108
Baby Boomers Are Overestimating Future Social Security Income
(www.bloomberg.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
108 points (96.6% liked)
Personal Finance
3803 readers
1 users here now
Learn about budgeting, saving, getting out of debt, credit, investing, and retirement planning. Join our community, read the PF Wiki, and get on top of your finances!
Note: This community is not region centric, so if you are posting anything specific to a certain region, kindly specify that in the title (something like [USA], [EU], [AUS] etc.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I’m a good ways away from retirement (unfortunately), but I’ve always run my retirement scenarios with no SS included in my math.
I think it’ll still be there in some capacity in 20-30 years, but I have no idea what it’ll look like, so it’s easier to plan without it and be better off if it is impactful in the future.
I'm 40, and I would be surprised if social security, Medicare / Medicaid, and veterans benefits (basically the VA as we know it) endure in my lifetime. The right has been gunning for that shit my entire life. Just look at their success with abortion regulations.
Seniors are a reliable voting block. So I believe that those social programs will endure. They might be diminished, but they will exist.
Seniors were also one of the hardest hit groups with regards to Covid. Doubly so for those senioRs who avoided the vaccine.
Almost all of GOP's "reforms" for social security start with people 50 or 45 years old at their inception. It's a lot easier to get current reitrees to reduce benefits for future retirees if you assure them that their own benefits are safe. But I agree that SS/MC will still be around, even if the purchasing power of benefits erodes substantially. It's easier, and more conservative, to plan without SS, though, and retirement is so important that it makes sense to have safety factors at every step.