Couple of things, dell. First of all, what makes you think that if those social
programs were not there that employers would pass that 15% on into their
employees wages? Not likely. Also, people living paycheck to paycheck might have
a very hard time getting that money into savings accounts. And another thing,
even if they did have you seem what has happened to these retirement accounts
over the last number of years? They have lost huge sums. Anyway,
second, these social programs are not savings plans (forced or otherwise) they
are social programs to help give retired people and poor people some kind of
standard of living, in this, the wealthiest country in the history of the world.
To "Roland Kayser" you are wrong. They are victims of the government.
They believed that the government would cover their retirement. Little did they
know that the amout that would be covered wouldn't live up to their
expectations.To "Open Minded Mormon" your liberal masters
have done a better job of selling you out than Bush or Wallstreet could ever
imagine. Just look at what the liberals did. They convinced the US that they
didn't need to save money for retirement. They then took that money and
have granted special favors to their supporters.
dell. I almost immediately recognized my error and sent an apology comment to
mike and all but for some reason it was never published. You and Richards are
quite right about the 15%. But I don't agree that putting these retirement
funds in the private sector would have been better. You might get a better
return or you might not depending on the market, but with social security, the
benefit is lifelong. So to compare apples to apples you would have to purchase a
private annuity with lifelong provision, and that would come from a company like
AIG, a company as you may recall that had to be bailed out by the Federal
Government or a whole lot of people would have lost their retirement benefits.
I think we would be well served if Texas seceded from the United States of
America. To help them in this effort we should start a petition to expel Texas
so that Americans can get back to the American way of life.
So...republican voters, a large cohort who are retired or
approaching retirement age COMPLICATE the obvious republican answer to the
problem of underfunded entitlements...How do you keep getting them
to vote republican/conservative/t-party when republicans/conservatives/t-party
are going to gut...er...reduce entitlements for the retired... or wages and
benefits for those approaching retirement?
The workplace is not as employee friendly as it used to be. It is difficult to
get and maintain a decent job let alone to have good retirement benefits and a
401 K that meet any of our expectations. By the way the Social Security and
Medicare outlays do not lead to our current or future debt problems. Nice try
What did things cost 30 years ago, the cost of living back then. Compare it to
today. It's unimaginable the amount of money your going to need.
Re: Mike Richards "...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." There is something to what you say. The fund should be
invested in a variety of assets not just Federal bills and bonds. I
am a socialist, and therefore I would manage providing for the elderly in ways
very different from SS, but given the way social security was originally
constructed, the fund has been in large part looted, and this is a disgrace to
contemporary liberalism, no question.
Teapublican, the "greatest generation" fought WW2 and most of them are
dead. Their children, the baby boomers now make up the majority of retired
Americans. Births from 1946 - 1964.Anyone who fought in WW2 would be
at least 90 years old now. Palin/Bachman, and bake sales.
For a near 0 risk investment SS and Medicare have been phenomenal investments.
What are you even talking about? The average baby boomer has done
much better with the SS and Medicare they are getting than any private
investment they have made. Medicare will cover their medical expenses for life
no matter how long they live! You would need 10's of millions to guarantee
that for yourself.If it weren't for medicare covering the
majority of our seniors medical bills most of them would be broke. Many cancer
therapies cost $100,000 a year. The real problem is the outlandish
cost of healthcare caused purely by greed in the healthcare system.
"It’s time this 'greatest generation' to again stand up and
be counted as American Patriots and not complain about not having enough of our
tax money! " I only want government to give me the benefits promised me
when I spent a lifetime of paying FICA taxes. If you and government welch on
this deal, have I ever got deal for you - socialist revolution. So, my advice
to you is "be careful what you wish for!"
Let's just talk the truth here folks! These senior citizens make up the
“greatest generation”…they know how to sacrifice….and
they need to do so again! It’s time this “greatest
generation” to again stand up and be counted as American Patriots and not
complain about not having enough of our tax money! Help us save America again!
Leave my tax money alone! Go talk to the churches….that’s their
job is to take care of people like you. Maybe all of you should think about
bake sales to help pay for your expenses…after all, all of you know how to
bake….so just make use of your talent! We TeaPublicans will take back
America in 2014 and 2016. And we will take back our tax money too from these
socialists social security program! Palin/Bachmann 2016….it’s
going to happen!
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.
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.
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
Something is not an 'entitlement'... when you pay into
social security, for 65 years.
"entitlement" is not the right word. If one pays taxes into a system
for decades, then it is a community responsibility."
"@ 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.
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.
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!
"...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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.