3 Statistics About Social Security That Are Frightening

[JoeTheEconomist]

Wrong. Just stop war spending and transfer those trillions to SS.

Do you plan to turn the keys to the White House over to China or Russia before you stop that spending or after?

The US gov spends more on military than all other nations combined. We could stop now for several years and no nation could contest us. Fuck the US gov and their love of killing and destroying, all for the Oligarchy.

War is a racket...and it is always about the health of the state.

Indeed cut the military. But first, end social security.

. End social security ? After I paid into it for 50 years now ? Are you flippin kiddin me ? I better get something out of it I tell ya that much.

Exactly! We have been forced to pay & many have died without collecting a dime. I'll be close to 70 years old by the time I start seeing any benefits. Shit will hit the fan if they don't pay! .

You can be guaranteed to get nothing if you refuse to pay attention to the details. The program has for every $1 ever collected created nearly $2 of promises that it doesn't expect to keep. And you are kidding yourself to do nothing and then claim that anything will hit the fan if your children do not pay the taxes that you didn't want to pay.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Typically, we hear a lot of drama and get a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility of benefit cuts 16 years in the future. Comically enough most of the articles are talking about a fairly benign impact.

Here are three stats to worry about :

The Social Security Shortfall Is Growing Three Times Faster Than the US Economy.

In other words, the hole in the program’s finances is growing at three times the rate of our ability to fill it.

People Turning 70 Today expect to Be Alive When Benefits are Reduced

The problem of Social Security hasn't been about those 40 and younger in decades. Here is the SSA's life expectancy calcuator : Calculators: Life Expectancy

In 2016, The Program Lost More Money Than It Collected

We could have reduced benefits to zero for the entire year of 2016, and the program would have finished the year in worse shape than it started. "Loss" here is looking at the $ value of promises that we believe will go unfulfilled.

If you want the details, here is my article, but the stats are pretty simple.

No Way Around Sorry Shape Social Security Is In

Baby boomers won't die off fast enough...

This isn't a boomer problem. Without the Boomers SS would have skidded into insolvency decades ago.

 

[beagle9]

Repubtards stole the SS surplus for tax cuts without paying the dividends they should have earned. That money should have been invested into markets instead of tax cuts.

Repubtards stole the SS surplus

Just where do you think the SS surplus gets stored?

Todd,

You give the quote too much credit. There is no evidence that the money in SS has been stolen. There hasn't been anything to 'steal' in more than 7 years. Of the surplus you think was stolen, most of it is interest on past borrowing, ie it is the residue of what you think was stolen. There is so little excess cash in SS if the government took every penny of excess cash it would not pay for the subsidies that went to the system. The idea that the money was stolen is close to silly.

. The fact that the program is in the shape that it's in, means it has been borrowed from and mismanaged to the point of corruption over the years. Using the money for things without transparency has led to suspicions that the program has been misused, and it's about time that an audit take place going back years, and explanations be told as a result of that audit. Which ever party has abused it the most should be outed big time. The workers deserve to know.

 

[beagle9]

Do you plan to turn the keys to the White House over to China or Russia before you stop that spending or after?

The US gov spends more on military than all other nations combined. We could stop now for several years and no nation could contest us. Fuck the US gov and their love of killing and destroying, all for the Oligarchy.

War is a racket...and it is always about the health of the state.

Indeed cut the military. But first, end social security.

. End social security ? After I paid into it for 50 years now ? Are you flippin kiddin me ? I better get something out of it I tell ya that much.

Exactly! We have been forced to pay & many have died without collecting a dime. I'll be close to 70 years old by the time I start seeing any benefits. Shit will hit the fan if they don't pay! .

You can be guaranteed to get nothing if you refuse to pay attention to the details. The program has for every $1 ever collected created nearly $2 of promises that it doesn't expect to keep. And you are kidding yourself to do nothing and then claim that anything will hit the fan if your children do not pay the taxes that you didn't want to pay.

. Sounds like Trump is doing the right thing now, and stopping money going to countries that burn our flag and hate us. They are also looking at stopping money going to the Palestinian authority in order to keep them from hating on Israel even more so. Otherwise let Israel pay to keep the Palestinians happy or off their back... Now it is my hopes that the moves will be turned back into fixing the problems in this country like SS and others. It's time to support our own again, and quit the idiocy that has gone on for far to long now.

 

[NightFox]

The fact that the program is in the shape that it's in, means it has been borrowed from and mismanaged to the point of corruption over the years. Using the money for things without transparency has led to suspicions that the program has been misused, and it's about time that an audit take place going back years, and explanations be told as a result of that audit. Which ever party has abused it the most should be outed big time. The workers deserve to know.

From what I've read it seems to me the SSA is pretty transparent about where it's spending the money that flows through it, the trustees are required to account for everything on an annual basis and the financial statement is subject to an annual audit. The whole "the surpluses were stolen" meme is false, the surpluses were borrowed and exist as part of the "national debt" figure, in essence they were exchanged from a depreciating asset (cash) to an interest bearing asset (bonds issued by the Treasury), unfortunately now that the program is cash flow negative that pool of assets is being drawn down and are insufficient to cover the promised benefits over the long term using current expected revenue projections (i.e. long term liabilities are unfunded).

IMHO The program is in such poor financial condition because it was poorly designed and not well thought out to begin with, it suffers from the same problems that most defined benefits programs suffer from (primarily promised benefits tend to grow faster than inflows over the long term) and those problems are magnified by the fact that you have political influence involved in the allocation of assets and promised benefits. If it had been designed as a defined contributions program from the get go it wouldn't be in this shape and the program participants would be getting FAR better financial benefits from it.

 

[imawhosure]

Wrong. Just stop war spending and transfer those trillions to SS.

Do you plan to turn the keys to the White House over to China or Russia before you stop that spending or after?

The US gov spends more on military than all other nations combined. We could stop now for several years and no nation could contest us. Fuck the US gov and their love of killing and destroying, all for the Oligarchy.

War is a racket...and it is always about the health of the state.

Indeed cut the military. But first, end social security.

. End social security ? After I paid into it for 50 years now ? Are you flippin kiddin me ? I better get something out of it I tell ya that much.

Wrong. Just stop war spending and transfer those trillions to SS.

Do you plan to turn the keys to the White House over to China or Russia before you stop that spending or after?

The US gov spends more on military than all other nations combined. We could stop now for several years and no nation could contest us. Fuck the US gov and their love of killing and destroying, all for the Oligarchy.

War is a racket...and it is always about the health of the state.

Indeed cut the military. But first, end social security.

. End social security ? After I paid into it for 50 years now ? Are you flippin kiddin me ? I better get something out of it I tell ya that much.

Exactly! We have been forced to pay & many have died without collecting a dime. I'll be close to 70 years old by the time I start seeing any benefits. Shit will hit the fan if they don't pay! .

Typically, we hear a lot of drama and get a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility of benefit cuts 16 years in the future. Comically enough most of the articles are talking about a fairly benign impact.

Here are three stats to worry about :

The Social Security Shortfall Is Growing Three Times Faster Than the US Economy.

In other words, the hole in the program’s finances is growing at three times the rate of our ability to fill it.

People Turning 70 Today expect to Be Alive When Benefits are Reduced

The problem of Social Security hasn't been about those 40 and younger in decades. Here is the SSA's life expectancy calcuator : Calculators: Life Expectancy

In 2016, The Program Lost More Money Than It Collected

We could have reduced benefits to zero for the entire year of 2016, and the program would have finished the year in worse shape than it started. "Loss" here is looking at the $ value of promises that we believe will go unfulfilled.

If you want the details, here is my article, but the stats are pretty simple.

No Way Around Sorry Shape Social Security Is In

Oh Gawd. Newsmax.

social security runs out of money in - Google Search

Based on the Social Security Administration's 2015 report, the trust is on track to be depleted in 2034, at which point the system will be able to pay 79% of benefits from ongoing tax revenue. That projection is expected to shrink to 73% by 2089.Mar 21, 2016

I'm at the tail end of the baby boomers. And I'm going to live until 2089?

I'll be a stunning 136.

Repubtards stole the SS surplus for tax cuts without paying the dividends they should have earned. That money should have been invested into markets instead of tax cuts.

Repubtards stole the SS surplus

Just where do you think the SS surplus gets stored?

Repubtards stole the SS surplus for tax cuts without paying the dividends they should have earned. That money should have been invested into markets instead of tax cuts.

Repubtards stole the SS surplus

Just where do you think the SS surplus gets stored?

Todd,

You give the quote too much credit. There is no evidence that the money in SS has been stolen. There hasn't been anything to 'steal' in more than 7 years. Of the surplus you think was stolen, most of it is interest on past borrowing, ie it is the residue of what you think was stolen. There is so little excess cash in SS if the government took every penny of excess cash it would not pay for the subsidies that went to the system. The idea that the money was stolen is close to silly.

Maybe, just maybe, Economist Joe can help us answer another question/comment I have------------------>

How much of the projected insolvency can be alleviated by ending/changing the dynamics of what S.S. has been expanded to pay for?

What do I mean?

Well, when S.S. was originally devised, I believe it was NEVER intended to pay out for people who were injured on the job or elsewhere, that now can no longer work. I am talking about disability.

While I am NEVER a proponent of another government program, in this case, I believe one should be made to take over the duties of that aspect of S.S., and it should be a VOLUNTARY program that perspective employers MUST educate/inform you of upon hiring you. How this would work is---------->your minimum tax for everyone would be (just creating numbers for an example) 3 dollars per week, extrapolated to how often you get paid. Minimum is a fixed rate! That means the fund will get a cash infusion quickly.

Now the minimum does NOT buy you participation in that system. To get participation, you pay on a sliding scale of % by your income, to fund what is needed. Less cash needed, % drops, more money needed, % rises.

Would that create solvency in S.S.? I don't know, maybe not; but here is the reality------------>As you can see by the comments in this thread, changing things in S.S. is a very, sensitive subject to virtually everyone. The older the poster, the more they feel that they will get screwed as politicians try and buttress the system.

So isn't it a better idea to create a NEW program on a blank sheet of paper using the realities of today, that removes some of the weight from S.S.?

Taxes are a terrible thing, especially when you have such a convoluted system, I believe on that we can all agree. That is why removing payouts from that system, that the system was never designed to pay for, might be the best bet! A blank sheet of paper written for todays' realities, is the way to go for these outlays of S.S.

Oh, and one more thing------>this new program. That money IS put in a lock box, and not sent to the general fund, so as the government can NOT piss it away on things it was never intended for-)

 

[healthmyths]

Raising (or better yet, eliminating) the earnings cap will solve all those problems.

So you'd be in favor of completely bankrupting the SS system by doing so?

There are 3 factors it appears you are totally ignorant of that would thwart your idea.

A) Employers PAY the equal percent as the employee does, i.e. today 6.2%. Were you like a majority of Americans NOT aware that for every dollar deducted
from your paycheck for SS/Medicare an equal dollar is paid by the Employer? Don't think you were aware of that. So when you raise the earning cap you
are also INCREASING operating costs for the employer.
B) Are you aware that if more people are employed then MORE money is paid into SS/Medicare by both Employees and Employer? So why would you want
to increase the number of "UNEMPLOYED" by increasing operating expenses of the employer?
C) Are you aware that more people are working PAST age 65 then ever before? Now the importance of that is THEY and THEIR employers are paying more
money into SS/Medicare.

So why would you want to reduce the number of people working...i.e. as happened under Obama?
Americans not in the labor force has increased by 14,573,000 (18.09 percent) since January 2009, when Obama took office, continuing a long-term trend that began well before Obama was sworn in.The participation rate dropped to a 38-year low of 62.4 percent on Obama's watch, in September 2015.
Record 95,102,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Number Grew 18% Since Obama Took Office in 2009

Contrary to Trump Obama did EVERYTHING possible to discourage employers from hiring.

 

[gipper]

Wrong. Just stop war spending and transfer those trillions to SS.

Do you plan to turn the keys to the White House over to China or Russia before you stop that spending or after?

The US gov spends more on military than all other nations combined. We could stop now for several years and no nation could contest us. Fuck the US gov and their love of killing and destroying, all for the Oligarchy.

War is a racket...and it is always about the health of the state.

Indeed cut the military. But first, end social security.

. End social security ? After I paid into it for 50 years now ? Are you flippin kiddin me ? I better get something out of it I tell ya that much.

Exactly! We have been forced to pay & many have died without collecting a dime. I'll be close to 70 years old by the time I start seeing any benefits. Shit will hit the fan if they don't pay! .

What makes me laugh are all these so called experts telling baby boomers don't take your social security at 62...wait until at least 66 if not 70, because your monthly check will be so much higher. Yippee!!!

Fuck that. If you die before 70, you just got screwed.

I intend to take at 62 and apparently most boomers are doing just that.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Wrong. Just stop war spending and transfer those trillions to SS.

Do you plan to turn the keys to the White House over to China or Russia before you stop that spending or after?

The US gov spends more on military than all other nations combined. We could stop now for several years and no nation could contest us. Fuck the US gov and their love of killing and destroying, all for the Oligarchy.

War is a racket...and it is always about the health of the state.

Indeed cut the military. But first, end social security.

. End social security ? After I paid into it for 50 years now ? Are you flippin kiddin me ? I better get something out of it I tell ya that much.

Do you plan to turn the keys to the White House over to China or Russia before you stop that spending or after?

The US gov spends more on military than all other nations combined. We could stop now for several years and no nation could contest us. Fuck the US gov and their love of killing and destroying, all for the Oligarchy.

War is a racket...and it is always about the health of the state.

Indeed cut the military. But first, end social security.

. End social security ? After I paid into it for 50 years now ? Are you flippin kiddin me ? I better get something out of it I tell ya that much.

Exactly! We have been forced to pay & many have died without collecting a dime. I'll be close to 70 years old by the time I start seeing any benefits. Shit will hit the fan if they don't pay! .

Typically, we hear a lot of drama and get a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility of benefit cuts 16 years in the future. Comically enough most of the articles are talking about a fairly benign impact.

Here are three stats to worry about :

The Social Security Shortfall Is Growing Three Times Faster Than the US Economy.

In other words, the hole in the program’s finances is growing at three times the rate of our ability to fill it.

People Turning 70 Today expect to Be Alive When Benefits are Reduced

The problem of Social Security hasn't been about those 40 and younger in decades. Here is the SSA's life expectancy calcuator : Calculators: Life Expectancy

In 2016, The Program Lost More Money Than It Collected

We could have reduced benefits to zero for the entire year of 2016, and the program would have finished the year in worse shape than it started. "Loss" here is looking at the $ value of promises that we believe will go unfulfilled.

If you want the details, here is my article, but the stats are pretty simple.

No Way Around Sorry Shape Social Security Is In

Oh Gawd. Newsmax.

social security runs out of money in - Google Search

Based on the Social Security Administration's 2015 report, the trust is on track to be depleted in 2034, at which point the system will be able to pay 79% of benefits from ongoing tax revenue. That projection is expected to shrink to 73% by 2089.Mar 21, 2016

I'm at the tail end of the baby boomers. And I'm going to live until 2089?

I'll be a stunning 136.

Repubtards stole the SS surplus for tax cuts without paying the dividends they should have earned. That money should have been invested into markets instead of tax cuts.

Repubtards stole the SS surplus

Just where do you think the SS surplus gets stored?

Repubtards stole the SS surplus for tax cuts without paying the dividends they should have earned. That money should have been invested into markets instead of tax cuts.

Repubtards stole the SS surplus

Just where do you think the SS surplus gets stored?

Todd,

You give the quote too much credit. There is no evidence that the money in SS has been stolen. There hasn't been anything to 'steal' in more than 7 years. Of the surplus you think was stolen, most of it is interest on past borrowing, ie it is the residue of what you think was stolen. There is so little excess cash in SS if the government took every penny of excess cash it would not pay for the subsidies that went to the system. The idea that the money was stolen is close to silly.

Maybe, just maybe, Economist Joe can help us answer another question/comment I have------------------>

How much of the projected insolvency can be alleviated by ending/changing the dynamics of what S.S. has been expanded to pay for?

What do I mean?

Well, when S.S. was originally devised, I believe it was NEVER intended to pay out for people who were injured on the job or elsewhere, that now can no longer work. I am talking about disability.

While I am NEVER a proponent of another government program, in this case, I believe one should be made to take over the duties of that aspect of S.S., and it should be a VOLUNTARY program that perspective employers MUST educate/inform you of upon hiring you. How this would work is---------->your minimum tax for everyone would be (just creating numbers for an example) 3 dollars per week, extrapolated to how often you get paid. Minimum is a fixed rate! That means the fund will get a cash infusion quickly.

Now the minimum does NOT buy you participation in that system. To get participation, you pay on a sliding scale of % by your income, to fund what is needed. Less cash needed, % drops, more money needed, % rises.

You are asking a brilliant question, one that gets virtually zero attention so much of my answer is personal opinion rather than researched fact.

Disability is not the problem in Social Security by itself. It is a separate system with the exact same problems as that of old-age survivors. It is Congress selling dollars for dimes, and passing the difference forward to future voters. Just my opinion, because I do not do any writing or research on that program, it is horribly complex and needs to be run by people who understand the dynamics of the system better. Social Security costs 12.4% which 1.7% goes to disability. You can end it, and Social Security old-age retirement is not any better off unless you increase the payroll tax back to 12.4%.

The examples that I would use would be survivor benefits. These were added in 1939, and at the same time, Congress waived the payroll tax increase necessary to make SS a stable system. Most people are not aware that originally payroll taxes were supposed to rise to 6%. Congress kept them at 2 percent to please then voters. We have added all kinds of craziness particularly around early-retirement and delayed retirement. These features should simply go. The government does not understand the risk or incentives that it is creating. I would change the way divorce is handled. Today, divorce magically creates new benefits. I would change the way spousal benefits are handled.

Lots of change, but I can't begin to tell you the impact because no one is asking your question. We aren't looking to fix SS. We are looking for a way to pay for a very broken system.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Repubtards stole the SS surplus for tax cuts without paying the dividends they should have earned. That money should have been invested into markets instead of tax cuts.

Repubtards stole the SS surplus

Just where do you think the SS surplus gets stored?

Todd,

You give the quote too much credit. There is no evidence that the money in SS has been stolen. There hasn't been anything to 'steal' in more than 7 years. Of the surplus you think was stolen, most of it is interest on past borrowing, ie it is the residue of what you think was stolen. There is so little excess cash in SS if the government took every penny of excess cash it would not pay for the subsidies that went to the system. The idea that the money was stolen is close to silly.

. The fact that the program is in the shape that it's in, means it has been borrowed from and mismanaged to the point of corruption over the years. Using the money for things without transparency has led to suspicions that the program has been misused, and it's about time that an audit take place going back years, and explanations be told as a result of that audit. Which ever party has abused it the most should be outed big time. The workers deserve to know.

Not at all. It means that voters simply aren't paying attention. This outcome was predicted in 1944 by the guy who ran the program.

Predicting Social Security's Financial Imbalance : FedSmith.com

One of the most compelling pieces ever written about Social Security was penned by A. J. Altmeyer, and presented to Congress in 1944. The piece makes the man look like Nostradamus. Voters today should pay close attention to it not only because his predictions came true with stunning accuracy, but more importantly it offers a different prospective on the system’s financial imbalances.

Using the money for things without transparency has led to suspicions that the program has been misused, and it's about time that an audit take place going back years, and explanations be told as a result of that audit. Which ever party has abused it the most should be outed big time. The workers deserve to know.

Laziness is what has caused people to believe that money has been misused. Statistically, the system for 40 years was selling dollars for dimes. Politicians told voters that it was possible, and voters wanted to believe politicians. Any voter with any common sense would know you can't sell dollars for dimes forever.

Congress loved SS because all of the foregone failed promises take as much as 40 years to materialize. I am taking money from a 20 year-old that expects to collect as much as 60 years later. It took SS exactly 40 years to arrive within months of insolvency. You don't find that coincidence a little hard to swallow? The 25 year-old takes 40 years to reach retirement. So the system hits insolvency almost to the day of when it hits its first full load of retirees.

Or you can believe against all data points that the money was misused. You can believe that politicians are smart and honest. You can ignore the data that shows that selling dollars for dime isn't a well thought business plan.

Most people believe the latter - and you wonder why the system is in the shape that it is.

 

[NightFox]

Disability is not the problem in Social Security by itself. It is a separate system with the exact same problems as that of old-age survivors. It is Congress selling dollars for dimes, and passing the difference forward to future voters. Just my opinion, because I do not do any writing or research on that program, it is horribly complex and needs to be run by people who understand the dynamics of the system better. Social Security costs 12.4% which 1.7% goes to disability. You can end it, and Social Security old-age retirement is not any better off unless you increase the payroll tax back to 12.4%.

The examples that I would use would be survivor benefits. These were added in 1939, and at the same time, Congress waived the payroll tax increase necessary to make SS a stable system. Most people are not aware that originally payroll taxes were supposed to rise to 6%. Congress kept them at 2 percent to please then voters. We have added all kinds of craziness particularly around early-retirement and delayed retirement. These features should simply go. The government does not understand the risk or incentives that it is creating. I would change the way divorce is handled. Today, divorce magically creates new benefits. I would change the way spousal benefits are handled.

Lots of change, but I can't begin to tell you the impact because no one is asking your question. We aren't looking to fix SS. We are looking for a way to pay for a very broken system.

You can't "fix it" and you documented a bunch of examples why you can't "fix it" using the current design....

Namely, you have a inflows of tax payer money into a system that's a public account and as such is subject to all the vote buying promises, kick the can down the road shenanigans played by politicians.

IMHO You could make all the changes you suggest and if it doesn't involve privatizing assets, I guarantee it will accomplish nothing more than kicking the can down the road a bit farther, give the politicians access to the funds and we'll be right back where we're at right now. Heck private accounts don't guarantee anything but at least it provides some legal protection from political pilfering to buy votes in the now at the expense of future citizens.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Do you plan to turn the keys to the White House over to China or Russia before you stop that spending or after?

The US gov spends more on military than all other nations combined. We could stop now for several years and no nation could contest us. Fuck the US gov and their love of killing and destroying, all for the Oligarchy.

War is a racket...and it is always about the health of the state.

Indeed cut the military. But first, end social security.

. End social security ? After I paid into it for 50 years now ? Are you flippin kiddin me ? I better get something out of it I tell ya that much.

Exactly! We have been forced to pay & many have died without collecting a dime. I'll be close to 70 years old by the time I start seeing any benefits. Shit will hit the fan if they don't pay! .

What makes me laugh are all these so called experts telling baby boomers don't take your social security at 62...wait until at least 66 if not 70, because your monthly check will be so much higher. Yippee!!!

Fuck that. If you die before 70, you just got screwed.

I intend to take at 62 and apparently most boomers are doing just that.

You are right that the 'experts' are giving useless advice, but your reasoning is hopelesslly flawed. You ought to understand the difference.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Raising (or better yet, eliminating) the earnings cap will solve all those problems.

So you'd be in favor of completely bankrupting the SS system by doing so?

There are 3 factors it appears you are totally ignorant of that would thwart your idea.

A) Employers PAY the equal percent as the employee does, i.e. today 6.2%. Were you like a majority of Americans NOT aware that for every dollar deducted
from your paycheck for SS/Medicare an equal dollar is paid by the Employer? Don't think you were aware of that. So when you raise the earning cap you
are also INCREASING operating costs for the employer.
B) Are you aware that if more people are employed then MORE money is paid into SS/Medicare by both Employees and Employer? So why would you want
to increase the number of "UNEMPLOYED" by increasing operating expenses of the employer?
C) Are you aware that more people are working PAST age 65 then ever before? Now the importance of that is THEY and THEIR employers are paying more
money into SS/Medicare.

So why would you want to reduce the number of people working...i.e. as happened under Obama?
Americans not in the labor force has increased by 14,573,000 (18.09 percent) since January 2009, when Obama took office, continuing a long-term trend that began well before Obama was sworn in.The participation rate dropped to a 38-year low of 62.4 percent on Obama's watch, in September 2015.
Record 95,102,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Number Grew 18% Since Obama Took Office in 2009

Contrary to Trump Obama did EVERYTHING possible to discourage employers from hiring.
View attachment 169544

The problems with eliminating the cap are much more complex, and I am not sure that your fact (c) is correct. I think you are using a baseline of projected workers against a time when the government all but paid people who retire early.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

The fact that the program is in the shape that it's in, means it has been borrowed from and mismanaged to the point of corruption over the years. Using the money for things without transparency has led to suspicions that the program has been misused, and it's about time that an audit take place going back years, and explanations be told as a result of that audit. Which ever party has abused it the most should be outed big time. The workers deserve to know.

From what I've read it seems to me the SSA is pretty transparent about where it's spending the money that flows through it, the trustees are required to account for everything on an annual basis and the financial statement is subject to an annual audit. The whole "the surpluses were stolen" meme is false, the surpluses were borrowed and exist as part of the "national debt" figure, in essence they were exchanged from a depreciating asset (cash) to an interest bearing asset (bonds issued by the Treasury), unfortunately now that the program is cash flow negative that pool of assets is being drawn down and are insufficient to cover the promised benefits over the long term using current expected revenue projections (i.e. long term liabilities are unfunded).

IMHO The program is in such poor financial condition because it was poorly designed and not well thought out to begin with, it suffers from the same problems that most defined benefits programs suffer from (primarily promised benefits tend to grow faster than inflows over the long term) and those problems are magnified by the fact that you have political influence involved in the allocation of assets and promised benefits. If it had been designed as a defined contributions program from the get go it wouldn't be in this shape and the program participants would be getting FAR better financial benefits from it.

Your thought on the money-was-stolen-meme is correct. The design of the system was fine. It was designed as a DC program, one that was supposed to be acturially sound. It was changed over the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, into the 1970s in to the mess that it is today.

 

[NightFox]

Your thought on the money-was-stolen-meme is correct. The design of the system was fine. It was designed as a DC program, one that was supposed to be acturially sound. It was changed over the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, into the 1970s in to the mess that it is today.

Not in the way I meant it, I should have been more specific, I was referring to defined contributions in the sense of 401K'esque transferrable private accounts.

 

[imawhosure]

Repubtards stole the SS surplus for tax cuts without paying the dividends they should have earned. That money should have been invested into markets instead of tax cuts.

Repubtards stole the SS surplus

Just where do you think the SS surplus gets stored?

Todd,

You give the quote too much credit. There is no evidence that the money in SS has been stolen. There hasn't been anything to 'steal' in more than 7 years. Of the surplus you think was stolen, most of it is interest on past borrowing, ie it is the residue of what you think was stolen. There is so little excess cash in SS if the government took every penny of excess cash it would not pay for the subsidies that went to the system. The idea that the money was stolen is close to silly.

. The fact that the program is in the shape that it's in, means it has been borrowed from and mismanaged to the point of corruption over the years. Using the money for things without transparency has led to suspicions that the program has been misused, and it's about time that an audit take place going back years, and explanations be told as a result of that audit. Which ever party has abused it the most should be outed big time. The workers deserve to know.

Not at all. It means that voters simply aren't paying attention. This outcome was predicted in 1944 by the guy who ran the program.

Predicting Social Security's Financial Imbalance : FedSmith.com

One of the most compelling pieces ever written about Social Security was penned by A. J. Altmeyer, and presented to Congress in 1944. The piece makes the man look like Nostradamus. Voters today should pay close attention to it not only because his predictions came true with stunning accuracy, but more importantly it offers a different prospective on the system’s financial imbalances.

Using the money for things without transparency has led to suspicions that the program has been misused, and it's about time that an audit take place going back years, and explanations be told as a result of that audit. Which ever party has abused it the most should be outed big time. The workers deserve to know.

Laziness is what has caused people to believe that money has been misused. Statistically, the system for 40 years was selling dollars for dimes. Politicians told voters that it was possible, and voters wanted to believe politicians. Any voter with any common sense would know you can't sell dollars for dimes forever.

Congress loved SS because all of the foregone failed promises take as much as 40 years to materialize. I am taking money from a 20 year-old that expects to collect as much as 60 years later. It took SS exactly 40 years to arrive within months of insolvency. You don't find that coincidence a little hard to swallow? The 25 year-old takes 40 years to reach retirement. So the system hits insolvency almost to the day of when it hits its first full load of retirees.

Or you can believe against all data points that the money was misused. You can believe that politicians are smart and honest. You can ignore the data that shows that selling dollars for dime isn't a well thought business plan.

Most people believe the latter - and you wonder why the system is in the shape that it is.

I just caught back up with this thread this morning, so forgive me Joe.

So then, maybe we need to do S.S. on a sliding scale by income after retirement, with a bottom nobody can get less than. In this way, if you fail, you get the full amount. If you succeed, then you only lose 1 dollar for every 3 over that you gained down to the bare minimum of benefits. You will always get that no matter how much wealth you have coming in.

In this way, it does not dissuade people from investing, nor does it make them complain to much about putting into a system that protects them from failure, and promises that if they succeed, they still get something back from their outlay into the program.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Disability is not the problem in Social Security by itself. It is a separate system with the exact same problems as that of old-age survivors. It is Congress selling dollars for dimes, and passing the difference forward to future voters. Just my opinion, because I do not do any writing or research on that program, it is horribly complex and needs to be run by people who understand the dynamics of the system better. Social Security costs 12.4% which 1.7% goes to disability. You can end it, and Social Security old-age retirement is not any better off unless you increase the payroll tax back to 12.4%.

The examples that I would use would be survivor benefits. These were added in 1939, and at the same time, Congress waived the payroll tax increase necessary to make SS a stable system. Most people are not aware that originally payroll taxes were supposed to rise to 6%. Congress kept them at 2 percent to please then voters. We have added all kinds of craziness particularly around early-retirement and delayed retirement. These features should simply go. The government does not understand the risk or incentives that it is creating. I would change the way divorce is handled. Today, divorce magically creates new benefits. I would change the way spousal benefits are handled.

Lots of change, but I can't begin to tell you the impact because no one is asking your question. We aren't looking to fix SS. We are looking for a way to pay for a very broken system.

You can't "fix it" and you documented a bunch of examples why you can't "fix it" using the current design....

Namely, you have a inflows of tax payer money into a system that's a public account and as such is subject to all the vote buying promises, kick the can down the road shenanigans played by politicians.

IMHO You could make all the changes you suggest and if it doesn't involve privatizing assets, I guarantee it will accomplish nothing more than kicking the can down the road a bit farther, give the politicians access to the funds and we'll be right back where we're at right now. Heck private accounts don't guarantee anything but at least it provides some legal protection from political pilfering to buy votes in the now at the expense of future citizens.

I can't say. No one is asking the question, so no research has been done.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Repubtards stole the SS surplus for tax cuts without paying the dividends they should have earned. That money should have been invested into markets instead of tax cuts.

Repubtards stole the SS surplus

Just where do you think the SS surplus gets stored?

Todd,

You give the quote too much credit. There is no evidence that the money in SS has been stolen. There hasn't been anything to 'steal' in more than 7 years. Of the surplus you think was stolen, most of it is interest on past borrowing, ie it is the residue of what you think was stolen. There is so little excess cash in SS if the government took every penny of excess cash it would not pay for the subsidies that went to the system. The idea that the money was stolen is close to silly.

. The fact that the program is in the shape that it's in, means it has been borrowed from and mismanaged to the point of corruption over the years. Using the money for things without transparency has led to suspicions that the program has been misused, and it's about time that an audit take place going back years, and explanations be told as a result of that audit. Which ever party has abused it the most should be outed big time. The workers deserve to know.

Not at all. It means that voters simply aren't paying attention. This outcome was predicted in 1944 by the guy who ran the program.

Predicting Social Security's Financial Imbalance : FedSmith.com

One of the most compelling pieces ever written about Social Security was penned by A. J. Altmeyer, and presented to Congress in 1944. The piece makes the man look like Nostradamus. Voters today should pay close attention to it not only because his predictions came true with stunning accuracy, but more importantly it offers a different prospective on the system’s financial imbalances.

Using the money for things without transparency has led to suspicions that the program has been misused, and it's about time that an audit take place going back years, and explanations be told as a result of that audit. Which ever party has abused it the most should be outed big time. The workers deserve to know.

Laziness is what has caused people to believe that money has been misused. Statistically, the system for 40 years was selling dollars for dimes. Politicians told voters that it was possible, and voters wanted to believe politicians. Any voter with any common sense would know you can't sell dollars for dimes forever.

Congress loved SS because all of the foregone failed promises take as much as 40 years to materialize. I am taking money from a 20 year-old that expects to collect as much as 60 years later. It took SS exactly 40 years to arrive within months of insolvency. You don't find that coincidence a little hard to swallow? The 25 year-old takes 40 years to reach retirement. So the system hits insolvency almost to the day of when it hits its first full load of retirees.

Or you can believe against all data points that the money was misused. You can believe that politicians are smart and honest. You can ignore the data that shows that selling dollars for dime isn't a well thought business plan.

Most people believe the latter - and you wonder why the system is in the shape that it is.

I just caught back up with this thread this morning, so forgive me Joe.

So then, maybe we need to do S.S. on a sliding scale by income after retirement, with a bottom nobody can get less than. In this way, if you fail, you get the full amount. If you succeed, then you only lose 1 dollar for every 3 over that you gained down to the bare minimum of benefits. You will always get that no matter how much wealth you have coming in.

In this way, it does not dissuade people from investing, nor does it make them complain to much about putting into a system that protects them from failure, and promises that if they succeed, they still get something back from their outlay into the program.

Honestly I don't know. In my opinion, this crisis is going to dwarf the problem with the financial crisis, and at this point we are worried about financial leprechauns and hobgoblins. You can't fix a problem until people admit that there is one. What admission that exists today, suggests that we are trying to fix a very small political problem rather than deal with a very large economic problem.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Your thought on the money-was-stolen-meme is correct. The design of the system was fine. It was designed as a DC program, one that was supposed to be acturially sound. It was changed over the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, into the 1970s in to the mess that it is today.

Not in the way I meant it, I should have been more specific, I was referring to defined contributions in the sense of 401K'esque transferrable private accounts.

This is a bad idea. Risk sharing is a better way to deal with the cost of the unknown than savings. If that weren't the case, we would all have personal auto wreck accounts. Let me know if you want a longer explanation from an article that I have written on it.

 

[imawhosure]

Repubtards stole the SS surplus

Just where do you think the SS surplus gets stored?

Todd,

You give the quote too much credit. There is no evidence that the money in SS has been stolen. There hasn't been anything to 'steal' in more than 7 years. Of the surplus you think was stolen, most of it is interest on past borrowing, ie it is the residue of what you think was stolen. There is so little excess cash in SS if the government took every penny of excess cash it would not pay for the subsidies that went to the system. The idea that the money was stolen is close to silly.

. The fact that the program is in the shape that it's in, means it has been borrowed from and mismanaged to the point of corruption over the years. Using the money for things without transparency has led to suspicions that the program has been misused, and it's about time that an audit take place going back years, and explanations be told as a result of that audit. Which ever party has abused it the most should be outed big time. The workers deserve to know.

Not at all. It means that voters simply aren't paying attention. This outcome was predicted in 1944 by the guy who ran the program.

Predicting Social Security's Financial Imbalance : FedSmith.com

One of the most compelling pieces ever written about Social Security was penned by A. J. Altmeyer, and presented to Congress in 1944. The piece makes the man look like Nostradamus. Voters today should pay close attention to it not only because his predictions came true with stunning accuracy, but more importantly it offers a different prospective on the system’s financial imbalances.

Using the money for things without transparency has led to suspicions that the program has been misused, and it's about time that an audit take place going back years, and explanations be told as a result of that audit. Which ever party has abused it the most should be outed big time. The workers deserve to know.

Laziness is what has caused people to believe that money has been misused. Statistically, the system for 40 years was selling dollars for dimes. Politicians told voters that it was possible, and voters wanted to believe politicians. Any voter with any common sense would know you can't sell dollars for dimes forever.

Congress loved SS because all of the foregone failed promises take as much as 40 years to materialize. I am taking money from a 20 year-old that expects to collect as much as 60 years later. It took SS exactly 40 years to arrive within months of insolvency. You don't find that coincidence a little hard to swallow? The 25 year-old takes 40 years to reach retirement. So the system hits insolvency almost to the day of when it hits its first full load of retirees.

Or you can believe against all data points that the money was misused. You can believe that politicians are smart and honest. You can ignore the data that shows that selling dollars for dime isn't a well thought business plan.

Most people believe the latter - and you wonder why the system is in the shape that it is.

I just caught back up with this thread this morning, so forgive me Joe.

So then, maybe we need to do S.S. on a sliding scale by income after retirement, with a bottom nobody can get less than. In this way, if you fail, you get the full amount. If you succeed, then you only lose 1 dollar for every 3 over that you gained down to the bare minimum of benefits. You will always get that no matter how much wealth you have coming in.

In this way, it does not dissuade people from investing, nor does it make them complain to much about putting into a system that protects them from failure, and promises that if they succeed, they still get something back from their outlay into the program.

Honestly I don't know. In my opinion, this crisis is going to dwarf the problem with the financial crisis, and at this point we are worried about financial leprechauns and hobgoblins. You can't fix a problem until people admit that there is one. What admission that exists today, suggests that we are trying to fix a very small political problem rather than deal with a very large economic problem.

Well Joe, that is why massive change in the tax code needs to take place. Income tax should go the way of the Do-Do bird.

Why?

Because if what some are projecting is true, (and I believe it, just not in the short time table they suggest) then less people are going to be working in blue collar jobs. No Joe, we need to eliminate the income tax, and all with holdings, and go to a national sales tax to fund the government. The only caveat to this for me is------------>investment income remains taxed, before you spend it too.

Why does this work?

Because then no matter how you acquired your money, legally or illegally, rich or poor, you are taxed when you spend it; meaning everyone pays.

But some say------->then the very rich will hoard money!

ANSWER---------> But where will they keep it, in a mattress doing absolutely nothing? I don't think so. They didn't get rich and stay ahead of inflation, by putting their money in a lock box or a mattress. This means their capital will be somewhere to be used for expansion, whatever that might be. And as they make money, it will be taxed!

Point of this is----------> middle class is where the money is, and middle class and lower, is where the money goes!

Think I am being deceitful?

Nope! All anyone has to ask themselves is------------> at what income point does the Federal Government LOSE money on an adult citizen! It has to be some income point for sure, or this country would be in the black.

Always remember, and I was taught this by an economics professor who happened to live down the street from me-----------> IF the government gives a break to a rich person of 1 million, and last year he paid in 4 million, his contribution is still 3 million; in essence, 3 million profit to the government.

But, on the other hand, if someone pays in 1000, or actually receives back more than they paid in, and their goods and services provided by government costs 1500 bucks, the government has lost 500 from the git-go.