Social Security. The senior voting bloc. 2024 general elections.

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (36 posts)
  1. tsmog profile image84
    tsmogposted 7 months ago

    Serendipity?

    Watching the news while having some knowledge of the foreseen Government shutdown it hit me like a brick falling out of the sky. On No! If that happens no Social Security check for me on the 3rd of Oct. Serendipity? Quickly doing a search it turns out they will go out. There is a FAQ on Congressman Dan Kildee’s website that dispelled myths I held.

    What a 2023 Government Shutdown Means for You
    https://dankildee.house.gov/governmentshutdown

    Soon after, checking my emails, I saw a notification from AARP. AARP membership is in the 38 million area or nearly half of seniors. It was an opportunity to watch/listen to a broadcast. It is; Conversations with Congress on the topic of Social Security. Serendipity? The opening paragraph is:

    “Timothy, last week AARP members got an exclusive look at two leading members of Congress’ plans for Social Security’s future challenges. If Congress doesn't act, Social Security could be cut by 20% in the next 10 years. This bipartisan conversation with Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Congressman John Larson (D-CT) was essential for our community and an opportunity to hear directly from lawmakers about the future of our hard-earned Social Security.”

    How many seniors do you speculate watched/listened to it?

    I listened to it while playing around on my PC learning this and that about Social Security’s future and other stuff.

    If interested in watching/listening to a little more than an hour video on the topic go to this link.
    https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social- … nbKWhrU%3d

    One interesting article I found is; As Republican contenders start to line up for the White House in 2024, Social Security may be key issue by CNBC (June 7, 2023) [About a 13 minute read. One could skim stopping here there too.]

    https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/07/where-2 … urity.html

    Some of what I learned:

    ** An average of 66 million Americans receive Social Security benefits each month
    ** This amounts to $1 trillion in benefits spent throughout the year.
    ** Social Security will face a funding shortfall around 2035
    ** That means benefits will be cut by about 20 percent if Congress does not act.
    ** The seniors voting block is the largest historically
    ** In the 2016 general election, 71% of Americans aged 65 and older turned out to vote.
    ** According to Pew Research, a third of the electorate was over 65 in 2022
    ** Republicans are against Social Security in the form that it currently exists. Warranted while considering today’s budget battle?
    ** Democrats support expanding Social Security. Same question as above.

    Any thoughts on how Social Security's current state and future will affect voting as a singular issue? Do voters vote on singular issues? Is it an emotional issue?

    Does it affect other demographics besides seniors? Do you think they are concerned?

    Thoughts?

    1. Nathanville profile image92
      Nathanvilleposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      In reading your intro I get the impression that in the USA the State Pension is part of Social Security benefits; and thus your concerns?

      In the UK State Pension is separate from Social Security (Welfare Benefits); and as such pensioners don’t have the same fears in the UK that pensioners in the USA may have e.g. in the UK we have the ‘Triple Lock’ on State Pensions.

      The Triple Lock was introduced by the Conservative Government in 2010 as a means of buying votes e.g. over 60% of pensioners vote Conservative, whereas less than 30% under the age of 25 vote Conservative.  So to the Conservatives, keeping pensioners happy is important in winning General Elections.

      The Triple Lock is whereby each year the State Pension is increased by whichever is the greater of the three criteria listed below:-

      •    2.5%
      •    The Rate of Inflation if higher than 2.5%
      •    The percentage rise in average wages, if higher than the rate of inflation.

      The current situation is that because last year’s inflation was 10%, and this year’s inflation is 7.5%, the UK Conservative Government are faced with a gigantic rise in public expenditure at time when Government borrowing is far too high, and the Government is looking at ways to reduce public expenditure.

      Therefore, in recent weeks the Conservative Government briefly contemplated in abolishing the ‘triple lock’; but both Labour and the Liberal Democrats quickly responded that they would keep the triple lock in their Election Manifesto for next year’s General Election; so the Conservatives have been backed into a corner, and have been forced to also keep the triple lock in their Election Manifesto.

      1. tsmog profile image84
        tsmogposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        "In reading your intro I get the impression that in the USA the State Pension is part of Social Security benefits; and thus your concerns?"

        Yes and no as to concern. There is no pension per se as many think of it from our government. Social Security is a benefit. A Q&A for it is at the next link.
        https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

        The purpose of the OP was to raise awareness that the future of Social Security benefits is threatened. Said, it will be insolvent by 2035 (13 more years). And, to 'some' facts surrounding the issue. My emphasis is that seniors are a very large voting bloc. Party positions and candidate positions are paramount in my eyes to know. In other words, it will impact the coming 2024 elections.

        The political parties are somewhat diametrically opposed to each other not only on funding it but on the principles themselves. In other words, socialism vs. free market. Many today prefer it to be funded by privatization.

        The surrounding elements are (From above):

        ** An average of 66 million Americans receive Social Security benefits each month
        ** This amounts to $1 trillion in benefits spent throughout the year.
        ** Social Security will face a funding shortfall around 2035
        ** That means benefits will be cut by about 20 percent if Congress does not act.
        ** The seniors voting block is the largest historically
        ** In the 2016 general election, 71% of Americans aged 65 and older turned out to vote.
        ** According to Pew Research, a third of the electorate was over 65 in 2022
        ** Republicans are against Social Security in the form that it currently exists. Warranted while considering today’s budget battle?
        ** Democrats support expanding Social Security. Same question as above.

        I got somewhat wordy writing it ha-ha wink I just felt like going on a writing adventure.

        1. Nathanville profile image92
          Nathanvilleposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          Thanks for your feedback, and link; I am amazed that there is “no state pension per se” in the USA, and that it’s only a Social Security benefit.

          State Pensions were introduced by the Liberal (Democrat) Government in the UK in 1908, and is separate from Social Security - currently in the UK State Pension accounts for 11.5% of all Government Expenditure; 5.3% of GDP.

          In the UK to qualify for the full State Pension you need to have been in full time employment (paying your taxes) for at least 35 years; if you only worked for between 10 & 35 years then you get a reduced State Pension on a pro-rata sliding scale.

          In the UK State Pensions, along with your works’ pension, is something workers can look forward to in retirement e.g. the combination of your work’s pension and State Pension helps to give you a good standard of living, and for some an income (in real terms) that is as high, if not higher, than the income they earned when they were working full time – making them even financial better off and more secure in their twilight years.

          While contemplating your comments about social security in the USA, and on reading your link (which was very educational); it struck me on how so recent Social Security was first introduce in America compared to the UK e.g. The Social Security Act 1935 in the USA, compared to the ‘Poor Laws’ introduced in Britain in the 16th century.

          In the UK the foundation of the Welfare State (Social Security) can be traced back to a series of Poor Laws introduced by Queen Elizabeth I, dating back to 1531 and accumulating in the Poor Act of 1552.

          Under the Elizabethan Poor Laws, local governments (Parishes) had a legal responsibility to provide relief to the poor residing in their Parish (area), provided the person was born in that Parish (location); and to pay for the cost of this social welfare the local government taxed the wealthy landowners.

          In doing my family research I came across an article that draws upon Parish (local government) records from 1686 to 1719 that shows the Poor Laws in action e.g. where the Parish of Pitminster, Somerset, England was saddled with having to support a single mother because she was born in that Parish, and because she repeatedly refused to say in court who the father(s) of her children was/were.  The reason her local government took her to court each time she had a child, being that if they knew who the father was then he would be made responsible for the cost of her welfare and the welfare of her children (assuming he wasn’t poor himself).

          I was given permission by the author of the article to post it on my website (link below), the events tells a story, giving a glimpse of life for the poor in Elizabethan Britain in the 16th century, which can make it an interesting read:-

          For example, a couple of extracts from the 1694 Parish Records:

          •    Paid out for a waistcoat and mittimas (summons) 2/- Paid to Richard HERRING's wife for keeping Sarah Brodbeare's two children and make one charge? 6/2d

          •    For her child. 1/6d. For beding. 5/6d. For linen and woolen. 3/6d

          And an entry in the Parish Records for 1699 reads “Layd out for a guard uppon Sarah Bradbeare and for carrying her to her justice to name a father to her child. 2/-”

          To add some relevance, 2/- (two shillings) quoted above, in today’s currency value would be the equivalent to about $34; and for the bedding 5/6d (5 shillings and 6 pence) in today’s money would be around $94.

          The Infamous Sarah Bradbeare (1664-1719) of Pitminster:  https://www.nathanville.uk/bradbeer/project-one-8t49z

          In 1832 the Whig Government (forerunner to the Liberals (Democrats)) abolished the ‘Poor Laws’ and created the Poor Houses (work houses for the poor), which were little more than effectively open prisons (in all but name) whereby the poor were work hard, under harsh conditions, for a mere pittance of food and shelter.

          By 1906 the Liberals had abolished the Poor House system and started to introduce Welfare reform (Social Welfare (Social Security)); the welfare system we enjoy today was introduced by Labour in 1948.

          1. tsmog profile image84
            tsmogposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            Interesting read, thanks!! I marvel how back in history the laws of England/Britain goes such as what your shared above. Of course ours only goes back 246 years the 18th century. Seems with the social welfare system we both have today began about the same time or era. I will have to look into what the modern thought was at that time. Probably liberal as President Roosevelt (FDR)  was a Democrat. Social Security has been controversial since. 

            Do you still keep up with your website? I had a blog, yet I only lasted a year and gave up; no time, no earnings, and lack of relevant information for topics in the sense of Search Engine Optimization and ranking high enough in the SERPs to be seen.

            I thought I should mention with our Social Security it is a tax sort of thing. It is called the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). Today, the employee pays 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2% for social security. For Medicare (The medical plan) it is 1.45% by both employee and employer. So, the total is 7.65% for both. That is why I said it is a benefit.

            As shared in my OP it is threatened today. Supposedly when 2035 arrives it will be insolvent. Supposedly there will be a 20% cut to benefits. Sixty-six million receive social security benefits. (Seniors = 84%, Social Security Disability Insurance recipients = 13% & young survivors = 3%) 1 in 6 are over 65 or over. It is said 40% rely solely on Social Security. The average benefit paid is $1,782.

            I imagine it will be an issue with a lot of seniors this coming election. The senior voting bloc is said to be the largest.

            Policy Basics: Top Ten Facts about Social Security by Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (Apr 17, 2023)
            https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-se … l-security

            1. Nathanville profile image92
              Nathanvilleposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              Thanks for such a comprehensive reply; it’s kept me busy trying to work out comparability between the USA & UK.

              Your Federal Insurance Contributions sounds very much like our National Insurance, which was introduced by the Labour Government in 1948 to pay for their comprehensive Welfare System that we enjoy to this day.

              In theory the National Insurance contributions is intended to cover the cost of the NHS, State Pensions and all other Welfare Benefits; but in practice all Government Revenue is put into one pot so National Insurance contributions and government money spent on Welfare don’t have to match.

              National Insurance is a tax on earnings, very much like the ‘income tax’, it’s even collected in the same way e.g. deducted from your wages by your employer before you get paid.

              The only real difference between the National Insurance tax and Income tax is that ‘income tax rate’ is higher in the higher tax brackets, whereas the National Insurance is the reverse e.g. people in the top tax bracket only pay 2% National Insurance on income in that tax bracket, whereas everyone else (earning less) pay 12% National Insurance on their earnings above the tax threshold.

              12% may sound a lot, compared to your 7.65% that you quoted; but that does also include the NHS e.g. healthcare in the UK is free to all at the point of use, and so in the UK we don’t have the cost and worry of paying for healthcare insurance, and we don’t have co-pays either (it’s all free, including prescriptions for most people).

              Another thing I noticed in reading your link is that in the USA “Social Security benefits are based on the earnings on which people pay Social Security payroll taxes.  The higher their earnings (up to a maximum taxable amount, $160,200 in 2023) the higher their benefit.”  That isn’t the case in the UK:

              In the UK the State Pension is a flat rate e.g. everyone gets the same amount, and everyone gets the same level of healthcare regardless etc.

              Looking at some specifics, the link quoted that “the average Social Security retirement benefit in (in the USA) is about $21,384 per year.”, but that you have to pay Medicare’s Supplementary Medical Insurance premiums which are deducted from your Social Security cheque.
              The full State Pension in the UK is a lot less, it’s only $14,000 per year; but as the healthcare is free, and coupled with all the other benefits that low income people would be entitled to, in the UK, for a pensioner $14,000 (tax free) is a liveable wage – then if you have a works pension on top of that you can have quite a high living standard.

              As stated above, the National Insurance tax in the UK is 12% (on earnings above the tax threshold), which for a worker on the average wage in the UK works out to around £194 ($235) per month; but that cost also includes the cost of the NHS, so there is no Healthcare Insurance to pay:  Out of interest, how much does Health Insurance cost in the USA?

              Thanks for the stats on number of Americans receiving Social Security, and percentage breakdown; I’m a little surprised that it’s only 66 million.  Looking on the UK Government website, in 2022 (excluding the NHS, but including State Pensions) 22.4 million people in Britain claimed Welfare benefits of some sort (about a third of the British population); of which 12.7 million were State Pension, and 9.1 million of working age claiming some form of benefit that year.

              Gathering info from different government sources, and doing a few maths calculations; I compiled the following list showing Government Expenditure on various Social and Welfare benefits, and including the NHS, as follows:-

              •    NHS = 40.9%
              •    State Pensions    = 25%
              •    Income support benefits (for low wage earners) = 10.3%
              •    Disability benefits = 9.9%
              •    Housing benefits (for people who can’t afford to pay their own rent) = 5.6%
              •    Unemployment benefits = 0.4%
              •    Other benefits = 7.9%

              1. tsmog profile image84
                tsmogposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                First, for social security w/medicare the full retirement age is 66 if you were born from 1943 to 1954. The full retirement age increases gradually if you were born from 1955 to 1960 until it reaches 67. For anyone born in 1960 or later, full retirement benefits are payable at age 67. There is a segment of politicians (Conservatives) that want it increased to 69 because it supposedly will be insolvent in 2035.

                Next, Medicare is offered at the time you qualify for social security benefits. Medicare is deducted from the Social Security benefit. Currently it is $164.90. It can change from year to year. On that note, Social Security does have Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) reviewed annually.

                Then, there are what is known as Parts for Medicare. There are four. You mentioned an additional option with Medicare’s Supplementary Medical Insurance also known as Medigap. That is used with Part B Medicare insurance. It is completely optional.

                People who obtain Part C - Medicare Advantage Plan, have no need for Medigap while it is not an option. Also, Medigap is not available to people who are not on Medicare or Social Security. In other words, the younger ones need to obtain a private insurance carrier. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandates obtaining health insurance.   

                A simple-to-read table of the costs surrounding medicare options (Parts) is at the next link:

                Costs by Medicare.gov
                https://www.medicare.gov/basics/costs/medicare-costs

                For what is covered by each part is a short read, Parts of Medicare at the link next. It is also from Medicare.gov.
                https://www.medicare.gov/basics/get-sta … f-medicare

                Approximately 16% of the population are seniors receiving Social Security benefits. 4% are disabled under 65 receive Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). Once a disabled person turns the age to receive benefits in the retirement sense they are converted. 2% are others receiving Social Security benefits.

                1. Nathanville profile image92
                  Nathanvilleposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  Wow, healthcare in retirement in America (by British standards) look expensive.

                  Thanks for the two links; I found the first link confusing because in Britain we just don’t have any of that e.g. all healthcare in the UK is 100% free, including prescriptions (drugs) and there is no co-payments; so we’ve got none of the bureaucracy e.g. if you feel ill you see your doctor, your doctor treats you, and that’s it – no paperwork, no forms, no money to pay.

                  I noticed in the first link there are lots of expensive deductibles, which must surely eat into your pension if you need medical care?

                  The second link made a lot more sense, and seems simple enough e.g. Part A covers Hospital, Part B covers all other medical care, and Part D covers prescriptions.  Since my three weeks stint in hospital in 2020, when I was rushed to hospital in an NHS ambulance I’ve used a lot of what’s covered by Part B, and initially had a lot of prescriptions, while I was making a full recovery – and it didn’t cost me a penny.  I’d dread to think how much it would have cost me if I had to pay for it; it certainly would have eaten into my pension.

                  Like your Social Security, which has a cost of living adjustment and reviewed annually, in the UK welfare benefits are automatically increased annually in line with inflation; except State Pensions, which have the triple lock (as previously explained) so that State Pension increases is usually higher than inflation. 

                  Your figures for the USA in your last paragraph are remarkably similar to the UK:-

                  •    In USA 16% of population are seniors receiving Social Security – In the UK its 18.6% of the population who are over the age of 65.

                  •    4% of population in USA are on disablement benefits; which is the identical percentage for the UK.

                  Also, the gradually rise in retirement age in the USA mirrors the UK; although the political reasons for increasing the state retirement age may differ. 

                  State Pension age in the UK rose from 65 to 66 in 2018.  Currently in the UK the State Retirement age for those born 1960 is 66; for people born after 1960 there will be a phased increase in State Pension age to 67 from 2026, and eventually 68 - precise timing of the increase to 68 will be determined by longevity (increase in life expectancy).  The only reason the State Retirement age is gradually being increased in the UK is because of an ageing population e.g. people are living longer, and there are fewer births.

                  1. tsmog profile image84
                    tsmogposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    Howdy! Yes, most definitely the UK with HMS is much simpler. Thus far, I have only been sharing about Medicare for seniors. Not, anything about the private insurance companies for the working folk. However, the working folk use a private insurance company and do not deal with all the different Parts used by Medicare. Only us old folk are thrown curve balls. wink Maybe?

                    You mentioned Medicare Part A, Part B, and Part D. There is another, Part C. I have a Part C policy. (See last link for info on Part C while comparing to Part A & Part B - long read) That is through a private insurance company. It costs the same as Part B does in most cases and is deducted from your Social Security payment the same as Part B.

                    Most if not all are a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) policy. (See the second link for that) It uses medical groups for the services. Currently, my medical group is Scripps Heath (See first link following). They are a rather large medical corporation covering all of San Diego county. They have their own hospitals for instance.

                    However, some people elect a PPO plan. That is a Preferred Provider Organization. You can use out-of-network doctors on this policy. For some, they have no choice if a medical group is not available. There is an additional cost. See the third link for that.

                    Scripps Medical Groups (you can explore the different medical groups covering different areas of the county, yet basic services are the same)
                    https://www.scripps.org/medical-groups

                    Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) by Medicare.gov - a short read
                    https://www.medicare.gov/health-drug-pl … ptions/HMO

                    Preferred Provider Organizations by Medicare.gov - a short read
                    https://www.medicare.gov/health-drug-pl … ptions/PPO

                    Understanding Medicare Advantage Plans by Medicare.gov - It is a PDF document and a very lengthy read. But, the table of contents is linked to their section.
                    https://www.medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/12026 … -Plans.pdf

            2. Nathanville profile image92
              Nathanvilleposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              In reply to your question “Do you still keep up with your website?”

              I haven’t much with it for a few years because I’ve been busy/preoccupied on other tasks; but it is my genealogy/family history website, and I do still have a lot of family documents to transcribe to the website, and there is still more family research I want to do when I get the time: 

              So I am planning to get back to working on my website in the near future; perhaps over the winter months when there is little to do in the garden.

              Obviously I don’t make any money from it, because it’s not that sort of website (no advertising on it); but it does provide contacts with others doing similar research, and even the BBC contacted me through my website a few years ago because I had family documentation that they were interested in borrowing for part of a documentary series they were making called (A House Through Time).  In exchange for me lending them the documentation for the episode they gave me and my family a private tour of the house in Bristol that they were featuring: 10 Guinea Street (it made for a nice family day trip out).

    2. Sharlee01 profile image79
      Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

      The current state and future outlook of Social Security undeniably hold significant implications for voting behavior as a singular issue, in my view. SS, as a cornerstone of the U.S. social safety net, is a vital concern for millions of Americans, particularly seniors and individuals with disabilities.

      As the population ages and the program's financial challenges loom, I do feel voters increasingly scrutinize candidates' stances on SS, more so than ever.   The program's solvency and sustainability become central campaign themes,  and most likely does influence voters' decisions.

        Moreover, Social Security's future impacts younger generations, making it a cross-generational concern. The perception of whether candidates prioritize bolstering SS or propose reforms, like raising the retirement age or adjusting benefit calculations, can certainly sway voters.  Therefore, the trajectory of Social Security's funding and policy decisions is likely to remain a pivotal factor in shaping voter preferences and could drive policy debates and political platforms for years to come.

      Just my view, voters do not always vote solely on singular issues, as their decision-making process can be influenced by a variety of factors. While some individuals may prioritize a specific issue that aligns with their values or interests, many voters consider a combination of factors when casting their ballots. These factors can include a candidate's overall platform, party affiliation, leadership qualities, and perception of how a candidate will address a range of issues.

      I feel emotions can also play a significant role in the voting process. Voters may be emotionally attached to certain issues that deeply affect them or their communities, and this emotional connection can totally influence their decision-making. Additionally, candidates often aim to evoke emotional responses from voters through their campaign messaging and speeches, hoping to connect on a personal level and garner support.

      While singular issues can be important to some voters, I feel the decision to vote is typically influenced by a complex interplay of factors, including emotional considerations and a candidate's overall platform.

      1. tsmog profile image84
        tsmogposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Thank you Sharlee for the contribution to the OP, which for me is important. By that, I mean both the size and importance of the senior voting bloc and what is happening with Social Security today. Next, I addressed what to me stood out paragraph by paragraph with what you shared.

        Okay, the statement that 66 million receive social security benefits is somewhat misleading. It is verifiable that seniors are 84% of that. So, that means the seniors are 55.4 million. That is the senior voting bloc, though we don’t know how many participate in the voting process.
         
        ********************
        “ . . . I do feel voters increasingly scrutinize candidates' stances on SS . . .”. Most likely, yet is it up in the air kind of thing? We know the Democrats seek to protect it as it is today if not expand it.

        At the next link is the article by Yahoo Finance; These GOP candidates want to trim Social Security for younger Americans. They disagree how. There is a graphic near the beginning of the article for the stance of all the Republican candidates for Social Security.
        https://finance.yahoo.com/news/these-go … 46915.html

        ********************
        “Moreover, Social Security's future impacts younger generations”. That point is well taken! However, is it a concern? How many, today, care?
        From Pew Research, we learn “Among those who are not retired, about four-in-ten (42%) doubt they will receive any Social Security benefits when they leave the workforce, while an additional 42% say benefits will be provided but at a reduced level.”

        We already have been told or hinted that there will be a 20% cut to social security benefits in 2035 due to predicted insolvency. The year 2035 arrives in 12 years. That means a potential cut will affect 50 million baby boomers and Gen X who are not eligible for Social Security today but will be eligible or collecting it in 2035.

        Will that affect how they vote?

        ********************
        “Just my view, voters do not always vote solely on singular issues . . .”. Agreed! But, the reality is there is a large enough percentage that it impacts elections Five examples are inflation/economy, abortion, climate change, race relations, and gun rights.

        ********************
        Yup, emotions are a biggie when it comes to singular issues, isn’t it? Article after article has been written about the impact of emotions on voting behavior. There has been study after study on the topic.

        Some were compare/contrasted with emotion vs. rationality. However, one study supports your view, which BTW I agree with. It states, “However, this study suggests that rationality plays a more important and consistent role in individual turnout decision than emotion because the effect of emotion on turnout might be built on the appearance of charismatic candidates.”

  2. tsmog profile image84
    tsmogposted 7 months ago

    We know the two leading candidates are definitely seniors. They also are voters. Is there a relationship between the senior voting bloc and senior candidates?

    How older voters feel about voting for older presidents by NPR/KPBS on Sept 24, 2023. Caution: A quite lengthy read. However, it is interviews with senior voters. Maybe worth a skim here and there to get a pulse on their feelings.
    https://www.npr.org/2023/09/24/12014229 … presidents

    And, for more, at the next link is an article about voting for a senior. There is a 1:45 min video with Christian Fong, assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan speaking about if voters care about candidates' age. Plus, the article itself adds to that.

    Do voters care about politicians’ ages? by Michigan News of the University of Michigan (Sept. 29, 2023)
    https://news.umich.edu/do-voters-care-a … ians-ages/

  3. Kathleen Cochran profile image77
    Kathleen Cochranposted 6 months ago

    My three 30-something children are not making their retirement plans even considering social security. They assume it will be gone by the time they would have needed it.

    I think they will be OK. Besides what they inherit from their parents, they are all making more than $100K/per year plus 401K matches, are buying $400K houses, and have fewer children than we did.

    If we could send three kids to college on incomes of no more than $70K/per year and borrowing against a $150K house, then they should be able to send two fairly easily. By retirement, without SS, they should be - as we say in the South - "standing in tall cotton"!

    1. tsmog profile image84
      tsmogposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      I am happy to hear about the status your children have. Many aren't that fortunate. I wasn't. Hopefully, my nieces and nephews will have a good shot at the 'American dream'.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)