Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/18/2006 7:15:49 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 7:19:05 AM EDT
Well it's either that or raise taxes on my 401K when I retire because others don't save money.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people actually believe they will live on Social Security and don't save any money at all during their lifetime.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 7:19:39 AM EDT


Screw them. I have 8.5 more years and I'm done. I won't be near any 65 either.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 7:22:00 AM EDT
Social Security at 65 was started at that age because it was the average life expectancy back then. According to that logic, it should be at least 75 by now. I don't expect to see any of that SS money anyway, I consider it just another tax.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 7:28:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sixgunsblazing:
Social Security at 65 was started at that age because it was the average life expectancy back then. According to that logic, it should be at least 75 by now. I don't expect to see any of that SS money anyway, I consider it just another tax.



I doubt I will ever see SS either and am not planning on getting it when I hit whatever the age is then. If things go right over the next year and I get on with the state I will then be working on a state and a federal pension which in their current configuration will be worth about $3000-$4000 combined a month in today's dollars. I will be eligible for both when I hit 55. That is on top of my savings and other ventures. Screw Social Security.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 7:31:50 AM EDT
My Roth IRA says I'll retire whenever I damn well please.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 7:34:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/18/2006 7:51:11 AM EDT by warlord]
Here in the USA, the govt is slowing raising the retirement age, to get the max amount of retirement the age is at 67, I have no doubt that this will go up as time progresses, and the financial stresses increase.

The teaching profession is already really concerned that there won't be enough teachers because of the massive numbers that are retiring in the next few years, and there is not that many people entering the teaching profession. The business community is taking the "see no evil, hear no eveil, speak no evil" approach, ie until it hits them in the bottom line.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 7:37:43 AM EDT
I'll never see 85.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 7:47:38 AM EDT
Bullshit. Know how I know? Because Bush is evil and anything FDR did was sacrosanct, perfect, and above amendment. The Democrats told me so.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 7:53:56 AM EDT
You can be damn sure your Federal reps will make out ok. I saw a news clip years ago about a retired congressman who turned his down. Said he was embarassed to take it. Next time yours comes to town, ask him what he'll draw.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 8:10:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/18/2006 8:12:09 AM EDT by LANCEMAN]

Originally Posted By callgood:
You can be damn sure your Federal reps will make out ok. I saw a news clip years ago about a retired congressman who turned his down. Said he was embarassed to take it. Next time yours comes to town, ask him what he'll draw.



It is the same as any other federal employee for ones that were elected after 1984. They actually do have to stick around awhile to get retirement benefits.


Congress: Benefits
Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation.

• Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.

• As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Member's of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a Congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

Data compiled in 20034 showed 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. The average age of those retiring under CSRS was 75.5 and had at least 20 years of federal service. Those who retired under FERS had an average age of 68.3 years and 21.6 years of federal service. Their average retirement payment was $3,909 a month.



Link Posted: 2/18/2006 8:13:00 AM EDT
The "bubble" of baby boomers approaching retirement very soon is the reason for the current concern over the viability of the social security system. As an earlier poster stated, it originally was a way to keep the few people who literally lived to be too old to work. In 1935, the average life expectancy was 61.7, so the majority of people would work until they died. Actually they couldn't receive their full gov't handout until then. A 65 year old person in the '30s would physically not be able to work at 99% of the available jobs. And they probably wouldn't be spending too much money before they died anyway. You have to keep in mind the much larger emphasis on industrial labor back then, like steel mills. A 65 year old can easily handle most of the less physically demanding jobs of today.

The retirement / full SS payout age slowly increased until it was locked at 67 for everyone born after 1960. However, the life expectancy quickly passed that, and a person born today is expected to survive past 77. So it has become a subsidy that now pays the average person for decades of living expenses. The system has been functioning ok because there were so many more workers than retirees. But very soon, the ratio will start to drop dramatically. The problem with reforming the system is that people view it like they have an account, when it is actually just a tax to subsidize retirement. I don't understand why people who are so opposed to the welfare system are equally adamant about keeping "old people welfare". And as the child of boomers, I fully expect to be screwed on this deal once their generation has been paid for.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 8:28:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 8:55:05 AM EDT
Here in the USofA, the politicos(both parties are guilty of this), there was a massive and I mean massive build of money in the Social Security fund(SSA), and like all good politicians, they went about to find ways to spend this ill-gotten wealth, that was not theirs to give away. Originally SSI, was billed as a retirement fund, ie you get what you paid into it, but over the years it has morphed into a social program. covering everything and everybody in between. The early retirees, ie my parents and grandparents made out like a bandit(sorry to use such harsh words, but it's the truth) and now that I am about to retire, I ain't getting squat. The great ponzi scheme/pyramid scam is about to come to grinding halt.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 9:35:48 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 9:51:47 AM EDT
By the time I'm 65, I have no doubt the retirement age will be in the late 70s to early 80s.
People are living longer, working longer, and over-65 part time employees can collect their social security and a paycheck, as long as the paycheck isnt over a certain amount. This, along with the strides made in health care and longer life expectancy, are drawing more and more money out of social security. So many more people are working now, as well. When SS was started, the Wife stayed at home while the Husband went out and made a living (usually- Im sure there were some women working). More and more now, the man and woman work.

I have a 401k and a few modest investments that a friend helped me get into. My wife works as well, and has another 401k.

Hi. My name is Travis. I'm 27, and I've accepted the fact that I will have to work until I die, to pay for people who retired 30 years before I could.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:07:59 AM EDT
It could be fixed if the politicians wanted to fix it.

The SS trust fund is only short about $4 Trillion, the unfunded liabilities are much higher than that, but the issue is making the trust fund solvent, so the monies paid in can be paid back out to retirees.

That isn't difficult at all to do, the Federal government holds considerably more than $4T in assets, they own land, lots of land, land with known deposits of coal, oil, timber, etc., land that could be used for Nuclear power plants, the airwaves, offshore mineral rights, all kinds of things the federal government owns.

So transfer $4T of those assets into the SSTF, Maybe more since there should have been interest earned on all that money, instead of not even meeting inflation in government bonds that don't even trade in a marketplace, rip up half the national debt (the SSTF would "pay" for these assets with the debt instruments it holds), and appoint or elect a board to manage the portfolio of the American people.

There's still a substantial surplus in SS revenue, over the next few years there would be nearly $1Trillion in cash to use to develop those resources and create long-term revenue streams,(if you kept congress from spending it) while solving or at least helping to solve our energy dependence problems. Nuclear plants, coal liquification plants, and ANWR would be good places to start.

Then the return would be based on the revenue stream once the payroll taxes no longer met the costs of the program, no more fixed income, but a dividend yield instead.

It's not ideal, but it's better than screwing everyone who's paid/paying in over completely by either doing nothing and letting the system crash or crashing the system intentionally.

The GOP plan isn't a solution because all it does is add ANOTHER forced investment system in the form of private accounts to the equation, it actually makes SS less solvent than it is now. The GOP plan would work just as well if they just instituted the means testing and benefit cuts without mandating the private investment in vehicles of the governments choice, but that wouldn't go over very well politically so they continue to try to convince you it's something other than what it is.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 9:45:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By warlord:
The teaching profession is already really concerned that there won't be enough teachers because of the massive numbers that are retiring in the next few years, and there is not that many people entering the teaching profession. The business community is taking the "see no evil, hear no eveil, speak no evil" approach, ie until it hits them in the bottom line.


Oh, don't worry, we'll just import teachers the same way we did to software engineers and the same as we're doing for nurses. They'll just teach the kids that Americans don't want to teach.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:04:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TravisM1:
.
.
Hi. My name is Travis. I'm 27, and I've accepted the fact that I will have to work until I die, to pay for people who retired 30 years before I could.


I will be at my desk, and when I go "uuuggghhh" and grab my chest, that is when I will be able to retire.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:17:18 PM EDT
Glad I will be retired in 10years and drawing a check.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:23:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TravisM1:
By the time I'm 65, I have no doubt the retirement age will be in the late 70s to early 80s.
People are living longer, working longer, and over-65 part time employees can collect their social security and a paycheck, as long as the paycheck isnt over a certain amount. This, along with the strides made in health care and longer life expectancy, are drawing more and more money out of social security. So many more people are working now, as well. When SS was started, the Wife stayed at home while the Husband went out and made a living (usually- Im sure there were some women working). More and more now, the man and woman work.

I have a 401k and a few modest investments that a friend helped me get into. My wife works as well, and has another 401k.

Hi. My name is Travis. I'm 27, and I've accepted the fact that I will have to work until I die, to pay for people who retired 30 years before I could.



Travis, have you looked into a Roth IRA? I bring it up since you don't mention it (and I wish I knew this when I was 27). Although it's not an exact science, the generally accepted strategy for tax-advantaged retirement accounts is 1) fund your 401k up to the employer's match; 2) fund your Roth IRA; 3) fund your 401k up to the max. Check this Google search for more info.

Sorry for hijack.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:28:53 PM EDT
they have my retirement set at 68yrs and 3 months now , I'am 50 yoa
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:30:15 PM EDT
I wish I could have my damned SS money back so I could invest it myself...
I am not counting SS into the equation when I retire.

Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:01:00 PM EDT
what you guys dont plan to live to 120?
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:42:33 PM EDT
are they gonna make me go back to work?
Top Top