Social Security to cost $7000/worker

[Hacp]

Linear growth in population over next 18 years will be approx 50,000,000 people.

Using your math about 1/3 of them will be added to current work force. Maybe 2K per worker now?

Yes, 2x like a more realistic number if there are no quality of life adjustments.

 

[Anarchist420]

What they ought to do, is replace medicare and medicaid and SS with a better tax system. The welfare state wouldn't be necessary if the tax system didn't suck so bad. They ought to do something like:
17% of income after first 30k, then 12k for having health insurance, 3k for spouse, and 5k/dependent.

Then to make up the lost revenue, they could charge everyone the estate tax at a 20% rate and a flat corporate tax of 17% after the first 102k

Or they could just repeal the income tax altogether and replace it with nothing, i.e., tarriffs and excise taxes.

 

[her209]

Social security is a problem but it isn't as big of a problem as Medicaid and medicare. THAT is the real problem.If you're looking for a program to nuke, medicaid and medicare is the first one I would obliterate.

So the Republicans should nuke them after they gain Congressional majority in November.

 

[bloodugly]

nm

 

[soccerballtux]

Social security is a problem but it isn't as big of a problem as Medicaid and medicare. THAT is the real problem.If you're looking for a program to nuke, medicaid and medicare is the first one I would obliterate.

Care to explain, back up with numbers? Medicare tax is only 1% on worker and 1% on employer.
Social security is already 6% worker 6% employer.

Combined, your paycheck would be 14.2% higher without these taxes.

 

[soccerballtux]

So the Republicans should nuke them after they gain Congressional majority in November.

I see what you did there.

 

[First]

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.

You posted random numbers that have nothing to do with the United States actually being able to pay for it. You didn't actually point out exactly what part of the numbers are unsustainable. You just googled a few numbers and added the word "unsustainable" or whatever it was next to them. It's not a good argument.

 

[werepossum]

Social security is a problem but it isn't as big of a problem as Medicaid and medicare. THAT is the real problem.If you're looking for a program to nuke, medicaid and medicare is the first one I would obliterate.

I think people are gravely underestimating the problem with SS. While it is solvent on paper for a couple more decades, all the money in the "lock box" has already been spent.

 

[Hacp]

Care to explain, back up with numbers? Medicare tax is only 1% on worker and 1% on employer.
Social security is already 6% worker 6% employer.

Combined, your paycheck would be 14.2% higher without these taxes.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

Look down, a little lower than halfway. You see medicare costs spiraling upwards while social security is flat as a % of GDP.

If you go one chart down, you see the costs of the programs relative to tax revenue. SS hits a little bump, but then levels out. Still above tax revenue though. That can be easily be solved by reducing the payouts by a flat rate.

With medicare you see a straight 30 degree line with no end in sight. That is a big problem that can't be solved easily. We need to cut the program before it bankrupts us all.

Projected costs of medicare+medicaid is 30% of GDP by 2080. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8948/01-31-HealthTestimony.pdf page 13

 

[soccerballtux]

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

Look down, a little lower than halfway. You see medicare costs spiraling upwards while social security is flat as a % of GDP.

If you go one chart down, you see the costs of the programs relative to tax revenue. SS hits a little bump, but then levels out. Still above tax revenue though. That can be easily be solved by reducing the payouts by a flat rate.

With medicare you see a straight 30 degree line with no end in sight. That is a big problem that can't be solved easily. We need to cut the program before it bankrupts us all.

Projected costs of medicare+medicaid is 30% of GDP by 2080. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8948/01-31-HealthTestimony.pdf page 13

Good find, thanks.

 

[soccerballtux]

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.

You posted random numbers that have nothing to do with the United States actually being able to pay for it. You didn't actually point out exactly what part of the numbers are unsustainable. You just googled a few numbers and added the word "unsustainable" or whatever it was next to them. It's not a good argument.

If you think a 2nd income tax is sustainable in our economy, you're flipping crazy and there's no point in arguing. I don't "need" to convince you, the numbers speak for themselves, and I follow this stuff for fun so I seek the arithmetic truth...it's not to scratch some agenda so I can post on these boards. Whether or not you believe what I'm saying does not bother me. I'm just trying to inform the open minded folks out there about what's coming.

 

[First]

If you think a 2nd income tax is sustainable in our economy, you're flipping crazy and there's no point in arguing. I don't "need" to convince you, the numbers speak for themselves, and I follow this stuff for fun so I seek the arithmetic truth...it's not to scratch some agenda so I can post on these boards. Whether or not you believe what I'm saying does not bother me. I'm just trying to inform the open minded folks out there about what's coming.

And again, there's nothing in the numbers you posted that prove any of that. You didn't post any facts or figures about why SS can't be sustained for many many more decades with T-bills like we were able to do with SS reform many years ago. You just keep putting words next to numbers without actually pointing out why they're unsustainable, or why Americans wouldn't accept more taxes when they've been doing exactly that since 1776.

 

[soccerballtux]

And again, there's nothing in the numbers you posted that prove any of that. You didn't post any facts or figures about why SS can't be sustained for many many more decades with T-bills like we were able to do with SS reform many years ago. You just keep putting words next to numbers without actually pointing out why they're unsustainable, or why Americans wouldn't accept more taxes when they've been doing exactly that since 1776.

This is intuitively obvious if you understand how the SS program and finance works, there's not really anything I can explain beyond what I wrote in the original post about UA and what Fern wrote later on in the thread. It's obvious. Think about it more, re-read the posts, and it'll make more sense, I promise.

 

[Genx87]

And again, there's nothing in the numbers you posted that prove any of that. You didn't post any facts or figures about why SS can't be sustained for many many more decades with T-bills like we were able to do with SS reform many years ago. You just keep putting words next to numbers without actually pointing out why they're unsustainable, or why Americans wouldn't accept more taxes when they've been doing exactly that since 1776.

You mean by constantly increasing the tax? At some point there wont be any blood in that turnip. And I know you have read the SS annual report and forcast that outlines the impending disaster starting in less than a decade.