48% of Americans would opt out of Social Security if given a choice

[The_Dude 1,142]

There's be a lot of homeless old folk around...

I was at the SS office recently with my mother. If she collects on my fathers record, she'll collect a decent amount of money starting 60. Not something she can live on, but it's a start. However, if she waited till 62 to start collecting on her own record, they'd pay her about 300-400 a month. Why? Because her paychecks have been small. You know what? Most people have had smallish paychecks. Not everyone is an engineer or accountant or longshoreman or oil baron. For those people, who are not, SS doesn't even come close to paying a cost of living.

SS was never intended to be a retirement fund. It was designed to be a supplement to your pension/retirement.

I don't pay into SS as I work for the government, I get PERS. In a few years, I will pay into SS for 10 quarters (the minimum to qualify for SSI). This will qualify me to get both PERS and SSI to pile on top of my private retirement fund

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There's be a lot of homeless old folk around...

I was at the SS office recently with my mother. If she collects on my fathers record, she'll collect a decent amount of money starting 60. Not something she can live on, but it's a start. However, if she waited till 62 to start collecting on her own record, they'd pay her about 300-400 a month. Why? Because her paychecks have been small. You know what? Most people have had smallish paychecks. Not everyone is an engineer or accountant or longshoreman or oil baron. For those people, who are not, SS doesn't even come close to paying a cost of living.

Fair enough but do you honestly think that those same people with those smallish paychecks would be able to provide their own retirement?

[The_Dude 1,142]

There's be a lot of homeless old folk around...

I was at the SS office recently with my mother. If she collects on my fathers record, she'll collect a decent amount of money starting 60. Not something she can live on, but it's a start. However, if she waited till 62 to start collecting on her own record, they'd pay her about 300-400 a month. Why? Because her paychecks have been small. You know what? Most people have had smallish paychecks. Not everyone is an engineer or accountant or longshoreman or oil baron. For those people, who are not, SS doesn't even come close to paying a cost of living.

Fair enough but do you honestly think that those same people with those smallish paychecks would be able to provide their own retirement?

No, but why is that my responsibility? I have no problem paying a bit higher taxes beit sales tax or even income tax to help out with healthcare. You are responsible for your own retirement.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I prefer a pension of SS benefits anyway.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There's be a lot of homeless old folk around...

I was at the SS office recently with my mother. If she collects on my fathers record, she'll collect a decent amount of money starting 60. Not something she can live on, but it's a start. However, if she waited till 62 to start collecting on her own record, they'd pay her about 300-400 a month. Why? Because her paychecks have been small. You know what? Most people have had smallish paychecks. Not everyone is an engineer or accountant or longshoreman or oil baron. For those people, who are not, SS doesn't even come close to paying a cost of living.

Fair enough but do you honestly think that those same people with those smallish paychecks would be able to provide their own retirement?

No, but why is that my responsibility? I have no problem paying a bit higher taxes beit sales tax or even income tax to help out with healthcare. You are responsible for your own retirement.

Of course you are. But unless we as a nation are prepared to look at homeless old folk in the streets, there's got to be a last catch safety net of some sort. There are just too many prople in the country who do not have the ability to save up for retirement. And then there's all those that possibly could but don't because they're too busy to keep up with the Jones'. Keeping this segment in SS makes them pay for the benefits they will later receive. If you abolish it, they'll sit in the streets at some point.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Whenever I see "SS" I think "schutzstaffel" instead of social security.

[The_Dude 1,142]

If people are too irresponsible to save for their retirement, then they deserve what they get. I feel no compulsion to help my fellow citizens with non-essential services. Healthcare is a primary need for all men and women. Retirement is not something that can be planned for on any macro level, nor is it the responsibility of the government or its citizens. It is a personal, or family matter that needs to be addressed individually.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

could always be in congress.....

Do Members of Congress Pay Social Security Taxes?

Lawmakers do pay 8 percent of their salaries into their pension system, although this only compensates for about 1/5 of the typical lifetime benefit. We cover the rest as taxpayers.

Member of Congress began to pay into Social Security in 1983, as part of a government-wide pension overhaul.

In addition, Members of Congress DO NOT draw the “same pension” as their pay in the last year of office as suggested in a rumor circulating on the Internet; only federal judges do that under the term “retirement pay.” Still, the formula is quite generous, and, with 20-25 years, a Member of Congress could retire with up to 80 percent of his or her salary replaced. Of course, the only cap on how fast their benefits rise is the rate of increase in CPI. For this reason, Congressional pensions can and frequently do exceed a Member’s final salary, but only after a few years in retirement, when COLAS begin to kick in.

In the final analysis, Congressional pension benefits are 2-3 times more generous than what a similarly-salaried executive could expect to receive upon retiring from the private sector. That ought to be enough to concern any taxpayer.

[DeadPoolX 9]

If people are too irresponsible to save for their retirement, then they deserve what they get. I feel no compulsion to help my fellow citizens with non-essential services. Healthcare is a primary need for all men and women. Retirement is not something that can be planned for on any macro level, nor is it the responsibility of the government or its citizens. It is a personal, or family matter that needs to be addressed individually.

In theory, I agree with you. However, not everyone can save for their retirement. They're not being lazy (well, some are...) since they need every dime they earn to survive. A lot of people live paycheck-to-paycheck. It's easy to tell them to get a higher paying job or simply "save some extra cash" but in practice, doing so can be unrealistic in their situation.

I think that's were the basic idea of social security comes into play. Having social security actually helps society in that many of these individuals would resort to welfare. We can all agree that we'd like to keep welfare to a minimum if at all possible.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If people are too irresponsible to save for their retirement, then they deserve what they get. I feel no compulsion to help my fellow citizens with non-essential services. Healthcare is a primary need for all men and women. Retirement is not something that can be planned for on any macro level, nor is it the responsibility of the government or its citizens. It is a personal, or family matter that needs to be addressed individually.

Food and shelter are non-essential but healthcare is essential? That's a rather odd view...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If people are too irresponsible to save for their retirement, then they deserve what they get. I feel no compulsion to help my fellow citizens with non-essential services. Healthcare is a primary need for all men and women. Retirement is not something that can be planned for on any macro level, nor is it the responsibility of the government or its citizens. It is a personal, or family matter that needs to be addressed individually.

In theory, I agree with you. However, not everyone can save for their retirement. They're not being lazy (well, some are...) since they need every dime they earn to survive. A lot of people live paycheck-to-paycheck. It's easy to tell them to get a higher paying job or simply "save some extra cash" but in practice, doing so can be unrealistic in their situation.

I think that's were the basic idea of social security comes into play. Having social security actually helps society in that many of these individuals would resort to welfare. We can all agree that we'd like to keep welfare to a minimum if at all possible.

Agreed.

One of the features of SS is the assumption that people will need some % (50-80) of their pre-retirement income to survive. SS is meant to provide a part of that income.

The problem with that assumption is this: if you and your wife have a household income of $200k pre-retirement, and you're willing to downscale your standard (and therefore cost) of living post-retirement, you could perhaps survive well on 25-75% of your pre-retirement income.

But what about the family that is barely scraping by pre-retirement? They can't survive on any percentage less than 100 of their pre-retirement income. They were barely scraping by as it is. The underlying assumption of SS fails for these people.

Except when you get to SSDI. This is where the safety net kicks in. The assumption is that if you're barely scraping by, you don't "retire". You stop working only when you're disabled. And if you're disabled you get SSDI. Never mind the 10 month wait to actually get SSDI benefits.....

[The_Dude 1,142]

If people are too irresponsible to save for their retirement, then they deserve what they get. I feel no compulsion to help my fellow citizens with non-essential services. Healthcare is a primary need for all men and women. Retirement is not something that can be planned for on any macro level, nor is it the responsibility of the government or its citizens. It is a personal, or family matter that needs to be addressed individually.

Food and shelter are non-essential but healthcare is essential? That's a rather odd view...

My point is that there are some responsibilities that are that of the individual, and some that are more communal.... Healthcare is more communal, whereas providing your family with food and shelter is an individual responsibility.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If people are too irresponsible to save for their retirement, then they deserve what they get. I feel no compulsion to help my fellow citizens with non-essential services. Healthcare is a primary need for all men and women. Retirement is not something that can be planned for on any macro level, nor is it the responsibility of the government or its citizens. It is a personal, or family matter that needs to be addressed individually.

Food and shelter are non-essential but healthcare is essential? That's a rather odd view...

My point is that there are some responsibilities that are that of the individual, and some that are more communal.... Healthcare is more communal, whereas providing your family with food and shelter is an individual responsibility.

So that takes us back to the scores of old folk sitting hungry in the streets. But at least in your world they'll have health care available to them. Awesome!

[DeadPoolX 9]

If people are too irresponsible to save for their retirement, then they deserve what they get. I feel no compulsion to help my fellow citizens with non-essential services. Healthcare is a primary need for all men and women. Retirement is not something that can be planned for on any macro level, nor is it the responsibility of the government or its citizens. It is a personal, or family matter that needs to be addressed individually.

Food and shelter are non-essential but healthcare is essential? That's a rather odd view...

My point is that there are some responsibilities that are that of the individual, and some that are more communal.... Healthcare is more communal, whereas providing your family with food and shelter is an individual responsibility.

So that takes us back to the scores of old folk sitting hungry in the streets. But at least in your world they'll have health care available to them. Awesome!

I think what Rob and Mel are getting at here is that there are alternative options for those lack food and housing. Homeless shelters, for instance.

I'm not sure I agree with putting senior citizens into that sort of situation, but it is an option. Of course... so is letting them die in the street, too. Not a good option, but an option nonetheless.

[The_Dude 1,142]

If people are too irresponsible to save for their retirement, then they deserve what they get. I feel no compulsion to help my fellow citizens with non-essential services. Healthcare is a primary need for all men and women. Retirement is not something that can be planned for on any macro level, nor is it the responsibility of the government or its citizens. It is a personal, or family matter that needs to be addressed individually.

Food and shelter are non-essential but healthcare is essential? That's a rather odd view...

My point is that there are some responsibilities that are that of the individual, and some that are more communal.... Healthcare is more communal, whereas providing your family with food and shelter is an individual responsibility.

So that takes us back to the scores of old folk sitting hungry in the streets. But at least in your world they'll have health care available to them. Awesome!

So i'm supposed to help pay into some general retirement fund for those who weren't able to do it themselves? That's not my problem, nor is it my responsibility, and neither is it the job of the government.