Will Social Security Be Around for Millennials?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 พ.ย. 2019
- SUPPORT us on PATREON: / twocentspbsds
SUBSCRIBE to Two Cents! goo.gl/jQ857H
You're giving part of every paycheck to Social Security, even while pundits and politicians warn of its imminent collapse... will it still be around by the time Millennials are retiring?
Two Cents on FB: / twocentspbs
Two Cents on Twitter: @twocentspbs
Email us: twocentspbs@gmail.com
--
Two Cents was created by Katie Graham, Andrew Matthews, Philip Olson CFP® and Julia Lorenz-Olson and is brought to you by PBS Digital Studios. We love dropping some knowledge on all things personal finance and helping you make better money decisions.
Two Cents is hosted by Philip Olson, CFP® and Julia Lorenz-Olson
Directors: Katie Graham & Andrew Matthews
Written by: Philip Olson, CFP®
Executive Producer: Amanda Fox
Produced by: Katie Graham
Edited & Animated by: Dano Johnson
Images by: Shutterstock
Music by: APM
SOURCES:
www.investopedia.com/.../what....
www.nasi.org/learn/socialsecu...
www.investopedia.com/.../why-....
www.fool.com/.../americans-av....
www.nasi.org/.../public-opini...
www.politico.com/.../poll-soc....
I love going to lunch with my grandpa because I get to use my social security money that I'll never see
You should make him pay for it.
Did you not watch the video? Social Security will almost certainty stay around.
@@hellzshotgun Probably not, though.
@John Taylor
Fuck off, grandpa. Your nurse is waiting to give you your sponge bath.
@John Taylor Federal taxes don't fund Govt programs. Social security is not paid for thru soc sec taxes.
"or we could simply abolish the whole government program"
Whoa, I'm impressed that you mentioned this option.
We shouldn't abolish it, but we should definitely put a freeze on it, at least until the baby boomers die out.
@@markcarls1896 seriously???
@@ANonyMouse627
Yeah, why?
@@markcarls1896 I imagine you wouldn't want young people to think that way when you become old.
@@ANonyMouse627 Which is why I treat young people with respect. Baby boomers, despite what they might think, are not entitled to social security.
Every time I see a video by these guys, I still get amazed at the quality of their content. As someone who has been trying to get into making fiance and investing TH-cam videos, I don't think you guys get enough appreciation for the work you do! Keep it up :)
Yeah thats what PBS money does. Still pretty happy that PBS decided to support them lol.
I'm in the same boat Will and I couldn't agree more. Definitely a channel I consistently learn and draw inspiration from. Just checked out your channel and I wish you the best!
Get a room
@@steveantonioni Thank you very much man, I appreciate you taking the time to do that! :)
how's the creation of your fiance going? im sure you're trying your best ok.
A small portion of social security also helps surviving dependents. I lost my mother when I was 4, so my 38 year old, widower father received a monthly social security check to help support 4 children as a single father. He's mentioned to me that had it not been for SS, we wouldn't have been able to keep our modest home (1600 sq ft, 3 bed, 2 bath).
My condolences on the loss of your mother! 😢
lol modest. fucking parasites. Nowadays people have to castrate to afford living in a house, single.
Sorry for the loss but sad that folks lived off the backs of the working man...and woman.
“Keep the government out of my Social Security!”
- Boomers
Ok boomers
You should make this into a sweater for the holiday
I’m perfectly in favor of that. Take the whole thing and obliterate it. Rather than forcing me to pay for someone else’s Social Security, why not let me keep and spend my money as I choose?
Social Security is ran by the government. So it kind of hard to keep the government out of it.
Kevin Stone
That’s the joke. Thanks for playing.
When I saw this title, I immediately thought back to this unit in Public Finance when I was getting my economics degree. I really do appreciate how clear and concise your delivery is while also not omitting any major caveats and also giving each potential avenue forward a mention. 5/5 would recommend!
No mention of what has already happened, for years cost of living adjustments have been far lower than real inflation...
And from what I am hearing, recent COLAs have been more than offset by increases in Medicare supplemental plan fees.
@John Taylor Loser boomer who couldn't save yelling at kids on the internet. Congrats.
We have both political parties now crowing about how they want to defund or underfund social security. It's only going to get worse from here.
Thank you for acknowledging that only the first $128,900 of income is taxed for Social Security Insurance (though I think the actual number is $132,900). Since I have a salary lower than that, I pay into it all year. Someone Making $250K only pays the tax the first six months of the year and some CEOs probably "make" enough money that they're done paying their Social Security taxes before they even return to work on January 2nd.
Fixing this seems so straightforward and the most commonsense way to ensure the fund's solvency and steady benefits to appropriate entitlement levels. They just need to raise the limit on the number of dollars subject to SSI/OASDI taxation (and then tie that limit to to some objective measurement about how much the fund will need to pay out over the next 5-10 years [or some other period of time] so we don't need to constantly re-adjudicate the issue).
But then they would collect a lot more at retirement.
Just save it yourself. Then the government doesn't take a cut, and you can get a better return. Soc Sec is a Ponzi scheme.
As someone on the younger-end of generation Z, I’ve already accepted my fate that there will be no social security to speak of.
did you watch the video?
@@mememan9890 inflation buddy. the money will be weaker and theyll say you get more but youll be able to buy less. Its time to privatize social security. its ridiculous that I have to pay for some boomer who didn't have the foresight to save for retirement. besides, ROTH IRAs pay out more than social security, and they don't require a literal PONZI scheme to work. its ridiculous that you may not see the money you put in
@@mememan9890 I think the better question is if you drank the Kool-aid. No matter what he says or you believe that won't change the fact it likely won't exist due to government corruption and general incompetence around an idea that, if you research was flawed to begin with. Its basically just a big pyramid scheme
If I don't get my SS without a refund, I'm skipping the talk and going straight into the vault
Really excited to get a $1400 check every month in 2080 when that is worth $70
Why isn’t raising the limit of the tax to higher earners the most obvious choice? There should be no limit!? 12.4% of your $14,000,000 average CEO salary should be taxable! Not just 0.00917%? Why does this limit exist? That could fund 40,000 retirees per a CEO!
1) you hurt emergent rich people, the people who are earning everything they do, not the existent rich people, the ones who already have billions of dollars. basically, your brilliant idea will do what all socialist/communist ideas will inevitably do, backfire in a huge explosion. 2) the taxes would be put on the consumer. a lot of braindead communists think prices are arbitrary or something, and while you could say your sandwich is worth $1000 you certainly wont get anyone to buy it that way, especially if the competition is selling at $999.99 or lower. meanwhile, if you sell your product at a loss you will get more customers than your competition, but you will also lose more money, resulting in you going bankrupt, now imagine if both, or worse, only one of these companies was considered a high earner and thus had higher taxes, suddenly they run at a loss if they keep their old prices. they MUST increase it. your increased taxes for the rich idea is not new, and it is not successful. go back to the drawing board statist :P
Because when SS was introduced it wasn't marketed as a tax but rather a savings pool(which the government spent btw) and since there is a limit to how much benifit you can recieved it was capped off so you wouldn't put in more than you would recieve and henceforth they said it "wasn't a tax" on anyone. Elimiating the cap would not even put a dent to fund the unfunded liabilities and would effectively make the whole concept of Social Security Null to many people and would just be the equivalent of a raise in the income tax.
Also, it's not anyone's responsibility to fund anyone's retirement. The concept of SS was to fund your OWN retirement.
Azrael Back in 1950 the average CEO made only 20x the salary of the average employee. Now they make 361x the average employee. I agree, social security should fund your own retirement. But when your salary exponentially exceeds that of other employees, should that redistribution of income be equally taxed? If you’re gonna hog such a large amount of the profit for yourself instead of paying your employees a little bit more, should it not be taxed?
David Lewis How would a 12% tax on additional income in the millions be put back on the consumer. If Mr. CEO is going to say, “I can’t afford my mega mansion this year because of SS tax, so raise the price of a sandwich $0.50” then all goodwill in this world is truly dead.
Social security is A interest-free loan that you are forced to give the government.
I mean the way they get their hands on it is by buying their own T-bills with SOCSEC trust funds, so there is interest, but it's hilariously low interest owed not to you but to the treasury fund, the proceeds of which will be re-lent to the gov- I mean re-INVESTED in T-bills.
@@muffinlordghoti1 Most of the funds are paid out, not invested
wow I didn't see it in that perspective
I mean, technically it isn't an interest-free loan in either way. It's just that you'll never get the interest for it, and since you don't see the principle you paid, it's not a loan from you...
David The rate of inflation is typically higher than the rate of interest for bonds. You’ll lose more money than you’ll gain buying bonds. That’s why nobody buys bonds anymore.
Flossing to Drake in my retirement scares me more than not receiving payments.
Found this channel through a TH-cam recommendation yesterday, and boy am I glad I watched it. I've taken Finance and Economics classes in college, so many of the terms discussed in the videos are not unfamiliar to me, but it's great to have them explained in everyday language.
I wish SS could be optional. I would rather invest my own money.
It CAN'T be optional that's not how Ponzi scheme's work.. Imagine a ton of people with your mindset, how would the boomers get paid?
@@tonybrandao4681 They wouldn't. Which I'm all here for.
I've been on social security for over 10 years now and.. I do eat cat food.
I sincerely hope that you are a cat.
@@acninee The secret is a minimally processed bio-appropriate diet. catinfo.org/ 😼
Wow... I’m sorry.
@@myew Great site. I use that one for my kitty crew!
Good web site. sorry
As I’ve been a Social Security Disability recipient for a long time, I’ve learned that year after year the purchasing power keeps diminishing. Therefore I supplement my benefits with income from a part-time job. Perhaps many retirees may need to realize Social Security was never meant to be an entire income source.
Hmmm... Getting disability, but also work... Very interesting.
@@scottmonroe1802 SSA allows a limited amount of work.
I'm pretty sure that social security actually rises with inflation so I don't see how your purchasing power is being eroded. Except maybe the ludicrous prices we pay on prescription drugs
Well this is comforting thanks
If the government learns to control spending, the trust fund can be restored. How many billions are wasted enforcing our ideas overseas?
I agree, that's why its important to know who we elect
*psst* there's no reason a country with only two, close, geographical neighbors needs to spend more on the military than the next 10 countries combined
The Fed govt is nothing like households, states, or corporations. The Fed govt issues the USD and can never go broke. Lowering Govt spending means lowering the amount of usd injected into economy which means, on aggregate we get less savings. Fed govt spending is a good and necessary thing as long as we have a trade deficit with dollars leaving the economy, a desire for us to save money, then the Fed govt MUST be spending. The so called trust fund is just an accounting trick. The US Fed govt can not ever, EVER go broke in US dollars because the US Govt is the only entity that can create USD.
we should just get ride of the system you actually lose money by paying into it makes no senses at all
Yay, and not interfere in other country's affairs. Too long have people been dying to provide bananas and oil for USA by being made into slaves or given 'democracy' with bullets.
The unfunded liabilities are gonna catch up to us. Do not rely on the state coming to the rescue when you want that hip replacement.
th-cam.com/video/kMoI0rJFAT0/w-d-xo.html
Our tax dollars don't pay for anything. The elite want us all fighting each other. Democrats supposedly always want to raise taxes to pay for Govt programs, Republicans always want to cut taxes and don't want their money going to pay for others. Both are understandable positions, both are wrong. Taxes don't fund Federal govt spending, saying so is reinforcing the bullshit that's been fed to us for decades since 1971 when we went off the gold standard. Again, Federal taxes don't pay for spending, not a penny. The federal govt is self funding and can never EVER go broke in USD's because it is the only entity that can create USD's.
"Was your Uncle Jim right?" LOL I have THREE uncles named Jim.
Were they right tho
I'm assuming your dads brother, your moms brother, and your dads GFs brother?
BAHAHA! Awww Uncle Jim.
23% by 2080... that's miniscule, compare to japan and other countries that are already way beyond 23%
We are living longer, but I can't imagine a 67 years old person doing my job. :/
What's your job?
Same. I load trucks. The older people at the facility are usually janitors or running the place
Some can, some can't. Aging is dependent on your genetics, how well you take care of yourself with diet, exercise, adequate sleep. Those things are often dependent on having sufficient funds to support healthy choices.
@@acninee I agree and I have other coworkers complaining all the time about being tired and they are about the same age or younger.
Caitlin Purple, I don't want to say my title, but I have to walk, run, might have to lift if necessary, be mentally sharp, bend down. Its physically and mentally active.
Same! I work with 50-somethings that have trouble keeping up. I couldn't imagine someone pushing 70 doing my job. I work 10-hour shifts and am on my feet probably 80% to 90% of the time (minus 30 min lunch break) depending on how busy we are. I am on anti-fatigue mats, but even at 34, sometimes I come home with pain in my lower back or knees.
I've been working full time, even 16 hours days some months since I was 15, I'm 32 now, I've never thought about depending on social security, I'm thinking on investing in an Roth RIA
Martini is a wino invest now! If you’re 32 and don’t have a retirement account the best time to do it is now. This channel has a video (or two) on retirement, watch those if you want more details.
Open that IRA. The sooner the better!
I know, I just started learning about investing and all that a few months ago, I wish I would have started atleast 2 years ago.
@@SavageBunny1 highly recommend looking into vanguard, jack bogle, index funds, and specifically the stock ticker VOO.
The only difference really from Roth ira and 401k is that roth taxes immediatly when you put in your money, and you you can take it out tax free. So whatever growth you got from roth, its not taxed cause you paid already. I find the only upside of 401k is that theres lots of imployers willing to match with what you put in to then effectively give you a free boost in what you are saving what you put in. Some are so good that they do Dollar for Dollar, effectively doubling what you put it! Pick which perk you like best, its down to your personal preference of doing life
wait... why do they limit the tax to 133k? if youre making this much money, why limit? is it because the maximum pay out is in place?
Yes. There is a formula used to calculate the the benefit amount based on how much was paid in taxes. If there were no max on SS taxes paid, there would be no max on the benefit received. At least that's under current law. Congress could change it if they wanted to.
Correct. The intent of the program is to force people to save for retirement. It’s not intended to be a wealth transfer; although it basically is a transfer of wealth from the young to the old.
@Itonner It's an intergenerational transfer, but also transfers $$$ from men to women. The majority of single guys aren't likely to get their money back.
@@itonner231 the more you make the less of it is applied to your pension.
With that in mind, the 2019 formula is:
90% of the first $926 of Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME).
32% of AIME greater than $926, but less than $5,583.
15% of AIME greater than $5,583.
The transfer of wealth is from rich to poor, also 85% of SS pension is taxable above a certain income in retirement(double whammy)
Because the rich write the tax code.......
Omg my finance professor was just talking about this Tuesday and was saying how what we pay now in social security is going to the ones who are retired currently
Exactly right!
Which is why we need to put a freeze on social security until the baby boomers die.
@@markcarls1896 Sure, great idea. Any other earth-shattering revelations you want to share?
@@lelexoxo303 Dogs are smarter than people.
@@markcarls1896 Gee, mind: blown.
Thanks.
Personally, I prefer cats, but to each their own.
My doctor gave me 6 months to live
But when I told him I couldn't pay my bill during that time he gave me other 6 months.
I'm late, but that was hilarious!
Notice how these two smiling wonderful people completely skipped that fact that Social Security taxes that we all have to pay produce a negative rate of return by the time you retire. Imagine how the economy would skyrocket and how much MORE money we'd ALL have when we retire if we were able to control where our Social Security tax payments went. That's the solution.
I'm in favor of abolishing the system.
Jamal Fakih I’m with this guy
Good luck, boomers and other oldies out number millenials like 2: 1 or possibly worse.
@@johnsmith6974 majority are senile so they don't vote
I can see why the government can't trust people with money. In fact, the percentage of adults with less than $1,000 in savings is 58%
Millenials and Gen Z need to get rid of the system because our debt is gonna continue to skyrocket leading to us dealing with oncoming fall out. Baby boomers dont care because they will be dead by than.
THANK YOU for this information!
Mind blowing info here guys! Love this video! Keep up the great work yall!
It's crazy that people still rely on the government for their retirement income. They should make an opt out option. I am better with my money than the government is.
They are relying on being reimbursed for the money taken from them out of their income they earned. They are not getting anything free from the government. They money taken could have been used to improve their standard of living or investments that could have made them more money instead of paying for other people. We are being forced to pay and won't even receive the full amount of what was taken from us. This is bs!
Also don't forget that money is inflating at a pretty steady rate. What sounds like a pretty ok check (1600 dollars) will feel quite a bit less significant (inflation up to 2034 will make it feel like it's about 1200 dollars). I personally have little to no faith in ever being able to enjoy a nice retirement without putting a whole lot of money aside - and I'm doing just that. With some guesswork..I'll probably be 'allowed' to retire at 72, but heck..if I see my parents currently struggling to find a nice job at the age of 60 and 62 (they are considered too old), the question rises: do I want that stress of having to bridge over 12 years of unstable income and shitty jobs?
that is another important question! older generations that are still viable workers with a wealth of experience and know-how but no one will hire them purely because of their age. I saw an article that highlighted companies that accommodate their extremely important older employees and try to encourage them to stay on past conventional retirement years. They are given reduced hours, and also work as mentors to newer employees. This obviously wouldn't work in every field but it was great to see.
I....Learned alot from this! Thank you!
It would be cool to see another video delving into more specifics on this topic!
Guess I'm part of the 10-20% that doesn't care for social security. I want to work and build up my own retirement. I don't need the government to do that for me. Schools should teach what it means to be financially responsible rather than the government spoon feeding people. Every time the government gets involved things become inefficient, and costly. I understand some people get into bad situations no fault of their own but that really is a minority. There is an issue when people are always happy to use "Safety Net" rather than working to become self sufficient themselves.
I'm in that group too. I'd rather invest that money and make an average 8% over the course of the next 40 years of my life, rather than the measly 3% that might barely beat inflation.
Same. Im in my 20s and don't believe in gov Reliance. I don't believe in debt either. I dont own a credit card and never will. "But how will you own a house? What about emergencies? Retirement?" I constantly get asked. Its called responsibility and living within your means. Saving up for emergencies (I have thousands saved up just for emergencies alone). Dont lease a car. Buy in cash or find cheaper alternatives (like biking). And id never take out a mortgage unless I can pay it off within two years.
@@painexotic3757 If you have to pay for rent anyway, in most neighborhoods you'll make more money saving up for a down payment and then getting a 15-year fixed rate mortgage. You pay 3% interest per year but obviously you will always be paying more than 3% of the home's value in rent every year as a renter, usually rents are about 12% of the value of a home, not to mention homes generally grow 3% per year anyway (To be specific, homes remain just as valuable as they always were, and the dollar depreciates 3% per year). If you're worried about the housing market be like Wall Street and hedge. You can use CME futures contracts to cash out your appreciation ahead of time every Jan 1 for the year ahead, and let someone else hold the risk of the housing market going up or down for that year (They'll pay you the difference between expectation and what actually happened).
You might be fiscally savvy enough to plan for your own retirement, but many others are not. Just look at how many people in the US couldn't handle an unexpected $1,000 expense. These safety nets are for the lowest common denominator who don't have good financial planning or who don't select adequate health coverage. Without these programs in place eldery people would have to work until they die.
@@painexotic3757 two years?!?! Have you ever had a mortgage?
In Canada they just raised what retirees get so that in turn bumped up our taxes to a higher % so that sucks. I hate it, they say in Canada our money goes in and you get a 2% return on your investment, I have stable bonds with other institutions and am earning around 7% a year conservatively. I would much rather invest my own money but the government would never allow me to pull out of our CPP program to get a higher rate of return in my own investments. And unfortunately the people who lived in the "golden age" didn't plan to save enough and keep complaining that they need more money to survive at their older age, so in turn chances are us younger generation will keep upping our rates to composate for that leaving us less money as taxes slowly rise to keep up with giving retirees more to survive.
Also the kicker is if you die, whatever is leftover that you haven't collected that you put away, the government gets to keep. When I die, my investments and savings go to my wife/children to help them so thats another reason I hate the system.
I think you pay in less than USA does (including corporate match), have similar pay-out and are projected to be solvent for quite awhile. Social security worked in the 20th century when we had a rapidly growing work force, but is now broken.
@@tradeprosper5002 It never worked any better than just saving your own money though, it was always pointless.
Great info thanks!!
Very well explained! Great video Two Cents! What we need to do as individuals in the meantime while the governments figure out how to afford more retirees and less new payers into the system is to increase our personal financial literacy, learn how to actually save for our own retirements, or even better, learn how to create passive income that will pay for our monthly expenses and not be dependent on a 'system' to take care of us but to have that as a wonderful additional income to enjoy our later years. You two and your team are so wonderful. Thanks for sharing! :D
I have always wondered about Social Security. I mean everyone has it but why don't I know more? This video really helped me understand and answer a question I didn't even know I had!
I didn't really understand SS until my late 20's, ruby!
We could get rid of it, start actually teaching children economics in school. Have your damn money.
Nah we gotta let the government have pork barrel access to the funds!
most people don't save so at least when they retire they can get 20 bucks a month from social security ahah
Jazmin Bautista Except that they won’t receive anything from Social Security by the time that they retire, because it’ll have collapsed by then. You can’t take more money out than you put in. That’s called a Ponzi Scheme.
No way possible that will work unless you want the streets teeming with the old, sick and dying by the dozens of millions.
And disability, and Depressions, and lay-offs, and minimal worth in the economy.
Imagine paying into social security your whole life and only getting 79% of it. Thats nothing to be happy about. Might as well just put that money into a 401k.
Great job!
Thank you for the insightful video about how the US retirement SS works :)
Where I´m from retirement is funded in 3 ways
1. public retirement fund (SS) to which everyone independent of income level pays an equal amount of tax.
In recent years retirement age has been adjusted to accommodate for development in life expectancy (differentiated depending on birth year)
2. Mandatory employee retirement fund. Most unions have a retirement agreement in place, where the employee pays a thrid and the employer the other two thirds (12%) (before taxes are payd)
3. private retirement funds/investment (after taxes are payed)
All of which you pay tax as you´re payed upon retirement
This way people at a minimum are secured a basic level of living, people with steady employment get a better retirement and people who are money savvy will have a very nice retirement :)
Funny. In theory, that's the way it works here in the US.
I genuinely have no resentment to the beneficiaries of Social Security. I do feel though that we need to think of the possibility of phasing this system altogether. If IRAs and 401K options are comparable to SS, we should start educating ourselves to build wealth and saving without government support.
401ks and IRAs are not comparable to Social Security. Social Security is insurance from death, disability and old age.
Start educating people to save for themselves? What percentage of the US is on food stamps? 16%
Best Social Security Tutorial I've watched! Very transparent!
I've heard a lot about the Repo Market Crisis that happened/is happening, but I haven't heard a good explanation about what exactly is going on, and what that means. I'd be really interested to see you do a video on it so that non-economists like me can understand what exactly is going on.
Check out George Gammon explanation th-cam.com/video/w_UVdvTG01c/w-d-xo.html
This doesn't quite adapt to my country, but lately, there's been talk we are about to have a social security crisis because numbers aren't adding up. Either we out on more money or work more years
México? We are screwed up lol
Social Security saying it has a $2.9T trust fund is the exact same thing as me saying I'm a trillionaire because I owe myself $2.9T. That's a pretty sucky trust fund if you ask me.
When the US Government can't make their debt payments it won't matter what IOU Social Security is holding... No money is No money. The "trust fund" was robbed years ago.
Gene Ahearn No point in keeping your money under a mattress if it can lose all value when the US defaults on its debt. Gold is nice, until someone steals it from you when they rob your house.
The best option is to buy some foreign currency, because the Canadian dollar will still have value if the US defaults. Either that or invest in a crypto currency, because it’s not tied to any government.
There is no trust fund, just an accounting trick. The truth is soc sec can never go broke because the Fed govt can not go broke. If you got a check for soc sec why doesn't it come out of trust fund? Why does it come from the treasury?
Alan Greenspan: “Central banks can issue currency, a non-interest-bearing claim on the government, effectively without limit. A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”
St. Louis Federal Reserve: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.
Henry Gustav The federal government cannot go broke, but it can default on its debt, which is much worse
@@aaronlandry3934 That's if it chooses to and why would it do that?
I will support your patreon just right before I solve all my debt. I promise. Keep on! Greetings from México
I have seen several comments of people wanting to abolish Social Security because if you had "control of your own money" you would be better off. Do you not care about anyone else in society? What about the disabled? I know a disabled person who could only work a few years after a diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis. Would you rather he be homeless? I know another person who worked security at a mall, was jumped, injured his back, and is now a paraplegic. He was 22. What would these people do if everyone was as selfish as you? It is not like SSDI (disability) pays out a lot. They each get around $1000 per month. Luckily they each have family that can help them out. But their families aren't rich. And all of that extra medical care gets expensive. Due to family help, I know one, doesn't qualify for Medicaid or food stamps. I would love to hear other "options" for them if they couldn't rely on Social Security.
A lot here don't have any consideration or compassion for anybody in this society. Everything is all about what they want and their entitled,cruel views about how things should be. It is despicable and awful.
The trust fund being converted into bonds made me think of the scene from Dumb and Dumber where Mr. Sampsonite opens the briefcase to see only IOUs. “Those are IOUs......they’re as good as money.” said Lloyd Christmas.
Exactly!!
@@markhasenour12 The securities purchased by SS are not IOUs. They are securities that have the world wide reputation of the US Treasury behind them.
Can you live today with a check of 1600 dlls?
Yeah....so you want us to wait 15 years for solution for a TODAY problem.
Robert kiyosaki is right...our money is been taken away.
@0:19 Julia’s enthusiasm is hilarious
The part of the vid with the old folks flossin to Drake 😂😂😭
It would be so easy to make this political. Thank you for not going there! Great work!!
That's because you people use the exactly same politics you supposed hate, to fuck everything up, in the name of "the greater good."
Everyone who pays into social security should sue if they don’t see that money when they retire.
you ever heard that saying.. you can't fight city hall .. same rules apply here.. our money is gone. and nothing we can do about it.
You don't pay "into" social security, you pay the old people of your generation. Maybe you hope the future generation will pay you, but it's just that - a hope. The money doesn't exist, it's gone, it was never there, it went immediately into the pockets of your grandparents.
So true, I've grown up with getting no social security at all as a simple fact. But fortunately thats not entirely true. I just have to save money on my own, if I really want to retire without too much shortcomes.
I never really understood the purpose of social security tax. Very glad to be following you right now
home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/RUMLTAXES.html
Hi, Federal taxes are never used to "pay for" programs. Here are what taxes are for. From above link.
"All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose which is served should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue.
What Taxes Are Really For
Federal taxes can be made to serve four principal purposes of a social and economic character. These purposes are:
1. As an instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar;
2. To express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income, as in the case of the progressive income and estate taxes;
3. To express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups;
4. To isolate and assess directly the costs of certain national benefits, such as highways and social security."
Raising the retirement age might ¿¿make sense?? Yes, we live longer on average*, but that doesn't mean quality of life is getting better. (*Life span is different across class and race, so raising the retirement age is the same as condemning minorities and the poor.)
Yes! Not to mention very sexists!
Women live a good number of years longer and are net consumers of benefit programmes.
Raising the retirement age would be disgustingly misandrist.
It doesn't mean the quality of life is getting better, but by pretty much every measure of quality of life, quality of life is getting better for all classes and races.
Some people should be retired at 40.
@@naddarr1 exactly, I can't imagine an older person working like a young person. So, people are going to retire to just die.
The age at which one can begin to collect full SS benefits is already being raided on a graduated schedule.
This makes me wonder if we will have social security by the time I hit my retirement.
You won’t. It’s not sustainable. It was fundamentally flawed from the start, like all Ponzi Schemes. The first man to receive Social Security took more out than he put in. You can’t take more money out than you put in. It’s only a matter of time until it all collapses
Social security for an "insurance" is horribly inefficient and for "investment", downright garbage.
The average american over his lifetime of working (~40 years) contributes approximately $254 a month. The S&P500 for the past 40 years returned CAVG of 11.93%.
Investing all that money oneself on a good low cost mutual fund would have made an average american have over 3 million dollars throughout his/her working career.
It's a horribly inefficient product overall. Especially mathematically.
It's much better to get a privatized disability insurance and then invest the rest on a good mutual fund.
@@2RosarioVampire It's inefficient because like anything the government manages, there's a bureaucracy tax. When you only need to work 10 years to potentially collect SS for 20 years or more, that's a problem. The government should not be in the retirement business.
U won't i just checked my social security it went from 60 percent of wages to 40 percent of wages that ill receive back
Here's my solution. Let people opt out. You voluntarily tell the Social Security Administration that you will no longer pay in from now on, and you can never collect benefits in your old age. A caveat is that there can be no opt back in once you are out. It is for life. I know that I can manage my own retirement fund better than Congress, so let me.
First off, well done. I’m always hesitant to say Congress needs to do this or that, as it’s like trying to tell your teenager how to clean the house while you are on vacation. You may or may not get a clean house and a new farm Bill passing more subsidies for American pig farming corporations (owned by China). So often people run to say cut benefits. But I think we need to look at who get benefits and why. I know of a couple who had 8 children (think Brady bunch) and when the parents passed away tragically they didn’t have much to begin with and little to nothing to pass along. But the kids were able to get survivor benefits at 75% per child but only up to a maximum of 180% for the family. Was this something good? Yes. Is this something that makes sense on a 1 to 1 basis, no. But that’s the problem here. If we look at just our own social security we fail to recognize the security of our neighbors. I know I would rather have a stable population keeping our specialist economy running than saying sorry for your loss and pointing to the depression era soup kitchen.
Solution... Don't plan to get any of it and make your own
honestly, this is my mindset. I'm financially planning on sustaining myself as best i can and for as long as i can if the situation should arise to where i can no longer work. I plan to work in some capacity until i am of literal no use to anyone. lol! And if there should be some sort of government retirement plan in effect to add to that saving, great!
Raising the age for receiving retirement basically means “we are hoping you die before you can collect this money...”
Beautiful, what a joke.
No it is more in line with the original purpose of the law. Look at the average life expectancy when the law was passed.
It’s more that you will have to be in the workforce longer because you need a way to sustain yourself until retirement age. And if that age keeps increasing, you are going to have to work into your 70s.
Dougie Except, that’s called a Ponzi Scheme. The thing about Ponzi Schemes is that they collapse when more people are taking out than when what they’re putting in. Money that you put in now goes to paying for someone’s current Social Security. No wealth is generated in this process, so you cannot take out more than what is put in. Collapse is inevitable
@@aaronlandry3934 The video says the money is being invested into treasury bonds which generates wealth.
dumbass 1472 That’s only partially true. A majority of the money going in is immediately spent on paying for someone else’s current Social Security. Only a fraction is ever put into bonds and investing in bonds is laughably small in terms of generating wealth (given the current rate of inflation, you’ll likely lose money by investing in bonds).
Jon Stossel made an excellent video on Social Security and I highly recommend it.
I love the way they portrayed the fund being raided. It looked soooo sneaky =P
Thank you for easing my worries about this. Once again, Two Cents saves the day 😃
you shouldn't rely on your social security anyways
SkyreeXScalabar I don’t, but I also don’t think it’s fair that I’m working to pay someone else right now and I may or may not get that same courtesy extended if/when I reach that age.
@@jessicabrown3430 Your tax doesn't just pay for social security but I understand what you mean. However, currently with the amount that SS is paying out it is more of a supplementary income. Majority of people should have their own portfolio of diversified investments to serve as their savings/retirement. If you save correctly you won't have to worry about SS not existing.
@@SkyreeXScalabar Our taxes don't pay for social security at all.
Our tax dollars don't pay for anything. The elite want us all fighting each other. Democrats supposedly always want to raise taxes to pay for Govt programs, Republicans always want to cut taxes and don't want their money going to pay for others. Both are understandable positions, both are wrong. Taxes don't fund Federal govt spending, saying so is reinforcing the bullshit that's been fed to us for decades since 1971 when we went off the gold standard. Again, Federal taxes don't pay for spending, not a penny. The federal govt is self funding and can never EVER go broke in USD's because it is the only entity that can create USD's.
@@henrygustav7948 The federal government does not control the printing of money, that's the federal reserve's job and they are now allowed to be interfered by federal government. Also inflation is a thing so if the US keeps printing out money then the USD will tank in value like how German Marks did. Taxes do go towards the government so that it can be allocated to pay for social systems such as education, medical aid, welfare etc. There is no right or wrong in life, there is duality to everything. I understand and what you have read might make sense to you but if you dig a little deeper it will start to fall apart.
0:31 I am from Albania! ✌✌ I don't know why I was suprised when I heard my country's name. But, it was very nice hearing from you guys!
Great channel with outstanding content!
The greeter at walmart knows now that ss isn't a real retirement plan.
I'm definitely not a fan of increasing taxes to pay for this program further. Abolishing it and letting people fund their own retirement would make sense, as I plan to do so for myself.
Really? I'm not saying that you should raise the rate, but the fact that the tax stops at 128k is BS. I'd say increase the upper threshold, and calculate FICA taxes on non-wage sources of income (i.e. capital gains). And this is coming from someone who invests.
Also, iirc how much you get post retirement is based on how many social security credits you earned while working. Since SS credits are pegged to how much you earn, the higher you income while you are working, the greater your benefit is post retirement. Do I need to explain why I think this part is backwards?
@@JoelJames2 It's an insurance program. Payouts are proportional to premiums paid. Flipping that or removing the cap would only strengthen the case for privatization. Oh and as long as there's a maximum payout there should be a maximum for liability.
I'd like SS to be opt-out, I can save for myself.
I should be able to direct my social security balance just like my 401k. It should still be compulsory, and completely untouchable, but each taxpayer should be allowed to direct their paid in money in the way they see fit. People who decide not to independently manage their SS funds should be pooled into the standard bond fund.
Here’s a better idea: don’t force people to pay into something that they won’t receive the benefits of. That’s called a Ponzi Scheme. They collapse when more people start taking out than start paying in. Just because it’s federally backed doesn’t change the fact that it’s fundamentally flawed.
Rather than paying for someone else’s Social Security, I want to use my money that I rightfully earned.
This is one of the best possible solutions, but not entirely. People left to invest completely at their own discretion will be subject to their own ignorance and wild bouts of fancy. Successful investing does not do well that way. It looks at the long term and intelligently balances risk and reward and asset allocation strategies rather than, say, pouring all your money into penny stocks. If there were some limits on what you could put your funds into, then I'd be right behind you. Like something like the S&P500, or the DOW, or some low-load or no-load mutual funds of other sorts. But we can't discount the fact that most people do not study investing to any serious degree and many are simply uneducated in general. The average U.S. citizen does not even have a college education. And there are plenty of below-average people. If our society is content to jail all of them or let them rot on the streets, America would turn into a 3rd world country.
We should be free to opt out of crap programs like social security.
I think they should allow an option of opting out of paying social security and put that towards your student loans. your 6.2% gross income and 6.2% of your employers match go towards your student loans. 12.4% of your gross pay has to be a big help. Then once payed back you go back to paying social security like normal and then they will adjust your social security benefits age based on how long you were opted out or decrease your social security benefits. It holds the individual responsible while helping with college debt crisis. Theoretically, if you have a college degree you should be able to work more years anyways, compared to a trade or manual labor job. Its kicking the ball farther down the road for people with college debt but it would help the economy and be somewhat “fair”. The bad part is that social security is a shit show right now.
I think the simplest solution is to pay social security until you turn 55 years old, assuming you have a job that pays a wage/salary. Based on a Japanese city(don't remember name) that offered free child-care, the population for the city significantly increased. Children being born is correlated to the cost of raising children.
Everyone should be in charge of their own retirement money tbh
As a rule, I am among the minority that believes that Social Security should be retired. Let me keep my money and let ME decide what my money will do. Social Security is yet another example of the gov't thinking they know what's better for me than I do, and then FORCING me to do it. Reppin' Libertarianism.
I wish they would let people that can show they're on track to not need it opt out. I'd even accept that I've been paying in for the past 30 years and won't ever see a dime if it meant I could stop paying now and put that money into my stock account to actually grow for this last leg of my career
You've just described a Ponzi scheme
Let people decide if they want to participate in social security or not. This way the people by numbers of participation decide if the program lives or dies.
Then it's just a much less effective 401k. People can already chose to contribute to that. Not that I disagree with you, but if it were optional it would be obsolete.
That is the point. Let people decide through lack of participation the demise of social security.
CLOSE THE SOCIAL SECURITY WAGE GAP! Women live longer and therefor benefit unfairly from this program!
In all seriousness..... equality in protection of our rights (like property rights, which are violated by this program) is very important.
And let people take care of their own retirement, or at LEAST let those who want to OPT OUT of the unconstitutional program do so.
I mean, given that Congress is given the power the levy taxes by the Constitution, and there was an Amendment that allowed for income tax, then it is literally NOT unconstitutional. Unless, you mean that anything you don't personally agree with is unconstitutional...
You literally just explained why social security is not sustainable and then stated that there's nothing to worry about because the government can just take more of our money in various different ways to support this system that will cost more to run and have a smaller percentage of people paying in
One option that you didnt mention could be to change the Social Security Trust Fund to invest in some equities. Canada has done this and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) has done an amazing job. A recent report says our fund is sustainable for 75 years without adding new money to it and in the last 10 years has averaged return of 10.2% per year (www.cppib.com/en/). In Canada, we are talking about increasing coverage and benefits. Since the Social Security Trust Fund is a long term Investment fund, not including equity investments is a risk.
Its a pyramid scheme
6:31 The social outbreak in Chile in part is because of the private retirement plans, which give poverty retirement and makes money for the retirement companies (AFP) and the investment market, and giving all the losses to the workers.
So, be carefull with the idea.
Bob Jones any index fund or etf will beat a 3% return rate. Much better than t bills
@TwoCents, if you have not yet will you make a video on HSAs, FSAs, Roth 401(K)s, Roth IRAs the Federal Commuter Tax Benefit Act and other tax deferred accounts available? For millennial I strongly believe the Roth is better than the traditional as any growth is now tax free, and if we assume 8-9% for the next 40+ years millennial will be working the savings on tax free growth are much higher than the savings on the tax deference right away. If you have already made this video, may you link it below?
Social security isn’t doomed, Medicare is doomed
So this is why COVID was created
No that is natural selection at work. Nobody is safe.
@@vaderladyl it's a joke
@@etherealsalad2698 boomers being boomers
Make Financial Independence a priority and you won't have to rely on any government or corporation to support you!
Easier to say than to do. Not everyone are able to achieve it or want to have it as a priority in their life, and we can't just let those people die.
@@DuelSymphony in a system that doesn't make it difficult to become financially independent, it is much easier. also, those who can't can get others (family perhaps) to support them, while those who don't want it are probably the same kinds of people who don't want to work at all, the least they could do is make enough money to decide how they spend it when they retire.
@@davidlewis6728 I do agree with you, in a system that makes it easier to achieve financial independence it can be done. Unfortunately the system do not favour financial independence thats why people are trying to move forward financial independence in the first place. Inflation is rising, and everything is getting more expensive, from house pricing going up to madicare, while your paycheck meet your expenses. Thats the first problem with the system, everything is getting expensive and your paycheck don't match all your needs.
In second place there are people who don't the adequate information to be financialy independent. For someone to be financialy independent must be financialy literate in the first place. Again, not everybody got the information.
The other problem is with people whose age vary from 50-60 or maybe somehow younger. Those people have spent half of their life living in a traditional way, which means going to work, paying the taxes and waiting for their pension funds once they retire. Most of this people are middle class families whose biggest investment has been owning a house. They don't know what financial independence means nor are going to change their route now that they have reached this point.
I'm bringimg youjust a few examples to show that financial independence is not that easy to achieve as those motivation videos make it looks like. Sure me, you and everybody else who are aware of this can try to change things for the better and I think thats why we are here, watching this kind of content. :)
@@DuelSymphony i agree. the biggest question most financially literate people have is how to change it for the better. i think that capitalism and socialism are described basically identically in every sense except the title by capitalists and socialists, so if we tried both systems out and tried to make one of them work that would be a great way to avoid all of this confusion. personally, i believe capitalism is better, but i am ok with the idea of trying out socialism as an experiment... even if it has already been tried.... many times... (enter nam flashbacks)
@@davidlewis6728 I come from a post-Comunist country and yes socialism have failed. The elite, consisted by the ruling comunist party and the managerial class had concentrated the political and economical power in their hands and equality was never achieved. Also nowdays capitalism is failing. If you have ever played monopoly you are already familiar with how the game work. In real world it's almost imposible for a single player to gather every power resource since there are more than eight players in the game, but it is possible for a few to do so and thats where we are heading for. Capitalism today is heading towards oligarchy.
I think the best socio-economic system would be a mix of capitalism and socialism by extracting their best values as the freedom from one and security from the other. If you ask me the nordic walfare system is actually the best since it offer both.
6:18 the best part lmao
2.9% Interest is absurdly low. They are basically giving you the inflation rate.
So about .9%....If only they would of put that money into index funds we wouldn't be in this mess.
The solution is obvious!
It's the same solution as with any other government program: MAKE IT OPTIONAL.
If you want to take the safe road of "saving up" for your retirement by paying for current retirees' security, then you should be free to do so.
If you think you can do better by managing your own security, then I see no reason why you need to be forced away from this option, granted that you then lay in the bed you made for yourself and don't expect a safety net when it goes tits up.
The difficulty with this is that most Americans won’t save unless they’re forced to. The average 60-69 year old has $182,100 saved in their 401k. That’s not nearly enough to live on for the rest of your life. So then we’re faced with a new problem: (1) leave millions of Americans homeless once they can no longer work, (2) create programs to let old people work unneeded jobs so they can continue to support themselves, or (3) raise a new tax or create a new social program to help old people who didn’t responsibly save. 1 is unlikely to happen, and 2 and 3 are far more expensive than paying FICA taxes already is. Your solution is the ideal solution in theory, but in practicality, it would have negative externalities that are worse than the current system.
The problem is that most people are financially ignorant, and a great many are unable to save anything significant because they barely get by. Those people are very likely to have nothing when they retire. Either they can all be rounded up and dumped into the middle of the ocean or ... well, their survival will still have to be financed unless you want your streets to be overwhelmed with the old, sick and dying by the tens of millions. So not having everyone with a safety net won't solve any problems for anyone in the long run.
@@dingfeldersmurfalot4560 And that's why I said that it should be OPTIONAL not ABOLISHED.
@@totalolage Yup, Just require a letter from a lawyer saying you are a competent person and a letter from your broker saying you have good investments.
it's all irrelevant what people want or how they feel about SSN. It needs to be abolished, yes. And yes, everyone responsible for their own retirement! That's moral. Not making others pay for your responsibility!
We have someone here talking about Social Securities Numbers.
I would like to see a video about Social security (SSI NOT SSDI) for people with disabilities and why it is so hard for them to "get off their lazy ass and go get a job" How it intertwines with food stamps, medicare and Medicaid, How they take 50% out of their benifits for every dollar they earn over $85, and the asset limit of just $2,000 and the fact that the max SSI check for a person aged 18-64 with a disability is less than $800 a month for everything rent, food, car, ect, ect, ect... People need to be educated PLEEEAAASSE!!!
"Socialism is bad! Oh hey, my Social Security check is in woohoo... we are going to Applebee's tonight!"
I'd like for for there not to be an ss tax and instead have it invested. I'd make much that way than I'll ever be able to collect.
A better idea would be to completely scrap Social Security and let the people invest their money instead
@@aaronlandry3934 indeed that would be the ultimate!
That would require everyone to be fiscally responsible and nobody wants that!
Aaron Landry so the poor that have no money to invest just die when they retire??
@@elysian2765 no they just keep working
I would rather keep my money and invest it on my own.
Still sounds like doomsday to me.
invest it on your own............hahahaha what a joke of the century
I wish it was an option, but it’s not.
Daniel Mendoza It will be once it’s finally collapses. It’s years are numbered, because it’s fundamentally flawed and it will collapse within our lifetimes.
@@aaronlandry3934 What will collapse???
Manu John Social Security will collapse. It’s not sustainable and was doomed to fail from the start
I like your video, and here are my two cents. SS is one of the three biggest cons to ever prey on the taxpayer. Who but the fed govt could "invest" your money over your entire career and yield a negative return to the average retiree? Bernie Madoff comes to mind. Also, like nearly all govt programs, it is a means of wealth redistribution. The more you earn, the worse you are screwed. At 5:40, I think that you can guess on which side of the feeding trough you will find most of that 77%. Savings rates plunged soon after FDR implemented the SSA, predictably.
Here is the facts as I see them. You will never see the money that you were forced to put into it. No politician is ever going to run on reducing your SS not will they ever vote to if they want to get reelected. You could easily do better privatized. I mean let's be honest if SS was opt in nobody would do it, it's a horrible investment. Go privatized but force people to invest a certain portion of their income or they have to opt into SS.