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.
Last SS Trustees report used 30% which is why I used it. Its only a actuary estimate. Just has the when it happens varies by withdrawals and in put into SS fund pattern. Do a search and you can find SS Trustee reports for several years. That is who under SS law reports to president an congress on state of the fund. You can also lookup Breaux Commission which was created by president and congress when warned of coming problems .I do not recall any since when warned. I'd look more for their final report product because the testimony is extensive by experts called.
Tonya is probably parroting the commonly repeated view that the SS system is 25-30% underfunded and that the SS trust fund will reach a zero balance around that time.
There is no proposal on the table by either party to cut benefits *at all* for anyone currently under age 55. The payroll tax cap may be raised. (That's still not good, but I'm just telling you what I know; don't shoot the messenger.)
Any shortfall resulting from not cutting benefits for those currently over 55 will come out of general revenues or be added to the national debt.
I am a financial economist with a specialization in retirement-related issues.
I don't think the reduction, if it actually occurs, would affect current recipients. I hope.
There are too many voters in that age bracket.
As for what can be done, probably not much.
Don't be too sure.
1. In the past two presidential elections, the Republicans were the only ones to offer any suggestions to preserve the system--raising the FRA, increasing the salary "cap"....Even then, the Republicans said that these changes would NOT affect those who were, then, 55 or older.Voters rejected that in favor of Dems who are now making noises about "everyone having to feel the pain." And it appears that the Republican pledge about keeping the status quo for that age group, rejected by voters, has gone the way of the dodo, too.
2. The elderly are a voting bloc? You wouldn't know it. They haven't given a fig newton about the artificially-low interest rates that have hit THEM the hardest.
When the opportunity arises for certain groups to flex their muscles, far too many of them are M.I.A.
I am guessing this topic will get moved but since SS is an important part of retired peoples' income, I thought it would be appropriate to post it here.
The politicians are all chomping at the bit to reduce social security payments. I for one am opposed as I believe many retired people depend on their check to survive. What do we need to do to prevent this from happening?
Halving congressional pay would be a good start to many questions such as these but, paying attention to whom you cast your votes for is realistic. Most people go by party/popularity rather than a politician's platform and voting record.
1. In the past two presidential elections, the Republicans were the only ones to offer any suggestions to preserve the system--raising the FRA, increasing the salary "cap"....Even then, the Republicans said that these changes would NOT affect those who were, then, 55 or older. Voters rejected that in favor of Dems who are now making noises about "everyone having to feel the pain." And it appears that the Republican pledge about keeping the status quo for that age group, rejected by voters, has gone the way of the dodo, too.
2. The elderly are a voting bloc? You wouldn't know it. They haven't given a fig newton about the artificially-low interest rates that have hit THEM the hardest.
When the opportunity arises for certain groups to flex their muscles, far too many of them are M.I.A.
No one has actually made a actual bill just speech to certain groups. they need to write a bill and bring it to first be considered by committee. It will never see the light of day; its a sure vote loser. voters will not demand it either but hid heads in sand until it crisis bites them in butt..
IMHO the most obvious solution is to tell Congress to pay back all that money they "borrowed" when the fund had monthly surpluses.
But that will never come to pass.
I wish they never "borrowed" that money in the first place. I think they surmised it would never be paid back.
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.
