Social security, baby boomers & millennials.

Social security- the way I understand it is that between the monthly benefits and medical benefits you go on the public dole after 5 1/2 years. The amount you've paid into it is easily discovered thru the social security website. Do I agree with SS ? Nope. 401k's do a lot better. Forced excepted Socialism is how I look at social security.
Baby boomers - I guess I'm one, born in 1959. Gonna work till I'm 73 1/3 , that's my choice. That will give me 50 years trailer trucking.
BUT- I could retire at 62 1/2 and collect a bunch of money I never paid into the system. Do I agree with the system? Heck no! My 401k does a lot better than 0% interest. I saved and invested to retire, don't want nothing I didn't earn.
Millennials- are you kidding me? How many of you have kids born on or after 1982 that are not lazy worthless so & so's? Speak up, let's hear about your worthless kids. My grandfather- kids of today. My father- kids of today. Me- kids of , oops, my kids picked ocra & cucumbers for extra money after school as did most kids around here. My grandfather's kids fought in Korea, my father's kids threw hay for $5 a day & lunch from can't see till can't see. And see the above for my kids. What we call millennials are a small percentage of the folks born in the era we have designated 'millennials'. I'll not except it.

What's your point?

You're really cool. That horse was beaten in the original thread a week or two ago.

Well, I liked it...

What part?

Good for you, can I have all your earned dollars you put into SS any way seeing as your not going to use it ? Just how do you figure you don't pay into the program any way ?

I don't see taking something I've been paying in to for many years as accepted socialism, I see it as finally being able to receive what I was forced into when I started working.

I agree with Grit. It is more like Communism. State ownership of a retirement and disability program.

Isn't what you're receiving being paid by current wage earners? And what you earned was spent by the previous generation?

I'll be the devils advocate here and question how many retirees would have anything saved if left to their own devices.

It's a massive Ponzi Scheme

And most receive way more than they contributed

Fail it will

How many have 401Ks and or Roth IRAs and or savings accounts. That will be your answer.

One report said right now only 50% of families have any savings at all. Only 13% have pensions and I'm sure some of those are underfunded.

If there was no SS, wouldn't people actually realize that they gotta save now or starve later? Personally I invest every spare dollar into my taxable stock account. I have no desire to work when I'm old, but if other people don't have the discipline to take care of their own retirement then (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) on them. You make your bed you gotta lay in it.

In a perfect world everyone would be responsible for themselves, but that's not where we live.

I have a 403b and an IRA. I dont plan on Social Security still being around when I retire despite my contributions.

Like someone else said....its a Ponzi scheme and once ended there will be millions left with nothing to show for it.

So, I keep reading only 1/3 of Americans save money in a 401K. Sounds bad, but I'm guessing this includes retired, under 18, non working, pensioned, etc. Do young workers ( say under 35) really need to start saving?

I'm a millennial, 32 years old, born in 85. I've been married just over 12 years, have two sons- 10 and 12 and my daughter will be born any day. I have a 401k that I put 16% into and my company matches 5%. I also have a pension, which, when I can retire at 65 will get me about $3,200.00 per month. I've worked since I was 11 years old (no, not full time but I did what I could while in school). I pay my mortgage, keep the lights on, have food in the fridge and take care of my wife and kids. All "millennials" are not the same. Oh, and I know how to change a light bulb......

Yes, Dirt! Never to early to start saving.

Savings is not encouraged, look at interest rates. Investing in the stock market is the only viable way to have a chance at a retirement today.

That piece of paradise you own is rented from the government.

We are manipulated from birth to death.

Salmon fishing starts soon.

Generally it is a 1/3 of Americans of working age that they are polling.




Absolutely! From the day you start earning you should start saving.

You're living the dream man, if you got a company matched 401k (especially at that rate) AND a pension.

I'm not saying it is a bad idea to save money for a retirement you may never see when you are under 35, but do you NEED to?

No....I guess you never NEED to save money...whether your 16 or 60 or 90. When you run out you can either rely on family or go die under a bridge or tree.

You are missing the point of my question. Do you have to save for retirement your whole working life to have an adequate retirement income? If you start at 35 and retire at 65, IMO. you should be able to save all you most likely will need. IMO you should enjoy some of that money doing things you won't be able to do when you are 65 and older.

I got your point. Maybe I didn't elaborate enough in mine.

Many people live perfectly happy simple lives in retirement so they won't need as much. Others will want to finally do the things they never had time for which for some can be pricey. It all depends on what that individual wants out of their retirement.

Boomers have been by far the largest voting block for years, they have dictated who is elected and the general direction of the country, they elected people who made poor investments with their social security and most of them will extract far more from it than they paid in, now Millennials are becoming the larger voting block and generation Z is about to start voting, the country is 20+ Trillion in debt and boomers expect Millennials and generation Z to keep working and paying into social security that they promised to themselves on the backs of the future. Do not be surprised if in 5-10 years from now Millennials and generation Z vote in politicians who are not friendly to social security or other benefits the Boomers promised themselves and never funded.

FYI " Did you know 20% of men die before retirement age?"

No disagreement from this Boomer.

The millenials need to keep in mind that 10 trillion of that was done in 8 years. To blame that on the boomers is overly simplistic and short-sighted. On top of that, the votes have been out there to trump the boomers for years...but the young are too lazy to go to the polls. So, I guess the millenials can try to take the punitive approach, but I suspect they'll be too lazy.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/lifeexpectancy.html

Found this interesting.

It's not punitive to expect programs that cannot be sustained to be reduced.

I agree. But the post I was replying to sounds a bit punitive. Cutting benefits to retired folks is never going to be a popular thing, regardless of who created the problem. So, I'll believe it when I see it.

Math isn't political, punitive and doesn't care what you do when you retire.

It's almost entirely the boomers fault, followed by the greatest generation and generation x, which is me.

We are experiencing the symptoms of a debt backed economy. It's going to get worse and nothing can stop it.

The baby boomers and gen xers had best hope the mellinials don't wake up one day and realize that we borrowed against the next generations future to create the wealth we enjoy today.

Then the math is going to get real punitive.

Nearly 50% of boomers voted for Obama, dont act like it was millenials alone that hung up that 10 trillion.

And the boomers think Millennials and Gen Z are liberal?

Boomers were trying to over throw the government in favor of communism and committing acts of terrorism.

That won't be the math that is punitive, it will be economic reality meeting political force. It's probably best to start closing the money spigot gradually rather than all at once. The goal being social security for centenarians. Hey, that actually sounds politically palatable. Just add a federal acronym and package to sell to voters.

Every generation is getting more liberal than the one before. Fact.


http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/30/a-different-look-at-generations-and-partisanship/

http://boomerconsumerbook.blogspot.com/2008/11/boomers-and-change-2008-presidential.html

Yes

I'll say no...we know it!

Just because we knew how to have fun, doesn't mean we were stupid enough to vote Democrat.

Problem is if people don't prepare for old age and they can't let them die in the street then collecting for the future seems like a smart plan. I can see the ones with the 401K plans being taxed to pay for the ones that did not plan for the future through bad luck or bad choices. Heck your already paying for dependents you will never meet every day.


The collection rate for SS is a joke (very outdated) but political suicide for anyone to take on, I got a $25 raise last year not sure when there was any raises before that.


Just don't see the advantage of a bunch of seniors being on welfare/aid/EBT that paid zero into anything when SS could offset that in many cases.

Nice necklace hippie.

Work unless you physically/mentally cannot work, if you did not save you do not retire. For those who physically or mentally cannot work SS disability should come into play.

That would be SSI that is retirement for many that don't need it and they can start to collect the Max at any age they qualify for it.

Nope, SSI is for those who have low income or haven't earned enough credits to draw SSDI, or never worked.

SSI is a disability coverage look it up!

It is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income.

I'm 36 self employed and just recently started saving(IRA) my wife is a nurse and she contributes 15% into her 401k and they match 5%. I bought a second home in Ohio because I love to hunt and fish, I lease 800 acres in Illinois and make several trips a year up there hunting. The men in my family usually don't live past 70 so I'm enjoying life now while I feel like it, and saving some too. I've watched many guys save their whole life just to retire and sit in a recliner

Exactly, which contradicts your 1st statement. If the people Donner was talking about had accrued enough points they would qualify for SSDI. SSI is not a blanket for all.

Gubmint LOVES folks who work until they're 75 and don't draw S.S.

Kicks in at anytime you physically cannot work and are approved for it, my SS statements always listed the rate you could get SS at, so much at 62-63-64-65 and now 66.


The last listing was for if you became unable to work at any age then you get the highest amount right away THAT is want I said you should really see some one and get some professional help!

Clearly you don't understand the difference between SSI and SSDI. Both have their own criteria to meet. Continue on lol.....

It's all the same program listed together at the site even, one flows into the other and Medicaid even comes into play at some point just your pointless nitpicking games!

If you have worked for enough time that the government has stolen enough of your money to pass an arbitrary theshold you qualify for ssdi, which is more $ than ssi. If you have never worked and had money stolen by the government, you qualify for ssi, which is less $ than ssdi. It's pretty straightforward, really.

I wouldn't even say "a lot" I meet more hard working people in their early 20s now than I did 15 years ago. Will be interesting to see what generation Z accomplishes.

Of course, we could cut our bloated military, instead of a program that millions of Americans rely on to keep out of poverty.

Jim

So you want to cut a government make work program that keeps people out of poverty? I'm with you!

There must be some flaw in the idea, if you are for it, Dirt.

Jim

You could say that all the assistance programs are "government make work jobs" millions of government workers on the collection side and millions more government workers on the disbursement side. And millions more government workers standing watch over all that.

You and you and all the rest of you are Government dependents. Everybody either works for the government in some fashion; or works for an industry that sells to or services the government;or works in a field subsidized by the government; or works in job selling to or servicing those who work for the government.

The entire economy is a giant Ponzi scheme and the Savings God is a scam. Maybe?

So, when these smart youngins take over and get us off the debt produced fantasy economy of the last 50-80 years, the economy crashes, the banks fail, the government can't use debt to keep it together any more; how will those 401-roth-etc plans come out?

Even if it is only a minor correction such as 1929, how will those special funds fare? I guess, what I'm asking is how do you pick which funds/banks/whosits won't go down the tubes with all your savings? Aren't they all scams?

The biggest scam of all is when the Government borrowed a large sum of money from social security about 30 years ago and never paid it back. Don't ask me to prove what I say, I just know my wife watched for years ,before she passed, to see if the Government ever paid any of that money back, and she never did tell me the money was repaid.
If anybody can find any information out about this little scam, I would like to know how it was ever settled, if it was ever settled.

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

Let me know if you figure out what that means.

Jim

The sad part is when the ability to create money out of thin air stops and the fantasy stops the boomers and gen xers will blame it on the youth when in reality it was their fault.

Social security has always been "borrowed from". The collected money has never been set aside and not spent. Never. Never.

There has always been more taken in than was paid out. Even when SSI was created. That may change. I believe its why illegal immigration is allowed. Not even Trump wants to stop it. New workers are needed to pay into SS. Working Americans are not having enough kids. Low income welfare types are having them.

The money has never been set aside it isn't there. Every time the printing press is fired up the dollar is worth less. It needs fired up now and again as fiat currency only works with debt. To much debt all at once will collapse it though.

I am enjoying my popcorn.

I don't blame it on any one, if I did the blame would go to the dead folks that started US down this rosey path. My question is if I buy into a Plan based on imaginary money and after much work and savings and careful investment the whole shebang folds won't my Roth or 401 or coffee can full of "money" buried in the cabbages be worthless?

I'm refusing to take the slightest blame for any financial problems this country has or will have. My Bride and I lived within our meager means for decades,living on beans and macaroni so we'd have a savings account as a retirement rainy-day fund. If the whole system collapses...and it will sooner or later.......we will be just as screwed as the rest of the country, even the grasshoppers that partied away their money weekly. When the government cuts my SS by 20% to make the system last longer, as some estimates are quoted, we are going to be PIZZED off and fighting mad. I personally paid into the system since the late 1960's. To put it bluntly....we had a deal. Live up to your end or the Boomers will be at the gate with pitchforks and torches.

More importantly, we Boomers VOTE.

Jim

The good thing is a lot of you are senile.

This "millennial" votes too.

[/quote] My question is if I buy into a Plan based on imaginary money and after much work and savings and careful investment the whole shebang folds won't my Roth or 401 or coffee can full of "money" buried in the cabbages be worthless? [/quote]

yes it will be. But, IF it doesn't fold, you will have a savings that will get you through the rest of your life (if you saved enough). It's all a crap-shoot. I for one, would rather play on the safe side and have money put away for retirement. If the whole economic system goes down the toilet (like it's not already ) and money becomes worthless, we are all in the same boat. But if it doesn't, the savers will have money to get them through.
My mom is 60 years old and has NOTHING put away! Not even $100.00! I can't imagine being 60 and not having any kind of cushion. She just recently got kicked out of her house (she rented) because she had to miss two weeks of work and had no money to pay the rent. Now, she is living with my brother and searching for a job. I don't ever want to be in that situation.

.......and another thing, I must misunderstand the whole SSI (Supplemental Security Income) deal....I thought/think it is another check, paid on top of the recipients regular SS or SSDisability check, that supplements that persons income ONLY if their assets and income is under a certain "poverty level" amount. Because my Bride and I were ants and not grasshoppers, we saved, saved, saved until it hurt, instead of blowing all our money on the various toys/vacations/want de jour, and as a result, we don't get squat, but those bozos that squandered their money and don't have much in the way of assets....GET MORE MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT!

SSI is straight up welfare paid to people who don't qualify for social security....and it comes from the general fund not the social security fund.

general fund and social security fund are the same thing. our government spends more than they take in. they don't care what the original tax was its all the same fund once they take it from you

I agree Danny. As James mentioned earlier about the accounting practices of the federal government, it really doesn't matter because they lie about the number anyway. It's all just bits and bytes on a computer system.

Before anyone gets mad at me, I'm not all that young and hopefully be retired with in the next 10 12 year but "we had a deal"? Bah!

The boomers made a deal with themselves. Promised themselves unfunded liabilities and are expecting their children to pay for it. Deal? Great deal except for the last guy holding the bag.

This scheme was hatched by FDR and bought by the Great Depression generation. The baby boomers inherited this mess.

James are you telling me that there was never any money borrowed and not returned? The way I understood it, there was a very large sum of money borrowed from social security and never paid back. If that is the case and it was done 30 years ago, then that money should be paid back to the social security system in full with interest.

Dirt, I'll agree with that as far the SS and some other bits of the mess, but truly I think the whole thing including fiat currency could not have been possible without Woody Wilson and the Flappers or lost gens, however you call them. The European based central bank was necessary for all the socialist programs to flourish.
Even if we start the fantasy with Nixon scrapping the precious metals, the bulk of the blame still predates the boomers as only the very oldest of them got to vote for tricky dicky and all the other pieces were already in place.

Any raise in SS benfits is always offsetted by a raise in Medicade fees. At least that has been in my observance.

Do you mean Medicare, RdFx?

Don, if I understand that quote from the SS Administration's website, the answer to your question is there was never any money borrowed and not returned. "The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

But the lawyers who drafted that page may have been cleverer than I am.

Jim

You are correct that the pieces were in place, but that doesn't mean we had to utilize those pieces.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/16/social-security-ious-stashed-away-in-wva/

if ss is bust will welfare and food stamps be bust too?

when it all blows up will we go back to capitalism or will people claim socialism can work if we just tweak it a little??????????????????????? I will likely be dead by then but I am curious as to what will come out of the ashes.

food stamps is USDA

Back to a few of the OP questions. I have a son that was born after 1982 and is very successful in his career. He makes more money then I did after 35 years in my profession. So I would say not all born after 1982 are dead beats.

Don what you are talking about is a myth. I see hippie put a link to a story about how this worked. I'll explain how it worked as best as I know. FDR sold the scheme as an insurance program where your money was put into an account for your retirement. It has always been a flat tax with a cap. Any excess money collected over the ever changing payout program has always been used by the Federal government to fund other parts of the Federal government. They could just spend it, but they play a convoluted game where they say they borrow it from themselves. In the late 60's I believe they changed how they account for this by adding this amount borrowed( that the government owes itself )to the Federal national debt number. This accounting change is where people think the Federal government starting robbing the social security trust fund (which really never existed). They always spent any surplus tax revenue. Nothing has changed in this regard, but all the other parts of social security (that people think they got a fixed deal with the Federal government) change constantly. It is an open ended contract forced on you.

P.S. If it hadn't been for FDR's court packing scheme (basically blackmail), SSI would probably have died in the Supreme Court back in the 30's.

Overthrow the gov't.

doesn't matter bigfoot. its all the same fund and source of revenue. every federally collected tax, no matter the name of the tax, goes into one pool that politicians pump out of.

Before anyone gets mad at me, I'm not all that young and hopefully be retired with in the next 10 12 year but "we had a deal"? Bah!

The boomers made a deal with themselves. Promised themselves unfunded liabilities and are expecting their children to pay for it. Deal? Great deal except for the last guy holding the bag. [/quot

Yes, we had a deal....I, as a Boomer, didn't make it, but I lived up to my end of it all my working career....most of which I was self employed and paid double (15+%) the SS payroll tax as anyone that worked for wages for another person/company. It was a deal, fair and square, and I will be loading my pitchfork if they try to screw with my share. 49'er....I ain't mad at you or anyone else. All I am doing is belly-aching about the government. That's what retirees do!

I'll venture the guess that it depends on how you look at the Gov't.

If you look at the gov't and its agencies as one entity, then yes, the money goes to one fund.
If you seperate them, then no, moneys goes to SS seperate.

There is no there other truthful way to look at government than to realize they are all one entity. As George Carlin said, it's a big club and you aint in it. Unless younare.

Well I'm a boomer as well and not the least apologetic for being able to take some of my funds put into the program over my life ! As I was not able to vote for or against it and nothing was ever done since my birth to change it, I have to accept the fact that it's not going to be replaced until it's dead, so I'm using it !

Those who complain about it should just not take it and let others use what they may have gotten out of it, seeing as they feel so terrible about having the program in place to begin with !

I see alot of those who complain about it being a Ponzi scheme, but don't see any of them doing any thing to change the program in place, they still pay into the program, they still sit on the window sill and complain about doing so, but not one of them do any thing to change.

So until it's changed, replaced, moved out of Ponzi land, I'm taking it for what I paid into it, and will not apologize for doing my forced part in having it, I'll just force my self to use it. LOL

Well we will just call it a "shell game" to go along with "Ponzi scheme".

"a deceptive and evasive action or ploy, especially a political one."

I'm like grit. I was forced to pay in and I'm going to use it

The plate jugglers at the central bank may be able to keep juggling for a long time yet. I don't know. I think collapse is inevitable though. If for no other reason than the ratio of producers to consumers is changing in the wrong direction. I suppose the fact that what one person can produce keeps increasing has an effect also on how many consumers a producer can support.

I am just a truck driver and fur trapper. Lots I don't know about economic manipulation. I know too many rats in a pond will cause a bunch to immigrate and get ate by coyotes on their quest for a new cattail bog. I suspect there will be a big reduction in humans one of these days. Either from war or drought or disease. War could possibly be the result of an economic collapse. Economic collapse could likely be the end result of socialism.

Like Grit, I will use it as well when the time comes.

Unlike Grit I don't think it's our children's responsibility to repay all the money the greatest generation, boomers and gen xers borrowed. I will gladly take a cut if it's necessary and will support candidates who want to do away with the program.

Danny, a fiat based economy doesnt care if it's run by liberals or conservatives. The end result will be the same.

Bush and Obama should have ripped the band aid off instead of bailouts and borrowing.

You can request to have your employer not take out SSN funds. You can contact the federal government and request that you do not want to contribute to the SSN system. You can then invest those funds for yourself. You will not receive SSN or Medicare if you choose this option. For those that are strongly opposed to the government system why you have not done this I don't understand. I did taxes for at least two workers who made this choice. I don't feel it is wise but then it is their life and yours as well.

Bryce

I am not ready to become Amish.

Not just anybody can opt of SSI. If we could the program would have been tits up a long time ago.

I was looking at the SS webpage a few years ago. Intended to do just that. All of the info I could find says that you cannot do that anymore.

OK when did you look? The last tax filing doing that for me was 2007 or 2008. He worked on a dairy farm as an at will employee like many are now with no unions or work contacts etc. I will do some checking on the date that law may have changed. I know the option was on the table while the discussion under younger Bush when they were investigating allowing private investments for younger SSN payers for a portion of their payments.
Below is a brief link on who can opt out and who can not. Yes the list has been trimmed considerably since I had last looked.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020315/there-any-way-opt-out-paying-social-security.asp

Bryce

"The law is very specific about the requirements for exemption from the Social Security program, and most taxpayers do not qualify. But yes, exemptions do exist for a small number. Certain religious groups, students, U.S. citizens who decide to forfeit their national citizenship, employees of foreign governments and self-employed workers who make less than $400 annually are all examples of taxpayers who are not responsible for paying Social Security taxes. Of course, since they are exempt, they are also ineligible to receive any Social Security benefits."

I've never advocated others keep paying into this program, where that comes from I have no idea ! I do say if you have paid into it you should try and get something out of the dollars taken from you. I don't know a way when working legally that one can not donate to this program, LOL

I have said why don't the complainers change it instead of just sitting and complaining about it ! I always look at new ideas to see if they are viable, not many out there to read about though !

As for opting out that's not possible any more, if your out of it be any means your required to enter some other method of saving and it's recorded and sent to the government, I'm surprised those who suggest opting out do not know of the ramifications on this process !

This program is so entrenched in sucking earned dollars into the program it's not about ever going to let it stop, unless it's a forced out or congressionaly replaced, neither of which is apt to occur until it's fiscally insolvent.

Bryce, I looked in 2014 or 15, if memory serves me right. Didn't even know you could opt out until about 2010.

I'm going to start collecting the 1st of the year, so keep paying in. I plan on living along time.