House repubs to target Social Security and Medicare cuts

[Cellblock2429]

Then my bad and apologies.

I probably misunderstood.

WW

/——/ I was responding to a poster who said anyone under 54 would be denied Social Security. I replied it would be delayed, but not denied.

 

[Jessica-stormlover]

Make people work longer so corporations can use them up so then they have a short retirement.

That is why the republican party is pushing to raise the age of ssi and keeping it barrowly high enough to retire at all. Billionaires and the elites want wage slaves. They want to milk every cent from our poor and middle class and they can't allow retirement.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Have you added up the total amount you paid in and compared it to how much you'll get out? The average worker pays $3,000/year into SS. Now, let's say you work for 45 years, from age 20 to 65 and pay that much every year. That's a grand total of $135,000 you pay in. Now, the average SS payout is $16,800/year. That means that you stop getting back what you paid in and start getting more out after 8 years. Are you going to stop collecting SS when you're 73? That's all that you earned and paid for, after all.

Life Expectancy by Country and in the World (2024) - Worldometer

List of countries and dependencies in the world ranked by life expectancy at birth, both sexes, males and females. World Population Life Expectancy with historical chart

www.worldometers.info

My rough calculation's factoring in the time value of money, and using your parameters of 3,000 per year for 45 years...

The result is not $135,000 because of the time value of money.

The closer figure is $250,000 in present day dollars over that same time period using the same base amount.

So instead of paying out all you put in at 8 years, it's actually about 15 years taking you to 80 years. Which using the "life expectancy" measurement (which I disagree with fundamentally anyway) is 79.11 years in the United States.

WW

 

[hadit]

Now do the calculation with compound interest over those 45 years. Let's say a reasonable rate of return at 3-4%.

WW

There is no rate of return. Any excess SS funds (those not needed to pay the immediate benefits of current retirees) is put into the general fund and immediately spent there. Then it is paid back out of the general fund. You have made a valid point, however, that investing the excess funds in even very solid, stable funds would generate a much needed rate of return and help offset some of the costs of the program.

 

[hadit]

Yea. Put it in bitcoin

Sheesh

That's stupid.

 

[WorldWatcher]

There is no rate of return. Any excess SS funds (those not needed to pay the immediate benefits of current retirees) is put into the general fund and immediately spent there. Then it is paid back out of the general fund. You have made a valid point, however, that investing the excess funds in even very solid, stable funds would generate a much needed rate of return and help offset some of the costs of the program.

You are incorrect on two counts. Social Security funds do not go into the general fund and excess funds do earn interest.

Social Security funds are invested in U.S. Treasury Bills (basically an interest bearing bond). That is in the law, it is the ONLY thing that can be done with excess funds.

Therefore excess SS funds have been earning interest.

WW

 

[kyzr]

My rough calculation's factoring in the time value of money, and using your parameters of 3,000 per year for 45 years...
The result is not $135,000 because of the time value of money.
The closer figure is $250,000 in present day dollars over that same time period using the same base amount.
So instead of paying out all you put in at 8 years, it's actually about 15 years taking you to 80 years. Which using the "life expectancy" measurement (which I disagree with fundamentally anyway) is 79.11 years in the United States.
WW

So will hadit's (or Lesh's) kids live at least 2-years longer than them, statistically speaking?

(If SS ages are pushed back 2-years for the next generation)

 

[WorldWatcher]

So will hadit's (or Lesh's) kids live at least 2-years longer than them, statistically speaking?

(If SS ages are pushed back 2-years for the next generation)

Don't know. Depends on Hadit's (or Lesh's) age and the age of their children.

I'd say, off the cuff without specifics - possibly.

"Next generation" though is not a quantified statement. I'm at the very end of the Baby Boomer generation, the next being Generation X's born staring in the 60's.

Gen X's are just getting ready to enter their 60's.
.
.
What I previously pointed out was that if you start "grandfathering" (which isn't a real fix, it's a political move to make it palatable for "seniors" that I define as those over 50) it doesn't do anything to fix SS by the 2030's because those under 50 aren't going to begin drawing SS until the 2044.

WW

 

[kyzr]

Don't know. Depends on Hadit's (or Lesh's) age and the age of their children.

I'd say, off the cuff without specifics - possibly.

"Next generation" though is not a quantified statement. I'm at the very end of the Baby Boomer generation, the next being Generation X's born staring in the 60's.

Gen X's are just getting ready to enter their 60's.
.
.
What I previously pointed out was that if you start "grandfathering" (which isn't a real fix, it's a political move to make it palatable for "seniors" that I define as those over 50) it doesn't do anything to fix SS by the 2030's because those under 50 aren't going to begin drawing SS until the 2044.

WW

The bottom line is: Unless "fixed" SS only pays 70% of promised benefits after 2034.
Potential "fixes" include:
1. Raising the early and full retirement ages, currently 62 & 66 to 64 and 68.
2. Raising the cap on earnings, currently $130,000. Meaning SS tax stops at $130,000. Say raise to $260,000.
3. Raise the SS taxes taken from pay checks & employers.
4. Or some combination of the above.

Considering generational fairness.

 

[Cellblock2429]

That is why the republican party is pushing to raise the age of ssi and keeping it barrowly high enough to retire at all. Billionaires and the elites want wage slaves. They want to milk every cent from our poor and middle class and they can't allow retirement.

/——-/ When did Joe become a Republican?

Fact Check: Joe Biden Has Advocated Cutting Social Security for 40 Years

“I tried with Senator Grassley back in the 1980s to freeze all government spending, including Social Security, including everything,” Biden said in 1995.

theintercept.com

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The bottom line is: Unless "fixed" SS only pays 70% of promised benefits after 2034.
Potential "fixes" include:
1. Raising the early and full retirement ages, currently 62 & 66 to 64 and 68.
2. Raising the cap on earnings, currently $130,000. Meaning SS tax stops at $130,000. Say raise to $260,000.
3. Raise the SS taxes taken from pay checks & employers.
4. Or some combination of the above.

Considering generational fairness.

Raising the earnings cap is not acceptable IMO. Those folks at the top are already paying twice as much as the majority of others for the same benefit.

 

[hadit]

The bottom line remains, these programs are unsustainable as they are in the long run. Closing our eyes and wishing won't help, and there has to be either more revenue coming in or lower expenses going out.

 

[hadit]

You are incorrect on two counts. Social Security funds do not go into the general fund and excess funds do earn interest.

Social Security funds are invested in U.S. Treasury Bills (basically an interest bearing bond). That is in the law, it is the ONLY thing that can be done with excess funds.

Therefore excess SS funds have been earning interest.

WW

Okay, good point. I should have verified that. It won't be long, however, before there will be no excess funds to invest anywhere and the program will run a deficit. Then, if we don't take action now, the general fund will have to be tapped not only to pay back those bonds that were purchased, but will have to subsidize the program directly.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The bottom line is: Unless "fixed" SS only pays 70% of promised benefits after 2034.
Potential "fixes" include:
1. Raising the early and full retirement ages, currently 62 & 66 to 64 and 68.
2. Raising the cap on earnings, currently $130,000. Meaning SS tax stops at $130,000. Say raise to $260,000.
3. Raise the SS taxes taken from pay checks & employers.
4. Or some combination of the above.

Considering generational fairness.

#1 Current Full Retirement age is 67 for those born after 1960. Those people are already 63. So increasing it by 1 year will impact them, but not by any factor that would have a huge impact. If such an age change is "grandfathered" to get political approval, it won't have a short term impact. Then there is the impact of a meaningful age increase and collateral impacts. For white collar workers, maybe not much. But for those in blue collar jobs (those relying heavily on manual labor) are likely to see an INCREASE in disability related retirements negating the impact of just raising regular SS retirement age.

#2 Raising the cap on wages, is an option that will help in the near term something raising the age doesn't do. The wage cap in 2023 is actually $160K so doubling it would take it to $320K. The other aspect to this is an increase in "non-wage" income. Investment incomes have never been a source of revenue for SS which has always been tied to wages. As the economy has shifted, maybe it's time to discuss non-wage income.

#3 Raising the SS rate paid by EE's and ER's is another consideration. One I personally don't agree with as small business employers are already paying. They pay their EE's and kick in the other part so in essence they are paying the 12.4%. Self-employed pay the whole 12.4% straight up. I'd support raising the cap and expending the definition of "income" before raising the rates.

"Generational fairness" is a qualitive term not a quantitative term. As such, IMHO, there is no such thing. If the term "generational fairness" means no changes to existing seniors (which is a political decision) as a means of getting passage so the burden is placed on younger generations because - well it's the only way to get passage. I'm not keen to the idea.

Another option that is not on your list is "means testing". Should a senior after retiring and having other income generating other income over $500K per year in retirement receive an additional $40K in SS? Don't know and that would be a tough discussion. That was max, the average SS benefit in 2023 is actually ~$22K.

WW

 

[bripat9643]

It isn't "government subsidized" jack ass.

We all paid into it

Everything the government does is government subsidized, jackass.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Okay, good point. I should have verified that. It won't be long, however, before there will be no excess funds to invest anywhere and the program will run a deficit. Then, if we don't take action now, the general fund will have to be tapped not only to pay back those bonds that were purchased, but will have to subsidize the program directly.

That's a fair assessment.

WW

 

[bripat9643]

All excess SS funds go into the general fund, where they are promptly spent. That money has to be repaid out of the general fund, which is borrowed from any source that will pony up some money. Take that cycle out of the picture, allow the excess funds to be invested outside of the government, and you can say it's not government subsidized.

If the government invested SS funds in the economy it would soon own the entire country.

 

[JimH52]

Or nothing happens except we al laugh at you.

Is your orange god actually running or is he just fleecing idiots like you?

 

[bripat9643]

Is your orange god actually running or is he just fleecing idiots like you?

How is he "fleecing?" anyone?

 

[Dr.Know]

SOP : The Democrats scream " THEY ARE COMING FOR SOC SECURITY" to rally their voters
The Republicants scream : THEY ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS to rally voters.

Same shit for 50 years