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

[Deborah Armstrong]

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!

I was speaking out against the system as a whole and what it is doing. I am upset for society and the future of our children.

 

[LostDollar]

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.
.

Feel free to rant a bit.

 

[PrivClientSG]

I was speaking out against the system as a whole and what it is doing. I am upset for society and the future of our children.

Then this has nothing to do with your own personal planning, retirement concerns, etc. This is nothing more than -- and I quote you -- you speaking out against the system as a whole and what it is doing. I won't speak to you being upset.

That said, your position is unfounded, your claims have no substantiation, and you loosely use words and cast aspersions which have no basis or roots in facts. This is nothing more than you stirring the pot. All the best!

 

[LostDollar]

Still working on my answer(s) to somarco, but this is a piece of it.

This table:
[EXTERNAL LINK] - Early or delayed retirement

Shows that Medicare Beneficiaries (MB's) born between 1943 and 1954 have a very high (comparatively speaking) benefit increase from age 67 to age 70.

Hypothetically speaking, that might encourage an MB in that age group to make a serious effort to wait until age 70 to draw benefits in order to maximize both Retirement Income (RIB, per SSA) and Survivor Benefits ( Widow(er) Benefits -- WIB, per SSA) which would be based on their earnings record.

 

[Deborah Armstrong]

Then this has nothing to do with your own personal planning, retirement concerns, etc. This is nothing more than -- and I quote you -- you speaking out against the system as a whole and what it is doing. I won't speak to you being upset.

That said, your position is unfounded, your claims have no substantiation, and you loosely use words and cast aspersions which have no basis or roots in facts. This is nothing more than you stirring the pot. All the best!

Saying something is more like a Ponzi scheme than an annuity is nothing more than a similar. Don't make it more than it was meant to be.

 

[DHK]

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.

Social Security WAS originally designed and funded properly. Well, not "funded", but it was and is a "pass through" method of wealth re-distribution. It's not like there's a separate account for each of us waiting for us once we claim it. We have a statement of benefits, not a statement of account values. (I do remember Bush wanting to privatize social security, but I believe that would've made things worse.)

Two major areas that cause Social Security to become at risk:

1) Longevity. This is obvious. Longevity is not just a risk on retirement (including public retirement funds), but a risk multiplier in the rest of one's planning.

2) Workers and earnings needed to continue to sustain it. The birth rate and earnings of these workers are not keeping pace. Used to have as many as 16:1 workers per retiree receiving benefits. Now it's barely 3:1.

 

[Tahoe Ray]

They're just going to dump the income ceilings on FICA and fund it that way.

 

[Allen Trent]

They're just going to dump the income ceilings on FICA and fund it that way.

Not enough individuals paying FICA make over $160k to even come close to make up the difference. It would help, sure. But, guessing large percentage over those amounts are self employed or business owners that would find ways to have dividends paid & not income subject to FICA. Plus, to date, raising the FICA ceiling has also boosted SS benefits. I have recently seen individual SS checks reaching $5k monthly for those that delayed 1 year & had gotten max credits at max FICA ceiling

 

[KRobby]

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.

You think international equities are overvalued?