How many of you think SS will be around when you retire?

[nick__45]

For those in your 20s, 30s, and 40s do you think your benefit, which you paid and will continue paying into, will be available when you retire? A lot of people don't even count on it as part of their retirement nest eggs. Thinking about it actually pisses me off but it is better knowing the negative than planning blindly.

[photo]

The real problem is that social security was never intended to replace one's own retirement plans, but people became complacent with the false notion that the government would provide for them in old age.

I'm now just a few years away from age 50 and think that I'll receive a little bit from social security, but I'm certainly not taking anything into account in my retirement planning.

The US has simply got to begin weaning people off its system or else the entire system really will collapse like nothing we've ever seen.

[kork13]

I'm 25 right now, and not counting on SS to be there at all. Thankfully, I'm on track for that to be no problem.

Everyone knows that it's completely bankrupt, but politicians aren't willing to face the music of actually winding it down into something manageable. The biggest upfront problem is that people contribute just 1.5% of their income to the program for 30-40 years, and expect it to magically provide a sizable chunk of their retirement income for 25-30 years (or more, with the lengthening of life expectancies). SS was never designed to do that.

However, I do expect that some broken form of it will be around for a number of decades still. Whether they increase the contribution requirement, reduce the benefit payouts, or both, Washington will keep it hobbling along until it's way too far gone.

One reason I hate American politics: they don't fix anything if doing so will make somebody angry. You can't make everybody happy. Thus, no positive progress ever happens.

[kork13]

The real problem is that social security was never intended to replace one's own retirement plans, but people became complacent with the false notion that the government would provide for them in old age.

SS was originally billed as part of a "3-legged stool" for providing retirement income: social security, company pensions, and personal savings. SS is bankrupt, most pensions have been discontinued, and far too many Americans don't contribute enough to their personal savings. As all of these things were happening, the government was mute on it, instead of educating the nation and actually encouraging (through policy if necessary) the American people to increase personal savings to make up for it.

Thus, we have a legless stool with retirees sitting flat on the floor. Awesome.

[jeffrey]

I am sure there will be something there, but I don't calculate it in my retirement plans. If there isn't, I'll be fine. If there is, it's an unexpected added bonus.

[LuckyRobin]

I don't believe I will see a drop of it. We grew up knowing it would be dumb to depend on it for my generation. I think we're about to see it begin to dribble off. The baby boomer's will see the last of it, less and less each year until it's gone. It won't be there for us or our children. It won't matter what we paid in. Better to plan without it and secure our future on our own.

[bjl584]

It will be there when I retire, but most likely in a different form than it is today. I am not calculating SS in my retirement plans, so if I don't get it it won't matter. If I do it will be a bonus.

[disneysteve]

I'm now just a few years away from age 50 and think that I'll receive a little bit from social security, but I'm certainly not taking anything into account in my retirement planning.

I would say exactly the same thing. I'm 47 and do not include SS in my retirement planning. If I get it, that will be great. If not, I'll still be prepared on my own. I won't be at all surprised to see means testing that punishes those of us who were responsible with our money and benefits those who spent their lives living beyond their means.

[Bob B.]

For those in your 20s, 30s, and 40s do you think your benefit will be available when you retire?

Im'm 39.

A benefit when I retire? No. A benefit in some form at some point after I retire? Yes.

Social securiy IMO will always be available in some form. A reduction in payments, and increase in retiremnet age are (I think) near certainties.

Similar to what others have stated - I'm not entering it into my retirement projectiosns, and will not plan on it being available to me at retirement. But I expect there will be some benefit at some point during my retirement.

[YLTL_Dan]

I agree with most others - I'm not including it in my retiremenet planning, but I do think some form of it will still be around.

As David Landes said, "Wealth sleeps poorly in a bed of poverty"

[MonkeyMama]

Everyone knows that it's completely bankrupt, but politicians aren't willing to face the music of actually winding it down into something manageable. The biggest upfront problem is that people contribute just 1.5% of their income to the program for 30-40 years, and expect it to magically provide a sizable chunk of their retirement income for 25-30 years (or more, with the lengthening of life expectancies). SS was never designed to do that.

I swear I am not picking on you kork, today , BUT social security contributions are 6.2% employee and 6.2% employer. The funding rate is 12.4%.

The biggest problems seem to be lack of account for increased life expectancies and in the short term, lack of liquidity due to potentially more retirees than workers in the interim. That said it really shouldn't be that hard to fix if anyone seriously addressed the issue. But of course, no one is addressing the issue.

**The payroll tax holiday reduced employee social security contributions down to 4.2% for 2010, and maybe for 2011 too. Maybe longer... Makes a whole lot of sense, right?**

[MonkeyMama]

At age 35 I expect to see some social security benefits in my lifetime, but am certainly not counting on one cent.

[photo]

The biggest problems seem to be lack of account for increased life expectancies and in the short term, lack of liquidity due to potentially more retirees than workers in the interim.

One more thing: a difference in size between paychecks from then and now. Just doing a cursory check, I found the national average wage index for 1962 was $4,291. In 2010, it was $41,674.

National Average Wage Index

Retirees become highly indignant when talk turns to social security, and they insist that they "paid" into the system for several decades. They did; however, the amount they paid in social security is significantly less than what they're actually receiving today, which many don't seem to comprehend. Here's a crazy idea, but how about if SS paid them what they actually paid in SS plus interest?

[creditcardfree]

At 39, I have never put SS into my savings plans for retirement. Even with my DH in the military and looking to put in 20 years of active service (he's done 20 in the reserves) we don't even count on that pension for retirement. The only thing we can depend on is our own ability to save and work.

[feh]

I'm 45. I will receive SS benefits when I hit the appropriate age, but I don't include it in my retirement calculations.