Warren, I'm only 24 so I think I would get an even worse deal than you in all of this. You are right about the "differences" making Social Security sound even worse, though. I wasn't trying to argue that it's better and as I was writing it I actually thought to myself that Social Security actually is worse than a Ponzi scheme for most people.
Excellent post. I believe, however, that growing your own food actually raises ones standard of living - relative to health and nutrition.
Processed, packaged, store-bought groceries are never as fresh, nutritious or valuable as wild or organic, non-GMO and unprocessed table fare. Check out the prices for organically grown carrots at the local health food store.
The same concepts can apply to other areas of self-sufficiency. I've spent time among the Mennnonite community here and their sewing, woodworking and building skills are second to none.
Point is, many of the items we think raise our standard of living are in fact produced cheaply overseas. Granted, I wouldn't be able to make my own HD-TV, but from my years in the cable business dealing with cheaply manufactured electronic equipment, I'm not so sure that owning a 72-inch plasma television bumps me up to the next rung of the SOL (Standard of Living) ladder.
I love the comparisons you made between SS and a Ponzi scheme. People talk about these factors as if they redeem the program from being an actual Ponzi scheme, but in fact, they show that SS in in every way worse than a Ponzi scheme.
Explanation:
-SS makes no claims about making money fast. Of course, they don't have to. Since you're forced to put your money into SS, there's no need to advertise anything.
-SS makes no claims about investing your money, so it's not actually fraudulent. See comments on previous point.
-SS is not a voluntary scheme. A Ponzi scheme is. I don't see how this makes SS better. The one plus about a Ponzi scheme is that you could choose not to go along with this form of robbery.
-People who die before they collect their full SS benefits don't receive their remaining benefits. This might help prolong the scheme for a little longer but it sucks for those who have paid into the thing for their entire lives to gain nothing to leave their survivors for it.
I read somewhere along this thread that SS is not a retirement plan, but a safety net. Nobody is expecting SS to be a government-funded retirement program, but it's not a very effective safety net either. I am 30 and by the time I retire, by SS benefits will be zip. I would have had a better 'safety net' by putting that money in an IRA or a trust fund or even the latest Ponzi scheme.
Vinegar is a very healthy way to flavor water (I definitely like the apple cider vinegar best. Numerous studies show that it's great for controlling blood sugar levels, as it slows gastric emptying and decreases blood sugar and insulin levels for an entire hour after consumption (they think it's the acetic acid). Great tips!
About two years ago I started buying organic milk for my family after a friend recommended it. At that time, my local grocery (Ralph's) carried only Horizon Organic, so I bought that. I read the carton carefully and was satisfied that I was not only doing something beneficial for my family's health, but also contributing to the general well-being of farm animals and the planet as a whole.
Since I started buying organic dairy, Ralph's has added a number of organic competitors to their shelves. The new brands are less expensive, so I figured they were probably not up to the standards of Horizon. However, one day I decided to do some research. I googled 'best organic milk' and the first link was to a Mother Earth article which pointed to an organic dairy ranking done by an organic watchdog group called The Cornucopia Institute. I was surprised to see Horizon rated with only one cow on a scale of five, and one of the cheaper Ralph's brands, Organic Valley, at 4 cows.
I have spent about 40 hours researching this in the last week and was so riled up about some things that I started my own blog about it.
I have to say that the primary cause of concern for me has not been mentioned anywhere on this page in the article or the comments. My outrage was because Horizon was bought quite some time ago by Dean Foods, a 12-billion dollar dairy processor, THE LARGEST ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL MILK PRODUCER ON THE PLANET. So, here's what gets under my skin. Even if Horizon cows were the happiest on earth and their milk was the purest around, by buying Horizon, YOU ARE DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE LARGEST PRODUCER OF CONVENTIONAL MILK. If you believe that milk can contain added antibiotics and growth hormones, then it stands to reason that Dean Foods puts more of it out than anyone else. If you believe that conventional factory farms treat their animals inhumanely and unethically, then you must agree that Dean Foods is the worst offender there is.
Organic Valley is known as the only company to ever willingly pull their products out of Walmart. Why did they do this? Because Walmart was increasing their organic shelf-space and Horizon undercut Organic Valley by 15 cents a unit. Organic Valley was offered the same deal but they said no because IN ORDER TO MEET THE DEMAND, THEY WOULD BE FORCED TO START BUYING MILK FROM FACTORY FARMS. To me, this says it all.
Look at my blog. There's some links and pictures. I'm not saying I have all my answers, but I do know for a fact that Horizon is owned by one of the 50 largest food companies in the world.
Think about the guy who worked as a janitor for his whole life.
I do think about him. He'd be SO much better off if the government didn't confiscate 12% of his compensation "for his own good". If we could invest that money, himself, he'd actually be able to afford a comfortable retirement. Instead, he'll subsist on whatever pathetic existence Social Security affords him.
Boohooo, waaah...you're not going to get everything you put into Social Security back out again. But someone who really needs it will.
Actually, that's not true. For anyone who started working after 1990, the probability that they'll get back more than they paid in is exactly 0. This may also be true for people who started working earlier. I haven't run the computation for tax rates prior to 1990.
And, unless you're self-employed, you don't pay 12%, you pay 6%. Your employer pays the other 6%.
That's utter nonsense. The employer portion of FICA is part of your compensation, just like your other benefits. The employer pays it because you work. Just because it doesn't cross over your palm before the government snatches it doesn't mean it's not part of your compensation. As a hiring manager, I deal with this issue all the time.
If we were to privatize social security, what happens when the stock market tanks?
Like when? When in the past 100 years has the stock market "tanked"? You mean, for example, the dot com bubble? Well let's put some real numbers to it. If you retired at the VERY BOTTOM of the dot com bubble, you STILL would have enjoyed a 4.66% real return (above and beyond inflation) over your working career. Compare that to Social Security's GUARANTEED negative real return. I don't know about you but, given the choice, I know which one I'd pick.
The late, great Molly Ivens suggested that folks' SS checks be printed in red once they had exceeded the amount they had contributed so they could understand that they are, in fact, receiving welfare.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned that will mitigate (to some degree) the boomer drain on SS is that many, many boomers will be working (and contributing to SS) beyond their retirement age, due to inclination or low savings.
I hope not to need to depend heavily on SS, but I am glad it is there for my parents. And to those who feel exploited by those boomers taking all the benefits, wouldn't you prefer that they get SS instead of moving in with their children/grandchildren? (Or have you moved out of their house yet?)
Jodith, I find it interesting that you say rich people shouldn't draw from Social Security but there should be no cap on contributions. So this means that they should just pay for the rest of the people who may not have had money to contribute and never get a penny back? Also, the definition of "rich" is really debatable around the country. What is rich to you? Someone making 100k a year? 200k a year? Here in the Bay Area a family making 100k a year can't even afford a crappy little house, but in another part of the country where the cost of the living is lower they can be considered rich. If there is a blanket statement that says everyone has to pay for Social Security but people over a certain income can't collect any money then I think there would be more dissent.
As a footnote, I find it a bit condescending that you use a janitor as an example of a poor person who can't save for retirement. I have known janitors who had their own companies and did well, and here is a story of a janitor who left 2.3 million dollars to the school he worked for through wise saving and investment:
Would you say that he is a rich person that doesn't deserve to draw from Social Security even though he never made that much in wages? Anyway, my point is that anyone can save for retirement.
NVS, I assume you are replying to a previous commenter Bill. It is possible that he pays 12.4% for Social Security if he were self employed. In fact, even if you have a regular job and you have a side business you pay 12.4% on the side business income. Half of it can be reported as an expense/deduction on the 1040 form. Also, the income cap for paying Social Security for 2008 is $102000
When I was younger... I was a little bit of a hottie (and I am not blond, BTW... I was a petite Asian gal with a decent rack). During my late teens and early 20s, I occasionally flirted and wore tighter clothing in an effort to get what I wanted (whether it was a free drink or a discount). Sometimes I got these things without even flirting... just as a reaction from people (men).
Once I hit my mid-20s, I settled down. I started dressing more appropriately, I gained a little weight, I married my Hubby and stopped wanting free drinks. These days, a plain t-shirt and jeans are my typical outfit, and I rarely wear cosmetics of any kind. As a result, I almost never get the extra discount or freebie... in fact, often I feel almost invisible in retail stores.
Do I miss the extra special attention? Yes, sometimes, but not enough to start dressing like I'm a teenager. Do I think less of myself for the way I acted as a youth? No, not really. It was part of my younger days, and I enjoyed it at the time. Do I think less of women who do it now? Nope. I actually do believe that women get the short end of the stick in a lot of ways... our society is still relatively sexist. A smart woman utilizes ALL of her resources to even the playing field.
And, ultimately, it's the men who are acting the most foolish in most of these scenarios.
As a final note: Hubby and I have both noticed that in certain stores--like appliance and furniture stores--we get better treatment from salesclerks based entirely on the way we're dressed. If we go in wearing jeans and t-shirts, we're pretty much ignored. But if he's wearing his work clothes--shirt, tie, dress pants--we're practically buried in sales people. Clearly they're making some type of judgment based on our appearance, and I think it's based primarily on HIS outfit, not mine.
You don't pay 12+% of your income into social security. Read your pay-stub carefully. Half of that 12+% comes from you; the other half from your employer. In fact, you pay less for social security of your total income than for your personal retirement account. The disparity increases if you, as an individual, earn more than approximately $95/k per year because then the cap kicks in.
Yes I have read that Medicare is in even more trouble than Social Security and could use up its surplus by 2017 or 2019. The exact dates are in the same report by the SSA. I don't think I was being too alarmist, I just pointed out the fact that America is becoming an older society as a whole and as some commenters pointed out people are having less children by choice so there will be less people funding the system. I do think the 12.4% deduction is pretty egregious even though half of it comes from the employer. The way the system is set up, it seems that that tax percentage will go up, and not down.
Another thing is that I think the age cap for full retirement benefits is a bit too high right now. It is 67 years old and the average person lives to 77 to 80. So basically a person could be potentially paying into Social Security for 45 years and enjoy it for 10 years. I'm not sure the math works out very well there, either.
Social Security isn't about you putting money aside for your retirement. It's for everyone to put money aside for *everyone's* retirment. Because, guess what, not everyone can afford to put money aside for retirement. Think about the guy who worked as a janitor for his whole life. Making minimum wage or a bit more. Raising a couple of kids. He barely keeps a roof over his family's head. Where does he get money to invest in retirement? Once upon a time, he worked for the same company for 40 years and at least had a pension. Any more, he doesn't have that...social security is it for him and his wife.
Boohooo, waaah...you're not going to get everything you put into Social Security back out again. But someone who really needs it will.
Now I agree that the rich have no business drawing social security. I think it should have an income level tied to it. I also don't think there should be a cap on how much you pay into the system. But then, I'm just a secretary, and I'll never approach the cap, anyway.
But I do think there should be some protection out there for the people who spend their lives doing the dirty grunt work that none of us wants to do.
And, unless you're self-employed, you don't pay 12%, you pay 6%. Your employer pays the other 6%.
If we were to privatize social security, what happens when the stock market tanks? Do we tell the poor elderly, sorry, you can't eat this month? Pay your rent? Buy your meds? Again, social security isn't about one person funding their own retirment. It's about all of us working together to take care of everyone else.
yes, it is. they take it out of our paychecks but it won't be there when we retire. my statement says on the bottom that when I retire, as the assend of the boomers, I will supposedly get 70% what i put in. that's why we have to save and invest all we can, along all categories (see www.thecoffeehouseinvestor.com )
If we take care of ourselves...well, don't count on the govt.
For all those who think warnings about Social Security are overblown, please read up a little. No less than GAO Comptroller General David Walker, recently retired, has been warning of an impending disaster for years. Of course, our elected officials in Washington are deaf to logic.
Social Security is a crock of you-know-what. Those who entrust the government to take care of you in your old age will be disappointed. The same people who rail about government incompetence when it came to Katrina, somehow turnaround and believe and trust the same government when it comes to handling what's supposed to be their own money. Amazing, really.
A big liberal government program gone awry, and fast going broke. Like they all do. Look at the ethanol program - (or if you're liberal, don't look too close).
Here's what will happen: Social Security and Medicare will finally go broke (less coming in than going out). They will become 'means tested'. What that means is those who had the foresight, the discipline, the intelligence (can we say that), to provide for themselves and save for their retirements, will be cut out of Social Security. Those too lazy, too incompetent, too stupid to care for themselves, will of course be taken care of.
Isn't this how it always works?
I'm 54 and doubt I will be getting much from Social Security when I retire. I'm not counting on it. In any event, any money I do receive will be so eroded by inflation (under reported by government naturally) that I might have just enough to buy a six pack and revel in my prognostications coming true.
I get what you are saying, and given the context that I wrote, I accept that it sounded a little douchey (ie?). What I should have said is that I believe she wore a shirt that she liked, that was comfortable, that matched the rest of the outfit, and whatever other rationale she had. I don't think her goal was to get better treatment, but there is no way she didn't know that she would get better service in that shirt than in an oversized sweater. I also doubt she stopped wearing that shirt because she got better service or more attention, nor would I expect her to.
As far as the difficulty in finding clothes to fit specific sizes..., you are preaching to the choir here. As I originally stated, I am obese, and finding clothing isn't as easy for me as people might believe. You do what you have to.
I do disagree with people who ascribe stupidity or weakness to someone based solely on size or attractiveness. That is, I hope, at least marginally more douchey than anything I've said so far.
Finally, I've heard for years that the outside shouldn't matter, that it is not as important as what's inside, etc, but the simple truth is that people are more interested in finding out what's inside if it comes in pretty packaging. If we are all being honest, we all are guilty of giving preferential treatment to more attractive people, to one degree or another. It only bothers us when we are on the negative side of someone else's judgement.
I totally agree that there is an issue to remedy, and many people assume that the consequences of not doing anything will only be felt in their retirement years. But what about the other aspects of social security benefits (disability, death benefits, etc.) Many of us could be eligible for these payments way before the retirement age.
You can't assume that you will have time to adequately save for retirement. If you were to become disabled or a survivor of a benefit-eligible death payment, you would want what you're entitled to. But it may not be there.
There is a big misconception about Social Security. It is supposed to be a social safety net, not your personal retirement program.
Why is it that I pay more for the "safety net" than I do for my personal retirement program? I put 10% of my income in my 401k, which will ensure a VERY comfortable retirement. I pay 12.4% of my income to Social Security, which MAY ensure I'm not eating cat food when I'm 62.
Furthermore, if Social Security is a safety net, why is Warren Buffett collecting from it? Surely the richest man in the world doesn't need to be collecting money from a "social safety net".
Also, why do I have to pay for my "safety net"? If I can afford to pay for it (and, as I pointed out above, pay dearly for it), chances are I don't need it. What about the people who CAN'T afford to pay for it? Why don't we focus our energies on those people?
The answer to all these questions is obvious. Social Security is NOT a safety net. It's a variable annuity with an extraordinarily crappy rate of return. It's just an investment; an investment with lots of rules, but an investment, just the same.
As an X-er, I see that Social Security will absolutely NOT be there for me.
Those in the Boomer bracket voted to get the system to "work" for them when they carried the controlling numbers of voters.
When I near the appropriate age, if the system hasn't already gone bankrupt, you can bank that those younger than me- with the higher number of potential voters per the US census dept- will be voting to turn it around in their favor.
I don't want to sound like "woe is me"- I am such a victim-- because knowing this, I can plan accordingly and not be a victim.
I think you're being overly alarmist. The projections you cite are, by design, pessimistic and in fact the SSA's "intermediate case" has for the last decade been unduly pessimistic. Moreover, many of the demographic fears (e.g. life expectancy of the boomer generation) that have been used to justify the political hysteria about Social Security have turned out to be significantly overstated (good NYT article here). Moreover, even if this year's "intermediate projection" turns out to be accurate, the changes we would need to make to move 75% to 100% are not particularly burdensome.
Social Security is and has been one of the most successful government programs in the history of this country. It's continued success will be achieved by the political will of members of each generation to ensure that their parents have a shot at a decent retirement. Every generation, therefore, the American commitment to SS will be tested by those who ideologically oppose "government" programs or economically desire the assets we have amassed for and the income we devote to Social Security.
As I watch the Wall Street banks go belly up and Congress offer plans that bail out banks but not homeowners, I for one am glad Wall Street didn't get its mitts on my retirement insurance during the last 8 years. As I look at the volatality of the stock market in the last couple of years, I for one am delighted that my retirement insurance is, by design, conservatively invested.
The truly frightening problem with face is Medicare, not Social Security. But reform of Medicare will require a transformation of our entire health care and health insurance system. Part of the reason the talking heads make so much fuss about the Social Security numbers is to distract us from the real crisis - no doubt because the only practical solutions to this crisis will occur at the expense of deeply vested parties.
There is a big misconception about Social Security. It is supposed to be a social safety net, not your personal retirement program.
Most developed countries have some form of social safety net to keep people from living in the streets eating cat food in large numbers. There are also more components to Social Security than just retirement. There is social security disability and SSI payments. The disability is there for people that exhaust all of their other benefits if they become unable to work. SSI works as a supplemental income source for people who qualify for SSD.
People should have something more than social security for retirement.
As pointed out in this article, the number of people collecting Social Security is rising. These people vote, and this is an important issue to them. It is an important issue to me too, and I'm only 45.
The real problem with funding Social Security isn't the I.O.U's that have replaced the actual funds, or the date that outgoing funds exceeds incoming funds. The problem is with the Social Security cap.
I have paid into Social Security my entire 20+ year working life, and I'll be damned if I let some deficit spending warmonger steal the money I have put into it.
Pay attention to the issues, and vote accordingly. It really does make a difference.
Warren, I'm only 24 so I think I would get an even worse deal than you in all of this. You are right about the "differences" making Social Security sound even worse, though. I wasn't trying to argue that it's better and as I was writing it I actually thought to myself that Social Security actually is worse than a Ponzi scheme for most people.
Excellent post. I believe, however, that growing your own food actually raises ones standard of living - relative to health and nutrition.
Processed, packaged, store-bought groceries are never as fresh, nutritious or valuable as wild or organic, non-GMO and unprocessed table fare. Check out the prices for organically grown carrots at the local health food store.
The same concepts can apply to other areas of self-sufficiency. I've spent time among the Mennnonite community here and their sewing, woodworking and building skills are second to none.
Point is, many of the items we think raise our standard of living are in fact produced cheaply overseas. Granted, I wouldn't be able to make my own HD-TV, but from my years in the cable business dealing with cheaply manufactured electronic equipment, I'm not so sure that owning a 72-inch plasma television bumps me up to the next rung of the SOL (Standard of Living) ladder.
I love the comparisons you made between SS and a Ponzi scheme. People talk about these factors as if they redeem the program from being an actual Ponzi scheme, but in fact, they show that SS in in every way worse than a Ponzi scheme.
Explanation:
-SS makes no claims about making money fast. Of course, they don't have to. Since you're forced to put your money into SS, there's no need to advertise anything.
-SS makes no claims about investing your money, so it's not actually fraudulent. See comments on previous point.
-SS is not a voluntary scheme. A Ponzi scheme is. I don't see how this makes SS better. The one plus about a Ponzi scheme is that you could choose not to go along with this form of robbery.
-People who die before they collect their full SS benefits don't receive their remaining benefits. This might help prolong the scheme for a little longer but it sucks for those who have paid into the thing for their entire lives to gain nothing to leave their survivors for it.
I read somewhere along this thread that SS is not a retirement plan, but a safety net. Nobody is expecting SS to be a government-funded retirement program, but it's not a very effective safety net either. I am 30 and by the time I retire, by SS benefits will be zip. I would have had a better 'safety net' by putting that money in an IRA or a trust fund or even the latest Ponzi scheme.
Vinegar is a very healthy way to flavor water (I definitely like the apple cider vinegar best. Numerous studies show that it's great for controlling blood sugar levels, as it slows gastric emptying and decreases blood sugar and insulin levels for an entire hour after consumption (they think it's the acetic acid). Great tips!
About two years ago I started buying organic milk for my family after a friend recommended it. At that time, my local grocery (Ralph's) carried only Horizon Organic, so I bought that. I read the carton carefully and was satisfied that I was not only doing something beneficial for my family's health, but also contributing to the general well-being of farm animals and the planet as a whole.
Since I started buying organic dairy, Ralph's has added a number of organic competitors to their shelves. The new brands are less expensive, so I figured they were probably not up to the standards of Horizon. However, one day I decided to do some research. I googled 'best organic milk' and the first link was to a Mother Earth article which pointed to an organic dairy ranking done by an organic watchdog group called The Cornucopia Institute. I was surprised to see Horizon rated with only one cow on a scale of five, and one of the cheaper Ralph's brands, Organic Valley, at 4 cows.
I have spent about 40 hours researching this in the last week and was so riled up about some things that I started my own blog about it.
I have to say that the primary cause of concern for me has not been mentioned anywhere on this page in the article or the comments. My outrage was because Horizon was bought quite some time ago by Dean Foods, a 12-billion dollar dairy processor, THE LARGEST ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL MILK PRODUCER ON THE PLANET. So, here's what gets under my skin. Even if Horizon cows were the happiest on earth and their milk was the purest around, by buying Horizon, YOU ARE DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE LARGEST PRODUCER OF CONVENTIONAL MILK. If you believe that milk can contain added antibiotics and growth hormones, then it stands to reason that Dean Foods puts more of it out than anyone else. If you believe that conventional factory farms treat their animals inhumanely and unethically, then you must agree that Dean Foods is the worst offender there is.
Organic Valley is known as the only company to ever willingly pull their products out of Walmart. Why did they do this? Because Walmart was increasing their organic shelf-space and Horizon undercut Organic Valley by 15 cents a unit. Organic Valley was offered the same deal but they said no because IN ORDER TO MEET THE DEMAND, THEY WOULD BE FORCED TO START BUYING MILK FROM FACTORY FARMS. To me, this says it all.
Look at my blog. There's some links and pictures. I'm not saying I have all my answers, but I do know for a fact that Horizon is owned by one of the 50 largest food companies in the world.
Thanks,
Jeremy
Think about the guy who worked as a janitor for his whole life.
I do think about him. He'd be SO much better off if the government didn't confiscate 12% of his compensation "for his own good". If we could invest that money, himself, he'd actually be able to afford a comfortable retirement. Instead, he'll subsist on whatever pathetic existence Social Security affords him.
Boohooo, waaah...you're not going to get everything you put into Social Security back out again. But someone who really needs it will.
Actually, that's not true. For anyone who started working after 1990, the probability that they'll get back more than they paid in is exactly 0. This may also be true for people who started working earlier. I haven't run the computation for tax rates prior to 1990.
And, unless you're self-employed, you don't pay 12%, you pay 6%. Your employer pays the other 6%.
That's utter nonsense. The employer portion of FICA is part of your compensation, just like your other benefits. The employer pays it because you work. Just because it doesn't cross over your palm before the government snatches it doesn't mean it's not part of your compensation. As a hiring manager, I deal with this issue all the time.
If we were to privatize social security, what happens when the stock market tanks?
Like when? When in the past 100 years has the stock market "tanked"? You mean, for example, the dot com bubble? Well let's put some real numbers to it. If you retired at the VERY BOTTOM of the dot com bubble, you STILL would have enjoyed a 4.66% real return (above and beyond inflation) over your working career. Compare that to Social Security's GUARANTEED negative real return. I don't know about you but, given the choice, I know which one I'd pick.
The late, great Molly Ivens suggested that folks' SS checks be printed in red once they had exceeded the amount they had contributed so they could understand that they are, in fact, receiving welfare.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned that will mitigate (to some degree) the boomer drain on SS is that many, many boomers will be working (and contributing to SS) beyond their retirement age, due to inclination or low savings.
I hope not to need to depend heavily on SS, but I am glad it is there for my parents. And to those who feel exploited by those boomers taking all the benefits, wouldn't you prefer that they get SS instead of moving in with their children/grandchildren? (Or have you moved out of their house yet?)
You can use packets of Kool-Aid (without the sugar) and it makes it smell good as well as coloring it!
S.
Jodith, I find it interesting that you say rich people shouldn't draw from Social Security but there should be no cap on contributions. So this means that they should just pay for the rest of the people who may not have had money to contribute and never get a penny back? Also, the definition of "rich" is really debatable around the country. What is rich to you? Someone making 100k a year? 200k a year? Here in the Bay Area a family making 100k a year can't even afford a crappy little house, but in another part of the country where the cost of the living is lower they can be considered rich. If there is a blanket statement that says everyone has to pay for Social Security but people over a certain income can't collect any money then I think there would be more dissent.
As a footnote, I find it a bit condescending that you use a janitor as an example of a poor person who can't save for retirement. I have known janitors who had their own companies and did well, and here is a story of a janitor who left 2.3 million dollars to the school he worked for through wise saving and investment:
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Stars/4-11-16DryCleaner.htm
Would you say that he is a rich person that doesn't deserve to draw from Social Security even though he never made that much in wages? Anyway, my point is that anyone can save for retirement.
NVS, I assume you are replying to a previous commenter Bill. It is possible that he pays 12.4% for Social Security if he were self employed. In fact, even if you have a regular job and you have a side business you pay 12.4% on the side business income. Half of it can be reported as an expense/deduction on the 1040 form. Also, the income cap for paying Social Security for 2008 is $102000
When I was younger... I was a little bit of a hottie (and I am not blond, BTW... I was a petite Asian gal with a decent rack). During my late teens and early 20s, I occasionally flirted and wore tighter clothing in an effort to get what I wanted (whether it was a free drink or a discount). Sometimes I got these things without even flirting... just as a reaction from people (men).
Once I hit my mid-20s, I settled down. I started dressing more appropriately, I gained a little weight, I married my Hubby and stopped wanting free drinks. These days, a plain t-shirt and jeans are my typical outfit, and I rarely wear cosmetics of any kind. As a result, I almost never get the extra discount or freebie... in fact, often I feel almost invisible in retail stores.
Do I miss the extra special attention? Yes, sometimes, but not enough to start dressing like I'm a teenager. Do I think less of myself for the way I acted as a youth? No, not really. It was part of my younger days, and I enjoyed it at the time. Do I think less of women who do it now? Nope. I actually do believe that women get the short end of the stick in a lot of ways... our society is still relatively sexist. A smart woman utilizes ALL of her resources to even the playing field.
And, ultimately, it's the men who are acting the most foolish in most of these scenarios.
As a final note: Hubby and I have both noticed that in certain stores--like appliance and furniture stores--we get better treatment from salesclerks based entirely on the way we're dressed. If we go in wearing jeans and t-shirts, we're pretty much ignored. But if he's wearing his work clothes--shirt, tie, dress pants--we're practically buried in sales people. Clearly they're making some type of judgment based on our appearance, and I think it's based primarily on HIS outfit, not mine.
I'm wondering..Both my sister & I are married with children. We all work & we both have 3 children each.
Why did she only receive 1,800 back?
and I received $2,100?
You don't pay 12+% of your income into social security. Read your pay-stub carefully. Half of that 12+% comes from you; the other half from your employer. In fact, you pay less for social security of your total income than for your personal retirement account. The disparity increases if you, as an individual, earn more than approximately $95/k per year because then the cap kicks in.
Yes I have read that Medicare is in even more trouble than Social Security and could use up its surplus by 2017 or 2019. The exact dates are in the same report by the SSA. I don't think I was being too alarmist, I just pointed out the fact that America is becoming an older society as a whole and as some commenters pointed out people are having less children by choice so there will be less people funding the system. I do think the 12.4% deduction is pretty egregious even though half of it comes from the employer. The way the system is set up, it seems that that tax percentage will go up, and not down.
Another thing is that I think the age cap for full retirement benefits is a bit too high right now. It is 67 years old and the average person lives to 77 to 80. So basically a person could be potentially paying into Social Security for 45 years and enjoy it for 10 years. I'm not sure the math works out very well there, either.
Social Security isn't about you putting money aside for your retirement. It's for everyone to put money aside for *everyone's* retirment. Because, guess what, not everyone can afford to put money aside for retirement. Think about the guy who worked as a janitor for his whole life. Making minimum wage or a bit more. Raising a couple of kids. He barely keeps a roof over his family's head. Where does he get money to invest in retirement? Once upon a time, he worked for the same company for 40 years and at least had a pension. Any more, he doesn't have that...social security is it for him and his wife.
Boohooo, waaah...you're not going to get everything you put into Social Security back out again. But someone who really needs it will.
Now I agree that the rich have no business drawing social security. I think it should have an income level tied to it. I also don't think there should be a cap on how much you pay into the system. But then, I'm just a secretary, and I'll never approach the cap, anyway.
But I do think there should be some protection out there for the people who spend their lives doing the dirty grunt work that none of us wants to do.
And, unless you're self-employed, you don't pay 12%, you pay 6%. Your employer pays the other 6%.
If we were to privatize social security, what happens when the stock market tanks? Do we tell the poor elderly, sorry, you can't eat this month? Pay your rent? Buy your meds? Again, social security isn't about one person funding their own retirment. It's about all of us working together to take care of everyone else.
yes, it is. they take it out of our paychecks but it won't be there when we retire. my statement says on the bottom that when I retire, as the assend of the boomers, I will supposedly get 70% what i put in. that's why we have to save and invest all we can, along all categories (see www.thecoffeehouseinvestor.com )
If we take care of ourselves...well, don't count on the govt.
For all those who think warnings about Social Security are overblown, please read up a little. No less than GAO Comptroller General David Walker, recently retired, has been warning of an impending disaster for years. Of course, our elected officials in Washington are deaf to logic.
Social Security is a crock of you-know-what. Those who entrust the government to take care of you in your old age will be disappointed. The same people who rail about government incompetence when it came to Katrina, somehow turnaround and believe and trust the same government when it comes to handling what's supposed to be their own money. Amazing, really.
A big liberal government program gone awry, and fast going broke. Like they all do. Look at the ethanol program - (or if you're liberal, don't look too close).
Here's what will happen: Social Security and Medicare will finally go broke (less coming in than going out). They will become 'means tested'. What that means is those who had the foresight, the discipline, the intelligence (can we say that), to provide for themselves and save for their retirements, will be cut out of Social Security. Those too lazy, too incompetent, too stupid to care for themselves, will of course be taken care of.
Isn't this how it always works?
I'm 54 and doubt I will be getting much from Social Security when I retire. I'm not counting on it. In any event, any money I do receive will be so eroded by inflation (under reported by government naturally) that I might have just enough to buy a six pack and revel in my prognostications coming true.
Zannie
I get what you are saying, and given the context that I wrote, I accept that it sounded a little douchey (ie?). What I should have said is that I believe she wore a shirt that she liked, that was comfortable, that matched the rest of the outfit, and whatever other rationale she had. I don't think her goal was to get better treatment, but there is no way she didn't know that she would get better service in that shirt than in an oversized sweater. I also doubt she stopped wearing that shirt because she got better service or more attention, nor would I expect her to.
As far as the difficulty in finding clothes to fit specific sizes..., you are preaching to the choir here. As I originally stated, I am obese, and finding clothing isn't as easy for me as people might believe. You do what you have to.
I do disagree with people who ascribe stupidity or weakness to someone based solely on size or attractiveness. That is, I hope, at least marginally more douchey than anything I've said so far.
Finally, I've heard for years that the outside shouldn't matter, that it is not as important as what's inside, etc, but the simple truth is that people are more interested in finding out what's inside if it comes in pretty packaging. If we are all being honest, we all are guilty of giving preferential treatment to more attractive people, to one degree or another. It only bothers us when we are on the negative side of someone else's judgement.
It was a great marketing campaign by Pepsi back in the 80's. Not sure what you guys in the US did, but in the UK this is how we did it.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VScSZqmf_s4
Saying "I'll take the Pepsi challenge" just became a way of saying "take me on and I'll win."
I totally agree that there is an issue to remedy, and many people assume that the consequences of not doing anything will only be felt in their retirement years. But what about the other aspects of social security benefits (disability, death benefits, etc.) Many of us could be eligible for these payments way before the retirement age.
You can't assume that you will have time to adequately save for retirement. If you were to become disabled or a survivor of a benefit-eligible death payment, you would want what you're entitled to. But it may not be there.
There is a big misconception about Social Security. It is supposed to be a social safety net, not your personal retirement program.
Why is it that I pay more for the "safety net" than I do for my personal retirement program? I put 10% of my income in my 401k, which will ensure a VERY comfortable retirement. I pay 12.4% of my income to Social Security, which MAY ensure I'm not eating cat food when I'm 62.
Furthermore, if Social Security is a safety net, why is Warren Buffett collecting from it? Surely the richest man in the world doesn't need to be collecting money from a "social safety net".
Also, why do I have to pay for my "safety net"? If I can afford to pay for it (and, as I pointed out above, pay dearly for it), chances are I don't need it. What about the people who CAN'T afford to pay for it? Why don't we focus our energies on those people?
The answer to all these questions is obvious. Social Security is NOT a safety net. It's a variable annuity with an extraordinarily crappy rate of return. It's just an investment; an investment with lots of rules, but an investment, just the same.
As an X-er, I see that Social Security will absolutely NOT be there for me.
Those in the Boomer bracket voted to get the system to "work" for them when they carried the controlling numbers of voters.
When I near the appropriate age, if the system hasn't already gone bankrupt, you can bank that those younger than me- with the higher number of potential voters per the US census dept- will be voting to turn it around in their favor.
I don't want to sound like "woe is me"- I am such a victim-- because knowing this, I can plan accordingly and not be a victim.
I think you're being overly alarmist. The projections you cite are, by design, pessimistic and in fact the SSA's "intermediate case" has for the last decade been unduly pessimistic. Moreover, many of the demographic fears (e.g. life expectancy of the boomer generation) that have been used to justify the political hysteria about Social Security have turned out to be significantly overstated (good NYT article here). Moreover, even if this year's "intermediate projection" turns out to be accurate, the changes we would need to make to move 75% to 100% are not particularly burdensome.
Social Security is and has been one of the most successful government programs in the history of this country. It's continued success will be achieved by the political will of members of each generation to ensure that their parents have a shot at a decent retirement. Every generation, therefore, the American commitment to SS will be tested by those who ideologically oppose "government" programs or economically desire the assets we have amassed for and the income we devote to Social Security.
As I watch the Wall Street banks go belly up and Congress offer plans that bail out banks but not homeowners, I for one am glad Wall Street didn't get its mitts on my retirement insurance during the last 8 years. As I look at the volatality of the stock market in the last couple of years, I for one am delighted that my retirement insurance is, by design, conservatively invested.
The truly frightening problem with face is Medicare, not Social Security. But reform of Medicare will require a transformation of our entire health care and health insurance system. Part of the reason the talking heads make so much fuss about the Social Security numbers is to distract us from the real crisis - no doubt because the only practical solutions to this crisis will occur at the expense of deeply vested parties.
There is a big misconception about Social Security. It is supposed to be a social safety net, not your personal retirement program.
Most developed countries have some form of social safety net to keep people from living in the streets eating cat food in large numbers. There are also more components to Social Security than just retirement. There is social security disability and SSI payments. The disability is there for people that exhaust all of their other benefits if they become unable to work. SSI works as a supplemental income source for people who qualify for SSD.
People should have something more than social security for retirement.
As pointed out in this article, the number of people collecting Social Security is rising. These people vote, and this is an important issue to them. It is an important issue to me too, and I'm only 45.
The real problem with funding Social Security isn't the I.O.U's that have replaced the actual funds, or the date that outgoing funds exceeds incoming funds. The problem is with the Social Security cap.
I have paid into Social Security my entire 20+ year working life, and I'll be damned if I let some deficit spending warmonger steal the money I have put into it.
Pay attention to the issues, and vote accordingly. It really does make a difference.