(10-08-2026 10:35 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 10:30 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:03 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:42 AM)b2b Wrote:  The average SS tax per year is $4,140. Lets say over a lifetime you invest that into a 401K yearly. You end up with around a million at 60 and $1.3M at 65.

WTF are we doing?

Put that $300 per month into a retirement account. Start at 21, and by the time you are 46 you would have $4.5million.

You'll have to show your work on that one.

He would only need an average return rate of 25.2% over 25 years to hit that. Only have to beat Warren Buffets CAGR by 15% to get there, I’m sure he can do it.

Assets is the best way to accumulate wealth

(10-08-2026 11:25 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 10:30 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:03 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:42 AM)b2b Wrote:  The average SS tax per year is $4,140. Lets say over a lifetime you invest that into a 401K yearly. You end up with around a million at 60 and $1.3M at 65.

WTF are we doing?

Put that $300 per month into a retirement account. Start at 21, and by the time you are 46 you would have $4.5million.

You would have to contribute $3000 a month over 25 years at the historical nominal return on 10% to get $4.5M.

300 a month is 372k after 25 years.

66 not 46.

That's a 9.35% annual rate of return.

(10-08-2026 11:23 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:51 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I'm 64 and will strongly need social security income. But I'm not sure I would support taxing younger people to help we Boomers with social security. Maybe a special tax focused on excess consumption. I'm not a fan of taxing folks' earned income (i.e., their productivity).

Regardless, I would need to ponder.

Why not tax these guys? At least one has a documented streak of not paying any income tax at all (“That makes me smart!”) while office workers and schoolteachers feel a pinch every April.

If taxing consumption is your preference, there’s plenty to go after. Some CEOs actually get tax breaks on private helicopters and jets.

As I've posted previous, if your son (for example) spent a year working 80 hours a week in a restaurant ... no tax on his income. He worked his tail off. Let's not penalize him for hustling, Git.

Now I'm all for maximizing luxury and consumption taxes. As much as I like beer, I would be fine with the sales tax on alcohol being doubled (if, of course, we could lessen, or eliminate, taxing productivity).

(10-08-2026 11:40 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:51 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I'm 64 and will strongly need social security income. But I'm not sure I would support taxing younger people to help we Boomers with social security. Maybe a special tax focused on excess consumption. I'm not a fan of taxing folks' earned income (i.e., their productivity).

Regardless, I would need to ponder.

I am 66, and unless health concerns intervene have no intention of retiring before 70 (or hopefully beyond that).

I realize therefore that this is a selfish statement on my part, but I would have no problem pushing Social Security eligibility to 70-plus.

With people living longer, that move might actually work well.

(10-08-2026 11:23 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:51 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I'm 64 and will strongly need social security income. But I'm not sure I would support taxing younger people to help we Boomers with social security. Maybe a special tax focused on excess consumption. I'm not a fan of taxing folks' earned income (i.e., their productivity).

Regardless, I would need to ponder.

Why not tax these guys? At least one has a documented streak of not paying any income tax at all (“That makes me smart!”) while office workers and schoolteachers feel a pinch every April.

If taxing consumption is your preference, there’s plenty to go after. Some CEOs actually get tax breaks on private helicopters and jets.

They all pay the exact same to social security, either $23K or $11.5K/year based either on if they are self-employed or an employee. There's a cap on how much we can be taxed each year for SS and those above figures are the cap. Now, if you want to argue whether the cap should be adjusted, that' s a fair discussion to have, imo.

(10-08-2026 11:44 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:51 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I'm 64 and will strongly need social security income. But I'm not sure I would support taxing younger people to help we Boomers with social security. Maybe a special tax focused on excess consumption. I'm not a fan of taxing folks' earned income (i.e., their productivity).

Regardless, I would need to ponder.

That's nobody's fault but your own. Never married. No kids to support over the years. Jeez.

Married w/ 4 children and I've never factored Social Security into my retirement plans.

So are you assuming I've been lazy and/or careless with my finances, b2b?

How do you know that I've not had a serious illness or injury that, for example, prevented me from working for many years, thus limiting my income? (Thank God that hasn't happened.)

I've worked as a journalist and adjunct college teacher for about 40 years and have never generated significant annual income. But I've been happy with the work, and I hope I've offered my happiness (in the form of encouragement, support and love) to my family members and friends.

Plus, I would like to think I've made a small, yet positive, contribution to society with the media and teaching work I've done.

Some of us depend (or will so) on social security.

As to my not having kids, and on a lighter note, I can't fathom Bill Dazzle offspring.

(10-08-2026 12:25 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 11:44 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:51 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I'm 64 and will strongly need social security income. But I'm not sure I would support taxing younger people to help we Boomers with social security. Maybe a special tax focused on excess consumption. I'm not a fan of taxing folks' earned income (i.e., their productivity).

Regardless, I would need to ponder.

That's nobody's fault but your own. Never married. No kids to support over the years. Jeez.

Married w/ 4 children and I've never factored Social Security into my retirement plans.

So are you assuming I've been lazy and/or careless with my finances, b2b?

How do you know that I've not had a serious illness or injury that, for example, prevented me from working for many years, thus limiting my income? (Thank God that hasn't happened.)

I've worked as a journalist and adjunct college teacher for about 40 years and have never generated significant annual income. But I've been happy with the work, and I hope I've offered my happiness (in the form of encouragement, support and love) to my family members and friends.

Plus, I would like to think I've made a small, yet positive, contribution to society with the media and teaching work I've done.

Some of us depend (or will so) on social security.

As to my not having kids, and on a lighter note, I can't fathom Bill Dazzle offspring.

The #'s have been laid out here by multiple people what can be made from relatively modest investment into a 401k. Journalism and teaching aren't making you a killing but you'd have made more than enough to invest more into retirement to not really NEED social security.

And I didn't know that you've never had a serious illness preventing you from working but you just admitted it so there's that. No serious illness. No kids. I guess that leaves us at careless.

(10-08-2026 11:25 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 10:30 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:03 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:42 AM)b2b Wrote:  The average SS tax per year is $4,140. Lets say over a lifetime you invest that into a 401K yearly. You end up with around a million at 60 and $1.3M at 65.

WTF are we doing?

Put that $300 per month into a retirement account. Start at 21, and by the time you are 46 you would have $4.5million.

You would have to contribute $3000 a month over 25 years at the historical nominal return on 10% to get $4.5M.

300 a month is 372k after 25 years.

66 not 46.

300 a month for 45 years at the historical nominal return of 10% would be $2.762M. Assuming an average inflation rate of 2.5% that 2.672M would have the equivalent purchasing power of $909k in today’s dollars.

Not sure what the solution is, but me paying more money (for 30+ more years at that) into a program that I’m 99.99% sure I won’t see any benefit from, isn’t it. Praise the Lord for giving me a 401k and pension.

I don’t agree with everything he does, but Trump creating those accounts for kids seems like a better alternative than social security. Of course, playing craps or roulette seems like a better bet than social security.

(10-08-2026 12:30 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 12:25 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 11:44 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:51 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I'm 64 and will strongly need social security income. But I'm not sure I would support taxing younger people to help we Boomers with social security. Maybe a special tax focused on excess consumption. I'm not a fan of taxing folks' earned income (i.e., their productivity).

Regardless, I would need to ponder.

That's nobody's fault but your own. Never married. No kids to support over the years. Jeez.

Married w/ 4 children and I've never factored Social Security into my retirement plans.

So are you assuming I've been lazy and/or careless with my finances, b2b?

How do you know that I've not had a serious illness or injury that, for example, prevented me from working for many years, thus limiting my income? (Thank God that hasn't happened.)

I've worked as a journalist and adjunct college teacher for about 40 years and have never generated significant annual income. But I've been happy with the work, and I hope I've offered my happiness (in the form of encouragement, support and love) to my family members and friends.

Plus, I would like to think I've made a small, yet positive, contribution to society with the media and teaching work I've done.

Some of us depend (or will so) on social security.

As to my not having kids, and on a lighter note, I can't fathom Bill Dazzle offspring.

The #'s have been laid out here by multiple people what can be made from relatively modest investment into a 401k. Journalism and teaching aren't making you a killing but you'd have made more than enough to invest more into retirement to not really NEED social security.

And I didn't know that you've never had a serious illness preventing you from working but you just admitted it so there's that. No serious illness. No kids. I guess that leaves us at careless.

I have a 401(k) and am in solid shape with my savings and investments. Started an IRA when I was in my 20s. Fortunately, I am significantly better off financially than the average American (though that might not be saying much). But I will still need social security benefits to supplement my monthly income with my savings and investments.

On a related note, I might have to retire early to take care of my elderly parents (living with them part-time now). Social security would be helpful in that case.

I mentioned the injury/illness example to highlight the fact that you seemingly assumed I had been lazy and/or irresponsible with my finances. You failed (IMO) to see that there might be a valid reason I might need for social security payments. It simply seemed you were stereotyping me. My apologies if I misread your point. No hard feelings.

In theory, I could perhaps retire and never collect social security and be OK. But I will take the benefits, live simply (as I do now) and be thankful.

(10-08-2026 08:17 AM)b2b Wrote:  Personally speaking, I find this despicable. It's such a horrible idea for all the generations but if any should be able to afford for their SS payments to drop it would be the boomers.

https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy...00571.html

Quote:Social Security's trust fund is now expected to run out of reserves earlier than projected last year, according to the latest report from the program's board of trustees.

The 2026 Board of Trustees Report projects the depletion date for the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund to come in the fourth quarter of 2032, three months earlier than estimated in the 2025 report (1). Once those reserves are gone, ongoing revenue would cover just 78% of scheduled benefits.

That accelerated depletion date is putting even more pressure on lawmakers to find a fix before benefits take a hit. But one potential fix has particularly strong support among older Americans: raising taxes on younger Americans.

In fact, an overwhelming 89% of Americans over the age of 65 said Social Security benefits should be protected at current levels, even if it means higher taxes on younger workers, according to a 2025 survey by the Cato Institute (2).

And it's not only Americans aged 65+ who prefer this solution. Roughly 84% of those aged 55 to 64 preferred higher taxes on younger Americans, while 74% between the ages of 45 and 54 agreed with it as well.

Why would ANYBODY support raising taxes for SS? It's such a horrible system and there's really no "paying into" it b/c at no time can you check your balance. We're just throwing money down a hole trusting the gov't to do the right thing and they never do.

A couple of points worth mentioning. The "Boomers" ALREADY were forced to pay a lifetime of increased Social Security taxes which they were told would go "into a lockbox" to prevent the fund from going broke. Furthermore, most Boomers now have 85% of their Social Security benefit taxed as normal income where as it used to not be taxed at all. Finally, the Boomers also got hit with an increase in the age of full retirement by 2 years---not to mention they were the first generation to deal with having to navigate the switch to 401K's vs pensions. Boomers also absorbed 2 near 50% falls in the stock market, double digit inflation, and dealt with home mortgage rates that reached over 18% at one point. A lot of Boomers didnt do very well with those head winds and will likely be working to the day they die because of those failures.

In the end, what I can say is the Boomers were given a set of rules that were not as good as the ones enjoyed by the generation before. As individuals, our job is to make the best of the cards we are dealt. It takes most regular folks a lifetime to prepare for retirement---but if they work hard and plan well---they can craft a pretty decent life for the time when they are no longer in demand as part of the work force. Changing the rules at the finish line is not a viable solution----just as it wasnt in the early 80's when the young Boomers were told that their SS taxes would go up, their retirement would instantly become 2 years farther away, and they would have to pay taxes on their benefits (assuming they lived long enough to finally receive them).

If it were me, I remove the cap for SS taxes (I believe it's been reported that this move alone will cover about 70% of the shortfall). Add a small tiny SS tax on all stock market transactions. I'd phase in an increase in full retirement age to 69 (people are living longer after all). Pretty sure those 3 things alone would cover the shortfall---might even not need to do all 3. As part of the tax increase-I'd really like to see at least a small portion of every wage earner's tax increase go to an actual account that is a true individual tax free Roth that is invested into the stock market and is given to the individual as a lump sum the day he/she begins taking Social Security. Too many simply arent good at planning and will enter their retirement years dead broke (almost 20% are currently arriving at age 65 with no savings at all---and more that twice that amount have less that 10K in savings at age 65). At least a provision such as this could make sure everyone has at least some savings when they enter retirement.

(10-08-2026 01:35 PM)Frank Grimes Wrote:  Not sure what the solution is, but me paying more money (for 30+ more years at that) into a program that I’m 99.99% sure I won’t see any benefit from, isn’t it. Praise the Lord for giving me a 401k and pension.

I don’t agree with everything he does, but Trump creating those accounts for kids seems like a better alternative than social security. Of course, playing craps or roulette seems like a better bet than social security.

I keep seeing this---especially when it comes to the young. Social Security will be there. Even if NOTHING is done, the SS fund "going broke" doesnt mean SS benefits end. It just means the fund that was designed to cover the difference between current SS tax revenue and total SS benefit cost would be empty---meaning that the current benefits could only be funded to the level that current SS tax revenue could afford (roughly 78% of the total owed benefits). So---unless every single person in US is out of a job when todays workers are ready to retire--- then SS tax money will still be coming in when todays young workers get to the finish line. I'd also note one reason SS is not anywhere near as efficient as individual savings accounts is that it also serves as an insurance policy paying benefits to disabled workers as well as to the dependent minor children of deceased workers. That said, the system works way too much like a ponzi scheme for my tastes--but then Im not a fan of deficit budgets either---and Ive been stuck with both for as long as I can remember. It is what it is.

(10-08-2026 12:44 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 11:25 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 10:30 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:03 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:42 AM)b2b Wrote:  The average SS tax per year is $4,140. Lets say over a lifetime you invest that into a 401K yearly. You end up with around a million at 60 and $1.3M at 65.

WTF are we doing?

Put that $300 per month into a retirement account. Start at 21, and by the time you are 46 you would have $4.5million.

You would have to contribute $3000 a month over 25 years at the historical nominal return on 10% to get $4.5M.

300 a month is 372k after 25 years.

66 not 46.

300 a month for 45 years at the historical nominal return of 10% would be $2.762M. Assuming an average inflation rate of 2.5% that 2.672M would have the equivalent purchasing power of $909k in today’s dollars.

Hey dummy, BRB's example started in the past to get that number. so your inflation number doesnt apply because retirees would be landing with todays inflation, not inflation 46 years out.

Someone 46 years ago who put the average of 300 per month would have 5 million dollars in TODAYS MONEY.

Ifyou take it into the future, you also have to increase the money going into the investment because THEIR INCOMES WILL ALSO GO UP. Inflations isnt the only thing that goes up.

I would support something like Australia's superannuation. It does have a Social Security-style age pension but it is not the sole leg the program stands on unlike here in the US. One advantage is that it would reliwve employers from the administrative burdends of 401(k) and similar programs, as Australia's Superannuation is not tied to an employer.

Giving a grant to everyone at birth would also be far cheaper than Social Security. Compound returns are the eight wonder of the world; those who get it receive them, those who don't get it pay them. I would probably want to set it up to where one would have about $24,000 annually (in today's dollars) available to them at age 65, which means they would ultimately need 4.1 million dollars 65 years from now. This would make the initial deposit $8,400, which at nearly 3.7 million birthday annually would run about $31 billion annually. Force people to invest 12% of their pay like Australia does and you create scenarios where people can retire very securely.

(10-08-2026 09:03 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:34 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:24 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:17 AM)b2b Wrote:  ....
Why would ANYBODY support raising taxes for SS? It's such a horrible system and there's really no "paying into" it b/c at no time can you check your balance. We're just throwing money down a hole trusting the gov't to do the right thing and they never do.

Social Security does have recipients. The money doesn’t all go “down a hole.”

Room exists to improve things. No one doubts this.

Social Security is designed to keep large numbers of people out of poverty. It succeeds in this goal. Always has.

It's an absolutely horrible system. There is no defending it. You could invest the money in a 401k and end up with hundreds of thousands more by retirement age.

Likely so. But wrong question.

Social Security was established at a time of emergency. No one had a 401k. Discouraged fathers were abandoning their families to become hobos, women were taking pride in their ability to make clothing out of feed sacks, soup kitchens were a thing, and armadillos made it to dinner plates.

In this environment Social Security was enacted to help keep people out of poverty. It succeeded in that aim and it continues to do that.

A recent study by the University of Chicago found that:

Without income from Social Security, two thirds of the elderly would be considered poor. Social Security reduced the poverty rate to 16 percent in 2008.

That finding aligns with previous research showing that nearly the entire decline in the poverty rate among the elderly since the 1960s is due to Social Security.

In fact, Social Security reduced poverty significantly across almost all family types. Social Security is by far the largest government transfer program based on the number of households reached as well as the average benefit paid out to recipients. Around 65 percent of the dollars dispersed by the program go to those who would be considered poor without the transfer payment.

Retired workers account for the majority of the program’s recipients; however, 14 percent of beneficiaries are disabled workers and 17 percent are the survivors of deceased workers or spouses and children of retired workers. The researchers from the University of Chicago found that while Social Security reduced the rate of poverty among households with elderly residents by 75 percent, it also reduced poverty among households led by a disabled recipient by 33 percent. Those rates far exceeded reductions resulting from programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Housing Assistance, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-effect...n-poverty/

Full study, University of Chicago
https://www.nber.org/system/files/workin...w24567.pdf

Related report on child poverty
https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-are-th...d-poverty/

__

As a broken-down, dried-up old man who still has to work 3 days a week, the SS benefits I paid into for over 50 years have helped keep me afloat. My health has deteriorated to the point that if something doesn't improve soon, I may be forced to become far more sedentary than I ever have been in my lifetime.

SS is a lifeline that, without it, I would be lost. However, if that was all I had to depend on monthly, I'd likely be all but destitute. Is it my own fault that I didn't prepare well enough for my golden years?"Possibly, but there have been events in my lifetime that have robbed me of such nest eggs as I did manage to develop.

Is it time for a change going forward in dealing with today's modern workforce? Probably. Should I be robbed of the benefits of a program I contributed to for over 50 years? Hell no.

Boomers are an easy target for resentful, spiteful younger people looking for an easy target at which to lob barbs over their own economic failures.

(10-08-2026 09:32 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 12:44 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 11:25 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 10:30 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:03 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Put that $300 per month into a retirement account. Start at 21, and by the time you are 46 you would have $4.5million.

You would have to contribute $3000 a month over 25 years at the historical nominal return on 10% to get $4.5M.

300 a month is 372k after 25 years.

66 not 46.

300 a month for 45 years at the historical nominal return of 10% would be $2.762M. Assuming an average inflation rate of 2.5% that 2.672M would have the equivalent purchasing power of $909k in today’s dollars.

Hey dummy, BRB's example started in the past to get that number. so your inflation number doesnt apply because retirees would be landing with todays inflation, not inflation 46 years out.

Someone 46 years ago who put the average of 300 per month would have 5 million dollars in TODAYS MONEY.

Ifyou take it into the future, you also have to increase the money going into the investment because THEIR INCOMES WILL ALSO GO UP. Inflations isnt the only thing that goes up.

Yes, we should tell everyone who is about to have their social security cut to go back in time 46 years and save 300 a month, that will fix it.

So in one of your scenarios the contributions are fixed, and in one they are inflation adjusted, and you arbitrarily are deciding which one?

More backpedaling as you try to cover up for bad math.

What happened to your “invest $1000 at birth for 1.5M claim, you hoping people forgot about that one?

(10-08-2026 10:25 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:33 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  This is why the Trump accounts for kids is such a great idea. It can replace what SS will eventually fail doing. Just fund $1000 into a newborns ira account (a real citizen, not a fake one), and by the time they are 67, theres 1.5million in there.

$1000 invested for 67 years at the 10% nominal average return of the US stock market is 593k in today’s dollars and with 2.5% average inflation have the spending power of $134k of today’s dollars.

I am a Boomer. I believe taxes have to be part of the fix, I also think current seniors "(ME)" have to be part of the fix. maybe cut 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of living increases for 3 to 8 years. Slow the growth of expenses while also adding money into the system.

For taxes I would do a small increase in both Medicare tax and SS tax rate plus raise top limit on wages SS tax is paid on.
If they had fixed it 5 to 10 years ago it would hac been real small adjustments, it gets harder every year they put it off.

My wife and I are looking at a combined $105 raise after Medicare increase. I would prefer a $30 to 50 less now than a 21% in a few years.

(10-09-2026 07:58 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I am a Boomer. I believe taxes have to be part of the fix, I also think current seniors "(ME)" have to be part of the fix. maybe cut 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of living increases for 3 to 8 years. Slow the growth of expenses while also adding money into the system.

For taxes I would do a small increase in both Medicare tax and SS tax rate plus raise top limit on wages SS tax is paid on.
If they had fixed it 5 to 10 years ago it would hac been real small adjustments, it gets harder every year they put it off.

My wife and I are looking at a combined $105 raise after Medicare increase. I would prefer a $30 to 50 less now than a 21% in a few years.

Any reasonable fix will be a combo of increasing the payroll tax a small amount, figuring out how to raise the income cap without raising benefits (potentially similar to the Medicare Surtax), and slowly raising full retirement age again.

(10-09-2026 05:39 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:03 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:34 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:24 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:17 AM)b2b Wrote:  ....
Why would ANYBODY support raising taxes for SS? It's such a horrible system and there's really no "paying into" it b/c at no time can you check your balance. We're just throwing money down a hole trusting the gov't to do the right thing and they never do.

Social Security does have recipients. The money doesn’t all go “down a hole.”

Room exists to improve things. No one doubts this.

Social Security is designed to keep large numbers of people out of poverty. It succeeds in this goal. Always has.

It's an absolutely horrible system. There is no defending it. You could invest the money in a 401k and end up with hundreds of thousands more by retirement age.

Likely so. But wrong question.

Social Security was established at a time of emergency. No one had a 401k. Discouraged fathers were abandoning their families to become hobos, women were taking pride in their ability to make clothing out of feed sacks, soup kitchens were a thing, and armadillos made it to dinner plates.

In this environment Social Security was enacted to help keep people out of poverty. It succeeded in that aim and it continues to do that.

A recent study by the University of Chicago found that:

Without income from Social Security, two thirds of the elderly would be considered poor. Social Security reduced the poverty rate to 16 percent in 2008.

That finding aligns with previous research showing that nearly the entire decline in the poverty rate among the elderly since the 1960s is due to Social Security.

In fact, Social Security reduced poverty significantly across almost all family types. Social Security is by far the largest government transfer program based on the number of households reached as well as the average benefit paid out to recipients. Around 65 percent of the dollars dispersed by the program go to those who would be considered poor without the transfer payment.

Retired workers account for the majority of the program’s recipients; however, 14 percent of beneficiaries are disabled workers and 17 percent are the survivors of deceased workers or spouses and children of retired workers. The researchers from the University of Chicago found that while Social Security reduced the rate of poverty among households with elderly residents by 75 percent, it also reduced poverty among households led by a disabled recipient by 33 percent. Those rates far exceeded reductions resulting from programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Housing Assistance, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-effect...n-poverty/

Full study, University of Chicago
https://www.nber.org/system/files/workin...w24567.pdf

Related report on child poverty
https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-are-th...d-poverty/

__

As a broken-down, dried-up old man who still has to work 3 days a week, the SS benefits I paid into for over 50 years have helped keep me afloat. My health has deteriorated to the point that if something doesn't improve soon, I may be forced to become far more sedentary than I ever have been in my lifetime.

SS is a lifeline that, without it, I would be lost. However, if that was all I had to depend on monthly, I'd likely be all but destitute. Is it my own fault that I didn't prepare well enough for my golden years?"Possibly, but there have been events in my lifetime that have robbed me of such nest eggs as I did manage to develop.

Is it time for a change going forward in dealing with today's modern workforce? Probably. Should I be robbed of the benefits of a program I contributed to for over 50 years? Hell no.

Boomers are an easy target for resentful, spiteful younger people looking for an easy target at which to lob barbs over their own economic failures.

I think that defines what social security should be. A safety net of income that’s there to help everyone through retirement.

(10-09-2026 07:58 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I am a Boomer. I believe taxes have to be part of the fix, I also think current seniors "(ME)" have to be part of the fix. maybe cut 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of living increases for 3 to 8 years. Slow the growth of expenses while also adding money into the system.

For taxes I would do a small increase in both Medicare tax and SS tax rate plus raise top limit on wages SS tax is paid on.
If they had fixed it 5 to 10 years ago it would hac been real small adjustments, it gets harder every year they put it off.

My wife and I are looking at a combined $105 raise after Medicare increase. I would prefer a $30 to 50 less now than a 21% in a few years.

Current retirees paid in to subsidize previous generations. Non-starter to change the rules after someone is retired. You need to do it with decades to prepare. The 1983 law didn't impact anyone over 40. Those born 1943-1954 were changed to 66. After that it was increased by 2 months per year until those born in 1960 who were at 67.

You can raise the cap and gradually raise the standard retirement age to 70 for under 40. Early retirement will be kept at 62. Plug some in from the general fund to fill the difference. They already effectively pulled money out with the social security holidays in the Obama administration in 2011 and 2012. I thought that was a really bad precedent. They could have done that in other ways.

I don't think social security taxes should be raised, because I am certain we can't keep Medicare sound without raising the medicare tax. Save the rate increases for Medicare changes.