Assuming no other retirement funds: if you earned $200,000/yr you’ll get ~$4000/mo (+/- a good bit depending on the age you retire), if you earn $50,000/yr you’ll get less than half that. $4000/mo isn’t awful, but rent will soak up half that unless you live someplace crappy and/or in the middle of nowhere.
$1500 month is poverty. Period.
Social programs in the US suck, if they even exist at all, due to decades of demonization by the right and budget cuts thanks to reduced tax revenue because we have to let the rich hoard more of everything.
Note, the max you need to earn to receive the top SS benefit is $176,100 in 2025 (it increases a bit in 2026). So the person earning $176,100 and the person receiving $200,000 get the same social security benefit.
you’ll get ~$4000/mo
That’s true if you retire at Full Retirement age (which is 67 years old for nearly all of us on Lemmy). If you delay taking your SS benefit until 70 years old the benefit would be $5100/month. If you take the SS benefit before Full Retirement age at 62 you would only get about $2800/month. To your point, all of these numbers are for that top earner of $176,100. Benefits are reduced for lower working year incomes.
$1500 month is poverty. Period.
$1500/month doesn’t meet the federal definition of poverty for an individual, but I agree with you in spirit. However, for a married couple thats $3k/month, thats $36,000/year. Social Security benefits are taxed, but that income would have them in the low 12% tax bracket. Rent/mortgage (largest portion of spending) doesn’t double for two people. That could provide an okay modest retirement in a LCOL area.
Social Security was never designed to be the only income in retirement. It was one of the legs of the “3 legged stool” meaning Social Security, pension, and savings. Few jobs these days have a traditional pension, but that leg is replace with the 401k/403b/IRA/TSP. Those going into retirement with just Social Security won’t die from exposure to the elements, but it will be a very basic and minimal lifestyle.
And I gave those age ranges filling out your example, for those reading your mostly good post that care for the additional details. If you don’t care feel free to ignore them, they’re not for you, they’re for the person you’re responding to where I felt your answer was a bit incomplete, but not wrong.
$1,500 a month is poverty, federal definitions be damned.
And I said I agree with you in spirit.
I appreciate the tuneup, but in no way was anything I said incorrect and pedantry was unwarranted.
Calm down, I’m not attacking you or saying you’re wrong. I’m adding additional context and details mostly supporting your argument.
I imagine the big difference is that most Europeans that retire don’t have to then figure out how to pay for medical care and medication that they require to keep living.
Yes, but they do have to figure out how to pay for elderly care, which is also extremely expensive and the existing insurances for that are quite inadequate.
yeah in europe you eat a bit less food. in the us you just alternate taking your daily medications and skip the occasional surgery. its all kinda the same.
What age do your retirement systems pay out? For example, in the US the $50,000 earner will only get ~$1400/mo if they take SS at 62, and if they wait until 70 they’ll get ~$2500/mo. Really forcing people to work until they can’t, and I guess hopefully die soon so they don’t take too many payments. Again, assuming no other retirement savings.
Depends on the country, but typically 65-67 and if you take it earlier it also comes with a significant reduction. So all in all it seems pretty comparable.
Of course people here also complain about this as insufficient, but the reality is that even this amount is not sustainable due to demographic changes and people living significantly longer.
I think there needs to be some sort of radical rethinking on how we sustain an elderly population. The existing systems that are based on bygone demografic assumptions clearly can’t work any longer.
IDK what the solution is. Pay more into it over time? Problem is cost of living accelerates faster than the value of the SS payment. And yeah, people live longer too…if they’re lucky.
as people mention its not much and to boot medicare the old persons universal heatlhcare is expensive (global comparison but cheap by us standards) and its costs can suck up what people get easily.
Don’t you all pay into Social Security?
Isn’t that the mandatory retirement savings system in the US?
Social Security is a joke and a pittance.
Assuming no other retirement funds: if you earned $200,000/yr you’ll get ~$4000/mo (+/- a good bit depending on the age you retire), if you earn $50,000/yr you’ll get less than half that. $4000/mo isn’t awful, but rent will soak up half that unless you live someplace crappy and/or in the middle of nowhere.
$1500 month is poverty. Period.
Social programs in the US suck, if they even exist at all, due to decades of demonization by the right and budget cuts thanks to reduced tax revenue because we have to let the rich hoard more of everything.
Note, the max you need to earn to receive the top SS benefit is $176,100 in 2025 (it increases a bit in 2026). So the person earning $176,100 and the person receiving $200,000 get the same social security benefit.
That’s true if you retire at Full Retirement age (which is 67 years old for nearly all of us on Lemmy). If you delay taking your SS benefit until 70 years old the benefit would be $5100/month. If you take the SS benefit before Full Retirement age at 62 you would only get about $2800/month. To your point, all of these numbers are for that top earner of $176,100. Benefits are reduced for lower working year incomes.
$1500/month doesn’t meet the federal definition of poverty for an individual, but I agree with you in spirit. However, for a married couple thats $3k/month, thats $36,000/year. Social Security benefits are taxed, but that income would have them in the low 12% tax bracket. Rent/mortgage (largest portion of spending) doesn’t double for two people. That could provide an okay modest retirement in a LCOL area.
Social Security was never designed to be the only income in retirement. It was one of the legs of the “3 legged stool” meaning Social Security, pension, and savings. Few jobs these days have a traditional pension, but that leg is replace with the 401k/403b/IRA/TSP. Those going into retirement with just Social Security won’t die from exposure to the elements, but it will be a very basic and minimal lifestyle.
I used the social security ssa.gov calculator.
I used ”~” to denote approximations, the approximations were due to differences in age of retirement and income.
I noted there were age ranges.
I specifically stated “assuming no other retirement funds.”
$1,500 a month is poverty, federal definitions be damned.
I appreciate the tuneup, but in no way was anything I said incorrect and pedantry was unwarranted.
And I gave those age ranges filling out your example, for those reading your mostly good post that care for the additional details. If you don’t care feel free to ignore them, they’re not for you, they’re for the person you’re responding to where I felt your answer was a bit incomplete, but not wrong.
And I said I agree with you in spirit.
Calm down, I’m not attacking you or saying you’re wrong. I’m adding additional context and details mostly supporting your argument.
That… actually sounds a lot better than I expected. Not too far off other retirement systems in Europe money wise 🤷
I imagine the big difference is that most Europeans that retire don’t have to then figure out how to pay for medical care and medication that they require to keep living.
Yes, but they do have to figure out how to pay for elderly care, which is also extremely expensive and the existing insurances for that are quite inadequate.
US you get comparatively low cost food and housing, but you have to pay for medical care.
You win some you lose some.
Also, in the US you have to eat US food.
yeah in europe you eat a bit less food. in the us you just alternate taking your daily medications and skip the occasional surgery. its all kinda the same.
Food sure, but low cost housing? Maybe a long time ago, but certainly not now.
Depends on where in Europe. Dutch housing is comparatively affordable, British? Irish? It’s worse then the US.
In general, Europeans have it worse for housing than the average American.
What age do your retirement systems pay out? For example, in the US the $50,000 earner will only get ~$1400/mo if they take SS at 62, and if they wait until 70 they’ll get ~$2500/mo. Really forcing people to work until they can’t, and I guess hopefully die soon so they don’t take too many payments. Again, assuming no other retirement savings.
Depends on the country, but typically 65-67 and if you take it earlier it also comes with a significant reduction. So all in all it seems pretty comparable.
Of course people here also complain about this as insufficient, but the reality is that even this amount is not sustainable due to demographic changes and people living significantly longer.
I think there needs to be some sort of radical rethinking on how we sustain an elderly population. The existing systems that are based on bygone demografic assumptions clearly can’t work any longer.
IDK what the solution is. Pay more into it over time? Problem is cost of living accelerates faster than the value of the SS payment. And yeah, people live longer too…if they’re lucky.
Not one you can live off of.
as people mention its not much and to boot medicare the old persons universal heatlhcare is expensive (global comparison but cheap by us standards) and its costs can suck up what people get easily.