What will we do about the looming retirement crisis?
- Thread starter larsIU
- Start date
Tunnel to Towers, (and others) have the right idea. Lower the cost of being alive in various ways. One way is housing like this.
The Tunnel to Towers Foundation Breaks Ground on Denver Veterans Village - Tunnel to Towers Foundation
Ceremony took place on November 7 at 10:00 AM Just days before Veterans Day, the Tunnel to Towers Foundation, a non-profit that supports America’s first responders, Gold Star families, and military […]t2t.org
Another Denver example is an old 30 story office that was once a prestigious office address, which had been vacant for years, has been repurposed into low-cost housing. There are many good buildings with very low occupancy in almost every city.
Once we stop supporting migrants we will at least have some funds available for support. Cutting outrageous housing costs will help a lot.
CoH, are the immigrants coming to the U. S. today who cross the Southwest border far less desirable than those who came from Europe many years ago ?
Raise the cap and treat benefits as normal income for taxation purposes. That's enough. I don't want the government telling an office worker with a bad back that he has to work longer than a fit and healthy laborer.
They are the woat
Are the ‘Peak Boomers’ Financially Ready to Retire?
Generation’s last, largest wave faces struggle: studywww.aarp.org
According to this (and it’s the same data over multiple articles) over half of people retiring over the next several years will have less than 250k in retirement savings and will rely largely on Social Security.
I saw another statistic which I can’t locate saying 1/2 of people aged 55-66 have almost nothing saved.
If this is all true how the hell do you reform SS? Means testing? So the people that worked and saved now have to give it up because of those who didn’t. Seems like a nonstarter after the college debt brouhaha during Bidens term.
Based on what I see I’m not sure how SS doesn’t expand over the next two decades.
I think this is a generational problem and our politics won’t allow us to even consider how to fix it. Then again I think that about most of our larger problems.
When will we normalize multi generational living situations? Are we too selfish and self absorbed at this point?
Thoughts?
Release COVID part deux?
Sadly I do. But I don't know about taxing the rentiers part.
Sure it was. Unless you want to blame the hysterical rhetoric. But what I described is what gave rise to the hysterical rhetoric.
I haven't looked at the numbers, but that makes sense to me. The only issue I have is I think we need to stop targeting w-2 workers and start targeting asset owners.
So you don’t think this would have any deleterious effects on how incomes are realized? You think high income people are just going to accept a 15% income tax hike, every penny of which goes to transfers, without finding ways to avoid paying it?
This isn’t going to happen. They may increase the cap and flatten the benefit curve. In fact, I’d guess this is likely to happen. But there is zero chance they’re going to levy a 15% tax hike on incomes above $176k.
I never miss an opportunity to cough on an old person.
The eligibility phasing negated what you’re describing.
By the time the eligible people would’ve retired, their private accounts would make up the difference in their reduced benefits.
The ineligible people really had no impact because of the 30 year head start they would’ve gotten on SSTF depletion.
Keep in mind that the accounts resulted in a considerable savings on the benefit schedule. Actually, the bottom line numbers improved. And why? Higher net investment returns.
This isn’t the first time people have feared technology making labor obsolete.
To paraphrase Mr. Twain, these fears have been…greatly exaggerated.
It was all political and devoid of any serious debate. The proposal was for a fraction of the FICA tax to be diverted. It was painted as a payoff to wall street bankers by the pubs.
So you don’t have any consideration of the negative consequences of something like this?
And I don’t mean to the bank accounts of wealthy people. I mean to society at large. Secondary effects? Unintended consequences?
Do you see any downside to that, other than what it would mean for people with 7 or 8 figure incomes? Or is doing this only upside for the rest of us?
I didn’t get serious until my mid 30’s and I’m playing catch up. Luckily nobody in my family lives past 80. So there’s that. Yay.
But those folks weren’t given the option to do something differently. @CO. Hoosier is picking up on the main problem. Old people. And how we, as a society/body politic/government deal with this problem. There’s of course a solution. Never in the history of mankind have we had these three things at the same time:
1. Too many people.
2. Too many old people.
3. Actual resources to solve the problem.
Again, I believe the solution is radically different than what we’re doing now.
There will be a massive population decline/collapse in the the next 100 years. Really the only conspiracy I put any stock in.
The only thing I know is that the Boomers will not be forced with reckon with another of their generational mistakes.
The “Me Generation” strikes again.
The “Me Generation” strikes again.
Yes I have. We’ve incorporated AI in our business, in various ways. It increases speed and productivity greatly.
I was reading a story that AI was asked to create a new computer chip design. It did and performs better than what humans design. They use random shapes and so far humans don't know why they perform better.
Of course the first couple AI attempts did not work, it isn't perfect yet. But allowing it to design the chips that will lead the robot revolution isn't a good idea.
AI-designed chips are so weird that 'humans cannot really understand them' — but they perform better than anything we've created
AI models have, within hours, created more efficient wireless chips through deep learning, but it is unclear how their 'randomly shaped' designs were produced.
I was reading a story that AI was asked to create a new computer chip design. It did and performs better than what humans design. They use random shapes and so far humans don't know why they perform better.
Of course the first couple AI attempts did not work, it isn't perfect yet. But allowing it to design the chips that will lead the robot revolution isn't a good idea.
AI-designed chips are so weird that 'humans cannot really understand them' — but they perform better than anything we've created
AI models have, within hours, created more efficient wireless chips through deep learning, but it is unclear how their 'randomly shaped' designs were produced.www.livescience.com
I saw that.
And I agree that AI requires all kinds of considerations - and that it will have profound effects on mankind. Most of them will be positive, some of them will not.
I just don’t think we should be too pessimistic about what it will mean for the concept of people selling their labor to earn a living.
People also forget that the transition would’ve been financed with borrowed money - basically realizing tax revenues early in order to gain benefit of 30 years of spread.
It was not going to hasten SS’s demise. Quite the contrary. People said that it would, of course. But they didn’t have the math on their side.
Moynihan’s explanation of the Democrats’ visceral opposition to the plan makes way more sense to me. And it’s infuriating, if you think about it.
Black mirrorsI was reading a story that AI was asked to create a new computer chip design. It did and performs better than what humans design. They use random shapes and so far humans don't know why they perform better.
Of course the first couple AI attempts did not work, it isn't perfect yet. But allowing it to design the chips that will lead the robot revolution isn't a good idea.
AI-designed chips are so weird that 'humans cannot really understand them' — but they perform better than anything we've created
AI models have, within hours, created more efficient wireless chips through deep learning, but it is unclear how their 'randomly shaped' designs were produced.
I think as our machines get better, we have seen an impact already. Factory wages aren't what they were and there are many fewer of those jobs. Watching the videos of a car being made today vs 50 years ago leaves one to ask, where are the humans.
The big fear to me is truck driving, good paying job. Losing that job to have it replaced by working 711 is going to be hard. We already know Kroger and Walmart have self checkouts, Taco Bell has gone to kiosks. AI is good at writing programs. Unlike the past where a specific job was threatened pretty much every job has an AI threat.
Are the ‘Peak Boomers’ Financially Ready to Retire?
Generation’s last, largest wave faces struggle: study
According to this (and it’s the same data over multiple articles) over half of people retiring over the next several years will have less than 250k in retirement savings and will rely largely on Social Security.
I saw another statistic which I can’t locate saying 1/2 of people aged 55-66 have almost nothing saved.
If this is all true how the hell do you reform SS? Means testing? So the people that worked and saved now have to give it up because of those who didn’t. Seems like a nonstarter after the college debt brouhaha during Bidens term.
Based on what I see I’m not sure how SS doesn’t expand over the next two decades.
I think this is a generational problem and our politics won’t allow us to even consider how to fix it. Then again I think that about most of our larger problems.
When will we normalize multi generational living situations? Are we too selfish and self absorbed at this point?
Thoughts?
The article didn't mention pensions or reverse mortgages. In my 26 years as a financial advisor, I find many couples have at least one of the 2 who has a pension benefit, from INPRS, PERF, or FERS/ CSRS.
And though I don't sell or recommend them, I know a few people who went the reverse mortgage route and are very happy.
Though I have never crunched the numbers, I think SS needs to look at a combination of lifting the cap, raising taxes on new workers, allowing a private investment account for new workers, and build in an annual 1% "management tax". The tax would help fund current recipients or rebuild the trust fund, which should be invested in the markets. The private accounts would be invested in target date funds.
Current jobs, yes. I agree with that.
But I don’t think we’re likely to see labor writ large idled nearly to the extent that people fear. We’re a pretty nimble species.
The problem with this is the same problem I have with forgiving student debt: we’re rewarding people who haven’t been responsible…at the expense of those who have.
Our public policy should do the reverse. It should reward responsibility and punish irresponsibility.
I'm proposing lifting the cap and taxing SS benefits as normal income. I'm not coming up with any society-wide detrimental effects, but I'm a simple man and not very imaginative. What do you think might happen? Would your concerns offset the benefit of making SS solvent without cutting benefits for the lowest among us?
Correction: this would be a 12.4% tax increase on income above $176k.
The other 2.9% that comprises FICA is Medicare tax, which already has no cap (and is still hurtling towards insolvency despite this).
So, if this were to happen this year, a person or couple making $276k would pay an additional $12,400 in taxes - with no requisite increase in their benefits.
I think this gets to the heart of the disconnect on these issues.
The general principle (tell me if I’m wrong, I don’t want to put words in your mouth) is that these people have more than what they need to satisfy all their needs and most of their wants…so what’s the harm in taxing more away from them for social good?
There is no downside to even consider. It’s all upside.
What do high-income people do with their money? Assuming they aren’t hiding it under the mattress, they’re using a lot of it for capital investment…which is what separates thriving countries from stagnant ones.
It’s the #1 factor in the US having a per capita ppp of $89K and, say, France having a per capita ppp of $67K.
Taxing high incomes at a higher rate not only leads to those people taking steps to avoid or minimize the tax, it also reduces the funds available for capital investment - or diverts them elsewhere.
Capital investment is something that benefits many other people directly and society at large indirectly.
Alternatively, funds held in savings accounts serve as liquidity for banks to lend.
Even the money used for consumption creates jobs (think: Gulfstream) that might otherwise be fewer in number.
Well, I don’t know. That’s a complicated question. One thing I’d say is that I don’t think any SS reforms are going to have an impact on people with the lowest incomes. They aren’t the source of the distress. The bulk of the liabilities are for people with moderate and high incomes.
But my point in asking the question is not to argue that the tradeoff isn’t worth it. It’s just to establish that there is a tradeoff — and one that goes beyond “aw, poor little rich guy can’t afford to buy a bigger yacht so that somebody else can have clothes and heat.”
And I asked it because I’m starting to gather that, like you, a lot of people don’t really see any downsides to higher taxes on people with high wealth/income.
This philosophical point is the locus where the two parties divide and affects most policy
