Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet we have a declining workforce who are earning less and the administration put a payroll tax cut in effect which made that paltry revenue even less.
It's like they are out to bankrupt America some times.
Itr is obvious for all to see that this administration is bound and determined to bring America to its knees so they can ride it, declare a special crisis and rebuild the "nation" under their socialistic world model.
Problem is, the thing that took America from its birth in 1776, to leader of the free world in 1945 was capitalism. America's factories out-produced the Reich's in WWII even while fighting in the Pacific as well. Factories owned by capitalists, making a profit and defeating evil.
No socialist anything can survive (except the family unit, which is funded by outside capitalist activity.
It will be the death of freedom and prosperity.
The abject buffoon who infests the Whitehouse as its official occupant has no other nexus with what is "American". The mealy-mouthed disagrace of a speech he made yesterday was a pathetic joke.
He is an ass. A stupid poser pretender who thinks he has the answers, but he is an abject fool, only surpassed by the morons who support him come thin or thinner.
..This sounds like the Banks under Bush. The new $120 you have to pay was billed to you for taxpayer funded bailouts..
I agree, the bank bailout of Bushbama had the potential to be a disaster for the taxpayer, and rewarded irresponsible, incompetant managers. That is why fiscal conservatives were so opposed to it. Voting in favor of it also cost Mccain support among the fiscally responsible. That apparently didn't matter to Obama voters. No suprise there, rewarding incomptance is something they cling to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
... Social Security would be perfectly acceptable to the Republicans if they could get their Wall Street hands on the money.
Social Security as it sits, is perfectly acceptable. To those that are both bad at math and insist on putting their heads in the sand (or somewhere else very dark).
Social Security would be perfectly acceptable to the Republicans if they could get their Wall Street hands on the money.
That's right. My former employer funded a defined contribution retirement plan for its employees after it shut down the defined benefit plan, resulting in a 75% reduction in retirement benefit.
But, lo and behold, over time the cash assets in that new plan grew to multi-millions. Last few years I was there I often heard rumblings from management about 'all of that money' - clearly indicating if they could legally figure out a way to take it away from the employee yet again, as they did when they shut down the db plan, they would. They absolutely would.
Think of Wall Street - Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) tells Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) about the $22 million in the Blue Star pension plan. Gekko's eyes light up. That $22 million in cash is just too tempting. He gives up on the idea of revamping Blue Star and institutes a break up of the company, with the intent of keeping the pension money - the pot sweetener. Of course, Fox foiled the plot when he engineered the takeover by Sir Larry Wildman (Terence Stamp).
Oh yes, that is indeed how the GOP thinks. All the time. They just can't resist a pile of cash - doesn't matter who it belongs to.
SS is a pay-go system, meaning your taxes fund current retirees. The years when excess revenue is more than payouts we are left with a surplus, that surplus is placed in nontradable government bonds earning interest. (Trust fund) The trust fund is actually smaller than most think, it is only about $2.6 trillion. (SS and Medi trust funds are $4.6 T)
Unfortunately that is also just a claim on future workers. When a bond is redeemed they bring it over to the "on-budget" portion of the government and first look for excess tax revenue to pay off the bond. If we are running a budget deficit the bond proceeds will be redeemed by issuing new on-budget debt through the normal budgetary process.
SS reports you cite are based on the median economic and demographic assumptions, if in the future we do worse than their straight line estimates (for example) 5.5% unemployment. They assume that in the next 75 years unemployment will drop below 7% by 2014 and after 2018 never go above 5.5%. Their WORST CASE assumption puts unemployment never going back above 6.5%. Needles to say these assumptions are not realistic.
We all need to take note whenever we hear about Social Security solvency and funding dates, they are talking about very generous median economic, birth/death rates, etc. Basically these projections have been off dramatically in the past.
In 2010 SS was in the red by $49 billion, both the CBO and SSA show that we will have a trillion dollar deficit over the next decade. Reports as recent as 2008 said we would have a trillion dollar surplus over that same time.
A deficit does not mean missing checks (yet) it just adds more to our on budget debt. When they redeem trustfund bonds they get added to the annual deficit and our national debt. So as opposed to running up intergovernmental debt that does not need to go into the open market for funding, they issue the bonds to themselves. Once it is transfered to on budget debt it increase the about of bonds we need the world to buy.
In 2010 there were 1,509,278 net new beneficiaries of SS checks. Ten years ago in 2000 the number was 462,740. Those dying usually have much smaller checks than those now retiering.
The problem is compounding fast.
Read about probability analysis, and banding of economic forecasts. They are giving you a fantasy about SS and the future.
Bingo! The SS that comes out of ones' paycheck is going straight to fund a recipient's payment. I find a LOT of people think there is an "account" set aside in their name at Social Security Land and the monies build up until they start receiving payments. There isn't any such thing.
I believe I read somewhere the average recipient goes beyond what they "put in" plus interest in benefits in less than 6 years. I'm going to try and find that study to see if those numbers have improved or gotten worse.
I agree, the bank bailout of Bushbama had the potential to be a disaster for the taxpayer, and rewarded irresponsible, incompetant managers. That is why fiscal conservatives were so opposed to it. Voting in favor of it also cost Mccain support among the fiscally responsible. That apparently didn't matter to Obama voters. No suprise there, rewarding incomptance is something they cling to.
Social Security as it sits, is perfectly acceptable. To those that are both bad at math and insist on putting their heads in the sand (or somewhere else very dark).
Since when have the Republicans not done everything in their power to destroy the viability of Social Security?
They never intended for the wealthy to pay for all of that defense, so they expanded and expanded military spending without payment.
They also did not have the guts to cut social programs like Medicaid. So they kept borrowing and borrowing for that also.
Raising taxes to pay for all of these things, out of the question. Besides taxes are for the little people.
Now they blame those lazy good for nothings for needing services.
Who are you people fooling? Only yourselves and those dumb enough to believe you.
Ryans plan to eliminate is just that, a war on working Americans and the less fortunate while transferring yet untold trillions to their rich Republican sponsors and friends.
Theirs will never be a balanced budget, it is not intended to work that way.
Free enterprise has become a joke, and Fascism perilously close at hand.
If it looks like a Nazi and acts like a Nazi, it probably is a Nazi.
You offer nothing of value and only propose to take away yet more.
i believe I read somewhere the average recipient goes beyond what they "put in" plus interest in benefits in less than 6 years. I'm going to try and find that study to see if those numbers have improved or gotten worse.
Not true for me. I worked without interruption for 52 years. Combined Employer/Employee contributions to fund over that time total $135,000 per SS statements. Future Value of let's say average $2500/yr contribution compounded over 52 years at 4% is $417,000. Amortized payout $1,847/mo. @ 3% interest would take 28 years to exhaust fund. At that point I will be 97. If a more agressive rate of return is used, I'm well over 100 before what I/my employer have paid in is exhausted. I think that scenario is probably true for many of the more recent retirees as cited above. Most boomers have pretty much worked their entire lives, so they will have much more than the average $1,000 benefit. Social Security has to hope we all die much sooner than 97.
That said, hilgi is absolutely correct that the compounding problem will accelerate the shortfall issues because my benefits rely on contributions of current workers. US economy will never restore the numbers of high paying jobs it had, so future contributions will be less. GOP/capitalists have done great job of bringing this country to its knees.
Bingo! The SS that comes out of ones' paycheck is going straight to fund a recipient's payment. I find a LOT of people think there is an "account" set aside in their name at Social Security Land and the monies build up until they start receiving payments. There isn't any such thing.
I believe I read somewhere the average recipient goes beyond what they "put in" plus interest in benefits in less than 6 years. I'm going to try and find that study to see if those numbers have improved or gotten worse.
Where do people get the silly idea that there is an "account" set aside for them? Millions of Americans die before they ever get to collect one penny of what they paid in.
What do these people (the ones who think there are individual "accounts" set up) think happens to the "accountholder"s money when they die before collecting?
I believe I read somewhere the average recipient goes beyond what they "put in" plus interest in benefits in less than 6 years. I'm going to try and find that study to see if those numbers have improved or gotten worse.
It used to be that way, I think we have crossed over into net loss a couple years back. My dad took his for early retirement in 84 and he got back every dollar he ever paid in all federal taxes in about three years. He is still getting checks BTW.
It was even a better deal for people who retired in the 70's and lived long. I have heard of people getting back 50-100 times the money they put in.
It used to be that way, I think we have crossed over into net loss a couple years back. My dad took his for early retirement in 84 and he got back every dollar he ever paid in all federal taxes in about three years. He is still getting checks BTW.
It was even a better deal for people who retired in the 70's and lived long. I have heard of people getting back 50-100 times the money they put in.
What are the maximum SS payouts? I believe it's about $1500 per month, but if someone has a better figure, I'll be happy to update. So, $1500/monthX36 months equals $54,000 total per your statements.
Your payment into SS is 15.3% IIRC. So, lets say you make an average income of $40,000 and worked from age 20 to age 67, that's 47 years. $40k*47years*15.3% equals $287,640 paid into the system, using those figures. Or more than 5X what you indicated he got out in 3 years. Granted, there's an assumption on wages and on payments, YMMV. I'll do some digging on just what that same $287k would have grown into had it been compounded at even a modest rate of return. Such as if that same money had been invested in a 401k in his name. I can promise you, you'd be shocked.
It used to be that way, I think we have crossed over into net loss a couple years back. My dad took his for early retirement in 84 and he got back every dollar he ever paid in all federal taxes in about three years. He is still getting checks BTW.
It was even a better deal for people who retired in the 70's and lived long. I have heard of people getting back 50-100 times the money they put in.
Have you heard of any payee who died before collecting? I'm 53 and know several people who've worked for many years and then poof, there gone and so is their benefit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
