What if Social Security Income, SSI, were reduced.

[catblaster]

It is becoming more and more like that everyday.

) ) Thats what I see happening, not too far from me either. RV's on a secluded lot while owner rentsthem out.

 

[Bill N]

"And the idea that 20 somethings should be saving for retirement in 30 years instead of saving for a house, an RV, more education or something else of immediate use is appalling"

WOW Boy we are on different planets of thought on that subject or have I misinterpreted something there?

Bill.

 

[RossWilliams]

Bill -

I doubt you have misinterpreted anything. My views differ from the standard media narrative.

I think 20 somethings should be worrying about building their life, not surviving it. I also think we ought to have a retirement system that actually provides for most people's retirement based on their earnings while they are working. And it ought to be actuarial based. That means an insurance system where everyone puts in and the savings from people who die early pay for the people who live for a long time. It means almost everyone has a secure retirement and can focus on making the most of their lives. Save extra to start a business, not to have it to pay rent just in case you are lucky enough to live to 100. The total cost of everyone saving enough to live to a 100 is about double the total cost of saving enough to provide a comfortable retirement for everybody until they actually die.

That doesn't mean people shouldn't save for retirement, it just means they should save for the rest of their lives first. It makes no sense for someone to pass on taking their kids to Disney World in order to save money so they can take their grandkids. There are a lot of people who are doing something just like that. 

 

[Bill N]

Yep we are on different planets.  Different strokes for different folks.  You see I am past my 20s, 30s, 50, 60s and almost 70s.  I planned for my retirement by serving a military career and then pursuing two other careers after that one - all designed to take care of my needs of the moment including family and of my needs for the future when in full retirement.  A lot of folks today plan for their futures with such things as 401Ks and investments all the while taking care of their current needs also.  I have long ago exceeded my contributions to social security but my other incomes have enabled me to at least live a decent life without resorting to the savings of others.  Some day that may happen but I doubt  it.  For me it is the people who spend today and say to heck with tomorrow that have no plans for the future.  They plan on worrying about tomorrow tomorrow I guess - my thought is that it will be  too late then.  But as I said different opinions keep things interesting.  By the way, I don't see what I have missed by planning for tomorrow.  I have owned several homes, raised 4 kids - all went to college and while not anywhere near rich or even very well off I am very content with my lifestyle in my later years.  JMHO

Bill

 

[FenderP]

You sound like a winner to me, Bill.  Thank you for your service. 

 

[RossWilliams]

Bill -

You don't seem to be on  another planet. You have a military pension that pays as long as you live, I assume provides survivor benefits for your spouse, and then stops when you are both dead. How much you get total depends on how long you live. People who die young get less, people who live longer get more. That is exactly the way I think it should work for everyone.

Did they take anything out of your paycheck to pay for that pension? No. It was a benefit of the job. Or more precisely, it was a retention benefit for staying in the military for 20 years. People who stayed less than that got nothing. Don't get me wrong, you earned it. But you were not faced with whether to take money out of your paycheck to pay for it. Which may be the reason you didn't miss it. 

 

[John From Detroit]

I will say again at this time the Trust is worth Millions of dollars and the US GOvernment has yet to default on it's obligations when it comes to paying the interest.  Though I do admit defaulting on obligations is the standard practice of the current president. HE IS NOT IN CHARGE OF THE BUDGET.  And I hope congress knows better.

As for a 20-something investing in retirement....
Let's say you put away oh say 10 dollars a week for 30 years.
520 dollars a year times 30 years is 15600  Not that much.. but what happens. Let's assume an average of 7% return  15600 becomes 124,800 

Put away 20 bucks it doubles.  Put away 40 and you are right close to one million dollars in your 401K.

 

[Bill N]

Bill -

You don't seem to be on  another planet. You have a military pension that pays as long as you live, I assume provides survivor benefits for your spouse, and then stops when you are both dead. How much you get total depends on how long you live. People who die young get less, people who live longer get more. That is exactly the way I think it should work for everyone.

Did they take anything out of your paycheck to pay for that pension? No. It was a benefit of the job. Or more precisely, it was a retention benefit for staying in the military for 20 years. People who stayed less than that got nothing. Don't get me wrong, you earned it. But you were not faced with whether to take money out of your paycheck to pay for it. Which may be the reason you didn't miss it.

Ross I have come to the conclusion that we are of different generations.  No I did not pay extra for my military retirement.  And during my working years neither did millions of other people who where on they own company retirement programs.  But because nothing was withdrawn did not mean that nothing was paid - it was computed as part of the pay package.  I entered the military with a college degree as a 2nd Lt in 1961.  My pay at the time was $222.00 per month and that was ridiculously low even for that period.  But I was also given a housing allowance if I did not have on-base quarters and I was given a food allowance of $47.88 per month to feed my family.  Many was the time that we 'floated' checks until payday but never were cited for ISF.  Today things have changed probably for the better.  Most company pension programs are gone and workers are expected to contribute to their retirements via 401Ks.  I never had one so will leave it to others to explain how they work.  But I think we have probably milked this topic to it's end so I leave it to you to wrap it up.  Have a good retirement.

Bill

 

[lynnmor]

As for a 20-something investing in retirement....
Let's say you put away oh say 10 dollars a week for 30 years.
520 dollars a year times 30 years is 15600  Not that much.. but what happens. Let's assume an average of 7% return  15600 becomes 124,800 

Put away 20 bucks it doubles.  Put away 40 and you are right close to one million dollars in your 401K.

Then if you were able to maintain that high risk 7% throughout retirement it would be $70,000 per year.  In 30 years that amount may be a pittance.

 

[FenderP]

Ross I have come to the conclusion that we are of different generations.  No I did not pay extra for my military retirement.  And during my working years neither did millions of other people who where on they own company retirement programs.  But because nothing was withdrawn did not mean that nothing was paid - it was computed as part of the pay package.  I entered the military with a college degree as a 2nd Lt in 1961.  My pay at the time was $222.00 per month and that was ridiculously low even for that period.  But I was also given a housing allowance if I did not have on-base quarters and I was given a food allowance of $47.88 per month to feed my family.  Many was the time that we 'floated' checks until payday but never were cited for ISF.  Today things have changed probably for the better.  Most company pension programs are gone and workers are expected to contribute to their retirements via 401Ks.  I never had one so will leave it to others to explain how they work.  But I think we have probably milked this topic to it's end so I leave it to you to wrap it up.  Have a good retirement.

Bill

It's rare that those who have not served will fully understand, Bill.  The low pay, 14-day work weeks, family separation, having to work one or even two outside jobs to make ends meet.  Serving in the military takes more than a pound of flesh and you do 40 years' worth of work in 20.  That is why it takes a special breed to serve -most are not capable.

 

[sightseers]

I will say again at this time the Trust is worth Millions of dollars and the US Government has yet to default on it's obligations when it comes to paying the interest. 

But.....the U.S. has never had to pay the interest on a 20 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT before.  (thanks largely to the last president)

 

[FenderP]

But.....the U.S. has never had to pay the interest on a 20 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT before.  (thanks largely to the last president)

)

 

[garyb1st]

Getting way off topic here.  Moderators, I think it's time to close the discussion part.  If you can leave the poll open that would be good but I doubt  we'll see much change.   

 

[PJ Stough]

But.....the U.S. has never had to pay the interest on a 20 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT before.  (thanks largely to the last president)

No President since Roosevelt has inherited such a horrible economy as the last President did.  And no President since Clinton reduced the yearly deficit as much as the last President did.

 

[sightseers]

our currant president inherited the same dead economy,    just 8 years later.

Obama decreased the national deficit,  at the same time DOUBLING the national debt.  He didn't fix anything he just printed more money.

 

[garyb1st]

For people that point out economic issues that have faced this country over the past 50 years, do a bit of research before posting.  If your perspective is based on what you hear on the radio or TV, or read on the Internet or even a hard copy publication, at the very least listen to another radio or TV station, read another article, by a different author, with a different agenda and get an opposing view.  Today there are more opinion pieces than factual articles and it's not easy to fully understand the economics of a Multi-trillion dollar budget. 

 

[PJ Stough]

our currant president inherited the same dead economy,    just 8 years later.

Obama decreased the national deficit,  at the same time DOUBLING the national debt.  He didn't fix anything he just printed more money.

Wow!  How can you compare the two?  When the last President took over the economy was losing 900,000 jobs per month, and unemployment was about 10%, when the current President took over the economy was gaining about 200,000 jobs per month, and the unemployment rate was about 4%.  In what world are these two economies the same?

 

[SeilerBird]

How difficult is it to not discuss politics?

 

[signcut]

No President since Roosevelt has inherited such a horrible economy as the last President did.  And no President since Clinton reduced the yearly deficit as much as the last President did.

I will preface this by saying that I am not partial to either party; I believe both to be disgraces, full of liars, scumbags, and weasels, and that is the better portion. However, diddling about with the deficit, and crowing about it afterwards, is a game that is played for the benefit of those who often don't even know what the difference is between the debt and the deficit. To me, adding to a ballooning, grotesquely obscene debt in a slightly slower manner is similar to taking credit for driving over the cliff at 50 mph, rather than 60; not exactly all that admirable.

That isn't to say that it was 'all Obama's fault'; while the President can wheedle, deal, or use populism, the bottom line is that Congress wields the checkbook, and they have been on an ever increasing, more and more irresponsible, spending spree for at least the last 40 years, and arguably longer. That hasn't been restricted to one side or the other; both have gotten fat (read: rich) by spending/wasting public monies as a step to lining their own pockets...

Sorry, just wanted to vent.

 

[sightseers]

How difficult is it to not discuss politics?

It's because Social Security is a mandatory national tax (for some people) and is very much controlled by politics and politicians . 

This is about SSI,  so ???. 



Sorry for upsetting some of you touchie folks