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.

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

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

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

Re-opening this can of worms, I just heard the statistic that only 35% of
current retirees have pension income. So, that someone doesn't have a pension
is *not* a matter of making poor job choices, but actually is statistically
twice as likely as having lucked into a job with a pension.




--
Finished 12/8/04 -- Army bear ornament
WIP: Fireman's Prayer (#2), Amid Amish Life, Angel of Autumn, Calif Sampler,
Holiday Snowglobe

Paralegal - Writer - Editor - Researcher
http://hometown.aol.com/kmc528/KMC.html

And of those 35%, I wonder how many didn't have it offered until late in
life. Our situation is one of those.

Victoria's comment notwithstanding (luck has nothing to do with it), I
beg to differ. There are only so many jobs, a growing population, a set
of birth circumstances. Luck (or the gods, if you prefer) can play a
huge role. Not to downplay hard work. That certainly also enters into
the equation. We're just not all born equally, nor does our society
offer equal circumstances. That's a common myth. The idea of pulling
oneself up by the bootstraps is a worthy value. But the miracles of a
few doesn't make it so for the masses. We can also point to those who
make poor choices. But to paint the masses that didn't make it into
that proverbial corner is equally unfair and untrue.

Dianne

Karen C - California wrote:

Re-opening this can of worms, I just heard the statistic that only 35% of
current retirees have pension income. So, that someone doesn't have a pension
is *not* a matter of making poor job choices, but actually is statistically
twice as likely as having lucked into a job with a pension.





--
"The Journal of Needlework" - The E-zine for All Needleworkers
http://journal.heritageshoppe.com

S (Karen C - California) wrote in
:

Re-opening this can of worms, I just heard the statistic that only 35%
of current retirees have pension income.

Source please?

So, that someone doesn't
have a pension is *not* a matter of making poor job choices, but
actually is statistically twice as likely as having lucked into a job
with a pension.

I left a well-paying job in industry that had no pension other than some
profit-sharing (in addition to retirement savings) for a job in higher
education that paid barely a third of that, but had not only a lump sum
retirement plan but employer matching for savings contribution. I vetted
several offers until I found the one that gave me what I wanted.

It was a conscious decision, and luck had nothing to do with it It wasn't
luck that made me work three jobs to get through grad school loan-free so I
could get a job in higher ed -- and managed to add money to my savings at
the same time. It wasn't luck that made me realize the high tech job I had
wasn't going to be around much longer, and I better do something about it
proactively. I gave up the short-term benefits of making a boatload of
money for long-term security. I did my research. I didn't rely on luck.

K

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

Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr. wrote:

Hi Barbara

Perhaps I should post some FACTS concerning Social Security, since
there are so many MISCONCEPTIONS about it floating around.

ORIGINALLY: Social Security WAS just a retirement program under 1935
Law.

But it still started out paying retirement benefits to people who had
never paid into the system, correct?

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.

Interesting, did not know that.

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.

And why don't I trust the gov't with my 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.

But according to my most recent mailing from SSA they are estimating
running out of money before I reach retirement age. Even if that's not
the case, I still wouldn't mind having the option to invest some of that
money on my own.

Thanks for the figures,
Barbara

Barbara Hass verbositized:


But it still started out paying retirement benefits to people who had
never paid into the system, correct?

Correct!


And why don't I trust the gov't with my money?

From what I understand, they (the government) DID pay back the
principle, under duress by the people.


But according to my most recent mailing from SSA they are estimating
running out of money before I reach retirement age. Even if that's not
the case, I still wouldn't mind having the option to invest some of that
money on my own.

They MAY easily RUN OUT OF MONEY, because THEY are PAYING OUT on other
programs besides SS retirement, as mandated by the government.
Essentially, the government is dipping their hands into the retirement
funds AGAIN.

TTUL
Gary