Social Security to cost $7000/worker

[woolfe9999]

it already is 67.

You're right, if you're born after 1959.

- wolf

 

[soccerballtux]

You're right, if you're born after 1959.

- wolf

yeah....needs to be that before then though...needs to be that for everyone, now.

 

[cubeless]

yeah....needs to be that before then though...needs to be that for everyone, now.

the old folks vote, though... any pol who votes for this will get to take advantage of the extended unemployment benefits when they are defeated in their next election...

 

[First]

we're talking about 2 entirely different kinds of inflation.
SS is luxury compared to what humanity has experienced for all of recorded history, and that's just going to have to change, no getting around it.

What, why would that have to change? For all of recorded history people believed flying to the moon was loony....up until 50 years ago. What's your point?

 

[soccerballtux]

we're talking about 2 entirely different kinds of inflation.
SS is luxury compared to what humanity has experienced for all of recorded history, and that's just going to have to change, no getting around it.

What, why would that have to change? For all of recorded history people believed flying to the moon was loony....up until 50 years ago. What's your point?

go re-read my posts, I already covered it. The numbers just don't add up, not with government the size it is now. Government must shrink, so private sector employment can grow, so our economy can produce more. That's the only way to improve the scenario.
Either that or maybe swine flu. I'm not suggesting this, I'm only mentioning it to show that's it's really the only option if government wants to stay as bloated as it is now.

 

[First]

go re-read my posts, I already covered it. The numbers just don't add up, not with government the size it is now. Government must shrink, so private sector employment can grow, so our economy can produce more. That's the only way to improve the scenario.
Either that or maybe swine flu. I'm not suggesting this, I'm only mentioning it to show that's it's really the only option if government wants to stay as bloated as it is now.

Yeah, again, your posted numbers do nothing to show that SS is unsustainable. You just made them up.

 

[soccerballtux]

Yeah, again, your posted numbers do nothing to show that SS is unsustainable. You just made them up.

takes 2 seconds to google why don't you disprove me instead of just waving your hands and saying "not true". I spent 4 minutes googling this information, you can deny if you want, it's all out there clear as day.

 

[boomerang]

You could cut off SS to every senior, march everyone into the ovens at age 60 and this country would still be in deep financial trouble.

We're at a crossroads if we choose to look at it that way. We can all bite the bullet, hunker down, take our lumps and come our better for it in the long run, or we can continue on like nothing is wrong hoping someone else will have to deal with it in the future.

To correct these problems, we first need leadership in Washington. I haven't seen it yet and I don't expect to in the future. No politician is willing to tell it like it is.

 

[Genx87]

What's your alternative solution for helping people retire when 72% of all businesses offer absolutely zero pensions and barely 60% offer 401Ks? SS exists for a reason and it isn't some crazy liberal agenda; it's reality.

We are going to have to change our mentality on who is capable for work. We cant expect people to basically not work from 1-18 and 65-80. SS was designed in a time when our avg left expectancy was 60 years. It now sits about 78 years of age and rising. People should expect to continue to work into their 70s and business should take advantage of their expertise.

My solution is to start raising the age to about 75 years of age and start means testing it. There is no reason many retiree's should recieve a check with such large estates.

 

[werepossum]

I repeat. If you index starting age to life expectancy, statistically 50% of everyone who pays into the system will get NOTHING back out for whatever they put in. That's fair?

I was being a bit snarky by suggesting means testing, because I think your solution is rather extreme. The reports I've seen on the health of SS suggest that far more moderate changes will fix the system. We can probably just raise the retirement age a couple years.

- wolf

I suspect means testing and additional raises in retirement age will both be required. The true problem though is not the health of SS as a separate system - that's not that bad. The true problem is that SS has been running a surplus for its entire existence, which we've been using to fund other programs. Now we have to find money not only to fund our SS obligations but also to fund those other programs, all of which have dedicated constituencies and Congresscritters.

We are currently borrowing about half of what we spend federally. I don't see either party ending this until it becomes suddenly impossible - the Democrats want to borrow and spend even more, the Republicans want to borrow and spend slightly less. We are screwed, blued and tattooed, and will probably end up with a new version of communism or other form of serfdom due to our lack of collective will to live within our means.

 

[blackangst1]

Well, our lifestyle just isn't sustainable I think...fundamentally.
We can't only be producing in the economy for 35 years of our lives and then expect to retire and live in luxury (1-22 years and then retirement to death, say 15-20 years there). It's just not sustainable, not when the rest of the world is willing to work for so much less money and do the same thing. They're starving, so they're willing to work 12 hour days. We're just going to have to suck it up and keep working till we're no longer able (till like 70-75), and then move in with your children-- the way it's worked for all of history until now.

So, people need to keep working (delay SS until 75 or whatever the avg life expectancy is-- used to be 65 that's why SS started at 65), and just be content with less-- such as living with your children if you can't afford your own house.

There's really no way out of this, it's either inflation with the Federal Reserve buying all the US Treasuries (result will be cost of living goes way up until the SS payments aren't anything at all anymore-- ie barely cover food if even that), or the gov't axing benefits for the old people-- the end result is the same, they end up with less. The working population won't put up with another Income Tax (which is what this will turn into), they'd rather have the money and mom/dad just have to live with them.

Although I agree with you, I think (Im assuming) you meant to say "We can't only be producing in the economy for 35 years of our lives and then expect to retire and live in luxury without contributing more to our own retirement above and beyond SS.

Yes?

 

[nobodyknows]

Everything I have heard is that it is a given.

The retirement age used to be 60, I think. Now it is 65... and they are shooting for 70

Fucking bastards.

-John

It's a given that you're an idiot.

 

[nobodyknows]

We are going to have to change our mentality on who is capable for work. We cant expect people to basically not work from 1-18 and 65-80. SS was designed in a time when our avg left expectancy was 60 years. It now sits about 78 years of age and rising. People should expect to continue to work into their 70s and business should take advantage of their expertise.

My solution is to start raising the age to about 75 years of age and start means testing it. There is no reason many retiree's should recieve a check with such large estates.

Another idiot.

 

[Genx87]

Another idiot.

Ahh why bother.

 

[Mursilis]

You could cut off SS to every senior, march everyone into the ovens at age 60 and this country would still be in deep financial trouble.

We're at a crossroads if we choose to look at it that way. We can all bite the bullet, hunker down, take our lumps and come our better for it in the long run, or we can continue on like nothing is wrong hoping someone else will have to deal with it in the future.

To correct these problems, we first need leadership in Washington. I haven't seen it yet and I don't expect to in the future. No politician is willing to tell it like it is.

Not entirely true - some politicians have made the national debt a central focus of their campaign. Perot did in '92 (back when the debt was less than half its current level), but he, like any politician telling an uncomfortable truth, lost. To steal a line from Jack Nicholson, we can't handle the truth. We want slick liars running the country.

 

[BurnItDwn]

We need to raise the retirement age.

 

[Slew Foot]

Not only is the average life span in the US int he mid seventies, but someone whos atually reached retirement age (mid 60s) can expect to live until their mid eighties (they already avoided all the lethal childhood diseases, being shot up in their teens, etc..). So they end up with about 20+ years on the government dole for SS, medicare, etc.. What people dont realize is that SS isnt supposed to provide for your entire retirement, but most people act like it does.

But dont worry, hyperinflation will take care of everything.

 

[zephyrprime]

Indeed. The coming worldwide devaluations of currency will sort of solve this problem. I expect on the order of 200% inflation over the course of 6 years.

The aging world is will be one of the defining problems of the 21st century in my opinion. It's going to have a big effect on the culture of the world.

And it's an intractable problem too. People can maybe keep working until they are about 70 but many people's minds and bodies really start to go at that point.

 

[zephyrprime]

People should expect to continue to work into their 70s and business should take advantage of their expertise.

Maybe people can work until about 70 but after that, the body and mind go downhill too fast. And for most of them, their expertise is not so valuable.

 

[StageLeft]

Even if we had Weimar inflation of course it would not solve the SS problem. Unlike a person's 401k, which is denominated in dollars and if they become toilet paper the person would be wiped out, SS has the literal backing of the country; if 100 dollars become what one dollar is now SS would rise accordingly. SS pays out a percentage of the economy's productivity. Inflation is by my reckoning not so important to it. The essential issue is that SS pays out too much of that percentage as it is now, which is why benefits either have to go down or retirement age increased or a combination of.

 

[soccerballtux]

Although I agree with you, I think (Im assuming) you meant to say "We can't only be producing in the economy for 35 years of our lives and then expect to retire and live in luxury without contributing more to our own retirement above and beyond SS.

Yes?

yes,
but it would require a lot lot more saving than I think people realize.

 

[Genx87]

Maybe people can work until about 70 but after that, the body and mind go downhill too fast. And for most of them, their expertise is not so valuable.

Of course on a case by case basis this may be true. But know many people who worked well into their 70s. My dad will probably work into his 80s.

We simply cant expect SS to work given our rise in life expectancy.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
The true problem is that SS has been running a surplus for its entire existence, which we've been using to fund other programs. Now we have to find money not only to fund our SS obligations but also to fund those other programs, all of which have dedicated constituencies and Congresscritters.

You're hinting around at what is likely going to be a big problem.

The accumulated SS surplus had been invested in special SS treasury bonds. It is an easy way for the fed gov to borrow money, and over the long term pays the SS fund lower interest than other treasuries.

The surplus was espected to continue on into the future, however this recession has changed that. I understand SS is now currently runing in a deficit.

All these recent bailouts and stimulous programs etc have resulted in a huge deficit. This requires the fed gov to issue a lot of new debt. And the interest on this debt is eating up an awful lot of the fed gov budget.

Now the bad news - as SS starts running in the deficit the fed gov must pay off those SS treasuries to give money to the SS trust fund to make it's payments.

As it does this, it must refinance those SS treasuries with regular debt it sells on the market. This debt is going to flood the market and compete with all other debt we must sell to fund our deficit spending. There is a limit on how much debt we can issue. And even if we can manage to sell this new debt, it is going to be more expensive (higher interest rate) than the special SS treasuires. I.e., even more of our budget is going to go to interest expense.

Cliffs: we're looking a national finance death spiral.

Fern

 

[theeedude]

$7000/year is probably not going to be that much by the time all baby boomers are retired. In either case, I wouldn't worry about it too much, that's money that has been paid into the system and subsidized a lot of tax cuts before, I am sure those tax wealth has been invested and can be taxed to pay that money back to retirees

 

[woolfe9999]

I suspect means testing and additional raises in retirement age will both be required. The true problem though is not the health of SS as a separate system - that's not that bad. The true problem is that SS has been running a surplus for its entire existence, which we've been using to fund other programs. Now we have to find money not only to fund our SS obligations but also to fund those other programs, all of which have dedicated constituencies and Congresscritters.

We are currently borrowing about half of what we spend federally. I don't see either party ending this until it becomes suddenly impossible - the Democrats want to borrow and spend even more, the Republicans want to borrow and spend slightly less. We are screwed, blued and tattooed, and will probably end up with a new version of communism or other form of serfdom due to our lack of collective will to live within our means.

You're correct in your assessment, SS in isolation isn't the real problem. Medicare is far and away the largest problem.

The fixes are actually quite doable. The pain just has to be spread around instead of targetted entirely at one group. That is the real rub though. Too many political sacred cows that must be violated. You seem to assess the repubs as slightly better. I beg to differ and put them about in the same boat. On cutting entitlements, most (but not all) repubs actually oppose doing it to any great extent for fear of alienating senior voters who they consider part of their base. They also oppose cutting defense. And they oppose raising taxes. That takes everything off the table except non-defense discretionary spending. On that they are better than the dems, but it's only 12% of the budget. The dems would at least cut defense and raise taxes. They have a big problem on Medicare though - it is the single biggest budget issue and the elephant in the room.

- wolf