Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There is $2.6 Trillion in Social Security, enough to make full payments for the next 27 years. At that point it would still pay out 75%.I'm not really sure how this would solve the problem at all. I would simply create more debt.
The only way I can see to make Social Security solvent at this point is to raise the retirement age.
It could easily last indefinitely if people had it deducted on income above $106,000.
What other entity would you depend on to manage our military forces and perform the other indispensable functions that government manages via the application of our tax money.This is such absurd BS, I am honestly sitting here shaking my head. Are you REALLY trying to argue that we SHOULD depend on our Federal Government to take our money from us for our own good????
There is $2.6 Trillion in Social Security, enough to make full payments for the next 27 years. At that point it would still pay out 75%.I'm not really sure how this would solve the problem at all. I would simply create more debt.
The only way I can see to make Social Security solvent at this point is to raise the retirement age.
It could easily last indefinitely if people had it deducted on income above $106,000.
In 2009 alone, Social Security benefit expenditures were $686 Billion.
Source: United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That means that $2.6 Trillion dollars would last for less than 4 years, if no more money were paid into the system. As the baby boomer generation retires, expenditures are expected to rise quite a bit.
Where are you getting the 27 year figure exactly?
There is $2.6 Trillion in Social Security, enough to make full payments for the next 27 years. At that point it would still pay out 75%.
It could easily last indefinitely if people had it deducted on income above $106,000.
In 2009 alone, Social Security benefit expenditures were $686 Billion.
Source: United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That means that $2.6 Trillion dollars would last for less than 4 years, if no more money were paid into the system. As the baby boomer generation retires, expenditures are expected to rise quite a bit.
Where are you getting the 27 year figure exactly?
Uhhhh.....maybe it's because you're not looking at the money going in to it from payroll deductions.
Oddball,You pay in your whole life for food stamps and you don't get them, just because a happenstance of the calendar.
Just because you have a completely separate program called "Social Security" doesn't mean it's not ultimately a handout.
Your're right, but most employees pay a 7.65% FICA tax, matched by the employer. The hundreds of billions collected in FICA taxes extends the life of the trust about 20 years. So if we aren't concerned, which we should be, with reducing benefits, Congress can do nothing and seniors will get a big reduction in their Social Security checks in about 20 years. This doesn't effect the deficit or the national debt, however it creates a huge breach of faith with the American people.There is $2.6 Trillion in Social Security, enough to make full payments for the next 27 years. At that point it would still pay out 75%.I'm not really sure how this would solve the problem at all. I would simply create more debt.
The only way I can see to make Social Security solvent at this point is to raise the retirement age.
It could easily last indefinitely if people had it deducted on income above $106,000.
In 2009 alone, Social Security benefit expenditures were $686 Billion.
Source: United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That means that $2.6 Trillion dollars would last for less than 4 years, if no more money were paid into the system. As the baby boomer generation retires, expenditures are expected to rise quite a bit.
Where are you getting the 27 year figure exactly?
Your're right, but most employees pay a 7.65% FICA tax, matched by the employer. The hundreds of billions collected in FICA taxes extends the life of the trust about 20 years. So if we aren't concerned, which we should be, with reducing benefits, Congress can do nothing and seniors will get a big reduction in their Social Security checks in about 20 years. This doesn't effect the deficit or the national debt, however it creates a huge breach of faith with the American people.There is $2.6 Trillion in Social Security, enough to make full payments for the next 27 years. At that point it would still pay out 75%.
It could easily last indefinitely if people had it deducted on income above $106,000.
In 2009 alone, Social Security benefit expenditures were $686 Billion.
Source: United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That means that $2.6 Trillion dollars would last for less than 4 years, if no more money were paid into the system. As the baby boomer generation retires, expenditures are expected to rise quite a bit.
Where are you getting the 27 year figure exactly?
There are many fixes for Social Security. We can take the cap off the amount high income earners pay. We can increase the FICA rate. We can extend the retirement age. We can tax benefits. Although these fixes may be painful, they pale in comparison to the fixes for the deficit.
I don't know how old you are but I assume you are working and contributing to the FICA. If you're a young fellow you probably resent that deduction from your paycheck. But I assure that one day you will be very grateful to those who conceived the program that forced you to contribute. Because in spite of what anyone tells you, you can't do better. In fact you can't do as good without taking enormous risk with private investments.
The Republican greedheads on Wall Street just can't wait to get their hands on Social Security.
They will steal anything that is not tied down.
I don't know how old you are but I assume you are working and contributing to the FICA. If you're a young fellow you probably resent that deduction from your paycheck. But I assure that one day you will be very grateful to those who conceived the program that forced you to contribute. Because in spite of what anyone tells you, you can't do better. In fact you can't do as good without taking enormous risk with private investments.
Well considering how willing you were to show us in that paragraph that you don't know dick about finance, I don't doubt that you can't do better than Social Security. For the rest of us educated folk, yes, we resent having to pay for people like you. I don't include Social Security in my retirement planning because I'm smart enough to know it will no longer exist when I reach that age.
You support allowing people to invest some or all of the SS payments into private account?
Yep. Saving Social Security by increasing the normal retirement age can be fairly painless. It can be done by adding two months to the normal retirement age each year. In 20 years the retirement age would be about 69. That should add at east 10 or 15 years to the life of the trust fund. By then, the life span will probably have increase another 2 or 3 years, so we can again gradually add more months to normal retirement date. I don't know what the big fuss is about this. It will not cause any major effect on retirement plans, will not increase taxes, have no effect on deficits or debt.Your're right, but most employees pay a 7.65% FICA tax, matched by the employer. The hundreds of billions collected in FICA taxes extends the life of the trust about 20 years. So if we aren't concerned, which we should be, with reducing benefits, Congress can do nothing and seniors will get a big reduction in their Social Security checks in about 20 years. This doesn't effect the deficit or the national debt, however it creates a huge breach of faith with the American people.In 2009 alone, Social Security benefit expenditures were $686 Billion.
Source: United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That means that $2.6 Trillion dollars would last for less than 4 years, if no more money were paid into the system. As the baby boomer generation retires, expenditures are expected to rise quite a bit.
Where are you getting the 27 year figure exactly?
There are many fixes for Social Security. We can take the cap off the amount high income earners pay. We can increase the FICA rate. We can extend the retirement age. We can tax benefits. Although these fixes may be painful, they pale in comparison to the fixes for the deficit.
Oh, I'm in complete agreement.
I believe that raising the retirement age is the most logical way to go, as people have been living healthier and longer lives. And they'll keep on contributing while they work those extra couple of years.
If it's a choice between delaying retirement a couple of years, or the system going broke before I am even eligible in 2037, I'll take the former, thank you very much.
I have a big problem with tax money going to (some) farm subsidies and to any corporate bailouts but I have no problem with financing the food stamp program.[You don't have a choice as to whether or not you're going to pay your taxes for food stamps, farm subsidies and bailouts, either.
While some Social Security recipients do indeed receive more money than they've contributed to the program the factors you haven't considered are (a) the enormous amount of interest the Fund derives from its domestic and foreign investments and (b) how many contributors collect little or no benefits at all. Consider how many American workers never live to age 65, or those who die soon after and leave no dependent survivor. There are many.And scads of SSI recipients, the ones in the early decades in particular, have received back numerous times more than they ever put in.
That's Limbaugh talk and it makes no sense.Glorified welfare is all SSI is.
Tell me how can you call SS a success when it limits your retirement income?
I've already shown how a person making as little as 43K per year could retire with a monthly income of almost 20 times the maximum SS benefit.
It seems to me that SS is designed to keep people from being wealthy.
Tell me how can you call SS a success when it limits your retirement income?
I've already shown how a person making as little as 43K per year could retire with a monthly income of almost 20 times the maximum SS benefit.
It seems to me that SS is designed to keep people from being wealthy.
Because no matter what happens in your life from a wife taking everything you have to losing everything you own in the stock market, SS will provide you a guaranteed income for the rest of your life.
And there is nothing stopping anyone from investing as much or as little other income as they want and getting the monthly income of which you speak. And you will STILL get SS. So no, it does NOT "limit" your retirement income.
Ah. Tax more. That's always been the solution each and every time a problem has been found. If it's welfare it needs to be run as welfare, tax progressively and means test the benefit payout. If it's insurance it needs to be run as a sustainable insurance plan. Currently it's neither.The right wing has been threatening the demise of Social Security for 75 years. The current program will be sustainable if they gradually raise the retirement age to 70 and end the earnings cap. Not justification for scrapping the system and starting over
A sustainable insurance plan means the money in equals money out. Raising the retirement age means less money out. Ending the cap on contributions means more money in.
SS works and has worked for generations
