Re: the future long term financial apocalypse of the USA

On Sat, 11 May 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

>
>
On Sat, 11 May 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
>

On Sat, 11 May 2024 10:54:55 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>

>
>
On Fri, 10 May 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>

On 5/10/2024 1:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:

For those who are interested in the future long term financial
apocalypse of the USA

>
More dystopian fiction.   Talk about depressing.

>
Yup, just like reality.
>
USA Social Security sent me a letter the other day and said that if I wait
until I am 67 to start taking SS, they will give me $4,000/month. That is an
amazing number.  I am wondering that they are going to send a hit man
instead, much cheaper.
>
Supposedly Social Security and Medicare are going to hit $2 trillion / year
each in 2030.  That is an incredible amount of money.
>
Lynn

>
Amazing! My local SS-organization (pun intended) expect me to work until
I'm 71! Hmm, or maybe it was 72, can't honestly say that I remember, and I
have absolutely no intention of following their guide lines. I do feel
sorry for the generation after me, they will be the ones locked into life
long slavery to the state.

>
You do realize that, when Social Security started, the average life
expectancy was such that those eligible for it were "locked into life
long slavery to the state", right?
>
Increased longevity is one of the reasons for the problem.

>
I have no idea about SS since I'm not american. But from the perspective
of my country, when it was started the taxes were lower, pensions better,
and you could walk the streets without getting shot.
>
Today the taxes are doubled, the pension age increases every year, and you
risk getting shot to death on the street.

>
Today, in the USA, income taxes are as low as they've been since, well,
perhaps before WW2.    The decreases in revenue due to tax cuts
began in 1981 and were seriously cut in 2016, leading in a large
part to the current deficits.
>
The pension age hasn't increased but once (from 65 to 67) since
the social security system was created.
>
The hyperbole about getting shot is so ridiculous that it's not
even worth responding.
>
The hyperbole about working until 71 is just that.   One is eligable
to draw SS at 62, albeit since one'd be drawing longer, the amount
is less than it would be at full retirement (67) age.   If you are
able to wait longer to start SS, the monthly payment increases each
year you wait, up until 72 when you must start taking it (and start
taking RMDs if you have deferred income accounts).
>
If the social security fund had been invested, rather than being
used to cover tax cuts and overspending, it would be sufficient to
support future retirements without any modifications.
>
The disappearance of private pensions by corporations starting
in the late 1980s, also has put pressure on the social security
system - a freebee for the corporations - push retirement costs
completely on the government, leading to more and more arcane
mechanisms to enrich wallstreet (401k, IRA, Roth IRA, etc)
without necessarily providing sure income to the recipients.

Thank you scott, I actually appreciate the information since what I wrote is from a swedish perspective and not a US perspective. If what you're saying is true, it does, in my opinion, shift the needle a tiny bit in your direction.