SS is in the black

[Freewill]

Maybe a discussion about Social Security would be something non-partisan.

5 Social Security myths debunked

 

[Ringel05]

Maybe a discussion about Social Security would be something non-partisan.

5 Social Security myths debunked

Not saying the article is correct or incorrect, simply pointing out there a no linked sources to back up the author's claims which means it looks more like an opinion piece than actual factual reporting.

 

[Silent Warrior]

Most of what is said in the article is a myth.

 

[Freewill]

Most of what is said in the article is a myth.

See that is what a discussion is all about. A side is presented with facts, at least according to the source, and responders post their fact if in conflict. But just saying stuff to say stuff isn't much of a discussion.

 

[Freewill]

Maybe a discussion about Social Security would be something non-partisan.

5 Social Security myths debunked

Not saying the article is correct or incorrect, simply pointing out there a no linked sources to back up the author's claims which means it looks more like an opinion piece than actual factual reporting.

There are embedded links within the article. Mostly to other articles that explain what is in the OP article.

 

[Zander]

Social Security will go broke if Congress doesn't fix it. Fortunately, it's totally fixable. Whether the clown posse in DC can get their collective heads out of their collective asses is questionable!

Here is my suggestion for a "package" of reforms that could pass.

1) Gradually raise the full retirement age to 70 (early to 65) , then index to life expectancy. This is a no-brainer. When SS was started the average life span was 65. People are living a lot longer.
2) Raise the cap on earning so that the program collects on 90% of income (that is about $275K today) , then index to inflation
3) Reform the "disability" program. Investigate and get the fraud out.
4) Increase the eligibility requirements from 40 quarters to 60 at a minimum of $2500 per quarter.

None of these requires a tax increase.

 

[Freewill]

Social Security will go broke if Congress doesn't fix it. Fortunately, it's totally fixable. Whether the clown posse in DC can get their collective heads out of their collective asses is questionable!

Here is my suggestion for a "package" of reforms that could pass.

1) Gradually raise the full retirement age to 70 (early to 65) , then index to life expectancy. This is a no-brainer. When SS was started the average life span was 65. People are living a lot longer.
2) Raise the cap on earning so that the program collects on 90% of income (that is about $275K today) , then index to inflation
3) Reform the "disability" program. Investigate and get the fraud out.
4) Increase the eligibility requirements from 40 quarters to 60 at a minimum of $2500 per quarter.

None of these requires a tax increase.

Number 2 is not an increase in taxes? Along with 1?

Number 3 and 4, are you not just eliminating people from the program?

As for 1, SS employs actuaries who look into this stuff. I know my retirement age was raised a number of years ago. I don't hear them talk too much about doing that again. Right now my full retirement age is 66. The maximum I can get is at 70 which is an eight percent rise each year. So yeah it is kinda like already at 70.

What I think I fear worse is that they are selling us a bill of goods concerning SS. They want to raid the trust fund and make it seem like they are saving the system. When in reality for at least 5 years SS income is in the black and for quite some time will be no where near running out of money even if running in a deficient.

 

[Ringel05]

Maybe a discussion about Social Security would be something non-partisan.

5 Social Security myths debunked

Not saying the article is correct or incorrect, simply pointing out there a no linked sources to back up the author's claims which means it looks more like an opinion piece than actual factual reporting.

There are embedded links within the article. Mostly to other articles that explain what is in the OP article.

I didn't see any embedded links besides there are probably an equal number of articles that completely disagree and have their own sources. Given that I don't see how this discussion could be anything but partisan.

 

[Zander]

Social Security will go broke if Congress doesn't fix it. Fortunately, it's totally fixable. Whether the clown posse in DC can get their collective heads out of their collective asses is questionable!

Here is my suggestion for a "package" of reforms that could pass.

1) Gradually raise the full retirement age to 70 (early to 65) , then index to life expectancy. This is a no-brainer. When SS was started the average life span was 65. People are living a lot longer.
2) Raise the cap on earning so that the program collects on 90% of income (that is about $275K today) , then index to inflation
3) Reform the "disability" program. Investigate and get the fraud out.
4) Increase the eligibility requirements from 40 quarters to 60 at a minimum of $2500 per quarter.

None of these requires a tax increase.

Number 2 is not an increase in taxes? Along with 1?

Number 3 and 4, are you not just eliminating people from the program?

As for 1, SS employs actuaries who look into this stuff. I know my retirement age was raised a number of years ago. I don't hear them talk too much about doing that again. Right now my full retirement age is 66. The maximum I can get is at 70 which is an eight percent rise each year. So yeah it is kinda like already at 70.

What I think I fear worse is that they are selling us a bill of goods concerning SS. They want to raid the trust fund and make it seem like they are saving the system. When in reality for at least 5 years SS income is in the black and for quite some time will be no where near running out of money even if running in a deficient.

#1 - not a tax increase.
#2 - It's not a tax increase to raise the ceiling. The tax rate is exactly the same. it just captures more earnings (the goal is 90%) and raises revenue

#3- fraud is rife in the disability program. It needs to be rooted out and vigorously prosecuted
$4- requiring 15 years (60 quarters) of earnings before eligibility is not an unfair burden. It's still a ridiculously low bar of entry.

 

[Freewill]

Social Security will go broke if Congress doesn't fix it. Fortunately, it's totally fixable. Whether the clown posse in DC can get their collective heads out of their collective asses is questionable!

Here is my suggestion for a "package" of reforms that could pass.

1) Gradually raise the full retirement age to 70 (early to 65) , then index to life expectancy. This is a no-brainer. When SS was started the average life span was 65. People are living a lot longer.
2) Raise the cap on earning so that the program collects on 90% of income (that is about $275K today) , then index to inflation
3) Reform the "disability" program. Investigate and get the fraud out.
4) Increase the eligibility requirements from 40 quarters to 60 at a minimum of $2500 per quarter.

None of these requires a tax increase.

Number 2 is not an increase in taxes? Along with 1?

Number 3 and 4, are you not just eliminating people from the program?

As for 1, SS employs actuaries who look into this stuff. I know my retirement age was raised a number of years ago. I don't hear them talk too much about doing that again. Right now my full retirement age is 66. The maximum I can get is at 70 which is an eight percent rise each year. So yeah it is kinda like already at 70.

What I think I fear worse is that they are selling us a bill of goods concerning SS. They want to raid the trust fund and make it seem like they are saving the system. When in reality for at least 5 years SS income is in the black and for quite some time will be no where near running out of money even if running in a deficient.

#1 - not a tax increase.
#2 - It's not a tax increase to raise the ceiling. The tax rate is exactly the same. it just captures more earnings (the goal is 90%) and raises revenue

#3- fraud is rife in the disability program. It needs to be rooted out and vigorously prosecuted
$4- requiring 15 years (60 quarters) of earnings before eligibility is not an unfair burden. It's still a ridiculously low bar of entry.

1. pay for 5 more years certainly seems like a tax increase. You do understand that people may be living longer but the quality of life might not be increasing.

Number 4 seems to me to work against women.

 

[Zander]

Social Security will go broke if Congress doesn't fix it. Fortunately, it's totally fixable. Whether the clown posse in DC can get their collective heads out of their collective asses is questionable!

Here is my suggestion for a "package" of reforms that could pass.

1) Gradually raise the full retirement age to 70 (early to 65) , then index to life expectancy. This is a no-brainer. When SS was started the average life span was 65. People are living a lot longer.
2) Raise the cap on earning so that the program collects on 90% of income (that is about $275K today) , then index to inflation
3) Reform the "disability" program. Investigate and get the fraud out.
4) Increase the eligibility requirements from 40 quarters to 60 at a minimum of $2500 per quarter.

None of these requires a tax increase.

Number 2 is not an increase in taxes? Along with 1?

Number 3 and 4, are you not just eliminating people from the program?

As for 1, SS employs actuaries who look into this stuff. I know my retirement age was raised a number of years ago. I don't hear them talk too much about doing that again. Right now my full retirement age is 66. The maximum I can get is at 70 which is an eight percent rise each year. So yeah it is kinda like already at 70.

What I think I fear worse is that they are selling us a bill of goods concerning SS. They want to raid the trust fund and make it seem like they are saving the system. When in reality for at least 5 years SS income is in the black and for quite some time will be no where near running out of money even if running in a deficient.

#1 - not a tax increase.
#2 - It's not a tax increase to raise the ceiling. The tax rate is exactly the same. it just captures more earnings (the goal is 90%) and raises revenue

#3- fraud is rife in the disability program. It needs to be rooted out and vigorously prosecuted
$4- requiring 15 years (60 quarters) of earnings before eligibility is not an unfair burden. It's still a ridiculously low bar of entry.

1. pay for 5 more years certainly seems like a tax increase. You do understand that people may be living longer but the quality of life might not be increasing.

Number 4 seems to me to work against women.

It's always going to be hard on someone. TANSTAAFL.

Raising the age would be done gradually so the effect would be minimal for folks closer to retirement age. Also it's not 5 years- it is 3 years. Current full retirement age is 67.

Why is requiring 60 quarters working against women? If a woman has a family and doesn't work the required 60 quarters, she is eligible for a spousal benefit, so there is no loss of benefits. Also, people are having children later in life.

Bottom line - nobody is ever going to be 100% happy. Life is a bitch! Do nothing at before too long, the program can only pay out 60-70% of benefits. That would be WAY worse IMHO.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Social Security will go broke if Congress doesn't fix it. Fortunately, it's totally fixable. Whether the clown posse in DC can get their collective heads out of their collective asses is questionable!

Here is my suggestion for a "package" of reforms that could pass.

1) Gradually raise the full retirement age to 70 (early to 65) , then index to life expectancy. This is a no-brainer. When SS was started the average life span was 65. People are living a lot longer.
2) Raise the cap on earning so that the program collects on 90% of income (that is about $275K today) , then index to inflation
3) Reform the "disability" program. Investigate and get the fraud out.
4) Increase the eligibility requirements from 40 quarters to 60 at a minimum of $2500 per quarter.

None of these requires a tax increase.

Raise the age to 70? I am 56 years old and my retirement age is already 67! When I was younger, it was 65. They just keep moving the goal posts hoping I will kick off before then!

I am having a hard enough time getting a job at this age, what is it going to be in another few years.

I already lose part of my SS benefit because I participate in a state retirement fund. The huge amount I contribute to my retirement from my paycheck also eats away at my SS benefits, yet other people do not have this problem.

Leave the retirement dates alone unless you are talking about kids born today. Anything else is a broken contract IMHO.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Social Security will go broke if Congress doesn't fix it. Fortunately, it's totally fixable. Whether the clown posse in DC can get their collective heads out of their collective asses is questionable!

Here is my suggestion for a "package" of reforms that could pass.

1) Gradually raise the full retirement age to 70 (early to 65) , then index to life expectancy. This is a no-brainer. When SS was started the average life span was 65. People are living a lot longer.
2) Raise the cap on earning so that the program collects on 90% of income (that is about $275K today) , then index to inflation
3) Reform the "disability" program. Investigate and get the fraud out.
4) Increase the eligibility requirements from 40 quarters to 60 at a minimum of $2500 per quarter.

None of these requires a tax increase.

Number 2 is not an increase in taxes? Along with 1?

Number 3 and 4, are you not just eliminating people from the program?

As for 1, SS employs actuaries who look into this stuff. I know my retirement age was raised a number of years ago. I don't hear them talk too much about doing that again. Right now my full retirement age is 66. The maximum I can get is at 70 which is an eight percent rise each year. So yeah it is kinda like already at 70.

What I think I fear worse is that they are selling us a bill of goods concerning SS. They want to raid the trust fund and make it seem like they are saving the system. When in reality for at least 5 years SS income is in the black and for quite some time will be no where near running out of money even if running in a deficient.

#1 - not a tax increase.
#2 - It's not a tax increase to raise the ceiling. The tax rate is exactly the same. it just captures more earnings (the goal is 90%) and raises revenue

#3- fraud is rife in the disability program. It needs to be rooted out and vigorously prosecuted
$4- requiring 15 years (60 quarters) of earnings before eligibility is not an unfair burden. It's still a ridiculously low bar of entry.

1. pay for 5 more years certainly seems like a tax increase. You do understand that people may be living longer but the quality of life might not be increasing.

Number 4 seems to me to work against women.

It's always going to be hard on someone. TANSTAAFL.

Raising the age would be done gradually so the effect would be minimal for folks closer to retirement age. Also it's not 5 years- it is 3 years. Current full retirement age is 67.

Why is requiring 60 quarters working against women? If a woman has a family and doesn't work the required 60 quarters, she is eligible for a spousal benefit, so there is no loss of benefits. Also, people are having children later in life.

Bottom line - nobody is ever going to be 100% happy. Life is a bitch! Do nothing at before too long, the program can only pay out 60-70% of benefits. That would be WAY worse IMHO.

The spousal benefit is a huge loss of benefits, because it is usually less than 40% of the regular benefit. Please check your information.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The spousal benefit is a huge loss of benefits, because it is usually less than 40% of the regular benefit. Please check your information.

IT is 50% of the higher wages of the couple.

What is the eligibility for Social Security spouse’s benefits and my own retirement benefits?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The spousal benefit is a huge loss of benefits, because it is usually less than 40% of the regular benefit. Please check your information.

IT is 50% of the higher wages of the couple.

What is the eligibility for Social Security spouse’s benefits and my own retirement benefits?

That is true if you wait for full retirement age. I stand corrected!

 

[Zander]

Social Security will go broke if Congress doesn't fix it. Fortunately, it's totally fixable. Whether the clown posse in DC can get their collective heads out of their collective asses is questionable!

Here is my suggestion for a "package" of reforms that could pass.

1) Gradually raise the full retirement age to 70 (early to 65) , then index to life expectancy. This is a no-brainer. When SS was started the average life span was 65. People are living a lot longer.
2) Raise the cap on earning so that the program collects on 90% of income (that is about $275K today) , then index to inflation
3) Reform the "disability" program. Investigate and get the fraud out.
4) Increase the eligibility requirements from 40 quarters to 60 at a minimum of $2500 per quarter.

None of these requires a tax increase.

Raise the age to 70? I am 56 years old and my retirement age is already 67! When I was younger, it was 65. They just keep moving the goal posts hoping I will kick off before then!

I am having a hard enough time getting a job at this age, what is it going to be in another few years.

I already lose part of my SS benefit because I participate in a state retirement fund. The huge amount I contribute to my retirement from my paycheck also eats away at my SS benefits, yet other people do not have this problem.

Leave the retirement dates alone unless you are talking about kids born today. Anything else is a broken contract IMHO.

Raising the full retirement age would be done over the course of 20 years and would not effect anyone within 10 years of full retirement age. So you have nothing to worry about! Of course by the time the clowns in DC get around to doing anything, we might all be dead!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Raise the age to 70? I am 56 years old and my retirement age is already 67! When I was younger, it was 65. They just keep moving the goal posts hoping I will kick off before then!

That's the way it was designed. They knew half the people at the time wouldn't live long enough to collect it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Social Security will go broke if Congress doesn't fix it. Fortunately, it's totally fixable. Whether the clown posse in DC can get their collective heads out of their collective asses is questionable!

Here is my suggestion for a "package" of reforms that could pass.

1) Gradually raise the full retirement age to 70 (early to 65) , then index to life expectancy. This is a no-brainer. When SS was started the average life span was 65. People are living a lot longer.
2) Raise the cap on earning so that the program collects on 90% of income (that is about $275K today) , then index to inflation
3) Reform the "disability" program. Investigate and get the fraud out.
4) Increase the eligibility requirements from 40 quarters to 60 at a minimum of $2500 per quarter.

None of these requires a tax increase.

Raise the age to 70? I am 56 years old and my retirement age is already 67! When I was younger, it was 65. They just keep moving the goal posts hoping I will kick off before then!

I am having a hard enough time getting a job at this age, what is it going to be in another few years.

I already lose part of my SS benefit because I participate in a state retirement fund. The huge amount I contribute to my retirement from my paycheck also eats away at my SS benefits, yet other people do not have this problem.

Leave the retirement dates alone unless you are talking about kids born today. Anything else is a broken contract IMHO.

Well, you should have chosen a different life path. I am 73, still working full time, and getting job offers every week. And my earnings still have SS deducted from them, and my SS benefit increases every year above the regular increase because of that.

Simply make the 6.2% that we pay payable on all income. That would fix SS for good. And give the working man a better retirement.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

In the black??
That's racist!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Maybe a discussion about Social Security would be something non-partisan.

5 Social Security myths debunked

Not saying the article is correct or incorrect, simply pointing out there a no linked sources to back up the author's claims which means it looks more like an opinion piece than actual factual reporting.

I certainly don't believe it. Especially after the recession we just came out of.

Monkey math is afoot