Another retirement warning

Is CNN OK with you guys, or is it too MSM?

Highlights from the article:

*  Guy claims that even though he makes $80,000 per year, he doesn't have enough to save for retirement.

*  People miss the "good old days" of pensions, despite having watched millions of Americans lose theirs in corporate bankruptcies.  Also no mention of how today's mentality of job hopping would align with a 30 year pension.

*  Social Security needs fixing, but NO ONE has the balls to do so.  Keep kicking the can down the road, idiots.

*  401Ks are not emergency funds and shouldn't be used as such.  

*  Single moms make terrible financial decisions.  Also just in, water is wet.

This statement was poorly written and I couldn't figure out the intent.  "What’s left is the 401(k), which 68% of private industry workers have access to, but only 50% use."  So is it 50% of private industry workers, or 50% of the 68% of workers?  I assume it's the latter, but the way it's written, it could be interpreted either way?

I've never assumed I'll see a dime of Social Security by the time I hit that age, but it's gonna be a heck of a battle when (or for Trapper's sake, I'll add "if") it blows up.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/02/economy/americans-struggle-to-save-as-retirement-crisis-looms/index.html

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:Is CNN OK with you guys, or is it too MSM?

Highlights from the article:

*  Guy claims that even though he makes $80,000 per year, he doesn't have enough to save for retirement.

*  People miss the "good old days" of pensions, despite having watched millions of Americans lose theirs in corporate bankruptcies.  Also no mention of how today's mentality of job hopping would align with a 30 year pension.

*  Social Security needs fixing, but NO ONE has the balls to do so.  Keep kicking the can down the road, idiots.

*  401Ks are not emergency funds and shouldn't be used as such.  

*  Single moms make terrible financial decisions.  Also just in, water is wet.

This statement was poorly written and I couldn't figure out the intent.  "What’s left is the 401(k), which 68% of private industry workers have access to, but only 50% use."  So is it 50% of private industry workers, or 50% of the 68% of workers?  I assume it's the latter, but the way it's written, it could be interpreted either way?

I've never assumed I'll see a dime of Social Security by the time I hit that age, but it's gonna be a heck of a battle when (or for Trapper's sake, I'll add "if") it blows up.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/02/economy/americans-struggle-to-save-as-retirement-crisis-looms/index.html

If nothing is changed the SSA estimates that when the Trust Fund (that was built up by the babyboomers during thier working lifetime) is exhausted, estimated to be 2034, that benefiaries will receive about 80% of calculated benefits from then current social security tax revenues.  

Just for TM's benefit.

The other 20% could just be ripped out of the wealthiest Americans hands so TM can receive the full amount of calculated benefits, which would be fair.

So people are claiming that SS isn't enough to live on now, so I doubt reducing benefits to 80% will go over well with the Proletariat.

No one is ripping wealth away from the rich. That's a fantasy.

And again, my financial planning assumes I'll never see a dime, so don't go starting any Poor revolts on my behalf. I'm good. Wouldn't want ya'll getting hurt so I could have a few more pennies in my account.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:Is CNN OK with you guys, or is it too MSM?

Highlights from the article:

*  Guy claims that even though he makes $80,000 per year, he doesn't have enough to save for retirement.

*  People miss the "good old days" of pensions, despite having watched millions of Americans lose theirs in corporate bankruptcies.  Also no mention of how today's mentality of job hopping would align with a 30 year pension.

*  Social Security needs fixing, but NO ONE has the balls to do so.  Keep kicking the can down the road, idiots.

*  401Ks are not emergency funds and shouldn't be used as such.  

*  Single moms make terrible financial decisions.  Also just in, water is wet.

This statement was poorly written and I couldn't figure out the intent.  "What’s left is the 401(k), which 68% of private industry workers have access to, but only 50% use."  So is it 50% of private industry workers, or 50% of the 68% of workers?  I assume it's the latter, but the way it's written, it could be interpreted either way?

I've never assumed I'll see a dime of Social Security by the time I hit that age, but it's gonna be a heck of a battle when (or for Trapper's sake, I'll add "if") it blows up.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/02/economy/americans-struggle-to-save-as-retirement-crisis-looms/index.html

If nothing is changed the SSA estimates that when the Trust Fund (that was built up by the babyboomers during thier working lifetime) is exhausted, estimated to be 2034, that benefiaries will receive about 80% of calculated benefits from then current social security tax revenues.  

Just for TM's benefit.

The other 20% could just be ripped out of the wealthiest Americans hands so TM can receive the full amount of calculated benefits, which would be fair.

So people are claiming that SS isn't enough to live on now, so I doubt reducing benefits to 80% will go over well with the Proletariat.  

No one is ripping wealth away from the rich.  That's a fantasy.

And again, my financial planning assumes I'll never see a dime, so don't go starting any Poor revolts on my behalf.  I'm good.  Wouldn't want ya'll getting hurt so I could have a few more pennies in my account.

I'm glad to hear you'll be foregoing your SS benefits in order to help those less fortunate. And BTW...SS was never intended to provide "enough to live on".

Heat Miser wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

So people are claiming that SS isn't enough to live on now, so I doubt reducing benefits to 80% will go over well with the Proletariat.  

No one is ripping wealth away from the rich.  That's a fantasy.

And again, my financial planning assumes I'll never see a dime, so don't go starting any Poor revolts on my behalf.  I'm good.  Wouldn't want ya'll getting hurt so I could have a few more pennies in my account.

I'm glad to hear you'll be foregoing your SS benefits in order to help those less fortunate. And BTW...SS was never intended to provide "enough to live on".

It was intended to get people above the poverty level, which I would interpret as "enough to live on"

Jake from State Farm wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

So people are claiming that SS isn't enough to live on now, so I doubt reducing benefits to 80% will go over well with the Proletariat.  

No one is ripping wealth away from the rich.  That's a fantasy.

And again, my financial planning assumes I'll never see a dime, so don't go starting any Poor revolts on my behalf.  I'm good.  Wouldn't want ya'll getting hurt so I could have a few more pennies in my account.

I'm glad to hear you'll be foregoing your SS benefits in order to help those less fortunate. And BTW...SS was never intended to provide "enough to live on".

It was intended to get people above the poverty level, which I would interpret as "enough to live on"

"Poverty" is a subjective term. So is "enough to live on".

Heat Miser wrote:

Jake from State Farm wrote:

It was intended to get people above the poverty level, which I would interpret as "enough to live on"

"Poverty" is a subjective term. So is "enough to live on".

There's actually an official definition of the poverty threshold in America, so, no, it's not subjective per the Office of Management and Budget's Statistical Policy Directive 14.

"Enough to live on" is wildly subjective, depending upon one's lifestyle and ambitions.

Heat Miser wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

So people are claiming that SS isn't enough to live on now, so I doubt reducing benefits to 80% will go over well with the Proletariat.  

No one is ripping wealth away from the rich.  That's a fantasy.

And again, my financial planning assumes I'll never see a dime, so don't go starting any Poor revolts on my behalf.  I'm good.  Wouldn't want ya'll getting hurt so I could have a few more pennies in my account.

I'm glad to hear you'll be foregoing your SS benefits in order to help those less fortunate. And BTW...SS was never intended to provide "enough to live on".

As I said, I'm assuming SS will either be broke, severely reduced, or there will be some kinds of means testing by the time I'm eligible, so yeah, I'm probably foregoing those benefits.

But this isn't about my financial planning and retirement. I've got guys for that. What did you think of the article? Legit concerns or election year fear mongering? Why don't we put more emphasis on financial planning in this country?

TravelinMan wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:

I'm glad to hear you'll be foregoing your SS benefits in order to help those less fortunate. And BTW...SS was never intended to provide "enough to live on".

As I said, I'm assuming SS will either be broke, severely reduced, or there will be some kinds of means testing by the time I'm eligible, so yeah, I'm probably foregoing those benefits.

But this isn't about my financial planning and retirement. I've got guys for that. What did you think of the article? Legit concerns or election year fear mongering? Why don't we put more emphasis on financial planning in this country?

1. don't trust the mainstream media.

2. congrats on working hard to get to where you are.

TravelinMan wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

So people are claiming that SS isn't enough to live on now, so I doubt reducing benefits to 80% will go over well with the Proletariat.  

No one is ripping wealth away from the rich.  That's a fantasy.

And again, my financial planning assumes I'll never see a dime, so don't go starting any Poor revolts on my behalf.  I'm good.  Wouldn't want ya'll getting hurt so I could have a few more pennies in my account.

I'm glad to hear you'll be foregoing your SS benefits in order to help those less fortunate. And BTW...SS was never intended to provide "enough to live on".

As I said, I'm assuming SS will either be broke, severely reduced, or there will be some kinds of means testing by the time I'm eligible, so yeah, I'm probably foregoing those benefits.  

But this isn't about my financial planning and retirement.  I've got guys for that.  What did you think of the article?  Legit concerns or election year fear mongering?  Why don't we put more emphasis on financial planning in this country?

The retirement "crisis" is always "looming". Eliminate the cap on withholding and you buy another 30 years of SS "solvency". People in general are stupid and short sighted. Why don't we emphasize financial planning? Why don't we emphasize mental health or nutrition? There's not enough time in the day to emphasize all the things that need emphasis for the idiots.

SS currently has 2.5 trillion in assets. The govt, on the other hand, is 34.5 trillion in the hole. Servicing that debt currently eats 16% of the entire US annual budget. Yet people are about a problem that's still a decade+ away, an even then only results in a 20% haircut while taking on zero debt.

And SS will never be "broke" because withholding still occurs with every paycheck. It's an evergreen income stream.

Heat Miser wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

As I said, I'm assuming SS will either be broke, severely reduced, or there will be some kinds of means testing by the time I'm eligible, so yeah, I'm probably foregoing those benefits.  

But this isn't about my financial planning and retirement.  I've got guys for that.  What did you think of the article?  Legit concerns or election year fear mongering?  Why don't we put more emphasis on financial planning in this country?

The retirement "crisis" is always "looming". Eliminate the cap on withholding and you buy another 30 years of SS "solvency". People in general are stupid and short sighted. Why don't we emphasize financial planning? Why don't we emphasize mental health or nutrition? There's not enough time in the day to emphasize all the things that need emphasis for the idiots.

SS currently has 2.5 trillion in assets. The govt, on the other hand, is 34.5 trillion in the hole. Servicing that debt currently eats 16% of the entire US annual budget. Yet people are about a problem that's still a decade+ away, an even then only results in a 20% haircut while taking on zero debt.

And SS will never be "broke" because withholding still occurs with every paycheck. It's an evergreen income stream.

So you're in the "definitely not worried about it" camp? You think people will go along with a 20% reduction in benefits without revolting?

Emphasizing mental health, nutrition, and financial planning would solve a lot of problems in the U.S. What should we emphasize more than those topics? The horrors of International Transgender Visibility day?!?

TravelinMan wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

As I said, I'm assuming SS will either be broke, severely reduced, or there will be some kinds of means testing by the time I'm eligible, so yeah, I'm probably foregoing those benefits.  

But this isn't about my financial planning and retirement.  I've got guys for that.  What did you think of the article?  Legit concerns or election year fear mongering?  Why don't we put more emphasis on financial planning in this country?

The retirement "crisis" is always "looming". Eliminate the cap on withholding and you buy another 30 years of SS "solvency". People in general are stupid and short sighted. Why don't we emphasize financial planning? Why don't we emphasize mental health or nutrition? There's not enough time in the day to emphasize all the things that need emphasis for the idiots.

SS currently has 2.5 trillion in assets. The govt, on the other hand, is 34.5 trillion in the hole. Servicing that debt currently eats 16% of the entire US annual budget. Yet people are about a problem that's still a decade+ away, an even then only results in a 20% haircut while taking on zero debt.

And SS will never be "broke" because withholding still occurs with every paycheck. It's an evergreen income stream.

So you're in the "definitely not worried about it" camp? You think people will go along with a 20% reduction in benefits without revolting?

Emphasizing mental health, nutrition, and financial planning would solve a lot of problems in the U.S. What should we emphasize more than those topics? The horrors of International Transgender Visibility day?!?

Not worried about it, because it's not happening. The MAGA party will find out real quick what really matters to that voting block if they fuck with SS too much.

Here's a real life case study for you. Let's call her Mary:

Mary is semi-retired and 75. Never saved for retirement. Worked for herself most of her life, so minimal SS withholding. Her SS is only around $250/month. She does some under the table work regularly to supplement that, & is lucky enough to have an adult child that also gives her money. By govt standards, she is below the "poverty" level. She qualifies for low income senior housing, which happens to be right next to a luxury high rise on the river in Ft. Lauderdale. Her rent for an efficiency unit in the building is <$300/month. The market rate for that unit is upwards of $2k/month. She has a car, cell phone, A/C, internet, microwave, flat screen TV, etc. Is that "poverty"? I'd say Mary clearly has "enough to live on".

Heat Miser wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

So you're in the "definitely not worried about it" camp? You think people will go along with a 20% reduction in benefits without revolting?

Emphasizing mental health, nutrition, and financial planning would solve a lot of problems in the U.S. What should we emphasize more than those topics? The horrors of International Transgender Visibility day?!?

Not worried about it, because it's not happening. The MAGA party will find out real quick what really matters to that voting block if they fuck with SS too much.

Here's a real life case study for you. Let's call her Mary:

Mary is semi-retired and 75. Never saved for retirement. Worked for herself most of her life, so minimal SS withholding. Her SS is only around $250/month. She does some under the table work regularly to supplement that, & is lucky enough to have an adult child that also gives her money. By govt standards, she is below the "poverty" level. She qualifies for low income senior housing, which happens to be right next to a luxury high rise on the river in Ft. Lauderdale. Her rent for an efficiency unit in the building is <$300/month. The market rate for that unit is upwards of $2k/month. She has a car, cell phone, A/C, internet, microwave, flat screen TV, etc. Is that "poverty"? I'd say Mary clearly has "enough to live on".

I think you misunderstood my concern. I’m not worried about the Republicans reducing benefits, I’m worried about the Democrats ignoring the problem. SS getting reduced out of necessity in the next 10 years is going to hurt a lot of people. Seems like it would be smart to get out in front of the problem and solve it in a smart manner as opposed to knee jerk crisis reactions when the time comes.

God bless Mary. Nothing better than gaming the system, am I right?

TravelinMan wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

So you're in the "definitely not worried about it" camp?  You think people will go along with a 20% reduction in benefits without revolting?

Emphasizing mental health, nutrition, and financial planning would solve a lot of problems in the U.S.  What should we emphasize more than those topics?  The horrors of International Transgender Visibility day?!?

Not worried about it, because it's not happening. The MAGA party will find out real quick what really matters to that voting block if they fuck with SS too much.

Here's a real life case study for you. Let's call her Mary:

Mary is semi-retired and 75. Never saved for retirement. Worked for herself most of her life, so minimal SS withholding. Her SS is only around $250/month. She does some under the table work regularly to supplement that, & is lucky enough to have an adult child that also gives her money. By govt standards, she is below the "poverty" level. She qualifies for low income senior housing, which happens to be right next to a luxury high rise on the river in Ft. Lauderdale. Her rent for an efficiency unit in the building is <$300/month. The market rate for that unit is upwards of $2k/month. She has a car, cell phone, A/C, internet, microwave, flat screen TV, etc. Is that "poverty"? I'd say Mary clearly has "enough to live on".

I think you misunderstood my concern.  I’m not worried about the Republicans reducing benefits, I’m worried about the Democrats ignoring the problem.  SS getting reduced out of necessity in the next 10 years is going to hurt a lot of people.   Seems like it would be smart to get out in front of the problem and solve it in a smart manner as opposed to knee jerk crisis reactions when the time comes.

God bless Mary.  Nothing better than gaming the system, am I right?

1. The problem isn't being "ignored". I'm sure you know enough about how laws are enacted in this country to know it generally takes 2 to tango. See Ukraine aid. Orange Fuckface had 4 years to "fix" SS. Why didn't he?

2. Mary illustrates how words like "poverty" and "enough to live on" are subjective. The "system" has a lot more ways to help people beyond SS. But people needing that help have to manage their own expectations and accept that their standard of living may be reduced. Where you live. How many square feet your living space has. What is truly a necessity to live and what is not.

Heat Miser wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

I think you misunderstood my concern.  I’m not worried about the Republicans reducing benefits, I’m worried about the Democrats ignoring the problem.  SS getting reduced out of necessity in the next 10 years is going to hurt a lot of people.   Seems like it would be smart to get out in front of the problem and solve it in a smart manner as opposed to knee jerk crisis reactions when the time comes.

God bless Mary.  Nothing better than gaming the system, am I right?

1. The problem isn't being "ignored". I'm sure you know enough about how laws are enacted in this country to know it generally takes 2 to tango. See Ukraine aid. Orange Fuckface had 4 years to "fix" SS. Why didn't he?

2. Mary illustrates how words like "poverty" and "enough to live on" are subjective. The "system" has a lot more ways to help people beyond SS. But people needing that help have to manage their own expectations and accept that their standard of living may be reduced. Where you live. How many square feet your living space has. What is truly a necessity to live and what is not.

1. Orange fuckface didn't do anything about it for the same reason that Biden, Obama, W, Clinton, etc. didn't do anything about it. Because as soon as any politician in this country even whispers about problems with SS, their opponents scream about them hating old people and wanting Grandma to eat cat food and die.

2. In an ideal world, everyone would retire at least as well as Mary. Unfortunately, I think we're going to see a LOT of cases in the coming years where that isn't so.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:

I think the problem with SS is that it’s still 10 years away, and no one wants to say they’re going to raise taxes by 1.7%.

Now, when Biden is reelected and the Dems take back the house and hold the senate, I would expect some deeper conversations.

This question has been polled and over 60% plus of the people paying social security taxes are okay with raising those taxes to make the system actuarially whole

Got a link for that? No one likes more taxes. Especially working folks.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Got a link for that? No one likes more taxes. Especially working folks.

Search for it yourself, too busy right now, and that 60% number is actually low, it was in the 70% to 85% range, and no bs calling me out because you are too lazy to find it yourself.


As for funding, with the current life expectancy at birth and the age range of the boomers on average over 50% of them will be dead in 2034, when the Trust Fund is estimated to be exausted.

Sorry. How DARE I ask YOU to back up YOUR claims. My bad.

(Sounds right up there with your 12% return on Ford stock, IMO)

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Search for it yourself, too busy right now, and that 60% number is actually low, it was in the 70% to 85% range, and no bs calling me out because you are too lazy to find it yourself.


As for funding, with the current life expectancy at birth and the age range of the boomers on average over 50% of them will be dead in 2034, when the Trust Fund is estimated to be exausted.

Sorry. How DARE I ask YOU to back up YOUR claims. My bad.

(Sounds right up there with your 12% return on Ford stock, IMO)

dude, I don't know if you noticed, but he could back it up and you'd argue with that, too.

it's how the internet works.

and why I don't argue with people on the internet.

okay - continue attempting to convince who believe they're the authority on things that you are the authority on things.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Sorry.  How DARE I ask YOU to back up YOUR claims.  My bad.

(Sounds right up there with your 12% return on Ford stock, IMOexhausted.

It is way too easy to bait you...

Moreover, Americans are willing to pay more to keep Social Security strong. About 8 in 10 (77%) say it is critical to preserve Social Security even if it means increasing the Social Security taxes paid by working Americans. An even higher percentage (83%) say it is critical to preserve Social Security even if it means increasing the Social Security taxes paid by wealthy Americans. These findings hold true across party lines, age groups, race and ethnicity, and income levels.

https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-security/public-opinions-on-social-security/

Thank you. Now was that so hard?

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

It is way too easy to bait you...


https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-security/public-opinions-on-social-security/

Thank you. Now was that so hard?

There are people on this board that are at the point where they shouldn’t have to produce that every time. They are mostly forthright and honest in debate. In trappers case he usually brings the goods.

Now that you’ve demanded it and k admit it’s not that hard, we’ll look forward to you citing everything. TIA.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Thank you.  Now was that so hard?  

It was so simple even you could have done it yourself, but looking up links to information is a skill you sadly are lacking, which of course makes you a perfect, from their point of view, consumer of right wing propaganda.

Why you gotta act like a dick today? You stated something, I asked for the link so I could check it out, you mouthed off, and then eventually provided the link. I thanked you. Why is this not case closed?

DWags wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Thank you. Now was that so hard?

There are people on this board that are at the point where they shouldn’t have to produce that every time. They are mostly forthright and honest in debate. In trappers case he usually brings the goods.

Now that you’ve demanded it and k admit it’s not that hard, we’ll look forward to you citing everything. TIA.

Someone stating something doesn't allow me to understand where the information came from, what the context it was provided in, or just simply allow me to read the source material. That's all I wanted. You guys acting like I questioned your mom's integrity are cracking me up.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Why you gotta act like a dick today?  You stated something, I asked for the link so I could check it out, you mouthed off, and then eventually provided the link.  I thanked you.  Why is this not case closed?  

Because you acted like a dick after I told you I was busy & didn't really have the time, which when I posted I didn't, according to most on the board those are the rules.

Also, FWIW, I can't "win" on this issue on this board. If I post links there are posters who don't like that, too.

Well I hope you’re less stressed out today.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Well I hope you’re less stressed out today.

Right back at you. Hope you have learned how to use an internet search tool.

And I hope you learned how to post your references.