Archive

Social Security Running 130B Deficit This Year, Trust "Fund" Empty By 2037.

  • believer
    sleeper;665615 wrote:And so is my generation. Let me ask you, if I choose not to save for retirement and rely solely on SS, who's fault is it when I can't pay the bills?

    Also, pretending that the IRA was the only investment vehicle for retirement is a joke. It's almost as much of a joke as trying to pretend their careers somehow hindered them from saving money every month instead of blowing it on crap they don't need.
    Let me ask you Sleeper....Do you suppose all of your wise beyond their years Gen X and Y-ers are diligently saving for their futures? LMAO....I have several Gen X and Y-ers who report to me at work and they're all a bunch of unreliable, all-about-me look at my new toys, tattoos, and piercings whiners.

    I have a hunch this not saving every month thing is hardly unique to all of us greedy, stupid POS Boomers.
  • sleeper
    believer;665619 wrote:Let me ask you Sleeper....Do you suppose all of your wise beyond their years Gen X and Y-ers are diligently saving for their futures? LMAO....I have several Gen X and Y-ers who report to me at work and they're all a bunch of unreliable, all-about-me look at my new toys, tattoos, and piercings whiners.

    I have a hunch this not saving every month thing is hardly unique to all of us greedy, stupid POS Boomers.
    I don't really care if they are. It's not my fault that people choose not to take care of themselves. Just because others are choosing to live their lives much like the boomers, doesn't make it right.
  • Al Bundy
    sleeper;665615 wrote:And so is my generation. Let me ask you, if I choose not to save for retirement and rely solely on SS, who's fault is it when I can't pay the bills?

    Also, pretending that the IRA was the only investment vehicle for retirement is a joke. It's almost as much of a joke as trying to pretend their careers somehow hindered them from saving money every month instead of blowing it on crap they don't need.

    The other retirement vehicles are a newer thing. They were not around whent he boomers started working in the 60's. Many of the industries went belly up, and so did their pensions. In this area for example steel was the big industry. It isn't the fault of the average working person that nothing was done to protect those jobs from going to other countries. You still haven't come up with a plan to phase out SS benefits for the older boomers. Letting them go hungry isn't a realistic possibility.
  • believer
    sleeper;665621 wrote:I don't really care if they are. It's not my fault that people choose not to take care of themselves. Just because others are choosing to live their lives much like the boomers, doesn't make it right.
    Well you're 23.

    I'm sure that life will never throw you a curve ball. You'll never have health issues, you'll always have a reliable good paying job, you'll never get divorced, your furnace will never blow-up, your cars will never need repaired, your kids' college tuition will be affordable, you'll never make stupid life choices, etc.

    It's good to know there are perfect & responsible people out there such as yourself. You're an inspiration to us all.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    "I'm sure that life will never throw you a curve ball. "

    It already has, just by being a 23 year old now. He's part of a class of people that with near 100% certainty they, as a group, will enjoy a lower quality of life than their parents. I can't imagine being the parent of a 15-25 year old now. You do realize that the shit job market disproportionately affects them, yet educational costs for them are higher than any other time - the proverbial "whipsaw" - that is why this recession can possibly be so damaging, it could have sociological effects that surpass the pure economic effects.

    It didn't help that our government continues to make employment more difficult for younger people by "helping" them with increases in the minimum wage. This is usually how they get introduced to the job market, yet the government makes it more expensive to hire them.
  • believer
    Let's look at this from a slightly different angle.

    Let's say that I was not an irresponsible and greedy POS Boomer. Let's say that SS didn't exist but the money that the Feds have been confiscating from my paychecks the past 40 years for SS was actually going to a simple interest bearing private savings account. That savings totaled up to a relatively modest $250,000. You know...not much but something to look forward to in retirement.

    When I got to within 10 years of that retirement, the bank execs run to the Feds in a panic and say, "We're sorry but we've been dipping into Believer's saving to make risky loans that didn't pay off. We need you to step in and tell Believer that we can only give him back 60% of his savings."

    Based on Sleeper's assumptions, I'm a greedy SOB for thinking "WTF?? It's MY MONEY. I want it back."
    Manhattan Buckeye;665631 wrote:It already has, just by being a 23 year old now. He's part of a class of people that with near 100% certainty they, as a group, will enjoy a lower quality of life than their parents.
    Assumption not fact.
    Manhattan Buckeye;665631 wrote:You do realize that the shit job market disproportionately affects them, yet educational costs for them are higher than any other time - the proverbial "whipsaw" - that is why this recession can possibly be so damaging, it could have sociological effects that surpass the pure economic effects.
    Oh ye generation of whiners.
    Manhattan Buckeye;665631 wrote:It didn't help that our government continues to make employment more difficult for younger people by "helping" them with increases in the minimum wage. This is usually how they get introduced to the job market, yet the government makes it more expensive to hire them.
    On this point I wholeheartedly agree.
  • sleeper
    Al Bundy;665623 wrote:The other retirement vehicles are a newer thing. They were not around whent he boomers started working in the 60's. Many of the industries went belly up, and so did their pensions. In this area for example steel was the big industry. It isn't the fault of the average working person that nothing was done to protect those jobs from going to other countries. You still haven't come up with a plan to phase out SS benefits for the older boomers. Letting them go hungry isn't a realistic possibility.
    Sorry, these are all cute anecdotal bull crap that I'm not buying. Sure, 401k's weren't in existence back then, but every hear of a savings account? The return may not be great, but better than spending beyond your means your entire life, then playing "OMG, its going bankrupt??, I had no idea" card when reality hits. It's time for people to start accepting responsibility for their actions.

    The people who worked in the steel industry should have maybe woke up one day and thought "Hey, getting these ridiculously high wages for non-skilled labor as well as huge pensions and benefits is kind of unsustainable. Can't China or other countries do this cheaper?". Go to college, become skilled, problem solved. I realize its too late for that now, but I'm not going to pretend no one saw this coming, and to think otherwise is absolutely ignorant.

    As far as my solution, the older you are, the more benefits you get because in theory you have less time to save(which is lazy as shit because this problem hasn't been a secret for the past 20-30 years). Its not complicated.
  • sleeper
    believer;665633 wrote:Let's look at this from a slightly different angle.

    Let's say that I was not an irresponsible and greedy POS Boomer. Let's say that SS didn't exist but the money that the Feds have been confiscating from my paychecks the past 40 years for SS was actually going to a simple interest bearing private savings account. That savings totaled up to a relatively modest $250,000. You know...not much but something to look forward to in retirement.

    When I got to within 10 years of that retirement, the bank execs run to the Feds in a panic and say, "We're sorry but we've been dipping into Believer's saving to make risky loans that didn't pay off. We need you to step in and tell Believer that we can only give him back 60% of his savings."

    Based on Sleeper's assumptions, I'm a greedy SOB for thinking "WTF?? It's MY MONEY. I want it back."



    Assumption not fact.



    Oh ye generation of whiners.



    On this point I wholeheartedly agree.

    Cool story. Hey, my generation is giving 100%. Thanks for playing.

    Also, answer my fucking question. I'm calling you out to explain it and you continuously avoid it.
  • sleeper
    believer;665624 wrote:Well you're 23.

    I'm sure that life will never throw you a curve ball. You'll never have health issues, you'll always have a reliable good paying job, you'll never get divorced, your furnace will never blow-up, your cars will never need repaired, your kids' college tuition will be affordable, you'll never make stupid life choices, etc.

    It's good to know there are perfect & responsible people out there such as yourself. You're an inspiration to us all.

    You're right I won't. Health issues? I'll have health insurance and I take care of myself. Reliable paying job? I'll start my own if I ever get laid off. Divorced? It's called prenup. My furnace will blow up? It's called home insurance. Car repair? I'll buy a cheap used one to tide me over, I'll be okay. College tuition? My kids can pay for it, like I'm paying for mine.

    It's called personable accountability. I have it, do you?
  • believer
    sleeper;665649 wrote:You're right I won't. Health issues? I'll have health insurance and I take care of myself. Reliable paying job? I'll start my own if I ever get laid off. Divorced? It's called prenup. My furnace will blow up? It's called home insurance. Car repair? I'll buy a cheap used one to tide me over, I'll be okay. College tuition? My kids can pay for it, like I'm paying for mine.

    It's called personable accountability. I have it, do you?
    Health insurance? Perhaps if you can afford it. Home insurance? Yeah OK. Car repairs? Like a said earlier...I drive an Accent. It's good to know some Gen Y-ers are willing to drive crap if necessary but the one's I've met wouldn't be caught dead in one. Prenup? Good luck with that. Looks like you're destined to be single. Oh...I paid for my own tuition too. So yeah....I have plenty of personal accountability....and I've also made plenty of mistakes. We all make stupid choices. You'll make plenty. It's not a matter of if it's a matter of when.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    "Oh ye generation of whiners."

    I admitted earlier I'm 37 and am appreciative of the opportunities handed to me. I don't know why are you being so obtuse on this thread, but it isn't f--king whining to state a FACT. You are coming off like a bitter old man that doesn't understand the challenges young people face - it is one thing to want what was promised to you (I can see the counterargument that if we're ever getting out of this economic mess some promises won't be met) but it is just silly not to acknowledge that younger people are facing a grim economic outlook. It is no more whining than if I broke my leg, a friend invites me over to play softball, and I tell him no because I broke my leg. It isn't whining, it is stating the truth.
  • O-Trap
    believer;665579 wrote:Suffice to say that with the exception of those who lived through the Great Depression, most people - regardless of generation - do not feel much immediate need to save for future use.
    This is probably true for the most part. There will be pockets of people who, through life circumstances, do feel this need. As a whole, though, you're right. People haven't experienced it, and with the existential view of reality as large as it is, the perception is that saving just isn't that important.
    believer;665579 wrote:We have been born and raised in a materialistic consumer driven society. It's rarely about what do we need to live within our means.

    It's all about having that $250,000 house on a $35,000 salary, it's about driving the $35,000 loaded SUV rather than the $10,000 econo-box, it's about buying the $3,000 60" Samsung HDTV rather than settling on the $300 Emerson 32" model, it's about being first in line to scarf up the latest mind-numbing & time-wasting video game, it's about having an iPhone or Droid instead of the basic phone supplied for free with your mobile phone package, and on and on.
    Indeed, as a whole, all generations are this way. Humanity, as long as it has had a social, cultural construct, it has had status symbols.

    For what it's worth, there ARE those of us Gen-Yers who are buying $87,000 houses on $35,000 salaries. We're driving 10-year-old $4,000 cars that we're just taking good care of. We watch basic programming (no cable or dish) on our 6-year-old gifted 19" television. We do have a video game system that has been out since 1996, which we were given, and we don't have time to play much. We continue using a cell phone with an enormous crack in the screen, because it still works, and we don't want to spend money on a new one if the crack doesn't affect the functionality. We don't have Internet (neighbors do). We set money aside for retirement AND for unexpected expenses like replacing vehicles, water pumps, etc.
    believer;665579 wrote:And this all-about-me mentality effects the Gen X and Y-ers as much if not more so than those greedy, selfish SOB Boomers...Mr. Sleeper.
    It affects everyone to some degree.
    believer;665579 wrote:So - YES - the Feds confiscated my money against my will, I want my money back.
    Me too, and I have as much right to mine as you, right?
    believer;665579 wrote:Sorry...had to rant!:p

    No worries. It's a frustrating topic.
    believer;665590 wrote:I completely understand. All I'm asking you Gen X and Y-ers is to put your money where your mouth is.
    Some of us have already started. The rest already don't care about putting their money where their mouth is (as many in ALL generations including, but not limited to, the Boomers). I suppose some of Sleeper's frustration might come from wanting those in other generations to do the same ... put their money where their mouth is.
    believer;665590 wrote:Pave the way. Set the example. Start saving for your futures.
    Am.
    believer;665590 wrote:Stop being so consumer driven.
    Check.
    believer;665590 wrote:Vote for politicians courageous enough to do what is necessary to right the ship as opposed to being instrumental in voting in big spending politicians like Obama.
    I do, but the two major parties (the ones who have contributed to the problem over the last 60-70 years) always end up winning.
    believer;665590 wrote:Show me your generations are willing to do these "sacrifices" and then I'll be willing to set my sites a little lower.
    The reverse to this would be that we'll stop harping at the older generations when they do something that shows they, knowing that this structure won't last much longer, aren't just trying to get every drop they can and then just stick us with the bill.
    believer;665590 wrote:Meantime...you'll excuse me if I think that my confiscated money belongs to me.

    Oh I don't have ANY beef with you wanting that. I want mine, too, so I'd be intellectually inconsistent to resent you wanting yours. It's your money. You earned it. It came out of your paycheck. You were forced to give it up on the promise that you'd get it back. Of course you want it back.

    To be honest, we WANT you to have yours back, but we don't want you to have yours back by it just being taken from us and then we get nothing, and that's how it looks like this will play out.

    I can't speak for others, but I WANT my mother and father, as well as my in-laws, to get their money back. They deserve it, just like you do. Just like I will. So I hope you don't hear that I don't WANT you to have your money back. I do.

    But you can bet your ass that I don't want to have to foot the bill for them to get it.
    believer;665624 wrote:Well you're 23.

    I'm sure that life will never throw you a curve ball. You'll never have health issues, you'll always have a reliable good paying job, you'll never get divorced, your furnace will never blow-up, your cars will never need repaired, your kids' college tuition will be affordable, you'll never make stupid life choices, etc.

    It's good to know there are perfect & responsible people out there such as yourself. You're an inspiration to us all.

    I lulzed.

    In truth, what one saves for retirement should be kept separate from what is saved for unexpected life expenses, but BOTH should be saved. My wife and I were fortunate that we had done this, as we JUST had to replace BOTH our vehicles within a week of each other. Despite me being unemployed for 13 months, we were able to pay cash for one of them, because we saved, and were NOT consumer driven with our spending habits.

    For what it's worth, that whole consumerism gripe is a pet peeve of mine as well if someone isn't already being responsible with their finances, and I see it a LOT in my neighborhood. Some are only able to feed their kids about five days a week, but it's because they have 70" HDTVs and they drive Lincoln Navigators (that's an actual example).
  • O-Trap
    sleeper;665649 wrote:You're right I won't. Health issues? I'll have health insurance and I take care of myself.
    Doable.
    sleeper;665649 wrote:Reliable paying job? I'll start my own if I ever get laid off.
    That's what I did. Got me off unemployment in 5 months. Now, I still run it, plus I have a "regular" job. I'm projected to make about 133% the annual income I made before I was laid off (late 2009). It's a smart way to go, even if you DO have a job.
    sleeper;665649 wrote:Divorced? It's called prenup.
    That, and choosing wisely. Marriage is a serious thing to get into. It should be treated that way. Never marry someone you wouldn't go into business with ... because you do.
    sleeper;665649 wrote:My furnace will blow up? It's called home insurance.
    Just dealt with a waterpump this way.
    sleeper;665649 wrote:Car repair? I'll buy a cheap used one to tide me over, I'll be okay.
    That's how to do it. My wife and I both have "new" cars (new to us). They're both 2001 vehicles that cost us less than $10,000 combined.
    sleeper;665649 wrote:College tuition? My kids can pay for it, like I'm paying for mine.
    Same here. I'm paying for mine. If my kids want to invest in their futures, I will strongly encourage them in that direction, but I will NOT foot the bill for them to do it.
    sleeper;665649 wrote:It's called personable accountability. I have it, do you?
    To be fair, sometimes a not-so-wise decision sounds like a good one before-hand. However, as long as you don't invest what you can't afford to lose into it, you're fine.

    Personal fiscal conservatism ... how it should be.
  • dwccrew
    believer;665619 wrote:Let me ask you Sleeper....Do you suppose all of your wise beyond their years Gen X and Y-ers are diligently saving for their futures? LMAO....I have several Gen X and Y-ers who report to me at work and they're all a bunch of unreliable, all-about-me look at my new toys, tattoos, and piercings whiners.

    I have a hunch this not saving every month thing is hardly unique to all of us greedy, stupid POS Boomers.

    Every generation throughout history has had these type of people in them. From Gen X and Y to the Boomers to earlier generations.
  • sleeper
    believer;665662 wrote:Health insurance? Perhaps if you can afford it. Home insurance? Yeah OK. Car repairs? Like a said earlier...I drive an Accent. It's good to know some Gen Y-ers are willing to drive crap if necessary but the one's I've met wouldn't be caught dead in one. Prenup? Good luck with that. Looks like you're destined to be single. Oh...I paid for my own tuition too. So yeah....I have plenty of personal accountability....and I've also made plenty of mistakes. We all make stupid choices. You'll make plenty. It's not a matter of if it's a matter of when.

    I'm going to take this as a concession that you have no idea how dire the situation is as I've asked 3-4 times for your explanation and you seemingly never post it.

    Good luck. If I were you, I would begin saving IMMEDIATELY, because those benefits are getting cut whether you like it or not. BOOK IT.
  • dwccrew
    sleeper;665735 wrote:I'm going to take this as a concession that you have no idea how dire the situation is as I've asked 3-4 times for your explanation and you seemingly never post it.

    Good luck. If I were you, I would begin saving IMMEDIATELY, because those benefits are getting cut whether you like it or not. BOOK IT.

    And if those benefits do get cut, I would say the Boomer generation could only blame the previous generation (and partly their own) kind of like some are blaming the Boomers. Someone is going to get fucked, it might start with the Boomers and get worse after. But that may be the only way to fix the problem.

    If and when our time to collect comes and we are taking further cuts, we can only blame our predeccors and ourselves for not righting the ship while we had the chance.
  • believer
    O-trap and Dwccrew,

    I appreciate the fact that you avoid placing blame and acknowledge that people make mistakes. I also appreciate that you understand why I get emotional about the money that was taken from my paychecks and why I expect it back someday.

    To me the money that has been taken by the Feds and placed in the SS trust fund is no different than if it had been placed in a savings account for 40 years.

    I can appreciate why Gen X and Y-ers are angry and believe you will never see a dime of your forced contributions. That's why I think those who are - say - 45 and younger (as well as their employers) should be given special tax shelters/incentives to participate in some sort of hard-to-resist Gen X/Y 401K to offset any decreased SS benefit you may or may not see when you hit 67 or 70 or 75 or whatever it ends up jumping to.

    401K's for Boomers is still a relatively new option and quite frankly hasn't taken hold with Boomers until the last 10 years or so. Yes savings accounts still existed but Boomers were too busy buying stuff for themselves and their Gen X and Y-er kids at a time when the demise of SS was only just beginning to be discussed. No excuse just reality.

    There truly is no good solution to this mess.

    Sleeper, no disrespect but fuck you with regard to your "start saving immediately" smart ass comments. What part of my previous posts did you miss? I have a 401K and I'm one of the remaining few people in America fortunate enough to have a modest pension. That doesn't mean I should smile while the Feds steal my mandated SS "contributions."

    I hope your bank steals your savings and 401K money 40 years from now.
  • dwccrew
    believer;665745 wrote:O-trap and Dwccrew,

    I appreciate the fact that you avoid placing blame and acknowledge that people make mistakes. I also appreciate that you understand why I get emotional about the money that was taken from my paychecks and why I expect it back someday.

    To me the money that has been taken by the Feds and placed in the SS trust fund is no different than if it had been placed in a savings account for 40 years.

    I can appreciate why Gen X and Y-ers are angry and believe you will never see a dime of your forced contributions. That's why I think those who are - say - 45 and younger (as well as their employers) should be given special tax shelters/incentives to participate in some sort of hard-to-resist Gen X/Y 401K to offset any decreased SS benefit you may or may not see when you hit 67 or 70 or 75 or whatever it ends up jumping to.

    401K's for Boomers is still a relatively new option and quite frankly hasn't taken hold with Boomers until the last 10 years or so. Yes savings accounts still existed but Boomers were too busy buying stuff for themselves and their Gen X and Y-er kids at a time when the demise of SS was only just beginning to be discussed. No excuse just reality.

    There truly is no good solution to this mess.
    I totally agree with your last statement. No matter what solution is implemented, someone is getting royally fucked. If they offered me a savings plan I could manage myself that I'd never have to pay taxes on (with contribution limits), I'd be pleased with that to off-set my SS that I'll never see. But Big Brother aka the mafia aka the extorsionist US government wants what's theirs.....I mean ours. So a plan that we would never pay taxes on will never happen.
  • believer
    dwccrew;665750 wrote:I totally agree with your last statement. No matter what solution is implemented, someone is getting royally fucked. If they offered me a savings plan I could manage myself that I'd never have to pay taxes on (with contribution limits), I'd be pleased with that to off-set my SS that I'll never see. But Big Brother aka the mafia aka the extorsionist US government wants what's theirs.....I mean ours. So a plan that we would never pay taxes on will never happen.
    No question about it. That's what's so frustrating.
  • sleeper
    Sleeper, no disrespect but fuck you with regard to your "start saving immediately" smart ass comments. What part of my previous posts did you miss? I have a 401K and I'm one of the remaining few people in America fortunate enough to have a modest pension. That doesn't mean I should smile while the Feds steal my mandated SS "contributions."

    I hope your bank steals your savings and 401K money 40 years from now you arrogant no nothing twit.
    You're an idiot. Sorry. I'm not posting my opinion, I'm posting FACTS.

    We're bankrupt. What was promised to you is unfunded and their are only 2 ways out, both of which FUCK OVER MY GENERATION 100000X MORE THAN YOURS. Yet you're the one QQ'ing about reduction in benefits that WILL HAPPEN. It's going to happen, get mad all you want, but that is the truth.

    The fact that you can't explain anything other than posting useless shit like "I want my money back, federally mandated, blah blah" WE GET IT. No one is even arguing this point, yet you keep bringing it up like it matters. My generation is also being federally mandated to pay in a system in which we are GUARANTEED to not receive a single dime from. You're circular logic and red herring arguments are nowhere near the amount of ignorance and obtuseness you clearly have about this issue.

    Now go ahead and post something with facts about the issue, ya know, something that MATTERS. I'm well aware of your selfishness and lack of regard for the future of this country, your children, and your grandchildren. Show me a number, show me a solution in which everyone is happy. Something of factual substance, I'm sick of hearing your opinion on this subject.
  • gut
    believer;665745 wrote: To me the money that has been taken by the Feds and placed in the SS trust fund is no different than if it had been placed in a savings account for 40 years.
    That's a fair perspective, and you have a right to be upset. But the reality is it's not a savings program for you and really never was. What it IS and has been for many years is just another tax collected by the govt, "earmarked" for an entitlement program the govt created. That's what they do, they tax and spend. But the reality is the govt has been spending way more than it's collecting with taxes, and in theory we've all "benefited" from however the govt spends the tax revenues. If the govt has to reduce spending 20% across the board to eliminate the deficit, that necessarily has to include entitlements. Or, alternatively, the govt could raise taxes (in theory) to balance the budget and you'll be left with the same after-tax portion of that SS entitlement.

    The simple way of looking at it is you paid $100 in taxes, you got a promise of $50 SS benefit and then $150 of military, education, infrastructure, etc... Either you should have been paying $150 in taxes in the first place or you should have gotten a much lower SS promise. That's what I mean when I say as long as you've been a voter and paying taxes you OWN the deficit that's been created over the course of the last 30 years. And if you want to talk equitable, a 50-yr old "owns" 100% of that while a 30-yr old "owns" only 1/3. People have been saying for years "don't borrow from our children's future....don't pass this debt to our children". Well, guess what, the children are "alls growns up" and they are sending you a bill.

    Now I realize no one could say I don't want $150 in military, education and other nor could you refuse to pay it, but we ALL conceded that when we continued to re-elect these politicians year after year.
  • gut
    sleeper;665514 wrote:The problem is, pork really isn't that big of a problem. Just getting rid of pork would get rid of approximately 1% of the problem, which is irrelevant. If you want to fix the problem, and I've stated this many times on this thread you have to do 1 or more likely both of the following:

    1. Raise Taxes
    2. Cut significantly in these programs: SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense

    That's it.

    I use the term "pork" loosely to refer to ALL forms of wasteful, unnecessary and inefficient govt spending. At the end of the day, ALL govt spending theoretically has social benefit, that's it's purpose. Defense and the security it affords is a social benefit because I don't have to own a gun and defend my assets. My argument is basically you were paying, or thought you were paying, for this social program, but you also received benefit from other social programs for which you didn't pay for. Ignorance is bliss until the bill comes due.
  • gut
    sleeper;665524 wrote:Sorry? Who's problem is it that they didn't properly save for retirement?

    I already addressed this in another post on this thread, go read it again. I did want to add, that cuts of 40% are considering we don't significantly raise taxes, which I assume that we will. Again, who's paying for that? My generation. Thanks.

    To be fair, relying on a promised program as part of the retirement plan is hardly irresponsible. That said, people should not have planned to retire with the bare minimum and it should not have been the sole source of savings. A 30-40% reduction (I think 15% is more much more reasonable with more aggressive cuts elsewhere) should not force them into poverty and, given proper planning, they should still live comfortably albeit considerably more modestly (but how much is a 30% cut, $500 a month?).

    30-40% should not mean more than a reduction in the standard of living, but still far from poverty, but clearly that's not the case for many that, I agree with you, planned poorly. But future generations are going to see a reduction in the standard of living as a result of 30 years of unchecked govt handouts and entitlements. It's only fair that the voters who have been asleep at the polls share in that misery.
  • gut
    BoatShoes;665562 wrote: The reality is that such tax advantage structures have down little to increase savings as with many other areas the tax code has proven largely inefficient at guiding preferable social outcomes.

    Historically, the best source of savings and bulk of retirement funds has come from housing. That's the ticket! We should increase home ownership and make it more affordable for everyone! Brilliant! Let's get on that!

    As for the 15k limit on 401k contributions, it's another tax break for the rich. While I agree 401k's are underutilized (most would rather spend their last $1000 on a smartphone or big screen tv), it's only the moderately wealthy people who have $10k+ in EXTRA disposable income to max out the 401k (I'm guessing it's probably less than 20% of the working population). Obviously allowing unlimited pre-tax contributions is a politically unpopular position, just another tax-break for the "rich". No real sweat for me, I'd like to buy a BMW or a bigger house, but I settle for a cheaper but still very nice vehicle and more modest house and put the difference into my 401.
  • gut
    BGFalcons82;665577 wrote: To be brief...I can't get my mind around 401K plans being part of a consumption tax treatment. Is it explainable in a hundred words or less?

    It's not consumption tax treatment, unless you classify savings as a consumption choice (and many economists do). You are simply deferring taxes to a time you expect to be earning less and thus in a lower tax bracket. 401k tax treatment encourages savings. Income taxes are a tax on productivity, and so a 401k allows you to average or pro-rate that "productivity" over your entire life, as opposed to just your working years, to better match your true consumption.