Social Security Is **Not** In Crisis

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Oerdin

An excellent post. There is no problem with social security which cannot be solve with some very minor changes (changing the retirement age, or slightly increasing SSI taxes, or stopping the tax breaks people making over $100,000 per year get. With some very, very modest changes it is in great shape out as far as we can see and even with no changes it is safe for another 35 to 40 years based on EXTREMELY conservative estimates. SSI has always been in surplus over the last 87 years and it will always be in surplus with some very minor changes to reflict current reality. Republicans prefer to pretend their is a crisis though so they can eliminate the single most successful poverty reduction program in our nation's history. They just hate regular people.

A couple of corrections...

First, do not confuse SSI (Supplemental Security Income) with Social Security. SSI is a separate program funded by general revenues (not payroll taxes) that happens also to be adminstered by the Social Security Administration in order to avoid duplication of resources.

Second, Social Security has not always been and will not always be in surplus. SS was in fact technically insolvent prior to the 1983 revision (one of many of those over the years) that addressed issues of short-term and long-term insolvency. The long-term issue at the time was indeed the blip in benefit payments that eventual retirement of the baby boomers would bring about. In order to account for that, payroll taxes were raised to create a surplus to be invested via the SS Trust Fund to build a cushion for the baby boomer blip so that their benefits could be paid without creating a crushing burden upon the system of that time. That surplus is designed to build up over the working lives of the boomers, and then to be drawn down over the course of their retirements, returning to zero just as the last boomer in fact passes on. During the drawdown period and thereafter, there is nothing that says SS will be in surplus. If people want it to be, they will need to make arrangements to cause that to happen, just as the boomers did in 1983.

Without any such revision, the current situation is that SS will not be able to afford to pay 100% of scheduled benefits once the Trust Fund surplus is exhausted, whenever that actually is. It will be able to pay roughly 75% of scheduled benefits instead. Because benefits are calculated to include advances in the standard of living, 75% of benefits then will actually be worth considerably more than what 100% of benefits is worth today.

But there is still no reason why the system could not be adjusted to assure that 100% of benefits could in fact continue to be paid. Just as you note, the adjustments necessary to make that happen are minor. Indeed, while the current economic climate may not be such a good one in which to raise the point, if the SS Trustees' projection for long-term GDP growth is only a few tenths of a percent too low, the supposed exhaustion of the Trust Fund surplus will in fact never occur, and 100% of benefits could be paid over the next 75 years by the system exactly as it presently is.

None of this, it should be noted, is to deny the serious budgetary problems that are posed by what are called entitlements generally that David Walker in particular has been trying to publicize. Those are very real, but they don't much arise from Social Security. As candidate Obama said, fixing Social Security is easy. It is Medicare that causes all the problems, and fixing that is not easy at all. There may not in fact be a fix for that which does not include a significant redesign of our health care delivery system. We simply cannot afford a system that forces us to pay twice as much as other countries do while providing a lesser return in terms of overall care. That will have to change.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by ViewFromThePeak

Social security is entirely voluntary and millions LEGALLY opt out of it. Go through a few hoops and you're good to go http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4029.pdf I encourage anyone who's interested in dropping themselves from the program to apply.

Before running off to apply for this very narrow religious exemption, please do read up on which religious groups and orders can make one eligible for the exemption, on what roles and duties one must continuously perform on behalf of such groups and orders to qualify, and on what forms of income the exemption once granted actually applies to. If you do somehow manage to qualify, expect to be audited periodically simply for the purpose of confirming that you do in fact continue to qualify.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by saganista

Before running off to apply for this very narrow religious exemption, please do read up on which religious groups and orders can make one eligible for the exemption, on what roles and duties one must continuously perform on behalf of such groups and orders to qualify, and on what forms of income the exemption once granted actually applies to. If you do somehow manage to qualify, expect to be audited periodically simply for the purpose of confirming that you do in fact continue to qualify.

That exemption is like being a "special passenger" on a sinking ship. You are still going down with it.

There is NO LAW requiring all Americans to participate.
I've looked. I've asked congresscritters for a copy of the law.

THERE IS NO LAW.

Millions of Americans were tricked into joining up. Many were enrolled as INFANTS.

(Done while the strains of "Hotel California" play in the background)
I've asked SocSec and Congresscritters for the procedure to LEAVE, and they stand mute.

Isn't that interesting?

What kind of deal is it, that hides the terms of the agreement from the applicant, and then won't admit that one can leave?

Suspicious?
Involuntary servitude?
Fraud?

Most Americans do not have a clue that tremendous power is granted to Congress by enrolling in national socialism.

Point: to receive ANY FREEBIE, one must first present a SocSec number.
Point: to engage in usury with any instrumentality of the Federal Reserve banking system, one must first present a SocSec number.
Point: If one has not enrolled and does not have "the number", one is ineligible for "entitlements" nor allowed to open an interest bearing account.
Point : If one has not enrolled, nor has a SocSec number, one cannot submit any IRS form requiring SSN. (And one cannot be held criminally liable for "willful failure to file" if one has no number).

One who accepts charity from the public treasury is pauperized, and becomes a status criminal, guilty for what he is, not what he does.

More on pauperization.