Imagine having someone 70 busting wrenches or roofing for a living. There is no way I could be doing this at 65, much less 70. It's easy to say work longer working indoors on a computer but a lot of people do manual work and the body will break over time.
My mom was a home health care CNA until she retired last year at 72 only because she wants to help me out to take care of her grandson. It’s highly possible and since we’re taking better care of our bodies, who knows how longer we can work. Shouldn’t but ya know..
@@matthewsmith197 This lol you know who does all the opiates in this country? Ever stopped to think about it? They have to have money to do those pills 24/7, it's not bums, who is buying all these pills? It's the working class.
Raising the age limit sounds like a good idea from someone hasn't done hard labor. When social Security was first introduced, more people were farmers.
I was told when I was in grade school that social security was running out of money and that I shouldn't plan on seeing a penny of it. That was 1967. Get my point here?
I dislike the argument of raising the age of social security due to life expectancy. Yes we are living longer however our average “healthy years” has not risen the same. Most people by the time they get to 65-67 have some form of disability hampering their ability to work. Not to mention we have a huge group of blue collar workers who can’t work in there later years due to their bodies breaking down
This is such an important point. Modern people can spend the last 30 years barley functional. For people who's job is centered around physical ability the fact you live till 90 has nothing to do with the length of your career. Americans in particular have been reducing their health span while increasing life span for years.
Not to worry, no Congress or President will ever allow SS to default or be reduced anytime. They will tap general revenue if they don't raise the actual SS tax. Also the full retirement age will be phased in to age 70 but you can still get a lesser amount at a younger age.
I hope they don't raise the SS tax. These jackholes have already proven their way doesn't work. Last thing I need is for them to pull and squander more than they already are. I wouldn't be surprised tho. Unkraine and Israel need funding.
Living to an old age and working to an age are two completely different things asking a 65 year old to work and a 58 year old to work is a big step. Just because we have things that can prolong life doesn’t mean our bodies don’t deteriorate before then.
Majority of people will not invest their money if they opted out of SS. I cant get any younger coworkers to even consider investing.They are just thinking of the now, not 30 years from now.
@@c7042 When Warren Buffett started investing it was 1941. I bet if you asked anyone then if it was a good time to start investing they would've said no. This highlights the difficulty of investing over a long period of time. Would you have stayed invested through WW2, The Cold War, Cuban Missile Crisis, Korea, Vietnam etc etc etc? I agree that the average person wouldn't invest if we abolished Social Security, but we could force workers to invest much like we do now with social security, except give ownership of the investments to the individual making the contribution and that is their retirement. This could work nicely considering it would start workers saving for retirement the moment they begin working. This also means saving a small amount of money would lead to a nice retirement, due to being invested their entire working career and allowing compound interest to do its magic. Plus if you died your family would receive an inheritance vs nothing when a loved one dies with social security and it's not a spouse/spouse makes less than survivor.
I disagree. Although I’m financially literate and am prepared for a future without SS, I can’t help but think about all the lower income families that not by choice, are struggling financially. It’s like a punishment. They’ll have to reach old age and still work because they come from disadvantaged backgrounds? So sad to imagine a 70+ having to work due to necessity not by choice. I hope there’s a better solution for the sake of people that are less fortunate. ✨
Cancel social security. Most boomers are already rich AF from their houses and stocks. They don't need to also milk young struggling people who are living paycheck to paycheck and can't even afford to have kids.
The gov't reminds people that SS won't pay for everything retirees need, but there's nothing wrong to rely on SS to cover a majority of one's expenses.
@@ozzierabbit587 Actually I don't use SSI to pay for any of my needs and I'm 75, retired for 16 years. I do use my self-funded pension money to live on. $767.06 per month. Usually don't spend it all. So it works for me so far and I do know how to hunker down on spending. Also I have $500K saved and invested which might help too.
It is funny how rich people want to talk about wealth distribution. They never talk about how the wealth is distributed from working people to the wealthy. When you point it out, they immediately try to shame them by telling them to work harder, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, learn a trade, etc. We've gotten to a point where the ultra-rich are idolized like gods and we should all aspire to be them. The more money one has the more they benefit from the system. Legal systems protecting their property, real and intellectual, naval protection of shipping lanes, interstate highway system, etc. Graham brings up ideas about what is mentioned in the video except for the very end. "A compact between generations to take care of each other", is conveniently ignored. Things happen outside of our control. How many people were effected by the '08 crash, the pandemic, natural disasters, etc? Lastly, a lot of people pay in without ever reaching retirement age. Some people, "illegals", pay in with fake SSN's and will never receive benefits. The tax system has been changed over the decades to protect capitol more and earned income less.
The thing that blows my mind is if the government just required everyone to contribute the 6.2% of their paycheck into a retirement account that’s invested into the stock market, everyone would retire a multi millionaire. Instead we all just throw away 6.2% of our paychecks to MAYBE get social security down the road 🤦
The problem is that while people have come to view SSI as a retirement plan or account, it was and is an insurance plan. It's like a whole life policy where the terms of the payout aren't written in stone and can be changed at any time by the government. This was done to solve the problem of old and disabled people literally starving to death or eating pet food to survive. To do that it had to start paying out benefits in the very short term, so from the start it has been a wealth redistribution system. When SSI was generating an excess the money was "invested" in treasury bonds. This was good for the government because it gave them more money to spend on enriching legislators families and friends. It also kept that money out of the public stock exchanges, which is probably a good thing, as otherwise the SSI administration would likely have become an incredibly huge hedge fund. If you think people cry about the government picking winners and losers now, just imagine if they controlled huge shares in every publicly traded company. People might suggest that the money people contribute should go to a fund that they control, but that would go right back to the point that people have traditionally sucked at financial planning and so this would just lead to old people starving to death again.
Did no one subscribes to this nonsense it's forced on us were monkeys and guinea pigs cuz no one matters they manipulate our money however they steam fit cuz they think we're stupid they manipulate the markets and they clearly don't know how to manage money right because they're all selfish and would rather care about other countries than us
Tax are meant to redistribute wealth. You still have to pay public school taxes even after your kids are out of school. Social security should be no different. The 150k limit should not exist, trust me.
@@drcatrinaking america is supposed to be free, so why can’t I be free in my mind? It has always been a way to redistribute wealth, and make what people cannot do on their own possible. Look at our infrastructure, public school systems, and roadways. The taxation system should be used to identify our shared needs, and have them addressed for all. Instead, bad people use it to make it look like we are not upstanding citizens if we ever need help. Of course, there are people who abuse systems like these (look at what happened with PPP loans during Covid), but I believe if people with the right intentions were making the decisions, people would see taxes differently.
I know pretty much everyone would opt out of it and millions would be destitute from not saving enough towards retirement- Americans are some of the worse to save or even invest for their future…seniors now are the worse! They just thought for some reason prices would stay the same and many 70 and 80 year old are having issues with affordable housing and food and utilities and even car payments etc…I see it everyday doing what I do. Medicare for seniors
My grandma who is 78 was telling me that when she was in her 20s she remembered thinking that social security wasn’t going to be around for when she was retired. So it’s been a concern people have had for awhile
This is exactly where Ramsey and crew are missing the point. The average person can’t just work and achieve like in previous eras. One man used to work regular hours and easily afford a home and comfortable life. Now, even both parents working multiple jobs are struggling.
@@celularphonehis debt free plans are great. But it doesn’t alter my point. I don’t know if you’re married, but somehow I doubt you’re supporting an entire family on your one job alone.
At the very least, I feel good knowing that my mom will be able to get a cut of Social Security, seeing as she's nearing retirement herself. I have plenty of time to let my investments grow and set myself up for a future where I won't need Social Security to get by.
I feel like the wage gap is the biggest problem that Graham seems to have glossed over. Living expenses have increased significantly more and as people get older, companies don't want to hire older people. I'm in my 40s and I've recently started to experience this problem. Finding ways to tax where the money has gone is the only real solution and it will never happen as long as the wealthy get to control the government.
Hey @gram, I think problem is even tho you live to the age of 76-80-90. The quality of life will be lower because of bone structure issues, skin issues, heart issues, kognitive malfunction. So the money they get will not be used. They just pile up. That’s how it works in Sweden any way when it comes to pensions. The social security of hospital, roads, democracy system and others may not even be used when you are old. Even if avg age is rising dose not mean that i will me avg or above. I might as well only be 40-60-70 and never be able to fully use the benefits of the system. When you are young you have energy and time and no money When you are middle age you have energy and money but no time When you are old you have money and time but no energy
When SS was creates, there weren't long-term care related expenses like dialysis, occupational therapy, and surgeries like hip replacements, not to mention all the Rx. Plus older people may not be physically or mentally able to work till age 72-
In the Netherlands, the age of retirement is currently 69 and they plan on raising it to 72 in the next couple of years. Nearly anyone who is in a financial space to retire early is doing so. It still doesn't work.
I would say the company should pay social security taxes on everything paid to employees or owners including stocks. We will have to have social security. Everyone does not make enough and would not save enough left to their own responsibility. Life is tougher on some people and this is a way for society to try and help everyone.
Social Security is a misnomer: it originally was created as a temporary backstop-not retirement program. As it is many people, who have paid into it, are routinely disqualified from receiving any benefits. I believe everyone should be able to choose whether or not to opt out.
Social security will be insolvent in a few years but that doesn't mean there won't be any money left. It means that they will only be able to pay out roughly 80% of the benefits they are currently paying out. They need to raise the cap. Period.
@@sky37blue oh, always and forever. The money for war is essentially going straight to American weapons contractors. It stays here for the most part. The big corporations who buy our elected representatives get all the money and then use it to influence the government more. It's a terrible cycle.
The Government also miss managed the money. Social security was running a surplus and politicians took that money out to fund other programs and never replaced that money.
Raising the age is based on the concept that the entity is functioning at the same level. They are not. Raising the age on a group that is in functional decline is only going to cause other problems. There needs to be a happy middle ground that is not entirely reliant on the age increase and nothing else.
If only I could opt out of contributing to SS, and rather send that to my IRA and high yield. As a nurse I’ve seen many people pass in their 60s. Shocking amount of people. Had a guy have open heart surgery in his 30s. I hope I’ll make it to 70 to retire. I feel the standard should be to increase retirement time, not age. How to do so idk not my job. People should have plentiful years left to enjoy retirement. Not retire and next year they hit average life expectancy age. That’s just wrong.
Agreed. The whole system is legalized wealth distribution. If people could opt out, where would the money come from to pay current beneficiaries of retirement and disability? Better idea is to let the retirement position dry up and preserve the disability piece to protect those who through no fault of their own got backed into a corner.
@@sanman1188 Disability benefits aren't just 'I want them'. Doctor visits and letters, forms, waiting periods, etc. Basically they make it easier to just work.
@@stevenporter863 I am aware of the process. Look at the change in disability claims over the last 20 years. Particularly for back pain and mental health. When there are no benefits or good jobs, people do what they have to do. There is research and news articles on this. Take a read.
Fun fact: the life expectancy when social security was actually 63 ish, not 72. It was created as insurance just in case people lived longer than they “should” not as a retirement plan
If I'm not mistaken Bezos doesn't pay SSN on shares that he issued himself. That is how his salary works. 150k in base salary but $200M in vested shares. That $200M isn't subject to SSN if im not mistaken.
We need to stop thinking that everything we put into the government needs to only benefit us. This what's mine is only mine attitude makes things worse. We complain about homeless but don't want to expand the social security income threshold? The program was created so we don't have seniors on the street. We should not allow people to opt out. People are horrible at investing. They only think about now. Unless we want a bunch of seniors on the street dying miserably keep the program. We have robots and A.I. coming, we need to continue to support a base standard of living. Before someone comes and attacks me instead of my point. I am doing financially fine.
As a 23-year-old young person every time I think about Social Security it just makes me mad paying into something that I’m never going to see ! Plan for your own retirement people that’s the best course of action !
They already raised the retirement age for full benefits to 67 for anyone that is currently 62 or younger. But you can retire earlier and get partial benefits.
Best solution. Stop SS. Instead have people put in 6.2% with an employer 6.2% in investments of their own choosing. If you make 40k with a 3% raise every year for 35 years you will have close to a million in the bank.
Close to a million isn't enough to retire, and not everyone is responsible enough to start saving at 20. Instead of stopping SS I liked Graham's opt in opt out approach so those that need it have access
It is an extremely popular program politically among both sides of the aisle, which almost never happens. There are also several ways that funding short falls can be addressed, each of which are preferable to letting the program just die out. Don't get caught up in the sensationalist headlines.
It’s already a wealth distribution system. It’s been terrible from the start and adding any new money to it will just be throwing good money after bad. There is no such thing as an effectively or efficiently managed government system.
Don't rely on the government. My parents are getting their ssc and they legit can't even afford to upkeep the house we grew up in. Forget food n cars, not even the basics like gas and water. Im forced to split the majority of my paycheck to help them survive. Our country has failed the elderly. Protect yourselves by investing and having multiple streams of income before its too late.
Social Security was never meant to be a sole support- it was insurance against poverty It was intended to be part of a retirement plan along with other investments.
We are living longer, but due to our diet and lifestyles, we start breaking down even earlier. Many people start becoming physically inept in their 50s, some in their 40s. If you work a physical job, good luck making it to 65, let alone 73.
I think they should just phase out social security all together. They could just make it a 6.2% mandatory non-withdrawable (until age of retirement) contribution to your employers 401k/ IRA if self employed. In order to phase out the Social Security you would have a combination of the Social Security Tax and 401k contribution adding to 6.2% depending on how close you are to retirement when the phase out begins. More Social security tax and SS benefits if you're at the end of your career, no security tax or benefits if you're at the begin of your career.
The Graham Stephen Show, Only in a perfect world could this be so, the family I came from had health issues at early age. So, this would not turn out well for many people. Thanks for your videos.
I been working since 16 and I turn 23 this year. The amount of money stolen from me makes me want to vomit. It should be something you can opt out of cause I know damn well ill never see that money again
I was told 45 years ago to be sure to invest because there won't be any SS. Now I'm retired, I have my SS, and also have my investments savings. It's all working out well.
Social Security was established to supplement retirement income along with savings. People view it as a replacement of their salary without savings. If it is viewed as intended it is a problem still, not the sky is falling type thing. Plus, what did people expect since it is the government?
Meta I know, but if we could get the cost of living down the pressure from this would be decreased quite a bit We put a lot of importance on individual success and “climbing the ladder” here where a lot of the world is focused on more balanced quality of life over the whole population It would be cool to see more practices from other places in act in the US. I know I’m a dreamer, but I love the way life is abroad and would sacrifice some of my wealth to make sure everyone around me has a good life, “the rising tide” theory comes to mind. If everyone had a good quality of life, even the wealthy would be happier
Instead of raising the annual cap, they should allow voluntary contributions to make up for years that you didn't hit the cap... allowing a person to maximize their benefit. Benefits are calculated based on the 35 best years of working, so if you don't work 35 years or you had very small years in there, contributing more now on an individual basis to raise your average would benefit everyone without these universal increases or age hikes.
This was a problem 20 years ago! No one wanted to do anything about it then, we don't want to do anything about it now! It was only meant to supplement your retirement anyways, it will just supplement a smaller portion it did for the boomer generation for generation X and beyond! With inflation it might pay for a monthly Sunday afternoon meal at a retiree discount at IHOP!
If they gave us a choice between paying into SS and investing on our own, most of us would choose to invest. That's exactly why they'll never give us that choice.
Most people would choose it, but not many would actually do it. Something came up… I am picturing several people who couldn’t save but are happy for it being deposited monthly. Something always comes up.
I think what you are describing is increased efficiency and that is nothin new. Nobody owes you a pat on the back. Your reward is a paycheck. If that check isn’t big enough take your talents where you will get what you believe you are worth. If that job doesn’t exist the market decides for you.
I was just speaking to a friend about this today. It's mystifying to me that anyone under the age of 45 isn't clamoring for the abolition of Social Security.
Before we can talk about people working to 70 and beyond we would have to address the large number of people who retire at 62 now, either by choice or otherwise.
What if each person had a SS account and you get to take out of it what you physically put in over the years?. I realize by this point you might as well not tax people and just invest the money. That would be better, but I don’t think the majority of people would invest the money if they weren’t taxed. In a way this would be like forced retirement saving.
I'm always annoyed that so many people give retirement savings such little thought and people just believe the government is going to take care of them.
The problem with raising retirement age is that even though people live longer, they aren't necessarily fit for continuing work in their old age. So while people may live to 80, that doesn't mean that a 68 year old is now fit and healthy for continued labor.
@@benb6691 Kind of hard to live long when our water is toxic our food is toxic our air is polluted and toxic, because the older generations ruined everything for monetary gains... Babies are being born with microplastics in their blood. We have PFAS / forever chemicals in our water, Global warming. The list goes on lol
All the arguments for capital gains tax being lower than income tax apply to regular income and your labor if you think hard enough about it. The real reason it's lower and stays that way is that the people who are friends with legislators, of all political parties, make their income primarily through investments. I'm for taxing all income the same regardless of it's source. I think we should uncap social security all around, apply the tax to all income and uncap the benefit you can potentially receive. I agree that pushing the benefit age back so that it's closer to the original intention is good idea and should be done regardless. We don't get to opt out of social security because the entire point is to provide for sustaining the life of people who failed to plan for their retirement or suffered a disabling accident or disability.
As long as people keep working, they keep paying into SS. Peoples’ savings for retirement is generally abysmal. SS doesn’t pay enough to live on. What makes people think that there’s going to be this huge draw on SS if people can’t retire?
Investing won't be disincentivized until it has lower returns than other things. Most of the debt that the federal government has is owed to rich people who buy treasury bonds. And the interest is collected from tax payers. The rich love redistributing the wealth to themselves but cry at the thought of that money actually going to the people who do the work.
Your theory on raising the retirement age is inaccurate. Just because people are living longer does not mean they are able to work longer as well. Most people that are fortunate enough to make it to their 70s cannot work efficient enough for the jobs that are paying high enough to sustain their lifestyle.
People who work in construction or laborious jobs will not be able to make it to 70 yrs old. Their bodies will give out way before then. They need to increase the fica tax to a higher top out level or remove it completely.
Everyone saying "just raise the retirement age!" Seems to forget that in bygone eras families would come together to take care of the elderly. Every job in general paid you well enough on average that when you retired, you weren't still saddled with crippling debt. Companies were aggressively hiring instead of aggressively looking to replace workers with AI. Ageism is still alive and well too. Furthermore muscular degeneration didn't just decide to delay because life expectancy went up. Tradesmen just can't at 70. "Delay the retirement age" is propaganda spewed by the wealthy because they know the alternatives come at them in taxes
Or tax increased productivity on companies, tie the rate to ss shortfall. It’s deflationary by reducing interest rate with more bond demand as well as slowing company growth a tiny bit. It’s also fair as it hits everyone the same and shifts money to the future
Hi Graham. A note on the contributions of wealthier people to a fund they won't use themselves. You're assuming that the only benefit of SS is the money that it pays you as an individual when you become eligible and that if you never need to use it, you don't benefit from it. First anyone can draw social security once they reach full retirement age so wealthy people can directly benefit from it. Second, paying into social security, even if you don't draw from it yourself, does yield benefits to you in the same way that paying taxes does. Similar to how paying taxes pays for a library that you yourself may not use, it still benefits you because the people that do use it are likely to become more productive members of society. It reduces homelessness due to poverty in a vulnerable demographic, it means that I don't have to move in with my children when I can no longer work because I have no income. All of those things and more benefit society at large, which benefits everyone in that society, including the people who never draw social security. In addition, you mention that people live longer now than they did in the 30s when SS was enacted, thus it makes sense to retire later. My counter-questions to that are, why did people die that young, and how does that equate to modern lifespan. While the life expectancy in the 1930s was 58, the largest contributing factor was the infant mortality rate. So SS uses the metric of life expectancy after reaching adulthood. In 1940 53% of men that reached the age of 21 would live to see 65 and could expect to draw social security for almost 13 years on average. The numbers are higher for women. So, while life expectancy has changed, it hasn't changed as dramatically as it appears at first glance. Second, there is the question of quality of life. Working longer may sound good on paper but the fact is that expecting a 70 year old person to work full-time is unrealistic. Who's going to hire someone that represents a high liability risk to perform manual labor at half the speed and twice the cost of someone half their age? Working at a white collar job may be an option but a significant part of the population will need to be trained to make that transition, and who's going to pay for that?
graham says no way u already been taxed on it right payroll then you go to the store and pay more taxes useing the money u already got taxed on america will tax the trees if it wants
SS benefits in retirement are progressive, however, aren't "proportional" to contributions. You might consider the "bend points" SS uses to figure one's benefits. Social Security bases retirement benefits on your lifetime earnings. Many investors claim their securities are taxed twice - once when corporate taxes are levied and again when capital gains taxes are paid upon the sale of stock. I think this is baloney because when there’s a movement to raise corporate taxes, capitalists claim that any tax increases will flow to the price consumers pay for products and services. Yet, when corporate taxes go down the savings seem to go to executive compensation, stock buy-backs, and shareholders rather than reducing the price of goods and services. Little, if any, goes to hard workers that have a part in the creation of wealth. Businesses are going to set prices and wages by what the market will bear. One could frame the issue that both investment earnings and wages come out of the wealth that employees create. It takes both investment and production in order for consumption to happen. It's all about number crunching and where the numbers exist on a ledger relative to other numbers. I support bringing tax rates for wages down to the same level as long-term capital gains, qualified dividends, and carried interest -- it's parity. Since many capitalists and politicians claim that tax cuts stimulate the economy and boost tax revenue, imagine all of the increased tax revenue that would fill government coffers by bringing taxes for wages inline with long-term investment income. Employees also have a "risk" in the game. They spend years and money going to school and getting training, investing their time and talent in a certain career path that's subject to the whims of their employer and the marketplace, which can make their career obsolete - sending jobs overseas, moving their families in order to be employed, etc. Money is not the only form of investment that contributes to the growth of a prosperous economy. And, don’t forget the small business owners who takes risks - the investor is investing only money, yet the small business owner is investing long hours, sweat, and money, yet pays ordinary income taxes in many cases and both sides of FICA. Isn’t the purpose of a healthy economic system to facilitate the means whereby most hardworking people can adequately take care of their own basic needs through their roles in private and public enterprises? Otherwise, what good is it?
Social Security will always be there. Everyone has to work and every job is very important. It takes every human to make the world the way it is today. ❤
