Some Inconvenient Facts About Social Security

[WorldWatcher]

But you get a 4 1/2 year increase to your total retirement window

No you get a 3 year cut in your total retirement window.

CURRENT RETIREMENT WINDOW
67 FRA, Expected Death at 79. Total retirement window = 12 years

NEW RETIREMENT WINDOW
70 FRA, Expected Death at 79. Total retirement window = 9 years
.
.
.
.
Raising the retirement age reduces the number of years that a person draws benefits. That is a cut. The whole purpose is to cut the benefit payouts.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Vastly improving healthcare is a major factor in people living longer

That's part of it.

However when you look at Average Life Expectancy, comparing 1935 when SS was implemented to the modern day, the bigger impact was the decline in infant mortality rates.

WW

 

[rightwinger]

That's part of it.

However when you look at Average Life Expectancy, comparing 1935 when SS was implemented to the modern day, the bigger impact was the decline in infant mortality rates.

WW

Also a decrease in smoking and auto fatalities

 

[Hutch Starskey]

View attachment 763111

Ask the same question you get the same answer.

WW

You didn’t answer the moral question in either post.

Because there is no good answer.
It’s just a convenient “solution”.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You didn’t answer the moral question in either post.

Because there is no good answer.
It’s just a convenient “solution”.

Sure I did, but because the answer doesn't fit the paradigm that you want it to fit you dismiss it.

WW

 

[hadit]

It is sustainable if you gradually increase the age to 70 and require payments up to $250,000 income

IOW, change it as has been proposed and resisted all along. When Republicans propose changes to extend the life of SS, they get accused of pushing Granny off the cliff by lying democrats. Apparently they would prefer to see the whole thing crash and burn as long as it happens after they leave office.

 

[hadit]

The money is there

For now. It won't be long, however, before SS money goes from a general fund revenue source to an expense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For now. It won't be long, however, before SS money goes from a general fund revenue source to an expense.

It's been paying out more than it collects for a while now.

 

[MagicMike]

I think it is without dispute that Social Security’s days are numbered, save for some massive tax increases the likes of which will be intolerable to some Americans.

Keep in mind that employers are required to match SS contributions. Thus, your employers are subsiding one-half of your SS income.

66 million Americans depend upon Social Security to feed themselves and make ends meet.
Roughly 25% of our citizens.
Love it or not it (or some equivalent) is going to have to stick around in perpetuity.
The mass die off that would result from ending this program would not play well on TV.
The black, bloated corpses of grandmas and grandpas lining the stteets by the millions with maggots crawling in their eye sockets.
In "the most prosperous nation on earth?"
Naw. I don't think so.
The guv-ment is going to have to "find" the money somewhere.
Maybe cut defense spending.
We never hear about The Pentagon's budget being "insolvent."
Whatever The Pentagon says it needs, it (magically?) gets.
Maybe that's a good place to start.

 

[hadit]

It's been paying out more than it collects for a while now.

True enough. I was thinking of when the paper surplus ends and there are no more T-bills that the general fund has to pay for. At that point, the general fund is no longer liable for the SS deficit.

 

[hadit]

66 million Americans depend upon Social Security to feed themselves and make ends meet.
Roughly 25% of our citizens.
Love it or not it (or some equivalent) is going to have to stick around in perpetuity.
The mass die off that would result from ending this program would not play well on TV.
The black, bloated corpses of grandmas and grandpas lining the stteets by the millions with maggots crawling in their eye sockets.
In "the most prosperous nation on earth?"
Naw. I don't think so.
The guv-ment is going to have to "find" the money somewhere.
Maybe cut defense spending.
We never hear about The Pentagon's budget being "insolvent."
Whatever The Pentagon says it needs, it (magically?) gets.
Maybe that's a good place to start.

If you want big money, you go after defense and welfare or you tax the crap out of the middle class.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

66 million Americans depend upon Social Security to feed themselves and make ends meet.
Roughly 25% of our citizens.
Love it or not it (or some equivalent) is going to have to stick around in perpetuity.
The mass die off that would result from ending this program would not play well on TV.
The black, bloated corpses of grandmas and grandpas lining the stteets by the millions with maggots crawling in their eye sockets.
In "the most prosperous nation on earth?"
Naw. I don't think so.
The guv-ment is going to have to "find" the money somewhere.
Maybe cut defense spending.
We never hear about The Pentagon's budget being "insolvent."
Whatever The Pentagon says it needs, it (magically?) gets.
Maybe that's a good place to start.

66 million Americans depend upon Social Security to feed themselves and make ends meet.
Roughly 25% of our citizens.
Love it or not it (or some equivalent) is going to have to stick around in perpetuity.
The mass die off that would result from ending this program would not play well on TV.
The black, bloated corpses of grandmas and grandpas lining the stteets by the millions with maggots crawling in their eye sockets.
In "the most prosperous nation on earth?"
Naw. I don't think so.
The guv-ment is going to have to "find" the money somewhere.
Maybe cut defense spending.
We never hear about The Pentagon's budget being "insolvent."
Whatever The Pentagon says it needs, it (magically?) gets.
Maybe that's a good place to start.

 

[BlindBoo]

Way too long to follow

In a nutshell, the life expectancy in the US over the last 45 years has risen 4 1/2 years. That means you can expect to be retired an additional 4 1/2 years

So, asking someone who is 25 to work to 70 instead of 67 is not a decrease in benefits.

U.S. Life Expectancy 1950-2024

Chart and table of U.S. life expectancy from 1950 to 2024. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.

www.macrotrends.net

I believe I was 23 when they raised the retirement age from 65 to 67.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

View attachment 763114

Sure I did, but because the answer doesn't fit the paradigm that you want it to fit you dismiss it.

WW

That isn’t a moral reason. You said so yourself in the post.

You won’t answer because there is no morality in forcing the top to pay so much more.

Instead of building inequity into the system, perhaps some sort of progressive tax for all wage ranges rather than a flat tax would be more appropriate.

 

[Lakhota]

"Some Inconvenient Facts About Social Security"​

Sounds more like "alternative" facts to me!

 

[Grumblenuts]

I believe I was 23 when they raised the retirement age from 65 to 67.

Common negotiation request promoted by industry, then dutifully offered to union members by corrupt union representatives. It's always fuck the new employees, pamper the veterans.

Completely at odds with the intent.

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. So that we can make them work two, three, maybe five years longer than even You normally do!

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Grumblenuts]

The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935) [H. R. 7260]

An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That isn’t a moral reason. You said so yourself in the post.

You won’t answer because there is no morality in forcing the top to pay so much more.

Instead of building inequity into the system, perhaps some sort of progressive tax for all wage ranges rather than a flat tax would be more appropriate.

#1 A "progressive tax for all wage ranges" has the same "morality" issue that you seem to have a problem with. A progressive tax would also tax high wage earners at a high rate than low and middle range wage earners.

#2 I've come to believe that we need a re-evaluation of SS Taxes in general. The workforce and economy are very different than they were in 1935 when the system was created. Now I'm leaning more toward, making SS Tax applicable to all income the same way it is determined for Income Tax (wage, interest, dividends, short term stock commodities, and long term capital gains) as a new revenue source. As such:

• Current SS tax of 12.4% would remain (6.2% by the EE and 6.2% by the ER).
• Non-wage income would be taxed at a rate equal to 25% of the total FICA rate or another way to say it as 1/2 of the individual EE rate. That would currently be 3.1%.
• Financial institutions would be required to collect the 3.1% at the time of posting, just like employers (ERs) collect it at the time of payment.
• Because the non-wage rate is 25% of the wage rate (3.1% compared to the FICA total of 12.4%), then 25% of non-wage income would be credited to SS Income for that year.
• Current cap of 160K on wage income could remain the same.
• A cap of 160K would also apply to non-wage income.
• The sum of the wage credit and non-wage credit is posted as the total SS Income for the year which is then used to determine SS benefit amounts.

Example:
A high wage earner make $300K in wages, taxes are collected on wages up to $160K for a total of $19,840 in wage tax. Applicable income credited (partial) for the year for future benefits calculations is $160K. If the same person has 100K of passive investment income, the SS Tax would be $3,100 at 3.1%. Total SS Taxes would then be $22,940. 25% of the $100K passive income would be credited to SS Income for the year equaling $25K since the tax rate is 25% of the full FICA rate. So the individuals total SS Income credited for the year would be $160 + $25K = $185K.

WW

 

[Grumblenuts]

We never hear about The Pentagon's budget being "insolvent."

Making one good point beats making none.