The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retire Well on Less
|Subject: Re: SS conclusion||Date: 11/9/2003 1:46 PM|
|Author: telegraph||Number: 211 of 1762|
Paying early retirement benefits is the first thing that should be eliminated altogether. That was an add on to the program that inflates costs.
Actually, I'd like to see the 'costs'. If you retire early at 62, you will get the same money by age 76 or so...whether you get it over 14 years, or over 10 years..the benefit is reduced by roughly 30%. YOu don't get any more money if you survive to age 75 (which is what they plan. If you live longer than 76, you 'lose' money long term since your monthly benefit is lower. If you expect people to live longer, it is cheaper for the gov't to pay them less per month!
I think you might actually have it backwards...
<>Here's another reform that should be made: at present, Social Security benefits are computed based on the income from the 35 highest years of earned income.
Yes, and you only need 10 years (40 quarters of earnings) to qualify for some SS.
If you work additional years you pay more taxes but collect no more in the way of benefits.
You get credit for 10-35 years worth of contributions...after that you get less. So? Lots of folks are then working for no additional benefits. As the gov't, you should be happy!....free money....
Instead, Social Security should be figured on years of income from 18 through 67 at present.
Hmmm. not everyone starts work at age 18...like 60% of kids, who decide to attend college for a few years? Isn't it in the gov't interest to have them attend college, make more money upon graduation, and pay HIGHER taxes for their working career (as opposed to an unskilled worker making less)? After you make more than $40,000 or so, you actually get less for your money, so it is very beneficial for the gov't to have workers max out on SS contribution ($80K/yr now?). The ones that pay the most get the least percentage back when they retire.
If you don't work some years or retire early, you get goose eggs for computing benefits for those years.
Ah, but not all jobs are covered by SS, including but not limited to military, many 'teacher plans', govt' plans...and you could be in gov't for 10 years, then private industry for 20.....and the military for six years.....not qualifying for much in 'pensions' from any of them.... how do you fix that problem? worked 40 years, but peanuts to live on?
And you've been paying taxes all those years. You have no contractual right to any benefit from Social Security. The Congress is free to change or abolish the program at any time.
The Congress is supposed to legislate based upon the will of the people.... and what the 'people' are willing to pay for.
And the problem is that in order to keep paying all those benefits, including skyrocketing medical care costs under Medicare, taxes would have to increase enormously on Gen X, Y and Z.
And everyone else, including retirees, who pay a lot in federal income taxes each year..... whether they like it or not.....
I'd rather take it easy on young people raising families and cut benefits to the well off middle class who don't need them anyway.
There's a lot of 'middle class' folks who don't have a whole lot of assets, having counted on SS to provide them 1/3rd or 1/2 of their retirement income...as the gov't has 'prommised them'for the 20-30-40 years they've been working.
I'd worry more about medical costs......
Social Security just subsidizes the cruise ship industry as it is now.
Cruise ship vacations can be real cheap.....you get excited about $800/person cruises? Heck, you can make that much picking up aluminum cans along the road and selling them, or getting the nickel deposits back......
ANd do you really think the 'cruise ship' industry is funded by SS?
THe problem is more the deficeit and how it is going to get repaid,...or the interest on it paid...forever.....and at higher rates as the dollar devalues, and we keep selling our assets to overseas interests through an out of kilter trade balance.....
|Copyright 1996-2017 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|