Social security is not enough to live off of. Is projected to be unobtainable for future generations who are paying into it, and is currently on the chopping block
They are going to have to change something either raise the retirement age or lower the payments both which make it more unobtainable then it already is. And that 40% is based what people make… in a time of rising inflation and stagnant wages…
The fact that social security is not tied to the market is super irrelevant, when the argument was that the 401k is in danger, when social security already is not enough to live on. so it’s important that people have a successful 401k to supplement it.
The real solution is making the average wage go up. Significantly. Which puts more money into the program overall.
With so much money having been shifted away from the average worker and Into the pockets of people who hit the FICA cap in their first paycheck of the year, over the last few decades, it was bound to have issues.
They are going to have to change something either raise the retirement age or lower the payments
Or just pay directly out of the general fund, which they can do with a simple vote in Congress and which they already do for Medicare/caid.
The fact that social security is not tied to the market is super irrelevant
It is the primary argument both for and against the program. Investors kick and scream about the benefits of compound interest, right up until a big market nosedive and bankruptcy spree. Meanwhile, it’s the benchmark for guaranteed basic income that progressives love to reference.
Decoupling income from economic growth isn’t irrelevant. It’s the program’s entire raison d’etre.
You would have the tax payers pay even more of the burden now, with out the benefit of even having it contribute to their social security… to pay the gap in social security, damning the tax payers twice. That’s not a permanent solution on top of that! I’m not saying social security should be attached to the market. I mean we are talking about the market fall after all! I am saying that being flippant that everyone Just needs to remember they have social security is dismissive and not relevant.
You would have the tax payers pay even more of the burden now
Tax revenues have been decoupled from government spending for nearly a century. You don’t need to change the tax rate at all.
But if you really did want to, I’d recommend simply uncapping the SS Tax and collecting on income above $176k. That, alone, gets us back into surplus. It even raises the prospect of boosting COLA to match the real inflated cost of living.
That’s not a permanent solution on top of that!
It’s how we’ve been funding virtually every federal program - from the courts to the Pentagon - since the nation’s founding. How much more permanent do you need?
Just needs to remember they have social security is dismissive and not relevant.
Dismissing 40% of retirement income streams as “not relevant” is a great way to get a senior citizen putting a brick through your window.
I am not against making the wealthy pay more in social security as they uniquely benefit from the exploitation of the average workers.
i am not saying social security isn’t important. I am saying that in a discussion about the risk to the 401k, mentioning social security is irrelevant. Social security has already failed to cover expenses, the 401k was to cover that gap. And in the future social security will get weaker, as ‘40%’ of wages which have been stagnant, refuse to keep up with inflation. They make tax payers pay for the lack of funds to maintain the ‘40%’? Cool, but that does not cover the growing gap the 401k needs to cover.
I am saying that in a discussion about the risk to the 401k, mentioning social security is irrelevant.
If you’ve ever had to answer the question (or known someone who has to answer the question) “at what point do I begin to draw down from my 401k/IRA/whatever?”, the questions “When am I eligible for SS? When do I receive the maximum SS benefit?” looms large. Social Security is an economic backstop for the elder that prevents a downturn in the market from forcing them to divest from their retirement positions at a disadvantage, precisely because it makes up such a large share of their retirement income.
If you are going to obliterate (or even just privatize) SS entirely, you’re eliminating that counter-cyclical cushion. Now there is no baseline of income that elderly people can rely on. There is no guaranteed future income to borrow against, destroying the credit worthiness of the elderly. That’s both immediately consequential during a downturn (market goes down, guaranteeing an equivalent drop in retiree spending) and historically consequential (apartments/retirement communities can’t admit new elderly residents without assuming high risk of non-payment, credit agencies and mid-term lenders don’t want to do business with the elderly, elderly residents are at increased risk of eviction/repo, etc) that make life for elderly people much harder.
that does not cover the growing gap the 401k needs to cover.
When the NASDAQ, led by the MAG7, has seen a historic 150% increase in a mere five years, it is extremely premature to talk about 401ks failing to cover basic needs due to a 15% downturn (off a post-inauguration spike). What kind of growth does a 401k need if the last five years isn’t covering it? You’re not describing a problem of market volatility, at that point. You’re just saying 401ks suck as a vehicle for guaranteeing long term retirement needs.
And that brings us back to alternatives, like Social Security, that both already exist and are pivotal in propping up retirement income when 401ks fail.
Americans not willing to recognize that Social Security exists is such a fucking capitalist vibe
Social security is not enough to live off of. Is projected to be unobtainable for future generations who are paying into it, and is currently on the chopping block
If the billionaires actually paid their share into it, it would be fine…
Yes.
Nevertheless, it is 40% of retirement income. And none of it comes from the stock market.
Projected by advocacy groups trying to abolish social security.
You are being untruthful and dismissive: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2024/tr2024.pdf Page 9 is the jist.
They are going to have to change something either raise the retirement age or lower the payments both which make it more unobtainable then it already is. And that 40% is based what people make… in a time of rising inflation and stagnant wages…
The fact that social security is not tied to the market is super irrelevant, when the argument was that the 401k is in danger, when social security already is not enough to live on. so it’s important that people have a successful 401k to supplement it.
The real solution is making the average wage go up. Significantly. Which puts more money into the program overall.
With so much money having been shifted away from the average worker and Into the pockets of people who hit the FICA cap in their first paycheck of the year, over the last few decades, it was bound to have issues.
I agree with that, or a ubi, or taxing the rich. All that jazz
Or just pay directly out of the general fund, which they can do with a simple vote in Congress and which they already do for Medicare/caid.
It is the primary argument both for and against the program. Investors kick and scream about the benefits of compound interest, right up until a big market nosedive and bankruptcy spree. Meanwhile, it’s the benchmark for guaranteed basic income that progressives love to reference.
Decoupling income from economic growth isn’t irrelevant. It’s the program’s entire raison d’etre.
You would have the tax payers pay even more of the burden now, with out the benefit of even having it contribute to their social security… to pay the gap in social security, damning the tax payers twice. That’s not a permanent solution on top of that! I’m not saying social security should be attached to the market. I mean we are talking about the market fall after all! I am saying that being flippant that everyone Just needs to remember they have social security is dismissive and not relevant.
Tax revenues have been decoupled from government spending for nearly a century. You don’t need to change the tax rate at all.
But if you really did want to, I’d recommend simply uncapping the SS Tax and collecting on income above $176k. That, alone, gets us back into surplus. It even raises the prospect of boosting COLA to match the real inflated cost of living.
It’s how we’ve been funding virtually every federal program - from the courts to the Pentagon - since the nation’s founding. How much more permanent do you need?
Dismissing 40% of retirement income streams as “not relevant” is a great way to get a senior citizen putting a brick through your window.
I am not against making the wealthy pay more in social security as they uniquely benefit from the exploitation of the average workers.
i am not saying social security isn’t important. I am saying that in a discussion about the risk to the 401k, mentioning social security is irrelevant. Social security has already failed to cover expenses, the 401k was to cover that gap. And in the future social security will get weaker, as ‘40%’ of wages which have been stagnant, refuse to keep up with inflation. They make tax payers pay for the lack of funds to maintain the ‘40%’? Cool, but that does not cover the growing gap the 401k needs to cover.
If you’ve ever had to answer the question (or known someone who has to answer the question) “at what point do I begin to draw down from my 401k/IRA/whatever?”, the questions “When am I eligible for SS? When do I receive the maximum SS benefit?” looms large. Social Security is an economic backstop for the elder that prevents a downturn in the market from forcing them to divest from their retirement positions at a disadvantage, precisely because it makes up such a large share of their retirement income.
If you are going to obliterate (or even just privatize) SS entirely, you’re eliminating that counter-cyclical cushion. Now there is no baseline of income that elderly people can rely on. There is no guaranteed future income to borrow against, destroying the credit worthiness of the elderly. That’s both immediately consequential during a downturn (market goes down, guaranteeing an equivalent drop in retiree spending) and historically consequential (apartments/retirement communities can’t admit new elderly residents without assuming high risk of non-payment, credit agencies and mid-term lenders don’t want to do business with the elderly, elderly residents are at increased risk of eviction/repo, etc) that make life for elderly people much harder.
When the NASDAQ, led by the MAG7, has seen a historic 150% increase in a mere five years, it is extremely premature to talk about 401ks failing to cover basic needs due to a 15% downturn (off a post-inauguration spike). What kind of growth does a 401k need if the last five years isn’t covering it? You’re not describing a problem of market volatility, at that point. You’re just saying 401ks suck as a vehicle for guaranteeing long term retirement needs.
And that brings us back to alternatives, like Social Security, that both already exist and are pivotal in propping up retirement income when 401ks fail.