Social Security Benefits: The myth more elusive than the female orgasm...

[Ironic Mustache]

So this is a quote from my last SS statement...

The Social Security Board of Trustees now estimates that based on current law, in 2037, [I will be 56] the Trust Funds will be depleted. Because people are living longer and the birth rate is low, the ratio of workers to beneficiaries is falling. Therefore, the taxes that are paid by workers will not be enough to pay the full benefit amounts scheduled.

[Good news though! Even though I've been paying into social security for the past 13 years and will pay into it for another 35+ years, I might be able to collect $0.76 on the dollar when I'm 65. Oh wait, what the shit is this??????:]

SSI, or Supplemental Security Income, is a federal program that provides monthly cash payments to people in need. SSI is for people who are 65 or older, as well as for blind or disabled people of any age, including children.

To qualify you also must have little or no income and few resources. This means that the value of the things you own must be less than $2,000 if you are single or less than $3,000 if you are married. The value of your home does not count. Usually, the value of your car does not count. And the value of certain other resources, such as a burial plot, may not count either.

[Call me insensitive, but fuck SSI]

[ninjaface]

Solution?

[Beebs]

It's simple; those of us who want to be responsible for our own funds can't be trusted.

The government is simply much better with finances than us mere peasants.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by ninjaface

Solution?

Let people opt out in exchange for a reduced rate of SS tax.

That's a top of the head solution, that I put no thought into.

[ninjaface]

Doesn't sound too bad.

That's a top of the head response, that I put no thought into.

[Ironic Mustache]

Or, considering there's no fucking possible way that I'll ever be worth less than $3k, let me opt out entirely. I've paid more than my share, considering I'm never going to see a dime of it.

[f3lix]

I personally know someone who used (abused) SSI to pay for his gambling addictions. He was reported about a year ago and lost out. Why did he get it??? He was unemployed and is autistic. Did they follow up what he did with it for over a decade? No. It took people turning him in.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Ironic Mustache

Or, considering there's no fucking possible way that I'll ever be worth less than $3k, let me opt out entirely. I've paid more than my share, considering I'm never going to see a dime of it.

Good point, I guess it should be like "time served" in prison.

I do think some people genuinely should get it, just to be clear.

[Der Fuhrer]

There are people who have paid into SS for 30+ years that aren't going to see a fucking dime of it when they retire in 10 to 15 years. Yet they will certainly be taxed for it during those next 10 to 15 years. I think that is very fucked up. Just another reason why I'm glad that I haven't entered the workforce yet.

[DJ FC]

Originally Posted by Der Fuhrer

There are people who have paid into SS for 30+ years that aren't going to see a fucking dime of it when they retire in 10 to 15 years. Yet they will certainly be taxed for it during those next 10 to 15 years. I think that is very fucked up. Just another reason why I'm glad that I haven't entered the workforce yet.

It's not any more fucked up than taxes. I have no idea why people are outraged at this but not at blatant wealth-transfer.

[f3lix]

I hate it all.

[thekremlin]

Eh the truth is every penny our generation pays to social security is a penny we'll never see again. It makes a lot of sense to raise the eligibility age since people are living a lot longer than they used to, but that is very hairy politically... they're currently striking over that in france, where the retirement age is lower and life is cushier.

A lot of people suggest privatizing social security, but I'm pretty convinced that isn't a realistic solution at all. OK let's say SS had been privatized decades ago. Three years ago, a massive number of americans lose their money in the subrime crisis... if they hadn't lost it in the dotcom bubble, right? So where do they go, the government. And the gvmt isn't going to let them starve. So now instead of paying for everyone, tax payers are ONLY paying for people too stupid to invest their money properly.

The big question to me is how does social security die? Will I be throwing money into a bottomless pit until I'm 35 or 55?

[Der Fuhrer]

SS was a fail idea purposed by a fail president. It was doomed from the start. A simple glance at a population distribution graph of nearly any developed country would have shown that SS was fucked many years ago.

I see the problem with privatizing SS in that dumbass people would "gamble" with their money and loose, but if you could limit the securities that people could buy to low-risk (or risk-free) and small, yet stable return for the long haul, wouldn't it be a better system than what we have now? Let's face it, it's a broke ass system that needs fixed. Anything would be better, even nothing at all.

These god damn old people are bleeding us dry, not just with SS, but medicare, too. And the sad thing is, most of them are probably senile, like my grandparents.

[Fruitacious B]

FDR was a fail president?

Social Security wasn't meant to be long-term, it's not his fault that it's gone on so long and failed so miserably. He had the Great Depression to worry about.

[f3lix]

It CERTAINLY is his fault it went on this long. Had he just enacted on the law being short-term, we'd have been fine. Social security was a short-term problem that needed to have an ending time and he fucked us with that and several other bills by not setting an ending point.

[Der Fuhrer]

FDR was a terribly fail president. He made the great depression worse.

[DJ FC]

Originally Posted by Der Fuhrer

SS was a fail idea purposed by a fail president. It was doomed from the start. A simple glance at a population distribution graph of nearly any developed country would have shown that SS was fucked many years ago.

I see the problem with privatizing SS in that dumbass people would "gamble" with their money and loose, but if you could limit the securities that people could buy to low-risk (or risk-free) and small, yet stable return for the long haul, wouldn't it be a better system than what we have now? Let's face it, it's a broke ass system that needs fixed. Anything would be better, even nothing at all.

These god damn old people are bleeding us dry, not just with SS, but medicare, too. And the sad thing is, most of them are probably senile, like my grandparents.

A couple of things you seem to be ignoring here:

SS was made at a time when life expectancy was MUCH lower. People weren't expected to have 30 year retirements like they are now. Our failure has been to keep the age people can receive SS low while the life expectancy has dramatically risen.

Limiting the securities people can invest in doesn't solve the problem. That system would be dramatically inefficient in terms of transaction costs and diversification. If you want a social safetynet it's SIGNIFICANTLY better to have the assets pooled together where experts can extract the most value from them with the fewest transaction costs. There are also a tremendous number of investments that can only be done with scale - small mom and pop investments can't underwrite an insurance policy - just one example.

[angry pancake]

So what are you fucktards going to do about it other than bitch?

[Der Fuhrer]

Perhaps it would have been difficult to detect a problem in the system back in 1935, when life expectancies and population distributions were much different than they are now. However, I'm almost certain that if you saw a population distribution graph as early as 40 or 50 years ago, you could see a significant problem looming in the future.

The rest of what you said makes a lot of sense, those are some good points. Obviously I didn't sit here and put much thought into the solution I was proposing. So what do you propose? Honestly, in my opinion, the best solution is to abolish the entire system. It doesn't work. Let people make their own decisions on how much they want to save for retirement. If they don't save enough, well tough shit. That might be a little harsh though.

[angry pancake]

Originally Posted by Der Fuhrer

Honestly, in my opinion, the best solution is to abolish the entire system. It doesn't work. Let people make their own decisions on how much they want to save for retirement. If they don't save enough, well tough shit. That might be a little harsh though.

I probably lost more in 2008 than you'll make in quite some time. Even the "safe and secure" tanked. Some losses will never be coming back.

So when a next Bernie madoff takes off with your cash, it's just too damn bad? It might just be hindsight but I'd rather have more oversight, if it brings stability. I think most people would have yanked their 401s out of funds if they knew it was tied to sub-prime mortgages.

A start for social security, would be to quit using it as a slush fund.

[f3lix]

Originally Posted by angry pancake

So what are you fucktards going to do about it other than bitch?

I vote for every candidate who wants to do something about it.

[Ironic Mustache]

I was just going to bitch about it.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Damn. Check out these new proposed cuts:

BBC News - US deficit panel calls for steep cuts and tax hikes

[Ironic Mustache]

I've already given up any hope of getting SSI.