I'm 45. Will Social Security still be around when I'm ready to collect?

Lancer · September 9, 2003, 14:14

What might I expect? Certainly I'll be collecting after the boomers...will they break the bank and leave me with naught?

-Concerned

The Andy-Man · September 9, 2003, 14:19

private pension sceme....

rah · September 9, 2003, 14:25

Naw, they'll just keep raising the retirement age until you're dead.

I keep getting those statements of what I'll be entitled to and I just laugh.

RAH
I'll be 49 next month.

SlowwHand · September 9, 2003, 14:25

S.S. will be gone.

pchang · September 9, 2003, 14:29

Social Security will still exist in some form, but the actual benefit level at that time cannot be predicted.

There is an old programming joke:

I don't know what programming languages they will be using 20 years from now, but I do know that at least one of them will be called FORTRAN.

Japher · September 9, 2003, 14:34

My dad is 58, and they just raised his collection date so that he won't be able to collect any SS until he is 67. Don't matter, really, as he can take care of himself.

Will SS be around when you get there? Don't count on it.

David Floyd · September 9, 2003, 14:35

I wonder if there will be any way to sue the government for a return of the money you were forced to pay into SS.

Lancer · September 9, 2003, 14:36

"Naw, they'll just keep raising the retirement age until you're dead."

Sloww, they have to give something...right?

pchang, old programmer humor eh? What have we come to? I ask you?

I just knew someone would post the words 'private pension scheme', I was just telling my wife, "honey, I'll make this thread and just you watch, someone...etc."

Arrian · September 9, 2003, 14:38

I'll say this: though I'm not counting on Social Security benifits, and personally feel the whole thing should be scrapped and reorganized, the AARP won't let it go without fighting tooth and nail. Any reform that gets at the heart of the problem (current workers pay for current benifits) will result either in the government having to shape up (HAH!) or the retirees taking a hit (HAH! Not 'till the Boomers have their pound of flesh!).

-Arrian

pchang · September 9, 2003, 14:42

What do you all think of my sig line?
BTW, it is quite old.

Lawrence of Arabia · September 9, 2003, 14:54

Seeing how its all gone since it wasn't in a lockbox, looks like the scheme is heading down the shitter. Thanks Bush, and thank you Republicans.

Timexwatch · September 9, 2003, 15:28

Lancer, I think we all thought that you were already collecting

Japher · September 9, 2003, 15:32

Quote:

Thanks Bush, and thank you Republicans.

Oh, yeah, it's all our fault

Lawrence of Arabia · September 9, 2003, 15:35

Quote:

Oh, yeah, it's all our fault

Damn right. You are using it to finance your grand campaign.

Japher · September 9, 2003, 15:36

I guess in a way it is our fault, we should of cut health care altogether and let the old ppl die!

The Andy-Man · September 9, 2003, 15:37

save money! Work hard, why really on handouts in old age? It will never be enough anyway.

Starchild · September 9, 2003, 15:38

How odd. It seems to be a race between you and Social Security to see which one will die first.

David Floyd · September 9, 2003, 15:38

Quote:

I guess in a way it is our fault, we should of cut health care altogether and let the old ppl die!

Correct, except that you are mistakenly assigning blame for the old people's potential deaths. Death is a fact of life - it's part of nature, and it's not my fault. If someone can afford to pay to get the medical treatment to live longer, then well and good, but if not, it's not as if his or her rights are being violated.

chequita guevara · September 9, 2003, 15:40

It depends no whether or not the Republicans are successful in their scheme to bankrupt the Federal government. If they are, forget it. If not, then you might have something.

Oerdin · September 9, 2003, 15:40

It's unlikely you'll get as much as the current crop of retires at the same age. I saw a public access program last night where senitor Diane Finstein was speaking and she said currently entitlements make up 40% of the US budget and if nothing changes then by 2013 (10 years from now) entitlements will make up 70% of the national budget just through natural population aging. This is not sustainable without massive cuts in spending or equally massive increases in taxes.

Japher · September 9, 2003, 15:42

Quote:

This is not sustainable without massive cuts in spending or equally massive increases in taxes.

or a little arsnic in the Ensure

The Andy-Man · September 9, 2003, 15:53

when people hit 40, they should be shoved of a cliff.

DanS · September 9, 2003, 15:53

Quote:

This is not sustainable without massive cuts in spending or equally massive increases in taxes.

To quibble, this wouldn't require a massive increase in taxes.

Re Social Security, I have a life expectancy that is about 12 years more than that of my father. However, my benefit will begin paying out when I am only about 2 years older. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that I will be a heavier burden to society, if the retirement age is not changed.

gunkulator · September 9, 2003, 17:01

My predicition is that SS will stick around pretty much in its current form whilst the Baby Boomers bleed the rest of us dry with taxation. After they die off, the relatively smaller retiring Generation Xers will see massive cutbacks due to pent-up voter backlash from the more numerous Generations Y and Z.

Oerdin · September 9, 2003, 17:09

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
To quibble, this wouldn't require a massive increase in taxes.

Unless you massively cut spending then yes it will. You can theorize all you want about if we just refuse to increase spending we will inflaite or way out of this mess but that's hog wash. Congress has added on massive new entitlements just this year (medicare drug benifets anyone?) and there is no reason to believe that tax and spend monster will change its stripes. Just through "natural" increases due to indexing current programs to inflation will mean a 3% yearly increase. Now tack on war costs, terroism costs, politicans being pandering weeds costs, and other new expenditures and you see why spending will always go up 3%-10% each year for the next ten years.

With those kind of spending increases we simply must increase taxes or massively cut existing programs. Continuing to run half trillion dollar deficits is not an option.

chequita guevara · September 9, 2003, 17:17

I think what DanS was getting at is that we should raise the retirement age, since many of us can now expect to live at least 20 years past retirement. Rather than being on the dole for five years, we're on for twenty.

The Andy-Man · September 9, 2003, 17:22

fully privatise pension scemes, let people retire whenever they want.

Bereta_Eder · September 9, 2003, 17:29

you're in the US Lancer. WHAT social security?

the problem is will we have social security by the time we hit retirement age that the ****** want to raise above 60 but cant.

they want to get the private companies in.
but with the power of the people we resist

DanS · September 9, 2003, 17:31

Oerdin: Your numbers are all wrong. If the gov't increases its spending by less than about 5.5% per annum, it's share of the economy will shrink and you will have an ever-increasing surplus eventually (or more likely you will cut taxes).

Quote:

With those kind of spending increases we simply must increase taxes or massively cut existing programs.

This just isn't the case. It wouldn't change the basic layout of our system.

Quote:

Just through "natural" increases due to indexing current programs to inflation will mean a 3% yearly increase.

More like 2% nowadays.

Don't make me get out my spreadsheet and start rounding on your azz.

chequita guevara · September 9, 2003, 17:47

Quote:

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
fully privatise pension scemes, let people retire whenever they want.

Don't you mean, let the majority work until they drop dead at their job? That's where privitized SS leads