4 ms·

The juxtapositions in here are interesting: - Most Americans don't know how social security is funded but - An overwhelming majority of nonretired adults (79%

by abeppu 10mo ago

The juxtapositions in here are interesting: - Most Americans don't know how social security is funded but - An overwhelming majority of nonretired adults (79%) do not believe they will receive their full scheduled Social Security benefits when they retire. - About three in four adults (77%) have heard that Social Security is projected to run short of money by 2033. If you thought you had an individual account, and you also thought the program overall was going to run out of money and that you weren't going to get the "full benefit", does that mean you thought you weren't paying enough in?

y-curious 10mo ago
I was just having a conversation (argument) with my MIL about this. She claims that people have felt that SS would run out of money before they retire her entire life. Has this sentiment been tracked at all? I certainly feel like I (aged mid-30s) will not be benefitting, but the common argument is that the Ponzi scheme will find a way to perpetuate for longer
- ashleyn 10mo ago
  Impossible to tell, but there's factors making it more likely to happen this time than in previous generations. Probably the biggest factor is the declining population, which no government around the world has been able to materialise an answer to. My personal retirement plans assume no social security. Anything I may get in old age is a nice bonus, but in my planning, it's not the beef.
  - kevin_thibedeau 10mo ago
    Couple that with the out of control deficit spending. The US is bankrupting itself and the music will eventually stop.
    - ashleyn 10mo ago
      There's a damn good reason i hold very few bonds.
  - amypetrik8 10mo ago
    >which no government around the world has been able to materialise an answer to. I disagree. The whole hot political topic of "illegal immigration" is as a side effect - seemingly a successful solution to motivate (foreign) people to bump the population. Specifically - "if you have a kid in the US, the kid is automatically a citizen, you don't have to pay taxes, you don't need a green card, you work under the table so make $0 on paper and thus qualify for free food and housing (welfare) and free healthcare (medicaid)". Honestly if we gave such a deal to young non-foreign american women free and clear, likely we'd be seeing a lot more childbirths. Despite all the economic burden and political strife this program has caused, it may in fact extend the life of the nation and welfare.
- bena 10mo ago
  Social Security counts on there being a larger workforce every year. If there's ever a significant population crunch of working age people, it would be in trouble. In 2018, the cost of the Social Security program exceeded total revenues for the first time. At current rates, Social Security is projected to be insolvent by 2034. The only ways to mitigate this is to spend less or make more. But no one wants to pay more and no one wants to give up anything.
  - bluGill 10mo ago
    That early-mid 2030s prediction has been consistent all my life. It has gone up a little as rules changed but nobody was ever willing for the big reforms that could make it work long term.
- analog31 10mo ago
  This is anecdotal, but I remember this sentiment becoming widespread in the 1980s, along with the imminent hyperinflation and currency collapse. Political candidates (Carter and Reagan) promised reductions in federal spending, but couldn't get past the obvious lack of any real discretionary control due to the size of the biggest ticket items such as the entitlements and military. The conservative message of "entitlements will make you immoral" was replaced by "entitlements are unsustainable," making it sound like serious economics but without any real basis.
bluGill 10mo ago
How much should I put in isn't knowable - if I have known many who died before 62, and others who lived to 104. then there is various health that affects what you can spend - both ways, low health may mean spend nothing since you can't do anything or it may mean expensive nursing homes
- estimator7292 10mo ago
  It's very knowable. You pick an arbitrary retirement age, decide how much you want to have then, and run the compound interest formula backwards. Aka, how all retirement accounts are handled.
  - bluGill 10mo ago
    your need your death date, inflation, and other details about your life after retirement to get that number.
gizmo686 10mo ago
Having an individual account does not mean that money earmarked for you is sitting in a vault. E.g, our banking system gives everyone an individual account, but does not have enough cash to pay everyone back; and occasionally their other assets fall, resulting in them not being able to satisfy their obligations to account holders. This has happened often enough, that bank accounts are not required to be insured against it. There has also been a common talking point of Congress stealing from social security to fund other expenses, which could also explain how it would not be able to pay even with individual accounts.

by abeppu 10mo ago

y-curious 10mo ago

I was just having a conversation (argument) with my MIL about this. She claims that people have felt that SS would run out of money before they retire her entire life. Has this sentiment been tracked at all? I certainly feel like I (aged mid-30s) will not be benefitting, but the common argument is that the Ponzi scheme will find a way to perpetuate for longer

ashleyn 10mo ago
Impossible to tell, but there's factors making it more likely to happen this time than in previous generations. Probably the biggest factor is the declining population, which no government around the world has been able to materialise an answer to. My personal retirement plans assume no social security. Anything I may get in old age is a nice bonus, but in my planning, it's not the beef.
- kevin_thibedeau 10mo ago
  Couple that with the out of control deficit spending. The US is bankrupting itself and the music will eventually stop.
  - ashleyn 10mo ago
    There's a damn good reason i hold very few bonds.
- amypetrik8 10mo ago
  >which no government around the world has been able to materialise an answer to. I disagree. The whole hot political topic of "illegal immigration" is as a side effect - seemingly a successful solution to motivate (foreign) people to bump the population. Specifically - "if you have a kid in the US, the kid is automatically a citizen, you don't have to pay taxes, you don't need a green card, you work under the table so make $0 on paper and thus qualify for free food and housing (welfare) and free healthcare (medicaid)". Honestly if we gave such a deal to young non-foreign american women free and clear, likely we'd be seeing a lot more childbirths. Despite all the economic burden and political strife this program has caused, it may in fact extend the life of the nation and welfare.
bena 10mo ago
Social Security counts on there being a larger workforce every year. If there's ever a significant population crunch of working age people, it would be in trouble. In 2018, the cost of the Social Security program exceeded total revenues for the first time. At current rates, Social Security is projected to be insolvent by 2034. The only ways to mitigate this is to spend less or make more. But no one wants to pay more and no one wants to give up anything.
- bluGill 10mo ago
  That early-mid 2030s prediction has been consistent all my life. It has gone up a little as rules changed but nobody was ever willing for the big reforms that could make it work long term.
analog31 10mo ago
This is anecdotal, but I remember this sentiment becoming widespread in the 1980s, along with the imminent hyperinflation and currency collapse. Political candidates (Carter and Reagan) promised reductions in federal spending, but couldn't get past the obvious lack of any real discretionary control due to the size of the biggest ticket items such as the entitlements and military. The conservative message of "entitlements will make you immoral" was replaced by "entitlements are unsustainable," making it sound like serious economics but without any real basis.

bluGill 10mo ago

How much should I put in isn't knowable - if I have known many who died before 62, and others who lived to 104. then there is various health that affects what you can spend - both ways, low health may mean spend nothing since you can't do anything or it may mean expensive nursing homes

estimator7292 10mo ago
It's very knowable. You pick an arbitrary retirement age, decide how much you want to have then, and run the compound interest formula backwards. Aka, how all retirement accounts are handled.
- bluGill 10mo ago
  your need your death date, inflation, and other details about your life after retirement to get that number.

gizmo686 10mo ago

Having an individual account does not mean that money earmarked for you is sitting in a vault. E.g, our banking system gives everyone an individual account, but does not have enough cash to pay everyone back; and occasionally their other assets fall, resulting in them not being able to satisfy their obligations to account holders. This has happened often enough, that bank accounts are not required to be insured against it. There has also been a common talking point of Congress stealing from social security to fund other expenses, which could also explain how it would not be able to pay even with individual accounts.