3 Statistics About Social Security That Are Frightening

[JoeTheEconomist]

Don't worry President Reagan signed a SS tax increase in the 1980's to build up a surplus so we have enough for the baby boomer retirement surge...oh wait Congress stole all our money and spent in on stupid shit but they gave us IOU's...oh wait how exactly are they going to pay us back?

Reagan signed a tax increase so that we could get to the baby boomer's retirement not through it. The Congress "stole" all our money is a feel-good excuse that we were not paying attention over our entire voting lives. At this point, it would help if you would wake.

Look fool congress took and spent $2 trillion dollars from the SS trust fund HELLO.

Actually.... Congress simply authorized a credit of bonds to the program. Interest purchases nothing but time. It doesn't buy the tank. Interest pays for having the tank 10 or 20 years before you can actually afford to buy it.

So before you reach for "HELLO", you need to do some research. The $2 trillion dollars is a cost to the government, not revenue that can be pulled out of it. You are going to see the difference in about 2 or 3 years as the government starts to pay interest out of taxes rather than credits.

 

[depotoo]

When more retire with higher benefits and less than interest amounts grow it vs paying in, it begins to collapse. The govt has never been good with others money.
If we were to have an option to invest 25% of what we pay in, into a 401k, we would have much more to retire on, and what is left can be passed on to our families. The rate of return as it sits now is only 1.23%.

So should the people be able to sue the government for stealing their money for decades now ? The fund should have been solvent, and it should have been paid out to it's rightful participant's, and what about those who passed and never drawed a dime of it or never drawed over two years before death (where'd that money go) ?

Why was it or is it still run as a socialist program that forces all regardless of job titles to have to await the same time in order to draw on it ? Is this in hopes that those who have been worked to death will fall out before their draw date arrives ?? Otherwise is the thing set up in a way that is designed specifically to let those who pass early, then pay for the ones who survive, and the excess is shaved off to go for other bullcrap that isn't related to the program ??

I just can't figure out how we have a retirement program for workers who pay into that program, and it is run by the government, yet it steady is failing ?? So is it evidence that the government is corrupt, and stealing people's money through a slush fund called the social security retirement fund ?

How is it the government can declare emergencies here or over seas, and all these millions or billions just magically appear ?? I'm not to schooled on the subject, but just a worker who has worked all my life paying in, yet to constantly hear threats of the program failing, going bust or the age being extended well beyond people's years to draw on it because they are predicted to most likely die first. What kind of corruption is this bullcrap ?

 

[BluesLegend]

Don't worry President Reagan signed a SS tax increase in the 1980's to build up a surplus so we have enough for the baby boomer retirement surge...oh wait Congress stole all our money and spent in on stupid shit but they gave us IOU's...oh wait how exactly are they going to pay us back?

Reagan signed a tax increase so that we could get to the baby boomer's retirement not through it. The Congress "stole" all our money is a feel-good excuse that we were not paying attention over our entire voting lives. At this point, it would help if you would wake.

Look fool congress took and spent $2 trillion dollars from the SS trust fund HELLO.

Actually.... Congress simply authorized a credit of bonds to the program. Interest purchases nothing but time. It doesn't buy the tank. Interest pays for having the tank 10 or 20 years before you can actually afford to buy it.

So before you reach for "HELLO", you need to do some research. The $2 trillion dollars is a cost to the government, not revenue that can be pulled out of it. You are going to see the difference in about 2 or 3 years as the government starts to pay interest out of taxes rather than credits.

LMAO the money is gone fool, hence the retards in congress trying to raise the retirement age and means testing both to screw people out of benefits they now can't pay. If a benefit plan in the private sector was this corrupt and mismanaged people would be in prison.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

So should the people be able to sue the government for stealing their money for decades now ? The fund should have been solvent, and it should have been paid out to it's rightful participant's, and what about those who passed and never drawed a dime of it or never drawed over two years before death (where'd that money go) ?

I am curious. On what basis do you believe that the program "should have been solvent".

I can explain the latter question, but it pretty much deals with the fact that the program has never been actuarially sound. That isn't my opinion. It is straight from the Congressional testimony of A.J. Altmeyer, who was the first person to run what we call the Social Security administration.

OK Joe, you are the economist, and have all the facts and figures, and I am not being sarcastic, I am actually trying to get an answer for these people, up to, and including myself.

Let us all forget the IOU's, and everything else for a second, and ask pertinent, economic questions about a few things, including how much, and where, the blame lies; specifically in percentages, so we can come to a conclusion on how much we should help fund, and how much we demand our politicians come up with an answer by defunding other programs to transfer to SS, and Medicare!

QUESTIONS, and COMMENTS------------->

1. S.S. and Medicare, are 2 separate entities. While they are BOTH important to all of us, we need to separate the discussion on them.

2. We know, that S.S. is a pay as you go system. In essence, we pay in today for those that are collecting today, and expect those of tomorrow, pay in for us to collect.

3. Now the hard questions------> Was there EVER a time that S.S. took in more revenue then its outlays?

a. If so, how many years did that surplus last?
b. If those years of surplus were put into even government bonds at that time, how much would the fund have grown; in essence meaning........how far in arrears would the fund be today as opposed to its current situation?

I would like to explain something to people reading my post, and in no way am I trying to detract from the factual points that economist Joe is trying to make.

Did you ever wonder why when an income tax cut comes up, the 1st thing you hear about is either S.S. or Medicare, and NOT welfare, foreign aid, billions being lost through fraud, or most any other federal program? (full disclosure--------->entitlements are much larger % today of the federal budget, than any of these others, although together, they do make a significant outlay in the budget)

ANSWER---------> (using SS) Because it affects EVERYONE, thus it SCARES everyone! It will allow them to manipulate you to vote against your best interests, because you are afraid of the fall out to you personally!

Now what if I told you that-----> foreign aid was causing a 30 billion dollar deficit per year? (just creating numbers, not actual) What if I said------>if we cut taxes, the deficit for that program would rise, become insolvent, and we might have to shrink funding? What would you say? How about if it was welfare programs that incessantly over lap?

See my point, lol. Now you know why they point directly at what affects you, although the federal governments payments actually derive from the general fund, where ALL these programs reside.

Doubt me?

Then consider this--------------> What was our deficit last year, and our projected deficit this year? Pick either one! Now I am guessing, so maybe Joe will prove me wrong, but-------> what was the deficit last year for the S.S. fund? What is the projected deficit next year, for the S.S. fund?

So now, if the Federal governments deficit was HIGHER than the deficit for the S.S. fund, then why are the non-tax cut people just focused on that particular program? Shouldn't we be focused on ALL programs causing deficit? I mean, these other programs are NOT ENTITLEMENTS, so we could just lop them off, yes!

So while I agree Joe is accurate, we are addressing this particular issue because Washington feels by shaking you up, you will be more inclined to allow a RAISE to fund them in taxes, and stop concentrating on cutting their PET programs that are NOT entitlements; transferring the money to these entitlements, to help save them. In essence, it is the 3 card Monty trick. Where is the penny under the shell, and you never find it!

Now then, in fairness, I agree with Joe, something has to be done. But, don't allow them to raise your taxes to fund them, WITHOUT cutting programs to help pay for them. Say that, and watch Washington scream, and the whole narrative change. Always remember------->it is EASY PEEZY for someone to go to Washington and create give aways to people, or entities. A real legislature, has to sometimes decide what to cut! I am not sure we have any of those today in Washington, and if we don't, it is up to you in 2018 to make it happen!

You aren't detracting at all. Your questions are sound, and ones that we all should be asking. It will take me some time, but I will get back to you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Raising (or better yet, eliminating) the earnings cap will solve all those problems.

If a rich guy pays twice the tax with no cap, he accrues twice the benefit.
How does that solve the problem?

 

[Moonglow]

Make SS an off budget item like it was originally intended and stop the pilfering...

 

[ColonelAngus]

Raising (or better yet, eliminating) the earnings cap will solve all those problems.

If feels good to say, but it is factually inaccurate. It doesn't even kick the can anymore.

No Simple Solution To The Social Security Deficit

Of course, raising revenues doesn’t ever kick - right?

You can send more of your money to the treasury.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Don't worry President Reagan signed a SS tax increase in the 1980's to build up a surplus so we have enough for the baby boomer retirement surge...oh wait Congress stole all our money and spent in on stupid shit but they gave us IOU's...oh wait how exactly are they going to pay us back?

".oh wait how exactly are they going to pay us back?"

They will pay us back with a worthless printing press!

No they are going to raise the retirement age so that more people die before they can collect a dime of SS benefits and means test to screw people out of SS benefits they were forced to purchase. Can you imagine your average 70 year old still standing on the factory floor working? How retarded is that.

I would agree with your assessment, but the reality is worse. Today's 70 year old will be 86 when benefits are cut (that is an optimistic view btw). So can you imagine your 86 year old standing on the factory floor work? It is only as "retarded" (excuse the offensive language) as voters allow. We aren't paying attention.

 

[KissMy]

Don't worry President Reagan signed a SS tax increase in the 1980's to build up a surplus so we have enough for the baby boomer retirement surge...oh wait Congress stole all our money and spent in on stupid shit but they gave us IOU's...oh wait how exactly are they going to pay us back?

".oh wait how exactly are they going to pay us back?"

They will pay us back with a worthless printing press!

No they are going to raise the retirement age so that more people die before they can collect a dime of SS benefits and means test to screw people out of SS benefits they were forced to purchase. Can you imagine your average 70 year old still standing on the factory floor working? How retarded is that.

Yup! It's going to be my generation. The 70 year old's will be thankful to be inside that warm factory & off the cold streets for 9 hours a day.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Make SS an off budget item like it was originally intended and stop the pilfering...

It has been off-budget since 1990. Link from the SSA.

Social Security History

 

[gipper]

Typically, we hear a lot of drama and get a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility of benefit cuts 16 years in the future. Comically enough most of the articles are talking about a fairly benign impact.

Here are three stats to worry about :

The Social Security Shortfall Is Growing Three Times Faster Than the US Economy.

In other words, the hole in the program’s finances is growing at three times the rate of our ability to fill it.

People Turning 70 Today expect to Be Alive When Benefits are Reduced

The problem of Social Security hasn't been about those 40 and younger in decades. Here is the SSA's life expectancy calcuator : Calculators: Life Expectancy

In 2016, The Program Lost More Money Than It Collected

We could have reduced benefits to zero for the entire year of 2016, and the program would have finished the year in worse shape than it started. "Loss" here is looking at the $ value of promises that we believe will go unfulfilled.

If you want the details, here is my article, but the stats are pretty simple.

No Way Around Sorry Shape Social Security Is In

Just stop spending (really wasting) TRILLIONS on the war machine and empire building.

Problem fixed.

 

[whitehall]

You can add that there is no Social Security "locked box" and there never was since the FDR administration started stealing from it before the ink was dry on the bill and LBJ made it official that FICA taxes would be placed in the "general fund".

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

When more retire with higher benefits and less than interest amounts grow it vs paying in, it begins to collapse. The govt has never been good with others money.
If we were to have an option to invest 25% of what we pay in, into a 401k, we would have much more to retire on, and what is left can be passed on to our families. The rate of return as it sits now is only 1.23%.

Things are considerably worse that you are proposing in two ways.

First, if you divert 25% of your payroll taxes to a "401K" type of account. The existing system crashes much faster, and with much larger cuts.

Second, Where did you get the 1.23% from? Likely that is a backward looking ROI from the SSA on the program's return. The problem is that we are going through benefit reductions today that were enacted 40 years ago. The ROI from today isn't good going forward. Some of this is personal opinion that can be substantiated with SSA reports. A typical worker now loses money on the program. That is a much longer discussion though.

Point 2 is a serious problem because if we raise taxes, the return only gets worse. All you are doing is paying today's seniors by putting future seniors into more poverty. It is a classic kick-the-can idea.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Typically, we hear a lot of drama and get a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility of benefit cuts 16 years in the future. Comically enough most of the articles are talking about a fairly benign impact.

Here are three stats to worry about :

The Social Security Shortfall Is Growing Three Times Faster Than the US Economy.

In other words, the hole in the program’s finances is growing at three times the rate of our ability to fill it.

People Turning 70 Today expect to Be Alive When Benefits are Reduced

The problem of Social Security hasn't been about those 40 and younger in decades. Here is the SSA's life expectancy calcuator : Calculators: Life Expectancy

In 2016, The Program Lost More Money Than It Collected

We could have reduced benefits to zero for the entire year of 2016, and the program would have finished the year in worse shape than it started. "Loss" here is looking at the $ value of promises that we believe will go unfulfilled.

If you want the details, here is my article, but the stats are pretty simple.

No Way Around Sorry Shape Social Security Is In

Just stop spending (really wasting) TRILLIONS on the war machine and empire building.

Problem fixed.

Thanks for your thoughts, but you can cut the government's spending to zero and Social Security is unaffected. It still goes bust at the same time.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Social Security is the biggest ponzi scheme in history.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

You can add that there is no Social Security "locked box" and there never was since the FDR administration started stealing from it before the ink was dry on the bill and LBJ made it official that FICA taxes would be placed in the "general fund".

Thanks for joining the discussion. Two points.

FDR proposed a 'lock box'. Congress, largely after FDR died, allowed the program to deteriorate to a pay-as-you-go system.

A 'pay-as-you-go' system does not create any cash to raid. Nixon was the one who added FICA taxes to the budget (which does not place money anywhere). Reagan is the one to put the program back off-budget in 1990. Reagan's action doesn't change Nixon's because budgets do not move money.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Did you ever wonder why when an income tax cut comes up, the 1st thing you hear about is either S.S. or Medicare, and NOT welfare, foreign aid, billions being lost through fraud, or most any other federal program? (full disclosure--------->entitlements are much larger % today of the federal budget, than any of these others, although together, they do make a significant outlay in the budget)

ANSWER---------> (using SS) Because it affects EVERYONE, thus it SCARES everyone! It will allow them to manipulate you to vote against your best interests, because you are afraid of the fall out to you personally!

I wouldn't disagree with you. The left uses these programs as a horse-whip for its audience. It is fear-mongering for political purposes.

The reality is that Social Security is off-budget. Absent Congress reducing subsidies that go to the system, EITC as well, we can cut benefits to zero and the budget deficit is unchanged. Payroll taxes go to the Trust Fund, which lends the money to Congress, creating the exact same amount of debt. When you hear that Social Security adds to the debt, they are talking about "Debt Held By The Public" - which is a nearly useless statistic that is designed purely for political purposes.

Yes the government has a financing problem. Yes Social Security has a financing problem. But they are not the same nor can they be combined.

This is a longer explanation that ran in the KS Star :

Why Social Security cuts won’t help decrease the debt

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Raising (or better yet, eliminating) the earnings cap will solve all those problems.

If a rich guy pays twice the tax with no cap, he accrues twice the benefit.
How does that solve the problem?

It will make the problem of the federal government's financing worse. It will help Social Security, but not very much.

At the margin, last $1,000 of the 'high wage' worker ($60K currently), creates a SS OAS tax of $103. In turn (up to the 35th work year), the system adds $4 per month in benefits. Without inflation, that means that his return takes roughly 25 years to generate a positive return. This will increase the benefit modestly, but the increase in the payroll tax will affect the broader government's financing.

 

[imawhosure]

Did you ever wonder why when an income tax cut comes up, the 1st thing you hear about is either S.S. or Medicare, and NOT welfare, foreign aid, billions being lost through fraud, or most any other federal program? (full disclosure--------->entitlements are much larger % today of the federal budget, than any of these others, although together, they do make a significant outlay in the budget)

ANSWER---------> (using SS) Because it affects EVERYONE, thus it SCARES everyone! It will allow them to manipulate you to vote against your best interests, because you are afraid of the fall out to you personally!

I wouldn't disagree with you. The left uses these programs as a horse-whip for its audience. It is fear-mongering for political purposes.

The reality is that Social Security is off-budget. Absent Congress reducing subsidies that go to the system, EITC as well, we can cut benefits to zero and the budget deficit is unchanged. Payroll taxes go to the Trust Fund, which lends the money to Congress, creating the exact same amount of debt. When you hear that Social Security adds to the debt, they are talking about "Debt Held By The Public" - which is a nearly useless statistic that is designed purely for political purposes.

Yes the government has a financing problem. Yes Social Security has a financing problem. But they are not the same nor can they be combined.

This is a longer explanation that ran in the KS Star :

Why Social Security cuts won’t help decrease the debt

An interesting read. I recommend it to everyone, and thnx!

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Did you ever wonder why when an income tax cut comes up, the 1st thing you hear about is either S.S. or Medicare, and NOT welfare, foreign aid, billions being lost through fraud, or most any other federal program? (full disclosure--------->entitlements are much larger % today of the federal budget, than any of these others, although together, they do make a significant outlay in the budget)

ANSWER---------> (using SS) Because it affects EVERYONE, thus it SCARES everyone! It will allow them to manipulate you to vote against your best interests, because you are afraid of the fall out to you personally!

I wouldn't disagree with you. The left uses these programs as a horse-whip for its audience. It is fear-mongering for political purposes.

The reality is that Social Security is off-budget. Absent Congress reducing subsidies that go to the system, EITC as well, we can cut benefits to zero and the budget deficit is unchanged. Payroll taxes go to the Trust Fund, which lends the money to Congress, creating the exact same amount of debt. When you hear that Social Security adds to the debt, they are talking about "Debt Held By The Public" - which is a nearly useless statistic that is designed purely for political purposes.

Yes the government has a financing problem. Yes Social Security has a financing problem. But they are not the same nor can they be combined.

This is a longer explanation that ran in the KS Star :

Why Social Security cuts won’t help decrease the debt

An interesting read. I recommend it to everyone, and thnx!

It is only interesting because the question is the right one to ask. I still have yet to get to the others...

 

[imawhosure]

Did you ever wonder why when an income tax cut comes up, the 1st thing you hear about is either S.S. or Medicare, and NOT welfare, foreign aid, billions being lost through fraud, or most any other federal program? (full disclosure--------->entitlements are much larger % today of the federal budget, than any of these others, although together, they do make a significant outlay in the budget)

ANSWER---------> (using SS) Because it affects EVERYONE, thus it SCARES everyone! It will allow them to manipulate you to vote against your best interests, because you are afraid of the fall out to you personally!

I wouldn't disagree with you. The left uses these programs as a horse-whip for its audience. It is fear-mongering for political purposes.

The reality is that Social Security is off-budget. Absent Congress reducing subsidies that go to the system, EITC as well, we can cut benefits to zero and the budget deficit is unchanged. Payroll taxes go to the Trust Fund, which lends the money to Congress, creating the exact same amount of debt. When you hear that Social Security adds to the debt, they are talking about "Debt Held By The Public" - which is a nearly useless statistic that is designed purely for political purposes.

Yes the government has a financing problem. Yes Social Security has a financing problem. But they are not the same nor can they be combined.

This is a longer explanation that ran in the KS Star :

Why Social Security cuts won’t help decrease the debt

An interesting read. I recommend it to everyone, and thnx!

It is only interesting because the question is the right one to ask. I still have yet to get to the others...

It is amazing Joe, how our funding mechanisms are convoluted. I am certain that is no mistake. Past administrations, present administration, future administrations, as long as possible, will try and hide whatever they can from us.

In our world, 2 + 2 = 4. Not in theirs, lol.

Without transparency, we normal people have no idea what to do/not to do, as far as government finances anymore.

And then you have bean counters who try and figure it to the best of their ability, and they come up with different answers, so convoluted is the system. And these honest fact finders are actually trying to go under the 2 + 2 = 4 rule.

Personally, I believe you are pretty close to the truth as far as fiscally. But the solutions? I think a mega computer would have to do it for us, and that is after we programmed the damn thing to understand that our government tries to contradict itself so as it always has an out. In my humble opinion-------->the damn thing would probably blow up from confusion-)