Some Inconvenient Facts About Social Security

[80zephyr]

It is funded by over 150 million people

So, do you know what an unfunded liability is?

 

[rightwinger]

Cutting benefits by raising the age will not be something that is agreeable to those who have the largest voter participation percentage of any demographic.

Those being those 50 and older.

That is why you phase in the increases depending on how old you are.
20- 35: 70 years
35-45: 69 years
45-55: 68 years

Above 55, no change

 

[80zephyr]

It is sustainable if you gradually increase the age to 70 and require payments up to $250,000 income

Fuck that. People that actually work for a living would have a hard time making it. Why not have two retirement ages like some countries do. People that do physical labor can retire earlier.

 

[rightwinger]

So, do you know what an unfunded liability is?

The money is there

 

[rightwinger]

Fuck that. People that actually work for a living would have a hard time making it. Why not have two retirement ages like some countries do. People that do physical labor can retire earlier.

How about if you do physical labor you pay an extra 1 percent of your income and you can retire earlier?

 

[WorldWatcher]

That is why you phase in the increases depending on how old you are.
20- 35: 70 years
35-45: 69 years
45-55: 68 years

Above 55, no change

Cutting SS benefits by increasing the Full Retirement Age (FRA) and corresponding early retirement ages will not go over well politically with seniors.

And yes, raising the age is a cut because the intent is to reduce benefits payouts in two ways (a) few number of years in retirement, and (b) more people die without drawing any benefits.

Then of course the savings SS retirement payments will be off set by MORE people going on SS disability as their bodies wear out and they can't work.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Fuck that. People that actually work for a living would have a hard time making it. Why not have two retirement ages like some countries do. People that do physical labor can retire earlier.

Interesting, hadn't seen that before. Can you provide a link to first world countries that are doing this. ("First world" might not be the correct description, I'm talking about major developed counties.)

WW

 

[80zephyr]

The money is there

Umm. No, its not.

 

[80zephyr]

Interesting, hadn't seen that before. Can you provide a link to first world countries that are doing this. ("First world" might not be the correct description, I'm talking about major developed counties.)

WW

Read about it some months ago but damned if I can find it now.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Read about it some months ago but damned if I can find it now.

China is trying to change its problematic retirement age

China has some of the youngest retirement ages in the world, and a population that’s rapidly aging.

qz.com

The only one I could find was China with 55 for White Collar Females and 50 for Blue Collar Females.

(For men it's 60 for both types of work.)

WW

 

[rightwinger]

Umm. No, its not.

Same as it always has been

 

[rightwinger]

And yes, raising the age is a cut because the intent is to reduce benefits payouts in two ways (a) few number of years in retirement, and (b) more people die without drawing any benefits.

It is not a cut because people are living longer

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Tough sh#t! I don't care where you get it. I don't want to hear it. Just get it and make sure we keep getting the checks we were promised. I was probably paying in, before you were born. Don't think of me as an unsecured creditor now. Just pay up, even if you have to raise taxes on the rich to pay for it. Just look in to my eyes and see if I give a sh#t, what you want to welsh out on.

Devils advocate here.
Which rich?
Being a liberal I agree wholly with the idea that there are many ultra rich folks who do not pay their fair share of taxes. See Bernie’s example of a guy who pays a lower income tax rate than his secretary. That’s income tax though .

Wage earners, even those you may consider rich, pay their fair share as their taxes are taken like everyone else before anything even hits their accounts. They pay their 35 or 37 percent income and the max payroll tax.

Why should they be on the hook for a SS fix when they’re doing everything right?

There’s gotta be a way to raise revenue from those ultra rich who avoid taxes altogether.

 

[Grumblenuts]

And yes, raising the age is a cut

One at odds with the intent of S.S. to begin with.

The Social Security Act was signed into law by President Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. In addition to several provisions for general welfare, the new Act created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It is not a cut because people are living longer

Let's address the idea that some propose of raising the Full Retirement Age (FRA) to 70 and it NOT being a cut in benefits because the monthly check isn't reduced. Those supporting that premise are factually incorrect either by mistake or on purpose (and I'm not making a claim either way on that point).

I was thinking about this in the shower this morning and over coffee so decided to show mathematically how that is incorrect.

So let's establish some baseline conditions to make the calculations easier:

• A couple share the exact same birth date.
• A couple starts drawing SS benefits on the same date based on FRA.
• One spouse has the higher income and dies on his birthday at age 77.
• The surviving spouse has either no income or a lower income and dies on her birthday at age 87.
• For purposes of these scenarios cola is ignored because it doesn't change the mathematical principals it just makes thing more complicated as you then have to (a) determine the COLA for each year and then do calculations for each individual year over a 20 year span. Again the principal is unchanged, it just make the math more cumbersome.
• No intent on insulting anyone by sex, feel free to change genders for male/female, male/male, female/female and who is the primary "bring home the bacon" person as you wish. Given the income and age assumptions it doesn't matter. I'm the higher earning in my couple, my boss is the higher earning in her marriage and he's a stay at home Dad. So consider it in the light of whatever floats your boat.

[DISCLAIMER: Ignore the fact that the numbers get pretty big. Remember these are cumulative number supporting 2 people for 10 years and 1 person for an additional 10 years. The numbers therefore are spread over 20 years.]

[DISCLAIMER 2: Of course exact numbers vary based on age, when one or both members of the couple begin drawing social security, when one spouse actually passes and when the other spouse passes.]

SCENARIOS A RESPECTIVELY:
In scenario a the husband brings home the bacon and the wife is a more traditional stay at home none-working spouse. Well traditional for the 50s, 60s, and early 70s. Because the wife didn't work in a SS qualifying job, but instead maintained the house, cleaned the house, cooked the meals, did the laundry, took care of the kids, she has no SS benefits based on work history.

Scenario A (FRA = 67) [Column B] establishes the baseline for "A". The husband is the only one drawing SS benefits and when he passed at 77, the wife is eligible to draw at his rate for the remainder of her life for old age support. Total benefit draw here is over a period of 20 years.

Scenario A (FRA = 70) [Column C] shows the impact of raising FRA to 70 years and establishing that as the new 100% threshold. The husband is the only one drawing SS benefits and when he passed at 77, the wife is eligible to draw at his rate for the remainder of her life for old age support. Total benefit draw here is over a period of 17 years.

SCENARIOS B RESPECTIVELY:
Here we have a more modern reality where both of the couple work. One being a higher wage earner than the other.

Scenario B (FRA = 67) [Column D] establishes the baseline for "B". In this case both the husband and wife work and qualify for benefits in their own right. The husband draws $3,000 per month until his death and the wife draws $2,000 a month until his death. Upon his death the wife is able to draw at his rate for the remainder of her life for old age support. Total benefit draw here is over a period of 20 years.

Scenario B (FRA = 70) [Column E] shows the impact of raising FRA to 70 years and establishing that as the new 100% threshold. In this case both the husband and wife work and qualify for benefits in their own right. The husband draws $3,000 per month until his death and the wife draws $2,000 a month until his death. Upon his death the wife is able to draw at his rate for the remainder of her life for old age support. Total benefit draw here is over a period of 17 years.
.
.
.
.
As can be clearly seen, raising the FRA from 67 to 70 results in a reduction of benefits (Scenario A = $108K and Scenario B = $180K).

The whole purpose of raising FRA from 67 to 70 is to reduce benefit payouts by the system, how is that achieved? (A) B more people die without drawing benefits, and (B) by reducing the number of years that individuals are likely to draw benefits from the system since FRA is now higher.

Anyone that can't recognize that as a "cut" in benefits is either (A) mistaken or (B) doesn't understand the math involved. In past discussions the individuals that don't "see" the cut tend to focus solely on the monthly check and ignore the impact over time.

Hope this helps some.

WW
[NOTE - this is a post made for another board the other day.]

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Eliminate the earnings cap. Problem solved.

Easy to say.
Why is it morally acceptable to you to screw that demographic out of their benefit rather than lower wage earners?

 

[rightwinger]

View attachment 763080

Let's address the idea that some propose of raising the Full Retirement Age (FRA) to 70 and it NOT being a cut in benefits because the monthly check isn't reduced. Those supporting that premise are factually incorrect either by mistake or on purpose (and I'm not making a claim either way on that point).

I was thinking about this in the shower this morning and over coffee so decided to show mathematically how that is incorrect.

So let's establish some baseline conditions to make the calculations easier:

• A couple share the exact same birth date.
• A couple starts drawing SS benefits on the same date based on FRA.
• One spouse has the higher income and dies on his birthday at age 77.
• The surviving spouse has either no income or a lower income and dies on her birthday at age 87.
• For purposes of these scenarios cola is ignored because it doesn't change the mathematical principals it just makes thing more complicated as you then have to (a) determine the COLA for each year and then do calculations for each individual year over a 20 year span. Again the principal is unchanged, it just make the math more cumbersome.
• No intent on insulting anyone by sex, feel free to change genders for male/female, male/male, female/female and who is the primary "bring home the bacon" person as you wish. Given the income and age assumptions it doesn't matter. I'm the higher earning in my couple, my boss is the higher earning in her marriage and he's a stay at home Dad. So consider it in the light of whatever floats your boat.

[DISCLAIMER: Ignore the fact that the numbers get pretty big. Remember these are cumulative number supporting 2 people for 10 years and 1 person for an additional 10 years. The numbers therefore are spread over 20 years.]

[DISCLAIMER 2: Of course exact numbers vary based on age, when one or both members of the couple begin drawing social security, when one spouse actually passes and when the other spouse passes.]

SCENARIOS A RESPECTIVELY:
In scenario a the husband brings home the bacon and the wife is a more traditional stay at home none-working spouse. Well traditional for the 50s, 60s, and early 70s. Because the wife didn't work in a SS qualifying job, but instead maintained the house, cleaned the house, cooked the meals, did the laundry, took care of the kids, she has no SS benefits based on work history.

Scenario A (FRA = 67) [Column B] establishes the baseline for "A". The husband is the only one drawing SS benefits and when he passed at 77, the wife is eligible to draw at his rate for the remainder of her life for old age support. Total benefit draw here is over a period of 20 years.

Scenario A (FRA = 70) [Column C] shows the impact of raising FRA to 70 years and establishing that as the new 100% threshold. The husband is the only one drawing SS benefits and when he passed at 77, the wife is eligible to draw at his rate for the remainder of her life for old age support. Total benefit draw here is over a period of 17 years.

SCENARIOS B RESPECTIVELY:
Here we have a more modern reality where both of the couple work. One being a higher wage earner than the other.

Scenario B (FRA = 67) [Column D] establishes the baseline for "B". In this case both the husband and wife work and qualify for benefits in their own right. The husband draws $3,000 per month until his death and the wife draws $2,000 a month until his death. Upon his death the wife is able to draw at his rate for the remainder of her life for old age support. Total benefit draw here is over a period of 20 years.

Scenario B (FRA = 70) [Column E] shows the impact of raising FRA to 70 years and establishing that as the new 100% threshold. In this case both the husband and wife work and qualify for benefits in their own right. The husband draws $3,000 per month until his death and the wife draws $2,000 a month until his death. Upon his death the wife is able to draw at his rate for the remainder of her life for old age support. Total benefit draw here is over a period of 17 years.
.
.
.
.
As can be clearly seen, raising the FRA from 67 to 70 results in a reduction of benefits (Scenario A = $108K and Scenario B = $180K).

The whole purpose of raising FRA from 67 to 70 is to reduce benefit payouts by the system, how is that achieved? (A) B more people die without drawing benefits, and (B) by reducing the number of years that individuals are likely to draw benefits from the system since FRA is now higher.

Anyone that can't recognize that as a "cut" in benefits is either (A) mistaken or (B) doesn't understand the math involved. In past discussions the individuals that don't "see" the cut tend to focus solely on the monthly check and ignore the impact over time.

Hope this helps some.

WW
[NOTE - this is a post made for another board the other day.]

Damn…..you take long showers
I usually just wash my balls and get out

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The Baby Boomer Bulge is a real thing. But think of it like a pigeon passing through the gullet of a snake. There is a bulge, but it will pass.

Not saying making the system work while the bulge passes won't be difficult but the ratio's will change in the future as more boomers die off.

WW

It just comes down to who gets screwed with the bulge.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Regardless, life expectancy has dropped recently and most likely shall continue dropping.

 

[rightwinger]

Regardless, life expectancy has dropped recently and most likely shall continue dropping.

Momentary spike due to COVID