Why should I have to pay social security if it's going to be tapped out by the year 2040?
487249
You shouldn't, you should be able to take care of your own money and not let other people do it for you. By doing so, you're money can grow much quicker as well. Bush tried to push for that but Dems shut him down.
511376
SS helps cover different situations.  Disabilities, survivors, etc.  Depending on why you are on SS, your children may or may not be able to get money.  But any money the government paid them would not off set the child support.  You would still be obligated to pay that as well.\n\nYou can call SS to ask about them getting money, but you will still have to pay child support.
63516
You just need to request a copy of your Social Security Statement from the Social Security Administration. You can do this online (as well as check out what a sample copy will look like) at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/mystatement/\n\nOnce you request it once they will send it to you every year.\n\nOn page two of the statement sample you will see:\n\nYou have earned enough credits to qualify for benefits. At your current earnings rate, if you stop working and start receiving benefits… \n\nAt age 62, your payment would be about......$ 940 a month\nIf you continue working until…\nyour full retirement age (67 years), \nyour payment would be about.......................................$ 1,363 a month\nage 70, your payment would be about.......................................$ 1,699 a month
137684
Social Security will be "depleted" around 2055.  Right about the time I reach retirement age >:-|.  It's not really a question of being depleted as it's not actually payed out of funds that are saved up somewhere.  Rather it comes from the tax dollars of the current workforce.  Basically, you support your parents just as they supported their parents, and later your kids will support you, their kids will support them, and so on.  The problem is that people are retiring younger and living longer.  Right now we have the baby boomers supporting the smaller generation that preceeded them, but once the boomers hit retirement we'll have a lot more money going out than coming in.  We can fix this either by increasing the money going in (i.e. raising taxes) or decreasing the money going out (i.e. cutting benefits).
815990
Call to social security first it is good way for you.
209700
You need a attorney that specializes in Social Security.
474044
There is currently a YEARLY surplus of Social Security  withholding that is being generated by boomers being at their highest lifetime earning levels, and a not-yet increased demand for Social security payments.  It is decreasing fast.\nThis surplus is 'borrowed' into the general budget of the United States.\nIn order to pay Social security back, taxes would have to be increased, because...we just borrowed that money from ourselves.\n\nIf people stop contributing into Social security and start putting money into Individual Investment accounts, the Social Security payments will not have enough SS withholding to pay them - in other words, the people who paid into Social Security all their lives would face a insolvent fund.\n\nOnce you put your money into a Social Security personal investment (with a contracted outside investment company) your investment has the same pitfalls that private investing has.  It can suddenly lose half it's value during a market correction, it can be lost entirely should the country go through one of the downturns that usually happen about every 50 years...\n\nPanics, recessions and Depression are cyclical economic downturns that have roiled this country on a regular basis since it's birth.  They are characterized by bank failures, bankruptcies, foreclosures, business failures, and declines in property values.  Before the very recent creation of Social security, the term for retirement during an economic downturn was PAUPER.
257829
Until about 2020 the Social Security has a positive cash flow.  After that it has a negative one.  Remember Social Security can only invest in GOVERNMENT DEBT.  This means all agendas and all programs will be hit twice.  1st the surplus is not available. 2nd the debt must be paid alone with the interest.  The 2020 figure assumes a robust economy.  The 2nd thing is since we are living longer we take out more than we put in.\n\nAnother item that hasn't been put into the equation is energy.  The 1st World's economy runs on energy both to make us more productive & our toys consume energy.  The next major energy crisis should collide with the 2020 figure.  Either we will have to go nuclear or change the economics of Renewable Energy.\n\nFor at least solar the major cost is energy to purify & crystlize silicon, therefore, the cost of energy rising doesn't change the economic viability.  To date the solar cells don't reqire to absorb the full cost since the ones we use today comes from the trash of the electronic industry.
121220
No, alot of older conservitives don't want social security messed with, It really is a bad idea to invest in a stock market with its ups and downs. There must be an answer between that and the way it is going.
124761
As soon as people stop paying it.
204075
Social security is not insurance but a pay as you go system. The money we pay today is used to payout current recipients and to build a fund for payments in the future.\nThe truth is, Social security is alive and well. The problem is that the government is borrowing money from the fund it is building, Tthe fund now only contains iou's from the government.\nHowever you would save nothing if you quit paying social security. The governments need for money would not decrease, they would simply have to increase taxes and borrow the money from somewhere else. Smoke and mirrors, politicians want us to concentrate on social security rather than government over spending.\nIf we drop social security the cost will remain the same or higher but our increased expenset will not go into your account!
565662
Considering that a lot of people are retiring on a social security check that won't support them in the US, my guess is that a lot of people will be asking that question. The Mexicans can move up here and all the old folks can bring the US down there.
1157588
I believe they would if they had to live off the very little given in social security...  But they don't worry about it, as they will never have to live off of the little over $600 a month (way below poverty level)...\n\nAlthough, people today use SS as a way to retire, when it was originally designed to help penioners back when it was created.  It wasn't meant as a sole income...
1132887
I don't know.  I think it depends on the country you are going to. I think it vests at 20 years and there are treaty provisions with some countries where migration goes both ways to pay it.  Check with the Social Security office.
487198
Go on the social security website and you will get some of your answers.
830842
In 1936, the federal government published an informational pamphlet on Social Security.  It stated:   \n\n"…and finally, beginning in 1949, 12 years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year.  That is the most you will ever pay."\n\nhttp://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/ssb36.html\n-----\n\nHELL YES !!!\nBut I guess I'm just too stupid to take care of myself, so politicians will do it for me.  Yep, I'm too stupid to save my money properly.  Yep, I'm too stupid to buy the proper insurances to protect myself from unforeseen events.  Yep, I'm just too stupid.\n\n.
567000
The two things are unrelated.\n\nWhen Social Security began the lifespan was only slightly over 65. Recipients, on average, received benefits for only a few years. Today the lifespan has increased to, last I heard, 77.6 years.\n\nFurther, family size has shrunk and therefore there are less young workers to support each retiree.\n\nThus, in 1950, there were 16 workers to support every one beneficiary of Social Security. But today, there are only 3.3 workers supporting every Social Security beneficiary. \n\nBy the time the Baby Boom generation retires there will be only 2 workers to support each retiree.\n\nThe Social Security system is not nor was it ever an actuarially sound insurance program. Its closer to being what is usually called a Ponzi Scheme. It depends on current "contributions" (which is to say taxes) to pay for current benefits.\n\nThe bottom line is that in a few years every couple of workers will be supporting a retired person. Think about that. You'll not only have to take care of yourself but your half of the living expenses of a retiree.\n\nSomething has to change.