3 Statistics About Social Security That Are Frightening

[JoeTheEconomist]

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.

Just my opinion, the less you conflate Social Security with the broader government the better off the program will be. It needs to be run separately. It is largely run separately, but the reporting of the numbers tends to be consolidated. That is a huge mistake because it fosters the crazy debates that we have today about missing money and the like. Social Security has a massive problem. The federal government has a massive problem. They aren't the same thing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

You give the quote too much credit.

KissMy is a moron, I give him no credit at all.

 

[g5000]

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

Nope. Not even close.

There is no earnings cap for the Medicare payroll tax. Only for the SS payroll tax, and it isn't enough to make up the looming massive shortfall. Nowhere near enough.

We need to raise the eligibility age for SS and Medicare to 70, and then index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer. Common sense.

 

[imawhosure]

. 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.

Just my opinion, the less you conflate Social Security with the broader government the better off the program will be. It needs to be run separately. It is largely run separately, but the reporting of the numbers tends to be consolidated. That is a huge mistake because it fosters the crazy debates that we have today about missing money and the like. Social Security has a massive problem. The federal government has a massive problem. They aren't the same thing.

Joe, you know I agree with you on the fiscal problems of S.S. But the truth is------------> As long as S.S. is put into, then extracted from the general fund, we must discuss the general fund.

Where Washington opened up Pandora's box was, when they (I believe it actually might have been under Reagan, but not sure) allowed S.S. overpayments (profits) to be used in the general fund instead of kept. In fact; unbeknownst to most on the left, it was the only way that Clinton balanced the budget; although he would have gotten mighty close without it, and good for him and his administration in either case.

In my humble opinion; and in no way am I suggesting you have to agree---------------> my whole premise is this----------> How far is S.S. in the hole? How far are other programs created by the federal government in the hole, especially those that do NOT receive direct funding from us, the taxpayer!

As long as S.S. is an entitlement, we can NOT just lop it off. On the other hand, these other programs that are NOT entitlements can be lopped off.

And so............what we are basically saying as reality is this---------> when there WAS a more money than need in S.S., the government REMOVED that money to fund other things that were NOT directly funded. Now that we need the money, the government has to print, or tax us to replace it.

UMMMMMM, no they don't, at least wholly! They can kill other programs to fund it, and then insist we pay the rest.

That is what happens when you are a politician, and make a deal with the devil! Sadly, most of them are long gone, and God rest their soul. But as Americans, we should DEMAND that the money be put back from whence it came, not printing money for IOUs that they need to cover. After that, come to us with accounting books, and tell us that the money is now there, not IOU's, and that our currency won't be devalued because they have to print money to cover what they spirited away.

Now I have seen that your analysis insists that what I stated is NOT true!

Then explain how Clinton balanced the budget, and yet in that year, the national debt rose. That is not possible by accounting standards, is it? The way he did it was, SOCIAL SECURITY OVERPAYMENTS. And to be fair, many, many politicians from both sides did it too, to make it appear the deficit was smaller than it was.

And finally-----------> What good is the promise of S.S. if the government has to print money to cover, if it causes the recipients inflow to devalue? That is what the government has done with a stagnant economy.

Give us 5% growth, and as long as we hold the line on spending, we can get out of this nightmare. 5%? Yeah, pie in the sky? Probably. But that is our choice, either ignite the economy, or go under.

Since the government creates nothing, it only taxes.......we better hope the left is wrong and 2% growth in the private sector is NOT the new norm, or it is Katie bar the door. We need a cash infusion badly, and to do that we need massive, economic, expansion. I am not Trump's biggest fan, but he is all we got for the time being, so I wish him......best......possible.....speed.

 

[g5000]

Everyone is trying to treat the symptoms, because they are too chickenshit to cure the disease.

We are living longer, we should be working longer.

Our politicians needs to grow some fucking balls and raise the retirement age.

Time to wake the fuck up and smell the coffee.

 

[imawhosure]

Everyone is trying to treat the symptoms, because they are too chickenshit to cure the disease.

We are living longer, we should be working longer.

Our politicians needs to grow some fucking balls and raise the retirement age.

Time to wake the fuck up and smell the coffee.

OK Guno, now that you posted that graph, show all of these nice people the same graph, the same timeline, for American birth rate.

 

[imawhosure]

Everyone is trying to treat the symptoms, because they are too chickenshit to cure the disease.

We are living longer, we should be working longer.

Our politicians needs to grow some fucking balls and raise the retirement age.

Time to wake the fuck up and smell the coffee.

Also, don't start at 45, not fair.

Why?

Because obviously when the program was put in, EVERYBODY paid into the system that was not retired.

Doubt me on how it correlates?

Then explain how it fell from 41.9 in 1945, and within 5 years it was 16.5!

I will tell you why----------->because once S.S. was passed, everyone that could retired, lol!

You DO realize that unless you admit the truth of the birthrate, then what you are saying that one of your idols; FDR, created a nonsensical package that could NEVER work-)

 

[g5000]

Everyone is trying to treat the symptoms, because they are too chickenshit to cure the disease.

We are living longer, we should be working longer.

Our politicians needs to grow some fucking balls and raise the retirement age.

Time to wake the fuck up and smell the coffee.

Also, don't start at 45, not fair.

Why?

Because obviously when the program was put in, EVERYBODY paid into the system that was not retired.

Doubt me on how it correlates?

Then explain how it fell from 41.9 in 1945, and within 5 years it was 16.5!

I will tell you why----------->because once S.S. was passed, everyone that could retired, lol!

You DO realize that unless you admit the truth of the birthrate, then what you are saying that one of your idols; FDR, created a nonsensical package that could NEVER work-)

The percentage of Americans over the age of 65 in 1935 (when SS was created) was 5.4%.

The percentage of Americans over the age of 65 in 1965 (when Medicare was added) was 9%. This is where I get my index figure from.

Today, the percentage of Americans over the age of 65 is 15%.

This is an unsustainable trend.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

 

[imawhosure]

Everyone is trying to treat the symptoms, because they are too chickenshit to cure the disease.

We are living longer, we should be working longer.

Our politicians needs to grow some fucking balls and raise the retirement age.

Time to wake the fuck up and smell the coffee.

Also, don't start at 45, not fair.

Why?

Because obviously when the program was put in, EVERYBODY paid into the system that was not retired.

Doubt me on how it correlates?

Then explain how it fell from 41.9 in 1945, and within 5 years it was 16.5!

I will tell you why----------->because once S.S. was passed, everyone that could retired, lol!

You DO realize that unless you admit the truth of the birthrate, then what you are saying that one of your idols; FDR, created a nonsensical package that could NEVER work-)

The percentage of Americans over the age of 65 in 1935 (when SS was created) was 5.4%.

The percentage of Americans over the age of 65 in 1965 (when Medicare was added) was 9%. This is where I get my index figure from.

Today, the percentage of Americans over the age of 65 is 15%.

This is an unsustainable trend.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

Didn't say you were 100% wrong. I am not even suggesting that.

What I am telling you is-------->the birthrate has also fallen dramatically. The equation is negative on both sides. More entering retirement, less being born to pay into the system.

 

[regent]

I think Republicans ought to try the "Social Security is communism" thing again, True it didn't work the first time, but apparently we have a new class of voters now, and I'm sure today many could be talked into voting against it.

 

[g5000]

Everyone is trying to treat the symptoms, because they are too chickenshit to cure the disease.

We are living longer, we should be working longer.

Our politicians needs to grow some fucking balls and raise the retirement age.

Time to wake the fuck up and smell the coffee.

Also, don't start at 45, not fair.

Why?

Because obviously when the program was put in, EVERYBODY paid into the system that was not retired.

Doubt me on how it correlates?

Then explain how it fell from 41.9 in 1945, and within 5 years it was 16.5!

I will tell you why----------->because once S.S. was passed, everyone that could retired, lol!

You DO realize that unless you admit the truth of the birthrate, then what you are saying that one of your idols; FDR, created a nonsensical package that could NEVER work-)

The percentage of Americans over the age of 65 in 1935 (when SS was created) was 5.4%.

The percentage of Americans over the age of 65 in 1965 (when Medicare was added) was 9%. This is where I get my index figure from.

Today, the percentage of Americans over the age of 65 is 15%.

This is an unsustainable trend.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

Didn't say you were 100% wrong. I am not even suggesting that.

What I am telling you is-------->the birthrate has also fallen dramatically. The equation is negative on both sides. More entering retirement, less being born to pay into the system.

Which is precisely why I said we should index the eligibility age to 9 percent of the population.

Stability and sustainability.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

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

Nope. Not even close.

There is no earnings cap for the Medicare payroll tax. Only for the SS payroll tax, and it isn't enough to make up the looming massive shortfall. Nowhere near enough.

We need to raise the eligibility age for SS and Medicare to 70, and then index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer. Common sense.

Your premise is wrong. We aren't living longer. More of us are living average. These are vastly different issues.

In 1940, a 65 year-old expected to live around 13 years in retirement. After cost increases of 15 to 25 fold, we live about 19 years in retirement. That is falling at this point because we are increasing the retirement age at this point. You are suggesting that we increase the retirement age of people who are already working 2 additional years to get roughly the same length of benefits.

 

[g5000]

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

Nope. Not even close.

There is no earnings cap for the Medicare payroll tax. Only for the SS payroll tax, and it isn't enough to make up the looming massive shortfall. Nowhere near enough.

We need to raise the eligibility age for SS and Medicare to 70, and then index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer. Common sense.

Your premise is wrong. We aren't living longer. More of us are living average. These are vastly different issues.

In 1940, a 65 year-old expected to live around 13 years in retirement. After cost increases of 15 to 25 fold, we live about 19 years in retirement. That is falling at this point because we are increasing the retirement age at this point. You are suggesting that we increase the retirement age of people who are already working 2 additional years to get roughly the same length of benefits.

Again, 5.4% of the population was over 65 in 1935, 9% of the population was over 65 in 1965, 15% of the population is over 65 today. Thus my 9 percent index.

We are most definitely living longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Joe, you know I agree with you on the fiscal problems of S.S. But the truth is------------> As long as S.S. is put into, then extracted from the general fund, we must discuss the general fund.

I would be careful because we are entering the house of hyperbole. The interaction between the general fund and SS is highly problematic. At this point, nothing goes from SS to the general fund because there is no excess payroll taxes collected. There hasn't been in 7 years.

Where Washington opened up Pandora's box was, when they (I believe it actually might have been under Reagan, but not sure) allowed S.S. overpayments (profits) to be used in the general fund instead of kept. In fact; unbeknownst to most on the left, it was the only way that Clinton balanced the budget; although he would have gotten mighty close without it, and good for him and his administration in either case.

Social Security was moved off budget in 1990. The driver of Clinton's budget surplus was the Dot.Com bubble and the capital gains created by a nation of day traders.

CPER is a left-wing thinktank :

The Stock Bubble Created the Budget Surplus: Not Bill Clinton's Tax and Spending Policies

"In short, the hero of the budget surplus story was the stock bubble, not President Clinton's tax cuts and budget restraint. This is important not only in dishing out praise for the surplus, it is also essential to a proper understanding of the economy."

This doesn't even get to my favorite source which is Y2K jobs, another event Clinton didn't cause.

He also is credited for income recognized by converting IRAs to Roths even though that tax revenue didn't really occur in his presidency.

In my humble opinion; and in no way am I suggesting you have to agree---------------> my whole premise is this----------> How far is S.S. in the hole? How far are other programs created by the federal government in the hole, especially those that do NOT receive direct funding from us, the taxpayer!

Social Security's hole is bigger than just about anything because of the time table. Medicare is a problem, but the cycle of start of cost to finish is a few years. Social Security starts collecting money 40 years before the bills are due, and those bills last decades.

As long as S.S. is an entitlement, we can NOT just lop it off. On the other hand, these other programs that are NOT entitlements can be lopped off.

And so............what we are basically saying as reality is this---------> when there WAS a more money than need in S.S., the government REMOVED that money to fund other things that were NOT directly funded. Now that we need the money, the government has to print, or tax us to replace it.

UMMMMMM, no they don't, at least wholly! They can kill other programs to fund it, and then insist we pay the rest.

That is what happens when you are a politician, and make a deal with the devil! Sadly, most of them are long gone, and God rest their soul. But as Americans, we should DEMAND that the money be put back from whence it came, not printing money for IOUs that they need to cover. After that, come to us with accounting books, and tell us that the money is now there, not IOU's, and that our currency won't be devalued because they have to print money to cover what they spirited away.

Now I have seen that your analysis insists that what I stated is NOT true!

I can show you that we simply have not contributed much in the way of excess cash. Most of what is there is interest which is derived from the month being invested. Surprisingly enough, US Treasuries were a good investment from 1983-2009.

Can you name a program that you would cut so that Bernie Sanders could collect his 50K in SS benefits? Probably not.

Then explain how Clinton balanced the budget, and yet in that year, the national debt rose. That is not possible by accounting standards, is it? The way he did it was, SOCIAL SECURITY OVERPAYMENTS. And to be fair, many, many politicians from both sides did it too, to make it appear the deficit was smaller than it was.

And finally-----------> What good is the promise of S.S. if the government has to print money to cover, if it causes the recipients inflow to devalue? That is what the government has done with a stagnant economy.

Give us 5% growth, and as long as we hold the line on spending, we can get out of this nightmare. 5%? Yeah, pie in the sky? Probably. But that is our choice, either ignite the economy, or go under.

Since the government creates nothing, it only taxes.......we better hope the left is wrong and 2% growth in the private sector is NOT the new norm, or it is Katie bar the door. We need a cash infusion badly, and to do that we need massive, economic, expansion. I am not Trump's biggest fan, but he is all we got for the time being, so I wish him......best......possible.....speed.

You are the best hope of the nation. It is people like you that take the time to realize that there is a problem. The vast majority of people are looking for politicians to solve a problem that they themselves will not look into. Not surprisingly, politicians tell these people that the problem that the voters will not investigate are solved. Not surprisingly the voters believe what the want to believe.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Everyone is trying to treat the symptoms, because they are too chickenshit to cure the disease.

We are living longer, we should be working longer.

Our politicians needs to grow some fucking balls and raise the retirement age.

Time to wake the fuck up and smell the coffee.

Also, don't start at 45, not fair.

Why?

Because obviously when the program was put in, EVERYBODY paid into the system that was not retired.

Doubt me on how it correlates?

Then explain how it fell from 41.9 in 1945, and within 5 years it was 16.5!

I will tell you why----------->because once S.S. was passed, everyone that could retired, lol!

You DO realize that unless you admit the truth of the birthrate, then what you are saying that one of your idols; FDR, created a nonsensical package that could NEVER work-)

The percentage of Americans over the age of 65 in 1935 (when SS was created) was 5.4%.

The percentage of Americans over the age of 65 in 1965 (when Medicare was added) was 9%. This is where I get my index figure from.

Today, the percentage of Americans over the age of 65 is 15%.

This is an unsustainable trend.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

Didn't say you were 100% wrong. I am not even suggesting that.

What I am telling you is-------->the birthrate has also fallen dramatically. The equation is negative on both sides. More entering retirement, less being born to pay into the system.

If the amount each worker paid was constant, then this ratio would be more meaningful. It the benefits were constant, the ratio would be meaningful. Seniors benefits are not constant. So we value a ratio which doesn't tell us about the earnings power of the system or the cost to run it. This is how little people think about the system.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

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

Nope. Not even close.

There is no earnings cap for the Medicare payroll tax. Only for the SS payroll tax, and it isn't enough to make up the looming massive shortfall. Nowhere near enough.

We need to raise the eligibility age for SS and Medicare to 70, and then index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer. Common sense.

Your premise is wrong. We aren't living longer. More of us are living average. These are vastly different issues.

In 1940, a 65 year-old expected to live around 13 years in retirement. After cost increases of 15 to 25 fold, we live about 19 years in retirement. That is falling at this point because we are increasing the retirement age at this point. You are suggesting that we increase the retirement age of people who are already working 2 additional years to get roughly the same length of benefits.

Again, 5.4% of the population was over 65 in 1935, 9% of the population was over 65 in 1965, 15% of the population is over 65 today. Thus my 9 percent index.

We are most definitely living longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

Can I bring up the obvious? In 1935, the program covered 1/2 of the work-force. By 1950, only 15% of those 65 and older were eligible for benefits. You can't compare ratios from the 1930s with today. It isn't apples and oranges. It is apples and auto parts.

I can point you to data from the SSA, and you are going to still tell me that we are living longer. 2/3rds of the increase in the time in retirement is explained by more people living average. The increase in actually living longer in life is round-off compared to the increase in what people are paying.

 

[g5000]

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

Nope. Not even close.

There is no earnings cap for the Medicare payroll tax. Only for the SS payroll tax, and it isn't enough to make up the looming massive shortfall. Nowhere near enough.

We need to raise the eligibility age for SS and Medicare to 70, and then index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer. Common sense.

Your premise is wrong. We aren't living longer. More of us are living average. These are vastly different issues.

In 1940, a 65 year-old expected to live around 13 years in retirement. After cost increases of 15 to 25 fold, we live about 19 years in retirement. That is falling at this point because we are increasing the retirement age at this point. You are suggesting that we increase the retirement age of people who are already working 2 additional years to get roughly the same length of benefits.

Again, 5.4% of the population was over 65 in 1935, 9% of the population was over 65 in 1965, 15% of the population is over 65 today. Thus my 9 percent index.

We are most definitely living longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

Can I bring up the obvious? In 1935, the program covered 1/2 of the work-force. By 1950, only 15% of those 65 and older were eligible for benefits. You can't compare ratios from the 1930s with today. It isn't apples and oranges. It is apples and auto parts.

That only adds more value to my point. A smaller and smaller percentage of workers supporting an ever increasing percentage of retirees.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

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

Nope. Not even close.

There is no earnings cap for the Medicare payroll tax. Only for the SS payroll tax, and it isn't enough to make up the looming massive shortfall. Nowhere near enough.

We need to raise the eligibility age for SS and Medicare to 70, and then index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer. Common sense.

Your premise is wrong. We aren't living longer. More of us are living average. These are vastly different issues.

In 1940, a 65 year-old expected to live around 13 years in retirement. After cost increases of 15 to 25 fold, we live about 19 years in retirement. That is falling at this point because we are increasing the retirement age at this point. You are suggesting that we increase the retirement age of people who are already working 2 additional years to get roughly the same length of benefits.

Again, 5.4% of the population was over 65 in 1935, 9% of the population was over 65 in 1965, 15% of the population is over 65 today. Thus my 9 percent index.

We are most definitely living longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

Can I bring up the obvious? In 1935, the program covered 1/2 of the work-force. By 1950, only 15% of those 65 and older were eligible for benefits. You can't compare ratios from the 1930s with today. It isn't apples and oranges. It is apples and auto parts.

That only adds more value to my point. A smaller and smaller percentage of workers supporting an ever increasing percentage of retirees.

Actually it only adds to your willingness to compare apples and auto parts. It takes 45 years for a person to go from entering the work force to retirement. Looking at the cost and numbers at the start is useless. The ratio of workers to retirees from 1980 is roughly where these ratio have any value at all - and that is very limited considering the rising in the costs. In the 1980s, the ratio was roughly 3.2-3.4 to 1. That ratio was sufficient to generate a $2.9 trillion surplus. So talking about the data from 1935 is simply a conclusion in search of data.

 

[bendog]

Nope. Not even close.

There is no earnings cap for the Medicare payroll tax. Only for the SS payroll tax, and it isn't enough to make up the looming massive shortfall. Nowhere near enough.

We need to raise the eligibility age for SS and Medicare to 70, and then index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer. Common sense.

Your premise is wrong. We aren't living longer. More of us are living average. These are vastly different issues.

In 1940, a 65 year-old expected to live around 13 years in retirement. After cost increases of 15 to 25 fold, we live about 19 years in retirement. That is falling at this point because we are increasing the retirement age at this point. You are suggesting that we increase the retirement age of people who are already working 2 additional years to get roughly the same length of benefits.

Again, 5.4% of the population was over 65 in 1935, 9% of the population was over 65 in 1965, 15% of the population is over 65 today. Thus my 9 percent index.

We are most definitely living longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

Can I bring up the obvious? In 1935, the program covered 1/2 of the work-force. By 1950, only 15% of those 65 and older were eligible for benefits. You can't compare ratios from the 1930s with today. It isn't apples and oranges. It is apples and auto parts.

That only adds more value to my point. A smaller and smaller percentage of workers supporting an ever increasing percentage of retirees.

Actually it only adds to your willingness to compare apples and auto parts. It takes 45 years for a person to go from entering the work force to retirement. Looking at the cost and numbers at the start is useless. The ratio of workers to retirees from 1980 is roughly where these ratio have any value at all - and that is very limited considering the rising in the costs. In the 1980s, the ratio was roughly 3.2-3.4 to 1. That ratio was sufficient to generate a $2.9 trillion surplus. So talking about the data from 1935 is simply a conclusion in search of data.

It is both a reduction in ratio and increase in the number of retiree.

Social Security History

Is the Number of Workers per Social Security Retiree Declining?

I'm more than a bit curious about your assertion that the 1990s was a result of the dotcom bubble. Certainly that was there, but we're a service economy now. For gnp purposes it doesn't make any difference if we're service or manufacturing or what causes a recession or decline in yearly gnp. We had a soc sec tax surplus largely because we had not yet seen the increase in boomers retiring. See graph 1

G5000 is largely correct in terms of the % of workers living long enough to receive benefits. He is, imo, not so much correct in the viability of increasing the working age ... unless we expand disability programs.

 

[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.
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.

Please read below FACT more people are NOT retiring at 65!
Why More Americans Are Working Past Age 65
The proportion of people age 65 and older in the workforce grew to 16.1 percent by 2010, up from 12.1 percent in 1990, according to a recent Census Bureau report. And the percentage of people between ages 65 and 69 who are working grew 9 percentage points to 30.8 percent in 2010.
These numbers are expected to further increase as baby boomers continue to reach retirement age.
A recent Conference Board survey found that 62 percent of people ages 45 to 60 plan to delay retirement, up from 42 percent in 2010. Here's a look at some of the reasons people are increasingly working during the traditional retirement years:
Health conditions are better managed than they were in the past and that makes it possible for workers, even with health limitations, to remain in the workplace," says Rix. There's also a growing realization that if you retire at age 65 and live until age 95, you will need to save enough to pay for 30 years of retirement.
https://money.usnews.com/money/reti...11/why-more-americans-are-working-past-age-65