Is Social Security still going to exist in say 20 years (2033)?

[cardtrick]

SS will exist, but won't cover much in 20 years. Their strategy will be to not keep up with inflation. What's the value of $1000 a month when a gallon of milk costs $20?

[QuarterMillionMan]

I see. Upon further examination of my benefits statement at the asterics;

*Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2037, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 76 percent of scheduled benefits.


So in 2037 my $1000 benefit (approx.) will be only $760. Factor in inflation and it'll be a lot less. I hope a gallon of milk is not $20, or a loaf of bread $25, or a gallon of gasonline $40, but that is a real possibility.



Ponzi scheme comes to mind. The Federal government can do it but Bernie Maddoff goes to jail, just saying.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

So in 2037 my $1000 benefit (approx.) will be only $760. Factor in inflation and it'll be a lot less. I hope a gallon of milk is not $20, or a loaf of bread $25, or a gallon of gasonline $40, but that is a real possibility.

You do not have to imagine that you will be getting only dollars at today's value, because SS does apply inflation factors, even to your projected benefits, not just to your actual payments after retirement.

If you would like Social Security funding to keep up with demographic changes, encourage your representatives to make it so. Formulas need not be considered unchangeably engraved in stone.

[Petunia 100]

Of course SS will continue to exist. Taxes may go up, and benefits may go down, but it will continue to exist.

Remember, "bankrupt" does not mean "program ceases to exist", it means "no more funds in reserve". Taxes will continue to be collected, and benefits will continue to be paid.

[KTP]

Like I said, being 76% funded until 2037 is way way better than almost all public and private pensions.

SS is in better shape than many other retirement sources.

[disneysteve]

I would operate under the premise that it will not be there.

It will exist. But probably not as it does now. I'd expect some form of reduced benefits or higher age requirements to qualify.

I agree with both of these points.

I think it will still exist. I also think it will be different than it is now with lower benefits and a higher age requirement.

Keep in mind that when SS was started and they designated 65 as the retirement age (no such age existed before that), the life expectancy was 63 so most people didn't live to collect. Now that the life expectancy is 80-something and lots of people are reaching their 90s and beyond, it doesn't make sense not to change that 65 (or even 62) age for collecting.

I have lots of patients who are still working full time in their 70s and even 80s. My MIL is 74 and works full time. I just saw a woman today who is 78 and just lost her job because the store she worked in went out of business. She is looking for another job - at 78. She has no desire to retire as long as she is capable of working. My 84 year old mother still works part time. Times have changed. The rules need to change too.

[bigdaddybus]

My employer pays people from Ernst and Young to provide classes on retirement/investing/saving for your childs education/etc.

At the retirement course I attended, they stated that the average benifit paid by SS to a retiree when SS started was 9 years. Currently, that number has close to doubled, and they expect that number to continue to grow with advances in healthcare.

[JoeP]

Yep, people are living longer, like this Rosie the Riveter at 93!

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

Funny that the SS system is funded far better than most public pension systems but people expect SS not to be there and barely question if public pensions will be taken away.

But there are campaigns out there stirring the pot trying to make people resentful of both Social Security and pensions of public employees.

Because my husband participates in a public employee pension I am sensitive to the negative claims being made. His public school retirement system is currently funded to 81%, and has never dropped below 76% since the Great Recession. Yet, there are school board members who are portraying it as a Ponzi scheme. There is a bill in the legislature now to require the teacher retirement system to be funded to 100%--immediately. This is clearly intended to make the retirement system fold, shut in down: Trying to shut down a healthy system.

In fact, that retirement system has had as much as 103% funding, and perhaps will again. But to try to require 100% immediately & in the face of the current economy (while needing to make up for lesser investment returns in recent years)' is ludicrous. The fact is, the state does not pay out those pensions (the pension fund, not run by the state, pays them), yet it has guaranteed since the early 1900's that should the pension fund fail, the state would pay existing pensions. If a legal mandate to have 100% funding of our teacher retirement system ends up shutting it down, the irony is that the state would then become responsible for paying out the pensions. Kill the public pension system: obligate the state to pay the pensions.

Anyway, I see the future Social Security and public pensions alike being jeopardized by irrationality. Work on any problems. Find rational changes to make. Don't just get panicked and declare the systems rotten to the core.

[J.Apple902]

SS will most likely exist in 20 years. There is much speculation that SS is on the demise and that it loses money, but this is entirely false. SS has always been in the black. Be aware that the media ploy to make people believe SS is failing so that the funds can become privatized.

Regardless, I think most posts here are accurate. I'm sure most people omit SS from their retirement planning bc you cannot control it and therefore cannot rely on it.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

exist yes. In current form? no. Plan on it? No.

[QuarterMillionMan]

I came across this video on Merrill Edge's website;


Webcast Library

Your Money at Stake

What 30-, 40- and 50-year-olds need to know NOW about Social Security

Whether you're just starting your career, in mid-career or nearing retirement, you need to know NOW how Social Security will affect your retirement plans.

http://www.merrilledge.com/webcast?bclid=1456382578001&bctid=2665677357001#bclid=928462283001-bctid=2665677357001

[bigdaddybus]

I came across this video on Merrill Edge's website;


Webcast Library

Your Money at Stake

What 30-, 40- and 50-year-olds need to know NOW about Social Security

Whether you're just starting your career, in mid-career or nearing retirement, you need to know NOW how Social Security will affect your retirement plans.



http://www.merrilledge.com/webcast?b...=2665677357001

Nice find!


That confirms everything I have researched on the subject as well as what Ernst and Young present to employees at my company.

Nice to hear that all the "Chicken Little" talk about Social Security is getting the younger generation investing more for retirement (as that is never a bad thing IMO)


I really liked these parts:
Social Security should be 18-30% of your retirement income
It was never intended to be a your full retirement income
demonstrations showing increases/decreases in payments based on age
SS needs to increase the money going in or reduce the money going out.... to fix Social Security past 2033.
People are living longer, thus the program needs to adjust for that

[bjl584]

I really liked these parts:
Social Security should be 18-30% of your retirement income
It was never intended to be a your full retirement income

Now we just need politicians to start saying that.

Every time anyone talks about making changes to SS, here come the politicians telling everyone that Granny is going to starve to death.