Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
But this is the fundamental misunderstanding that both parties (and Al Gore in particular) have pressed on the public. The trusts are NOT guaranteed. At all. In any form. They are not defined-benefit pensions, nor are they annuities. They are straightforward transfer payments from current workforce to past workforce. It has been this way since SS was created.No seriously - can someone please explain what mechanism the government would use to "park" this 22T in needed funding for future liabilities related to the trusts? What type of vehicle would they use for that money?
If both SSN and Medicare were guaranteed, the Federal government would be required to keep in an interest baring account the amount needed to fund future liabilities assuming a minimum risk interest rate. To meet that requirement the federal government would have to, as of the articles being referenced, place 22.2 trillion in an interest baring account to cover the future liabilities promised to future SSN recipients.
The special-issue treasuries are simply an accounting mechanism to keep track of the balance. They don't even really pay "interest" in any meaningful sense since the same entity that pays the interest, earns the interest.
Talk of an alleged actuarial liability of 22 Trillion dollars simply perpetuates the myth that the program has a guaranteed defined benefit.
I agree but it is a complete lie to tell people that their Social Security and Medicare will be there for them when they retire. We should be telling people the truth so they can start planning their own retirement without these benefits.
I agree but it is a complete lie to tell people that their Social Security and Medicare will be there for them when they retire. We should be telling people the truth so they can start planning their own retirement without these benefits.
SS can quite easily be there for another 75 years for people when they retire. It will take some significant political will but the problem isn't actually that large. It could be permanently fixed by:
1) raising the retirement age to 70 or 71. Or
2) removing the cap on annual contributions (iow, getting rid of the $106,000 cap)
3) means testing the program.
Alternatively, we could raise more revenue. Scribbling on the back of a napkin here:
We're talking about needing to add perhaps 400B to each year of future revenues, or about 4% of current income.
At the midpoint of those 75 years, the real value of that 400B will have declined significantly. We will need a real dollar addition of revenues equal to about 200B in 2012 dollars, which by then will be less than 1% of total income.
At 75 years the additional revenues required will be almost nothing relative to revenues and relative to total income.
Again, SS faces some serious structural problems and the deficits are very real. The solutions may be political suicide but they are certainly not economic suicide by any stretch. As a country, we need to be able to have an adult conversation about the topic without the fear mongering and piss-poor analysis that both sides bring to the table - the Republicans who say it's dead and the Dems who say it's healthy as a 20 y.o Olympian.
I agree but it is a complete lie to tell people that their Social Security and Medicare will be there for them when they retire. We should be telling people the truth so they can start planning their own retirement without these benefits.
SS can quite easily be there for another 75 years for people when they retire. It will take some significant political will but the problem isn't actually that large. It could be permanently fixed by:
1) raising the retirement age to 70 or 71. Or
2) removing the cap on annual contributions (iow, getting rid of the $106,000 cap)
3) means testing the program.
Alternatively, we could raise more revenue. Scribbling on the back of a napkin here:
We're talking about needing to add perhaps 400B to each year of future revenues, or about 4% of current income.
At the midpoint of those 75 years, the real value of that 400B will have declined significantly. We will need a real dollar addition of revenues equal to about 200B in 2012 dollars, which by then will be less than 1% of total income.
At 75 years the additional revenues required will be almost nothing relative to revenues and relative to total income.
Again, SS faces some serious structural problems and the deficits are very real. The solutions may be political suicide but they are certainly not economic suicide by any stretch. As a country, we need to be able to have an adult conversation about the topic without the fear mongering and piss-poor analysis that both sides bring to the table - the Republicans who say it's dead and the Dems who say it's healthy as a 20 y.o Olympian.
8000+ If you add means testing, doesn't that entail that some folks are simply going to end up NOT collecting but only after a working lifetime of contributing?
And if you contend that's not the case, then how do you figure?
If it IS the case, then in what way is it not just another form of wealth redistribution which will have turned out to have been premised upon a lie to the very folks making such contributions?
I agree but it is a complete lie to tell people that their Social Security and Medicare will be there for them when they retire. We should be telling people the truth so they can start planning their own retirement without these benefits.
SS can quite easily be there for another 75 years for people when they retire. It will take some significant political will but the problem isn't actually that large. It could be permanently fixed by:
1) raising the retirement age to 70 or 71. Or
2) removing the cap on annual contributions (iow, getting rid of the $106,000 cap)
3) means testing the program.
Alternatively, we could raise more revenue. Scribbling on the back of a napkin here:
We're talking about needing to add perhaps 400B to each year of future revenues, or about 4% of current income.
At the midpoint of those 75 years, the real value of that 400B will have declined significantly. We will need a real dollar addition of revenues equal to about 200B in 2012 dollars, which by then will be less than 1% of total income.
At 75 years the additional revenues required will be almost nothing relative to revenues and relative to total income.
Again, SS faces some serious structural problems and the deficits are very real. The solutions may be political suicide but they are certainly not economic suicide by any stretch. As a country, we need to be able to have an adult conversation about the topic without the fear mongering and piss-poor analysis that both sides bring to the table - the Republicans who say it's dead and the Dems who say it's healthy as a 20 y.o Olympian.
8000+ If you add means testing, doesn't that entail that some folks are simply going to end up NOT collecting but only after a working lifetime of contributing?
No one can collect a deceased person's SS, only the survivor benefit. This actually isn't much different than people paying into a defined-benefit pension and dying young.SS can quite easily be there for another 75 years for people when they retire. It will take some significant political will but the problem isn't actually that large. It could be permanently fixed by:
1) raising the retirement age to 70 or 71. Or
2) removing the cap on annual contributions (iow, getting rid of the $106,000 cap)
3) means testing the program.
Alternatively, we could raise more revenue. Scribbling on the back of a napkin here:
We're talking about needing to add perhaps 400B to each year of future revenues, or about 4% of current income.
At the midpoint of those 75 years, the real value of that 400B will have declined significantly. We will need a real dollar addition of revenues equal to about 200B in 2012 dollars, which by then will be less than 1% of total income.
At 75 years the additional revenues required will be almost nothing relative to revenues and relative to total income.
Again, SS faces some serious structural problems and the deficits are very real. The solutions may be political suicide but they are certainly not economic suicide by any stretch. As a country, we need to be able to have an adult conversation about the topic without the fear mongering and piss-poor analysis that both sides bring to the table - the Republicans who say it's dead and the Dems who say it's healthy as a 20 y.o Olympian.
8000+ If you add means testing, doesn't that entail that some folks are simply going to end up NOT collecting but only after a working lifetime of contributing?
And if you contend that's not the case, then how do you figure?
If it IS the case, then in what way is it not just another form of wealth redistribution which will have turned out to have been premised upon a lie to the very folks making such contributions?
Agreed. But people are already spending a working lifetime contributing only to not collect now. The entire program is a failure in many regards, but none so much as the simple fact that everyone must pay, but not everyone will make it to the receiving finish line. (unless Im wrong on this and someone else can collect a deceased persons SS?? Anyone? Which I do not know how I feel about if that is true...)
No one can collect a deceased person's SS, only the survivor benefit. This actually isn't much different than people paying into a defined-benefit pension and dying young.8000+ If you add means testing, doesn't that entail that some folks are simply going to end up NOT collecting but only after a working lifetime of contributing?
And if you contend that's not the case, then how do you figure?
If it IS the case, then in what way is it not just another form of wealth redistribution which will have turned out to have been premised upon a lie to the very folks making such contributions?
Agreed. But people are already spending a working lifetime contributing only to not collect now. The entire program is a failure in many regards, but none so much as the simple fact that everyone must pay, but not everyone will make it to the receiving finish line. (unless Im wrong on this and someone else can collect a deceased persons SS?? Anyone? Which I do not know how I feel about if that is true...)
The REAL lesson in that story is:
Piss off the actuaries - Take care of yourself and don't die young
No one can collect a deceased person's SS, only the survivor benefit. This actually isn't much different than people paying into a defined-benefit pension and dying young.Agreed. But people are already spending a working lifetime contributing only to not collect now. The entire program is a failure in many regards, but none so much as the simple fact that everyone must pay, but not everyone will make it to the receiving finish line. (unless Im wrong on this and someone else can collect a deceased persons SS?? Anyone? Which I do not know how I feel about if that is true...)
The REAL lesson in that story is:
Piss off the actuaries - Take care of yourself and don't die young
Right, but defined-benefit pensions are elective, right?
Why would anyone elect to pay into SS!! i can think of a much better policy to plant that money!
I agree but it is a complete lie to tell people that their Social Security and Medicare will be there for them when they retire. We should be telling people the truth so they can start planning their own retirement without these benefits.
SS can quite easily be there for another 75 years for people when they retire. It will take some significant political will but the problem isn't actually that large. It could be permanently fixed by:
1) raising the retirement age to 70 or 71. Or
2) removing the cap on annual contributions (iow, getting rid of the $106,000 cap)
3) means testing the program.
Alternatively, we could raise more revenue. Scribbling on the back of a napkin here:
We're talking about needing to add perhaps 400B to each year of future revenues, or about 4% of current income.
At the midpoint of those 75 years, the real value of that 400B will have declined significantly. We will need a real dollar addition of revenues equal to about 200B in 2012 dollars, which by then will be less than 1% of total income.
At 75 years the additional revenues required will be almost nothing relative to revenues and relative to total income.
Again, SS faces some serious structural problems and the deficits are very real. The solutions may be political suicide but they are certainly not economic suicide by any stretch. As a country, we need to be able to have an adult conversation about the topic without the fear mongering and piss-poor analysis that both sides bring to the table - the Republicans who say it's dead and the Dems who say it's healthy as a 20 y.o Olympian.
I agree but it is a complete lie to tell people that their Social Security and Medicare will be there for them when they retire. We should be telling people the truth so they can start planning their own retirement without these benefits.
SS can quite easily be there for another 75 years for people when they retire. It will take some significant political will but the problem isn't actually that large. It could be permanently fixed by:
1) raising the retirement age to 70 or 71. Or
2) removing the cap on annual contributions (iow, getting rid of the $106,000 cap)
3) means testing the program.
Alternatively, we could raise more revenue. Scribbling on the back of a napkin here:
We're talking about needing to add perhaps 400B to each year of future revenues, or about 4% of current income.
At the midpoint of those 75 years, the real value of that 400B will have declined significantly. We will need a real dollar addition of revenues equal to about 200B in 2012 dollars, which by then will be less than 1% of total income.
At 75 years the additional revenues required will be almost nothing relative to revenues and relative to total income.
Again, SS faces some serious structural problems and the deficits are very real. The solutions may be political suicide but they are certainly not economic suicide by any stretch. As a country, we need to be able to have an adult conversation about the topic without the fear mongering and piss-poor analysis that both sides bring to the table - the Republicans who say it's dead and the Dems who say it's healthy as a 20 y.o Olympian.
But everyday it is put off it is more what conservatives are saying than what Democrats are saying. If I'm not mistaken, a proposal to fix it has been submitted a few times but those that suggest fixing it are accused of trying to kill people.
