The part the is specific to SS is that SS funds extended and hid the debt level.
The only control on spending is public sentiment… and it ain’t much of a control.
I would be better off if 30 years back they reduced SS payments to match outlays. spent less overall in the budget and then reduced SS payouts to the generation preceding me once the balance of workers/payees switched over.
The 20 year slack in the system was perfectly timed to saddle me with high pay in and low pay out.
Yep. It has been a slow moving disaster unfolding over decades.
Nothing was done about it.
Big surprise.
It would be nice to have a fair discussion of the solution.
A. Continue current setup (taxes increase to support SS)
B. Reduce the benefit
B1. Current generation eat the bill
B2. Next generation(s) eat the bill
B3. Previous generation eat the bill (estate tax surcharge)
B4. All generations share the bill.
I doubt this will happen, but I’m certainly going to vote my interest and scuttle plan B1.
The answer is A1. Remove the cap, increase the benefit.
This would not only provide more for retirees, but would pump more money into the economy.
More people getting older there has to face reality. People live to 90 plus nowadays and when social security was created median age of death was below 65. Many people contributed without cashing when they died at an earlier age. Retirement age needs to increase phase in over a period of years. People now at 55 or less need to retire later in order to collect the higher benefits and make it a disincentive to retire at an early age. I know it is like that way to some extent, but have to make it more apparent with a larger incentive to retire later. Need to phase in increase of taxes on everybody. Yes, also increase the tax to higher income people but it can’t just be a welfare program. Everybody needs to contribute if they are going to collect. Age expectancy is going up so does the age on when you collect. Of course there are many ways of adjusting that people have offered, not sure which is the right one but everybody is going to have to pay more to make it solvent. Of course this will be unpopular but I think necessary for the long haul…
Keep in mind, blue collar workers can’t necessarily work longer and retire at an older age. Raising the retirement age hurts those that will most depend on SS.
You laid out a good case for the need for this solution but I can’t be on board. Right now the age of retirement is 67. Raising that is problematic. Many people age out of their job well before 67, either being forced out by their employer or due to health, and there aren’t many options past 67. Plus what options there are, say the local Walmart or Home Depot, doesn’t pay that well.
Just some observations.
That’s my play too. It’s salvageable.
Sure, there are some negative repercussions for sure. But people are living longer than they used to so an increase is necessary. Most likely the age will continue to increase in life expectancy. Phase it in over a period of time which is reasonable. Shouldn’t effect people nearing retirement age right now. Yes people can retire at 62, 65 right now, and that still should be offered, but they just get a lot less money when they retire at a younger age, and are incentivized to retire later. Yes, also increased taxes for those at a higher rate of income as well, but everybody has to have their skin in the game.
That’s fine for people that spend their careers working behind a desk.
Famous sedentary longevity? Missed it in the medical journals.
You keep saying that, yet by your own admission, you’ve lived your whole gen-x life without a dependency on SS. It’s as if your private investments are more beneficial?
Have you pretended that your whole gen-x life?
We’ve found common ground. No one on Wall Street ever paid the price for the shenanigans that led to the great recession even though it was predictable, after the removal of Glass-Stegall.
That because it isn’t a freebie program. I put my hard earned money into it.
The big company put money into it. The govt. zero money.
It’s all mine and the big companies.
Allan
Years ago, it appeared that our government was mishandling social security and what’s happening regarding solvency, was predicted. The wife and I each took additional portions of our income and set up and IRA and 401ks so that if everything went wrong, we’d still be ok in retirement.
Working behind a desk doesn’t mean one is fat and lazy. There are health club, gyms, etc.
But that’s no where the same as breaking your back working construction.
Exactly. No one should “depend on social security.” It’s a safety net.
Umm, yes, it pretty much does mean that in America today. 73% of Americans are over weight.
Nope, overweight Americans aren’t necessarily the ones with desk jobs. And blue collar workers shouldn’t be expected to work into their 70s.
