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

[LivingAlmostLarge]

32 and i expect nothing. I think it will be around but will be means based for those who have saved nothing. I don't want to live off of SS.

Think it's fun? My grandmother lives now off SS and a small pension to the tune of $800/month. She gets medicare and medicaid. Thank god she had four kids who managed to go to college and provide her with the extras. Lots of others where she lives in low income assisted living do not. Live on $800/month it's not fun. When my grandfather was alive it was $1200/month. Again thankful that their kids had jobs and were responsible to pay for cars, medical supplies, etc. But is that where people want to be?

In an aside if I get to move back to the west coast, the chances are my grandmother will live with me a couple of months out of the year and go back and forth with my mom and aunts. So I will in turn provide for her. Keeping our fingers crossed to do this soon. The government helps but it certainly isn't luxury.

And yes I'm a liberal who believes in these social programs. But people have to be willing to accept that when they retire could they really live on $1k/month?

[Jill999]

Not counting on it

:angry-smiley-055 I'm not sure if it's a scam but I am certainly not counting on it for my retirement. I am in my early thirties and a freelancer so it's necessary for me to save on my own. Wondering I'd anyone is aware of 401k or IRA alternatives?

[bennkar]

I'm not sure if it's a scam but I am certainly not counting on it for my retirement. I am in my early thirties and a freelancer so it's necessary for me to save on my own. Wondering I'd anyone is aware of 401k or IRA alternatives?

Search on "SEP IRA". There are lots of articles on them, and how to set them up. I'm not sure if you can save as much as with a normal 401(k), but if not its still better than nothing.

[kork13]

Search on "SEP IRA". There are lots of articles on them, and how to set them up. I'm not sure if you can save as much as with a normal 401(k), but if not its still better than nothing.

the SEP IRA limit is actually significantly more than a normal 401k -- I believe the limit is somewhere around $50k/yr. however, i think there are also some restrictions on exactly how it can be funded, like some of the money must come from the business' profits (or something like that)... I don't know the details, definitely do some online research. It's a great option for the self-employed.

[KTP]

we have paid over $300,000 into SS and we WILL get something back even if we have to take it by other means.

[auron]

I'm 25 and I "lol" every time someone ask me if I think I will get SS when I retire....

[Nika]

Yes it will be around.

Benefits might be less, but it will be around. Why? How many people would not be able to survive without it? Majority. And that majority votes.

You think that all of a sudden everyone who could not save a dime before will be able to save enough to last for decades in retirement? Not bloody likely. And when millions of people have nothing to eat and can no longer work, government will be forced to step in and get the money to them from somewhere. Where would you rather have them get it from? At least that way everyone contributes something.

This is a social safety net, and we, as a country, need it. You may wish ideologically that we didn't, but the reality of the situation is that there are so many people who are not capable of managing their finances to this degree. As a society, we are choosing not to see feeble people starve on the streets, even when they were irresponsible or just not very bright. So what would we do when people, if 100% in charge of their own retirement, invested badly, or got taken advantage of and lost all their money and than had absolutely nothing and no ability to work? At least with SS they can eat.

Yes, the higher earners get less out of it, and maybe few percent of the population could possibly invest it better, but majority couldn't. So while it is not 100% equitable, it is the best solution we have.

And btw, it is not as broke as we are lead to believe by some ideologically influenced politicians.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Middle Class New Yorker Blog

[parafly]

I am 29, and I strongly believe that Social Security will be around in some form when I reach retirement age. I have been paying into the system heavily for about seven years, and getting back nothing is simply unacceptable.

The most realistic scenario is a slightly reformed system with standardized means testing and a rise in retirement age. I can live with reduced benefits (due to high net worth) and a retirement age of 68 or 70.

Another scenario is a fundamental transformation into a hybrid public/private system where a baseline amount is set aside into public pool and the remainder goes into a personal retirement account. In this scenario, I would expect my past SS contributions to be divided appropriately.

The bottom line is I have invested thousands into the system and potentially lost thousands more in unrealized compound interest. The chances of Social Security existing in its current form are slim to none, but that doesn't logically translate into no system at all. Based on the responses in this thread, people seem to be generally too passive about this issue. Remember, it is YOUR money which went into the system. If you have been paying in for years or decades, you cannot and should not give in to an "I expect nothing" attitude. The power of your vote is very persuasive if used appropriately.

[puck36]

I'm 34 and not counting on SS when I retire. If it is around great. I have a Roth 401k, Roth IRA, and ESOP and right now by July I should have over $100,000 in retirement.

[maat55]

I think there's a decent chance there will be means testing in the future. I will likely be one of the people that receives reduced benefits (or none at all).

I'd be fine with that, if I'm living comfortably off my savings.

Do principles and fairness mean anything?

Bad policies and bad decisions have unintented consequences. IMO, means testing is pure evil against both parties involved.

SS would never have passed the SCOTUS in its current form. It is the number one reason for wealth disparity in this country.

[MKKShah]

I think it will be around. For reasons mentioned earlier, i.e., the majority will not be able to get by without it. I also think we will get money from it.

The real question is, what will it be worth relative to the living expenses 20, 30 years from now?

Phasing out SS will be fundamentally unfair. I mean, 6% (4% now) of ones wages, and employer contributing a similar amount (comes to a total of 12%). Isn't this way more than what the average worker contributes to 401(k)? Not giving the same worker when he/she retires, their due is fundamentally unfair.

I think our leaders, through the media are already putting the idea in people's head that 'maybe', just 'maybe' SS will not be around. If it is not, then that will be one of the greatest defaults in American history. Any precedence for this kind of behavior by the government?

Already some idealogues are calling for the government to eliminate the 401(k), and even look into seizing the existing accounts. A professor by name teresa ghilarducci testified in congress about this. Do google it.

[kv968]

**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?**

This is one thing that truly amazes me...Hey, let's take one of the most underfunded programs we have and put even less money towards it. Sounds like a good plan to me Talk about kicking the can down the road. Sure people could use the money and it'll help "kick start" the economy but where will we make up the shortfall?

And the biggest problem I see with doing things like this is it's designed to be a HOLIDAY, not permanent. However when the "holiday" is over, it'll be seen as raising taxes. Isn't that just what the Democrats accused the Republicans of doing when they said they wanted to get rid of it a few months ago? "See, they're raising the taxes on the poor". No they're not, they're just putting back in place something that was there not even a year ago. Did we so quickly forget? I guess the same could be said of the Bush tax cuts implemented years ago but I think those were meant to be more than just a "holiday".

Now I'm not arguing for or against SS or Rep. or Dem. for that matter because I'm neither. I'm just stating my bewilderment of some government actions. But then again I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

[Snodog]

I'm in my early 40's and yeah I think SS will be around when I retire and factor getting 75% of what is promised(worst case) into our retirement projections.

If you don't trust the government to meet its obligations then you better not count all those treasury bonds either. I figure SS is AT LEAST as good a bet as our pensions or money in the stock market.

[disneysteve]

If you don't trust the government to meet its obligations then you better not count all those treasury bonds either. I figure SS is AT LEAST as good a bet as our pensions or money in the stock market.

I think there is a difference between SS and a treasury bond. The latter has a specific principal and guaranteed return. The former does not. It wouldn't take much for the government to change the rules of SS, lower the payout, tweak the formula, raise the age, alter the tax treatment, whatever. It would be considerably more difficult and more economically catastrophic for them to start defaulting on treasury bonds.

[Snodog]

I think there is a difference between SS and a treasury bond. The latter has a specific principal and guaranteed return. The former does not. It wouldn't take much for the government to change the rules of SS, lower the payout, tweak the formula, raise the age, alter the tax treatment, whatever. It would be considerably more difficult and more economically catastrophic for them to start defaulting on treasury bonds.

Good point.