Pretending Social Security is an annuity and calculating a base for it???

[scagnt83]

SSA survivor benefits are generally not long term and (almost?) always tied to dependent children under age 18.

I generally don't get involved with SSA benefits but, unless things have changed, it is rare for a surviving widow/widower to collect benefits. One exception is a surviving spouse collecting SSA at age 62 based on the decedents earnings.

What are you thinking of?

LD is in retirement, he is specifically speaking about SS retirement benefits, not disability or death while working age.

Many spouses take the surviving benefit when the husband passes. Boomers still had a majority of stay at home moms vs. working moms. Or they worked in later years and didnt earn anything close to what the husband did.

 

[scagnt83]

Should have stated it will run out by 2035, probably not. I wish I could retrack that statement. However, I said it only because it is a stated common theme, that we hear regularly, so I put it out there.

Its just incorrect phrasing of what happens then. Politicians and the media like to use that phrase because it is more sensational.

It no longer has enough money saved to pay full benefits.

Its not down to zero... which the "run out" part implies.

A more correct statement would be "no longer has enough to pay full benefits". Or "depleted to the point of no longer being able to pay full benefits".

But now its actually earlier than 2035. The huge cola increases this past year have shortened that timeline. I think its due to run out in 2030 now based on the new numbers being run.

btw, I dont think most on here consider you a troll. there are always grumpy people in the world.

 

[LostDollar]

Definitely not special. But every 4th Wednesday I'm a happy little turd.

Yes, but probably electronically, not a check.

 

[LostDollar]

SSA survivor benefits are generally not long term and (almost?) always tied to dependent children under age 18.

I generally don't get involved with SSA benefits but, unless things have changed, it is rare for a surviving widow/widower to collect benefits. One exception is a surviving spouse collecting SSA at age 62 based on the decedents earnings.

What are you thinking of?

I'll come back to this and give you a more detailed answer when I have more time, but one possible scenario I needed to consider for my situation involved around 35 years of SS survivor benefits.

 

[Deborah Armstrong]

Its just incorrect phrasing of what happens then. Politicians and the media like to use that phrase because it is more sensational.

It no longer has enough money saved to pay full benefits.

Its not down to zero... which the "run out" part implies.

A more correct statement would be "no longer has enough to pay full benefits". Or "depleted to the point of no longer being able to pay full benefits".

But now its actually earlier than 2035. The huge cola increases this past year have shortened that timeline. I think its due to run out in 2030 now based on the new numbers being run.

btw, I dont think most on here consider you a troll. there are always grumpy people in the world.

I was called a troll for making my statement, but thank you. I would agree with your comment and yes, I got that 2035 from the media. Not that I believe it will necessarily run out by 2035, but we were made promises and I won't get what I was promised. My children certainly won't get what was originally promised.

 

[Travis Price]

I was called a troll for making my statement, but thank you. I would agree with your comment and yes, I got that 2035 from the media. Not that I believe it will necessarily run out by 2035, but we were made promises and I won't get what I was promised. My children certainly won't get what was originally promised.

Government promises are promises until they aren't.

The number of workers exiting the system for retirement are putting a strain on the current number of employees that are in the system. This is the Boomer problem.

Secondly, you will absolutely get what you were promised. Politicians have to keep getting elected and kick the can down the road. They'll just continue to put more money into the system to cover their obligations.

Boomers are a problem in this country. Not saying a specific Boomer, but the generation. They spent 30 years in really favorable economic conditions, borrowing at near 0% in their prime earning years. Now those chickens are coming home to roost.

Most of them didn't save, because SOCIAL SECURITY ::EYEROLL::. It's called personal responsibility. Yet to hear Boomers talk, the younger generations are the entitled ones.

Social Security was under the impression that population would continue to grow, bridging the gap that SS would have to pay out as more Boomers aged out. However, they didn't account for near 0 rates, irresponsible fiscal policy for 30+ years and a weakening economy would reduce the population, making it 2 adults covering for every 1 Boomers SS.

When you borrow, you are taking from future spending. Boomers did that and shoved that money in RE, causing RE in inflate into oblivion.

So, they've sucked all the economic value in the current system out 30 years ago, didn't save for the future, and then get mad that SS will default.

The phrase of the day here is Personal Accountability. Boomers, when the generation finally exits, will leave a mess that our current economic system cannot resolve because then the debt crisis is too large to pay off. The INTEREST alone will be more than SS and Medicare combined. That requires monetary debasement.

That's why people that are 40-ish and under shouldn't buy stocks heavily and should stick to hard assets. Stocks will crash as the debasement becomes so epic that it will destroy any gains.

I could rant on about why and why RE is overpriced, stocks are overpriced, Bonds are garbage anymore, and the 60/40 rule is dead, but no one wants to hear that.

Long story short, you reap what you sow.

 

[PrivClientSG]

I was called a troll for making my statement, but thank you. I would agree with your comment and yes, I got that 2035 from the media. Not that I believe it will necessarily run out by 2035, but we were made promises and I won't get what I was promised. My children certainly won't get what was originally promised.

Being that you have your own opinion(s) on Social Security -- conclusive, definitive, and fairly thorough -- perhaps you can treat it however you see fit inside your own planning, decision making, etc. The media contains a great deal of misinformation and even untruths, for numerous reasons. You can certainly do your own research, exclusive of the media, or at least limited media input, and truly arrive at a meaningful conclusion on your own. However, to think the US Government is going to completely ignore the situation, and do nothing, is somewhat so remote, it's inconceivable. You may not want to believe they will do the right thing -- but to believe they will do nothing at all, is simply unfounded.

In addition, your planning, in this arena, should not include your children and their potential social security. I wouldn't worry about that if I were you. If you are looking this closely at Social Security, then your entire focus must be on you and your own retirement, life, etc. All the best!

 

[Allen Trent]

This is the Boomer problem.

Boomers werent even born when this design was invented with the inherent bad govt math design in 1937. Lump sum Checks went out the same month it was started & regular checks began within 2-3 years......far too soon for it to be funded properly.

Had it solely been a program for collect from work/employer now from all, hold & grow, then pay benefits decades later, it may have been designed properly. Boomer population explosion isn't helping, but had it been designed that their deposits were not paying for prior generations, there wouldn't be this issue

The poor/elderly in 1937 to 1955/60 should have been taken care of with other programs. Social security shouldn't have paid immediate benefits to those that never participated or only participated a very short time.

I am not a boomer, but if they are the problem, didn't they also make the largest contributions to SS in the history of the program? Most worked from 1963 to current? How much was collected from 1937-1963 before their boomer generation even started working?

I am certain that is the design flaw & quite common of our govt to create a program to provide immediate benefits & hope to later find the money with a spreadsheet showing better future numbers than are normal

Boomers are solely collecting your generations deposits to some extent as that is how our govt designed it from the get go.

 

[Deborah Armstrong]

Government promises are promises until they aren't.

The number of workers exiting the system for retirement are putting a strain on the current number of employees that are in the system. This is the Boomer problem.

Secondly, you will absolutely get what you were promised. Politicians have to keep getting elected and kick the can down the road. They'll just continue to put more money into the system to cover their obligations.

Boomers are a problem in this country. Not saying a specific Boomer, but the generation. They spent 30 years in really favorable economic conditions, borrowing at near 0% in their prime earning years. Now those chickens are coming home to roost.

Most of them didn't save, because SOCIAL SECURITY ::EYEROLL::. It's called personal responsibility. Yet to hear Boomers talk, the younger generations are the entitled ones.

Social Security was under the impression that population would continue to grow, bridging the gap that SS would have to pay out as more Boomers aged out. However, they didn't account for near 0 rates, irresponsible fiscal policy for 30+ years and a weakening economy would reduce the population, making it 2 adults covering for every 1 Boomers SS.

When you borrow, you are taking from future spending. Boomers did that and shoved that money in RE, causing RE in inflate into oblivion.

So, they've sucked all the economic value in the current system out 30 years ago, didn't save for the future, and then get mad that SS will default.

The phrase of the day here is Personal Accountability. Boomers, when the generation finally exits, will leave a mess that our current economic system cannot resolve because then the debt crisis is too large to pay off. The INTEREST alone will be more than SS and Medicare combined. That requires monetary debasement.

That's why people that are 40-ish and under shouldn't buy stocks heavily and should stick to hard assets. Stocks will crash as the debasement becomes so epic that it will destroy any gains.

I could rant on about why and why RE is overpriced, stocks are overpriced, Bonds are garbage anymore, and the 60/40 rule is dead, but no one wants to hear that.

Long story short, you reap what you sow.

I am a boomer. I am the baby of the baby boomers and i can tell you that I am embarrassed to admit it at times because it is the boomers who act entitled at the expense of others.

I was fortunate enough to go back to school and earn a degree in finance, graduating in 2015. I have been able to successfully grow my portfolio with stocks and bonds, but I gained knowledge that most people don't know. In fact, in one of my classes I raised my hand and said "Does anybody realize we are learning how to capitalize at the expense of others." I got the deer in the headlights look and one commented that is why we will get paid the big bucks.

They missed the point; most can't afford to hire a financial analyst; at best they can get a financial advisor that sells subpar retirement products. The people that get financially hurt the most are the ones that can afford it the least.

 

[Deborah Armstrong]

Boomers werent even born when this design was invented with the inherent bad govt math design in 1937. Lump sum Checks went out the same month it was started & regular checks began within 2-3 years......far too soon for it to be funded properly.

Had it solely been a program for collect from work/employer now from all, hold & grow, then pay benefits decades later, it may have been designed properly. Boomer population explosion isn't helping, but had it been designed that their deposits were not paying for prior generations, there wouldn't be this issue

The poor/elderly in 1937 to 1955/60 should have been taken care of with other programs. Social security shouldn't have paid immediate benefits to those that never participated or only participated a very short time.

I am not a boomer, but if they are the problem, didn't they also make the largest contributions to SS in the history of the program? Most worked from 1963 to current? How much was collected from 1937-1963 before their boomer generation even started working?

I am certain that is the design flaw & quite common of our govt to create a program to provide immediate benefits & hope to later find the money with a spreadsheet showing better future numbers than are normal

Boomers are solely collecting your generations deposits to some extent as that is how our govt designed it from the get go.

Good point.