Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, October 14, 2016

Young Americans with even just $1 saved for retirement are ahead of the pack. Forty-eight percent of all Americans aged 18 to 30 have zero in retirement savings and no access to a traditional pension, according to a GenForward poll by the Black Youth Project. The youngest in that group are more likely to still be in school, but the trend also holds for those in their late 20s. More than 4 in 10 of those aged 25 to 30 have nothing for retirement. These same Americans are part of a generation whose future retirements, if they happen at all, will be more dependent on their personal savings. That's because traditional pensions are becoming more and more rare. Only 7 percent of those surveyed say they're in line to get the coveted benefit, which promises to pay a set amount monthly after retirement.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Plus, young Americans are likely to get less in Social Security benefits than their parents or grandparents. The age to receive full Social Security benefits is climbing, up to 67 from 66. And most young Americans don't have much faith in the Social Security system to begin with. Only 5 percent say they're very confident in it, and 28 percent say they're somewhat confident.

Despite all that, a majority of young Americans still say they are confident that they'll have enough to retire when they want to. African Americans, Asian Americans and white Americans have similar levels of confidence, between 53 percent and 56 percent. Latinos are an exception. Only 43 percent say they're very or somewhat confident.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

It's ever been a hard economic world...it is especially hard now on the young.

#1 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2016-10-14 10:59 AM | Reply

No savings...but they have tattoos, beard grooming kits, iPhones w/10Gb plans, video games, skinny jeans, yada yada yada. Maybe instead of more money, we should teach them what to do with it.

#2 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2016-10-14 11:07 AM | Reply

Make sure you stretch before lifting that broad brush Stang. Don't pull a muscle.

This is just another side effect of the globalist 1% world. Kill pensions and replace them with 401k's. Stagnate wages while all productivity gains go to the 1%. Health care chewing up more and more disposable income.

Now the hot button issue will be "entitlement reform" aka killing social security. Trumpling has already said that social security cuts are a moral imperative.

#3 | Posted by 726 at 2016-10-14 11:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

No savings...but they have tattoos, beard grooming kits, iPhones w/10Gb plans, video games, skinny jeans, yada yada yada. Maybe instead of more money, we should teach them what to do with it.

#2 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

They actually earn far less than their parents did. It's a fact.

But don't worry. We need to give the rich more tax cuts.

#4 | Posted by Sycophant at 2016-10-14 11:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Yes, I'm broadbrushing, but I can look at my own relatives and point to 4 examples of what I described: 20-somethings, employment in the 'service industry', smart phones, tattoos (apparently, you can't have just one or two), more than one gaming system, road trips to catch an indie concert, BUT constantly whining about being broke.

#5 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2016-10-14 11:47 AM | Reply

Those in the 18-30 age cohort should be the ones pushing for SS reform, since they are the ones who will benefit most. Fixing SS is not too tough to do: add a means test, raise the age for full benefits, raise the contribution level (that's FICA to you), and watch the $$ slowly trickle in. Wanna make an even bigger splash? Raise contribution limits for IRA's and 401(k)'s...

Of course, old folks (who are enjoying an excellent return on their SS contributions) will fight like hell over these changes...

#6 | Posted by catdog at 2016-10-14 11:57 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

They actually earn far less than their parents did. It's a fact.

That's because a company is willing to pay someone what they're worth, with a percentage applied based on the scarcity or surplus of people likewise competing for that job. Labor is a commodity like any other. There's a headline out today that there are bumper crops of wheat, corn and soybeans. What will that do to the price of those commodities? Lower them, of course. A surplus of a commodity reduces the price. Conversely, an oil shortage OR an increase in demand for oil will increase the cost of oil. Workers are no different. If there are 100 people lined up for one job stocking shelves at WalMart, that person is going to make mandatory minimum wage. If there are 100 openings for accountants at WalMart corporate, but only 20 people apply and those are being given competing offers by other companies, they are going to earn a princely sum.

Today, unlike 25 years ago, there are fewer jobs available and most are service industry. There are 'in demand' jobs to be had and those pay quite well. Not all require 8 years of college, either. Some just require hard work in difficult environments.

Now ask yourself this question. You acknowledge that kids make less today than their parents, yet unemployment is low which, if true, SHOULD drive wages up (less available commodity equals higher prices). How is that possible?

#7 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2016-10-14 12:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I didn't have retirement savings at that age, I had a house. If your house is paid off by 30 and you keep working you will be fine.

#8 | Posted by bored at 2016-10-14 12:45 PM | Reply

"Stagnate wages while all productivity gains go to the 1%."

Um, the top 60% have continuously seen gains since 1950. Maybe you could say the bottom two quintiles have remained stagnant, but they're certainly not doing worse. Especially when you take into account decreased costs for consumer goods and lower tax rates for low income earners.

"They actually earn far less than their parents did. It's a fact."

Is it? Far less? I mean, it's not outside the realm of possibility...if a person's parents were doctors and they're ditch diggers. But 60% of the population has shown economic gains over the past 76 years, the bottom two remaining stable.

"But don't worry. We need to give the rich more tax cuts."

That's because the poor are all tax-cutted out. There's nothing left to cut.

#9 | Posted by madbomber at 2016-10-14 12:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Unions and their system of protecting the working class began to break down in full with the push for globalization (sending high paying jobs overseas) under the Bill Clinton Administration. (Nafta, et al.) He even joked about it at the time that those jobs were not coming back. Does anyone really believe HRC will not do a 180 and once again support the TPP? Of course pensions and retirement savings are becoming a thing of the past. Unions no longer have the leverage to keep them a reality.

#10 | Posted by moder8 at 2016-10-14 01:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

That's because a company is willing to pay someone what they're worth...
#7 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

Except upper management of course. Run your company into the ground and you still rake in millions.

#11 | Posted by Sycophant at 2016-10-14 01:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

That's because the poor are all tax-cutted out. There's nothing left to cut.

#9 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

For those poor you speak of, there's also nothing left to tax. Aside from a few minor indulgences, they spend everything they have simply to live.

#12 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2016-10-14 01:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nearly Half of Young Adults Lack Retirement Savings

Hard to save money when you're paid minimum wage or are unemployed.

#13 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-10-14 01:29 PM | Reply

Also. (Most) Young adults aren't thinking about saving money for retirement.

#14 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-10-14 01:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It is unfortunate that the article didn't conduct a change over time comparison of the demographic being scrutinized. A few decades ago when touring bands would attract legions of groupie 18-30yr olds, was a similar significance put onto saving for retirement among those of the Deadhead generation?

In the article, all we're given as a data point is a sample of ~1800 18-30y/o surveyed in September.

#15 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-10-14 01:40 PM | Reply

Thanks, Obama!!

#16 | Posted by AKat at 2016-10-14 01:54 PM | Reply

The average retirement savings for those over 50 is actually far more disturbing.

www.fool.com

#17 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2016-10-14 01:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

welfare ha spushed everything out of reach apartment sin the ghetto shouldn't be 1400-2000$

Welfare has ------ living situation up for every american.

I actually knew a guy who let me stay at one of his places he had 3 from the government all under his names.

he was non american and a really great guy too.

but it was ironic looking back an american has to pay a non american for a place the government gave to him for free.

sounds about right

#18 | Posted by infamouskiller at 2016-10-14 02:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Fixing SS is not too tough to do

If we had a working Congress it would be easy.

#19 | Posted by donnerboy at 2016-10-14 04:57 PM | Reply

Welfare has ------ living situation up for every american.

BS Why do you blame the poor?

It is way more complicated and has more to do with protecting the profits of companies than poor people on welfare.

Here is a brief explanation...

"Companies have been largely responsible for the retirement crisis -- and it was not an accident," says Ellen Schultz, former investigative reporter for the Wall Street Journal and author of Retirement Heist: How Companies Plunder and Profit From the Nest Eggs of American Workers (Portfolio, $26.95).

In her book, Schultz details how corporate pensions went from holding $250 billion in excess funds in the late 1990s to being collectively underfunded today. Hundreds of plans have been frozen (meaning employees may collect benefits based on past work but do not earn future benefits), and retiree health benefits are an endangered species.

years ago, employers persuaded Congress to relax the rules to allow them to use their overfunded pension plans to help cover other benefits, such as retiree health plans and early-retirement buyouts (which preserved cash the companies would otherwise have used to pay for both). Although that might have sounded like a good idea at the time, it essentially allowed companies such as Verizon and General Motors to use pension assets to finance corporate downsizings.

www.kiplinger.com

#20 | Posted by donnerboy at 2016-10-14 05:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"For those poor you speak of, there's also nothing left to tax. Aside from a few minor indulgences, they spend everything they have simply to live."

Actually, they make the same amount now as the did in 1950 in adjusted dollars...yet they pay less than half as much in taxes as the poor would have back then. What has changed is expecations. In 1950, the poor had a much smaller sense of entitlement than they do now. Generally speaking.

#21 | Posted by madbomber at 2016-10-14 07:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

A few decades ago when touring bands would attract legions of groupie 18-30yr olds, was a similar significance put onto saving for retirement among those of the Deadhead generation?

Jobs had pensions back then.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-14 07:49 PM | Reply

this is exactly why i have always been a fan of unions. I don't favor all the bad things they've done but they sure as hell helped me manage all of this type of stuff.

As a young man right out of high school I didn't have a clue what i wanted to do so i joined a union (pipe fitters union). I put in nearly 10 years before i went back to school so now i have that pension for when I retire. I never went without health insurance and the education they provided for me was subsidized by the companies I was working for.

Left to themselves, big companies will never do that. Im working a consulting gig in a refinery that burned down back in august that happens to be in a right-to-work state. The labor force that I'm seeing out there is deplorable. they're now having to bring in skilled labor from other places and believe me - its at a premium.

say what you want about the unions, but they had their purpose and if kept in check, they still do.

#23 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-10-14 09:33 PM | Reply

I have worked or the same company for 33 years. When I started, they had a pension, etc. like most companies. Around 10 years ago they stopped offering a pension and froze my pension where it was at. They then began a match to 401K deposits. It is saving them 100's of millions of $$. Their match is about 25% of what their contribution was to my pension. *And* they do not have to keep that money on-hand, once they match it is gone.

I have always contributed to my 401K so the match was a given.

When my children began working, two are self-employed and one works for a global company. None of them receive a pension. I have stressed to them that the important thing is that the do something. At their ages (the youngest is 29) it does not matter that much whether they are in the best fund or whatever, but that they do something. They commit to saving for retirement every paycheck. They all have done that.

If you have children, stress to them the need to save. Do *not* count on the gov bailing you out. They will take care of those who get them re-elected. They could give a wit about you. Anything you get from the gov should be extra, not anything you are counting on.

#24 | Posted by sawdust at 2016-10-14 10:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Actually, they make the same amount now as the did in 1950 in adjusted dollars...

Who would even listen to you BS! go back to Mar and leave in that outer space reality.

#25 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-10-14 10:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#24

That's great advice and it show's that you're a great father to pass on sage wisdom to the willing next generation. The only problem is that far too many Americans aren't able to save anything because everything is what it takes to live in the present. Hopefully it will get better for all, but that seems like riding unicorns and chasing rainbows these days....

#26 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-10-14 10:44 PM | Reply

"That's because the poor are all tax-cutted out. There's nothing left to cut."

Nonsense. You're pretending income taxes are the only federal taxes. The vast majority of workers (67%) pay more in payroll taxes over their working lifetimes than income taxes.

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-10-14 10:51 PM | Reply

Actually, they make the same amount now as the did in 1950 in adjusted dollars...yet they pay less than half as much in taxes as the poor would have back then. What has changed is expecations. In 1950, the poor had a much smaller sense of entitlement than they do now. Generally speaking.

#21 | Posted by madbomber

The wealthy make far more now than they did in 1950 adjusted. Yet they also pay less than 1/3 what they did back then. What has change is level of greed. In 1950, the rich had a much smaller sense of entitlement than they do now. Back then, more of the wealthy had empathy.

#28 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2016-10-14 11:25 PM | Reply

TONY, Yea, I recognize that I am fortunate that my children have decent jobs/careers that allow them to live and to save. Not everyone is in that position. Thanks for the kind words.

I am not sure where all this ends up, but counting on the gov to save you is trust misplaced.

I tell the story about the company where I work. When I hired in the CEO earned about 20 times that of a middle manager. Now the CEO earns over 100 times that of a middle manager.

Or when I went to college I could earn enough in the summer to pay for college, room and board. When my kids attended it was already $20K a year. There was no way you could earn that in a summer. Now I am sure it is worse.

These are just two examples of how things are out of wack.

Not sure how you do it, but what would be wrong with tying top CEO pay to employee pay?

Or rather than focusing on making college free, look at ways to make it cost less? Should college costs be rising at a faster pace than inflation?

#29 | Posted by sawdust at 2016-10-14 11:40 PM | Reply

Not sure how you do it, but what would be wrong with tying top CEO pay to employee pay?

That seems like a pretty big imposition in the entire business world but here's a much simpler idea in the same vein:

How about every time Congress votes themselves a pay raise the minimum wage goes up by the same percentage.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-14 11:51 PM | Reply

How about stop using CEO in helping define policies, obviously they are not concerned for the country but their bottom line and that isn't how we should be making policies.

#31 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-10-14 11:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Importing more cheap labor should help.

#32 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-10-15 12:38 AM | Reply

"Who would even listen to you BS! go back to Mar and leave in that outer space reality."

www.bing.com

A picture is worth a thousand words...so they say.

You can read charts, right?

#33 | Posted by madbomber at 2016-10-15 10:26 AM | Reply

"Nonsense. You're pretending income taxes are the only federal taxes. The vast majority of workers (67%) pay more in payroll taxes over their working lifetimes than income taxes."

That's true, but payroll taxes generally contribute to ownship. SS, Medicare, etc. So they get them back-or at least they do in theory. If they were to not pay those taxes but still recieve those benefits, then Medicare and SS would be nothing more than welfare programs.

#34 | Posted by madbomber at 2016-10-15 10:29 AM | Reply

The wealthy make far more now than they did in 1950 adjusted. Yet they also pay less than 1/3 what they did back then. What has change is level of greed. In 1950, the rich had a much smaller sense of entitlement than they do now. Back then, more of the wealthy had empathy.

They pay about half as much as they did. The difference in rates is almost the same amongst the rich as it is with the poor. About half.

I don't think empathy plays a role. I think the difference between now and then is how the taxes were used. Paying a lot to buy ICBMs and aircraft carriers likely seemed a worthwhile expense for Americans of all income quintiles.

#35 | Posted by madbomber at 2016-10-15 11:49 AM | Reply

Even back in the 60s/70s, etc. few 'young adults' had much in savings as that was a rarity [and back then next to none had a credit card to run up debt]. Most people were/are well into their 30s before they even think about retirement savings.

#36 | Posted by MSgt at 2016-10-15 12:00 PM | Reply

I started saving in my late 20s. Very small amounts at first. Then, as my income increased, and advice from my employers and parents and news articles grew louder, I began getting more aggressive, eventually maxing out on contributions and company matches. My wife and I now have well over a million dollars socked away in investments. Plus a house that is 3/4 paid off. All on middle-class salaries. Sounds like a lot, but life is expensive.

#37 | Posted by cbob at 2016-10-15 01:49 PM | Reply

What has change is level of greed.

You mean like... jobs not having pensions?

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 01:56 PM | Reply

We should continue to let uneducated immigrants pour into the country. That'll fix the issue

#39 | Posted by CaseyJones at 2016-10-15 01:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Don't worry. Obamacare and the death panels have your experiment savings all saved up!

#40 | Posted by Federalist at 2016-10-15 02:11 PM | Reply

#39 that's been said sarcastically twice now, but neither person who said it seems to have an actual fix for this issue.

Of course also it's possible they don't even think there's a problem in the first place, like MadB here.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 02:11 PM | Reply

"Of course also it's possible they don't even think there's a problem in the first place, like MadB here."

Not sure about his level of education, but I'm quite thankful for the guy who mows my lawn in the summer. I' for one, have no interest in being outside in July in Louisiana, unless it involves boats or booze.

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2016-10-15 02:45 PM | Reply

Fun fact, you can ride that lawnmower while drunk off your ass.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 02:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I don't think empathy plays a role. I think the difference between now and then is how the taxes were used. Paying a lot to buy ICBMs and aircraft carriers likely seemed a worthwhile expense for Americans of all income quintiles."

Well, for those who let the defense industry scare them, for the rest of us I think we pretty much realize how useless those monstrosities actually are. When was the last time one was used in a necessary war that actually protected America?

#44 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-15 02:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Well, for those who let the defense industry scare them, for the rest of us I think we pretty much realize how useless those monstrosities actually are. When was the last time one was used in a necessary war that actually protected America?

#44 | POSTED BY DANNI

The point of having those things is deterrence. Surely you understand this.

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-15 03:31 PM | Reply

"Surely you understand this."

You can believe that if you want to Jeff. Sucker!

#46 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-15 03:47 PM | Reply

""I told you earlier all the talk of America's economic decline is political hot air. Well, so is all the rhetoric you hear about our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker," Obama said in his last annual State of the Union address Jan. 12, 2016. "Let me tell you something: The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. Period. It's not even close. It's not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined."

www.politifact.com

#47 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-15 03:49 PM | Reply

"payroll taxes generally contribute to ownship."

So what? The overages were used by GWB to defend income tax cuts for the richest. A tax is a tax is a tax.

Your claim was the poor aren't paying any taxes to cut. That's baloney.

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-10-15 04:48 PM | Reply

We should continue to let uneducated immigrants pour into the country. That'll fix the issue

#49 | Posted by CaseyJones at 2016-10-15 05:01 PM | Reply

Fun fact, you can ride that lawnmower while drunk off your ass.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just be sure you know your rights when you do, like Steve Jessup. youtu.be

#50 | Posted by cbob at 2016-10-15 05:46 PM | Reply

"So what? The overages were used by GWB to defend income tax cuts for the richest. A tax is a tax is a tax."

Maybe it's a matter of perspective, but paying into a fund that is going to someday pay me is a little different than paying into a fund that intended to fund everything else. Rich people are funding everything else. the poor-not so much.

#51 | Posted by madbomber at 2016-10-15 06:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

No incorrect.
I have 7 articles written in the last year alone that state that tHAT number is 7/10 americans possess $1000 or less at any given time.
And the people thinking that if we keep the same regime in power with his predecessor who vows NOT to change any better, that THIS is going to get any better?

LAUGHABLE, delusional, and sad to say the least.

#52 | Posted by Clinton4Prison at 2016-10-15 06:18 PM | Reply

Maybe it's a matter of perspective, but paying into a fund that is going to someday pay me is a little different than paying into a fund that intended to fund everything else.

How is that anything but a matter of perspective?

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 06:43 PM | Reply

"Rich people are funding everything else. the poor-not so much."

Again: nonsense, you just want to talk about income taxes.

Let's just talk about payroll taxes, and see how the titles flip inversely.

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-10-15 06:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Let's just talk about payroll taxes, and see how the titles flip inversely."

OK.

Poor people pay payroll taxes. Those taxes benefit them directly. But you can't truthfully claim that the bottom 52% of income earners are shouldering the burden of funding the military, or paying the salaries of government officials, or funding the DOE/DOJ/Department of...whatever... Treasury, and the rest.

And I'm game to talk about payroll taxes, if it's a route you want to go down. But unless you're going to claim that medicare and SS are welfare programs by design, you're going to have a tough time making the argument that they are an unfair burden on the poor. I would submit that payroll taxes are the fairest in the land.

#55 | Posted by madbomber at 2016-10-15 07:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

the bottom 52% of income earners are shouldering the burden of funding the military, or paying the salaries of government officials, or funding the DOE/DOJ/Department of...whatever... Treasury, and the rest.

16% of Federal spending is borrowed. With current interest rates at 0 that means that it is freshly printed money from the Federal reserve. Every time I bring up a UBI you tell me we can't print the money or it will cause inflation. So 16% of the federal budget causes inflation, when bread goes from 2.50 to 2.69 does that burden land on the 1% or the 99%?

I would submit that payroll taxes are the fairest in the land.

Payroll tax:
50k = $3100 = 6.2%
100k = $6200 = 6.2%
150k = $7347 = 4.9%
200k = $7347 = 3.7%
500k = $7347 = 1.5%

Yep completely fair I see what you mean.

Of course the real question is why anyone would even talk to one of the few people on here with a guaranteed pension about what us civilians have to deal with in regards to retirement.

#56 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2016-10-15 08:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

But unless you're going to claim that medicare and SS are welfare programs by design

I claim medicare and SSI are welfare programs by design.

(I fail to see how this "bold" claim could possibly be informative of anything, other than the moral perch from which you choose to look down upon the poor, but whatever.)

you're going to have a tough time making the argument that they are an unfair burden on the poor.

Whew. Good thing that claim just got a whole lot easier! I'll just phone it in, here we go: Poor people die sooner, which renders them less likely to "get back" whatever pittance they "paid in" in the first place.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 09:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Yep completely fair I see what you mean."

You're being dishonest. If you weren't, you'd point out what the taxpayer receives in return for those respective contributions. That's thing about the cap on SS. Payments are tied to contributions. So regardless of how rich or poor you are, the amount you pay in correlates to how much you will receive. That's why it's fair. It's not another welfare program, where the productive classes fund the unproductive so that the unproductive can remain that way and not be burdened as a result of their low value.

"Of course the real question is why anyone would even talk to one of the few people on here with a guaranteed pension about what us civilians have to deal with in regards to retirement."

Not at all. I would hazard a guess that almost everyone with my experience and education enjoys benefits similar to what I have. And I'm nothing special. If you're going to disagree, I'm all ears.

"I claim medicare and SSI are welfare programs by design."

Fair enough, but I'll counter with the fact that Medicare and SS both require contributions and payments are dependent upon what you've paid in. A welfare system provides you with goods or services regardless of whether you contribute or don't. Is that difference insignificant to you?

"Poor people die sooner"

Totally true...but we don't have "poor" people in the US. We have "less rich" people.

#58 | Posted by madbomber at 2016-10-15 10:03 PM | Reply

Interesting fact: of the 100 people who have thus far live longest...only 6 were men.

#59 | Posted by madbomber at 2016-10-15 10:09 PM | Reply

Is that difference insignificant to you?

It's a funding mechanism. The significance of how it's funded is the type of thing we have actuaries for.

Money is fungible. It all spends the same. You morals may not permit you to agree with what I just said, but it's true.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 10:41 PM | Reply

You're being dishonest. If you weren't, you'd point out what the taxpayer receives in return for those respective contributions.

If you were being honest, you'd acknowledge I addressed this in the comment just before yours.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 10:44 PM | Reply

That's thing about the cap on SS. Payments are tied to contributions.

Payments are also tied to you being alive. Some would say, living long enough to recoup what you've paid in would make the system "fair."

"White females have the longest life expectancy at 81.3 years, black females at 78 years, white males at 76.5 years and black males have the shortest at 71.8 years" -- google it.

Notice anything?

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 10:47 PM | Reply

I would hazard a guess that almost everyone with my experience and education enjoys benefits similar to what I have.

I would hazard a guess that 75% my circle of friends has similar or better credentials and yet only one has a non-military pension. Ironically enough she served in the Air Force as well so has both a pension from them and a pension from the major pharmaceutical company she is about to retire from. I had another friend with an IBM pension but he passed away a couple years ago and he had been RIF'd when he was 55. They basically got rid of everyone who had established a pension so they could start reducing it.

Now my grandfather who was IBEW and never went to college had a good pension when he retired. Most of his friends in other unions also retired with good pensions. Of course they worked in a time when HR didn't exist, companies tried to avoid "right sizing" and no one knew WTF synergistic meant let alone used a stupid word like that.

#63 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2016-10-16 08:46 AM | Reply

Payments are also tied to you being alive. Some would say, living long enough to recoup what you've paid in would make the system "fair."

Coming from someone who clearly doesn't understand how social security works. Half of our young adults don't have work and therefore are not contributing, the generation that will be hurt is their parents.

#64 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-10-16 08:51 AM | Reply

oops

#65 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-10-16 08:52 AM | Reply

Social security is not meant to be a pension and it is shocking so many think that's what it is for.

#66 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-10-16 08:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Crassus,

True I hope you didn't take my ruminations on pensions to think I was making that mistake. The thread is about retirement savings which is what I was dealing with.

Honestly the age on SS should be raised with current life expediencies what they are it is acting more like a pension and less like what it was designed for. I say that even being aware that I would be affected. Of course I'm one of the few in their 40's who has some savings built up so it is a bit easier to say raise SS age.

#67 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2016-10-16 09:34 AM | Reply

I am not in agreement for raising the age, they need to employ our young adults so they can contribute.

Currently most only have about 8 years of living without having to work after contributing for 50 or more years, that's just a joke.

#68 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-10-16 09:41 AM | Reply

Crassus,

Yes but that is only if you look at SS as the only retirement. We need to raise the age but perhaps give companies incentives to offer retirement programs in house.

Personally I am looking at retiring at 55, had it not been for MS that would have been 50 but oh well. So yeah I understand that me saying raising SS age is a bit like your grandpa who's already collecting saying it.

If companies would offer in house programs maybe more could retire before SS. Maybe raise the age but offer companies 1 or 2 percent off their FICA taxes if they offered qualifying retirement programs. It would have to be a decent bar to qualify none of these we match 25% of a 401k up to 5% of your income crap but real pensions or 401k's with 100% match or something that could offer legit retirement to employees.

#69 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2016-10-16 10:28 AM | Reply

Oh and addendum to post #69 the rules on withdrawal from IRA and 401k's need to be changed to help people who want early retirement if my ideas were implemented. No sense setting someone up with enough 401k to retire at 55 but not letting them access it to 59 1/2.

#70 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2016-10-16 10:34 AM | Reply

"Money is fungible. It all spends the same. You morals may not permit you to agree with what I just said, but it's true."

What's true? Your statement that SS and Medicare are welfare. OK, but you're also bound to admit that they're very different from those welfare programs that offer benefits without having to have provided anything in return for them.

"I had another friend with an IBM pension but he passed away a couple years ago and he had been RIF'd when he was 55. They basically got rid of everyone who had established a pension so they could start reducing it."

The military has done the same. Starting in 2017, Service members entering the armed forces will get a 401K. It won't be as beneficial for those who make a career of the military, but it will benefit those who don't stay in as long, Under the current system,

#71 | Posted by madbomber at 2016-10-16 12:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

OK, but you're also bound to admit that they're very different from those welfare programs that offer benefits without having to have provided anything in return for them.

You keep saying that, and it keeps being wrong.

The military offers me the benefit of national defense and I didn't have to lift a finger. Should I view the military the same as welfare?

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-16 12:45 PM | Reply

"Poor people pay payroll taxes. Those taxes benefit them directly."

Not always. There is no guarantee, and it's no surprise poorer people have shorter lifespans. In addition, SS is a terrible investment program, and anything which can be made over and above its guaranteed return helps pay for all the things you listed.

Again, YOUR income tax cut was (supposedly) financed by overcollections in payroll taxes. A tax is a tax is a tax, and the poor pay plenty of them.

#73 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-10-16 05:47 PM | Reply

"You keep saying that, and it keeps being wrong."

The military is going to do what it does to benefit regardless of how worthless or productive you are.

If you don't contribute to Medicare, you're not going to get Medicare benefits.

SS was not intended to be a welfare program, but that's what it has become as a result of SSDI, and states enrolling their poor people in SSDI (a federally funded program) so that they can strike them from state-funded welfare rolls.

#74 | Posted by madbomber at 2016-10-16 05:50 PM | Reply

SS was not intended to be a welfare program

Sure it was. It still is.
It's obviously intended to secure the welfare of retirees, and widows.

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-16 05:52 PM | Reply

"If you don't contribute to Medicare, you're not going to get Medicare benefits."

Not necessarily true. You can be the spouse of someone who contributed. Also, "You do not need any work credits to qualify for Part B (mainly doctors' services and outpatient care) or for Part D (prescription drug coverage)."

www.aarp.org

The link also provides other scenarios of qualifying without contributions.

#76 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-10-16 06:26 PM | Reply

"Nearly Half of Young Adults Lack Retirement Savings."

How many of are working in jobs that offer retirement plans in the first place?

I absolutely, unequivocally did not start saving for retirement until I got a job with 1 401(K).
Any savings before that were just "saving."
It was not earmarked "for retirement," with special tax laws.

For any young people reading: Jobs with a future offer a 401(K), go-nowhere jobs do not.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-16 06:47 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort