Is $1 Million Enough to Retire On?

SSN LOGEVITY

I am not sure that minor fixes won't fix SSN. Medicare is another story.If you think we can't fix it, then you have to admit you can't save enough to survive in retirement either.

since that depends on your investments, which we all know wont always go up. r won't collapse at the wrong tie (like just before or just after you retire). Or that medical condition won't get you and destroy all your investments

dw of TX @ Jun 04, 2008 15:22:29 PM

There is no trust fund surplus.

The poster above is clearly misinformed. The so called "trust fund" does not contain any tangible assets (I'll pause here for an aside for the slow learners: the Treasury Securities are nothing more than IOUs to the bondholders - example: I bought a bond for $20K, the government promisies to pay me interest semi-annually, and return my $20K in twenty years. The goverment then takes that $20K, dumps it into the general account and spends it). There is no asset backing the security.

Yes, the Social Security system is one giant PONZI scheme and to believe anything else is delusional.

The system would have an outside chance at being viable if the trust fund contained actual assets (e.g. we're saving our tax dollars, not spening them) and was subject to responsible actuarial scrutiny and realistic assumptions.

Peter South of SC @ Jun 04, 2008 13:42:15 PM

You can delude yourself into believing SS is safe

You can delude yourself into believing SS is safe, but reality is it isn't. At least not in its current form. There are several factors working against SS solvency.

1. Life expectancy. At inception life expectancy was 67 years now it is pushing 80.

2. Politicians have changed it from the original idea of a stipend for the elderly. They realized they could bribe grandma for her vote with her grandkids' money. You can't just keep increasing the payout from a PONZI scheme without increasing the pay-in dramatically.

Politicians likely wont have the courage to let the program die. So most likely we will see a couple changes. The limit on only paying SSA tax on first 96k of earnings will be modified considerably higher. Additionally, you can expect to see a form of means testing added. Meaning if you're responsible and save for your retirement you won't get a pay-out after making forced contributions for decades.

To put that in easier to understand terms, take two guys, say me and my brother. He spends every penny he makes and never says no to himself. I save some from every paycheck and occasionally tell myself "nah, you don't NEED it" regarding a potential purchase. He will get a SS check because he will not have funded his retirement. I fully expect the government to tell me to get lost.

It is similar to the proposed housing bailout ideas. If you've been responsible and paid for the things you've bought and paid your taxes then your money will be given to the irresponsible crooks who bought something and stopped paying for it (that's called stealing in my book).

Largebill of OH @ Jun 04, 2008 10:42:42 AM

Yeah, Don't YOU Fool Yourself...

"The problem with Social Security isn't a matter of policy, it's numbers. The false belief that just because it has worked up till now means it will continue is rubbish. The biggest problem we face is that the sheer number of baby boomers beginning to retire will overwhelm the Generation X workforce and younger that is supposed to support them."

---

This is false. The problem isn't that there are too many boomers - there is a massive trust fund surplus to cover that. You're shooting off your mouth without knowing the facts.

The problem IS policy - precisely the opposite of what the above poster states. The problem is that the government has run up a massive debt - of which the bonds in the SS Trust Fund is only one. The trust fund contains Treasury Securities that have been bought and paid for by the public (including the boomers) and IS enough to cover the boomers' SS with some minor tweaking (like lifting the earnings limit). These are the same types of securities that people buy every day for their investment accounts. The boomers' retirements have been bought and paid for - it's just a matter of whether the government will renege on the bonds these workers purchased for their retirements (the bonds that are now in the SS Trust Fund). In other words, will the government steal the all the money that the boomers (and others) sent from their paychecks to build up the trust fund (and use it for things like bailing out speculating banks, as the FED is now doing)? If people believe the moron who posted above, they just might be able to pull it off the biggest heist in history.

The poster above is spewing dumbed-down GW Bush propaganda. It's a blatant lie, and it is based on ignorance.

bob of IL @ Jun 03, 2008 23:30:09 PM

Sure it is

If your first expenditure results in a fatal accident.

of KY @ Jun 03, 2008 22:49:54 PM

Mult-Multiple Flaws - to Dr Gonzo of MN

Times are a-changing right in front of our eyes. +$4 Gas and food inflation prices alone speak to that. Please do all the math before you lead others astray that Social Security will be there (in anywhere near its current form). It won't using today's math. You can't continue to offer benefits where 3 people support every retire, especially when that 3 is going towards 2 supporters. And living older means healthcare costs grow exponentially. R U aware that Medicare and Medicaid are going bankrupt faster than Social Security? Have you calculated the $9 Trillion of Federal Debt we all owe? And that curve is growing nearly asympotitic, something that can only be properly fixed with huge government spending. And not just the 19% in Military spending but the 81% in all the other inefficient liberal programs our Congressional leaders have stuffed down our throats. A dollar that isn't backed by gold nor silver. That means that until spending is cut inflation is something you can continue to count on. And heavier taxes are likely with any democrat in power - as will make our business'es even less competitive against other countries without generous social programs. 33% is the average tax on what I make, and then when I buy anything I get hit with another 6%. Tell me that that ~40% isn't a great burden. To me it seems as though we're not more than a heartbeat away from the 60-70% taxes of the Nordic countries.

K C of our 27th State.

K C of FL @ Jun 03, 2008 17:44:17 PM

Foreign country?

Who wants to leave the greatest country in the world? My parents worked their behinds off to move from those foreign countries jo mamma mentioned. Sure, it sounds good, but have you actually stayed long term in those countries.

Marginal water supply, iffy utilities, weak infrastructure.

I'm guessing you may have vacationed in Puerto Vallarta and thought - "Gee, this is great". Sure - try and actually living there before you make ridiculous comments.

Bob of FL @ Jun 03, 2008 17:43:27 PM

Don't fool yourself

The problem with Social Security isn't a matter of policy, it's numbers. The false belief that just because it has worked up till now means it will continue is rubbish. The biggest problem we face is that the sheer number of baby boomers beginning to retire will overwhelm the Generation X workforce and younger that is supposed to support them.

I am just over forty and I'll tell you that you have to pretend Social Security doesn't exist, if by some strange chance it survives by the time we retire - consider it gravy.

Benny of CO @ Jun 03, 2008 17:36:25 PM