Why Dave Ramsey Thinks Social Security Is a ‘Mess' — And What You Can Do About It
In a recent blog post on Ramsey Solutions, the personal finance expert didn't hold back, calling the system a 'mess' and urging Americans to take their retirement planning into their own hands. With growing uncertainty around the program's long-term stability, many are left wondering what role Social Security will realistically play in their future.
Be Aware:
Find Out:
Here's why Ramsey believes Social Security is falling short and what experts say you can do to stay ahead.
Social Security was never meant to fully fund retirement. It was designed as a supplement, not a safety net you can live off entirely. But according to a survey conducted by The Senior Citizens League, 27% of seniors have only Social Security benefits as income.
The Social Security Trustees Report projects that the combined Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) trust funds to be depleted in 2035. If nothing changes, this could result in a 17% benefit cut in 2035.
Ramsey pointed to this looming shortfall as just one sign that the system is in trouble. He argued that the imbalance between the number of workers paying into the system and the number of retirees drawing from it is unsustainable. With people living longer and fewer workers supporting more retirees, the math doesn't add up.
Read Next:
Given these challenges, Ramsey advises individuals to take personal responsibility for their financial futures. He recommends building retirement savings through consistent investing and not relying solely on Social Security.
Robert R. Johnson, Ph.D., CFA, CAIA, professor of finance at Heider College of Business at Creighton University, doesn't agree with everything Ramsey recommends, but agrees on the importance of building retirement savings.
'Planning so that Social Security benefits can be considered the 'dessert' of your retirement spending is very prudent,' Johnson said. 'One certainly wants to err on the side of accumulating more wealth than less when it comes to your retirement nest egg.'
To avoid over-relying on Social Security, here are some strategies to consider.
'The earlier you start saving for retirement, the more time your money has to grow through compound interest,' said Jake Falcon, founder and CEO at Falcon Wealth Advisors.
He suggested contributing regularly to tax-advantaged retirement accounts, such as 401(k) plans, IRAs or Roth IRAs, as well as a health savings account (HSA), which can be used for medical expenses.
Take advantage of employer matching contributions to your retirement plan.
'This is essentially free money that can significantly boost your savings,' Falcon explained. 'I can't stress this enough: If your employer offers a benefit this lucrative, you almost can't afford not to take it.'
A diversified investment portfolio can help you better manage risk and provide more stable returns over time.
'Consider a mix of stocks, bonds, real estate and other assets to mitigate risk,' Falcon explained. 'Most importantly, you want to make sure your investments are lined up with your financial plan.'
Consider adding additional sources of income, such as rental properties, dividends from investments or part-time work in retirement.
'Many retirees are still earning some sort of wage. It can be a great to stay active, as well,' Falcon added.
Healthcare costs can be a significant expense in retirement.
'Consider what your plan for long-term care is and leverage health savings accounts to cover potential medical costs,' Falcon said.
'Life circumstances and financial markets change, so it's important to review your retirement plan regularly and make adjustments as needed,' Falcon explained. 'I would not make adjustments based on market fluctuations — instead, adjust your plan when your life changes.'
More From GOBankingRates
6 Used Luxury SUVs That Are a Good Investment for Retirees
7 Tax Loopholes the Rich Use To Pay Less and Build More Wealth
7 Overpriced Grocery Items Frugal People Should Quit Buying in 2025
How Much Money Is Needed To Be Considered Middle Class in Every State?
This article originally appeared on GOBankingRates.com: Why Dave Ramsey Thinks Social Security Is a 'Mess' — And What You Can Do About It
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
More Indy seniors seek rental flexibility
Roughly 13.5% of Indianapolis area renters were 65 or older in 2023, up from 8.9% a decade earlier, according to a report by rental listing site Point2Homes. The big picture: More older Americans trading home ownership for flexibility coincides with a larger embrace of micro-living, a trend taking off in Central Indiana as people seek a "less is more" lifestyle. State of play: Many older adults are on fixed incomes and stay in their homes because they're mortgage-free or have a low interest rate. But others are renting for less upkeep, to be closer to family or for walkable neighborhoods. More Indy seniors are also postponing retirement and want the flexibility to move for a job. Between the lines:" Active adult" rental communities (think: resort pools and yoga gardens) are expanding quickly as a lower-cost option for those who want to downsize but don't need traditional independent living services, according to the National Investment Center for Seniors Housing & Care. Zoom in: Hamilton County, in particular, is leaning into such developments to attract the state's rapidly aging population to active adult communities in Noblesville, Westfield and Fishers. During this week's Carmel City Council meeting, details were unveiled for an $88 million development on Old Meridian Street that would add 200 apartments for seniors and a new park dedicated to veterans. By the numbers: Nationwide, the share of renters 65 or older rose to 13.4% in 2023, up from 10.4% in 2013. That age group saw the biggest jump of any, researchers found. Just two of 75 major U.S. metro areas posted a decline in the share of renters over 65. Reality check: People ages 25-34 are still the most likely to lease, representing around 27% of U.S. renters, per the report, which looked at Census Bureau data.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Georgia electricity costs rise amid data center boom
Electricity costs are rising in Georgia and across the country — and could get even higher for some amid the explosion in data centers powering AI and more. Why it matters: Surging power bills could further stress many Americans' budgets as pretty much everything else gets more expensive, too. By the numbers: Georgia's average retail residential price for 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity rose from 14.93 cents to 15 cents between May 2024 and May 2025, per the latest available data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a gain of about 0.5%. That statistic includes all utilities, not just Georgia Power, which provides electricity to 2.8 million ratepayers, mostly in metro Atlanta. Context: Georgia Power residential customers using more than 1,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity are paying roughly $43 more monthly to turn on their lights compared with 2023, Georgia Recorder reports. That increase has helped pay for Plant Vogtle's two new over-budget nuclear reactors and fuel costs. Add a July with record-high temperatures and it becomes clearer why some customers saw their electricity bills double or triple. Caveat: In July, the Georgia Public Service Commission approved a plan to keep Georgia Power rates stable through 2028. However, the utility next year will ask the regulators to pass clean-up costs related to Hurricane Helene and other storms on to customers. Zoom in: Georgia Power wants to add 9,000 megawatts of capacity by 2031 to handle a (potentially overestimated) data center boom, according to Georgia Recorder. 80% of that new electricity would be consumed by data centers and generated mostly using fossil fuels. The intrigue: In January, the PSC approved a rule change that the utility regulator says would protect residential ratepayers from surges in demand from data centers. A bill to codify that policy, which consumer advocates say could provide ratepayers with greater protections, passed out of committee during the most recent Georgia General Assembly but did not receive a full vote. The bottom line: Many of us are paying for the AI boom, whether we use the tech or not.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Say farewell to the AI bubble, and get ready for the crash
Most people not deeply involved in the artificial intelligence frenzy may not have noticed, but perceptions of AI's relentless march toward becoming more intelligent than humans, even becoming a threat to humanity, came to a screeching halt Aug. 7. That was the day when the most widely followed AI company, OpenAI, released GPT-5, an advanced product that the firm had long promised would put competitors to shame and launch a new revolution in this purportedly revolutionary technology. As it happened, GPT-5 was a bust. It turned out to be less user-friendly and in many ways less capable than its predecessors in OpenAI's arsenal. It made the same sort of risible errors in answering users' prompts, was no better in math (or even worse), and not at all the advance that OpenAI and its chief executive, Sam Altman, had been talking up. 'The thought was that this growth would be exponential,' says Alex Hanna, a technology critic and co-author (with Emily M. Bender of the University of Washington) of the indispensable new book 'The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech's Hype and Create the Future We Want.' 'Instead, Hanna says, 'We're hitting a wall.' The consequences go beyond how so many business leaders and ordinary Americans have been led to expect, even fear, the penetration of AI into our lives. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested by venture capitalists and major corporations such as Google, Amazon and Microsoft in OpenAI and its multitude of fellow AI labs, even though none of the AI labs has turned a profit. Public companies have scurried to announce AI investments or claim AI capabilities for their products in the hope of turbocharging their share prices, much as an earlier generation of businesses promoted themselves as 'dot-coms' in the 1990s to look more glittery in investors' eyes. Nvidia, the maker of a high-powered chip powering AI research, plays almost the same role as a stock market leader that Intel Corp., another chip-maker, played in the 1990s — helping to prop up the bull market in equities. If the promise of AI turns out to be as much of a mirage as dot-coms did, stock investors may face a painful reckoning. The cheerless rollout of GPT-5 could bring the day of reckoning closer. 'AI companies are really buoying the American economy right now, and it's looking very bubble-shaped,' Hanna told me. The rollout was so disappointing that it shined a spotlight on the degree that the whole AI industry has been dependent on hype. Here's Altman, speaking just before the unveiling of GPT-5, comparing it with its immediate predecessor, GPT-4o: 'GPT-4o maybe it was like talking to a college student,' he said. 'With GPT-5 now it's like talking to an expert — a legitimate PhD-level expert in anything any area you need on demand ... whatever your goals are.' Well, not so much. When one user asked it to produce a map of the U.S. with all the states labeled, GPT-5 extruded a fantasyland, including states such as Tonnessee, Mississipo and West Wigina. Another prompted the model for a list of the first 12 presidents, with names and pictures. It only came up with nine, including presidents Gearge Washington, John Quincy Adama and Thomason Jefferson. Experienced users of the new version's predecessor models were appalled, not least by OpenAI's decision to shut down access to its older versions and force users to rely on the new one. 'GPT5 is horrible,' wrote a user on Reddit. 'Short replies that are insufficient, more obnoxious ai stylized talking, less 'personality' … and we don't have the option to just use other models.' (OpenAI quickly relented, reopening access to the older versions.) The tech media was also unimpressed. 'A bit of a dud,' judged the website Futurism and Ars Technica termed the rollout 'a big mess.' I asked OpenAI to comment on the dismal public reaction to GPT-5, but didn't hear back. None of this means that the hype machine underpinning most public expectations of AI has taken a breather. Rather, it remains in overdrive. A projection of AI's development over the coming years published by something called the AI Futures Project under the title 'AI 2027' states: 'We predict that the impact of superhuman AI over the next decade will be enormous, exceeding that of the Industrial Revolution.' The rest of the document, mapping a course to late 2027 when an AI agent 'finally understands its own cognition,' is so loopily over the top that I wondered whether it wasn't meant as a parody of excessive AI hype. I asked its creators if that was so, but haven't received a reply. One problem underscored by GPT-5's underwhelming rollout is that it exploded one of the most cherished principles of the AI world, which is that 'scaling up' — endowing the technology with more computing power and more data — would bring the grail of artificial general intelligence, or AGI, ever closer to reality. That's the principle undergirding the AI industry's vast expenditures on data centers and high-performance chips. The demand for more data and more data-crunching capabilities will require about $3 trillion in capital just by 2028, in the estimation of Morgan Stanley. That would outstrip the capacity of the global credit and derivative securities markets. But if AI won't scale up, most if not all that money will be wasted. As Bender and Hanna point out in their book, AI promoters have kept investors and followers enthralled by relying on a vague public understanding of the term 'intelligence.' AI bots seem intelligent, because they've achieved the ability to seem coherent in their use of language. But that's different from cognition. 'So we're imagining a mind behind the words,' Hanna says, 'and that becomes associated with consciousness or intelligence. But the notion of general intelligence is not really well-defined.' Indeed, as long ago as the 1960s, that phenomenon was noticed by Joseph Weizenbaum, the designer of the pioneering chatbot ELIZA, which replicated the responses of a psychotherapist so convincingly that even test subjects who knew they were conversing with a machine thought it displayed emotions and empathy. 'What I had not realized,' Weizenbaum wrote in 1976, 'is that extremely short exposures to a relatively simple computer program could induce powerful delusional thinking in quite normal people.' Weizenbaum warned that the 'reckless anthropomorphization of the computer' — that is, treating it as some sort of thinking companion — produced a 'simpleminded view of intelligence.' That tendency has been exploited by today's AI promoters. They label the frequent mistakes and fabrications produced by AI bots as 'hallucinations,' which suggests that the bots have perceptions that may have gone slightly awry. But the bots 'don't have perceptions,' Bender and Hanna write, 'and suggesting that they do is yet more unhelpful anthropomorphization.' The general public may finally be cottoning on to the failed promise of AI more generally. Predictions that AI will lead to large-scale job losses in creative and STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and math) might inspire feelings that the whole enterprise was a tech-industry scam from the outset. Predictions that AI would yield a burst of increased worker productivity haven't been fulfilled; in many fields, productivity declines, in part because workers have to be deployed to double-check AI outputs, lest their mistakes or fabrications find their way into mission-critical applications — legal briefs incorporating nonexistent precedents, medical prescriptions with life-threatening ramifications and so on. Some economists are dashing cold water on predictions of economic gains more generally. MIT economist Daron Acemoglu, for example, forecast last year that AI would produce an increase of only about 0.5% in U.S. productivity and an increase of about 1% in gross domestic product over the next 10 years, mere fractions of the AI camp's projections. The value of Bender's and Hanna's book, and the lesson of GPT-5, is that they remind us that 'artificial intelligence' isn't a scientific term or an engineering term. It's a marketing term. And that's true of all the chatter about AI eventually taking over the world. 'Claims around consciousness and sentience are a tactic to sell you on AI,' Bender and Hanna write. So, too, is the talk about the billions, or trillions, to be made in AI. As with any technology, the profits will go to a small cadre, while the rest of us pay the price ... unless we gain a much clearer perception of what AI is, and more importantly, what it isn't.
