I did tooI started at 16.
All this mess because the original authors were incompetent at demographics. If they had been competent, they would have indexed Social Security to the census and made sure that only the oldest 10% (or so) of the population could ever collect it. That could even be done humanely by limiting the change to 1 year per census, with that change lagging 5 to 7 years behind the census.I'd gladly give up on mine and keep paying in to support people over 50 that were counting on this if it means that we can ditch it for myself and everyone else in younger generations. End that ponzi scheme forever.
All this mess because the original authors were incompetent at demographics. If they had been competent, they would have indexed Social Security to the census and made sure that only the oldest 10% (or so) of the population could ever collect it. That could even be done humanely by limiting the change to 1 year per census, with that change lagging 5 to 7 years behind the census.
Do the math and you are still ahead. Average SS payment is around $1800 and at 3% that is a $54 raise. Min. Medicare is $174 and 6% is $10.44, so you are $53.56 per month ahead. Granted this is not going to dent the inflation we have had, but Medicare is not eating up your SS raise.I'm getting a 3% raise also but my Medicare premium was raised 6%
Me three...I did too
Don't forget....All this mess because the original authors were incompetent at demographics. If they had been competent, they would have indexed Social Security to the census and made sure that only the oldest 10% (or so) of the population could ever collect it. That could even be done humanely by limiting the change to 1 year per census, with that change lagging 5 to 7 years behind the census.
How about not supporting illegals and taking care of the military and seniors? I'm not a wealthy senior, if I could start over I'd have saved for my retirement.People forget that when the law was passed the age of collection was set to the average life expectancy at the time. It was meant to be an "oh @#$^, I lived longer than I expected and my funds ran out" insurance, not an "I'm older so pay me" program. Both parties keep kicking this can down the road but at some point we need to address it; it is widely known and accepted that the program will become insolvent in the very near future. We'll need to raise the age and means test it plus divert from the general fund to support existing obligations, it's going to be destructive to whatever party addresses it in the short term but needs to happen.
/soapbox