Uh, my father (retired school superintendent). Plenty of financial assets (including a nice state retirement). Actual negative returns since 2000 (50% loss in speculative junk).
So he inherits money (which I will not see) and then I currently have to pay his social security (which I also will not see).
Why won't I see it? Because it funds his lifestyle (and will ultimately end up going to a nursing facility).
I could understand SSA if he actually *needed* the money.
(Note: I'm a Social Security Disability attorney - so I'm in the business of getting people benefits. I'm also annoyed that people have to lose their houses because SSA can't actually make decisions in a timely manner.)
Negative returns on what? He has a state pension, and probably very little SS coverage and/or benefits. Your response is pretty much gobble-de-gook. And it has nothing to do with the point of Charles' post, namely, that the lowest income seniors have no other choice but to "rely on" (i.e., live off) their SS benefits. They have no assets or other pensions on which to rely.
Well here in Maryland all those buses going to Delaware and West Virginia to gamble, aren't full of 25 to 55 year-old people. As a group grandma and grandpa got the money.
Because current seniors get the social security which they funded during working years, their children don't have to send money and/or make room for grandpa and grandma to live with them. That frees up money for the adult children to spend on themselves, or save for their own retirement, or pay for grandchildren's college, etc.
Social security provides indirect benefit to the adult children and the grandchildren, too.
Well, A 1:52, glad to meet you. You are probably the only person I've encountered in comments anywhere who understands that SS benefits making parents financially (more)independent of their children relieve the children of the need to shell out money to support Mom and Pop. Medicare takes care of most of their medical expenses, especially those arising from their final illnesses. Could you support your parents if they could no longer support themselves? SS is designed to make that question go away.
Oh, and don't forget your widowed mom or pop paying taxes as Single-no dependents taxpayers. You'd be surprised how much you have to cough up for taxes every year. Such is society's tender solicitude for the widows and widowers of the county.
8 comments:
This isn't asking the right question.
The question is how much the beneficiaries have in terms of assets?
Finanical assets are returning 0%, but they are still assets.
Poppycock. It's asking precisely the right question. Where are all these people with financial assets earning 0%? In your imagination.
Uh, my father (retired school superintendent). Plenty of financial assets (including a nice state retirement). Actual negative returns since 2000 (50% loss in speculative junk).
So he inherits money (which I will not see) and then I currently have to pay his social security (which I also will not see).
Why won't I see it? Because it funds his lifestyle (and will ultimately end up going to a nursing facility).
I could understand SSA if he actually *needed* the money.
(Note: I'm a Social Security Disability attorney - so I'm in the business of getting people benefits. I'm also annoyed that people have to lose their houses because SSA can't actually make decisions in a timely manner.)
Also, my aunts and uncles. My wife's parents. My brother-in-law's parents.
That's off the top of my head.
But anyway, the fiscal problems aren't the cash payments from Social Security - the problems are Medicaid, Medicare and the Pentagon.
Negative returns on what? He has a state pension, and probably very little SS coverage and/or benefits. Your response is pretty much gobble-de-gook. And it has nothing to do with the point of Charles' post, namely, that the lowest income seniors have no other choice but to "rely on" (i.e., live off) their SS benefits. They have no assets or other pensions on which to rely.
Well here in Maryland all those buses going to Delaware and West Virginia to gamble, aren't full of 25 to 55 year-old people. As a group grandma and grandpa got the money.
Because current seniors get the social security which they funded during working years, their children don't have to send money and/or make room for grandpa and grandma to live with them. That frees up money for the adult children to spend on themselves, or save for their own retirement, or pay for grandchildren's college, etc.
Social security provides indirect benefit to the adult children and the grandchildren, too.
Well, A 1:52, glad to meet you. You are probably the only person I've encountered in comments anywhere who understands that SS benefits making parents financially (more)independent of their children relieve the children of the need to shell out money to support Mom and Pop. Medicare takes care of most of their medical expenses, especially those arising from their final illnesses. Could you support your parents if they could no longer support themselves? SS is designed to make that question go away.
Oh, and don't forget your widowed mom or pop paying taxes as Single-no dependents taxpayers. You'd be surprised how much you have to cough up for taxes every year. Such is society's tender solicitude for the widows and widowers of the county.
Post a Comment