PDA

View Full Version : Things Social Security Won't Tell You



Mister D
09-08-2011, 11:06 AM
All I can say is that if you are under 40 and were counting on SS being there when you retire you either live in a cave or you're an idiot.

http://finance.yahoo.com/focus-retirement/article/113450/social-security-secrets-smartmoney?mod=fidelity-livingretirement&cat=fidelity_2010_living_in_retirement

1. "Long-term deficit? We can hardly afford our bills today."

Worried about the future of Social Security? You're far from alone. The Social Security Administration itself has said that unless something is done to reform the system, it will burn through its funds within the next few decades. Less talked about, perhaps, is the concern about the present: the program is having a hard time paying its bills. In 2010, the Social Security Administration collected less revenue in taxes than it needed to cover its benefit payments the first time expenditures have exceeded income since 1983. As a result, the program had to tap its $2.5 trillion trust fund, sooner than some had expected. The same is expected to happen this year. "The depth of the recession has slowed down revenues to the system," say Eugene Steuerle, an economist with the Urban Institute, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, D.C.

A Social Security spokeswoman points out that interest income from the Treasury bonds held in the trust fund will allow it to keep growing until 2022 even if the agency has to siphon off some money to offset any shortages in tax revenue -- and won't be exhausted until 2036, when the first Gen Xers begin retiring. But that's already one year earlier than previous projections. After that, the agency says tax income under the current system will only cover about 75% of benefit payments through 2085.

Juggernaut
09-09-2011, 06:44 AM
Definitely a ponzi scheme. Rick Perry made liberal heads explode debate night, he didn't have permission to tell the people the truth. Till they raise the income cap that's at $106k the fund will sink as population grows and they take more to pay medicare/medicaid.

Obama mentioned cutting medicare Thursday night, glad he stepped on the 3rd rail again because we need to have an honest debate about SSi before the decline begins to grow. I caught hell in college discussing privatization in segregated accounts, didn't realize how left professors were in business school. I'd prefer to invest the money directly than trust DC.

wingrider
09-09-2011, 07:59 AM
All I can say is that if you are under 40 and were counting on SS being there when you retire you either live in a cave or you're an idiot.

http://finance.yahoo.com/focus-retirement/article/113450/social-security-secrets-smartmoney?mod=fidelity-livingretirement&cat=fidelity_2010_living_in_retirement

1. "Long-term deficit? We can hardly afford our bills today."

Worried about the future of Social Security? You're far from alone. The Social Security Administration itself has said that unless something is done to reform the system, it will burn through its funds within the next few decades. Less talked about, perhaps, is the concern about the present: the program is having a hard time paying its bills. In 2010, the Social Security Administration collected less revenue in taxes than it needed to cover its benefit payments the first time expenditures have exceeded income since 1983. As a result, the program had to tap its $2.5 trillion trust fund, sooner than some had expected. The same is expected to happen this year. "The depth of the recession has slowed down revenues to the system," say Eugene Steuerle, an economist with the Urban Institute, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, D.C.

A Social Security spokeswoman points out that interest income from the Treasury bonds held in the trust fund will allow it to keep growing until 2022 even if the agency has to siphon off some money to offset any shortages in tax revenue -- and won't be exhausted until 2036, when the first Gen Xers begin retiring. But that's already one year earlier than previous projections. After that, the agency says tax income under the current system will only cover about 75% of benefit payments through 2085.


it has been said that SS is only 1.6 percent of GDP. as if that has anything to do with it. still if the feds hadn't of ripped off the SS program and put in a bunch of IOUs there would nowbe about a trillion dollars in that account and I wouldn't be sitting here drawing about 1200 a month when i shoud be drawing about 1800

Mister D
09-09-2011, 09:38 AM
Definitely a ponzi scheme. Rick Perry made liberal heads explode debate night, he didn't have permission to tell the people the truth. Till they raise the income cap that's at $106k the fund will sink as population grows and they take more to pay medicare/medicaid.

Obama mentioned cutting medicare Thursday night, glad he stepped on the 3rd rail again because we need to have an honest debate about SSi before the decline begins to grow. I caught hell in college discussing privatization in segregated accounts, didn't realize how left professors were in business school. I'd prefer to invest the money directly than trust DC.


So would I. Moreover, I don't mind paying this tax while we are in transition even though I will never see a dime of it. I'll make the sacrifice but we must acknowledge the unsustainability of SS the way it is currently organized.

Pendragon
09-09-2011, 04:17 PM
It is interesting to me how so many are against government handouts and while at the same time collecting them.

How does that work I wonder?

wingrider
09-09-2011, 04:46 PM
It is interesting to me how so many are against government handouts and while at the same time collecting them.

How does that work I wonder?


get this straight in your mind for once

Social security is not a HANDOUT.. we pay for it throughout our entire working lives. if you pay for something how can it be a handout?

Pendragon
09-09-2011, 05:03 PM
It is interesting to me how so many are against government handouts and while at the same time collecting them.

How does that work I wonder?


get this straight in your mind for once

Social security is not a HANDOUT.. we pay for it throughout our entire working lives. if you pay for something how can it be a handout?


As you may have observed in your study of the program there are many citizens who take more out of Social Security than they have put in. Ergo, it is a "handout" by the definition used in most conservative circles.

wingrider
09-09-2011, 05:06 PM
It is interesting to me how so many are against government handouts and while at the same time collecting them.

How does that work I wonder?


get this straight in your mind for once

Social security is not a HANDOUT.. we pay for it throughout our entire working lives. if you pay for something how can it be a handout?


As you may have observed in your study of the program there are many citizens who take more out of Social Security than they have put in. Ergo, it is a "handout" by the definition used in most conservative circles.


I see... so it is your contention then , that once a person draws all he has paid in then he should what? commit suicide? I am not sure where you are going with this line of thought.

Pendragon
09-09-2011, 05:13 PM
Au contraire, that is the thought of many conservatives and I am of the polar opposite mindset. If I am not mistaken, you yourself have said you don't expect anything from anyone and that you have been entirely self reliant. Keep in mind that not everyone has that opportunity in life. I would not want you to kill yourself and your family to starve should you live long enough to withdraw all the money you had put into Social Security. That gallows humour aside, I am glad that we have found common ground upon which to agree.

Elibe
09-09-2011, 05:40 PM
typical conservative...they are against entitlements for everyone else but want benefits for themselfs

Juggernaut
09-09-2011, 07:31 PM
It is interesting to me how so many are against government handouts and while at the same time collecting them.

How does that work I wonder?


Simple math, we pay in, we collect. The idiots in DC looted the money to pay for other programs that has lead to the decline. Read what the other guy said, his benefits went down $400. Now we have a candidate who is telling people the truth. We'd all be better off investing the money directly since DC is hellbent on spending us into oblivion while blaming the other party.

MMC
09-09-2011, 10:02 PM
typical conservative...they are against entitlements for everyone else but want benefits for themselfs


Try again.....thats why fiscal conservatives believe that all should have low taxes. Not targeting a specific group of people to pay higher taxes. Nowhere do you see such selfishness within any of that mind-set. It would be one thing to just want low taxes for just us. But it is never been this way. It is for all.....equally! No Special Interests. Although myself I never thought to rely on S.S. in the first place. Even tho I have always paid in my whole entire life.

Moreover I doubt that I would be doing nothing in my life after 65 when it comes to some sort of work. Whether owning a buisness or not.

Mister D
09-10-2011, 09:21 AM
It is interesting to me how so many are against government handouts and while at the same time collecting them.

How does that work I wonder?


Uh who specifically?

Mister D
09-10-2011, 09:22 AM
In any case, SS is not sustainable. Notice how our liberals avoid addressing the real issue. ::)

Pendragon
09-10-2011, 10:25 AM
In any case, SS is not sustainable. Notice how our liberals avoid addressing the real issue. ::)


Once again you are in error; of course it is most certainly sustainable. As your friend pointed out, the problem lies not with Social Security but with the Republicans (and yes, a few Democrats as well) constantly raiding the funds for their own purposes. Fix this problem and Social Security can be saved.

MMC
09-10-2011, 11:31 AM
In any case, SS is not sustainable. Notice how our liberals avoid addressing the real issue. ::)


Once again you are in error; of course it is most certainly sustainable. As your friend pointed out, the problem lies not with Social Security but with the Republicans (and yes, a few Democrats as well) constantly raiding the funds for their own purposes. Fix this problem and Social Security can be saved.


That would be Democratically held governments that have done that raiding. As well as failing to put in the funds in the first place. All economists agree that as it stands now with the structure that was put in place. It is not sustainable. Which would be based on populations numbers.

Mister D
09-10-2011, 11:37 AM
In any case, SS is not sustainable. Notice how our liberals avoid addressing the real issue. ::)


Once again you are in error; of course it is most certainly sustainable. As your friend pointed out, the problem lies not with Social Security but with the Republicans (and yes, a few Democrats as well) constantly raiding the funds for their own purposes. Fix this problem and Social Security can be saved.


Uh...Pen you are aware that the proportion of those paying in to those drawing benefits has changed drastically? Well, make your case. I know you hate those words and we never hear from you again but give it a shot.

Captain Obvious
09-10-2011, 09:23 PM
Pen - do you understand the concept of unfunded liability?

Juggernaut
09-14-2011, 07:01 PM
It is interesting to me how so many are against government handouts and while at the same time collecting them.

How does that work I wonder?


get this straight in your mind for once

Social security is not a HANDOUT.. we pay for it throughout our entire working lives. if you pay for something how can it be a handout?


People see SSi as a handout because we pay in less per month than we receive at retirement age. Its more of a pooling of money than a handout. The gamble is surviving till retirement in order to collect. Those who die before help to offset the payouts that exceed month contributions.