Hacker News Reader

Comment by hnnewguy | Hacker News Reader

>the couple uses Washington state (where Paul’s brother lives) as their address for U.S. residential purposes because there’s no state income tax.

>Plus our benefits are grandfathered in if Congress screws around with Social Security.

>"But at least now, when we go to the United States, we have coverage and if we get sick, we won’t be devastated financially.”

Not sure how I feel about people taking advantage of safety net, while doing whatever they can to avoid contributing.

View on HN

Their safety net is not provided by Washington State.

They presumably worked the required number of quarters for their SS benefits, and played by the rules at the time.

but the rules don't work with people working for 10 years, and retiring for 60. of course this is not illegal, but such a life style choice would not be scalable.

It is playing by the rules but if everyone did it, the whole SS benefit scheme will collapse.

It appears that you are misunderstanding Social Security, and you may think that the US federal government plays by the same set of fiscal rules that a household, a corporation or a state has to use.

This article from the Washington Post can help: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/...

So you are saying what I said is not true?

I am. It sounds completely made up and has no references. I'm assuming it's based in "common sense."

Your level of benefit is based on the average of how much you made (adjusted for inflation) during your best 35 years.

Then why do we need to continue contributing after working past 10 year if we already maxed out?

That article doesn't actually counter what the OP says. In fact it ends by stating that SS is being more strained and giving diminishing returns as time passes by, which sounds disturbingly like a ponzi scheme. It's unsustainable by design even without free-riders, much less with min-maxers gaming the system to not put anything in.

I don't know why you think social security is necessarily unsustainable. It's been running a massive surplus since the 80s. Unfortunately it was borrowed from to finance wars in the middle east, but that's not a problem with social security.

http://www.accuracy.org/release/social-security-has-a-large-...

>It's been running a massive surplus since the 80s.

When the boomers were in their prime earning years, supporting a smaller, aged cohort.

>SS is being more strained

What article did you read this in?

>giving diminishing returns as time passes by

You mean that we're choosing to pay less to SS beneficiaries? SS is not an investment vehicle.

>It's unsustainable

It's entirely sustainable. What article are you referring to here?

Or the rules will change, which I think is more likely to happen. I don't think the couple is doing anything bad / unethical.

I seriously doubt that anywhere near "everyone" would do this. We're in absolutely no danger of most people not being wage slaves for life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com