Would Social Security be solvent if ...

[D P Six]

It seems to be common knowledge at this point that the SS trust fund is as empty as a politician's heart. If social security 'contributions' had not been used as a golden goose slush fund, would social security be operating in the black now and thru the cycle of baby boomer retirements? Or was SS doomed to implode even if it was managed with integrity and had not been raided for it's reserves?

[gates]

I believe it would still be doomed - It would be in the black today but, under current contribution limits and "retirement" ages the math just does not work - when established the avg beneficiary may have drawn checks for a few years if they even reached retirement age - now folks are drawing for 20+ years - when the pig passes through the python (boomers retire) drastic changes will need to be made if the checks are to keep coming and actually have any purchasing power.

Solutions:

Remove income contribution limits

Raise retirement age to 70

Means test

some or all of those things will be required.

By the way - SS while in deep shit is not the 800lb gorilla - Medicare is...

[Skilter]

when you run out of people at the bottom of the ponzi...

Here is what I would also say...

If i were to present you with the opportunity to put 1000 bucks into a fund and then when you got your inestment back you would get 100 bucks a month for 8 months would you be happy? Hell no!... That is what SS does to 85% of all the people that get it.

F! SS for Gen X or later...

YMMV

[Skilter]

oh... and for your "means test and solutions" F.. U! I don't want to give 15 and 1/3 of my income as a self employed person (electrician, carpenter, insurance agent...) to a bunch of politicians that will spend it where I will never see it. Nor do I want it to go to a bunch of political buttholes who change the retirement age to a place were I might never see it...

[gates]

NOW you see why I post this shit here - I moved beyond the anger stage 2 YEARS ago - welcome to the "Red Pill" - it sucks - oh I know it sucks!...

When you get to acceptance you start to look for answers if you are a fighter...

what I posted ARE the answers - sorry, we're broke!

BTW - you didnt address Medicare - 5-6 times the problem SS faces - yes - we're fuked - again, I am trying to HELP people here - they need to know what is coming - they may not like the message but it does NOT change the facts...

[JR in the NW]

There never was a trust fund so it can't be broke. Get that out of your head. When you hear someone say "trust fund" in conjunction with social security, they're either a liar, or don't know what the hell they're talking about.

[Eric Bryant]

Originally posted by gates
By the way - SS while in deep shit is not the 800lb gorilla - Medicare is...

Medicare does go into the red about five years prior to SS, but by 2020, they both suck pretty much equally (to the tune of about $500B/year each, if I recall correctly). The root cause of both is basically the same - unanticipated shifts in demographics that didn't result in much-needed adjustments due to cowardly politicians, powerful lobbists, and short-sighted voters.

This is going to suck quite massively for my generation and those who follow :(

[L Haney]

My MIL is on medicare. In the last 45 days, due to health issues and a fall that resulted in a broken hip, she has incurred more medical costs than I have in my entire life. I'm 50, she's 76. And it won't stop soon. The ward (Phy. Rehab) she is on is almost entirely medicare patients. Over 90% of the patients are over 75. I don't have an answer, but I do know something will have to give. We're broke, but no one in government will admit it.

[Eric Bryant]

End-of-life medical costs are amazingly high. But we can't even approach the subject without hearing cries about "death panels" and the like, so we will continue to mis-allocate health care.

[chrsdwns]

It's very simple sixth grade math

To many people overusing the system, too few paying in to support it.

We have run out of more people to pay into the system and we are taxing most of those in the system as much as we realistically can.

[alant]

Social Security is a relatively easy fix. Health care in general and Medicare in particular are not so easy.

http://www.eriposte.com/policy/social_security/AngryBear_GAO_bigpicture.jpg
The Social Security trust fund is not a "myth"; dishonest privatization proponents use the "myth" term when convenient, while dropping it when inconvenient.

1.132 Claims that Social Security has an "unfunded liability" of "$11 trillion" are outright deception

But the proponents of the crisis story have been largely successful in spreading fear. Part of this success is due to the use of deceptive language in framing the issue. The promoters of the crisis routinely speak of an $11 trillion “unfunded liability” for Social Security. But most of the people who hear the $11 trillion figure or use it (including reporters) probably have no idea what it means.

The $11 trillion is obtained by projecting Social Security taxes and spending for the infinite future. The gap between projected spending and taxes for all time is then summed up (using a 3-percent real-discount rate) to get a projection of $11 trillion of debt.

However, more than two-thirds of this projected debt is due to spending beyond the 75-year planning period for Social Security. This means that the debt is not something that we are imposing on our children or grandchildren. Rather, it is a debt that we are projecting that our great-grandchildren would impose on their grandchildren -- assuming pessimistic economic projections.

The basic story is that life expectancies are projected to increase through time. This raises the cost of the program through time. If taxes are never raised and benefits are never reduced, the shortfall would eventually be very large.
http://www.eriposte.com/policy/socialsecurity.htm

[JR in the NW]

Originally posted by alant



[i]The Social Security trust fund is not a "myth"; dishonest privatization proponents use the "myth" term when convenient, while dropping it when inconvenient.



HELVERING V. DAVIS, 301 U. S. 619 (1937)

8. Title II of the Social Security Act provides for "Federal Old-Age Benefits" for persons who have attained the age of 65. It creates an "Old-Age Reserve Account" in the Treasury and authorizes future appropriations to provide for the required old-age payments, but, in itself, neither appropriates money nor brings any money into the Treasury.

Title VIII, as we have said, lays two different types of tax, an "income tax on employees" and "an excise tax on employers." The income tax on employees is measured by wages paid during the calendar year. § 801. The excise tax on the employer is to be paid "with respect to having individuals in his employ," and, like the tax on employees, is measured by wages. § 804. Neither tax is applicable to certain types of employment, such as agricultural labor, domestic service, service for the national or state governments, and service performed by persons who have attained the age of 65 years. § 811(b). The two taxes are at the same rate. §§ 801, 804. For the years 1937 to 1939, inclusive, the rate for each tax is fixed at one percent. Thereafter the rate increases 1/2 of 1 percent every three years, until, after December 31, 1948, the rate for each tax reaches 3 percent. Ibid. In the computation of wages, all remuneration is to be included except so much as is in excess of $3,000 during the calendar year affected. § 811(a). The income tax on employees is to be collected by the employer, who is to deduct the amount from the wages "as and when paid." § 80a(a). He is indemnified against claims and demands of any person by reason of such payment. Ibid. The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way. § 807(a). There are penalties for nonpayment. § 807(c).

[TheJokker]

the government has no business interfering in the business of healthcare. americans should have an equal opportunity to go out and earn healthcare for themselves.

[alant]

Originally posted by TheJokker
the government has no business interfering in the business of healthcare. americans should have an equal opportunity to go out and earn healthcare for themselves.

I don't think you understand TheJokker. People get sick and they get health care, all they have to do is get to an Emergency Room. Old people don't even have to get sick, they get medicare, they don't need to go to the ER either.

If poor people received better health care - preventive medicine - the health care they get "for free" (paid by someone else of course) would cost less. High blood pressure medicine costs less than a few weeks in cardiac care.

The rest of the first world has some form of universal health care - every country except the US. Every one of those countries spends less on health care per person than the US. Many of them have, by all accounts, better results.

Now we can go on spending more on health care and getting worse results using the present system, or we can get our act together and provide better (or at least no worse) care while also spending less.

[Skilter]

... and who does the rest of the world look to for the majority of medical advancements? The good 'ole USA. Why is this? Perhaps it is because it is best. Although our system may be expensive, it is still the best. Or, at least it was...

[RG Coburn]

"If poor people received better health care - preventive medicine - the health care they get "for free" (paid by someone else of course) would cost less. High blood pressure medicine costs less than a few weeks in cardiac care."

Yeah..right..
Dream on.
People who have no intention of paying for their own healthcare also have no intention of bothering to do anything preventative.

[gates]

Alant that may be true but in order to provide that there have to be limits - AKA -rationing - AKA - DEATH PANELS - big no no to talk about that in front of our retired folk... you go have THAT conversation - AND return alive to report your success in convincing them... I'll sign off:-) I wish you luck...

[alant]

Originally posted by gates
Alant that may be true but in order to provide that there have to be limits - AKA -rationing - AKA - DEATH PANELS - big no no to talk about that in front of our retired folk... you go have THAT conversation - AND return alive to report your success in convincing them... I'll sign off:-) I wish you luck...

So we keep on doing the same things, health care costs continue to rise as a percentage of GDP, results get no better, insurance premiums continue to rise faster than inflation? People at the top have no problem, people and small businesses in the middle get squeezed, and poor people get the shaft or get govt health care paid by everyone else. Just keep doing the same thing and hope for better results, that's the plan?

[gates]

No - thats not the plan - you find a leader with some balls and you have an adult conversation with the American people - depending on whose numbers you believe, we are borrowing .37-.44 cents of every dollar we spend at the Federal level - we cannot keep doing this - American's can't expect to contribute $10000 to Medicare over their working lives and expect $80000 hip replacements at age 82 - they have been conditioned to but when laid bare, in a national debate, they will be shamed into accepting reality - there have been articles written lately about the coming generation wars - our politicians have made promises that cannot be paid for - THAT conversation is coming.