7 ms·

Imagine paying in from age 15 to age 55 and then being told that in 10 years you’re going to 74% of what you’ve been paying for for 40 years. You’re 4/5ths of t

Imagine paying in from age 15 to age 55 and then being told that in 10 years you’re going to 74% of what you’ve been paying for for 40 years. You’re 4/5ths of the way there before the bait and switch.

sanderjd 4y ago
I get the bait and switch feeling, I really do. But in reality that "paying in" is just a tax I've paid, and it's not unusual to get less than I was promised for a tax I've paid. Certainly I desire efficiency for my tax payments, but getting bent out of shape when that doesn't happen is just no way to live.
- Gibbon1 4y ago
  Well Social Security full mane is Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. Imagine paying for car insurance and never seeing a dime back. Some people win, mostly lower income widows that didn't pay in much. And then lived long past retirement. And then you have some single guy that dies in his early 60s.
- ramesh31 4y ago
  >But in reality that "paying in" is just a tax I've paid, and it's not unusual to get less than I was promised for a tax I've paid. Yeah, don't get me wrong. Taxes are taxes, and you just have to pay it. I have no problem with paying a tax to support elderly and disabled folks right now. But the thought of it still being solvent 30 years from now with the direction our country is heading is totally absurd. I fully expect the entire system to be gutted for our generation the moment a full Republican majority takes control.
  - sanderjd 4y ago
    But that's the thing, there is no such thing as "solvent"; there is no "account" to be solvent or insolvent. It would be like talking about whether the military is "solvent"; it's just not a thing. The only question is whether spending on a line item in the budget - whether that's the military or social security or whatever else - is or isn't appropriated by Congress. Or if you insist on thinking in these "solvency" terms, then note that social security has never been "solvent". From day one, people who never "payed in" to the "account" received payments "from" it. That was possible for the same reason it is possible today for social security to pay out more than it brings in: it isn't its own account, its just one line item of spending coming out of the US treasury. And there just is no political mechanism by which social security payments will fail to be appropriated. If some coalition gains enough control to pass and sign the legislation necessary to eliminate social security, they will be blamed for it by the electorate and will lose power for a generation. No political party wants to sign its own death warrant. This all does assume the continued existence of the federal government as currently constituted, which is not a guarantee. So if what you're really saying is that you think the US system will collapse at some point before you retire, then that is actually more plausible, I think, than social security being eliminated by legislation under the current system. But personally I also think it's very unlikely that the US system will collapse before I retire. It's just more likely than the wholesale elimination of social security :)
tunesmith 4y ago
Honestly, the other possibility is that Congress finally gets off their butts and squares it up again. And then the "losers" are the GenX folks that have been delaying retirement to budget for the 74%. I don't really like the thought of having to work five more years than I really have to, just from the uncertainty around whether Congress will fix it or not.

sanderjd 4y ago

I get the bait and switch feeling, I really do. But in reality that "paying in" is just a tax I've paid, and it's not unusual to get less than I was promised for a tax I've paid. Certainly I desire efficiency for my tax payments, but getting bent out of shape when that doesn't happen is just no way to live.

Gibbon1 4y ago
Well Social Security full mane is Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. Imagine paying for car insurance and never seeing a dime back. Some people win, mostly lower income widows that didn't pay in much. And then lived long past retirement. And then you have some single guy that dies in his early 60s.
ramesh31 4y ago
>But in reality that "paying in" is just a tax I've paid, and it's not unusual to get less than I was promised for a tax I've paid. Yeah, don't get me wrong. Taxes are taxes, and you just have to pay it. I have no problem with paying a tax to support elderly and disabled folks right now. But the thought of it still being solvent 30 years from now with the direction our country is heading is totally absurd. I fully expect the entire system to be gutted for our generation the moment a full Republican majority takes control.
- sanderjd 4y ago
  But that's the thing, there is no such thing as "solvent"; there is no "account" to be solvent or insolvent. It would be like talking about whether the military is "solvent"; it's just not a thing. The only question is whether spending on a line item in the budget - whether that's the military or social security or whatever else - is or isn't appropriated by Congress. Or if you insist on thinking in these "solvency" terms, then note that social security has never been "solvent". From day one, people who never "payed in" to the "account" received payments "from" it. That was possible for the same reason it is possible today for social security to pay out more than it brings in: it isn't its own account, its just one line item of spending coming out of the US treasury. And there just is no political mechanism by which social security payments will fail to be appropriated. If some coalition gains enough control to pass and sign the legislation necessary to eliminate social security, they will be blamed for it by the electorate and will lose power for a generation. No political party wants to sign its own death warrant. This all does assume the continued existence of the federal government as currently constituted, which is not a guarantee. So if what you're really saying is that you think the US system will collapse at some point before you retire, then that is actually more plausible, I think, than social security being eliminated by legislation under the current system. But personally I also think it's very unlikely that the US system will collapse before I retire. It's just more likely than the wholesale elimination of social security :)

tunesmith 4y ago

Honestly, the other possibility is that Congress finally gets off their butts and squares it up again. And then the "losers" are the GenX folks that have been delaying retirement to budget for the 74%. I don't really like the thought of having to work five more years than I really have to, just from the uncertainty around whether Congress will fix it or not.