43% have less than $10k for retirement
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/09/pf/retirement_confidence/index.htm
Posted on March 9, 2010 - 12:33 PM
#
feedback.pdxradio.com
Portland radio, the world & beyond
feedback.pdxradio.com » Politics and other things
Why we need Social Security
(24 posts)-
-
Let it be a choice.
I'm 54 and in that 43%. Whose fault is it? MINE. I'm the ONLY one to blame for it.
It's not the government's fault, it's not Obama's fault and Trixter, it's not Bush's fault. It's MY fault.
Who is responsible for me when I retire...ME. BIG surprise for the liberals; It is not your responsibility to take care of me because I didn't plan well for my retirement.
To the federable gummint: Leave my money the hell alone.
Posted on March 9, 2010 - 12:49 PM # -
"I'm 54 and in that 43%."
What's your plan for income when you retire? You should be thankful that Social Security will be there for you. Clearly you'll need it.
And this is exactly the reason why if Social Security were to be privatized, it would be a disaster. The 401K model has failed, because when you give people the choice, they don't plan, and then the rest of society that did plan has to pick up their slack.
Posted on March 9, 2010 - 01:11 PM # -
An incomplete argument, at best. Many people gained control of their investment money in the 90's and lost their shirts when either dot com imploded or the two recessions created by the GOP. Another large group had to use their retirement money to stay afloat or at least lessen the steep slope down under said recessions (me).
Skybill is right. It is the responsibility of the individual to build a retirement nest egg. Unfortunately, that too is an incomplete assessment. Individuals have no control over the corruption in the banking industry any more than they do over corruption in government.
We all do the best we can, but I do recall my parents and even grandparents telling me over and over again, don't count on Social Security being there. If it is, great, you'll be that much more better off.
Many boomers find themselves with no option but to keep working if they are lucky enough to have a job or a business to keep operating. The rest of us are scrambling to just stay alive.
Posted on March 9, 2010 - 01:36 PM # -
Half the people who collect Social Security don't need it, while the other half scrape by. But applying a means test would convert the system into a form of welfare and remains a third-rail issue.
Posted on March 9, 2010 - 01:46 PM # -
Skybill wrote:
Who is responsible for me when I retire...ME. BIG surprise for the liberals; It is not your responsibility to take care of me because I didn't plan well for my retirement.
To the federable gummint: Leave my money the hell alone.
Sorry, Skybill, it's not your money anymore than any tax you pay. It's the price you pay to live in a civilized society. Social Security is an insurance program that protect you if you become disabled or destitute in old age.
Posted on March 9, 2010 - 02:01 PM # -
"...Social Security is an insurance program..."
And like all other insurance should be optional.
Posted on March 9, 2010 - 05:27 PM # -
Skybill, should fire protection be optional? If my house starts to burn, is it in my neighbor's interest to see that my house fire is put out? Of course it is. I should not be allowed to let my house burn uncontrolled; that's why the first community volunteer fire departments were formed. Not because society wanted to protect a particular person's house, but because his unchecked house fire puts the rest of us at risk.
When you begin to realize that it is in society's best interest to make sure individuals are cared for, then you'll begin to understand the logic and reasonableness behind programs such as Social Security. So far, you just don't get it.
Posted on March 9, 2010 - 06:02 PM # -
Ah, therein lies the rub. SS is actually a welfare program masquerading as insurance. This goes back to its origin in the 1930s and the need to overcome popular resistance.
This fiction remains is why there is no means test, which is why half the pensions paid go to people who are relatively well off. Correcting this has been repeatedly put off until SS became unsustainable, which it is now headed toward within a couple decades.
Posted on March 9, 2010 - 06:04 PM # -
jeff sez: Half the people who collect Social Security don't need it
Really, half? Care to cite a source?
SS is actually a welfare program masquerading as insurance.
No, its not.
Here's something to think about -- most of the people on SS are FEMALES, often broke due to the inept decisions made by the traditional male "breadwinner". Without a SS safety net, there will be so many broke elderly people that the welfare burden on society will amount to the same costs as a SS system -- without medicare and medicaid, ER visits by the elderly will crush our health system.
Posted on March 9, 2010 - 06:15 PM # -
Um, I was a bit rash with my "half don't need it" assertion (after an hour of mashing around the Web looking for wealth distribution by demo).
(Would you believe 25%?)
I'm not doubting the necessity of SS, just saying we need to call it what it is, and tax for and distribute it accordingly. It makes no sense to me that millionaires can collect SS, while other recipients are dependent on food banks.
Posted on March 9, 2010 - 08:08 PM # -
SS is optional when getting old is optional
Posted on March 9, 2010 - 09:01 PM # -
"So far, you just don't get it."
Of course I don't. I'm not a socialist.
And comparing it to the fire department is just goofy.
And even talking about any changes in Socialist Insecurity is just a waste of bandwidth. The money grubbing bastards in DC will NEVER allow their cash cow to be butchered.
All I want is the option to not pay into it. Pay into it then you collect when you are old. Don't pay in and you don't collect. It's simple but it will never happen.
Posted on March 9, 2010 - 09:17 PM # -
Here's my thought* for those who want control over "their" money:
(*This is not tax or planning advice and if anyone uses this for any reason and it doesn't work they have only themself to blame.)
- Change federal and state income tax withholding on your paycheck to the lowest levels possible. Set up a direct deposit to an account/investment of your choice.
- If you're lucky, yes you'll probably need to pay when your 1040 is due (and might even get a nasty-gram regarding estimated tax penalty) but you'll have had "your" money during the year; if you're not lucky well then yeah you get to pay.IMO, technically money in this country is on the socialism model, as it belongs to the Federal Reserve Bank. The government gets their money through being required to take out public debt, and banks get loans from the Federal Reserve. Those banks then loan it to employers, who use it to pay employees. This is obviously oversimplifying how it really works.
Posted on March 9, 2010 - 09:24 PM # -
Social Security is not a "retirement program" - it's an insurance program to keep people out of poverty. You had damn well better plan for your retirement aside from Social Security if you want more than a very basic subsistence when you are no longer working - or unless you want to keep working well into your 70s.
Posted on March 9, 2010 - 09:31 PM # -
(Would you believe 25%?)
Maybe, but likely most of those would have to do without their luxury motor homes to make the math work.
Posted on March 9, 2010 - 09:32 PM # -
"Who is responsible for me when I retire...ME. BIG surprise for the liberals; It is not your responsibility to take care of me because I didn't plan well for my retirement."
What you're missing here, or willfully disregarding, is the FACT that this (hopefully still) a civilized society that will not allow you to be destitute. No matter how loud you yell "but it's MY FAULT that I'm broke", you still won't be allowed to starve.
Who cares who's fault it is? TOTALLY irrelevant to the discussion.
The fact is that we have determined as a civilized nation that we will support those who can't provide for themselves.
Or to put it another way, if you want to live like a 3rd-world nation, why not move to one? (your 10 grand would certainly go a lot farther).
And on the subject of Insurance - if you believe it should be optional, you fundamentally misunderstand the entire concept of insurance. The purpose of insurance is to spread the cost across high and low risk groups, making coverage affordable to all. When it's optional, the low risk people just don't bother, and the high risk groups can't afford (or don't qualify) for it. See: our current health insurance system.
Posted on March 9, 2010 - 09:51 PM # -
Hear, Hear.
Posted on March 9, 2010 - 09:57 PM # -
I challenge anyone who feels that SS is a socialist program that is no good to encourage their beloved family not to ever apply or claim SS benefits let alone yourselves.
I hear people bitching about SS nearly everyday. BUT as soon as they are eligible or become unable to work they do the first thing anyone would realistically do and that is to claim and or apply for the benefits.
Your such a socialist if you have needs? REALLY!!
Posted on March 10, 2010 - 11:12 AM # -
"I hear people bitching about SS nearly everyday. BUT as soon as they are eligible or become unable to work they do the first thing anyone would realistically do and that is to claim and or apply for the benefits."
Damn right I will. I've been forced to pay into all my working life. If I didn't claim it, it would be like giving the morons in Washington free money. Only a fool would (being forced to) pay in to it and not collect THEIR money out of it.
Give me all the money I've paid in so far so I can do what I want with it, be it invest it wisely or piss it away and don't force me to pay into it again, with the expectation that I will get NOTHING more from them.
I'll quit bitching about it the day I'm given the choice to pay in or not. (which will NEVER happen because it's too big a cash cow for the dipsticks in DC)
Posted on March 10, 2010 - 11:28 AM # -
You'll be bitching alot less when SS is your only source of income.
Posted on March 10, 2010 - 11:46 AM # -
I will be damned if I am going to support a " means test ' to my Social Security. I have been putting into that system since i was 16 years old. I want it ALL.
Now, you want to put into a means test for those who havent paid all the way into the system by the time they draw that would be ok with me . And then determine the number of quarters payments to the system can be calculated and determined easily enough as to ' what an incomplete contribution " might be. And then calculate any renumeration from there. This is acutally done now but if you were to mandate a means test it would have to be done to those individuals that are 'short ' of some basic contributions required IMO.
And I will be working into my 70s anyway, barring some unforseen calamity. I will draw a reduced SS pension at age 69 or 70 and will still be working doing something , hopefully the job I have now. It is called double dipping and it is perfectly legal. You do that for a number of years to bolster your final retirement outcome along with other investments you have been making in other plans and that is how it works for many people. YOU DONT retire early unless circumstances absolutely dictate it. If you do , plan outside retirement early on so you can leave early comfortably.
Posted on March 10, 2010 - 02:08 PM # -
When it comes to disability there is a bit of a "means test" already in place its called SSI, of course its not a test but a determination made by SS or in many cases an administrative law judge. SSI goes to those who are disabled who have not paid into the system or haven't paid enough into the system. For those disabled the difference between SSI and SSD is simple:
SSI = poverty levels of living
SSD = barely scrapping byFor me it has been a real learning experience going through the process that is the SS disability process. Pieces are starting to fall together slowly but surely, my case gets heard by an administrative law judge March 23rd after a wait time of nearly 5 years.
Posted on March 10, 2010 - 03:11 PM # -
I have an ex wife who went through a lot to get her SSD disability. I heard about all the difficulties. I think it took her 6 months to get it. It varies from person to person.
Posted on March 10, 2010 - 04:12 PM #
Reply
You must log in to post.