Social Security Is Staring at Its First Real Shortfall in Decades

[Bagger]

Originally Posted by jambo101

Gee trump cant do anything about it?

Didn't Trump promise to keep social security and medicare and not cut those programs?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...re-budget-cuts

[dman72]

Originally Posted by Bagger

Didn't Trump promise to keep social security and medicare and not cut those programs?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...re-budget-cuts

He had to make sure the old white dupes didn't have anything to distract them from their "Trump will stop the Mexicans" parties.

[pete98146]

Originally Posted by evilnewbie

Privatize it.... I don't want SS, I would rather take that money and invest it... Give it back to me...

with interest!

[jojajn]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Well to fix something like that you need a combination of:

1. Time. We're out of that.
2. Higher payroll tax and similar adjustments. Nobody is going to talk higher taxes in an election, except maybe in the primaries.
3. Lower payouts to current recipients. This is likely both unconstitutional as well as political suicide.


All we're going to get now is a torrent of verbal garbage about how the OTHER party is going to cut grandmas social security and leave her to die in the streets.

My guess is that it's ignored and the next congress\senate just blows up the debt instead of increasing taxes.

The SS crisis is an inevitable outcome of decades of low wages. Since SS is paid from payroll taxes as a percent of the total income, less is coming in due to low wages. This tax for SS maxes out at an income of $128,000 so the 1%, who have exorbitant incomes, cannot make up for the low SS revenue brought in by the majority in our country. Simple math.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html

[evilnewbie]

Originally Posted by pete98146

with interest!

Heck if I can have it, I will give up the interest....

[evilnewbie]

Originally Posted by jojajn

The SS crisis is an inevitable outcome of decades of low wages. Since SS is paid from payroll taxes as a percent of the total income, less is coming in due to low wages. This tax for SS maxes out at an income of $128,000 so the 1%, who have exorbitant incomes, cannot make up for the low SS revenue brought in by the majority in our country. Simple math.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html

Actually it was more because of theft from the government spending spree and overly generous benefits... SS was suppose to be retirement only, then it became spousal, kids, disability, etc, etc...

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

I didn't say for those in the system NOW


do it again raising it 70/75 taking effect for those that would retire in 2065ish

raise the age to 70-74 (for those just entering the workforce ..ie. people born after 1998-02)..makes the most sense

I know you didn't say it was for now....that's kinda the point.

It's one of the solutions that should have been looked at over the past decades (again).

Right now it's like two men are surrounded by wolves in a field and the one pulls out and acorn from his pocket and suggests they plant it and then climb up into the tree for safety.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

I know you didn't say it was for now....that's kinda the point.

It's one of the solutions that should have been looked at over the past decades (again).

Right now it's like two men are surrounded by wolves in a field and the one pulls out and acorn from his pocket and suggests they plant it and then climb up into the tree for safety.

maybe it should have been done a decade ago...maybe we are just coming into the window now


what I was looking at was the original age in the late 30's....the adjustment of 83(?) to 67...that was about 45 years (2 generations)..... so it should be adjusted again using that time frame of about now to the next 10 years...83 to now is only 36 years


average life expectancy in 1939 was 61.5yrs


average life expectancy in 1983 was 74yrs


average life expectancy in 2018 was 79.5yrs




raising it for those just entering the workforce to 70-75 looks to be the correct thing to do

[PCALMike]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

maybe it should have been done a decade ago...maybe we are just coming into the window now


what I was looking at was the original age in the late 30's....the adjustment of 83(?) to 67...that was about 45 years (2 generations)..... so it should be adjusted again using that time frame of about now to the next 10 years...83 to now is only 36 years


average life expectancy in 1939 was 61.5yrs


average life expectancy in 1983 was 74yrs


average life expectancy in 2018 was 79.5yrs




raising it for those just entering the workforce to 70-75 looks to be the correct thing to do

Life expectancy is going down nowadays as a result of the successful class warfare against the working class by the ruling class.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by evilnewbie

Privatize it.... I don't want SS, I would rather take that money and invest it... Give it back to me...

If you're such the Wall Street Wizardâ„¢ then why are you even here?

Originally Posted by jojajn

The SS crisis is an inevitable outcome of decades of low wages.

That's a patently false statement for so many reasons it's not even funny, and only someone totally ignorant of how the program works would even suggest that.

When the program began, the ratio of workers to beneficiaries was 159.4 workers providing the benefits for a single beneficiary.

That dropped to 3.3 workers providing benefits to a single beneficiary in 1975.

That ratio remained constant until 2010, when the ratio dropped below 3 workers.

The ratio of workers to beneficiaries through the infinite horizon will always be 2.2:1 for the next 100-200 years at least.

The other reason your false claim fails so spectacularly is that benefits are based on wages.

By increasing wages, you do four things and I know I'm talking way over your head here, but:

1) increase the Average Wage Index; and
2) increase the Primary Insurance Amount; and
3) increase the average monthly wage; and
4) increase the amount of the 2nd Bend Point.

The only possible effective solution is to increase the FICA Tax Rate or permanently increase the number of workers by 11 Million.

The latter would mean all current 5.5 Million would need jobs STAT and then you'd have to invade a country, kidnap 5.5 Million workers, transport them back to the US and give them jobs STAT.

Those 11 Million would have to work all the time and you could not have any unemployed persons.

Obviously, raising the FICA rate is the cheapest most effective solution that causes the least amount of disruption.

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

the average life expectancy when SS came into effect was less than 60

No, it wasn't and it doesn't matter if it was, because Social Security was never based on Life-Expectancy for the exact same reason that life insurance was never based on Life-Expectancy for the exact same reason none of the 35 existing State social security programs were ever based on Life-Expectancy.

As it stands, Life-Expectancy was 61.4 for men and 65.7 for women, but that doesn't matter because it's totally irrelevant.

What is relevant is Life-Expectancy at Age 65, because that is what life insurance is based upon and it's what the 35 existing State social security programs were based upon and it is what Social Security is and always has been based upon.

Life-Expectancy at Age 65 was 11.9 years for men and 13.4 years for women, meaning men lived until
76.9 years and women until 78.4 years.

And, still it doesn't matter, because Life-Expectancy at 65 for women has peaked at 20.6 years. It won't substantially rise above that over the next several decades. Life-Expectancy at 65 for men is 18.1 years and that will increase slightly over the next several decades to probably 19.4 or 19.5 years.