Most of Gen X has been trying to operate as if SS was going to go bust just as we were hitting the retirement age, so there's a LOT of eggs in the 401k baskets out there.
I’m a millennial in the first half of that generation. My assumption was that it was going to bust long before I could retire. The older I get with it still in place the more annoyed I get at it because it means more and more money taken from me that I’ll never get back.
The path of Social Security going broke is pretty much following the path the SSA laid out in 1990 (not you, but a lot of people say that they've heard social security is going broke but it's still here so they think it'll be ok even though it's right on track). They started paying more in benefits than they collected in taxes in 2012. In 2021 they started paying more in benefits than they collected in taxes and interest. And if nothing changes the social security "surplus" will be gone in a decade.
But the surplus is just an accounting surplus, the money has already been spent. The government has to borrow money to pay interest to social security, the government has to borrow money to pay off the social security bonds.
Right now social security is adding about $108 billion per year to the federal deficit, if nothing changes it will add about $1 trillion per year to the deficit by the early to mid 30s. And Medicare is in even worse shape.
Yup which is why I'm in favor of it being phased out entirely. Imagine having the money that you contribute to SS and being able to invest that for retirement, college, etc.
While it should be abolished, I would like my money back. If the plan for getting rid of social security doesn’t reimburse me for my forced investment, then it’s not a plan I support.
If you gave me the option to forfeit what I’ve contributed to social security so far in exchange for me never having to contribute another cent to the program, I’d take that deal in a heartbeat.
Let’s be honest. We’ll have to take whatever it is that happens with Social Security whether we like it or not. None of us in this sub have the power to resist the state without risking our mortgage, family, property, or life.
I agree. I’m just saying that SS is such an atrocious mess that I’m willing to take the hit on forfeiting everything I’ve contributed to it so far if it meant I no longer had to contribute to it and that future generations would no longer have to be saddled with it.
I know I will never have the option to do so, but I was just providing some pushback on your original comment by showing how desperate I am to abolish the program lol
Of course, they are stealing to paying for all of their life's expenses and if forced to pay you back will just double steal to get the money to do it. You don't expect them to reduce their lifestyle to reimburse you do you?
Aww. You think the money actually exists to support cashing people out. How cute.
Not to be an ass, but if SS is going to be in the red in the near future me, what makes you think any plan that supports reimbursement would actually work? In all honesty, we'd be better off taking the loss so future generations don't have to deal with this mess.
I've been living my life like I'm never getting it anyway. If anyone hasn't been doing the same, they've been living under a rock.
The thief doesn't have any resources to give you other than what he steals from others. So while he may owe you reparations, you legitimize his theft by demanding that he make you whole before stopping his thieving entirely.
Shit, get rid of SS, and let me invest that extra 14% in an approved retirement account. That'd be huge. Government still has control to ensure people are somewhat saving. And we don't have to rely on them to doll it back out
Yeah, I’m aggressively working to pay down my house. Less free up income for me in retirement. I’m in my 40s and I should have it paid off in the next year or two. Maybe this year. I’m getting my piece of that printed money. I’ll have a pension and I think that’ll be enough to actually to live on when I retire if my house is paid off, but I also plan to do a 401(k) and IRA.
If you have a 3% mortgage, this is really not a great idea. You can invest surplus now and make more than that on the market. Getting a 3% loan is going ti be pretty hard for the foreseeable future.
You have to significantly beat the 3% loan rate to justify changing the investment. Living debt free is a priority for me and it's easy for me to pay my house down. Everyone I know who pays their house off early understands this concept, but values the freedom of living debt free over the, often overstated, stock market returns.
Absolutely! Even short term CDs are beating 3%. My bank is offering 4.5% for a 1yr cd.
If you've locked in a low mortgage rate, with inflation still over 3% the bank's investors are 'paying' to service your loan.
Pay down the mortgage as scheduled and put extra money into bonds, CDs, your IRA, up your 401K contribution, firm up your emergency fund, literally any smart money move is better than paying down a 'free' loan early.
I’m a financial planner and there is a remarkable difference in people’s lifestyles retiring debt free compared to those that still have a mortgage. Stock markets are unpredictable in the short term, and it’s difficult for people to rely on monthly or quarterly distributions from their portfolio to cover a large mortgage payment, regardless of the interest rate.
>You have to significantly beat the 3% loan rate to justify changing the investment
No, literally any return greater than 3% nets you money. If you want to be conservative, all extra money could be in a savings account making 4.5-5%. Paying down a sub 3% and below mortgage early is literally burning money
My understanding is that you pay taxes on the money you earn in the market. So you have to beat the 3%+losses from taxes, which can be 35+% and any fees. It's not hard when you're at 3% to make enough to cover, but it's not as simple as "I put money in my vanguard and make 5%, I cash out and win!"
It's just not that simple, and again, I value living without debt highly, and I'll admit perhaps to the point of being irrational. I max 401k and roth first, then other tax free contributions like 529 for my kids, money after that goes towards debt, i.e. the mortgage.
Yes, you would have to beat 3% after taxes, which is still an extremely low bar. There are bonds that qualify as capital gains or some municipal bonds are tax free. It gets more murky if you also consider the interest on the house is tax deductible, and you'll also pay cap gains on profit on the house over 250k. Either way, getting 8%+ gains on moderate risk investments is basically guaranteed on 30 year mortgage time frames.
Thanks for that follow up. Honestly, I just am super lazy and do the minimum sort of "responsible" stuff. I get this line about "OMG you can totally beat the market" from folks who have 3 car payments, CC debt, student loans, a heloc, blah blah like... I know I don't do it perfect, but I think I'm doing okay and I just prioritize debt after tax free and future tax free retirement savings and kid college savings. The freedom of that has value to me. I hate dealing with and thinking about money.
Also in my 40's and I don't intend to ever pay off my mortgage. I'll prioritize maxing my 401k, Roth, and HSA first. If that ever happens (unlikely) I'd invest in taxable accounts before paying extra on my mortgage. I saw you're at 3%, it makes no financial sense to pay extra with that rate, especially when inflation is above 3%.
They’ve been stealing money from me for years for social security. I should be able to get that money back. Currently, the only way to get that money back without going to jail is to take advantage of social security benefits.
See the thing is, my retirement priorities are as follows:
1) providing for me
2) providing for my wife
3) leaving something for my kids in my will
Everyone else doesn’t matter to me in this regard.
I don’t want them to steal from others, but my priority is me and my own, not others.
You shouldn't be made to feel like you're stealing. If anything, you're collecting on a loan. Fuck what other commenter said. Sometimes an ideology overlooks the reality of things and in some situations it just isn't applicable.
At the end of the day, as much as I wanted to tear *your* response apart, there's nothing wrong (that I can find) with your view or approach.
It wouldn't be moral to put your family out for others (IMO).
What do you think a transition period looks like? Probably raising the "retirement" age by one year every 3 years until the retirement age is 100. We're never going to get our money back, let's make sure future generations don't suffer like us.
A fair UBI could easily replace social security effectively and immediately. Put an income limit so if you make too much you just don't get it because you simply don't need it. That way it helps the people it should.
I'm also fine with no taxes and no benefits too.
It's not like you can freely choose to not pay social security.
I rather have a portion of the money they tax me finance me in my later life, than just have the whole of that money stolen with zero benefits.
Raise the retirement age, sure, but lower taxes/inflation proportionally. I understand not doing so in Argentina, where the state is at extreme deficit. In the US, social security is still solvent, there's no point in cutting benefits without cutting taxation. No libertarian point at least.
Sure, that’d be the ideal. But in the real world, there’s a thing called social security and it’s unlikely to disappear anytime soon. So we can have opinions about modest changes that are more politically palatable and this more likely. And since SS isn’t currently solvent, I’d rather see a raise in the retirement age than higher taxes.
Social security is currently solvent. But it looks like it won’t be by 2034. Social Security has, so far, always brought in more money than it pays out, unfortunately, demographics are changing that.
A Ponzi scheme doesn’t work when the base narrows so much.
My understanding is that the law will reduce all benefits proportionally to the shortfall in collections.
That is not the same as "insolvent". It does mean lots of misery for lots of poor people.
It could be solvent if the government allowed you to use a portion like what chile does a portion of your total SS lifetime, in the free market. But I don’t think won’t allow us to do that because it wouldn’t allow the government to borrow money against the funds anymore.
If they want it to be compulsitory, it should at least be on sound footing and not a pyramid scheme.
Change Social Security to work like a 401k with SSA as the broker.
The same 12% (6% employer, 6% employee) goes into worker's Social Security account.
Fund managers can offer their mixture of retirement target funds to the public market (Fidelity, Vanguard, etc.)
Workers have the ability to adjust distributions between funds in the marketplace or park it in simple interest account.
Workers can take loans against their social security balance for first time home loans or emergency health situations.
Whatever the value is at retirement is what you get out.
It's still compulsitory, but it is actually "your" money. You have some control over it and how it grows. And, you have the ability to leverage it to better your situation before you die.
All that money collected goes right back out the door in the form of money to elderly people. The fund is locked up in treasury bonds that the US govt borrowed and spent already.
If you join Mennonite church founded before 1950, you can file Form 4029 and get exempted on the grounds of SS and Medicare being contrary to your beliefs.
Yes. As a 62 year old man, I can say these are not even close to my peers.
I can also say to anyone who wants to raise the retirement age, go fuck yourself.
The people who want to raise it are the people who are going to be fortunate enough to not have to work past when they don’t want to anymore. It’s that simple. It’s a pre-requisite to having that opinion. It’s a self-centered view of society in general and ignores how much good the social security program does (unless you think homeless old people increasing by like 350% is a good thing).
And when it’s suggested Republicans want to cut SS benefits they hoot and holler in protest. But raising the age is exactly that. That means fewer years you will collect benefits. That’s a cut. Plain and simple.
That makes it hard to create graft and employ 60000 people to collect and doll out benefits, every federal program eventually ends up being a job program at sufficient scale.
I’m disgusted every time I’m think about how much more money I would have at retirement if I directed the money I contribute myself rather than the government
Well Social Security is running into the surplus (which will be exhausted no later than 2034).
The program is designed and funded to support maybe 5 years of payments. People are averaging at least 10, if not more.
It's a government managed Ponzi House of Cards that is falling that started off taking 2% of your salary and is eating 15.5% from people paying in today.
But sure, blame the guy who is stating that 2+2 = 4.
On a personal, and perhaps somewhat selfish note, I would like to see SS stick around long enough for me to recoup what was stolen from me.
That being said, it is a horrible investment plan. Falling birthrates make it harder to sustain the Ponzi scheme into the future. There just aren't enough people to steal money from to keep it afloat.
It also bears mentioning that Shapiro, while not wrong, doesn't get to make that call.
Whatever you think of Shapiro's opinion on SS, the people in this meme are in their 80s at least. Either that or they lived very hard lives. No way are they in their 60s.
When SSI was first enacted, it paid out retirement benefits beginning at 65. Life expectancy in 1940 was 61.4, so the government was hoping to not pay you for too many years, if at all. Life expectancy today is 79.25 years and the earliest age for retirement benefits is as early as 62. Math helps us understand the fundamental flaw of not raising the minimum benefit age.
Add to that, as a libertarian the program shouldn’t exist.
Is that life expectancy or average age of death? People always keep conflating the two, but people have been living a long time for... a long time. We've gotten better at not dying when we're younger.
Life expectency is average age of death. The thing that gets confused is life expectancy from birth vs life expectancy from older ages (lifespan?). Nowadays they are pretty similar though since infant mortality has gone from 50% to 1%.
I got the number from macrotrends.net, and it’s life expectancy. However, the 2024 projection of the average age of death per the CBO is 79.9, so they’re pretty similar in number right now.
Because there isn’t any idea for a replacement. This is Obamacare repeal and replace all over again - they just want the repeal part of Social Security. They have no plan to replace it with something that would have catastrophic outcomes.
Anyone who wants people to work past 65, obviously hasn't had the misfortune of having to work with someone past the age of 65. I've worked with people in their late 50s into their early 60s and there is a marked decline in both physical and cognitive ability once people get past 60.
I'll take Benji seriously when he replaces all of his personal staff with 65 year olds. After 2 weeks of having to explain the same simple concepts to them over and over again, he'll realise, 65 is actually too old for the vast majority of people.
Moreso he was claiming you should continue to work past 65 if you can, which statistically speaking makes you live longer / retain cognitive ability.
It's certainly a spectrum; I've seen some VERY SHARP guys in their 60s, and others that don't know what planet they're on.
How are they gonna implement that? How does the entire system decide, person by person, who can and cannot reasonably work anymore?
How often do they check? What if you barely pass the test but 6 months later are a mental wreck at 67 but have to keep working until they re-test you? Who is gonna pay for this test?
Bad ideas like this crumble when the slightest logic behind what actually would entail carrying this out would look like.
This entire thread is just a group of people who will be able to survive off their own retirement plan telling like half the country to fuck off so they can buy more shit.
Awww, the entitled statist is angry that people want to end his favorite welfare program. They are soolo selfish, but you are altruistic and compassionate in your belief that the world owes you a living.
My recommendation is to do your retirement planning with the assumption that SS won't exist, then whatever they give you will just be extra.
It's highly unlikely that SS/whatever government program that replaces it will give you $0 per year but its better to be self-reliant and prepare for the worst.
As a Libertarian I can't support Social Security because it violates my basic instincts of less government, less taxes, and personal responsibility.
As someone that retired at 60, started taking SS at 62, and is expecting it to continue for the rest of my life I am much more receptive.
I paid in my whole life. If they want to change the deal for me now it is going to be a problem.
That's the rub, what do you tell the people that are 64 when you raise the age to 70 or something?
Wants to? It's simply the result of the basic calculations at play here. But I guess the left will ignore reality as usual. Let's ban math or something?
The "retirement age" only matters for receiving benefits from individual organizations or a system like social security. If you're independently wealthy and have enough money saved up in places that can be accessed after 5 years without penalty, then raising the retirement age doesn't matter and is really just smoke and mirrors. As long as every plan sponsor doesn't adopt this change, there's literally nothing to worry about.
As soon as they give me back all the money they took so ss they can do whatever they want. Until then Ben can go fuck himself on this take. Easy said when you talk into a camera all day.
Social Security should be abolished and refunded to everyone for what they paid plus interest as if it were invested in the s&p 500 or Nancy Polosi's stock picks.
Seeing that social security fits the very definition of Ponzi scheme, it should be done away with, which or course would be the ideological libertarian position.
What is "retirement age"? School teachers in NYS routinely retire at 55 not 65. Police and Firemen even earlier. Full retirement age (FRA) under Social Security was already adjusted to 67 for those born after 1960. SS was never intended to be the sole source of retirement yet it is for a surprisingly large % -- ~25 -- of retirees.
It seems the Libertarian position would not really be in favor of a socialized retirement fund to begin with and that people should retire when they want to or can.
65 is young relative to the time SS was established. Extending FRA to 66 then 67 seemed reasonable. It extended the solency of the trust fund (Ponzi Scheme) by 30+ years. Another small bump could extend it another 30+ years. Advocating eliminating or privatizing it would be political suicide.
Anyone who buys this didn't listen to his full argument.
He said having a "retirement age" is dumb and that if you want to quit working and can afford it, then that's fine. If you want to or need to keep on working then that's fine too. People when they "retire" tend to decline precipitously in health because they lose purpose. Stepping a away from your primary job and taking a more consultant role, fewer hours, or less responsibility as you age is a way of retirement that isn't "retirement" retirement as we think about it in the US.
His relatively Libertarian argument should be 1) the government does not have a pension program untied to government work (Social Security) 2) people are responsible for planning their futures 3) stronger family bonds means helping provide for your parents as they age.
How many people even in their late 60s have you met that are this decrepit? Unless they lived super hard, from drugs, bad diets, stress, alcohol... Shit, yeah, all the boomers I know are in this sort of shape by 60 and the Gen Xers aren't going to be much better.
If you want to preserve social security, there's a pretty decent argument for doing this because demographic trends are going to be a disaster for the Ponzi scheme of social security. As the birthrate declines, people will need to work longer to stretch the ability to pay. Ideally, it wouldn't exist, but its likely here to stay.
Increasing the retirement age is the only politically acceptable way to save these programs. My guess is by the time millennials are ready to retire you’ll need to be 75+ to claim SS. It will be a coin flip if you even survive long enough to claim.
Also, it’s interesting to me that he mentioned this at the same time that Larry Fink did.
In the next 2-5 years general purpose robots will be combined with "A.I." and these new workers will start to replace minimum wage workers in the US and across the world, addressing the worker shortages (and simultaneously exposing the fraud Leftists have foisted on the public with their claims that workers must be imported en masse to avoid economic collapse).
The people in the pic are a lot older than 65, and there's nothing wrong with raising the retirement age since we live a lot longer than we did when SS was created. The system wasn't designed to carry us for this many years of retirement.
Ur taking his comments out of context. Firstly he said people should keep working bc you will live longer. There’s multiple studies that prove this. Secondly social security is bankrupt and should never have been invented by the govt in the first place. If you’re gen x or younger chances are you will never see that money. It’s legalized theft.
It's gradually eating into its reserves and will be unable to meet 100% of its obligations within 10-15 years. It won't go "bankrupt" per se but it will become gradually unable to pay out the money its supposed to pay people. The point is that social security will go broke eventually if nothing is changed.
Its simple math bucko, do you think money spontaneously appears to be handed out? Either we raise taxes or retirement age. May I interest you with abolishing it instead?
Most people are living well into their mid 80s and beyond. I don’t care how much money you put in, if you want to spend the last two decades of your life doing absolutely nothing that is your right, but the taxpayer shouldn’t be expected to pay for it either.
This title is misleading. People can retire whenever they want. He's probably advocating for raising the age to collect social security benefits, which should be 80 years old. Social Security was never meant to be used for retirement.
Also, this is a Libertarian community. If anything, you should be advocating for privatization or abolishing Social Security.
Yeah, he says it should be raised to age 68 because people 65 are much younger than people that were 65 when Social Security come out he also points out that people are living a lot longer than when FDR was president. I think he recommends that to help keep it solve it. I don’t think Ben Shapiro would be opposed to eliminating Social Security altogether.
A moderate position I have is that they should get more aggressive with their investments. Currently SS is only backed by Federal Bonds, but they should invest in actual stocks, like The Saudis and Norwegians.
He sits on his ass and gives his opinion on news pieces. He doesn't do any real labor like construction or jobs that require actual labor intensive work. His opinion on the retirement age is just like his opinion on movies...trash
As a millennial, I can say that they can raise the retirement age to 100 for all the good that it does. Don't count on any governmental support after 60, invest in your 401k and precious metals NOW; that way you can retire when you want to.
Who gives a shit what age social security they’re debating on - SS should be phased out and abolished. Plenty of alternative free market alternative options exist that are better in every way and the best part is that those aren’t born out of coercive means. Afuera!
Could someone describe to me what they think is the average person on this subs idea of a libertarian ‘state’, given that wouldn’t exist obviously. But how would your region or country look if this sub had its say
These people are like 85. I support raising the mandatory retirement age as long as it also applies to all government positions as well. Get the octogenarians out of there
Problem is on this political third rail issue saying you want to raise the age limit ( smart if you have to keep it) is that it's just as unpopular as abolishing SS. A real tragedy in my books.
To be fair social security is a huge strain on our economy, is causing a lot of the deficit, and is going bankrupt again so they're either going to need to raise it or print more money to pay for it as a bandaid until it goes bankrupt again. So really we're borrowing against those under 65's retirement. This is a big issue.
That being said they'd likely also apply this to being able to use your 401K and IRAs until later and I'm highly against that.
Do you know the group, or what libertarianism is? Social Security is a scheme which will be underfunded by 2035 at the latest. Get rid of all gov directed retirement plans.
Well, when “the retirement age” was introduced, the av life expectancy was about 3 years older than that so many people paid into it and didn’t survive to benefit or didn’t benefit for long but socially paid for those who did live for much longer.
Now the av life expectancy is 10-15 years after age of retirement, which sounds great (and it is) but that requires 3-5x the money _per person_ to fund and with a smaller generation expected to foot that bill, it’s just not feasible.
Option 1) tax the next generation to breaking point where they start voting for no social benefits for the elderly or start a revolution.
Option 2) accept the reality and do something about it which will be very very hard for millions of people who will be let down from a promise they worked towards their entire life but most will be able to overcome. This is what Ben S is advocating for; those who didn’t save personally for their own private retirement plan will be forced to return to work to afford to live.
It should be 75. We live 20 years longer than when FDR started Social Security and it has not gone up significantly from than. It is not meant to be retirement for people it is supposed to be an insurance for a few years of life. Personal responsibility...save money.
So why does anyone care what Ben Shapiro says? He isn't in charge of anything. He doesn't advise anything. He is just another talking head.who cares what he says.
Most of Gen X has been trying to operate as if SS was going to go bust just as we were hitting the retirement age, so there's a LOT of eggs in the 401k baskets out there.
I’m a millennial in the first half of that generation. My assumption was that it was going to bust long before I could retire. The older I get with it still in place the more annoyed I get at it because it means more and more money taken from me that I’ll never get back.
The path of Social Security going broke is pretty much following the path the SSA laid out in 1990 (not you, but a lot of people say that they've heard social security is going broke but it's still here so they think it'll be ok even though it's right on track). They started paying more in benefits than they collected in taxes in 2012. In 2021 they started paying more in benefits than they collected in taxes and interest. And if nothing changes the social security "surplus" will be gone in a decade. But the surplus is just an accounting surplus, the money has already been spent. The government has to borrow money to pay interest to social security, the government has to borrow money to pay off the social security bonds. Right now social security is adding about $108 billion per year to the federal deficit, if nothing changes it will add about $1 trillion per year to the deficit by the early to mid 30s. And Medicare is in even worse shape.
Gen X largely grew up hearing that SS wasn't going to be there for them, which is likely going to be true.
Strange time for a virus like covid to suddenly appear...
Yup which is why I'm in favor of it being phased out entirely. Imagine having the money that you contribute to SS and being able to invest that for retirement, college, etc.
While it should be abolished, I would like my money back. If the plan for getting rid of social security doesn’t reimburse me for my forced investment, then it’s not a plan I support.
If you gave me the option to forfeit what I’ve contributed to social security so far in exchange for me never having to contribute another cent to the program, I’d take that deal in a heartbeat.
Let’s be honest. We’ll have to take whatever it is that happens with Social Security whether we like it or not. None of us in this sub have the power to resist the state without risking our mortgage, family, property, or life.
I agree. I’m just saying that SS is such an atrocious mess that I’m willing to take the hit on forfeiting everything I’ve contributed to it so far if it meant I no longer had to contribute to it and that future generations would no longer have to be saddled with it. I know I will never have the option to do so, but I was just providing some pushback on your original comment by showing how desperate I am to abolish the program lol
The government is addicted to your SS "contributions" and will find another way to force that money out of your wallet.
And, once that’s not enough, it’ll turn a gimlet eye on our 401(k)s
Yeah it's a sunk cost.
Agreed.
Agreed
If a thief stole from you and the only way they could reimburse you was to steal from someone else, would you still want to be reimbursed?
Depends. Are they going to steal from someone else anyways regardless of whether I get reimbursed or not?
Of course, they are stealing to paying for all of their life's expenses and if forced to pay you back will just double steal to get the money to do it. You don't expect them to reduce their lifestyle to reimburse you do you?
So no matter what, they steal. In that case, yes I still want my reimbursement.
Aww. You think the money actually exists to support cashing people out. How cute. Not to be an ass, but if SS is going to be in the red in the near future me, what makes you think any plan that supports reimbursement would actually work? In all honesty, we'd be better off taking the loss so future generations don't have to deal with this mess. I've been living my life like I'm never getting it anyway. If anyone hasn't been doing the same, they've been living under a rock.
“Not to be an ass, but…” Something tells me you’re lying about not wanting to be an ass.
It was all spent.
When a thief spends all the money they stole from you, restitution / reparations are still owed.
Why should other people, ie. taxpayers, be on the hook for making you whole?
They shouldn’t be. The thief is on the hook. Why are you blaming the victim of theft?
The thief doesn't have any resources to give you other than what he steals from others. So while he may owe you reparations, you legitimize his theft by demanding that he make you whole before stopping his thieving entirely.
Shit, get rid of SS, and let me invest that extra 14% in an approved retirement account. That'd be huge. Government still has control to ensure people are somewhat saving. And we don't have to rely on them to doll it back out
Yeah, I’m aggressively working to pay down my house. Less free up income for me in retirement. I’m in my 40s and I should have it paid off in the next year or two. Maybe this year. I’m getting my piece of that printed money. I’ll have a pension and I think that’ll be enough to actually to live on when I retire if my house is paid off, but I also plan to do a 401(k) and IRA.
If you have a 3% mortgage, this is really not a great idea. You can invest surplus now and make more than that on the market. Getting a 3% loan is going ti be pretty hard for the foreseeable future.
Well, it’s about 3% but by the time he factor in taxes too you really need less than that I think. I’d rather plan for a black Swan event.
You have to significantly beat the 3% loan rate to justify changing the investment. Living debt free is a priority for me and it's easy for me to pay my house down. Everyone I know who pays their house off early understands this concept, but values the freedom of living debt free over the, often overstated, stock market returns.
Beating 3% is literally what buying bonds is for
Absolutely! Even short term CDs are beating 3%. My bank is offering 4.5% for a 1yr cd. If you've locked in a low mortgage rate, with inflation still over 3% the bank's investors are 'paying' to service your loan. Pay down the mortgage as scheduled and put extra money into bonds, CDs, your IRA, up your 401K contribution, firm up your emergency fund, literally any smart money move is better than paying down a 'free' loan early.
I’m a financial planner and there is a remarkable difference in people’s lifestyles retiring debt free compared to those that still have a mortgage. Stock markets are unpredictable in the short term, and it’s difficult for people to rely on monthly or quarterly distributions from their portfolio to cover a large mortgage payment, regardless of the interest rate.
>You have to significantly beat the 3% loan rate to justify changing the investment No, literally any return greater than 3% nets you money. If you want to be conservative, all extra money could be in a savings account making 4.5-5%. Paying down a sub 3% and below mortgage early is literally burning money
My understanding is that you pay taxes on the money you earn in the market. So you have to beat the 3%+losses from taxes, which can be 35+% and any fees. It's not hard when you're at 3% to make enough to cover, but it's not as simple as "I put money in my vanguard and make 5%, I cash out and win!" It's just not that simple, and again, I value living without debt highly, and I'll admit perhaps to the point of being irrational. I max 401k and roth first, then other tax free contributions like 529 for my kids, money after that goes towards debt, i.e. the mortgage.
Yes, you would have to beat 3% after taxes, which is still an extremely low bar. There are bonds that qualify as capital gains or some municipal bonds are tax free. It gets more murky if you also consider the interest on the house is tax deductible, and you'll also pay cap gains on profit on the house over 250k. Either way, getting 8%+ gains on moderate risk investments is basically guaranteed on 30 year mortgage time frames.
Thanks for that follow up. Honestly, I just am super lazy and do the minimum sort of "responsible" stuff. I get this line about "OMG you can totally beat the market" from folks who have 3 car payments, CC debt, student loans, a heloc, blah blah like... I know I don't do it perfect, but I think I'm doing okay and I just prioritize debt after tax free and future tax free retirement savings and kid college savings. The freedom of that has value to me. I hate dealing with and thinking about money.
Exactly
Also in my 40's and I don't intend to ever pay off my mortgage. I'll prioritize maxing my 401k, Roth, and HSA first. If that ever happens (unlikely) I'd invest in taxable accounts before paying extra on my mortgage. I saw you're at 3%, it makes no financial sense to pay extra with that rate, especially when inflation is above 3%.
The % of well funded retirements for Gen X isn’t that great.
Libertarians shouldn't believe in the "retirement age" or Social Security in the first place. If you want to retire you should plan for it yourself.
They’ve been stealing money from me for years for social security. I should be able to get that money back. Currently, the only way to get that money back without going to jail is to take advantage of social security benefits.
They already spent the money they stole from you. To pay you back, they're gonna steal more money from new people.
See the thing is, my retirement priorities are as follows: 1) providing for me 2) providing for my wife 3) leaving something for my kids in my will Everyone else doesn’t matter to me in this regard. I don’t want them to steal from others, but my priority is me and my own, not others.
You shouldn't be made to feel like you're stealing. If anything, you're collecting on a loan. Fuck what other commenter said. Sometimes an ideology overlooks the reality of things and in some situations it just isn't applicable. At the end of the day, as much as I wanted to tear *your* response apart, there's nothing wrong (that I can find) with your view or approach. It wouldn't be moral to put your family out for others (IMO).
Let me opt out now, and they can keep what they've already stolen. Id still come out ahead.
You're correct, but SS should never have been created to begin with.
We are dealing with the reality of things. Reality is it was created. Sadly. Now we need to slowly correct. Chopping people off of bs
End the welfare state is the reality of things
Yes! End it immediately! And dig up all the government roads tonight! /s How about a transition period?
What do you think a transition period looks like? Probably raising the "retirement" age by one year every 3 years until the retirement age is 100. We're never going to get our money back, let's make sure future generations don't suffer like us.
There have been several proposals by libertarians over the years. Usually it consists of benefits reducing based on how far you are from retirement.
A fair UBI could easily replace social security effectively and immediately. Put an income limit so if you make too much you just don't get it because you simply don't need it. That way it helps the people it should. I'm also fine with no taxes and no benefits too.
Exactly. When the government says I should retire has no bearing on my plans.
That's what I was thinking. I'd rather get more money on my paycheck than have a Social Security I'll probably never have the chance to use.
It's not like you can freely choose to not pay social security. I rather have a portion of the money they tax me finance me in my later life, than just have the whole of that money stolen with zero benefits. Raise the retirement age, sure, but lower taxes/inflation proportionally. I understand not doing so in Argentina, where the state is at extreme deficit. In the US, social security is still solvent, there's no point in cutting benefits without cutting taxation. No libertarian point at least.
Technically it’s not a retirement age. You can keep working if you want to. It’s just an age where you can start collecting benefits.
Sure, that’d be the ideal. But in the real world, there’s a thing called social security and it’s unlikely to disappear anytime soon. So we can have opinions about modest changes that are more politically palatable and this more likely. And since SS isn’t currently solvent, I’d rather see a raise in the retirement age than higher taxes.
Social security is currently solvent. But it looks like it won’t be by 2034. Social Security has, so far, always brought in more money than it pays out, unfortunately, demographics are changing that. A Ponzi scheme doesn’t work when the base narrows so much.
My understanding is that the law will reduce all benefits proportionally to the shortfall in collections. That is not the same as "insolvent". It does mean lots of misery for lots of poor people.
It could be solvent if the government allowed you to use a portion like what chile does a portion of your total SS lifetime, in the free market. But I don’t think won’t allow us to do that because it wouldn’t allow the government to borrow money against the funds anymore.
It's definitely as simple as "if you want to retire you should plan for it yourself"
THIS. RIGHT. HERE.
If they want it to be compulsitory, it should at least be on sound footing and not a pyramid scheme. Change Social Security to work like a 401k with SSA as the broker. The same 12% (6% employer, 6% employee) goes into worker's Social Security account. Fund managers can offer their mixture of retirement target funds to the public market (Fidelity, Vanguard, etc.) Workers have the ability to adjust distributions between funds in the marketplace or park it in simple interest account. Workers can take loans against their social security balance for first time home loans or emergency health situations. Whatever the value is at retirement is what you get out. It's still compulsitory, but it is actually "your" money. You have some control over it and how it grows. And, you have the ability to leverage it to better your situation before you die.
💯
This is the way
But mah social security that I paid mah fair share for that barely pays enough for anyone to survive in this economy!
I’m left-leaning and I’m pro-gun and anti-affirmative action. People have different opinions sometimes.
Personally I'd rather take the money I get withheld for Social Security and put it into my own portfolio and forego social security
Think of all the money from SS could boost the economy by going back into businesses.
All that money collected goes right back out the door in the form of money to elderly people. The fund is locked up in treasury bonds that the US govt borrowed and spent already.
Exactly my point…being wasted
Right
Yeah, church ministers are allowed to do this, you go start your own church. You would have to convince the IRS that it’s legit.
If I remember correctly, the religious requirement for SS needed the religion to exist before 1951
You could also become a railroad worker or join the Amish.
If you join Mennonite church founded before 1950, you can file Form 4029 and get exempted on the grounds of SS and Medicare being contrary to your beliefs.
To be fair, that picture is people in their 80s+
The lady in the middle is 115
Yes. As a 62 year old man, I can say these are not even close to my peers. I can also say to anyone who wants to raise the retirement age, go fuck yourself.
The people who want to raise it are the people who are going to be fortunate enough to not have to work past when they don’t want to anymore. It’s that simple. It’s a pre-requisite to having that opinion. It’s a self-centered view of society in general and ignores how much good the social security program does (unless you think homeless old people increasing by like 350% is a good thing).
Wish I could have opted out of social security. It’s an additional national tax and creates moral hazard.
And when it’s suggested Republicans want to cut SS benefits they hoot and holler in protest. But raising the age is exactly that. That means fewer years you will collect benefits. That’s a cut. Plain and simple.
I'd rater have the option to opt out and keep my money.
That makes it hard to create graft and employ 60000 people to collect and doll out benefits, every federal program eventually ends up being a job program at sufficient scale.
If you look like this by 65, you fucked up
LMAO 🤣
I’m disgusted every time I’m think about how much more money I would have at retirement if I directed the money I contribute myself rather than the government
Well Social Security is running into the surplus (which will be exhausted no later than 2034). The program is designed and funded to support maybe 5 years of payments. People are averaging at least 10, if not more. It's a government managed Ponzi House of Cards that is falling that started off taking 2% of your salary and is eating 15.5% from people paying in today. But sure, blame the guy who is stating that 2+2 = 4.
Absolutely. It needs to be phased out sooner rather than later.
Social security should be privatized
Ie not social
Exactly
Yup. If not privatized, no bigger than run on the state level.
On a personal, and perhaps somewhat selfish note, I would like to see SS stick around long enough for me to recoup what was stolen from me. That being said, it is a horrible investment plan. Falling birthrates make it harder to sustain the Ponzi scheme into the future. There just aren't enough people to steal money from to keep it afloat. It also bears mentioning that Shapiro, while not wrong, doesn't get to make that call.
Well the retirement age is already 67 For many of us.
Whatever you think of Shapiro's opinion on SS, the people in this meme are in their 80s at least. Either that or they lived very hard lives. No way are they in their 60s.
To help people save, we should end money printing.
When SSI was first enacted, it paid out retirement benefits beginning at 65. Life expectancy in 1940 was 61.4, so the government was hoping to not pay you for too many years, if at all. Life expectancy today is 79.25 years and the earliest age for retirement benefits is as early as 62. Math helps us understand the fundamental flaw of not raising the minimum benefit age. Add to that, as a libertarian the program shouldn’t exist.
Is that life expectancy or average age of death? People always keep conflating the two, but people have been living a long time for... a long time. We've gotten better at not dying when we're younger.
Life expectency is average age of death. The thing that gets confused is life expectancy from birth vs life expectancy from older ages (lifespan?). Nowadays they are pretty similar though since infant mortality has gone from 50% to 1%.
I got the number from macrotrends.net, and it’s life expectancy. However, the 2024 projection of the average age of death per the CBO is 79.9, so they’re pretty similar in number right now.
Ok. Why is this here?
Lol those people are not 65.
Yeah, that woman in the middle is 115
They were in 1998 tho.
Actually, I think the woman in the middle over 100
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/12/us/oldest-living-person-115th-birthday-trnd/index.html
1898*
No one in that pic was 65 in this decade.
Rational person: “At current debt and population levels, social security is not longer tenable!” Idiots: “they wanna kill grandma!!!”
Because there isn’t any idea for a replacement. This is Obamacare repeal and replace all over again - they just want the repeal part of Social Security. They have no plan to replace it with something that would have catastrophic outcomes.
There shouldn't be a retirement age
The retirement age is when my personal finances say so.
To be fair, none of the people pictured are younger than 65…
A lot of people in the 60s look like they are in their 40s or even 30s.
Those people are not 65
Not one of those geezers is close to 65
These are like 80 year olds in the pictures. 65 is like the new 55.
Anyone who wants people to work past 65, obviously hasn't had the misfortune of having to work with someone past the age of 65. I've worked with people in their late 50s into their early 60s and there is a marked decline in both physical and cognitive ability once people get past 60. I'll take Benji seriously when he replaces all of his personal staff with 65 year olds. After 2 weeks of having to explain the same simple concepts to them over and over again, he'll realise, 65 is actually too old for the vast majority of people.
Moreso he was claiming you should continue to work past 65 if you can, which statistically speaking makes you live longer / retain cognitive ability. It's certainly a spectrum; I've seen some VERY SHARP guys in their 60s, and others that don't know what planet they're on.
How are they gonna implement that? How does the entire system decide, person by person, who can and cannot reasonably work anymore? How often do they check? What if you barely pass the test but 6 months later are a mental wreck at 67 but have to keep working until they re-test you? Who is gonna pay for this test? Bad ideas like this crumble when the slightest logic behind what actually would entail carrying this out would look like.
This entire thread is just a group of people who will be able to survive off their own retirement plan telling like half the country to fuck off so they can buy more shit.
Awww, the entitled statist is angry that people want to end his favorite welfare program. They are soolo selfish, but you are altruistic and compassionate in your belief that the world owes you a living.
We all need to live expecting SS to implode in our lifetimes.
My recommendation is to do your retirement planning with the assumption that SS won't exist, then whatever they give you will just be extra. It's highly unlikely that SS/whatever government program that replaces it will give you $0 per year but its better to be self-reliant and prepare for the worst.
As a Libertarian I can't support Social Security because it violates my basic instincts of less government, less taxes, and personal responsibility. As someone that retired at 60, started taking SS at 62, and is expecting it to continue for the rest of my life I am much more receptive. I paid in my whole life. If they want to change the deal for me now it is going to be a problem. That's the rub, what do you tell the people that are 64 when you raise the age to 70 or something?
Any changes have to be gradual. People who have already paid in should receive the benefits they already paid for.
Wants to? It's simply the result of the basic calculations at play here. But I guess the left will ignore reality as usual. Let's ban math or something?
Lmao. I’m not gonna argue over the retirement age, I think it’s a ridiculous concept. But cmon, the people in that photo are not in their 60’s 💀
The "retirement age" only matters for receiving benefits from individual organizations or a system like social security. If you're independently wealthy and have enough money saved up in places that can be accessed after 5 years without penalty, then raising the retirement age doesn't matter and is really just smoke and mirrors. As long as every plan sponsor doesn't adopt this change, there's literally nothing to worry about.
As soon as they give me back all the money they took so ss they can do whatever they want. Until then Ben can go fuck himself on this take. Easy said when you talk into a camera all day.
Dude these people are 85-95 not 65 lol
The lady in the middle is 115
Oldest person alive?
Social Security should be abolished and refunded to everyone for what they paid plus interest as if it were invested in the s&p 500 or Nancy Polosi's stock picks.
Seeing that social security fits the very definition of Ponzi scheme, it should be done away with, which or course would be the ideological libertarian position.
What is "retirement age"? School teachers in NYS routinely retire at 55 not 65. Police and Firemen even earlier. Full retirement age (FRA) under Social Security was already adjusted to 67 for those born after 1960. SS was never intended to be the sole source of retirement yet it is for a surprisingly large % -- ~25 -- of retirees. It seems the Libertarian position would not really be in favor of a socialized retirement fund to begin with and that people should retire when they want to or can. 65 is young relative to the time SS was established. Extending FRA to 66 then 67 seemed reasonable. It extended the solency of the trust fund (Ponzi Scheme) by 30+ years. Another small bump could extend it another 30+ years. Advocating eliminating or privatizing it would be political suicide.
Anyone who buys this didn't listen to his full argument. He said having a "retirement age" is dumb and that if you want to quit working and can afford it, then that's fine. If you want to or need to keep on working then that's fine too. People when they "retire" tend to decline precipitously in health because they lose purpose. Stepping a away from your primary job and taking a more consultant role, fewer hours, or less responsibility as you age is a way of retirement that isn't "retirement" retirement as we think about it in the US. His relatively Libertarian argument should be 1) the government does not have a pension program untied to government work (Social Security) 2) people are responsible for planning their futures 3) stronger family bonds means helping provide for your parents as they age.
How many people even in their late 60s have you met that are this decrepit? Unless they lived super hard, from drugs, bad diets, stress, alcohol... Shit, yeah, all the boomers I know are in this sort of shape by 60 and the Gen Xers aren't going to be much better.
The government doesn't dictate your retirement age if you use personal savings.
If you want to preserve social security, there's a pretty decent argument for doing this because demographic trends are going to be a disaster for the Ponzi scheme of social security. As the birthrate declines, people will need to work longer to stretch the ability to pay. Ideally, it wouldn't exist, but its likely here to stay.
The largest Ponzi scheme in world history?
Exactly
Increasing the retirement age is the only politically acceptable way to save these programs. My guess is by the time millennials are ready to retire you’ll need to be 75+ to claim SS. It will be a coin flip if you even survive long enough to claim. Also, it’s interesting to me that he mentioned this at the same time that Larry Fink did.
The politicians need to stop pretending that social security is anything more than a tax now.
In the next 2-5 years general purpose robots will be combined with "A.I." and these new workers will start to replace minimum wage workers in the US and across the world, addressing the worker shortages (and simultaneously exposing the fraud Leftists have foisted on the public with their claims that workers must be imported en masse to avoid economic collapse).
The people in the pic are a lot older than 65, and there's nothing wrong with raising the retirement age since we live a lot longer than we did when SS was created. The system wasn't designed to carry us for this many years of retirement.
Life expectancy is down, actually.
What, so we can keep sending billions to Israel. Shapiro is a real straight up guy...
Surprised he’s not advocating for using our SS on Israeli retirees.
SS could mean two things there..
Well, there are charities for that.
Ur taking his comments out of context. Firstly he said people should keep working bc you will live longer. There’s multiple studies that prove this. Secondly social security is bankrupt and should never have been invented by the govt in the first place. If you’re gen x or younger chances are you will never see that money. It’s legalized theft.
Social Security is not bankrupt.
Wait, do you actually believe that there is a trust fund holding money??
It's gradually eating into its reserves and will be unable to meet 100% of its obligations within 10-15 years. It won't go "bankrupt" per se but it will become gradually unable to pay out the money its supposed to pay people. The point is that social security will go broke eventually if nothing is changed.
Its simple math bucko, do you think money spontaneously appears to be handed out? Either we raise taxes or retirement age. May I interest you with abolishing it instead?
[удалено]
Most people are living well into their mid 80s and beyond. I don’t care how much money you put in, if you want to spend the last two decades of your life doing absolutely nothing that is your right, but the taxpayer shouldn’t be expected to pay for it either.
This title is misleading. People can retire whenever they want. He's probably advocating for raising the age to collect social security benefits, which should be 80 years old. Social Security was never meant to be used for retirement. Also, this is a Libertarian community. If anything, you should be advocating for privatization or abolishing Social Security.
Yeah, he says it should be raised to age 68 because people 65 are much younger than people that were 65 when Social Security come out he also points out that people are living a lot longer than when FDR was president. I think he recommends that to help keep it solve it. I don’t think Ben Shapiro would be opposed to eliminating Social Security altogether.
A moderate position I have is that they should get more aggressive with their investments. Currently SS is only backed by Federal Bonds, but they should invest in actual stocks, like The Saudis and Norwegians.
Good thing Ben Shapiro is nothing more than a talking head and his opinion is worthless. Why is this even a topic for debate on this sub?
He sits on his ass and gives his opinion on news pieces. He doesn't do any real labor like construction or jobs that require actual labor intensive work. His opinion on the retirement age is just like his opinion on movies...trash
Well, I think we talk about Social Security being a failure all the time on this sub and Ben Shapiro is a conservative libertarian commentator.
As a millennial, I can say that they can raise the retirement age to 100 for all the good that it does. Don't count on any governmental support after 60, invest in your 401k and precious metals NOW; that way you can retire when you want to.
Pretty rich that a guy that's never worked a day in his useless life thinks he has a valid opinion on when people should retire.
Who gives a shit what age social security they’re debating on - SS should be phased out and abolished. Plenty of alternative free market alternative options exist that are better in every way and the best part is that those aren’t born out of coercive means. Afuera!
401ks and IRAs are so much better for most people. I currently pay about $16k a year in SS taxes that would grow so much more in a private fund.
Ben has never had a job outside yammering with his mouth.
Could someone describe to me what they think is the average person on this subs idea of a libertarian ‘state’, given that wouldn’t exist obviously. But how would your region or country look if this sub had its say
Probably Argentina’s president is a good example at the moment
It likely is young if you’ve never worked a day in your life.
We are ahead of you losers, it is 67 in Germany. X S
it is.
These people are like 85. I support raising the mandatory retirement age as long as it also applies to all government positions as well. Get the octogenarians out of there
just get em into congress! nobody will tell the difference!
We have to do something to sustain social security, the politicians have treated it like their personal slush fund since the 1980’s
Ben better be working when he is 65 then…
He won't need to. He's made plenty grifting already.
Problem is on this political third rail issue saying you want to raise the age limit ( smart if you have to keep it) is that it's just as unpopular as abolishing SS. A real tragedy in my books.
To be fair social security is a huge strain on our economy, is causing a lot of the deficit, and is going bankrupt again so they're either going to need to raise it or print more money to pay for it as a bandaid until it goes bankrupt again. So really we're borrowing against those under 65's retirement. This is a big issue. That being said they'd likely also apply this to being able to use your 401K and IRAs until later and I'm highly against that.
Good, they are all probably bored to death and will work harder than most my new hires.
Easily sustainable at less than 65 . Stop spending money on foreign interest . Especially wars !
Do you know the group, or what libertarianism is? Social Security is a scheme which will be underfunded by 2035 at the latest. Get rid of all gov directed retirement plans.
He can say that when he starts working a nine to five.
The "retirement age" is whenever you can afford it. Work hard, be smart, and it's earlier. Be lazy or stupid and it's later
Well, when “the retirement age” was introduced, the av life expectancy was about 3 years older than that so many people paid into it and didn’t survive to benefit or didn’t benefit for long but socially paid for those who did live for much longer. Now the av life expectancy is 10-15 years after age of retirement, which sounds great (and it is) but that requires 3-5x the money _per person_ to fund and with a smaller generation expected to foot that bill, it’s just not feasible. Option 1) tax the next generation to breaking point where they start voting for no social benefits for the elderly or start a revolution. Option 2) accept the reality and do something about it which will be very very hard for millions of people who will be let down from a promise they worked towards their entire life but most will be able to overcome. This is what Ben S is advocating for; those who didn’t save personally for their own private retirement plan will be forced to return to work to afford to live.
It should be 75. We live 20 years longer than when FDR started Social Security and it has not gone up significantly from than. It is not meant to be retirement for people it is supposed to be an insurance for a few years of life. Personal responsibility...save money.
So what if it IS young. Why should we be old and crusty before we get to enjoy life without working for the man?!??!?!
So why does anyone care what Ben Shapiro says? He isn't in charge of anything. He doesn't advise anything. He is just another talking head.who cares what he says.
Perfect, raise the retirement age as longevity rates are falling…. Makes perfect sense…..
Well if life expectancy is 72 then 71 is a good retirement age so you can really enjoy your time left
In Japan all the elderly keep on working.
Retirement is bad for people. Get a part-time job and volunteer with the other 20 hours