Started By
Message

Is being in social security program a good thing?

Posted on 10/7/18 at 10:48 am
Posted by TigerintheNO
New Orleans
Member since Jan 2004
41158 posts
Posted on 10/7/18 at 10:48 am
Reading an article this morning that says that
quote:

Now teachers in 12 states -- Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, and Texas --
don't have coverage arrangements with Social Security. In addition, three other states -- Georgia, Kentucky, and Rhode Island -- have varying degrees of coverage that differ by school district.


Now obviously they have state pensions, which are good deal (except maybe for Illinois)


If you had a choice would you opt out of social security?

Posted by Chuker
St George, Louisiana
Member since Nov 2015
7544 posts
Posted on 10/7/18 at 11:16 am to
quote:

If you had a choice would you opt out of social security?




Would I opt out of paying into a program for which I will likely never see a penny when I'm old enough to receive it?


That's gonna be a yes, Soldier.
Posted by LSURussian
Member since Feb 2005
126960 posts
Posted on 10/7/18 at 11:40 am to
quote:

Now teachers in 12 states -- Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, and Texas --
don't have coverage arrangements with Social Security.
The only way they can opt out of social security is if they are participants of a state pension plan that pays at least as much as social security would pay them.

In Louisiana, teachers get more than double the amount they would receive if they retired under social security.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89480 posts
Posted on 10/7/18 at 11:41 am to
quote:

If you had a choice would you opt out of social security?


It's explicitly part of my retirement program, but if that weren't the case, I would opt out for a state-regulated pension, other than California or Illinois.
This post was edited on 10/7/18 at 11:42 am
Posted by kaaj24
Dallas
Member since Jan 2010
602 posts
Posted on 10/7/18 at 1:20 pm to
My wife contributes to the Texas retirement plan in lieu of social security.

I prefer Texas retirement system. I believe we'll get a better return on money contributed as social security benefits are certain to decrease by sheer demographics of number of retirees and those working to pay money into the program.

Any defined pension benefit plan state, federal, or private is subject to decreases in benefits payout down the road unfortunately. Politicians and constituents want the dessert today and kick the the big problems down the road which will have to be paid for at some point.

Never put all your eggs in one basket.

Posted by RoyalWe
Prairieville, LA
Member since Mar 2018
3102 posts
Posted on 10/7/18 at 4:29 pm to
quote:

If you had a choice would you opt out of social security?
Uh, that's an affirmative. Without a doubt.
Posted by TheIndulger
Member since Sep 2011
19239 posts
Posted on 10/7/18 at 5:17 pm to
quote:

Would I opt out of paying into a program for which I will likely never see a penny when I'm old enough to receive it?


This has been commonly said for years. Is there anything to back up this claim?
Posted by iAmBatman
The Batcave
Member since Mar 2011
12382 posts
Posted on 10/7/18 at 5:24 pm to
quote:

This has been commonly said for years. Is there anything to back up this claim?


No.

Ignorant people say this all the time but it would be political suicide for a politician to suggest this.
Posted by RoyalWe
Prairieville, LA
Member since Mar 2018
3102 posts
Posted on 10/7/18 at 5:30 pm to
quote:

Is there anything to back up this claim?
Per the 2017 Social Security Board of Trustees report, the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Trust (OASDI) will begin paying out more in benefits than it's generating in annual revenue by 2022. Just 12 years after that, in 2034, the OASDI is expected to have completely exhausted its $3 trillion in asset reserves.

Factors at play include on-going retirement of roughly 4 million baby boomers a year, a relatively steady lengthening of life expectancies, and a growing income inequality where well-to-do retirees live substantially longer thereby receiving a high monthly payout for an extended amount of time.

Having said all that, since Social Security is funded by payroll taxes it theoretically won't go bankrupt. However, the current payout schedule is unsustainable. That means, the government will modify the program by increasing the age at which you can get benefits, lowering the amount of benefits, and/or reducing your benefits if you have "too much" money.

In short, responsible people will earn a negative return on all of those dollars they were forced to provide. Irresponsible or unfortunate people will likely get more.

In summary, the government sucks.
Posted by kaaj24
Dallas
Member since Jan 2010
602 posts
Posted on 10/7/18 at 5:31 pm to
I agree. Financial services industry isn’t going to tell people they’re saving too much. How do they get paid?

However, I think a reduction in social security benefits is very possible or extending ages for eligibility
Posted by kaaj24
Dallas
Member since Jan 2010
602 posts
Posted on 10/7/18 at 5:32 pm to
I agree. Financial services industry isn’t going to tell people they’re saving too much. How do they get paid?

However, I think a reduction in social security benefits is very possible or extending ages for eligibility
Posted by TheIndulger
Member since Sep 2011
19239 posts
Posted on 10/7/18 at 5:43 pm to
quote:

n short, responsible people will earn a negative return on all of those dollars they were forced to provide. Irresponsible or unfortunate people will likely get more.


So when someone says they will never see a penny, they are probably being a bit of a drama queen? That was kind of what I figured
Posted by RoyalWe
Prairieville, LA
Member since Mar 2018
3102 posts
Posted on 10/7/18 at 7:40 pm to
You can figure whatever you want, but the point remains that the government is very likely going to renege on its great promise at the cost of those who have paid into it all of their lives. I'd say that's just as valid of a reason to be upset about government, once again, fricking things up.
Posted by Shepherd88
Member since Dec 2013
4579 posts
Posted on 10/7/18 at 7:53 pm to
Jeb Bush honestly had the most sensible plan. Extend SS full retirement age by 1 month for every year that passes.

When SS was created and full retirement age was established, the average life span was only like only 8 years beyond that. Since then, it’s extended dramatically.
Posted by iAmBatman
The Batcave
Member since Mar 2011
12382 posts
Posted on 10/7/18 at 8:20 pm to
quote:

the government is very likely going to renege on its great promise at the cost of those who have paid into it all of their lives.


You keep saying this but what prominent government official has said that they want to do this?

Make some changes? sure

Completely eliminate? Extremely doubtful
Posted by RoyalWe
Prairieville, LA
Member since Mar 2018
3102 posts
Posted on 10/7/18 at 9:05 pm to
It's called math. I haven't heard any politician calling to do anything because they don't have to. They'll wait until the thing is about to fold before they do anything -- and by then there will be a new "they" that has to do something about it. So, much like President Obama lied when he said that "you can keep your doctor", there were those of us who saw that it was complete bullshite because the forces in play would absolutely affect that happening. So, they can keep the law "as is", and you can say "see there, the bad man is wrong because they aren't changing the law", but when the piggy bank is empty then the shite hits the fan.

Make sense?
Posted by RoyalWe
Prairieville, LA
Member since Mar 2018
3102 posts
Posted on 10/7/18 at 9:12 pm to
quote:

Make some changes? sure

Completely eliminate? Extremely doubtful
And to be clear, I never said they would eliminate it. I said they would change the deal where they rob Americans of their money to give to others.
Posted by iAmBatman
The Batcave
Member since Mar 2011
12382 posts
Posted on 10/7/18 at 9:17 pm to
quote:

Make sense?


No.

I fail to see what Obamacare has to do with Social Security.
Posted by LSUFanHouston
NOLA
Member since Jul 2009
37024 posts
Posted on 10/7/18 at 9:21 pm to
There is going to be a point where the current tax revenues from the SS tax are not going to be enough to pay the current benefits, and the trust fund will be gone. At that point, something will have to happen. The menu of choices:

1) Raise revenue
2) Borrow money
3) Reduce benefits across the board
4) Reduce benefits strategically (raise age, lower caps, etc).

There are some people out there in political circles that have mentioned that part of #4 above could include means testing. For example, a rule could be put in place that anyone that has $500,000 of liquid assets, will not receive any social security benefit payment. When people say, "I might not see a dime", it's this sort of idea that they are referring to.
Posted by RoyalWe
Prairieville, LA
Member since Mar 2018
3102 posts
Posted on 10/7/18 at 9:22 pm to
Nothing at all. It was an analogy telling you not to hang your hat on what a politician says or doesn't say. Don't let anyone do your thinking for you.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram