So Trump is going to gut Social Security right? (1 Viewer)

[NutterButter]

My mother in law lives off of disability insurance in NJ.  She lives in a senior living building.   Its certainly not a good retirement, but its decent.   And this is in high cost of living NJ so it certainly can be done.   

 

[Henry Ford]

I see a significant difference between "decent lifestyle" and "decent standard of living". In my mind, living in shared resources is a decent standard of living. Living in a home you own by yourself is a decent lifestyle. People shouldn't expect SS to provide you with a home you own and live in by yourself. SS has never been about providing you with a decent lifestyle. If you want that, save for it on your own. 

I don't think it should provide for purchase of a home with down payment, but it should provide for rent or comparable payment.  It's usually cheaper to have a 20-year-old mortgage payment than a rent payment anyway.

 

[NutterButter]

I don't think it should provide for purchase of a home with down payment, but it should provide for rent or comparable payment.  It's usually cheaper to have a 20-year-old mortgage payment than a rent payment anyway.

Do seniors get housing assistance for their mortgage payments?   The senior living facilities/apartments are really cheap.   Much cheaper than if you or I would rent a one bedroom apartment.  Not sure if this is just applies to states with a large social safety net.  And there's no property tax, no maintenance, no heating cost, etc.  

 

[Ignoramus]

What's the rationale behind taxing only the first $118,500 of an individual's income?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

What's the rationale behind taxing only the first $118,500 of an individual's income?

Because the benefits are capped.  

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

IMO this is a common belief that isn't always true. I will use my mother as an example. She is 73 and has worked her entire life. Unfortunately, I doubt she ever made $50K annually, and she raised me as a single parent. The combination of these things led to her being unable to save much for retirement. It also means that her SS benefit is low.

She has a mortgage on a $60K condo as her only debt; she drives an old vehicle that is paid for; she lives in Greensboro, NC, which has a moderate cost of living; she is in pretty good health, so she is not burdened with significant medical expenses; and she lives a very frugal lifestyle. Yet, despite all that, she could not live on her SS benefit alone. She works because she has to work to get by, and even with that extra income she must live frugally and has virtually no margin to cover unexpected expenses.

If she could no longer work, she wouldn't be a burden to society, but only because I would take care of her. If I wasn't in position to do that, society would have to bear whatever burden would result.

Now, she very clearly benefits from her SS benefit and is grateful for it. She is definitely an example of a person who needs a social safety net. I'm just saying, aside from the other issues being discussed in this thread, you can add on that the level of benefit is not necessarily sufficient for those it is supposed to protect.

If all you have is SS benefits, don't expect to be able to finance a home. You'll probably need to share a residence with family. SS benefits are for basics, such as a food and clothing.

If you want to live alone in your old age, save better. SS benefits alone isn't going to pay for that kind of lifestyle.  

A $60K condo for a 73 year old woman in Greensboro SC is a freaking luxury to people? There are literally hundreds of solutions to keep benefits solvent that help allow elderly Americans to live a basic, decent life, but you'd have this woman in a group home deciding between groceries and medications? Meanwhile we cap SS taxes, no estate tax, etc. which benefits who exactly? We have some backward, pathetic views when it comes to who government benefits. A lot of people have been bamboozled. You say, "raise the retirement age, work longer, save more yourself". News for you guy: That's exactly what they want you to say. And that grandmother in South Carolina, she is exactly who they want you to look at in terms of cutting money. They don't want you looking at them, and you're not.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Or Greensboro, North Carolina, fwiw.

I was on a roll.

 

[Politician Spock]

I don't think it should provide for purchase of a home with down payment, but it should provide for rent or comparable payment.  It's usually cheaper to have a 20-year-old mortgage payment than a rent payment anyway.

The post that I responded to regarding this subject said SS doesn't provide enough for basic needs because it's not enough for their relative's condo mortgage payment. 

 

[Politician Spock]

A $60K condo for a 73 year old woman in Greensboro SC is a freaking luxury to people? There are literally hundreds of solutions to keep benefits solvent that help allow elderly Americans to live a basic, decent life, but you'd have this woman in a group home deciding between groceries and medications? Meanwhile we cap SS taxes, no estate tax, etc. which benefits who exactly? We have some backward, pathetic views when it comes to who government benefits. A lot of people have been bamboozled. You say, "raise the retirement age, work longer, save more yourself". News for you guy: That's exactly what they want you to say. And that grandmother in South Carolina, she is exactly who they want you to look at in terms of cutting money. They don't want you looking at them, and you're not.

When SS was created, it was typical for parents to live with their kids when they were older. Today that's not the case as lifestyles are different today than they were in the past. But again, SS was never about providing you with a decent lifestyle. It was about providing a decent standard of living. To suggest living with parents, or living in shared communities is NOT a decent standard of living is moving the goal posts. 

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

This thread is doing a good job pointing out some of the headwinds to getting a BIG plan rolled out. Inability to agree on what level of benefits/support it should provide is what killed in the 70s when Nixon was seriously considering it. 

 

[Tau837]

The post that I responded to regarding this subject said SS doesn't provide enough for basic needs because it's not enough for their relative's condo mortgage payment. 

Yes, a payment on a $60K townhome that was purchased about 20 years ago. The mortgage payment (below $500) is far below the rent for an average apartment in the same area.

 

[Tau837]

There are 2 core reasons why SS is in a poor state today:

1. When the Social Security program was initiated in 1935, the average life expectancy was 61 years old. Life expectancy has grown to approximately 79 years old since then, a delta of +18 years. Retirement age certainly has not increased by 18 years, so the average SS beneficiary is receiving benefits for much, much longer periods of time.

2. When the Social Security program was initiated in 1935, the ratio of workers to beneficiaries was 37 to 1. Today, it is less than 3 to 1.

Given these 2 items combined with a lack of reform of the program, it is completely unsurprising that the program is now (a) insufficient to support normal retirees' standard of living and (b) is set to reach a point where it cannot pay out full benefits in 15-20 years.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

There are 2 core reasons why SS is in a poor state today:

1. When the Social Security program was initiated in 1935, the average life expectancy was 61 years old. Life expectancy has grown to approximately 79 years old since then, a delta of +18 years. Retirement age certainly has not increased by 18 years, so the average SS beneficiary is receiving benefits for much, much longer periods of time.

2. When the Social Security program was initiated in 1935, the ratio of workers to beneficiaries was 37 to 1. Today, it is less than 3 to 1.

Given these 2 items combined with a lack of reform of the program, it is completely unsurprising that the program is now (a) insufficient to support normal retirees' standard of living and (b) is set to reach a point where it cannot pay out full benefits in 15-20 years.

Those ratios look correct but I think your core assertion is incorrect. Social Security is not in a poor state today. It's roughly at parity now, paying out in benefits what it collects in payroll taxes, and that is with the spike on the disability side. Even when the SSTF is exhausted in 18ish years it will pay out over 70% of planned benefits and is projected to be stable for the rest of the century after that. 

So the problem is 18 years out and is a funding gap of around 25% of the total program cost. Not to say we can't or shouldn't make moves to shore it up now through a combination of raising the cap on payroll taxes and adjusting the retirement age and future benefits. But those are fairly minor adjustments that make the system solvent into the foreseeable future without blowing it up.