86M Workers Sustain 148M Benefit Takers

[Texashiker]

I do not know if these numbers are correct. Maybe someone here who stays up on these numbers can provide some insight?

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/t...te-sector-workers-sustain-148m-benefit-takers

Of course, it stands to reason that some people lived in households that received more than one welfare benefit at a time. To account for this, the Census Bureau published a neat composite statistic: There were 108,592,000 people in the fourth quarter of 2011 who lived in a household that included people on "one or more means-tested program."

Those 108,592,000 outnumbered the 86,429,000 full-time private-sector workers who inhabited the United States in 2012 by almost 1.3 to 1.

In the back of my mind there is a number of 10,000. That is how many baby boomers were retiring everyday.

We need 300,000 people entering the workforce and finding gainful employment every month just to sustain the tax revenue the retiring baby boomers were generating.

From what I understand, the US is creating just a fraction of that 300,000 jobs.

Something else I am thinking about, the number of retiring baby boomers is creating a sense of false recovery. Every month reports come out that less people are looking for work. Part of that is because 10,000 people a day area leaving the workforce.

If we have more people taking from the system than are paying in, and we have not even hit peak retirement of the baby boomers, what is going to happen when we have 15k or 20k people a year retiring? The first phase of the baby boomers are just now starting to retire.

The boomers born in 45, 46, 47, 48,,, are retiring. What is going to happen when their brothers and sisters start retiring in a couple of years?

 

[momeNt]

If we have more people taking from the system than are paying in, and we have not even hit peak retirement of the baby boomers, what is going to happen when we have 15k or 20k people a year retiring? The first phase of the baby boomers are just now starting to retire.

A revolution.

 

[z1ggy]

SS will go totally belly up... Duh. OH wait no!! Gov't will just keep borrowing more and more to support it. Ok phew, it'll be fine.

 

[Texashiker]

My dad was born in 1948, he retired a couple of years ago. I have several aunts and uncles ranging in age from around 64 years old to 54 years old.

My mom was born in 1949. I have 3 uncles who are younger than her who are going to be retiring soon.

So its not like a steady wave of baby boomers. There is going to be a wave of retirees who were born towards the end of the war and after the war, 44, 45, 46, 47.

Then there is going to be the next set of kids born in the late 40s and early 50s.

And then the next set of kids,,, all the way until you hit the start of Gen X.

There are a lot of Gen X who are going to be filling for social security disability in the next few years. Heck, I went to high school with some people who are already on SS disability from accidents or long illness.

SS will go totally belly up... Duh. OH wait no!! Gov't will just keep borrowing more and more to support it. Ok phew, it'll be fine.

We can always print more money.

If the federal reserve can print $85 billion a month for wall street, they can print that much for SS.

 

[JManInPhoenix]

SS is the 800 pound elephant in the room. It needs to be addressed but neither party will touch it with a 10 foot pole as it is the kiss of political death.

 

[chucky2]

You now understand why in part we have an Open Borders (unless you're unlucky today) policy. The Pols won't do the hard thing (they're incapable), so they do the "easy" thing...

 

[Incorruptible]

This isn't right. Hardworking people are being forced to subsidize others is just wrong. There needs to be some real cuts to the welfare and entitlement programs.

 

[cyclohexane]

they're going to jack up the FICA tax in a few years to keep it going just a while longer.

 

[brandonb]

You now understand why in part we have an Open Borders (unless you're unlucky today) policy. The Pols won't do the hard thing (they're incapable), so they do the "easy" thing...

Right. Which is why there are 148M benefit takers.

I understand why we have open borders, to get more peeps in this country to start paying taxes. But right now it's doing more harm than good. If it ever ends up doing good. Who knows? But it's not right now.

 

[chucky2]

Right. Which is why there are 148M benefit takers.

I understand why we have open borders, to get more peeps in this country to start paying taxes. But right now it's doing more harm than good. If it ever ends up doing good. Who knows? But it's not right now.

Well, that depends who you talk to. If it's a White Guilter/Bleeding Heart/Anarchist/Greeder, it's not harm, it's the best thing ever. If you talk to people with no jobs or depressed wages becaues of illegals, their families, the taxpayers paying for illegals and their kids (illegal or legal), and now the US Citizen out of work/making less and thus needing some kind of assistance, it blows for them.

Unfortunately, the former group compromises the vocal diehards of one party, and also the rich interests of both parties but one in particular. The Pols are far more concerned with that voter base than the non-vocal and apathetic masses in the middle. Embrace the suck...

 

[Matt1970]

SS is the 800 pound elephant in the room. It needs to be addressed but neither party will touch it with a 10 foot pole as it is the kiss of political death.

That seems to be the case with a lot of government programs.

 

[shortylickens]

This is news?

 

[Attic]

There's a myriad of ways to work on this issue. Not addressing it head on leads to bad things as the government continues to lie and cheat to remain infallible in it's own eyes.

It's Time to Ditch the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
-So why does the government maintain such a transparently inaccurate and misleading metric? For three reasons.

Many argue that these weightings skew the CPI lower, as do hedonic adjustments. The motivation for this skew is transparent: since the government increases Social Security benefits and Federal employees' pay annually to keep up with inflation (the cost of living allowance or COLA), a low rate of inflation keeps these increases modest.

Over time, an artificially low CPI/COLA lowers government expenditures (and deficits, provided tax revenues rise at rates above official inflation).

The author is hard hitting and spot on on this and other dilemmas facing the citizens of the country.


We'll have social security with less and less purchasing power that needs more and more contributions. The amount of control government now seeks to take and has taken has some quite real and devastating effects if it's left unchecked.

 

[SheHateMe]

This coming from the guy who wanted the Government to pay for your daughter's tubes to be tied. You know...the one who is a grown ass woman with a husband and kids who is still on her parent's insurance while her two kids are on Medicaid and her husband is out there floating in the wind.

 

[Attic]

This coming from the guy who wanted the Government to pay for your daughter's tubes to be tied. You know...the one who is a grown ass woman with a husband and kids who is still on her parent's insurance while her two kids are on Medicaid and her husband is out there floating in the wind.

Eloquent and to the point of the topic at hand.

Wait,... what?

 

[chucky2]

This coming from the guy who wanted the Government to pay for your daughter's tubes to be tied. You know...the one who is a grown ass woman with a husband and kids who is still on her parent's insurance while her two kids are on Medicaid and her husband is out there floating in the wind.

That sounds like an extremely good idea actually. If someone has two kids, no husband (for whatever reason), and are on their parents insurance, they clearly do not need anymore burden, and neither does the taxpayer. Sterilization long term would be far more preferable to the taxpayer than letting her breed more.

Why would you be opposed to this?

 

[SheHateMe]

Eloquent and to the point of the topic at hand.

Wait,... what?

I thought he was complaining about having to work for other people to have benefits. A while back he was talking about how the government should pay for his daughter to get an elective surgery after his insurance already paid for her to have a procedure that works. She doesn't have her own insurance and her kids are being supported by the government.

I figured he would have a problem with that as well but he does not.

I do not think kids that have two able bodied parents should be on a government program. I also think its messed up that a family is basically gaming the system by having one parent stay on their parent's insurance (because you can stay until you're 26) while the husband has no insurance and the children are basically on welfare.

That sounds like an extremely good idea actually. If someone has two kids, no husband (for whatever reason), and are on their parents insurance, they clearly do not need anymore burden, and neither does the taxpayer. Sterilization long term would be far more preferable to the taxpayer than letting her breed more.

Why would you be opposed to this?

I'm not opposed to birth control. His gripe was that she wanted to get her tubes tied after she already got an IUD inserted. He pretty much said that she should be able to get whatever she wants and that the government should pay for it. She cannot afford the procedure (her insurance covers it but there is a co-pay) and wants it for free.

 

[werepossum]

I agree that this is a serious problem, but it's worth pointing out that some part time workers pay a net income tax and that investors, the self-employed, and businesses also pay into the kitty. So it's not quite the problem it seems to be at first blush. Also, if memory serves the "takers" include anyone living in a household that receives a check whether or not they actually receive benefits. By that standard, seems reasonable to also include everyone living in a household with a full time wage earner as a wage earner. Fair's fair.

 

[Jhhnn]

SS is the 800 pound elephant in the room. It needs to be addressed but neither party will touch it with a 10 foot pole as it is the kiss of political death.

For Boomers, the elephant is the nearly $3T trust fund that we & GenX'ers have built up over 30 years of paying in more than the system paid out. We knew there would be a demographic issue, a bulge, and we did what we were asked to do about it by none other than Ronald Reagan.

 

[Mai72]

We have a ticking time bomb.

Can you imagine 20 years from now?

 

[chucky2]

snip

I'm not opposed to birth control. His gripe was that she wanted to get her tubes tied after she already got an IUD inserted. He pretty much said that she should be able to get whatever she wants and that the government should pay for it. She cannot afford the procedure (her insurance covers it but there is a co-pay) and wants it for free.

I know the IUD would be considered a wasted proceedure, but, don't you think it'd be far safer to get her in non-breeding status than take a chance the IUD doesn't work (and only works for so long)? You know what's going to happen right? 10 years down the road, kid 3 and very possible number 4 pop out. Who will be paying for them? Not to mention needlessly increasing population size, something we need to be going the other direction in...

Better to be safe than sorry.

 

[shady28]

"As a nation, we owe it to our retirees to promise only the benefits that can be delivered. If we have promised more than our economy has the ability to deliver to retirees without unduly diminishing real income gains of workers, as I fear we may have, we must recalibrate our public programs so that pending retirees have time to adjust through other channels. If we delay, the adjustments could be abrupt and painful."

-Alan Greenspan in 2004

 

[Slew Foot]

we have a ticking time bomb.

Can you imagine 20 years from now?

kabooooommm!!!!!

 

[TurtleCrusher]

This isn't right. Hardworking people are being forced to subsidize others is just wrong. There needs to be some real cuts to the welfare and entitlement programs.

What do you say for the vast majority who paid into the system? Do you actually consider SS an entitlement?

 

[Jhhnn]

"As a nation, we owe it to our retirees to promise only the benefits that can be delivered. If we have promised more than our economy has the ability to deliver to retirees without unduly diminishing real income gains of workers, as I fear we may have, we must recalibrate our public programs so that pending retirees have time to adjust through other channels. If we delay, the adjustments could be abrupt and painful."

-Alan Greenspan in 2004

Funny that. He was the architect of Reagan's build up the trust fund plan 20 years earlier.