This whole thing designed to be misleading. No individual can collect a $100k benefit. They're getting this number by supposing a household where both spouses averaged at least $180k wages for at least 35 years each. In that case, you collect a maximum benefit of $50k, meaning Social Security is replacing less than a third of your wages.
Two things:
1. Even today, if you can't survive on 100k a year, you're not doing something right. You can. Two of you can. Hell 3 of us are living quite comfortably with a mortgage and me playing an insane amount of golf.
2. Anybody who has made 180k for the past 35 years and does not have a substantial nest egg to supplement that 100k from SS, doesn't deserve any further help. They obviously squandered their chance at comfortable retirement via terrible money management. Screw em.
Who said anything about needing further help or not being able to survive on $50k?
Social Security, like other employment based retirement schemes, is for everyone who works. Unlike 401ks, which lavish the rich with absurd subsidies, Social Security dramatically cuts wage replacement for the rich. The $50k here is a maximum amount that very few have enough contributions to collect. Is a $50k retirement income outrageous? I guess you can say whatever, but it doesn't seems so to me.
In terms of government programs that lavish excessive benefits on rich retirees, the 401k is the obviously more reasonable target. By all means, let's shore up Social Security's finances by cancelling the tax free status of large 401k balances. I can't think of a single reason why your argument doesn't apply far more to that. Who are the people with hundreds of thousands of dollars in retirement savings who can't support themselves without getting huge government subsidies on it? And these a subsidies that are actually designed to get LARGER the richer you are.
People lose or have to spend money for all kinds of reasons. Especially medical expenses but even if it’s something arguably stupid those dummies have family members who will end up having to support them or society will and in more costly ways. I know this is over 50k, but on top of that it’s weird to do this at that limit when the COL is twice as high in some cities as it is in the cheapest populated areas.
Also, it really is government’s favorite pastime to see how much they can shave off the middle class here and there while eliminating programs for the poor, all so they don’t do much to annoy billionaires because supposedly they’re the “job creators.”
Another recent article on Social Security. This one is very concise and well-framed:
Most Americans think Social Security is going broke. Is it?
We are told that Social Security is running out of money, facing bankruptcy, going broke. That language is figurative and imprecise, but many Americans take it literally.
Nearly two-thirds of us believe that when the much-feared Social Security shortfall arrives, around 2032, benefit payments will cease. That finding comes from a paper by researchers at UCLA and Cornell University, published in the April issue of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
But is Social Security really running out of money? Here are the facts:
PTO, parental leave, pensions: Even the most prized benefits are on the chopping block
Cuts to workplace perks came first. Paid time off may be next.
In the latest sign of employers flexing their power, at least two high-profile names are shrinking variations of the highly popular benefit. Zoom this year reduced the number of weeks of paid parental leave it offers, while Deloitte is also planning to do the same — and more — for select groups of workers starting in January.
The changes could be an early signal of a broader shift: In a tight labor market, even highly valued benefits may be on the chopping block. Workers have fewer options for job-hopping, and once a few marquee employers make bold moves, others may be inclined to follow.
"It legitimizes that action for everybody else," said former Google head of human resources Laszlo Bock, who now advises startup founders.
I don't know who Gary Shilling is, but he is not optimistic about our economic future:
Top economist Gary Shilling says a recession and a deep stock-market plunge are likely by year-end
Gary Shilling thinks there's almost nothing that can stop a US recession this year.
The legendary economist and Merrill Lynch alum laid out a grim outlook for markets and the economy in an interview with Business Insider this week. In his view, it's almost inevitable that the US will tip into a recession this year, given ongoing vulnerabilities in multiple areas of the economy.
He's also eyeing a big correction for stocks as valuations reach dizzying levels. Shilling said he believes the S&P 500 could end up tumbling by as much as 30%, with the bear-market decline potentially arriving by the end of the year.
Shilling said he believes the only things that could prevent a downturn at this point were a burst of fiscal stimulus or continued strength of the US consumer, both of which he thinks are unlikely.
He pointed to several signals suggesting the economy is on the verge of a downturn.
For one, the housing market remains largely frozen as markets expect interest rates to remain elevated. Despite a brief spike in existing home sales last year as mortgage rates dipped, buying activity has slowed significantly as rates have climbed higher in recent weeks.
Second, capital expenditures, a measure of investment by businesses into things like new hires and physical equipment, have collapsed across the private sector in recent years. While AI capex is booming, broader capex grew 3.9% at the end of last year, down from its peak of over 24% during the pandemic.
Consumer spending — which makes up around two-thirds of economic growth — has been a ballast for the US economy. Real personal consumption expenditures growth held steady at around a 2% yearly pace in March, but Shilling said it's likely that spending will decline in the next year, given ongoing pressures on consumers.
