- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Is being in social security program a good thing?
Posted on 10/7/18 at 10:48 am
Posted on 10/7/18 at 10:48 am
Reading an article this morning that says that
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?
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 on 10/7/18 at 11:16 am to TigerintheNO
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 on 10/7/18 at 11:40 am to TigerintheNO
quote: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.
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 Louisiana, teachers get more than double the amount they would receive if they retired under social security.
Posted on 10/7/18 at 11:41 am to TigerintheNO
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 on 10/7/18 at 1:20 pm to TigerintheNO
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.
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 on 10/7/18 at 4:29 pm to TigerintheNO
quote:Uh, that's an affirmative. Without a doubt.
If you had a choice would you opt out of social security?
Posted on 10/7/18 at 5:17 pm to Chuker
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 on 10/7/18 at 5:24 pm to TheIndulger
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 on 10/7/18 at 5:30 pm to TheIndulger
quote: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.
Is there anything to back up this claim?
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 on 10/7/18 at 5:31 pm to iAmBatman
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
However, I think a reduction in social security benefits is very possible or extending ages for eligibility
Posted on 10/7/18 at 5:32 pm to iAmBatman
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
However, I think a reduction in social security benefits is very possible or extending ages for eligibility
Posted on 10/7/18 at 5:43 pm to RoyalWe
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 on 10/7/18 at 7:40 pm to TheIndulger
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 on 10/7/18 at 7:53 pm to kaaj24
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.
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 on 10/7/18 at 8:20 pm to RoyalWe
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 on 10/7/18 at 9:05 pm to iAmBatman
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?
Make sense?
Posted on 10/7/18 at 9:12 pm to iAmBatman
quote: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.
Make some changes? sure
Completely eliminate? Extremely doubtful
Posted on 10/7/18 at 9:17 pm to RoyalWe
quote:
Make sense?
No.
I fail to see what Obamacare has to do with Social Security.
Posted on 10/7/18 at 9:21 pm to iAmBatman
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.
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 on 10/7/18 at 9:22 pm to iAmBatman
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.
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News