Published: Saturday, Oct. 19 2013 1:43 p.m. MDT
Why are we "unprepared", financially? When I was 22, I attended a
seminar that showed if I saved 10% of my income, that over the next thirty-three
years, I would have accumulated so much money that I would never worry about
anything financially again. Well, the "government" took 15% of my money
for Social Security and Medicare. They left me with nothing "extra" to
invest. So, not only should I have that huge nest-egg, but it should be 50%
larger than the amount talked about in that seminar.What did the
"government" do with the money that they forced me to "invest"
in their Social Security plan, the plan that would take care of me
"comfortably" in my golden years? They spent it on themselves. The
robbed that fund. They used it to buy votes. They used it to pay off donners.
They forced you and me and everyone else to pay into their Ponzi scheme and now
they (and the Deseret News) tell us that we didn't do our part, that we
really didn't set aside 15% of our wages for our golden years. Not only
that, but they want another 18% for ObamaCare.
The problem with savings is access. Few of us (me included) have the ability to
not use savings when circumstances turn. Good for an emergency fund, but not
retirement.Standard pensions are nearly impossible to access and but
they are almost a relic of the past.401Ks help as they are tougher
to access than savings and there are penalties to help us leave the money
untouched. I am fortunate to have a good 401K plan to which my employer
contributes as well. But employer contributions are becoming less and less
common.We need to have a national conversation. Workers, employers,
govt., etc. need to look at what the appropriate mix of contribution is and how
much Soc. Sec. can realistically provide.
I get the feeling that the author is a young person, I get the feeling that the
author wants to inherit their parents money.
The baby boomers are victims of the great 401K scam. The parent's of the
boomers had pensions. The boomers were told that 401Ks would give them an even
better retirement. All that they accomplished, however, were to fatten the
profits of Corporate America at the expense of their workers.
The question I have is why should anyone in their 20's or 30's have to
pay anything into social security?They will never get a cent of social
security when they retire.Social security needs to be phased out.only pay out what it takes in.no more cashing in the T-bills to shore
the program up, use them to pay down the national debt.as more people
retire, along with fewer workers putting money in.The amount to each
person becomes less.Eventually it will be so low, that stopping payments
all together will be an option.I have never planned for social security to
be around when I retire.I have to save for my own retirement, while paying
for other peoples retirement.I resent having to do this. Why should I pay
into a program that will be bankrupt before it will benefit me? If I did
not have to pay in the 7 1/2 to 15% depending on how you look at it. I
would take the money and put it in my 401K. I have been doing it for 20+ years,
no reason to think I would not continue to do so.
I work with a couple of boomers past retirement age who have plenty saved up,
far beyond what most people save, but they have economic anxiety, a fear that it
could all be erased overnight, and they'd be left with nothing, no safety
net.Younger workers are eyeing the boomers' salaries as they
have young families that could really use the money for all the demands that
raising children entails.This is the double-edged sword of our
rugged individualism, the ethos of self-reliance and antipathy of any kind of
government program, knowledge that companies can and will raid retirement
programs with impunity. I know a lot of boomers who will cling to
their jobs - thereby denying opportunity to younger workers - because they fear
everything they've worked for could all disappear, tomorrow.
If anyone has any doubts about the role of SS and raising the economic standards
of the elderly just research the old age poverty rates before its
implementation. The National Bureau of Economic Research sums it
nicely:" In fact, there is a striking association between the
rise in Social Security expenditures per capita and the decline in elderly
poverty."I'm pretty much retired at 58 and wont really need
SS but will keep my business going until I drop, or am to weak to work!
Why is the Deserette news speaking out against Social Security? Obviously they
want to save the government money. Yet just recently they came out with an
editorial that we should stay in Afghanistan even longer. My response to that
is that the writer of the editorial should should get out his checkbook and
donate to help fund the war or better yet pick up the gun and go fight and
encourages kids to do the same.United States spends entirely too
much money lives and effort involving himself in the affairs of other countries.
We really got to learn to mind her own business and become more self-sufficient.
We don't tolerate drug dealers going to her schools and getting our kids
hooked on drugs yet because we are so war prone we allow recruiters to go to our
schools and get kids to join up so that they can come back dead and maimed. I say let's get out of Afghanistan now and use the savings to help
shore up Social Security. Leaders of Afghanistan do us a favor kick us out just
like Iraq did, ... we don't have the sense to leave on our own.
The editor is mighty kind to our government and harsh with the boomers.Social Security isn't a mess because boomers cheated the tax man. No sir.
They paid in as agreed. Social Security is a mess because of the holes in the
bottom of the "lockbox"; holes big enough for politicians to stick their
hands into.And why are savings accounts worthless today? Why can't we
put money into a CD for 5 years and get 8%? Because government/fed have made our
money worthless.And they are doing the same thing with bonds.So
please Mr. Editor, scold the politicians. I've saved. I've worked
hard. I've contributed generously to my 401k and watched it collapse with
the subprime lending crisis. I'm making 1/3 what I was making ten years ago
because of those scoundrels in Washington.I'm not complaining; I just
don't need a lecture right now.
I'm retired with several sources of income. SS alone doesn't provide a
living. One pension was based on stocks of the company -- which went bankrupt
when Daddy died and the kids took over. Another pension (union) will buy a tank
of gasoline -- if I don't let the gauge get too low. Another promised paid
medical; that promise is long gone. The others depend on the backers *not* going
out of business, the investment markets, and how inflation/ taxes offset the
earnings. You can bet I am nervous. Not worried
because you have a retirement plan? You had better look at exactly what that
We've cut down dramatically our expectations of retirement--IF we get to
retire. Right now we're planning to work until we die, God willing. We have relatives that have retired and expected to live much larger
than they planned for. Now they're struggling with massive debt, looming
mortgages, and unrealistic expectations as they hit 80 years old.We
need to rethink our entire vision of retirement (and really, it seems that when
many people quit working, much of their physical and mental health quickly slide
downhill) and consider that perhaps work and supporting yourself until you die
is a noble pursuit. The notion of "retirement" is a very
recent development, and perhaps one that is now outdated.
"...but there is also ample evidence that many baby-boomers failed to save
and plan at a level necessary to retire at the age they anticipated." Well,
like what evidence? True to form the Deseret News blames the little people.
Fact: the average real wage in the United States has stagnated for the last 30
years. Do you suppose this has something to do with boomers' retirement
issues? The problem is even more fundamental. In this, the mature
form of capitalism, the exploitation of labor is deepening. There will be no
relief for the great mass of people until a new socialism is born. Wag you
finger at us boomers all you want if it makes you feel virtuous, but more and
more of us understand what is necessary. Personal responsibility will only take
us so far.
Oh, You mean like "planning" on losing $400K in Real Estate
-- the ONE of only 2 "safe" investments we were told time and again were
non-risky investments, that and Education?GW Bush and the Gadiantons
on Wallstreet would gladly have cut-off my head and sold my education too if it
would mean more $Money for them!
Conservative Handbook: Rule no. 1 in the Blame Game clearly states
that the victim be the first choice assigning blame. Only after that fails
would the player assign blame to one of the other players. Rule no.
2 clearly states that the players never allow the victim to regain his loss
through evil programs of income redistribution. Counterpoint: Nearly all the problems associated with life are economic. That is true
because we are alive on a temporary basis and would like to make the best of it.
And even the worst of it costs money. The easiest way to get money
is to take it from those who create it. That means trading something you have
at a grossly inflated value for something valuable with a grossly deflated
value. It is commonly known as business.
"@ open minded mormon "GW Bush and the Gadiantons on Wallstreet
would gladly have cut-off my head and sold my education too if it would mean
more $Money for them!"Large corporations and our fascist
congress have been importing brains with H1-B visas even though our own
graduates don't have jobs because it lowers wages further.My
own employer is guilty of bring over lots of Russian programmers and paying them
much less. In the end, we all earn less because of it. Probably $1,000,000 a
career less in the case of most programmers. Google was caught red handed in an
illegal scheme as well that kept it's employees wages low.
"entitlement" is not the right word. If one pays taxes into a system
for decades, then it is a community responsibility."
Something is not an 'entitlement'... when you pay into
social security, for 65 years.
How many have lost their pensions because business never funded them? Even the
state of Utah is underfunded. Don't put the blame on the people, put it on
Mike Richards...Where did you get the idea that social security and Medicare
took 15% of your income? Last I looked social security was 6.2% of Gross
income, income limited, and Medicare was 1.45% of Gross income. You seem to be
fixated on finding your own facts.
Re: Mike in CedarIf you're self-employed you have to pay your
portion you mentioned (6.2 & 1.5) as well as the employer
"contribution" which is about the same (6.2 & 1.5) which equals
about 15%. When you think about it it's been a pretty horrible forced
saving deal, considering the essentially zero-return for many people when 15% of
their income could have guaranteed a pretty comfortable retirement for much of
the middle class.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments