4 Reasons Your Retirement Is at Risk

Reader Comments
Back to article

as it stands a citizen of the united states who has a mother or a father residing in another country canhave that person live with them for 3 years. after the 3 years(if the person is over 65)can request social security benefits, even though they have not contributed in any wat money to the s.s. is this true?

wendell of CA 9:34AM December 05, 2009

I have a question. When is the government going to pay back the ss all that money they borrowed years ago out of the SS? They say that SS will run out of money, cause of the babie bombers thats retired or going to retire soon. What I would like to know, is where they are getting their figures and are they subtracting the number of our babie bombers that have already died and will not be signing up for SS or the the ones who have, but didn't live only a few years. In the newspapers all across this nation you can read every day of someone in their late 50s or 60s and even early 70s that has past. How much of a drain did they put on the SS. Better yet, why don't we get thoses that are not subpose to draw SS out of the system. Why are some SS checks going to foreign counties, and I'm not sure the purpose? Anyway I feel that there is more that can be done to clean up the SS before they start saying that it will be out of money.

beverly of OK 11:40AM December 03, 2009

What we really need to do is force all of congress to collect Social Security instead of their ridiculous congressional plan money. Average congressperson will collect $174,000 per year, even after only serving one term!

Bob of CT 5:46PM December 02, 2009

The government has stated time and time again of "FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY". What is their fiscal responsibility?? How are our taxpayer's funds managed and used? Large corporations are required to post the audit of the books, why not each government agency in the state and federal government?
There has been overpayments in the Social Security system that has been completely waived constantly when the error was created within. Why must the taxpayers suffer the consequence? Shouldn't the individual who caused the payment error be accountable???

Lei of HI 5:18PM December 02, 2009

If the limit is removed from how much of your income you pay SS tax on is removed, then SS will be around for a long time.

Roger of CA 3:09AM December 02, 2009

Will ss be around when I turn 62, I was born in 1964

Toneather Smith of GA 4:04PM December 01, 2009

What if arguably the greatest generation had not had to sacrifice its earning
power to save this country from destruction by the Axis? Our aged population would likely have a larger Social Security check to pay for overpriced pharmaceuticals and the like? Too bad that the interests of investors trump those of the elderly.
What if the wealthy had been required to pay the same percentage of their incomes be they derived from earned or unearned income that we with modest incomes have had to pay? Social Security trust fund would be much stronger.
What if undocumented workers (ITIN holders) were NOT required to support the
Social Security and Medicare funds from their earnings. They will not have access to funds from either! The undocumented truly can shout "No taxation without representation!
What if Congress were not permitted to raid the SS funds. The funds could be investedvin much higher paying bonds or in solid companies and municipal projects designed to strengthen our infrastructure?

John of WI 10:13PM November 30, 2009

The issue is that SS was never meant to be someone's retirement. It was meant as a last ditch to keep grandma from living alone and pennyless. It has turned been into people's retirement stipend and it CAN NOT meet those ideas.
When it started you collected at 65, but were expected to die at 63. IE, most people were not meant to get anything. Take anyone retired back in the 90's, if retired more than 5 years they had collected from SS more than they ever put into the system. Nobody factored in the increasing longevity.
Second major problem, is that it started with a 12-to-1 ratio of people paying in. Here is why some people have the 'ponzi scheme', for SS as older people are paid benefits by the younger ones income tax, was so that the individual helped was not a burden to those contributing.
Another problem is hidden SS taxing, besides the income you are taxed for SS. There is a same amount paid by the company that employs you. In effect, double your SS take and that is the real taxed money you are paying for SS.
These things can not be kept up, nothing in the world is going to allow these projected cost to ever be covered by taxes. The system will collapse at some point, just a matter of timing.

Michael of NY 3:38PM November 30, 2009

I must be missing something here because I don't think the sky is falling when it comes to most people's ability to retire, even with a reduced 401(k).
When you retire, you don't pay SS tax, 7.65%, you don't contribute to a 401(k), guessing 10% on the average. You've paid off your mortgage by the time you retire, hopefully, so subtract another 15-25%. And the kids have moved out, hopefully, so subtract an additional 10-15% of your expenses. So you can roughly live the same lifestly on 50-60% of your old salary. Social Security will replace 25-30% of that which means you've got to replace, on your own, about 10-20% of your annual salary to live the same lifestyle as it was while you were working. On a $100,000 salary, you need savings to generate $10,000 to $20,000 a year which will probably be taken care of by a combination of perhaps a modest pension, your 401(k) and perhaps some part-time work. And that is assuming you decide you won't live a lifestyle that is less than you were when you were working.
Isn't this pretty much what your grandparents did when they retired? So what's changed?

Bill of CA 5:48PM November 13, 2009

Here in Colorado we seniors also have the increased cost of paying full property taxes even tho the Homestead Bill was approved by voters. This is the second time it has been taken away. Seems when the state cannot balance the budget we get hit.
Right after it was voted in it was taken away for 3 years. Just got it back and so far it is gone for another 2 years at least.

Marlene of CO 4:38PM November 11, 2009