Wells Hall Off Topic Board

The young people of this country should wake up and realize that although the cool thing to do may be to vote for Obama, he and democratic policies are ruining their financial futures.

The silence from the usual suspects is deafening.

So on average people with two incomes (is that average now?) will receive less that they contributed...okay so what...it never was a savings plan...it is insurance against poverty and insurance against disability...the lower level workers get back more than they put in and the sindle earner households get back more than they put in while the high level earners get back less...a well known fact that has no real relevance...

Do you expect to receive back in cash what you pay in auto insurance?

You might want to follow the related limks on the link you posted however...

Obviously the plan will change as conditions change. People are living a lot longer now than they did in 1937. There aren't going to be fewer young people working and paying into the system...there will just be a lot more old people taking out of the system.

I love the one guy in the article telling his kid he'd better max out his 401k because the numbers don't work out to rely on it...of course they don't. It's supplemental income. $1,200 a month isn't enough to carry you.

Thus my penchant for apartment buildings. My wife and I agreed years ago we needed a solution other than Social Security and pensions for our retirement.

The Social Security program was set up for failure from its onset. Roosevelt proposed giving people something for nothing. Now because of generational size disparity the system is set up to screw the younger generations who will have to pay more and get less in return. It will be the same with Obamacare as well. The younger workers are going to get screwed. Pay in now.....get less later. It is the time honored tradition of paying for votes with other peoples money.

It is simple math. There aren't going to be enough people working to continue funding to support the aging population. What is the difference whether it is 2024 or 2033? It is in fact going to happen. The sound bytes you mention come from the social security statements themselves and reports by the CBO. Obviously, projections are subject to change but future insovency is assured unless somebody gets screwed -- pay more get less. It is not a question of if but when. If Roosevelt had done the right thing in the first place by setting it up so that people got paid by their actual contribution, we wouldn't be heading for the mess we are going to be facing. I am sure there were a number of permanent Democrats created when this thing was set up. How could you not vote Democrat when you get something for nothing?

I believe it is currently based on years to retirement and historic and projected earnings? I know my annual statement gives me an estimate but also says there won't be enough to pay it based on the current reality.

Sorry Trap, but the Supreme Court disagrees with you. In Fleming v Nester (1960), they ruled that Social Security is NOT insurance.

"It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments."

While that might put off the bankruptcy of social security a little bit longer, that would do nothing to address the point of the thread which is that retirees now receive less in benefits then they pay. Actually, your "solution" would make this problem even worse.