, yes, it is 'just an accounting entry', doing so can sometimes break the law. For instance, if a municipality receives federal funds for a specific purpose, the municipality can't just say 'hocus pocus' and use the funds to fix the streets with a Due To/Due From fund.

Social Security is a trust fund much akin to an insurance company. Unfortunately for us, the trustees are also conflicted with being employed by a .gov email address and have broad discretion in how those funds are invested, loaned out or repaid. One of the six governing board members is the Secretary of the Treasury whose job it is to, you guessed it, pay the bills of the Federal government. Conflicted right from the get go. The six magicians have worked the angles over decades to circumvent the original intent of the trust.

Pretty good article on wiki about the SS - and not surprising that Dubya claims SS is NOT a trust fund. But the Bush's have been redistributing wealth for years around the world with the buddies so probably didn't phase George a bit to say that.

Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[dgibbons]

I thought this might be fun. Below is a link to a CNN article discussing the impending "insolvency" Of SS and Medicare.

As the good (retired and now getting SS) accountant that I am, I can't help but laugh about the supposed "trust funds" that are going to go sideways soon. The truth is, there is no trust fund. It's an accounting gimmick. The surpluses to date just went into the overall federal budget over the years and were spent on whatever. There is no fund. So when it "goes insolvent", that just means that taxes must be raised to fund it. Just like taxes benefitted from all those decades of surpluses. Dirty little secret that No one talks about.

Americans are so F-ing oblivious and stupid.

Analysis: Medicare and Social Security insolvency is right around the corner

The cold, hard, actuarial truth is that within five years, the trust fund that funds Medicare hospital coverage (Medicare Part A) will have a zero balance.

www.cnn.com

Didn't know that people were still relying on social security for their retirement....

That's about 51% joke, and 49% not.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

That is somewhat correct -and the only reason I'm way too conversant in this is that my wife is one of the premier government financial professionals in the state - if not the entire country.

There are statutes that prohibit utilizing funds outside their designated use. While, yes, it is 'just an accounting entry', doing so can sometimes break the law. For instance, if a municipality receives federal funds for a specific purpose, the municipality can't just say 'hocus pocus' and use the funds to fix the streets with a Due To/Due From fund.

Social Security is a trust fund much akin to an insurance company. Unfortunately for us, the trustees are also conflicted with being employed by a .gov email address and have broad discretion in how those funds are invested, loaned out or repaid. One of the six governing board members is the Secretary of the Treasury whose job it is to, you guessed it, pay the bills of the Federal government. Conflicted right from the get go. The six magicians have worked the angles over decades to circumvent the original intent of the trust.

Pretty good article on wiki about the SS - and not surprising that Dubya claims SS is NOT a trust fund. But the Bush's have been redistributing wealth for years around the world with the buddies so probably didn't phase George a bit to say that.

Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thanks for the link. Never thought George Bush and I would agree on anything.

And to Gibby's comment on people relying on SS for retirement - c'mon man are you serious? Millions of people have no retirement savings. SS is all they have. In my case, it is just going to supplement my thankfully robust retirement accounts. I'll take it.

 

[dgibbons]

Thanks for the link. Never thought George Bush and I would agree on anything.

And to Gibby's comment on people relying on SS for retirement - c'mon man are you serious? Millions of people have no retirement savings. SS is all they have. In my case, it is just going to supplement my thankfully robust retirement accounts. I'll take it.

I'm serious. How much longer do you think social security will be around, at least in it's current form? Think about sustainability and the demographic bubbles.

 

[Cougini5591]

Didn't know that people were still relying on social security for their retirement....

That's about 51% joke, and 49% not.

Relying is one thing...

Getting pissed about money you earn, but somehow others using it / controlling it / wasting it is another.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

SS was not intended to be a retirement program. It's initial (and still primary purpose) is wage insurance. It is not "your" money directly owed to you any more than it would be "your" money directly owed to you for medical or car insurance.

It has been solely responsible over its history of keeping millions of folk out of poverty or total destitution.

It is pure deceit and dishonesty for those who claim is will go "bankrupt" or become insolvent. As long as there is a dedicated tax (aka: premiums) allocated to it, it will be around. Raising that tax (premium) will keep it fully funded as long as the uSA exists - just like any insurance plan would.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Relying is one thing...

Getting pissed about money you earn, but somehow others using it / controlling it / wasting it is another.

How is the money being wasted? You will get what you are entitled to once you qualify - period. Payments to qualifiers have never NOT been made - ever.

The allocation and financial forecasts for SS are projected out for 75 years in advance. That fund is invested in the safest investment funds in the world and draws interest.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

I'm serious. How much longer do you think social security will be around, at least in it's current form? Think about sustainability and the demographic bubbles.

When I was younger I thought OK if the benefits have to be reduced to keep it "solvent", fine. I feel the same way now. But there is no way the US can just end it. They would have to refund all of us our money that we were forced to put in for starters. I suppose I'd take my 30+ years of contributions (with interest) in a lump sum.

I dunno, I guess Rick Scott from Florida has it all figured out.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

When I was younger I thought OK if the benefits have to be reduced to keep it "solvent", fine. I feel the same way now. But there is no way the US can just end it. They would have to refund all of us our money that we were forced to put in for starters. I suppose I'd take my 30+ years of contributions (with interest) in a lump sum.

I dunno, I guess Rick Scott from Florida has it all figured out.

You dont need to reduce benefits to keep it solvent. You need to raise the premium, something that hasn't been done since 1993, I believe.

Insurance companies would never NOT raise their premiums for 20 years to cover rising costs. Because it IS a tax, politicians are loath to approach this responsibly out of fear and lack of leadership. That's all I have to say about that.

 

[CougInSpain]

As someone who has worked for SSA many moons ago, I can tell you for certain that this is a program constantly operating in the red. SSI (federal welfare) is the program that, although separate from Social Security Retirement/Disability benefits, are lumped into the Social Security umbrella. That program itself is responsible for the majority of the funds that are collected for SSA. Its absolutely mind-boggling the lengths at which people will go to in order to collect $800+/- a few per month but not actually go to work and earn more money than they would get. As someone who handled a lot of these cases, there was one demographic responsible for the majority of these claims but I will not go into what demographic that is. The top two reasons people were filing for SSI were as follows: #1 Depression/Anxiety, #2 ADHD (for kids mostly). Claims submitted for the children under ADHD usually were made for 2-5 kids at a time within the same household. You want to know where the money is going, that's where.

 

[Observer11]

You dont need to reduce benefits to keep it solvent. You need to raise the premium, something that hasn't been done since 1993, I believe.

Insurance companies would never NOT raise their premiums for 20 years to cover rising costs. Because it IS a tax, politicians are loath to approach this responsibly out of fear and lack of leadership. That's all I have to say about that.

The politicians also know they have a never ending line of credit.

It should be managed like a pension plan, reinvested back into those vehicles earning the highest return while protecting the beneficiaries. That could be in any number of investments including the stock market, government bonds, municipal bonds, etc. I'd like to see my quarterly statement on just how well MY retirement has done - and if a portion of that is carved off for disability, then note that portion, too.

But the pigs won't stop sucking on the teet until we slaughter them at the ballot box.

 

[CougInSpain]

They also know they have a never ending line of credit.

It should be managed like a pension plan, reinvested back into those vehicles earning the highest return while protecting the beneficiaries. That could be in any number of investments including the stock market, government bonds, municipal bonds, etc.

But the pigs won't stop sucking on the teet until we slaughter them at the ballot box.

It needs to be privatized!! That's the biggest difference between the beloved Democratic Socialist countries that the Liberals are absolutely enamored with and us. Countries like Denmark, Norway and Sweden allow private securities companies to manage the funds designated for their social programs similar to SSA.

 

[ttowncoug]

Medicare is broke due to the system that the Feds set up. And the potential fix is raising taxes so the broken system continues to move forward.

 

[Observer11]

It needs to be privatized!! That's the biggest difference between the beloved Democratic Socialist countries that the Liberals are absolutely enamored with and us. Countries like Denmark, Norway and Sweden allow private securities companies to manage the funds designated for their social programs similar to SSA.

There's a balance between full privatization (like every Joe manages his own investments) and a managed portfolio with significant private

It wouldn't be a bad thing to have multiple money managers competing for the right to oversee and invest, say, no more than 10% of the fund balance. Post a scorecard on how each one does and ditch the bottom two every year or so.

Right now, it's fubar and nobody has any incentive to do the right thing for the people that matter - those of us who put money in to the system.

 

[mikalalas]

You dont need to reduce benefits to keep it solvent. You need to raise the premium, something that hasn't been done since 1993, I believe.

Insurance companies would never NOT raise their premiums for 20 years to cover rising costs. Because it IS a tax, politicians are loath to approach this responsibly out of fear and lack of leadership. That's all I have to say about that.

And it is a FLAT FAIR TAX, with everybody that works, even the poorest, having SKIN in the game.

I like your insurance premium way of putting it.

This is one of the few times, where raising taxes or a tax ever so slightly, MAKES SENSE.

But in the normal tax system, raising taxes so that people have less money to spend, ignite the economy, create jobs, start businesses that either ignite economy, create jobs, voluntarily help charities help people so that the government would NOT have to spend more money ineffectively trying to help people, is not good for government to raise taxes and spend wastefully like crazy on things like bridges to nowhere and cricket research, etc. That kind of PORK BARREL, raising taxes and spending needs to stop.

A 3% etc, across the board FLAT TAX, like the SS premium tax, would pay for government, and almost everything.

And it probably wouldn't hurt poor people as even a homeless person would only pay 3 pennies in taxes out of that dollar, if they even have a dollar or any money and not completely moneyless.

And those who had NO money would NOT have to pay.

Flat Tax really is the FAIREST tax.

much better then the adjustable income tax bracket, etc, system that have now.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

It needs to be privatized!! That's the biggest difference between the beloved Democratic Socialist countries that the Liberals are absolutely enamored with and us. Countries like Denmark, Norway and Sweden allow private securities companies to manage the funds designated for their social programs similar to SSA.

yeah, but that would mean that the piggy bank would be closed for the swamp dwellers.

Wall St would have a hay day. Hey day? Whatever, you get my meaning.

 

[CougInSpain]

yeah, but that would mean that the piggy bank would be closed for the swamp dwellers.

Wall St would have a hay day. Hey day? Whatever, you get my meaning.

One hundo on this...... Wall Street would see a massive influx of liquidity the likes at which they've probably never seen before and the liberal swamp creatures would forever cry wolf.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

One hundo on this...... Wall Street would see a massive influx of liquidity the likes at which they've probably never seen before and the liberal swamp creatures would forever cry wolf.

if only the swamp dwellers were privy to pertinent information about publicly traded stocks BEFORE the information was released to the public, they could still stand to make tens of millions.

oh, wait...

 

[CougInSpain]

There's a balance between full privatization (like every Joe manages his own investments) and a managed portfolio with significant private

It wouldn't be a bad thing to have multiple money managers competing for the right to oversee and invest, say, no more than 10% of the fund balance. Post a scorecard on how each one does and ditch the bottom two every year or so.

Right now, it's fubar and nobody has any incentive to do the right thing for the people that matter - those of us who put money in to the system.

I am definitely talking about the privatization of funds mostly and how that's managed. Implementation of said programs would still need to come from the government. This country needs to hold politicians accountable and elect leaders that would implement accountability measures to do so.

 

[CougInSpain]

if only the swamp dwellers were privy to pertinent information about publicly traded stocks BEFORE the information was released to the public, they could still stand to make tens of millions.

oh, wait...

Nancy Pelosi approves this message.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

The whole thing is a big scam. Stupid people supporting a system that was set up entirely to increase the money available for greedy, corrupt, psychopathic elected officials to waste and build up our dependency on their corrupt schemes.

War in Ukraine anyone?

Social Security is a scam? There are millions of people that disagree with you whose lives would be destroyed without the system. Is it a flawed system? Sure. Is our country a better place because we have it? Absolutely. Trying to equate Social Security and Medicare to Ukraine makes you look like a crazy person. You better go to your doctor and get your rotator cuffs checked....because you reached so hard that you had to rip your shoulders out of their sockets.

For the other comments above about choosing your own investments? God no. People are stupid and emotional. The last thing we need is a bunch of morons screwing things up even worse than our government already does.

I am concerned that the solution to fixing the social security "insolvency" problem will be to punish responsible people who saved significant amounts of money in their 401(k)'s and other investments. I plan on having a significant retirement account but I don't want to see my social security completely stolen from me for people who didn't make the best choices in life. I don't mind taking a small cut to help others, but I do fear that liberals will punish me too much for planning ahead. So, I get the concern but a solution that falls between the two extremes would be better.

 

[mikalalas]

As someone who has worked for SSA many moons ago, I can tell you for certain that this is a program constantly operating in the red. SSI (federal welfare) is the program that, although separate from Social Security Retirement/Disability benefits, are lumped into the Social Security umbrella. That program itself is responsible for the majority of the funds that are collected for SSA. Its absolutely mind-boggling the lengths at which people will go to in order to collect $800+/- a few per month but not actually go to work and earn more money than they would get. As someone who handled a lot of these cases, there was one demographic responsible for the majority of these claims but I will not go into what demographic that is. The top two reasons people were filing for SSI were as follows: #1 Depression/Anxiety, #2 ADHD (for kids mostly). Claims submitted for the children under ADHD usually were made for 2-5 kids at a time within the same household. You want to know where the money is going, that's where.

Altho I agree with somewhere between some to most of what your saying here, there are those that used to have to NOT make $700,$750,$800,$850, in a job, because they would lose their SSI, SSDI, etc, and $700 to $850 is not enough both to get by and not worth the effort, as they already getting about $800 from SSI, SSDI

The only way it would be worth the effort is from both a have to start somewhere to have a work history to get a good enough job, and personal satisfaction.

But they changed it to now where you can earn up to $900 before you have to report it, and even if you report it, and keep earning $900+, you don't lose your SSI, SSDI for 3 to 6 to 9 more months depending on how much you make, and after that only decrease at a 2 to 1 ratio. Meaning that if you earn $1000 dollars at a job per month, you would still get $800(if $800 were to be what you would get from SSI, SSDI)+ you would get to keep Half $500 from, out of $1000 you earn(2 to 1 reduction ratio), for $1300($800+$500= $1300) that you would get.

Now that $1300($500 increase over $800 that get from govt, would be worth getting a job for.

It's just that people either are too lazy under the new, improved, better rules for them, to do that, get a job, under those new rules, OR they can't OR they don't know how, but a lot are lazy.

But under the old way of doing it, earning $750 a month and risking losing your $800 from the government, was a questionable thing to do, and so had to either get a job that paid $2000, etc a month, or avoid $750 a month jobs, and get $800 from govt.

New way is better as it helps the non lazy people stabilize their situation, and then semi permanently to permanently get off govt assistance from SSI, SSDI

 

[CougEd]

The politicians also know they have a never ending line of credit.

It should be managed like a pension plan, reinvested back into those vehicles earning the highest return while protecting the beneficiaries. That could be in any number of investments including the stock market, government bonds, municipal bonds, etc. I'd like to see my quarterly statement on just how well MY retirement has done - and if a portion of that is carved off for disability, then note that portion, too.

But the pigs won't stop sucking on the teet until we slaughter them at the ballot box.

Clinton thought about doing that and the market crashed in 2000. Could you imagine being fully invested in 2007? Not an easy problem to solve.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Social Security is a scam? There are millions of people that disagree with you whose lives would be destroyed without the system. Is it a flawed system? Sure. Is our country a better place because we have it? Absolutely. Trying to equate Social Security and Medicare to Ukraine makes you look like a crazy person. You better go to your doctor and get your rotator cuffs checked....because you reached so hard that you had to rip your shoulders out of their sockets.

For the other comments above about choosing your own investments? God no. People are stupid and emotional. The last thing we need is a bunch of morons screwing things up even worse than our government already does.

I am concerned that the solution to fixing the social security "insolvency" problem will be to punish responsible people who saved significant amounts of money in their 401(k)'s and other investments. I plan on having a significant retirement account but I don't want to see my social security completely stolen from me for people who didn't make the best choices in life. I don't mind taking a small cut to help others, but I do fear that liberals will punish me too much for planning ahead. So, I get the concern but a solution that falls between the two extremes would be better.

Stick to your day job, Flat.

 

[dgibbons]

When I was younger I thought OK if the benefits have to be reduced to keep it "solvent", fine. I feel the same way now. But there is no way the US can just end it. They would have to refund all of us our money that we were forced to put in for starters. I suppose I'd take my 30+ years of contributions (with interest) in a lump sum.

I dunno, I guess Rick Scott from Florida has it all figured out.

Why would the federal government have to refund a tax? I mean, I wouldn't mind, but I'm not aware of any obligation to do so.

 

[dgibbons]

You dont need to reduce benefits to keep it solvent. You need to raise the premium, something that hasn't been done since 1993, I believe.

Insurance companies would never NOT raise their premiums for 20 years to cover rising costs. Because it IS a tax, politicians are loath to approach this responsibly out of fear and lack of leadership. That's all I have to say about that.

May I opt out of "coverage"?

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

May I opt out of "coverage"?

Wouldn't that be a pip?

 

[mikalalas]

Altho I agree with somewhere between some to most of what your saying here, there are those that used to have to NOT make $700,$750,$800,$850, in a job, because they would lose their SSI, SSDI, etc, and $700 to $850 is not enough both to get by and not worth the effort, as they already getting about $800 from SSI, SSDI

The only way it would be worth the effort is from both a have to start somewhere to have a work history to get a good enough job, and personal satisfaction.

But they changed it to now where you can earn up to $900 before you have to report it, and even if you report it, and keep earning $900+, you don't lose your SSI, SSDI for 3 to 6 to 9 more months depending on how much you make, and after that only decrease at a 2 to 1 ratio. Meaning that if you earn $1000 dollars at a job per month, you would still get $800(if $800 were to be what you would get from SSI, SSDI)+ you would get to keep Half $500 from, out of $1000 you earn(2 to 1 reduction ratio), for $1300($800+$500= $1300) that you would get.

Now that $1300($500 increase over $800 that get from govt, would be worth getting a job for.

It's just that people either are too lazy under the new, improved, better rules for them, to do that, get a job, under those new rules, OR they can't OR they don't know how, but a lot are lazy.

But under the old way of doing it, earning $750 a month and risking losing your $800 from the government, was a questionable thing to do, and so had to either get a job that paid $2000, etc a month, or avoid $750 a month jobs, and get $800 from govt.

New way is better as it helps the non lazy people stabilize their situation, and then semi permanently to permanently get off govt assistance from SSI, SSDI

And both the lazy and Govt caseworkers, etc, hate the new way.

I had a friend that turned down a $3000 a month Security Job offer, because his stupid SSDI CASEWORKER told him that IF he lost his job, that he would lose his SSDI l, and that he would be homeless on the street.

I asked him how much his rent was. He said $500 a month.

I pointed out that he could save $1500 a month for 2,3 months because 1500 that left after saving 1500 out of 3000 was more then what he was living off of, and then if he lost his job, he would have about $4000 saved up over 2,3 months, which would have been enough money for him to rent for 5,6 more months, and apply and get back on SSDI in 1,2,3 months, etc(This was before the new rules I mentioned).

But he was scared to death he would still lose his SSDI because of his caseworker, that he wouldn't listen to me and still TURNED DOWN the $3000 a month Security Job offer.

The reason why his caseworker told him what said to him, is that in WA, WA gets federal matching dollars for everyone in WA who on the system, and that because of that WA doesn't want to lose people off the system and lose federal matching dollars, and caseworkers don't want people to get off the system and have no people to be caseworkers for and lose their jobs, have their pay cut, etc.

 

[COUGinNCW]

SS was not intended to be a retirement program. It's initial (and still primary purpose) is wage insurance. It is not "your" money directly owed to you any more than it would be "your" money directly owed to you for medical or car insurance.

It has been solely responsible over its history of keeping millions of folk out of poverty or total destitution.

It is pure deceit and dishonesty for those who claim is will go "bankrupt" or become insolvent. As long as there is a dedicated tax (aka: premiums) allocated to it, it will be around. Raising that tax (premium) will keep it fully funded as long as the uSA exists - just like any insurance plan would.

Or raising the age you receive the benefits, which has already begun and will continue to be stretched as medicine advances and people live longer.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Well this thread is more fun than I thought it would be. A good one too. Lots of actually intelligent discourse.

One thing - the talk about investing the SS "fund" is off base. There is no fund. The revenues go into the big Govt pot, likewise the expenses come out of the pot. The "fund" is an accounting thing. Tracking the income and expenses. Kind of like a department at a college. You get your allocation, you spend it, depending on your school you carry over your balance to the next year. But there is no money to specifically invest in anything. It's all in the big pot. In the case of the US, the debt pot.

 

[etowncoug]

Almost 30% of retires in America rely on SS for 90% of their income. The program isn't going anywhere.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Almost 30% of retires in America rely on SS for 90% of their income. The program isn't going anywhere.

60% of the time, it works every time.

 

[CougInSpain]

There is a reason many retirees live as expats in other countries. SSA money goes a long ways in place like Costa Rica, Peru and Colombia.

 

[wazzucougs96]

Interesting how all the MAGA clowns were booing Biden the other night when he accused them of wanting to get rid of Social security, yet here we are all, with all of their voters wanting to get rid of it.

 

[Cougini5591]

How is the money being wasted? You will get what you are entitled to once you qualify - period. Payments to qualifiers have never NOT been made - ever.

The allocation and financial forecasts for SS are projected out for 75 years in advance. That fund is invested in the safest investment funds in the world and draws interest.

If you really think having that money sit in a fake savings account is the best option... that's your choice.

The same way I should be able to do what I want to with mine. It should be MY choice.

 

[Cougini5591]

Interesting how all the MAGA clowns were booing Biden the other night when he accused them of wanting to get rid of Social security, yet here we are all, with all of their voters wanting to get rid of it.

Who said get rid of it?