I'm 45. Will Social Security still be around when I'm ready to collect?

[Ecthy]

I'm 45.

points and

[Imran Siddiqui]

I believe the bolded part, JohnT, says a person who is covered by the act (ie, person collecting) has NO right in collecting Social Security, even though they paid into it. Therefore any lack of payment (ie, "defeasance of 'accrued' interes) does not violate the Due Process Clause.

I assume the argument by the plaintiff was that him paying in money to SS, without a guarentee he would get it back (depending on when he died), was depriving of his property (his money) without due process of law. The SCOTUS here basically said "shut up". You don't have a right to get your money back, so if the government doesn't pay you 'your share', that doesn't violate the Constitution.

The 'lockbox' is not addressed in that passage at all. I don't think the court would rule that a 'lockbox' would be unconstitutional. It'd definetly be dumb though .

[JohnT]

Gotcha. Thanks.

So does the "lockbox" idea essentially remove the provision in the Act that allows Congress to make adjustments to the Act as they see fit? Hell, can Congress even make a law that prevents Congress from amending that same law (leaving aside all political ramifications)?

Or is it campaign hooey, all sound and fury signifying nothing?

[Arrian]

I assume the argument by the plaintiff was that him paying in money to SS, without a guarentee he would get it back (depending on when he died), was depriving of his property (his money) without due process of law. The SCOTUS here basically said "shut up".

Bastards.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

So does the "lockbox" idea essentially remove the provision in the Act that allows Congress to make adjustments to the Act as they see fit?

No, because any 'lockbox' plan would simply be another law. Congress would easily be able to make adjustments to that act in the future if it wanted to. After all, a 'lockbox' doesn't guarentee to individual recipients a certain amount of money (which would make it a property right), so it could be adjusted whenever.

[pchang]

The only effective "lockbox" would be to pass it as a constitutional amendment.

[Kidicious]

I'm against raising the retirement age. In fact bring it back to 55 years old. That will help us with our unemployment problem. Just raise taxes.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by pchang
You have to realize that the largest group in the left are white females.

Oh really?

[Imran Siddiqui]

He means left-of-center in the US, you are aware?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm against raising the retirement age. In fact bring it back to 55 years old. That will help us with our unemployment problem. Just raise taxes.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Lancer
What might I expect? Certainly I'll be collecting after the boomers...will they break the bank and leave me with naught?

-Concerned

I think one of two things will happen.
1.) That you etheir will get next to nothing or SS ends all togather.
2.) The government start selling a lot more bounds and we go into debt a few hunder billion dollars more.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

yes

[Jack_www]

I dont know why anyone in their right mind would count on Social Security. It pays next to nothing and you could not live you current life stly off it. What you could at most get $1000 bucks a month? You could not even pay the rent with that, or if you own your house by that time you would be living in proverty if that was all you got. ANd this is before the baby boom is going to hit.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

I didnt say at what level... but it will be something.

[Lancer]

Jack, in the Philippines you can still live very well on very little. In a land where a skilled carpenter/mason makes $5 a day, a laborer $3, $700 a month will set you up like a king, or at least a prince.

Ecthelion...many spend their youth laughing at older people. Eventually you find the joke is on you.

[:) Smiley]

Lancer, by the time I get to retirement age, there's a good chance that such large international differences in purchasing power will be gone, give the rate they've diminished in the last 4 decades.

This is a self correcting problem though, as the USA is a democratic nation. When the people paying for SS get fed up enough and outnumber those recieving it or soon to recieve it, SS ends.

Already, the de facto retirement age is increased past the SS age as people keep working since the SS check is insufficient.

[DanS]

Very true. Although SS is sufficient for most who don't live in high cost of living areas. What does a recipient get at the low end? $1,000? $1,500 a month?

[:) Smiley]

Regardless of what amount one gets from SS, it is significantly less than what they would get working, as in less than half. So basically SS keeps people from starving even if they have no savings.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by DanS
Very true. Although SS is sufficient for most who don't live in high cost of living areas. What does a recipient get at the low end? $1,000? $1,500 a month?

Less than that... the "lowest" you can go is a one-time death benefit of appx. $250.00. Monthly checks average (iirc and I don't have time to look up a cite) around $900.

Actually, I did a quick google and came up with the following:

In general, individuals must contribute for a minimum of 40 quarters (10 years) to receive Social Security retirement benefits, or 20 quarters to receive disability benefits. In return for these contributions, individuals generally can expect:

A monthly check after retirement, with the average check being $697 in December 1994.

These are 1994 figures, though. In a 2002 Business Week article, the following is quoted about the maximum payments:

For example, a 62-year-old who garners the maximum benefit, based on wages earned over a 35-year career, must consider whether it's better to take $1,248 a month now, $1,767 a month starting at age 65, or a larger sum starting later.

[pchang]

In order to get Max benefits, you have to be making over $70,000 per year or so (it is adjusted for cost of living increases every year). For at least 10 or so quarters of SS contributions. Anything less gets you proprotionately less.

[Lancer]

I have a friend getting $550 a month! He has to work under the table in order to 'retire'. My notice says I'll get around $700. They actually have been sending me info papers telling me what I'll recieve. Yet, you guys are telling me there isn't much chance of that. Well damnit, they should be getting my hopes up if they're going to go back on it. These notices should obligate them to do what they say they'll do.

****ing politicos

[Lancer]

"Lancer, by the time I get to retirement age, there's a good chance that such large international differences in purchasing power will be gone, give the rate they've diminished in the last 4 decades."

Smiley, don't bet on it. It keeps getting more affordable over there because their politicians are so corrupt, and the culture is that the more kids you have the more security you'll have in old age. When I was a kid the Sullivans down the street from me had 11 children. These days, in this country, that doesn't happen, In the Philippines, there is a family down the street with ten kids, and still at it. Endless labor there. I have a maid! I'm not even there and I have a maid, costs $40 a month, and getting less, because the Philippine peso keeps falling against the dollar.

The last thing I'd want is to get really old in this country where the old are not people, they're an industry. I'm getting old among people who will look after me untill the day I die, with love in their hearts. First however, I'm going to learn how to sail. Love those little sandy tropical islands.

Some just exist at low tide.

[:) Smiley]

Even still I wouldn't peg my retirement on the corruptness of a foreign government..