List of Republican Budget Cuts

[psucobra96]

Again, if people actually did that, it would be great.

But they do not, so they get old, and have NO retirement, so what then? GIVE them welfare?

Not the governments problem or mine, I currently contribute 10 percent and will be upping it to 15 soon. I do without now so I have something later. Not my fault for someone who can't plan and carelessly spends. I'm in my early 30s in case you wondered. People might be more religious like they had in the past and rely on community and church for people who truly are destitute through no fault of their own. Free lunch does not exist because someone else is paying for it.

 

[Pinecone]

Fine, but remember, it came about, because those people in the past did NOT have sufficient retirement to live.

 

[Schipperke]

What is missing in this discussion is the fact that SS has become more than what it should. Did you know that green card holders, kids and the disable gets it. Its the "other groups" that has taken away from the funds. They want to blame "people are living longer" excuse, but will not tell you that they added more groups that haven't paid into it that gets those funds. kick the "other groups" out of SS before anything else

Former Congressman Pete Stark (served decades, CA) Remarried in his late 60's to a woman ~40 years his junior, he had met in a high school he was speaking at.. Stark back then was probably worth > $20M , former banker. He had three new kids, which he refers to as his "second litter". Each of the three children receive a monthly SS benefit check from birth to age 18.
I wonder if Barron Trump is getting a check. Thought we'd hear about that by now.

 

[Vetted84]

Fine, but remember, it came about, because those people in the past did NOT have sufficient retirement to live.

How is that the fault of those that have sacrificed to have sufficient retirement to live?

The underlying problem is that few were expected to collect when the program started.

In 1935 when the program was enacted, the expected life expectancy was 61. The program started paying benefits at 65. Few were going to collect.

If that gap between life expectancy and age to collect had been retained over time, the program would be flush with money, assuming Congress could keep their grubby little hands out of the pot.

 

[Pinecone]

Not the governments problem or mine, I currently contribute 10 percent and will be upping it to 15 soon. I do without now so I have something later. Not my fault for someone who can't plan and carelessly spends. I'm in my early 30s in case you wondered. People might be more religious like they had in the past and rely on community and church for people who truly are destitute through no fault of their own. Free lunch does not exist because someone else is paying for it.

Let's see. You contribute 10%, I assume of your gross?

So if you make $100,000 per year (round numbers are easier), in 40 years of working, you would put away $400,000 ($10,000 x 40 years).

Now I would hope that you get some rate of return on that money, so let's say 5% (pretty high in today's market), but say 5%.

So in 40 years, you would end up with $1.2 million. Nice nest egg. But at 5%, that earns you $60,000 per year for retirement.

And skip or short a year, especially in the early years, and that drops a LOT.

Oh, and it your rate of return drops to 3%, you would have only $754,000 after 40 years, and at 3% after you retire, you would be living on about $23000 per year.

Yeap, you are set for retirement.

 

[Name Taken]

Let's see. You contribute 10%, I assume of your gross?

So if you make $100,000 per year (round numbers are easier), in 40 years of working, you would put away $400,000 ($10,000 x 40 years).

Now I would hope that you get some rate of return on that money, so let's say 5% (pretty high in today's market), but say 5%.

So in 40 years, you would end up with $1.2 million. Nice nest egg. But at 5%, that earns you $60,000 per year for retirement.

And skip or short a year, especially in the early years, and that drops a LOT.

Oh, and it your rate of return drops to 3%, you would have only $754,000 after 40 years, and at 3% after you retire, you would be living on about $23000 per year.

Yeap, you are set for retirement.

Compound interest.

I don't have a retirement account making me less than 8% YTD and the 5 year earnings are closer to 10-13%.

 

[Pinecone]

I hope that keeps up. What is the risk involved in those investments?

 

[Name Taken]

I hope that keeps up. What is the risk involved in those investments?

Hopefully better then expecting my neighbor and their kids keeping me feed and housed till I die.

In 50 years of working if you can't pay off your house and build enough of an egg up to not need .gov to keep you going then shame on you.

If you have SS open to you certainly take it. I would personally try to build enough personal wealth where your SS can be banked or better yet live off your SS and have enough saved up where you don't need any of your investments. But to just skip investing and to think SS is going to be enough is rather negligent.

 

[Pinecone]

I am not now and never have said I recommend banking on SS alone. And considering the max you can get out of it is $32K per year, you do need more than that.

And yes, having a retirement that you can live on, and having SS as a supplement is great. And actually how the system is designed.

But not everyone actually saves for retirement. Or saves enough. Or even can save enough.

BTW, my examples at 5% and 3% were compounded annually.

 

[Vetted84]

I am not now and never have said I recommend banking on SS alone. And considering the max you can get out of it is $32K per year, you do need more than that.

And yes, having a retirement that you can live on, and having SS as a supplement is great. And actually how the system is designed.

But not everyone actually saves for retirement. Or saves enough. Or even can save enough.

BTW, my examples at 5% and 3% were compounded annually.

I guess I am missing your point.

Are you advocating those of us that have planned for retirement should somehow be responsible for those that could not be bothered with such things?

 

[Name Taken]

But not everyone actually saves for retirement. Or saves enough. Or even can save enough.

My point is that's not my fault and it's not fair to use the long arm of the armed government arm to take MORE money from those who were responsible with less money for their retirement.

 

[swinokur]

Kinda like the 3 little pigs.

The wolf blew down your house?

to bad. so sad.

 

[Pinecone]

I guess I am missing your point.

Are you advocating those of us that have planned for retirement should somehow be responsible for those that could not be bothered with such things?

No, I am pointing out why SSA came about.

And that now you have a lot of people with substantial amounts invested in it, making it hard to cut it.

And BTW, SS was in the black and had plenty of reserves until Congress raided the funds to reduce the deficit.

 

[Pinecone]

My point is that's not my fault and it's not fair to use the long arm of the armed government arm to take MORE money from those who were responsible with less money for their retirement.

Remember, the people who get money out of SS are those who put into it. So you are not paying for others. Unlike welfare.

And you get out, based on what you paid in, which is based on what you make. So you are not paying for others. Again, unlike welfare.

It is more like a pension plan, that is not optional.

And the max contribution by an individual is $7886.40 per year now. The maximum benefit you can get is $32244 per year.

Again, it came about because it looks bad to have old people starving in the streets. And while I applaud those of you actually saving for retirement, you are in the very small minority.

 

[Vetted84]

No, I am pointing out why SSA came about.

And that now you have a lot of people with substantial amounts invested in it, making it hard to cut it.

And BTW, SS was in the black and had plenty of reserves until Congress raided the funds to reduce the deficit.

I agree it is a difficult program to cut but there are certainly reforms that need to be made to keep the program viable. Means testing and an increase in the age to collect benefits come to mind.

 

[Pinecone]

The biggest thing is to stop Congress from raiding their funds to pay things out of the general fund.

You would have phase it, say anyone who was born after X date (and that would have to be not too long ago), will Y benefits, instead of what is now. Then later phase in another cut.

But, they should be able to make the program self-supporting. Heck, let SSA buy government T-bills.