If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT SS going to the source
http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/index.htm Quoting here Your Social Security benefits are the foundation on which you can build a secure retirement. Most financial advisors say you'll need about 70 percent of your pre-retirement earnings to comfortably maintain your pre-retirement standard of living. Under current law, if you have average earnings, your Social Security retirement benefits will replace only about 40 percent, so you'll need to supplement your benefits with a pension, savings or investments. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Cheryl Isaak wrote:
Quoting here Your Social Security benefits are the foundation on which you can build a secure retirement. Or, if you are like me, you can kiss that money good-bye permanently and hope there's something extra to save somewhere for retirement, as current projections are that all of my hard-earned "retirement" money will have been spent on other people with nothing left for me/my kids as of 2-5 years (depending on source of calculations) before my retirement - and that's assuming I'm allowed to retire at age 65. Not against SS in theory, but very resentful of those who put the program into place as it is without thinking things through in the first place, leading to massive problems we have now. Also tired of politicians who seem to be concerned only with keeping it solvent through *their* retirement, no matter what the cost to those of us who are younger. (And I hope there are exceptions to that statement!) Barbara HJ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On 1/6/05 3:05 PM, in article ,
"Barbara Hass" wrote: Cheryl Isaak wrote: Quoting here Your Social Security benefits are the foundation on which you can build a secure retirement. Or, if you are like me, you can kiss that money good-bye permanently and hope there's something extra to save somewhere for retirement, as current projections are that all of my hard-earned "retirement" money will have been spent on other people with nothing left for me/my kids as of 2-5 years (depending on source of calculations) before my retirement - and that's assuming I'm allowed to retire at age 65. Not against SS in theory, but very resentful of those who put the program into place as it is without thinking things through in the first place, leading to massive problems we have now. Also tired of politicians who seem to be concerned only with keeping it solvent through *their* retirement, no matter what the cost to those of us who are younger. (And I hope there are exceptions to that statement!) Barbara HJ I fully expect to be denied SS by the time I reach 65 - less that 20 years from now. Ditto DH. We have 401k's and savings and despite pouring in dollars, will get nothing. Cheryl |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks Cheryl,
This is what I remembered reading way back when. I think this information, or similar messages, have been known for many years and as I mentioned before, as far back as the mid 70's when my parents retired. I think the last person I knew that truly depended on SS for all her income was my Grandmother, who got $50 per month some time in late 40's or very early 50's and was thrilled to get it. She thought the United States was like living in heaven on earth and that it was wonderful that they were giving her back some of her tax money. Of course coming from a little anti-Semitic town in Russia she had every right to think that. Lucille "Cheryl Isaak" wrote in message ... http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/index.htm Quoting here Your Social Security benefits are the foundation on which you can build a secure retirement. Most financial advisors say you'll need about 70 percent of your pre-retirement earnings to comfortably maintain your pre-retirement standard of living. Under current law, if you have average earnings, your Social Security retirement benefits will replace only about 40 percent, so you'll need to supplement your benefits with a pension, savings or investments. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Cheryl Isaak wrote in
: On 1/6/05 3:05 PM, in article , "Barbara Hass" wrote: Cheryl Isaak wrote: Quoting here Your Social Security benefits are the foundation on which you can build a secure retirement. Or, if you are like me, you can kiss that money good-bye permanently and hope there's something extra to save somewhere for retirement, [snip] I fully expect to be denied SS by the time I reach 65 - less that 20 years from now. Ditto DH. We have 401k's and savings and despite pouring in dollars, will get nothing. If our present administration does nothing, you will get something back. The latest reports have Social Security solvent until 2042, and after that, reduced benefits can still be paid because of money still coming in. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/II_p....html#wp105057 I read elsewhere that the amount of money need to keep the SS trust solvent past 2042 is a small fraction of the tax cut afforded by the Bush Administration to the top 1% of Americans. I'll refrain from further comment on that since I can't find the source. :-) K |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I think scam artists will make a killing. People might be conservative
about money but too many will buy into get rich quick schemes. Cheryl Isaak wrote: I suspect you're wrong there. More people are conservative about money than you think they are. I think we'll see a new type of growth in the banking industry, interest deferred accounts and other new savings vehicles. -- Brenda |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Barbara
Perhaps I should post some FACTS concerning Social Security, since there are so many MISCONCEPTIONS about it floating around. The Social Security ACT was signed into Law by FDR on 8/14/35. The First Taxes collected to fuel the SSA started on Jan. 1937, with a few LUMP SUM Payments made in that month. The first lump sum payment was 17 cents. Regular monthly benefits did not start until January of 1940. As an aside: Medicare passed into law July 30, 1965, but beneficiaries could not sign up for the program until July 1, 1966. ORIGINALLY: Social Security WAS just a retirement program under 1935 Law. Social Security was designed to be totally self-supporting. At the time of inception, it was estimated that by 1980 there would be over 47 Billion Dollars in Reserve Funds. They reached this Goal 6 years faster than expected, in 1974 they were well ahead of schedule. However, the government dipped into these reserves reducing them to ONLY 26 billion in 1980, they also lost the 6.9% current interest they would have earned on that money. TODAY 2005: The Social Security Reserve Fund is Over 1 Trillion Dollars. From 1937 to 2002: The SSA has taken in 8.7 Trillion Dollars. They have only paid back out 7.4 Trillion Dollars. The Reserve Funds held in Trust by the SSA are invested in INSURED investments, no chance of loss of the principle. By Law the Reserve Funds held in Trust by the SSA, MUST DRAW INTEREST. Since 1974, when the SSA met its Reserve Trust of 47 Billion dollars, it was in perfect Balance. It had the funds to pay all current retirees and those who had paid into the system, if the SSA was shut down. Meaning the money coming into the SSA after that date could be held in Trust for the person paying it into the system. The excess collected, plus the interest collected on the Reserves, was more than sufficient to cover the operating costs of the Social Security system. Source: SSA.gov/History TTUL Gary |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Cheryl Isaak wrote:
I suspect you're wrong there. More people are conservative about money than you think they are. I think we'll see a new type of growth in the banking industry, interest deferred accounts and other new savings vehicles. I'm gonna sound lazy here, but my issue with privatising Social Security is that it makes too much work for the employee. I don't have Social Security, I have State Retirement. When I was hired, I opted for an account that I could manage myself. And I simply don't have time. I'm sure my funds could be better handled, but frankly, there are other things I would rather do than research my fund options. When I lived in Ohio, all my retirement money went into a state managed account and, although that took away my options, it also took away my burden. I'd rather have a lower guaranteed return with less risk and less baby-sitting. But that is absolutely an opinion, nothing more. Elizabeth -- *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
As a general issue, how do "we" shut down scam artists? No matter how much
you (the general you) tell "people" that if is sounds too good to be true, it isn't, people still fall for it. It is a critical thinking issue and ought to be "instinctive" or at least teachable, but, well you get my drift. Cheryl On 1/7/05 10:59 AM, in article , "Brenda" wrote: I think scam artists will make a killing. People might be conservative about money but too many will buy into get rich quick schemes. Cheryl Isaak wrote: I suspect you're wrong there. More people are conservative about money than you think they are. I think we'll see a new type of growth in the banking industry, interest deferred accounts and other new savings vehicles. -- Brenda |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Glass Source | Michele Blank | Glass | 12 | July 17th 12 04:39 PM |
FS Machine Knitter's Source, MacKnit Magazines | ellbee | Marketplace | 0 | April 30th 04 10:21 AM |
Great new source for quilt books | Betty in Wi | Quilting | 2 | September 19th 03 12:27 PM |
coconut fibre source? | ms. brookes | Jewelry | 1 | July 26th 03 06:34 PM |
Source for jade | Peter W. Rowe | Jewelry | 0 | July 13th 03 06:20 PM |