I am not an expert, but believe I have recently (re)learned that gifting stock while you are alive means the recipients pay taxes with your original basis (probably a pretty low value), so they pay more in taxes when then “cash out”. If you wait and let them inherit after your death, then the basis is set at the date of inheritance, which is usually much higher, so less taxes are due if/when they cash out under that scenario.

I presume each donor’s situation and expectations or desires are different, so either or both paths might be justified in some cases.

Again, I find it hard to understand why we are not seeing more discussions of the cross generational impact of current well off seniors as SS recipients not doing more to save the system for their (or other’s?) grandchildren. I guess too many seniors still don’t understand SS is not an insurance or IRA type program, but an overly generous welfare one.

The little thinking I have done on this suggests some form of investment goals geared to lower risk as the saver ages. So early on they are heavy into riskier growth, mid career a balanced goal, and near retirement a wealth preservation plan.
One concern about this is the banking and investment/ financial firms salivating at all that money under their control, thus the need for careful regulation for this portion of a saver’s portfolio. But if an older saver has been forced to allocate (say) 80% of his 12% wage income into a conservative IRA type situation, nothing keeps us from treating this 12% as the core foundation for retirement money, with any extra above that invested more aggressively if the saver feels so inclined and judges market conditions warrant that approach.

It is clear several people here have a much better handle on such thinking than I do, so I welcome alternative ideas or clarifications about possible issues I have not mentioned above.
That could include more ideas about just how we transition from the current scheme to this “mandated” one, possibly based on age cohort fractional allocation/ sharing, or whatever ???

It’s basically a case of musical chairs…everyone knows that the music’s going to stop eventually and they’re deathly afraid that they’ll be the one looking around while everyone else is sitting.

I’m the same way. I’m rapidly approaching retirement age. I’ve been putting money into retirement plans for a long time now, under the expectation that Social Security would eventually go away or at least be radically altered…but I’ve been waiting for that my entire adult life and, in the meantime, I’ve been paying my social security taxes every month for going on 50 years now.

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to never get a penny from the program but that’s a hard pill to swallow considering how much I’ve paid for the well-being of the retirees that have gone before me all my life, to not get the same consideration when I age out of the workforce would be…um…disappointing.

I agree that it’s unsustainable, and I’d love to see it phased out for the good of the country, but if it happens, it will hurt me personally. Not life threateningly, but it will hurt.

For those already collecting checks and depending on them, I’m sure the prospect of it going away terrifies them, so the argument carries water.

Oh…but the Republicans say they aren’t going to end Social Security, just eliminate the fraud and waste…because everyone knows how much faith you can put in what a politician says right?

Not saying they’re right and I actually that something’s going to have to give or the whole house of cards is going to come down all at once…which is an even scarier prospect to me; but I imagine the terror that someone who depends on that check coming in every month for their survival would feel at the prospect of being cut off. I would imagine that even being told there’s a possibility of it happening would carry a lot of weight.

It’s never been 15%. It’s been at most 12.4%, Maybe you are throwing in Medicare taxes; employee + employer portion is 2.9%, which would make SS and Medicare together 15.3%.

Unfortunately, they found out that because they didn’t pay much into SS, they won’t be getting much back: only about $700 per month. They thought they were beating the system, but it turned out they beat themselves.

Only if they wasted the money instead of using it to save for retirement. If they saved it themselves they could be getting a lot more than the difference in the SS checks.

I don’t think the government has any business taking away dumb choices from adults, though. Plenty of people disagree and think we should put ourselves in the hands of our betters, though.

I agree with about half of that. If the “employer” portion were abolished tomorrow, higher wages would probably capture some of it, but not all. Would depend on how tight the labor market was.

Easy to see why. The employee may say, hey, raise my wages 6.2%, it costs you nothing. The employer says, I want to keep your wages the same, it’s not like you’re losing out. The win-win position is a compromise between the extremes: the employee gets more and the employer spends less.

Unfortunately, they found out that because they didn’t pay much into SS, they won’t be getting much back: only about $700 per month. They thought they were beating the system, but it turned out they beat themselves.

You get what you pay for.