Why are we paying for social security?

[NW Admin]

It just makes me cringe every time I pay taxes for social security and think that those funds may not be available for me when I get old and retire. This goes back to what I was saying in another post about taxes should pay for the health care of EVERYONE at ANY AGE without the need of insurance and billing. Here I am, paying my hard earned money, which I don't get much of in the first place, to something that may not ever be there to help me when I need it.

Now don't get me wrong, I realize that right now, we are essentially paying for those who are currently on SSI. My grandmother is widowed and she is getting monthly income from social security. She really does need it too.

My problem isn't that I am paying to take care of someone else. I do believe it is our responsibillity to take care of our elders. What angers me is that the help I provide for others now, won't be returned to me when I am old and in need.

So what is the government going to do about this? How is this problem going to be resolved? What's next and how long will this go on?

[jhcarrell]

One of the biggest reasons SS is "broken" is that since it's inception gov't has constantly raided the social security coffers for one pork project or another. Unfortunately, there are still many citizens that believe gov't is looking out for them and has been putting all of their hard earned dollars in a non-existent trust fund that will be waiting on them when they're ready to leave the work force.

This simply isn't the case, what we pay in today not only goes to pay for current retiree's benefits, but whatever moneys is left goes towards other things completely unrelated to SS. This practice is dishonest and certainly not in the best interest of our future generations. Even if gov't limited every dollar paid into SS to go to nothing other than member benefits (which would be a huge improvement), it still amounts to forced wealth redistribution and that is something I have trouble supporting due to it's inherent conflicts with the concept of liberty.

I agree completely that it is the duty, to an extent, to care for and honor our elder generations, but it should not be a function of government. History has repeatedly shown that private giving has always outweighed government funding and ironically there is much less "operational cost" (i.e. cost to run the programs) with private donations.

Also, we each have a responsibility to ourselves and our families to provide to best of our abilities for our own retirements ... it's called personal responsibility.

At the rate we're going SS will collapse at some point in coming years and I believe we'd be better off if we were given the option to opt out.

[Q-Tip]

I am really curious to see how the new president will deal with this and if anything will actually change?

[NW Admin]

I am anxious to see how things play out too. In fact, I got my social security statement in the mail today. Telling me how much I am supposed to get when I retire. It's hard for me to even take that seriously. It's not something I am counting on, that's for sure.

[CarolineWH]

What to expect many years from now....That is kind of a joke...Maybe it is a Holiday Greeting Card... How can they tell you what they think you will be getting that many years away?....What changes will be made during that time?..Right now they are borrowing from Peter to pay Paul....

Then we have the new "age changes"...I was able to get mine at 62 or 63 and my husband at 64...But now I understand that the social security age has again been changed....My husband worked at a company for many years...We saved and had a great pension...Also our 401K....BUT how can young people save nowadays? It must be terrible...Everything is so high priced with health insurance and everything....I feel so sorry for them....Then they have the job situations.....So many employers do not want to help with insurance or 401K's...

I will be interested to see what the new President will do.....

[NW Admin]

Originally Posted by CarolineWH

Then we have the new "age changes"...I was able to get mine at 62 or 63 and my husband at 64...But now I understand that the social security age has again been changed....

What? Really? I must have missed that age change. What's the new age requirement?

[CarolineWH]

Originally Posted by NW Admin

What? Really? I must have missed that age change. What's the new age requirement?

For you it will probably be 67..

The age at which full social security benefits could be received was age 65. People born before 1938 will not be affected by the age change in Social Security retirement benefits.

However, people born in 1938 and after will be affected, and it's a gradual age increase until the full retirement age reaches 67. For example, those born in 1938, the full retirement age increases from 65 years to 65 years and 2 months; those born in 1950, the age increase is from 65 to 66 years.

FULL RETIREMENT AGE CHART

The Social Security Administration website calculates full retirement age or normal retirement age as follows:

Born 1937 or earlier, full retirement age 65

Born 1938, full retirement age 65 and 2 months

Born 1939, full retirement age 65 and 4 months

Born 1940, full retirement age 65 and 6 months

Born 1941, full retirement age 65 and 8 months

Born 1942, full retirement age 65 and 10 months

Born 1943-1954, full retirement age 66

Born 1955, full retirement age 66 and 2 months

Born 1956, full retirement age 66 and 4 months

Born 1957, full retirement age 66 and 6 months

Born 1958, full retirement age 66 and 8 months

Born 1959, full retirement age 66 and 10 months

Born 1960 and later, full retirement age 67

The age at which a person can receive start receiving Social Security retirement benefits is still 62. But, the benefits are reduced for each month a person receives benefits before full retirement age. The reduction amount also depends on the year born. For example, if you were born between in 1960 or later and wish to receive retirement benefits at age 62, then your benefits will be reduced by 30%; at age 63 the reduction is 25%; age 64 has a reduction of 20%; age 65 the reduction is 13.3%; and age 66 has a reduction of 6.7%

[jimmys devoted]

We will not be living on what we contribute but rather on what our children and the generations that we have created give to SS. If you have ever gotten your SS statement, and if you haven't go on line to SS and order one, it will tell you what you are eligible for, how many credits you have towards retirement or disability,
Granted SS and other supports that are in place for the people is where Bush grabbed money from to send to Iraq and Iran, that 72 billion bucks!

Until people stand up and make a stink that they don't want to support anything overseas or frivolous and want to keep money at home, money wil eb grabbed from everywhere leaving oru citizens to do without in our own futures.
FDR did agreat thing and his vision was great, but now they are considering, if it hasn't been passed that age 70 is full SS payments!

j

[crassus]

I don't support social security. I would rather have the money not taken from my checks and depend on myself to put away a proper retirement fund. With my luck, I won't even live till 62 or 67 or whatever. Just imagine all the money that is lost by the people that don't live long enough to see or benefit from social security.

[jamesb]

You basically are paying for those people that are already retired. This system used to work but the problem is that people now live longer and less babies are born. This could very well lead to a big problem down the road when there are not enough working people contributing to cover the pensions etc of the retired folks.