Entitled Selfishness: Good Newsweek article on the consquences of leaving SS as is..

[dvcgirl]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16562633/site/newsweek/

Very interesting take on this. There's going to be plenty of pain to go around. This gentlemen suggests that the Boomers should feel some of it too.....

[disneysteve]

Interesting article. As always, it comes down to the same solutions: lower benefits, raise the ages to collect, work longer, save more, and add means testing.

One problem (among many) is that even though people are living longer, the average age of retirement has actually decreased. People want time to enjoy life while they are still able. As a result, a significant number of retirees starts collecting SS early, at age 62, rather than waiting until their full retirement age.

[LuckyRobin]

These are the very reasons why my husband and I don't expect to ever receive SS benefits, despite paying in for years. We are funding our own retirement because we know we have to. If we get anything back from the government ever, that will be the day pigs fly and the devil wears ice skates. We cannot count on our government to be there for us. It is every person for themselves at our age (mid 30's). My husband intends to work until he can't so our medical benefits will stay intact. He loves his job, though so it should not be a hardship. If all goes well...

[tinapbeana]

i'm one of those that don't really think i'm going to retire.

some days it's because i'm hopeful that i'll be full of vim & vigor doing something i'll love for the rest of my life (YAY!), some days it's because i'm pretty sure i'll have no choice but to work to be able to have health benefits (BOO!).

either way, glass full or glass half empty, i don't see the traditional concept of retirement as a viable option for most folks my age (late 20s).

[cschin4]

I don't wanting to collect Social Security is selfishness. I have been paying into this for years and I am entitled to collect the promised benefits. I would be more than happy to "opt out" of SS and put the money that I earned off the sweat of my brow into my own retirement plan. Calling people "selfish" is another tactic of the govt to keep your income as a tax and create another entitlement instead to fritter away our hard-earned money on.
I am all for getting rid of SS. But, why should I pay and pay and pay my whole woking life and get nothing?

[sakigt]

Originally Posted by cschin4

I don't wanting to collect Social Security is selfishness. I have been paying into this for years and I am entitled to collect the promised benefits. I would be more than happy to "opt out" of SS and put the money that I earned off the sweat of my brow into my own retirement plan. Calling people "selfish" is another tactic of the govt to keep your income as a tax and create another entitlement instead to fritter away our hard-earned money on.
I am all for getting rid of SS. But, why should I pay and pay and pay my whole woking life and get nothing?

At 23, I ask the same question.

[tinapbeana]

i think the description of "selfish" was being used more for folks who collect SS simply because it's time, rather than out of any actual need for the money. the spirit of the legislation was to take care of the basic needs of the aging so that they could retire with dignity and in health, as opposed to starving, ill, or homeless. the intent was not, IMO, to cover someone's medical bills so their money could be diverted and used for something else, like a motorhome and a 6 month north american roadtrip.

not that i'm saying that all or most do this, i'm saying it does happen. if person A has no actual 'need' for SS income and person B does, and person A still takes SS benefits simply because they feel it's owed to them, then yes i do find that selfish.

[usnavy_233]

Originally Posted by sakigt

At 23, I ask the same question.

I hear you there. At 25 I'm asking the same question as well. I've love to be able to take my SS contributions and add them to my Roth or my Scottrade account. Luckily, I'm planning my retirement based on numbers that DO NOT include anything from SS.

[cschin4]

Why shouldn't someone collect it if it is 'time'? So, instead, those who work, save and are frugal and end up with assets later in life should be penalized and have their SS taken away? More of the same old "let's punish those who plan ahead, live on less than they make" and let's give the money to those who didn't plan and blew all their money on useless junk by running up their cc's by going into debt.

[Aleta]

I think that one of the problems that exist is that most people can't possibly live on social security and what they save. Alone, the medical sometimes exceed what they receive. When social security was begun alot of retirees lived with their kids or the kids lived with their parents and they both helped one another out. Today, we have everyone going their own way living thousands of miles away from each other and can't be there in time of need. I think that our lifestyle has a lot to do with it.

[tinapbeana]

Originally Posted by cschin4

Why shouldn't someone collect it if it is 'time'? So, instead, those who work, save and are frugal and end up with assets later in life should be penalized and have their SS taken away? More of the same old "let's punish those who plan ahead, live on less than they make" and let's give the money to those who didn't plan and blew all their money on useless junk by running up their cc's by going into debt.

not quite what i said.... i'm not saying the government should cut people off from SS, i'm saying people who actually have no 'need' the money rarely opt to leave the money in the system on their own volition.

and, i would venture to say those that do 'need' SS benefits aren't all folks who failed to plan ahead and blew all their money buying junk. my grandfather had 4 heartattacks in a day and can no longer work. house and cars are paid for, but food, medicine, and utilities come around every month like clockwork.

my only real question is: why am i paying SS to fund someone else's retirement? all i hear is "i paid SS so i could withdraw my benefits, so you have to do the same". you know what, that's like fraternity hazing: just because it was done to you doesn't mean it has to be done to someone else.

in all reality, i won't get to collect "when it's time" b/c of the sheer number of boomers who are or are going to start collecting whether they need the money or not. when you collect money you don't need knowing full well it may prevent your children or grandchildren from being able to collect "when it's their time", that to me qualifies as selfishness.

[Aleta]

To Tina: know what you mean to a point. But, my husband is self-employed and he has been paying 15.3% for 29 years now. He has had no other company to pay his half and he is a sole proprietor and we pay private insurance. I've looked at his sheet and I can't believe how much he has personally paid compared to mine when I worked and had my half paid by a company. If our government would treat the social security system like a lock box, we wouldn't be in this problem today.

[tinapbeana]

Originally Posted by Aleta

To Tina: know what you mean to a point. But, my husband is self-employed and he has been paying 15.3% for 29 years now. He has had no other company to pay his half and he is a sole proprietor and we pay private insurance. I've looked at his sheet and I can't believe how much he has personally paid compared to mine when I worked and had my half paid by a company. If our government would treat the social security system like a lock box, we wouldn't be in this problem today.

the only problem with this is that the system wasn't designed to be a lock box where your contributions are put in, grow, and are waiting for you to take them out when you retire. it's always been the amorphous 'compact' you hear about: working blokes pay $ that is used to pay benefits to retirees all basically around the same time. assuming there are enough folks working to balance out the number of retirees, it's a great self-perpetuating system. in your husband's case, the money he's paying isn't for his social security, it's for the SS someone else is receiving right now. the amount he's paid goes in a ledger and he gets a 'credit' for each dollar amount. the credit is meaningless and worthless in and of itself, and is only useful if the government has money to pay it out at the right time.

problem is, SS was established in 1935 well before the baby-boom. taxes were first collected and benefits first destributed in 1937. obviously folks receiving benefits in '37 hadn't paid anything in before, so they were getting the money that was being paid in by other folks at the same time. again, as long as workers = retirees, there's no issue.

but, birthrates declined after the baby boom, meaning at some point in the future there would be more retirees than workers and the system wouldn't function as it was intended (my taxes go to the government who turns around and mails them out to grandma). did they make any changes when birthrates went south? no. come up with a new system, or at least changes to the existing system? no.

[Aleta]

I couldn't have said it better. Thanks for educating folks out there. Plus today, we have people waiting longer and longer to have kids and that doesn't help either.

[Lonewolf]

Social Security can always be a touchy subject. I think those newly started on their career have a hard time understanding why they are giving part of their income every pay to a system that will potentially not even exist when they might need it. I'm middle of the road in my career, and still write this off as it would not exist when I retire. Everyone knows that in its current form, it will not work, but there is little being done to fix it. I know everyone will then say "make sure you vote for someone who will make the change" but it seems neither party gets anything done.

Sometimes in life, it is what it is, and I look at this more as a tax, then a potential retirement supplement. You take what life gives, and just add a little more to your own retirement to give yourself peace of mind for when you settle down.

Wolf

[Aleta]

I think in time that the government in time should give all contributees a credit of some kind should the system fail. It doesn't help when our government gives people from other countries these benefits as if they contributed all of their life. If one hasn't saved up enough, they can receive SSI benefits. That's why so many have a question about having so many illegal people being made citizens that will surely will bankrupt the system The majority of them are working under the table anyway and aren't contributing to the system.

[tinapbeana]

Originally Posted by Aleta

Plus today, we have people waiting longer and longer to have kids and that doesn't help either.

"In 1969, more than 40% of all households consisted of a married couple with children. By 1996 only a rough quater of US households consisted of married couples with children. "

"The average fertility rate(the average number of children to a woman in her lifetime)rose from 1.7 in 1930 to a peak of 3.7 in 1950-1957, it has dropped to 1.5 in 1970 and steadily rose to 1.9 in 2000, and is projected to be 2.0-2.4 in 2050."

- wikipedia from US Census...

*sigh* need to go check my investments after reading this...

[cschin4]

I am self employed as well. I have paying over 15% into this between my personal and business tax. I am always suspect when people want to decide who "needs" this money. If I was forced to contribute to this and promised certain benefits, then I am entitled to them. If I don't "need" the money, why is it anyone's business but my own? I may chose to leave the money to my children or whatever. We already have entitlements for the poor. Otherwise, allow me to opt out of SS and I will glady do so.

[cschin4]

BTW, is there something wrong with being "selfish"? If I work and earn the money, it should be mine to do with as I please.

[Aleta]

For sure, I don't see the corrupt politicians and those serving time losing their (hard earned pension) - cough cough. If they feel so strongly about it, why don't they donate theirs?