Battle over Mandatory (aka “Entitlement”) Spending

[altmin]

This would kill my mother.

Since my dad died we've been helping her contact companies and work through necessary changes. She wants to do everything like it's 1980. Phone calls, mail, checks, paper bills, etc.

She struggles to log onto the computer and check email.

Killing people's mothers is on the list to make government more efficient. Less old people = less expense.

 

[mynameisbond]

I've been working and having income withheld to pay into SS since age 16. Don't tell me it's an "entitlement". Having those funds taken in order to extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy is nothing less than stealing from working Americans to benefit the rich.

 

[Huh?]

...

In terms of retirement, social security became part of the three-legged stool along with pensions and personal savings. One of those legs has been completed knocked out and the other has been severely diminished due to rising costs of living and income inequality.

Where does that leave our seniors?

Boo-freaking-hoo. It's not as if those of us in our 60's haven't had the last 40 years to plan for this thing. Pensions were replaced by 401k's forty years ago - that's no longer a valid excuse.

My great-grandparents didn't live separately from their kids in their later years because they were poor. Living separately in our advanced years is not a birthright.

 

[Huh?]

The general national consensus is not that social security provides an insufficient living for our seniors. It's how do we fund the program going forward so that it's viable for the young people that are currently funding it.

References to cat food in this current day and age are ridiculously hyperbolic.

 

[ZenMode]

Are you saying the SSA retirement age should be raised until at or after current life-expectancy? My mom retired at 68. She is about to turn 80. She was barely able to manage a HS class at 68 and no way she could have done it until she was 77.

And life expectancy from birth in the 1930s was skewed by much higher childhood mortality. People who survived to 65 even then could expect to live over a decade more, which was the majority of Americans (though a smaller majority then than now). As SSA charts indicate here:

Not being able to do the job you've chosen as a career isn't necessarily the same as not being able to work. And, not all people age the same. An extreme example are professional athletes. They may only play into their 30's, but go on to do other things. My mother-in-law retired from fairly stressful banking job and then worked for 5 or more years at a preschool.

I'm not saying that SS age should necessarily be higher than average life expectancy, but I think it should be raised.

 

[Huh?]

My guess is that going to try to enact cuts where it's easiest, which is SSI eligibility. That's not old people - it's the state of West Virginia.

While SSI is worthy of examination - it's what is bankrupting the system - I agree with you that current evidence indicates that they will botch it.

 

[Purple Nurple]

Boo-freaking-hoo to the seniors who have worked themselves to the bone over their entire lives and still didn’t make enough money to save and invest in the stock market. They should have to eat cat food in their golden years as penance for this sin.

Is there anything that those who benefit most from social security should have to do to save the program?

The answer always seems to be tax the rich more. From a standpoint of principle, when is it fair to ask those who will benefit the most to sacrifice?

 

[Huh?]

Personally, I think taxing the near-rich and rich more is the best way to put Social Security on solid financial footing for the next three generations.

 

[mpaer]

Is there anything that those who benefit most from social security should have to do to save the program?

The answer always seems to be tax the rich more. From a standpoint of principle, when is it fair to ask those who will benefit the most to sacrifice?

So the people that benefit the most are people that get say 50% (pick a different number if you want) or more of their income from Soc Sec Lost of folks get 100%
So you ask "when is it fair to ask them to sacrifice.."
Thats like saying we can balance the budget by doubling down on taxing folks that make less than $30,000

 

[dukeman92]

Right, the reason you have for it being a non-starter is because of the existence of labor-intensive jobs.

I don't see how that matters given that there have always been labor-intensive jobs.

That's not the only reason. There are several. But it's really not worth the pissing match when there is a simple solution. Raise. The. Cap.

 

[PTOHeel]

Is there anything that those who benefit most from social security should have to do to save the program?

The answer always seems to be tax the rich more. From a standpoint of principle, when is it fair to ask those who will benefit the most to sacrifice?

If the answer always seems to be tax the rich more, we don't seem to be doing a very good job of it.

 

[ChileG]

Is there anything that those who benefit most from social security should have to do to save the program?

The answer always seems to be tax the rich more. From a standpoint of principle, when is it fair to ask those who will benefit the most to sacrifice?

When the difference between the 1% and the middle class isn’t so historically disproportionate? We set up the rules to make those at the top get more and more wealthy while this in the middle have stayed the same. What’s wrong with making more tweaks to the system to level that playing field?
And I’m not saying the middle class or others can’t also contribute.

 

[Icky Mettle]

Not being able to do the job you've chosen as a career isn't necessarily the same as not being able to work. And, not all people age the same. An extreme example are professional athletes. They may only play into their 30's, but go on to do other My mother-in-law retired from fairly stressful banking job and then worked for 5 or more years at a preschool.

I'm not saying that SS age should necessarily be higher than average life expectancy, but I think it should be raised.

Of course once you get past the age of 65, you’re generally going to have a harder to time finding an employer who wants to hire you (unless you’re applying to be UNC’s head football coach). And when there becomes a time where there a lot more 65+-year-old people trying to find jobs, it gets even harder. And that’s before factoring in how technology/AI will impact the job market. There are a lot of moving pieces to consider.

 

[Huh?]

There are many people in the middle, upper middle and upper classes of my generation that didn't plan properly for retirement. For that specific subset, that is absolutely a personal failing, and I am indifferent to their plight.

But regardless of who falls in that group, social security benefits are generally recognized as sufficient even for those who 100% depend on SS for income.

 

[Icky Mettle]

Are you saying the SSA retirement age should be raised until at or after current life-expectancy? My mom retired at 68. She is about to turn 80. She was barely able to manage a HS class at 68 and no way she could have done it until she was 77.

And life expectancy from birth in the 1930s was skewed by much higher childhood mortality. People who survived to 65 even then could expect to live over a decade more, which was the majority of Americans (though a smaller majority then than now). As SSA charts indicate here:

That’s also an interesting factor to consider (people’s abilities to perform their jobs as they age). From what I have observed, it seems that most people can remain highly competent at their jobs through their 60s (though that is likely not the case with jobs that require manual labor). Obviously everybody is different. I have noticed fairly sharp declines in job performance with people who work past 70.

I have one law partner who is 80-years-old. He is about to retire. Frankly, he should have retired nearly 10 years ago. And he was considered by many to be one of then best lawyers in his practice area(s) in the state of NC.

 

[Huh?]

I’d reckon that those middle, upper middle, and upper classes of your generation also have a support system around them outside of SS benefits.

If, by support system, you mean Pell grants, guilty as charged. But increasing SS benefits going forward makes it harder to implement those types of government programs for future generations.

 

[tonman]

So how do people exist if they can neither physically do the work they have spent 40 years doing nor get because they are too old.

Let's have people whose income for tax purposes consists of over 50% invest income that should taxed at the usual rate for SS/Medicare. I believe there would then be adequate funds to fully fund those programs.

There is a cap for SS. Remove the cap and SS will be fine.

 

[Huh?]

The vast majority of people in all generations aren't materially affected by generational wealth. The current policy issue is that, while inter-generational wealth has increased dramatically in the last 50 years, it hasn't really spread much to new participants.

The one "support system" that has affected my generation vs. younger generations is appreciation through home ownership. We tend to think of housing affordability and delayed home ownership as a current issue of shelter, but it's really more of a long-term financial issue for most households.

 

[Huh?]

We'll just have to disagree. There is no current credible support or plan for increasing social security benefits.

The emergent issue is how do we properly fund the system to support the currently legislated benefits for future generations.

 

[grimes70]

The vast majority of people in all generations aren't materially affected by generational wealth. The current policy issue is that, while inter-generational wealth has increased dramatically in the last 50 years, it hasn't really spread much to new participants.

The one "support system" that has affected my generation vs. younger generations is appreciation through home ownership. We tend to think of housing affordability and delayed home ownership as a current issue of shelter, but it's really more of a long-term financial issue for most households.

To some degree yes. You speak from a very middle or even upper middle class point of view. Costs of buying a home are out of this world at this time unfortunately for first timers.

The problem stems a couple ways. You buy a nice house at 30. You retire 65. Are you selling the house to pay for livelihood? Where and at what cost will you move to.? Or are you planning as living in that house until death do you part? For poorer foks this isn't even a question.

Second you mention "support system" without factoring medical expenses. One of the leading causes of bankruptcy and perhaps foreclosure. And of course the medical bills pile up as the housing market has gone to sh*t and 4 years earlier you coukd have sold for 100K more.