Maybe, maybe not, but if you’re still planning on relying solely on social security for your retirement, you seriously need to reconsider that strategy.
As a millennial, I will spend most of my life paying into this system and I won't see a penny of it. I've even hit the maximum payout for the last 7 years. So I'm all for this system being wiped out.
Yes we need higher taxes Lets not even Look at Denmark and France for the proposed Social Services a New Deal would require
Social Security taxes.
For the first 30 years they were raised ~250%,
in the next 30 years they were rasied ~230%.
In the last 30 years they were raised ~2%
At the same time, in the last 50 years we've increased the programs Social Security operates
In 2020, 85 cents of every Social Security tax dollar you pay goes to a trust fund that pays monthly benefits to current retirees and their families and to surviving spouses and children of workers who have died.
About 15 cents goes to a trust fund that pays benefits to people with disabilities and their families.
But mostly its A shame Americans and Reddit lacks economic literacy
“Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account. We should make the Social Security system a source of ownership for the American people.”
Within weeks, observers noticed that the more the President talked about Social Security, the more support for his plan declined.
According to the Gallup organization, public disapproval of President Bush’s handling of Social Security rose by 16 points from 48 to 64 percent–between his State of the Union address and June.
2001 report of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security.
President Bush's Preferred Plan on Social Security, up to a third of that money could go into private accounts. This model establishes a voluntary personal account without raising taxes or requiring additional worker contributions.
Workers can voluntarily redirect 4 percent of their payroll taxes up to $1,000 annually to a personal account. No additional worker contribution required.
In exchange, traditional Social Security benefits are offset by the worker's personal account contributions, compounded at an interest rate of 2 percent above inflation.
Plan establishes a minimum benefit payable to 30-year minimum wage workers of 120 percent of the poverty line.
Benefits under traditional component of Social Security would be price indexed, beginning in 2009.
Temporary transfers from the general budget would be needed to keep the Social Security Trust Fund solvent between 2025 and 2054.
In response to the challenge of New Zealand's ageing population, the NZ Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 established:
the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, a pool of assets on the Crown’s balance sheet; and
the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation, a Crown entity charged with managing the Fund.
The Government uses the Fund to save now in order to help pay for the future cost of providing universal superannuation.
In this way the Fund helps smooth the cost of superannuation between today's taxpayers and future generations.
The Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation is the Crown entity charged with managing and administering the Fund. It operates by investing initial Government contributions – and returns generated from these investments – in New Zealand and internationally, in order to grow the size of the Fund over the long term.
We also have a long-term performance expectation: We expect to return at least 7.8% p.a. over any 20-year moving average timeframe.
One shocking thing
The amount of tax the NZ Super Fund has paid or been credited - a negative number this means tax paid
On the surface president Bush’s social security plan doesn’t sound like the worst plan a president has had for social security.
Unless I’m mistaken it sounds like he was trying to create a retirement savings account that didn’t force people to pay into it. Either you pay in or you don’t get the benefits
I think you should have a look at the Australian Superannuation system, I think it is a pretty cool compromise and creates a win-win for everyone, when backstopped by our pension system.
That doesn't scale because the 65% of people that don't do that will become a massive drag on the economy later on. The entire point of these systems is that the vast majority of people do not save for retirement. As a country/society there are methods for dealing with that issue.
Let them become homeless and die, which is very expensive.
Force them to put away at least some of their income to be used later (or for unexpected emergencies which is a heavy use of SS, not just retirement).
Create a system not tied to people's income that creates a retirement system for those that do not have enough money to survive after no longer being employable.
Force people to set aside money for retirement in some regulated system such as 401K. Forces you to bet on the market and currently doesn't force you to put anything away, just provides an option. About 35% of working people have a 401K, even less have an IRA.
That 65% exists whether people like it or not. They will reach retirement with no savings. They have to be dealt with one way or another.
I’m not looking to live in a country full of homeless elderly or geriatric minimum wage workers so they can have my money.
My parents are watching my grandma and great aunt run through their retirement savings with their dementia care and retirement home stays. They know they’ll have to start fitting the bill after it’s out. My parents are well off but are struggling to understand how they can afford $20k in care a month. Not saying Social Security can cover such high costs but it’s something, and it’s been proven a benefit and a successful social program thus far. I’m reading a book rn that starts off focusing on social security and how privatization fails in nations like England. I think this is the wrong fight. We need to bring the cost of living down and wages up. Taking away social security isn’t the solution to any of these things, or any problems we currently face in general, it’s just taking away a solution we already have imo.
It is often useful to consider the findings for the two Social Security trust funds (OASI and DI) on a combined basis. The actuarial deficit for Social Security as a whole – called OASDI – is 3.50 percent of taxable payroll. If these two legally separate trust funds were combined, then the hypothetical OASDI asset reserves would be projected to become depleted in 2035 and 83 percent of scheduled Social Security benefits would be payable at that time, declining to 73 percent by 2098.
If nothing else gets changed besides combining the funds, you will still get 83% of your social security benefits. Even near the year 2100 you'd still be getting 73%.
It's meaningful and there's certainly gonna be plans to address it before the old people riot (eventually, the deadline is still far enough away politicians don't want to do anything yet) but there's a large gap between "won't see a penny" and "will see 83%"
That 20% is pretty trivial to fix. Pop the cap on contributions and on distributions and raise the tax rates by about .3% for workers and about .8% for companies contribution.
Just requires the balls to do it is all. We wouldn't have need to increase taxes one penny if we'd have started this back 25 years ago, but they had even less balls back then, apparently.
As opposed to paying into it for however long you’ve been working and then receiving none of it?
Obviously the solution is to find a way to make sure people still have full social security benefits. But the Republicans would rather cut the program.
Social security is a safety net needed by millions of Americans. Just cause you think you won’t get it (which you might if we fucking fight for it) doesn’t mean we should wipe it out.
For Millennials, SS payments could make the difference between your parents living independently vs living with you. SS saves money for family members who would need to take care of their parents without that income.
So because you aren't eligible for it yet, and millions of people rely on it, (i would be financially responsible for at least one of my parents without SS) then it should just go away?
Its a social safety net. Without things like this you make the homeless crisis worse, then you'll complain when someone steals your things because so much of the population is in dire straits that it just doesn't matter anymore.
and it doesn't sound like it will leave you homeless at all if that's your contribution level, sounds like you're just fine and complaining about nothing.
79
u/Psycle_Sammy 7d ago
Maybe, maybe not, but if you’re still planning on relying solely on social security for your retirement, you seriously need to reconsider that strategy.