social security, running out Options

[ikn0w ur m0m]

do you think that social seurity will run out by the year 2014.. ive been readin some finacial articles and they said its predicited that it will.

[FoOd]

I think... they'll use old ones. Like recycable Social Security codes.

[*mona lisa*]

Maybe another system will be implemented? Although, it sounds a little far fetched.

[sadolakced acid]

no, that's when it stops taking in more money than it spends.

it has enough money in it to last till 2060 or so.
the problem with bush's proposed plan is it will take some 4 trillion dollars (yes, trillion) to switch over to.

[*mona lisa*]

^Wow, that's around how much the debt is.

[ikn0w ur m0m]

yea the debt is terrible but i think it will run out by the year 2014 by the way bush is runnnin. thats why more and more people arent puttin money into social security.

[demolished]

Why ? they could use decimal and fractions for it ..

[madchenallein]

Here's a thought. Bush isn't trying to take away social security benefits, all those representatives in Congress who vote to keep increasing your taxes are.

Why can't people see WHAT social security is? SOCIAL...hello? Socialism!

I think most of the people who read and post here are within the 13-30 y.o. range. Here are some questions for you to think about:

-Do you like making 8-10 bucks an hour and having the government take away, oh about $1 every hour, because Mr. Jones in Tacoma needs his SS check on the 15th? Who is this Mr. Jones?

ANSWER: No one you know. If you want to share what you make, tell the government that you want to keep what you make, and then donate money to a charity YOU care about, a nursing home in your community, or a children's hospital, or better yet, take an hour of your time and volunteer somewhere.

-Why should you be paying now for other people's care-and not even get a say in how much you pay and to whom and exactly what for-when this SOCIALIST system will not be in place by the time it's YOUR turn to pull from that pot?

ANSWER: You shouldn't. Take control of your own future, put money in savings accounts, cds, stock market, mutual funds, IRAs, your mattress, whatever, but be responsible for your OWN future. If, 50 years ago, the people receiving SS now had done that, WE wouldn't be supporting THEM. But, Americans won't get off their lazy butts, so most of us are just going to let the laws stay the same and complain about it rather than lobby and vote and petition and invest in our own futures to try to change things.

[XoJennaoX]

-Do you like making 8-10 bucks an hour and having the government take away, oh about $1 every hour, because Mr. Jones in Tacoma needs his SS check on the 15th?  Who is this Mr. Jones? 

ANSWER:  No one you know.  If you want to share what you make, tell the government that you want to keep what you make, and then donate money to a charity YOU care about, a nursing home in your community, or a children's hospital, or better yet, take an hour of your time and volunteer somewhere.

-Why should you be paying now for other people's care-and not even get a say in how much you pay and to whom and exactly what for-when this SOCIALIST system will not be in place by the time it's YOUR turn to pull from that pot?

ANSWER:  You shouldn't.  Take control of your own future, put money in savings accounts, cds, stock market, mutual funds, IRAs, your mattress, whatever, but be responsible for your OWN future.  If, 50 years ago, the people receiving SS now had done that, WE wouldn't be supporting THEM.  But, Americans won't get off their lazy butts, so most of us are just going to let the laws stay the same and complain about it rather than lobby and vote and petition and invest in our own futures to try to change things.

Do you understand why we have social security in the first place? It was implemented because our country clearly accepted the view that a modern industrial society should take responsibility for helping its citizens who cannot work, are retired, disabled, etc. It is meant to help our society, not to help out the selfish individual (which whom you are most concerned with). Now whether we are operating it correctly is another issue.

[sadolakced acid]

the retirement age was older than the average death age when it was set.

now the death age is some 20 years after. it's no wonder it's running out.

push back retirement to 75, or 80 years.

[madchenallein]

WELL, the government doesn't need to tell 'our society' what to do!

Here's a thought

PRIVATELY OPERATED charities are great ways to help people who can't work because they're elderly, or disabled or whatever. Or, how about this, these people's own families can help them, that's the best option.

If you have a grandmother or grandfather who is too old to work, doesn't she or he get better care from a family member who LOVES them than from some hired person who is only there because it pays the bills?

I'm not 'concerned about' selfish people, I wish people would be responsible for themselves.

[XoJennaoX]

WELL, the government doesn't need to tell 'our society' what to do!

Here's a thought

PRIVATELY OPERATED charities are great ways to help people who can't work because they're elderly, or disabled or whatever.

It would be great if EVERYONE, or even most people, donated to charity. Sadly that is not nearly enough to support them all, many would unfairly get left behind.

Or, how about this, these people's own families can help them, that's the best option.

If you have a grandmother or grandfather who is too old to work, doesn't she or he get better care from a family member who LOVES them than from some hired person who is only there because it pays the bills?

The creul truth is usually family members want nothing to do with aged, sickly people, thats why we have so many nursing homes....and not to mention disabled people are constantly neglected by family members. If we lived in a society where everyone took care of their families I would agree with you, but what about poor families that can't afford medical bill's? Leave them to suffer?

I'm not 'concerned about' selfish people, I wish people would be responsible for themselves.

not everyone is capable, especially the less fortunate, and thats where the problem lies.

[madchenallein]

I agree with you that we don't live in a perfect society and that these are the problems, however, I still will never say that this reality gives someone I DIDN'T vote for the right to say I have to give a certain percent of my money to solve those problems.

Here's a reason this behavior you talked about is perpetuated:

People know that if there is a distasteful task that needs done for a family member (just as an example) and it is expensive, or they just don't WANT to do it, that the government will step in at a certain point and say 'oh, there's a need here, WE'LL take care of it for you' and try to solve the problem.

WHY, why, why would a person like that (this selfish person who doesn't care about their own family) choose to pay for/do it themselves, when they know the government (ie, ME) will eventually do it for them? They'd be crazy to do it themselves! Well, from a laziness/selfish standpoint.

So, take away the automatic government help and make them do it, sink or swim.

I am happy to give to a private charity, where I have some control over who gets help. But, listen up federal government here's a news flash, I AM NOT a private charity. The government should not be able to theive my wages to give to others.

Here is a great example I got in my email, it's probably not true, but it illustrates a good point:

A politically liberal-leaning senior in college (let's say her name is Jane) had argued with her father about social security and the 'tight-fisted' conservatives, called her parents towards the end of the spring semester. She had been studying non-stop for her exams and was exhausted and bummed about not having time and energy to go out with her friends. However, she had the grades to graduate with a summa cum laude if she kept up the hard work. She had a good enough GPA that she would exceed the minimum by several tenths of a point, but, of course, if you care about grades in college, you don't take risks. Her friend, we'll call her Ann, who rarely studied, spent a lot of time and money out with her own friends, was going to be failing a class that she needed to pass in order to even graduate. Jane complained to her parents about Ann's sad predicament. Jane's father pointed out all Jane's self denial in pursuit of the goal she needed, then suggested that since she had a few extra tenths in her GPA, why couldn't she give them to Ann? Jane laughed, saying that was ridiculous, Ann had blown off the opportunity to make the grades when she'd had the chance and it was her own fault if she didn't graduate. Her father then pointed out that she was a social conservative.

Great illustration, imho.

[madchenallein]

Oh yeah, and one other thing. No one said life was fair. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but life is harsh.

[heyyfrankie]

i guess it could but i doubt the government would let that happen.

[esharp]

i think social security will last until somewhere around that time... but i think that it's really stupid that the government shaves money away from our paychecks for social security. when it comes to the time where we really need it, it will have run out...

[*mipadi*]

i think social security will last until somewhere around that time... but i think that it's really stupid that the government shaves money away from our paychecks for social security.  when it comes to the time where we really need it, it will have run out...

Well, in theory, when it comes tme for you to need it, a younger worker will be paying your benefits, too; so it's not like the government takes money from you, and never gives you anything in return.

The problem with Social Security is that around 2014, money being taken in (from younger workers) will be less than money paid out in benefits (to retirees).

[sadolakced acid]

The problem with Social Security is that around 2014, money being taken in (from younger workers) will be less than money paid out in benefits (to retirees).

and the solution is not to allow individuals to invest thier nest egg in 'stable' companies like enron and worldcom. and while they invest thier money, social security looses all it's revenue, and starts drawing up a debt.

it will cost trillions to swtich over to that.

[Spirited Away]

Roth IRA is tax-free and there is no age limit on when you could start one. Plan for your retirement NOW, kiddies.

[gOODpIRATE]

ANSWER:  No one you know.  If you want to share what you make, tell the government that you want to keep what you make, and then donate money to a charity YOU care about, a nursing home in your community, or a children's hospital, or better yet, take an hour of your time and volunteer somewhere.

but when you think about it, how many people in the world actaually donate?plenty i know, but w/o social security, their would be a lot less people "donating". when the government takes out money and makes sure it gets to someone who needs it, then everyone benifits more.

i think that things should stay the way they always have been. we had no problems before...so why change it?

....humm...let me put it this way. its like having a fully functioning toster, and taking it to a repair man to fix it when its working just fine.

[*not_your_average*]

madchenallein: Why are you calling Social Security a socialist concept? It was created during the Depression to help those who couldn't support themselves, which was about everyone in the United States. Taxes are currently being used to support Social Security. When you donate to charity, even then, you don't know who your money is going to. Private charities are much more likely to scam you than the government. At least we know that with the government, our money is going to somebody in need.

As for my answer? Well, with Bush's tax cuts in place, I'm damn well sure we're gonna run out of money by 2014.