Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Newly retired couples may lose $16,900/year in Social Security in 2033

usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–76 of 76 posts

Re: Newly retired couples may lose $16,900/year in Social Security in 2033

#71

Post by Schiendelman »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #70
Schiendelman wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you are misremembering. The Greenspan Commission was the last time we significantly amended social security to avoid these problems, and it was in the 80s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspan_Commission

Greenspan commission wasn’t a prediction. They used a previous pay as you go model that was simply broke at that time (and had been for awhile$, leading to the current pay for the future model. They then made predictions that the new system would be solvent way past 2033.

See my more complete history here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48961349

Re: Newly retired couples may lose $16,900/year in Social Security in 2033

#72

Post by exabrial »

BobbyJo wrote: post #39
exabrial wrote: post #22

I wish i could just opt out of social security and invest the money myself. I'd pay the long term cap gains tax if this was an option, and I'd come out way ahead. The federal government can only mishandle money. Maybe we need two systems: 1. You may move to be a certified responsible saver. You inherit all risk. But you opt out of the taxes. You must prove retirements assets are being contributed to. 2. Mandatory sav…

Social security was created so that money collected day one could be distributed day one. Allowing people to opt out and invest the money is incompatible with the model as a whole. It's like asking if you can save today's extra heartbeats for when you're older.

This is hilarious.

Re: Newly retired couples may lose $16,900/year in Social Security in 2033

#73

Post by jauntywundrkind »

Grombobulous wrote: post #9
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #2

I've known I can't really rely on Social Security to exist when I retire, in any notable form, but man, this is so dark. And it's just a start. (Edit: I'm not certain either way! But it seems like too great a risk to rely on. And the prognosis seems not great! I have heard for decades needs serious help, and nothing seems to change. More broadly, with a few exceptions, I've seen overwhelmingly obstructionism and dest…

This isn’t what my financial advisor told me and I doubt many others would, either. Social Security is almost certainly going to exist in some form. The question is how much retirees will get from it and how that compares to the cost of living. Excessive cynicism is often dangerous because it converts the mundanely pleasant reality into an enthralling doom and gloom scenario. Of course, I’m not really saying that eve…

OP here, thanks for the post. I agree I was definitely over glooming. It still makes me so scared to think of what will become of people at large, what this world will be if we do these ratchets we seem on a colission course for. But I tried to add an edit that hopefully provides a somewhat better balanced view. Thanks for the good post.

Re: Newly retired couples may lose $16,900/year in Social Security in 2033

#74

Post by Grombobulous »

rpdillon wrote: post #69
Grombobulous wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tax rates could be raised, especially on the wealthy, who enjoy historically low tax rates.

Yes, I believe Senator Slotkin was recommending that we remove the cap on Social Security so that folks making more than $180,000 continue to pay Social Security tax on the income above that amount.

Not only is that a workable idea but you can really do a lot of other things.

For example, simply raising marginal income tax rates will recover taxes from 401k accounts since they already have required minimum distributions.

Re: Newly retired couples may lose $16,900/year in Social Security in 2033

#75

Post by Grombobulous »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #65
Grombobulous wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely recognize that. However, a lot of the voices of discontent and cynicism are living very comfortable lives in America relative to others. Even having access to a flushing toilet and consistent electrical service are luxuries. The US social safety net is only embarrassing by the standards of 30 or so of the most wealthy nations. Medicaid, Medicare, and social security, even in a diminished state, are progr…

> Even having access to a flushing toilet and consistent electrical service are luxuries Globally sure. But we don't measure ourselves by global standards. We measure ourselves by what we have around us, and the norms we were brought up with. No one in North America thinks indoor plumbing with flushing toilets is a luxury it's a basic necessity, and they're right to think so by the standards of their society. The US…

I think both of our perspectives are relevant in their own ways.

The thing is, it isn’t even some stereotype of people in Africa in huts lacking indoor plumbing. A lot of the world lacks things like that. 20% of Russians lack indoor plumbing. France was recently in the news for lacking air conditioning in hospitals.

Sometimes it’s good to have perspective on just how wealthy the top 30 wealthiest countries are. The fact that the US lacks some safety nets of the most wealthy ones… that’s bad but it’s still in that wealthy country tier, and it could be a lot worse.

The US still does have universal healthcare for seniors and the poor, you have social security, quite high quality free services like parks, libraries, schools. The vast majority of Americans have reliable and affordable access to things like water, electricity, and Internet.

All of that isn’t to say that it’s all problem-free.

Re: Newly retired couples may lose $16,900/year in Social Security in 2033

#76

Post by Hundredth0006 »

Grombobulous wrote: post #75
bluefirebrand wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even having access to a flushing toilet and consistent electrical service are luxuries Globally sure. But we don't measure ourselves by global standards. We measure ourselves by what we have around us, and the norms we were brought up with. No one in North America thinks indoor plumbing with flushing toilets is a luxury it's a basic necessity, and they're right to think so by the standards of their society. The US…

I think both of our perspectives are relevant in their own ways. The thing is, it isn’t even some stereotype of people in Africa in huts lacking indoor plumbing. A lot of the world lacks things like that. 20% of Russians lack indoor plumbing. France was recently in the news for lacking air conditioning in hospitals. Sometimes it’s good to have perspective on just how wealthy the top 30 wealthiest countries are. The f…

>20% of Russians lack indoor plumbing

That's an incorrect translation, widly used by propaganda. In the original report it was not "indoor plumbing", but "connection to centralized city sewage system".

Post reply on HN