Quote:
|
maybe it has something to do with the advice, repeated many times, not to count on it and to set up other retirement savings? or am i supposed to just ignore that?
|
?? Nobody was or is ever supposed to depend upon Social Security for retirement. It has always been "a retirement supplement" to prevent people from having zero. It is not supposed to be somebody's entire retirement income, but it is there as your safety net. Everyone is supposed to take care of themselves, and save their own retirement money!
Quote:
|
But unless something is done to reform the system, the trust funds will begin to lose money in 2016 and run out by 2037,
|
Yes. I am sure the system will be "reformed" a bit, as it has been before when it has "threatened to hit bottom" previously.
Quote:
|
though Social Security tax income would be enough to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2083, said John Shallman, a Social Security spokesman.
|
So it appears the absolutely worse case scenario - if we do nothing at all to adjust Social Security ever again - is that everyone that pays into it will receive at least 75% of their benefits through 2083.
What's the Social Security takeout now, 6.25%? (Don't know for sure). If someone works 50 years (age 20 to 70) and averages out to $50,000 a year over the lifetime, they would pay in about $3125 a year, or $156,250 to Social Security over their working 50 year lifetime.
When they retired, what they paid in (no interest) if directly dispersed back to them would cover $700 a month for 18 years, or $900 a month for 14 years. So, in this example, seems pretty likely one will get out more than they paid in if they live the average lifespan. Anybody else is free to do a more accurate calculation, this was off the cuff.