Right there, Quasimodem – very few could live on SS benefits even in a very frugal lifestyle, and that is just not right.
Yeah. Ironic, isn’t it? A more honest name would have been Social Insecurity.
Ever hear of the term “house of cards”?
Here’s a quote to ponder:
“The assumption underlying the existing Social Security program is that the federal government is a prudent investor *** * Very bad assumption.* *** while individuals in general are irresponsible ones. (That why they are not allowed to manage their own Social Security contributions.) The evidence is rather the opposite.** Politicians pursuing short-term electoral goals have created a Ponzi scheme ** *** * The world’s largest.* *** built on a financial house of cards, with meager assets invested in low-return bonds. By taxing young workers heavily to provide generous benefits to the elderly, **for two generations our political leaders have conned voters **into thinking that their financial security is being enhanced. Now, of course, the public is waking up as the house of cards starts to crumble.” *** *As all true Dopers should know, there is no free lunch. ***
*
The deficit amounts to 1.87% of taxable payroll, according to the latest trustees’ report: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR02/II_project.html#93773
Hardly a crisis. Easily solved, given an Administration with courage and a bit of intellectual horsepower.
It should be noted that the social security portion of the 6.2% payroll tax is 5.3%, with the other .9% going to disability insurance.
Also, it will become a crisis if something isn’t done soon, given that by 2025, 18.5% of the population will be age 65 or older. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/02statab/pop.pdf - see table 13, right hand side, where the percentages are.) There is a larger question embedded in this one, also: given that large a population that can be expected to be drawing down its assets, the possibility of a general decline in asset values when that time comes has to be considered as well.
All in all, a knotty problem.
I get those statements too and the rate I was quoted last month was only like $800 a month social security benefits. How am I to survive on that. That doesn’t even pay my mortgage today!
I guess that is what 401Ks are for. But I am not contributing much to that right now cause I need the cash NOW to support my kids.
It appears that they really want us to work longer then age 62 & 65. But what kind of “productive” jobs and “financially rewarding jobs” can you have at that age? Companies are forcing people to retire early. Sometimes they are forced to retire by being laid off. I find that the older I’ve gotten (age 40) the harder it is to find “good jobs” .
My ex father in law is 83 and works 40 hours as a security guard. I find it pitiful that a man at this age has to work to survive. He lives in a retirement condo (which is a refurbished apt. building) that is not fancy and is run by the church. His car is paid off so his bills are minimal.
I really question his ability to be a security guard. Maybe because he is “cheap” labor.
Right. Social Security is backed by the “full faith and credit of the United States.” Lot’s of people invest hugh sums in US Government long-term securities which have not better guaratee. If that “full faith” is no good, Social Security insolvency will be only one of the problems to be faced.
That’s a bit disingenuous. In 1935, when the Social Security Act was passed, the average life expectancy at birth was 59.9 years for males (the majority of the workforce then) and 63.9 for women. If you take into account life expectancy at age fifty*, then add on another 21 years. Hardly miraculous.**
*Important since living to an age of majority was less common then.
**Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
This is only true in the strictest sense. If you are survived by a spouse and/or children (under a certain age), then they will receive a benefit from this. If I died this year, then my family would be eligible for up to $3,326/month. (I’m forty-one). The SSA is not terribly clear on what the full requirements of this death benefit are.
::: checking ShibbOleth’s location :::
Oh, England! I am so sorry, but you are now disqualified from commenting. Over $3k a month?! In the U.S., it’s at the most, maybe 20% of that amount. And, NO, I don’t have a freaking cite. 
Oh man, you should have checked the Pit before you posted that quote. Welcome to the tribe, cowboy!
Sorry, my location refers to my headquarters in an email based game of Diplomacy that several of us here at the SDMB play. My actual location is Blue Ash, Ohio, which is in the vicinity of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. And that amount is from my Social Security Statement. Even my wife, piker that she is, would get a benefit not to exceed $1,181/month. And her lifetime earnings are piddling (although she’s currently rectifying that).
Deliberate deception as to your locale is punishable by removal of your donuts rights, ShibbOleth.
Your Social Security Statement cannot lie.
::cough:: yeah, right! ::cough ::
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Besides, I’m drinking Armangac right now, which is only good with chocolate glazed.