re: How are average earners able to prep for the future?

quote:

---

once the boomer voting power diminishes (die), the next politicians will be forced to deal with it and wont have to worry about losing their votes

---

I think this is accurate.

However, people view this issue in a silo when discussing "saving the program." The problem is no one looks with a macro view at our government spending as a whole. Who cares about this one program when the entire government debt keeps going down the path to ruin? Why be responsible here if not responsible elsewhere?

Lots of teachers in my area are married to self employed people.

The teacher brings the family the benefits.
The teacher has a very "child friendly" work schedule (k-8 teacher).

quote:

---

I'm a teacher (married to a pharmacist), but I did a mental checklist of the 60 or so teachers in my building and who would fit this criteria and I can think of about 8-10 who're married to someone that I know makes a good deal of money.

---

Well if you consider that 8% of Americans, this math checks out then. Teachers actually fall into that average earner band - though I think long time ones in nice school districts are a bit above - where I have no clue how they make it on their own in present day.

With what they make starting out and how much life costs it seems like an uphill battle for decades.

quote:

---

Looking around at the current zeitgeist, I feel the upcoming generations will stomach SS cuts from “the rich”

---

The problem in addressing this is not with 'Boomers' or 'GenX' or 'Millennials' or 'Zoomers' or 'rich' or 'working class'.

The problem (or not, depending on perspective) is rooted in SS structure.
SS is literally structured as money borrowed from employees, with promissory payback.

Just as you have obligations when you borrow from a bank, the government has obligations when it borrows from you.

E.g., If you purchase a 52wk T-Bill at a 4% rate, the government immediately spends that money. However, it is obligated (Constitutionally) to return your money + 4% after one-year. Likewise, SS contributions are immediately funnelled into US debt obligations which immediately serve to fund deficit government spending, but with a concurrent promise to you, as the contributor (the lender).

Also FWIW, as SS is one of the few Government Programs not yet in deficit, the perception that current workers are paying current retirees' benefits represents an obvious misunderstanding.

Likewise, and contrary to J.L. Collins view, because of the SS promissory-debt design, the 14th Amendment theoretically limits options for non-payment, or differential income-based payment. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions ... shall not be questioned."

Sacrifice.

It’s rough out here folks.
Have finally started shopping for my 17 year old a used vehicle.
Prices of course are high for decent stuff( not even considering a truck because of this).
Yesterday my wife sends some info to the insurance company with a vehicle we think we may get so they can give us an estimate for his primary driver coverage. $525 a month was the response with our current provider and that’s cheaper than two other companies She checked out.
All I can do is laugh at this point

For whatever reason Americans seem to want to go it alone but in other countries without social services multigenerational homes are the norm. It makes the most sense for building generational wealth imo. Also helps in raising the kids having the grandparents helping out

quote:

---

I think we've already passed the point where more money is being paid out than is being taken in, so SS is starting to consume it surplus.

---

No question. SS was restructured in the 1980's, and subsequently built up a surplus which we are now spending down.

After we run through the surplus, based on current structure, SS could return benefits to participants at a stable 80% rate for the next 75-100yrs, basically into perpetuity.

I hate talking about SS in terms of full funding, because funding is determined by whatever ROI the government decides to assign in its debt issues, and in COLA boosts, but here goes. Whereas previous contributions, up until now, fully-funded SS, contributions at this stage are 20% shy, based on current actuarials.

I guess the salient point is SS is a government borrowing system sold to the public as a retirement benefit.
As long as the government needs to borrow money, SS remains one of the cheapest ways to do it ... albeit at the expense of the lender (you & me).

So instead of paring the program down, or running it in deficit like the entire rest of the budget, lawmakers will sell the need to grow it bigger. The bigger, the better. By ballooning SS, they can borrow even more cheap money and have us, the lender, thank them for the "retirement benefit".

Bottomline: Anyone believing SS to be a "benefit," whether for "boomers" or "the rich" or any subset of employed retired workers, has been sold a 'bill of goods'.

When I see people complaining that they can’t retire while they only work 40 hours a week, pay for a new iPhone every two years, have three streaming accounts, go on a beach vacation every summer, and just bought a new truck for $85,000, I laugh inside.

I’m 45 and have a million in assets because I work three different jobs for 60 hours a week and just bought my first nice car 3 years ago. I’m saving 20% of my income because I generate more income to do that. If you want to be financially secure, work another job on the weekend and reduce spending to save more. It’s not rocket science but most people don’t want to do this. The earlier you do this the better since then you have compound interest working for you. My goal was always to save a million by 50 since that would then double by 60 at a 7% return (rule of 72). I did that by not living beyond my means and not wasting money but was never a miser. This can be done.

quote:

---

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions ... shall not be questioned."

---

And yet we have the ludicrous political debt-ceiling brouhaha every so often. It's stupid.