3 Statistics About Social Security That Are Frightening

[Disir]

What they want is the ability to invest it as they see fit. That's the scam.

The scam was when the government took the money and "invested" it as they saw fit, blowing it all.

Privatization would be a great idea. A true privatization, that is.

no.

Great argument!

With a private system, we would have avoided being in a hole by 30 trillion dollars, having to enslave our children to pay for it.

Your answer to that "no".

Thanks for your worthless opinion.

You aren't in the hole 30 million. Try again.

No we are not. We are in the hole by 30 TRILLION. (One million times that).

You aren't in the hole 30 trillion. Try again.

 

[Norman]

The scam was when the government took the money and "invested" it as they saw fit, blowing it all.

Privatization would be a great idea. A true privatization, that is.

no.

Great argument!

With a private system, we would have avoided being in a hole by 30 trillion dollars, having to enslave our children to pay for it.

Your answer to that "no".

Thanks for your worthless opinion.

You aren't in the hole 30 million. Try again.

No we are not. We are in the hole by 30 TRILLION. (One million times that).

You aren't in the hole 30 trillion. Try again.

The statistics have been provided here multiple times. Yes, we are in the hole by 30 trillions because of social security.

And if you don't accept this fact, I will have to start questioning just how far in the hole in the ground your head is.

 

[Markle]

Also, don't start at 45, not fair.

Why?

Because obviously when the program was put in, EVERYBODY paid into the system that was not retired.

Doubt me on how it correlates?

Then explain how it fell from 41.9 in 1945, and within 5 years it was 16.5!

I will tell you why----------->because once S.S. was passed, everyone that could retired, lol!

You DO realize that unless you admit the truth of the birthrate, then what you are saying that one of your idols; FDR, created a nonsensical package that could NEVER work-)

The percentage of Americans over the age of 65 in 1935 (when SS was created) was 5.4%.

The percentage of Americans over the age of 65 in 1965 (when Medicare was added) was 9%. This is where I get my index figure from.

Today, the percentage of Americans over the age of 65 is 15%.

This is an unsustainable trend.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

Didn't say you were 100% wrong. I am not even suggesting that.

What I am telling you is-------->the birthrate has also fallen dramatically. The equation is negative on both sides. More entering retirement, less being born to pay into the system.

If the amount each worker paid was constant, then this ratio would be more meaningful. It the benefits were constant, the ratio would be meaningful. Seniors benefits are not constant. So we value a ratio which doesn't tell us about the earnings power of the system or the cost to run it. This is how little people think about the system.

. Ok so you say that nobody is paying in the same which makes it not constant right, so why isn't the government subsidizing the ones who can't pay into it in the same way (the poor workers), and keep the money constant or equal going in on the front end of it for all that work a job ? Forgive me if I'm out of my league here.

Not exactly. People are obsessed with the worker to retiree ratio from 1950 or 1940 or some other irrelevant date. This ratio looks meaningful, but has serious drawbacks. It assumes that the contribution per worker remains the same, and it doesn't. The cost of beneficiaries is not constant decade to decade. The ratio has the appearance of relevance so politicians use it. The ratio does not explain the crisis. It is a means of getting the public to accept the consequences of the crisis.

FDR was pretty clear. He wanted the rich to pay more for their benefits, but not subsidize the poor. The poor get a very good deal on this program - it is highly progressive. The rich get a less good deal, and frankly they do lose money much to FDR's chagrin. The reason that FDR didn't like subsidizes was because he knew that these subsidies would make the program dependent upon politics. He didn't want that. Of course the program has changed a lot since inception. It has become what FDR opposed. The battle now is over how much...

FDR's policies and doctrines extended the Great Depression by SEVEN YEARS.

 

[tyroneweaver]

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

GOP tried doing that with kemp Roth and sjw jimmy carter thru a fit

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

zero.

Show your math.

It is the cost of paying-off the promises of the past. We save nothing.

Then that isn't a cost.

When the 12.4% of wages goes to a personal account, it has to be replaced by a tax of a different name.

Not forever, unlike the current system.

For $30 trillion, we get the right to save for our own retirement.

What's the current hole in the system?

Let's try this again. These aren't my numbers so I don't have any math to show. The figure comes from the SSA. It is the cost to convert the existing system into a system of personal accounts with a reserve to pay-off accrued benefits. You will have to explain to me how putting $30 trillion dollars aside to pay future benefits isn't a cost. $30 trillion is the 'current hole'.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Listen, how about where this nation is withdrawing from different programs in the world that was costing us billions, and the economy is getting on track now ?? It's crazy to say that we can't fix this thing, and restore the age scales to their proper scales at 62 minimum and 65 max. How can this nation forsake it's working retirement class when it comes their time after paying into a program over 40 years ? It's just downright robbery is what it is.

We can 'fix' Social Security. If for example every man woman and child worked an entire year for nothing but Social Security, it would almost be fixed.

The program's problems are in the math of inflows and outflows. The program promises more than it can deliver, and then we bitch about how it is the system's fault. For 40 years, Congress promised dollars of benefits for dimes of cost. Asking future workers to hand someone dollars for the dimes that they paid in over 40 years - that is robbery. This isn't the fault of demographics or theft. Social Security is where it is because politicians have continually used it to funnel benefit dollars to current voters at the expense of future ones. If younger workers say no, that isn't robbery.

 

[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

How much will it cost to privatize it? And then how much will it cost per month to maintain it after privatization?

According to the SSA, up to $30 trillion(2015$s) depending upon whether you are going to provide benefits to existing retirees and those that have accrued benefits.

Is that the cost to change over?

That is just the cost of legacy benefits. That is the payment that goes to existing retirees, and those who have accrued benefits from past payments. Basically it is a phase-out where future retirees get less and less.

What is the rational behind not lifting the cap?

Here is my piece : No Simple Solution To The Social Security Deficit

In short, Social Security is supposed to be a pension not a welfare program, and there are reasons for that. If you want a welfare program, just end SS, and direct the resources to an actual welfare program. Infinitely easier, faster, and cheaper.

 

[Markle]

Wonder why SS has been such a threat to conservatives? They have moved from their socialism-communism theme to: no money in the till. Yet every month the checks have been going out. Conservative politicians even tried the privatization thing, but few bought it. What is so evil about Social Security?

Here is the simple reason, we have a massive unfunded liability or both Social Security and Medicare along with several others. We just don't have the money coming in to cover our expenses.

The "privatization thing" was a start to shifting people from a failed system to one that is economically feasible. President Bush's plan was to allow citizens to put up to 15% of what they contribute to SS today into private funds, ultra-conservative and approved by the government. It was never ALL SS contributions, that would be impossible for us to afford.

Had it been a totally separate, private fund from the beginning, citizens today would have had a much higher retirement benefit along with death benefits when someone died. The problem is, Progressives don't believe anything can work as well as government.

Here is where we stand within the past few weeks.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

How much will it cost to privatize it? And then how much will it cost per month to maintain it after privatization?

According to the SSA, up to $30 trillion(2015$s) depending upon whether you are going to provide benefits to existing retirees and those that have accrued benefits.

According to the SSA, up to $30 trillion(2015$s)

And that would save us how much in the future?

zero.

It is the cost of paying-off the promises of the past. We save nothing. It is the conversion of the existing system to personal accounts. When the 12.4% of wages goes to a personal account, it has to be replaced by a tax of a different name. For $30 trillion, we get the right to save for our own retirement.

zero.

Show your math.

It is the cost of paying-off the promises of the past. We save nothing.

Then that isn't a cost.

When the 12.4% of wages goes to a personal account, it has to be replaced by a tax of a different name.

Not forever, unlike the current system.

For $30 trillion, we get the right to save for our own retirement.

What's the current hole in the system?

In fact the cost of privatization is zero. We owe that 30 trillion in any case, we would just have to honestly come up with it now and not let it balloon even more.

No that is not how Social Security works. If benefits exceed the revenue collected, benefits are reduced. Hence, we don't have to come up with more.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

The scam was when the government took the money and "invested" it as they saw fit, blowing it all.

Privatization would be a great idea. A true privatization, that is.

no.

Great argument!

With a private system, we would have avoided being in a hole by 30 trillion dollars, having to enslave our children to pay for it.

Your answer to that "no".

Thanks for your worthless opinion.

You aren't in the hole 30 million. Try again.

No we are not. We are in the hole by 30 TRILLION. (One million times that).

You aren't in the hole 30 trillion. Try again.

Let me rephrase. If you want to convert Social Security to a system of personal accounts, it assumes that you are going to pay accrued benefits to some extent. If you pay them all, it is $30 trillion. Social Security isn't $30 trillion in the hole because benefits are automatically reduced when expense exceeds revenue. If you are planning to pay these benefits, yes Social Security is in the hole, and yes it is more than $35 trillion. No there isn't a savings $35 trillion and $30 trillion are two different figures.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Agreed, but why do people not save for the future or for the possibility of financial hardship?

Because they know that government will always give them other peoples money.

If I knew I could ride my Harley at 110 every day and not get hurt, I would.

. So giving me a small percentage of what I paid in over 40 years now, is giving me other people's money ? Then. I have to sit here watching government waste unhinged ?

It is, because the government spent 100% of what you gave them over 40 years.

Giving money to governments, worst investment ever.

That this point 99% of the money that has been collected has been distributed to retirees. Of the 2.9 trillion in the Trust Fund, most of it is interest. Of the remainder, more than half is actually a general fund subsidy to the system. It feels great to rage against the machine, but facts are facts. Every penny of excess contribution ever contributed has been spent on 1 program : Social Security. Well, unless of course, there is the largest most well organized conspiracy in the history of the world concealing the misuse of funds.

 

[Markle]

How much will it cost to privatize it? And then how much will it cost per month to maintain it after privatization?

The plan to privatize SS only privatized 15 percent of someone's contribution IF THAT WANTED. IT WAS NOT MANDATORY.

The cost of doing it all at once is simple, everything we pay out monthly to Social Security recipients today.

Decades ago, Galveston Texas, along with two adjoining counties took advantage of a brief loophole and opted out of Social Security and funded their own plan. Those citizens fare FAR better than people receiving SS benefits.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

How much will it cost to privatize it? And then how much will it cost per month to maintain it after privatization?

The plan to privatize SS only privatized 15 percent of someone's contribution IF THAT WANTED. IT WAS NOT MANDATORY.

The cost of doing it all at once is simple, everything we pay out monthly to Social Security recipients today.

Decades ago, Galveston Texas, along with two adjoining counties took advantage of a brief loophole and opted out of Social Security and funded their own plan. Those citizens fare FAR better than people receiving SS benefits.

First, Bush never produced a plan. Congress developed a number of plans based on his criteria, one of which the administration itself trashed as financially irresponsible. None of these ideas would have worked. This is a piece that I put in TheHill.com on a look back at GWB's ideas - they were just dumb and horribly expensive. It was a typical DC kick-the-can solution that was designed to shift the burden of the program from current voters to future ones.

Bush’s plan would not have fixed Social Security

"The obvious question that someone should have asked was: Mr. President, would it not be easier to leave payroll taxes alone, and simply create additional benefit models within Social Security that track stock portfolios funded with funds borrowed in the public markets? You get the same economic outcome with half of the paperwork. The only real difference is that the president's plan sounds like he is fixing Social Security whereas my plan sounds like we are opening a hedge fund. "​

In terms of Galveston, it worked because the did not pay anything for legacy costs. If the US did what Galveston did, the $30 trillion goes to zero and all of our seniors go cold. Is that what you are proposing.

 

[Disir]

no.

Great argument!

With a private system, we would have avoided being in a hole by 30 trillion dollars, having to enslave our children to pay for it.

Your answer to that "no".

Thanks for your worthless opinion.

You aren't in the hole 30 million. Try again.

No we are not. We are in the hole by 30 TRILLION. (One million times that).

You aren't in the hole 30 trillion. Try again.

The statistics have been provided here multiple times. Yes, we are in the hole by 30 trillions because of social security.

And if you don't accept this fact, I will have to start questioning just how far in the hole in the ground your head is.

What are the Trust Funds? | Press Office | Social Security Administration

How much will it cost to privatize it? And then how much will it cost per month to maintain it after privatization?

According to the SSA, up to $30 trillion(2015$s) depending upon whether you are going to provide benefits to existing retirees and those that have accrued benefits.

Is that the cost to change over?

That is just the cost of legacy benefits. That is the payment that goes to existing retirees, and those who have accrued benefits from past payments. Basically it is a phase-out where future retirees get less and less.

What is the rational behind not lifting the cap?

Here is my piece : No Simple Solution To The Social Security Deficit

In short, Social Security is supposed to be a pension not a welfare program, and there are reasons for that. If you want a welfare program, just end SS, and direct the resources to an actual welfare program. Infinitely easier, faster, and cheaper.

No. Social Security is supposed to be a back up. Once upon a time people had actual pensions but the finance industry couldn't wait to get their mits on that. Corporations did not want to fund the part they agreed to. Hell, in the public sector the Dems and the Republicans refused to fund that in multiple states.

The money was forced into IRAs. That was the way to survive. Amiright? That was the line of crap sold at the time. Then people lost a lot of money and had no idea what the hell happened because they didn't work in that industry.

So lets be honest. It's about getting a hold of the cash for reinvestment purposes which will be handled by the same good folks that lost that crap before.

Want some fixing? All of the stay at home partners that collect benefits through the credits of their spouses can hit the bricks.

 

[Norman]

zero.

Show your math.

It is the cost of paying-off the promises of the past. We save nothing.

Then that isn't a cost.

When the 12.4% of wages goes to a personal account, it has to be replaced by a tax of a different name.

Not forever, unlike the current system.

For $30 trillion, we get the right to save for our own retirement.

What's the current hole in the system?

Let's try this again. These aren't my numbers so I don't have any math to show. The figure comes from the SSA. It is the cost to convert the existing system into a system of personal accounts with a reserve to pay-off accrued benefits. You will have to explain to me how putting $30 trillion dollars aside to pay future benefits isn't a cost. $30 trillion is the 'current hole'.

You explained it yourself.

The current hole will be gone after the transformation. It's just paying 30 T to get rid of 30 T liability.

There is no cost...

Pretty interesting that you claim to be an economist and do not get this. Seems like you forgot to take accounting 101.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

zero.

Show your math.

It is the cost of paying-off the promises of the past. We save nothing.

Then that isn't a cost.

When the 12.4% of wages goes to a personal account, it has to be replaced by a tax of a different name.

Not forever, unlike the current system.

For $30 trillion, we get the right to save for our own retirement.

What's the current hole in the system?

Let's try this again. These aren't my numbers so I don't have any math to show. The figure comes from the SSA. It is the cost to convert the existing system into a system of personal accounts with a reserve to pay-off accrued benefits. You will have to explain to me how putting $30 trillion dollars aside to pay future benefits isn't a cost. $30 trillion is the 'current hole'.

You will have to explain to me how putting $30 trillion dollars aside to pay future benefits isn't a cost. $30 trillion is the 'current hole'.

Great. So we have a $30 trillion hole if we do nothing. $30 trillion to privatize it.

That's not a $30 trillion cost, that's breaking even and having a private system that generates higher benefits.
With less government interference.

 

[Disir]

government interference is clearly being defined as regulations keeping the money grubbing mitts from gambling with the cash all willy nilly.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

government interference is clearly being defined as regulations keeping the money grubbing mitts from gambling with the cash all willy nilly.

Yes, the only good money grubbing mitts are government money grubbing mitts. DERP!

 

[westwall]

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

Realizing it's a ponzi scheme, and acting accordingly would be better....

 

[Disir]

government interference is clearly being defined as regulations keeping the money grubbing mitts from gambling with the cash all willy nilly.

Yes, the only good money grubbing mitts are government money grubbing mitts. DERP!

As long as you're being honest about what you want to do. Because you don't give a damn if that money disappears as long as you get a chance to gamble.