Earthman
"And I'll keep my Social Security, such as it is, thank you very much."
For those born after 1985 the best you can do is to receive 29 cents in benefits for each dollar paid in taxes plus credited interest at the US Treasury rate. For those who were born in 1938, that cohort will receive $1 in benefits for each dollar of SS-OASI taxes including interest at the US Treasury Rate.
If they raise taxes to pay promised benefits, then those people working will pay more for the same promised benefit, still 29 cents for each dollar. If they raise the retirement age then those working will pay more for longer for fewer years worth of benefits, but will receive the yearly promised benefit, but still only 29 cents for each dollar. If they cut benefits, keep the tax rate and retirement age the same, they will receive less, but still only 29 cents for each dollar. no matter how you slice it, dice it, or cut it, you cannot get something from nothing.
A. J. Altmeyer, Chairman
Social Security Board Before the House Ways and Means Committee November 27, 1944
?There is no question that the benefits promised under the present Federal old-age and survivors insurance system will cost far more than the 2 percent of payrolls now being collected. As I pointed out in my testimony of last year, none of the actuarial estimates which have been made on the basis of present economic conditions and other factors now clearly discernible result in a level annual cost of this insurance system of less than 4 percent of payroll.?
?Indeed, under certain assumptions the level annual cost has been estimated to be as much as 7 percent of payrolls. On the basis of a 4-percent-level annual cost it may be said that the reserve fund of this system already has a deficit of $6,600 million. On the basis of 7-percent-level annual cost it may be said that the reserve fund already has a deficit of about $16,500 million.?
http://www.ssa.gov/history/aja1144a.html
Robert Ball
Commissioner of Social Security
1962 and 1973,Wrote June 2005
?When Social Security began, benefits for those nearing retirement age were much higher than could have been paid for by the contributions of those workers and their employers. This was done so that the program could begin paying meaningful benefits even though workers nearing retirement would have only a short time to contribute.?
?Instead, the impression is left that the program was sound only when 16 paid in for every one taking out. Thus, of course, when the ratio changed to 3.3 to 1, the program became ?unsustainable.?
?They ignore the fact that in 1950 only about 15 percent of the elderly were eligible for benefits and that it was expected by all who were acquainted with the program that the ratio would, of course, change dramatically as a greater proportion of the elderly became beneficiaries.?
?What in fact happened is that when just about all the elderly first became eligible for Social Security benefits, about 1975, the ratio was 3.3 contributors to each beneficiary and the ratio has stayed that way for the past 30 years. As the baby boom reaches retirement age, as the administration says, the ratio is expected to drop for the long run to 2.0 or 1.9 workers to each retiree. But that is the size of the problem - a drop from 3.3 to 2 workers per retiree.?
http://www.tcf.org/Publication...tSecurity/ballplan.pdf
http://www.justsayno.50megs.com
Many posts in this thread boils down to as much when you look at them closely. "He didn't do as he was told - serves the bastard right" is pretty much the sentiment of a number of them.
Facebook
Twitter