Tariffs and sky high audio prices.

All of these falsehoods about Social Security when the real data is readily available. A truly sorry state of affairs.
https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/info-2016/debunking-six-more-myths-about-social-security.html

It will run out in 2034 but still be able to pay 80% of what you'd normally get if the present state of affairs remains the same. Just raising the cap on S.S. from  to around 135,000 will extend the 100% payout about 30% further into the future. Before this year the cap was around $128,400 and this year it will go up to $132,900. Part of the problem was recognized.

It's hard for me to follow and retain all the figures but it's not rocket science. It's policy. As long as you have one side of the equation believing that S.S. should fail (since they believe government shouldn't be involved), then they will do and say everything they can to ensure it's failure.

Those on the other side of the equation, see a very simple way to keep it going, and under ideal conditions, double the payout and still be solvent forever.

If the cap is removed, entirely, then you could double the monthly payout, which would be nice for those who've been robbed and deprived of their pensions. Also, if you grant a path to citizenship for the undocumented who already work here (and pay 10-12 billion a year in taxes for services they will never receive), you'll have that base that will pay into the fund, paying it forward. It's how our S.S. has operated since it's inception.

Again, it can be done if you want it to work in your favor, or you can cut your nose off to spite your face, just to affirm some misplaced convictions.

All the best,
Nonoise

The Chinese people are not the bad guys, their system simply doesn't value intellectual property or the rights of an individual. Be thankful they don't in the case of gun powder or pasta, since the Chinese invented these things among many others and did not patent/copyright. Jokes aside, intellectual property is a western concept. Inna, every society makes its own rules...trade or don't trade but the subject of trade should be a no whining, no resentment zone. If you must trade, then get the best deal you can and everyone just move on down the road. If someone breaks their deal, stop trading. If you can't afford to stop trading with someone then you have a different problem to fix.

@oregonpapa 

Social Security is a nice concept but it would be nice if everyone would refresh on their history from time to time. At its origin, Social Security is a tax, plain and simple.  The tax was imposed on the workers at the time and paid out to those too old/infirm and of a certain age. I dont remember the exact life expectantcy when payments began but IIRC it was scheduled to begin paying a couple of years PAST the average lifespan. It was never intended to be an individuals retirement plan.  As far as someone dying before the got to collect all they paid in? Thats the way it works. It is equally as fair as someone collecting MORE than they paid in because they lived too long. As I stated above, the only fair way to do it is to pay you back all of your contributions compunded and you are on your own! Oregonpapa, doing some quick math, you would have lost out on that deal many years ago!!!

Any way you slice it, if your present budgeting for old age/retirement includes social security as a requirement to make ends meet, stop buying audio gear immediately and save more money before you get there. Not because Social Security may or may not be there, it will be there. You should save more because it was never intended to underwrite your retirement, it was meant to supplement. I'm not going to begin taking distributions until they force me (presently age 70 I think) and even then, I will donate it to various good causes. I don't know if I will win or lose actuarily by waiting because I don't know at what I age will pass away. Once again, some people get a good deal, some don't, that's the why we look at averages. I have paid in the maximum allowable to Social Security every year since the 1980's. Most of those years I was maxed out easily within the 1st quarter. Now if I were like many I would grouse about whether or not I will get MY money back and whether it was a good deal for ME.  But I choose to be a little more philosophical about it. My responsibility as an inheritor of my piece of this great country is to pay it forward...and backward!  Backward in the sense that my contribution pay Oregonpapa because he paid for those before him.  My responsibility forward is to be generous, enjoy my life, consume what I need (who defines need?), help those who are less fortunate and share a positive outlook with anyone who will listen.

Remember, not only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled around 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K, per year,  over your working life, that’s close to $220,500. If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer’s contribution) compounded at a simple 5% after 49 years of working, you’d have $892,919.98. If you bought an annuity and it paid only 4% per year, you’d have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month. The average S.S. recipient, since 2011,  gets around $1200/month. The folks in Washington have pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madhoff ever thought of.    And; they put HIM in jail.. 

btw:    Entitlement my BUTT,  I paid cash for my social security insurance! Just because they SPENT the money, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout. Congressional benefits(aka: subsidized healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days), now that's welfare! And someone has the nerve to call my SS payouts, "entitlements" ?

@ghasely

Agreed. A great corollary to what you just said was when a talk show host asked a German businessman why he paid so much in taxes and didn’t mind it. His response was that he’d rather be a wealthy man in a wealthy country, than a wealthy man in a poor country.

The Nordic countries, where taxation is high, have a B.M.I. (a basic monthly income that guarantees a livable standard) and what used to be a minimum wage of around $20/hr so yes, they were and are more than happy to pay higher taxes since they’re covered from the cradle to the grave. They have the best outcomes in all measured areas, the lowest inequality, and lead the happiest lives on the planet.

Americans who’ve worked in these countries were amazed at the quality of life, only to be back under stress when returning home.

All the best,
Nonoise