Europe has fallen behind America and the gap is growing

Social Security will never run out of money for one simple reason one just has to reformulate the formula like they have done throughout history.


That is what they will do. Cut benefits. The other alternative is to raise the SS tax from the current 12.4% rate.


The popular opinion now is to allow people to save on their own rather than giving $$ to the government so it can be returned to you later.
 
That is what they will do. Cut benefits. The other alternative is to raise the SS tax from the current 12.4% rate.


The popular opinion now is to allow people to save on their own rather than giving $$ to the government so it can be returned to you later.
We have the equivalent here, the CPP (Canada Pension Plan). I know people who are pretty much dependent on it as they did not put away money for retirement. I am grateful that the plan exists.
 
There is going to be even more catching up for Europe to do when Yevgeny Prigozhin makes it to Moscow in a few hours.
 
There is going to be even more catching up for Europe to do when Yevgeny Prigozhin makes it to Moscow in a few hours.
What is happening there right now is failed state 101. Anyone wondering what is failed state, should tune in. They will get quick tutorial.
The problem are 5,400 nuclear warheads.
 
What is happening there right now is failed state 101.
The problem are 5,400 nuclear warheads.
Absolutely, what a mess, it's amazing it has been "working" this long.

I'm hoping our guys are working on the nuke issue. Unfortunately it will only take a few dedicated Tupolev pilots and suicidal commanders to let a few loose after they blame the West for compromising Yevgeny.
 
Absolutely, what a mess, it's amazing it has been "working" this long.

I'm hoping our guys are working on the nuke issue. Unfortunately it will only take a few dedicated Tupolev pilots and suicidal commanders to let a few loose after they blame the West for compromising Yevgeny.
At this point it is hard to make any predictions. But, wouldn’t be surprised if oir intelligence knows more about situation in Russia than Putin.
 
The popular opinion now is to allow people to save on their own rather than giving $$ to the government so it can be returned to you later.
The only problem with that is, most can't save anything. Or else won't by choice. And are just as incompetent financially as the government..... And in many cases worse.

They will end up working their way through life, check to check, hand to mouth, buying everything they see, until their bodies break down, and will no longer allow them to do so. They will never save enough on their own to provide for a prosperous retirement.... Or any retirement for that matter.

They will then become everyone else's problem as they age, and the government will look to, "tax the rich" in order to, "help level the playing field". Where have we heard that before? And naturally, if you don't go along with this type of thinking, you are "cruel" and "uncompassionate".

Regardless of how you slice it, it always comes back to this....

https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/per...ns-cant-handle-a-500-emergency-without-worry/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/credit-card-debt-total-us-data-2023/
 
What is happening there right now is failed state 101. Anyone wondering what is failed state, should tune in. They will get quick tutorial.
The problem are 5,400 nuclear warheads.
While the Russian nuclear arsenal is an obvious concern, I've wondered just how functional it might be.
In a nation where military officers routinely looted assets and stole money intended for the support and maintenance of the conventional forces under their leadership, I wonder whether Russia's strategic forces might have suffered even more neglect?
If the military leadership felt secure in systematically robbing the conventional elements to enrich themselves, wouldn't this be even more of a problem with funds allocated to maintain systems for which there would have been no foreseeable use?
You can't simply stick a missile in a silo or a sub and expect turnkey reliability without continuing maintenance and repair of both the missile and its warhead.
Of course, it would only take a couple of functional warheads and delivery systems for the world as we know it to end in half an hour or so.
 
That is what they will do. Cut benefits. The other alternative is to raise the SS tax from the current 12.4% rate.


The popular opinion now is to allow people to save on their own rather than giving $$ to the government so it can be returned to you later.
And possibly increase the min retirement age from 62 to 63 (or more) and/or both including a larger penalty for retiring early as well as increasing to 68 for full benefits.
There will be some of what I just typed above.
Which at face value is realistic compared to decades ago we live much longer than we used to.

(did my last post, have enough typos, and mistakes in it? 🫤 I trusted Siri without proofreading.)
 
The only program that works (SS) won't be able to make payments in full starting in 2037. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html
Goes on to say ''adjustments to taxes or benefits that offset the effects of the lower birth rate may restore solvency''. Further the SS budget is +$1.3 trillion, but has $22.7 trillion in liabilities. SS+Medicare has $192 trillion in unfunded liabilities according to your source. I am not trying to make any political point, just thought it might be valuable info for well informed citizens. It is a reflection on the idea that no system is perfect and all have major issues ahead.

Retirement age is will be adjusted. Contributions will be adjusted.
Trust Fund will not go bankrupt and it will always be there.
The government link supplied pretty much says the same thing.
It’s just a chance for the media circus to generate news stories on slow news days.
It’s amazing how as a people we are manipulated to “tune in” by the constant barrage of nonsense every waking day of our lives since the invention of the cell phone and Internet.


“The concepts of solvency, sustainability, and budget impact are common in discussions of Social Security, but are not well understood. Currently, the Social Security Board of Trustees projects program cost to rise by 2035 so that taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits. This increase in cost results from population aging, not because we are living longer, but because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman. Importantly, this shortfall is basically stable after 2035; adjustments to taxes or benefits that offset the effects of the lower birth rate may restore solvency for the Social Security program on a sustainable basis for the foreseeable future. Finally, as Treasury debt securities (trust fund assets) are redeemed in the future, they will just be replaced with public debt. If trust fund assets are exhausted without reform, benefits will necessarily be lowered with no effect on budget deficits.”
 
Retirement age is will be adjusted.
It is good to know the actual situation for men. We die earlier than women, so the nonsense "average" is useless for us. By age 65, fully 1/4 of male peers are dead. Nor are men living longer, we are dying a bit earlier now. Adjusting the retirement age up would ensure an even larger number of men never collect.
 
The only problem with that is, most can't save anything. Or else won't by choice. And are just as incompetent financially as the government..... And in many cases worse.

They will end up working their way through life, check to check, hand to mouth, buying everything they see, until their bodies break down, and will no longer allow them to do so. They will never save enough on their own to provide for a prosperous retirement.... Or any retirement for that matter.

They will then become everyone else's problem as they age, and the government will look to, "tax the rich" in order to, "help level the playing field". Where have we heard that before? And naturally, if you don't go along with this type of thinking, you are "cruel" and "uncompassionate".

Regardless of how you slice it, it always comes back to this....

https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/per...ns-cant-handle-a-500-emergency-without-worry/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/credit-card-debt-total-us-data-2023/


It is a fine line on which plan would be better. If your money is being controlled by someone else then you will have to follow their rules. Managing it yourself means that you are the boss.

It’s sad that many people in today’s society do not have the financial aptitude that they should.
 
It is good to know the actual situation for men. We die earlier than women, so the nonsense "average" is useless for us. By age 65, fully 1/4 of male peers are dead. Nor are men living longer, we are dying a bit earlier now. Adjusting the retirement age up would ensure an even larger number of men never collect.
Yeah, agree men do die earlier. but much improved with only 1/4 of males dead according to the number you provided. My guess is back in the 1950s it was closer to 1/3rd or 1/2.
So everything was much worse in 1960 though. Full retirement age was 67 and the average lifespan was 70 of men and woman combined.
Today the average is 79 for men and higher for woman.
With an aging population and less young people it will have to be adjusted. Social Security was always to be a supplement which I know you know but an amazing percent of the population thinks they are supposed to be able to survive on it. That is not its intention/maybe they should take the word "retirement age" out of Social Security and leave it as supplement age. It's to supplement the money you saved over your lifetime in order to retire.
I see words of Socialism, well I look at that word as "the state" will take care of you. Not the case here, it's a supplement program we paid into our entire lives and can retire with the money we personally saved.

USA life expectancy in 1960 was almost 70 years old today its 80 years old. (Graphics not displaying well on my Mac)
Yet full retirement age barely adjusted 2 years since Social Security started.


Screenshot 2023-06-24 at 10.32.38 AM.png



Source = https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/life-expectancy

Americans living way longer than ever, yet Social Security retirement age has been virtually unchanged since its inception. That has to change if we are to keep to the formula and purpose of SS to begin with.

Screenshot 2023-06-24 at 10.51.46 AM.webp
Screenshot 2023-06-24 at 10.52.03 AM.webp
 
Last edited:
Retirement age is will be adjusted. Contributions will be adjusted.
Trust Fund will not go bankrupt and it will always be there.
The government link supplied pretty much says the same thing.
It’s just a chance for the media circus to generate news stories on slow news days.
It’s amazing how as a people we are manipulated to “tune in” by the constant barrage of nonsense every waking day of our lives since the invention of the cell phone and Internet.


“The concepts of solvency, sustainability, and budget impact are common in discussions of Social Security, but are not well understood. Currently, the Social Security Board of Trustees projects program cost to rise by 2035 so that taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits. This increase in cost results from population aging, not because we are living longer, but because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman. Importantly, this shortfall is basically stable after 2035; adjustments to taxes or benefits that offset the effects of the lower birth rate may restore solvency for the Social Security program on a sustainable basis for the foreseeable future. Finally, as Treasury debt securities (trust fund assets) are redeemed in the future, they will just be replaced with public debt. If trust fund assets are exhausted without reform, benefits will necessarily be lowered with no effect on budget deficits.”
It's not about the fund going bankrupt. It already is not paying enough to retire on, what will happen when it is forced to reduce benefits by 25% or more, increase retirement age, and issue more debt? I think the average payout is already only $1,000 bucks/month, and I bet most people would have been much better off by taking whatever they paid in and simply putting that into an IRA instead (which I know is/was not an option). The point is SS is going downhill, perhaps much slower than the doomsayers think, but its looking pretty terrible for the next generation, and its the lack of planning/discipline of the last generation that we have to blame plus the demographics curve and longer lifespans are a force that would have been insurmountable anyway. Not long from now there will only be two working people for every 1 individual receiving payouts. Considering most people are already nearly living paycheck to paycheck, that is not sustainable.

There was a comment earlier that is is not a socialied program, well, it isn't, its a pyramid scheme.
 
It is a fine line on which plan would be better. If your money is being controlled by someone else then you will have to follow their rules. Managing it yourself means that you are the boss.

It’s sad that many people in today’s society do not have the financial aptitude that they should.
Many years ago there was talk of being able to direct your own SS fund, into things like index funds instead of the paltry rate tied to US treasury. Of course the press had a field day on that like it was doomsday and never came close to being possible. The people who cant think for themselves (majority) bought it hook, line and sinker how SS would be doomed.
 
It's not about the fund going bankrupt. It already is not paying enough to retire on, ...
This first line is a statement that the youth are not properly taught about our country, and I dont blame you. I say this sincerely, honest.

We are on a dangerous course. High School requirements should be the workings of the government, living in a free country and personal finance courses.

YOU are not supposed to be paid from the Social Security System to retire on, NEVER was and never will be. The average person in 1960 and 1970 lived to about 70 years old and only could collect full benefits at 66.6 years old. You now are expected to live to 80 years old with virtually no change of when you can collect. IN reality the new full retirement age using past history should be closer to 75. (but Im getting off subject)

You WERE and ARE supposed to save your own money to live out a life of not working.
The Social Security system was to supplement your savings and nothing more, life with Security that you would have some ADDITIONAL income to your savings and maybe help you not starve if you messed up. That is all, nothing more.
 
While the Russian nuclear arsenal is an obvious concern, I've wondered just how functional it might be.
In a nation where military officers routinely looted assets and stole money intended for the support and maintenance of the conventional forces under their leadership, I wonder whether Russia's strategic forces might have suffered even more neglect?
If the military leadership felt secure in systematically robbing the conventional elements to enrich themselves, wouldn't this be even more of a problem with funds allocated to maintain systems for which there would have been no foreseeable use?
You can't simply stick a missile in a silo or a sub and expect turnkey reliability without continuing maintenance and repair of both the missile and its warhead.
Of course, it would only take a couple of functional warheads and delivery systems for the world as we know it to end in half an hour or so.
They are functional. All their nuclear arsenal until few months ago was subject of inspection by us, as was ours by them. Most Russian facilities were upgraded u der Cooperative Threat Reduction program (or Nunn-Lugar program) since 1992. We basically paid upgrades, destruction of obsolete stuff, employment of around 10,000 scientists etc. so wrapped don’t end up in someone’s hand or scientists get a job with Kim’s etc.
 
Many years ago there was talk of being able to direct your own SS fund, into things like index funds instead of the paltry rate tied to US treasury. Of course the press had a field day on that like it was doomsday and never came close to being possible. The people who cant think for themselves (majority) bought it hook, line and sinker how SS would be doomed.


Any plan like that would have to be phased in over generations.
 
I'd like to see the government strengthen SS and other social safety nets but drastically cut the overall size and scope of government. Cut regulations that strangle economic growth.

It's quite possible that part of our undoing has been the Koch inspired Citizens United which has taken us 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

Pragmatic capitalism requires pragmatic approaches.
 
Any plan like that would have to be phased in over generations.
I wont be alive 😀
Actually I feel REALLY fortunate to have grown up when I have. A time when if you wanted something you had to go out and work for it.
I'll never forget my 12th or 13th birthday when I was presented with a paper route so I could work, save and buy things I would like.

I learned at a young age, at 16 I got a job, worked after school, weekends and holidays and contributed to the Social Security system at age 16. I saved enough and worked hard enough to buy my own cars, my own boat at 18 years old ect ...ect ... I LOVE working and seeing the results of my work, very proud of my achievements.
I do wish I saved more but I lived like I might die tomorrow! *LOL* Good news is I have more than enough scrapes left over to live a good life.

If you want to be free be free, that means not have to rely on others to feed you and give you shelter. Luckily even though more rare than ever now in todays world. I raised my kids in much the same way. I know no matter when the future is when I am no longer on this earth they will be a survivor because they know how to work and be independent of servitude.
 
Back
Top Bottom