The Social Security Crisis

[sandorski]

Clinton had laid the groundwork for the solution to the Real crisis. Dubya saw a pile of Cash and gave it away, recreating the need for a solution.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Bullsh!t. The problem lies with the other $6T in federal debt, and the interest on that growing monstrosity, brought to you by GWB and Cronies, Inc...

If SS liabilities were the only federal debt, there would be no real problem. The whole thing is contrived, a classic misdirection play.

LOL. you right. GWB will destroy SS anyway, given half a chance so the topic of this thread is just a moot point. 😀

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Sure it was, Charrison, you're not wrong there. GWB and Cronies, Inc. includes the Reagan and Bush1 Admins, who more than quadrupled the debt...

GWB is a figurehead for the Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Norquist/ you-know-the-rest faction of the Republican Party...

The only solution to our Fiscal issues involve fiscal restraint, bigtime, and that wouldn't include wars of adventure, military spending greater than the rest of the world combined, or the lowest federal taxes of developed nations, either... not to mention corporate offshoring subsidies, special interest tax breaks, and a deliberately and deceptively strong dollar inviting collapse...

Anybody having a lick of sense can see that the only possible answer to SS solvency is solvency of the US Treasury, something currently being deliberately torpedoed by the folks you voted for...

So you going to completely ignore the real problem of baby boomers and the descreased ratio of workers to retirees?

Lets also remember congress has been spending the surpluses for 20 years now. They even did it during clintons term! But those are minor details i dont expect you to pick up on.

He's right...it is BS.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the fund won't run out untill 2052.
Even then, it will cover 81% of benefits.

To cover this shortfall (47 years from now) would cost .54% of GDP, which is equivalent to the amount of the Bush tax cuts which goes to people earning $500,000 per year.

This is an invented crisis, brought to you by those who stand to profit, and have no qualms about screwing Mr. and Mrs. John Q Public

Those are the optimistic reports. It not wise to plan your retirement base on optimistic view. Other reports have funds running low in 15-20 years. I am planning for worst case that it wont be around by the time retire. decades of putting in 13.% of my income and nothing in return. That is a real possibility.

It's 6.2% of your income and 6.2% tax on your employer. The other 1.45% if Medicare, which is an even worse problem in the long run than SS.

the 6.2 the employer pays comes out of my wages. It is a cost of hiring an employee.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Clinton had laid the groundwork for the solution to the Real crisis. Dubya saw a pile of Cash and gave it away, recreating the need for a solution.

Clinton changed nothing on how social security worked. The surpluses were spent under his admin as well. But you never let the facts get in your way either.

 

[SuperTool]

The SS will be just fine. One way or another, this country will take care of its low income elderly, cus they vote.
Republicans want to make the destruction of SS a self fulfilling prophecy. They want to convince young people they won't get any SS anyways to get them to vote to destroy SS.
Not going to fall for that one.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The SS will be just fine. One way or another, this country will take care of its low income elderly, cus they vote.
Republicans want to make the destruction of SS a self fulfilling prophecy. They want to convince young people they won't get any SS anyways to get them to vote to destroy SS.
Not going to fall for that one.

Tell me what would happen if you saved 13.5% of your income from the time you started work till the time you retired? I have a feeling you would not be working till you were 65, unless you just wanted too. The system is currently broke.

I have not desire to remove benefits from those people that are retired and paid into the system. However, younger workers need better options for retirements as the demographics of this country has radically changed since SS was first started.

 

[SuperTool]

But don't get me wrong, I am for everything that will reduce the payroll taxes going to the government. I want SS funded out of income taxes, not SS taxes.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The SS will be just fine. One way or another, this country will take care of its low income elderly, cus they vote.
Republicans want to make the destruction of SS a self fulfilling prophecy. They want to convince young people they won't get any SS anyways to get them to vote to destroy SS.
Not going to fall for that one.

Tell me what would happen if you saved 13.5% of your income from the time you started work till the time you retired? I have a feeling you would not be working till you were 65, unless you just wanted too. The system is currently broke.

I have not desire to remove benefits from those people that are retired and paid into the system. However, younger workers need better options for retirements as the demographics of this country has radically changed since SS was first started.

It's easy to fix the system.
Remove the cap on payroll taxation. Fill the rest with income taxes.
SS surpluses has been funding income tax deficits for decades, I don't see anything wrong with the other way around.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
But don't get me wrong, I am for everything that will reduce the payroll taxes going to the government. I want SS funded out of income taxes, not SS taxes.

Well then it does seem that both sides can agree SS is not without its problems and does need reform.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
But don't get me wrong, I am for everything that will reduce the payroll taxes going to the government. I want SS funded out of income taxes, not SS taxes.

Well then it does seem that both sides can agree SS is not without its problems and does need reform.

Not the benefit. The taxation.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
But don't get me wrong, I am for everything that will reduce the payroll taxes going to the government. I want SS funded out of income taxes, not SS taxes.

Well then it does seem that both sides can agree SS is not without its problems and does need reform.

Not the benefit. The taxation.

Is it a benefit if the younger workers are getting screwed because demographics have drasticaly changed since SS was enacted?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
But don't get me wrong, I am for everything that will reduce the payroll taxes going to the government. I want SS funded out of income taxes, not SS taxes.

Well then it does seem that both sides can agree SS is not without its problems and does need reform.

Not the benefit. The taxation.

Is it a benefit if the younger workers are getting screwed because demographics have drasticaly changed since SS was enacted?

The younger workers are getting screwed because it's a regressive taxation system that caps out at 87K.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
But don't get me wrong, I am for everything that will reduce the payroll taxes going to the government. I want SS funded out of income taxes, not SS taxes.

Well then it does seem that both sides can agree SS is not without its problems and does need reform.

Not the benefit. The taxation.

Is it a benefit if the younger workers are getting screwed because demographics have drasticaly changed since SS was enacted?

The younger workers are getting screwed because it's a regressive taxation system that caps out at 87K.

The younger workers are getting screwed because there are few workers to support retirees
the younger workers are getting screwed becayse retirees are living longer.

And the people retiring today surely did not pay 13.5% their entire working lives into social security. If we dont change how it is done, that number is only going to go up for ourselfs and our kids. And I know how much you hate to pass debt onto our kids.


These 2 demographic changes is what is crippling social security.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
But don't get me wrong, I am for everything that will reduce the payroll taxes going to the government. I want SS funded out of income taxes, not SS taxes.

Well then it does seem that both sides can agree SS is not without its problems and does need reform.

Not the benefit. The taxation.

Is it a benefit if the younger workers are getting screwed because demographics have drasticaly changed since SS was enacted?

The younger workers are getting screwed because it's a regressive taxation system that caps out at 87K.

The younger workers are getting screwed because there are few workers to support retirees
the younger workers are getting screwed becayse retirees are living longer.

And the people retiring today surely did not pay 13.5% their entire working lives into social security. If we dont change how it is done, that number is only going to go up for ourselfs and our kids. And I know how much you hate to pass debt onto our kids.


These 2 demographic changes is what is crippling social security.

Well that's why there is no reason to fund it with a regressive tax, where those at the bottom of the income scale shoulder the burden. It should be funded with progressive income taxes and with estate taxes to shift the burden from younger and lower income workers.

 

[Engineer]

the 6.2 the employer pays comes out of my wages. It is a cost of hiring an employee.

If you think that the company would voluntarily give the 6.2% back to you if it were dropped from their tax burden, you're delusional.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

the 6.2 the employer pays comes out of my wages. It is a cost of hiring an employee.

If you think that the company would voluntarily give the 6.2% back to you if it were dropped from their tax burden, you're delusional.

It would filter down one way or another. Either via higher salary or lower prices.

 

[BBond]

You know, the government likes to tout portability in company paid medical care and retirement benefits. Here we have a system that is completely portable, your SS account starts the day you get your first job and stays with you on just about every job aside from Railroad Retirement, and that same government is trying its best to destroy the system.

The only motive the Bush administration has in fiddling with Social Security is to make those huge employee and employer paid funds accesible to the government and the people down on Wall St. who will get WAY MORE than the 1% operating costs of the current system.

WAKE UP. YOU'RE BEING SET UP.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BBond
You know, the government likes to tout portability in company paid medical care and retirement benefits. Here we have a system that is completely portable, your SS account starts the day you get your first job and stays with you on just about every job aside from Railroad Retirement, and that same government is trying its best to destroy the system.

The only motive the Bush administration has in fiddling with Social Security is to make those huge employee and employer paid funds accesible to the government and the people down on Wall St. who will get WAY MORE than the 1% operating costs of the current system.

WAKE UP. YOU'RE BEING SET UP.

on one hand you say a private account like the railroad is good, but on the other hand you say it is bad. Which one is it?

 

[SuperTool]

You can already have private accounts. Why doesn't the government allow deducting IRA contributions from payroll taxes instead of forcing us into some government run account.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You can already have private accounts. Why doesn't the government allow deducting IRA contributions from payroll taxes instead of forcing us into some government run account.

I beleive the first 2000 is deductable. But why not have all 13% go into a private account?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You can already have private accounts. Why doesn't the government allow deducting IRA contributions from payroll taxes instead of forcing us into some government run account.

I beleive the first 2000 is deductable. But why not have all 13% go into a private account?

I am all for it. And pay SS benefits out of income taxes 🙂

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: charrison
linkage

Demography made the whole arrangement work for a long time. In the 1930s there were 41 workers for every retiree; the payroll tax could thus be set at a low rate--about 2% for the first $3,000 of earnings. It was quite a deal for the beneficiaries--the average rate of return for people retiring in 1940 was 114%.

And like all income redistribution programs, Social Security presented politicians with lots of incentives for sweetening. In the 1950s, Congress started increasing both benefits and the number of people covered. At the same time, however, the demographics were turning sour. Life expectancy was rising to the 78 years it is today, from 69 for men born in 1940. And fertility rates were declining, from 2.2 children per woman in 1940, to a peak of 3.7 in 1957, to two per woman right now.

No surprise, then, that the ratio of workers to retirees began to fall--in 1950, it had dropped to 16 workers to one retiree and now it is just three to one. Payroll taxes have had to rise accordingly--they are now 12.4%. And real rates of return have gone into a free-fall; real returns for workers born in 1960 and retiring in 2025 are less than 2%.


...

The immediate problem is that payroll taxes during the surplus period that began in the 1980s were not saved in the mythical Trust Fund; instead the taxes were used to finance other government spending. The Fund is merely the repository for special-issue bonds that are a liability to the federal Treasury. In order to redeem these bonds, the government must increase taxes or borrow (thus making concrete, or recognizing, the debt the bonds do in fact represent). And we're talking about huge amounts: Bonds credited to the Trust Fund now exceed $1.5 trillion. By 2016, when the shortfall begins, that figure will have grown to over $3.2 trillion in today's dollars.

This isn't just an accounting crisis. According to figures from the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security is running at about 4.4% of GDP and revenue at about 5%. While revenue is expected to stay fairly constant, outlays will rise to 6.1% of GDP in 2030. Combine Social Security with Medicare and Medicaid, and spending is running at 7% of GDP. By 2030, when most of the boomers are retired, spending on these three programs will shoot up to almost 15% of future GDP

And here lies the real problem with social security.

"Without reform, it will destroy itself."



Problem solved.......

 

[sonoma1993]

i bet our ss problems would be solve if our president and our congress had to live off the same ss benefits we get. instead of them getting $20,000+ they would get what we get. around $900 a month,. i bet they would fix that probleim in a jiffy

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You can already have private accounts. Why doesn't the government allow deducting IRA contributions from payroll taxes instead of forcing us into some government run account.

I beleive the first 2000 is deductable. But why not have all 13% go into a private account?

I would bet that the company 6.2% will never see it's way to a private account (IMO). I would guess that it would go to the governement until all current/future SS payouts are done and then will be given back to the company.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You can already have private accounts. Why doesn't the government allow deducting IRA contributions from payroll taxes instead of forcing us into some government run account.

I beleive the first 2000 is deductable. But why not have all 13% go into a private account?

I would bet that the company 6.2% will never see it's way to a private account (IMO). I would guess that it would go to the governement until all current/future SS payouts are done and then will be given back to the company.

That would be an acceptable alternative.