re: Social Security Administration announces 3.6% cost-of-living adjustment for 2027

quote:

---

This board hates math and facts.

---

Let's use NCs 1983 reference. That year the max contribution to SS was around $2k. This year, it's around $11,500.

Guess what the current value of $2,000 in 1983 dollars is...about $6,700.

Boomers paid less in terms of percent of income and less in real dollars. Now guess who will downvote that math and those facts.

quote:

---

Year --- Cap --%Tax
1982 $32,400 10.8%
1983 $35,700 10.8%
1984 $37,800 11.4%
1985 $39,600 11.4%
1986 $42,000 11.4%
1987 $43,800 11.4%
1988 $45,000 12.12%
1989 $48,000 12.12%
1990 $51,300 12.40%

---

What point are you trying to make? No matter how you slice it, the rate wasn't what it is now until 1990. Meaning anyone who started work before 1990 objectively contributed less as a % of their income than anyone who started in 1990 or later.

quote:

---

Now then, if instead, the same guy had put that same $1 into the S&P, it would be worth >$100.00 today. So, though $3.60 is "way more" than a dollar, SS cost the poor sot $96.40 for every $1 he initially contributed.

---

Nothing but the lack of discipliine stoped that currect 67 year old from putting ANOTHER dollar in the S&P and having that $100 today. That $1 the current 67 year old put into SS was NEVER intended to be a personal retirement account, it was intended to provide a modest income to those who could not earn a modest income. orphans, widows, the elderly and the disabled. Had it not been for SS the S&P would not have produced that $100 for the current 67 year old because the economy over there 67 years of life would have been burdened with a permanent underclass of orphans, widows, the elderly and the disabled who would have been a MASSIVE drain on every resource and every industry without some modest income. The United States would resemble a third world country with the orphans, widows, elderly and disabled running about stealing and robbing and shitting in the street and that $100 would probably not exist at all any longer. And again, if that 67 year old did not provide for their own retirement SS will indeed provide them with a modest income as well....so if they made the decision like about 2/3s of boomers and Gen X and every generation makes to NOT save enough for retirement it is on them as individuals, not some fricking fantasy world where you remove SS in a vacuum and there are no ill side effects. It was never meant to be a personal retirement account....its in the fricking name what it was meant to be and is.....

quote:

---

This board hates math and facts.


They do love to whine and clutch pearls.



Democrats will never let SS die.
It is a basic tenet of their party.

---

If and when they get control back, it will immediately be a means test and the people who worked and were responsible will be cut out, so remember that in November.

My argument throughout this thread has been twofold

1. Boomers have been the largest beneficiaries of SS and will almost certainly be in the future given the current state of SS and the changes that will be required to keep it afloat in some form.

2. The over the top sense of entitlement comes from the misguided idea that boomers are somwhow unique in their contributions and therefore what they deserve, which will ultimately lead to all future generations experiencing exactly what they demand be deferred because of said entitlement mentality.

And you will pay less than those who come behind you. What is the point of this?

None of us decide when we are born. Why are you blaming those older than you who had no choice but to be older than you?

That isn't true, at least in terms of SS.


My Plan:

Phase it out, over the next 10-20 years.
Drop contributions to 1% Employee, 1% Employeer Match to cover the truly disabled, orphaned.

Employee receives no benefit on retirement, but is required to contribute 5% to a private retirement fund of his choice, locked until retirement or disability.


None of this will ever happen, even Boomers currently make up less than 19% of the population.

quote:

---

Hope this covers the mortgage on their vacation home.

---

Which one? The one we have in Colorado or the one in Belize?

quote:

---

I'm not blaming you for your top of the heap benefit from SS,

---

Sounds like you are. Put your blame where it belongs, on those 5000 members of congress I mentioned above.

quote:

---

I'm blaming you for the absolute childish sense of entitlement that makes even the discussion of changing anything to boomer benefits a non-starter.

---

A sense of entitlement to get back money I paid in. Okay.

quote:

---

Pure speculation that boomers will be long gone before they are likely proven wrong. It's simply a justification to the above nimby defense to maintaining your social welfare.

---

What I said was you will pay less than those who come behind you. That is how time works.

quote:

---

Nobody is blaming you for it existing. We are blaming you for not seeing anything other than "dey betta pay minez"

---

When did I say that?

And you think all these people commenting they are using their SS to pay for their 3rd vacation home are serious?