U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-10-2019, 06:23 PM
 
2,442 posts, read 2,067,677 times
Reputation: 5690

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
Congress never took a penny from ss ..that is a political myth ....

ss was never in the general funds , it is prohibited by law .it can only be used to fund ss retirement,ssdi and ss survivor benefits. Any excess can only buy treasuries which have never defaulted . Johnson did an accounting slight of hand by combining on paper only, the excess ss funds with the general funds to make the deficit appear smaller but those ss funds were never in general funds .
Glad it was set up that way. If it wasn't, there is no doubt about it, politicians would bleed it dry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-10-2019, 06:27 PM
 
3,934 posts, read 3,257,479 times
Reputation: 11272
Ever since the SS program was introduced, the beefing began in earnest by those who felt the money would be better spent on handouts to, the farmers, railroads, steel, and defense industries. Though it's always a bit of good humor when the arguing over da gubmint's money gets down to who gets what, rather than noting the distribution of a collective pile of wealth as a huge contributor to the America most know as a historically successful economy.

No one has yet put forth a good argument for dismissing that fact, they will shout the praises of our economic success to the rooftops---But, they can't see the government's positive role in any of that. Keynes was correct in assuming the government as a central player in the economy, most of the trouble in that view took awhile to manifest itself. And we still have people who are very comfortable with the notion of deficit spending, a lot of them are politicians. What worked at one time may not fair well under different circumstances, but that's why we need big changes from time to time. Eventually, almost all of government's wealth distribution ends up in the tills of private enterprise...

Last edited by jertheber; 06-10-2019 at 06:38 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 06:28 PM
 
Location: Florida
5,226 posts, read 3,005,081 times
Reputation: 9580
Because of a higher birth rate, there are far more boomers than there are those of "the invisible generation" (born 1945 & earlier). Therefor Boomers collect more $$$.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 06:31 PM
 
2,066 posts, read 699,344 times
Reputation: 5294
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
I suggest you look up the definition of a ponzi scheme ... ss certainly is no ponzi scheme . It is no different than any annuity or insurance policy that counts on premiums to pay out future claims ..that is just nonsense...
Any insurance company writing annuities without adequate reserves to fund 100% of estimated future payouts (using some reasonable assumptions about mortality and rates of return) would be shut down by the regulators- for good reason. SS funding is based on unsustainable promises. If I'm wrong about this, please tell me how I can get back the tens of thousands of $$ in Federal taxes paid over the past 16 years on my late husband's, and now my, SS, which is ostensibly to beef up the solvency of SS. Thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 06:57 PM
 
2,442 posts, read 2,067,677 times
Reputation: 5690
Quote:
Originally Posted by athena53 View Post
Any insurance company writing annuities without adequate reserves to fund 100% of estimated future payouts (using some reasonable assumptions about mortality and rates of return) would be shut down by the regulators- for good reason. SS funding is based on unsustainable promises. If I'm wrong about this, please tell me how I can get back the tens of thousands of $$ in Federal taxes paid over the past 16 years on my late husband's, and now my, SS, which is ostensibly to beef up the solvency of SS. Thank you.
SS payouts are dependent on working people contributions to keep it going. I foresee 2 things happening n the future to continue the payouts.

1) The percentage deducted from workers paychecks increased.

2) Retirement age increased to 68, then 69 and topping at 70 to receive FRA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 08:35 PM
 
13,872 posts, read 7,381,208 times
Reputation: 25351
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineman View Post
Because of a higher birth rate, there are far more boomers than there are those of "the invisible generation" (born 1945 & earlier). Therefor Boomers collect more $$$.

Not really. It's 100% funded through 2035 assuming minimal economic growth in the next 15 years. In 2035, an awful lot of Boomers will be dead. You'll notice that the shortfall percentage keeps changing. It used to be projected to be 75% funded in 2033 a few years ago. It's now more like 80% funded in 2035.



The problem with Social Security is that it's just stopped being cash flow neutral. All that "trust fund" money was spent years ago. The Federal government either borrows money to "pay back" the "borrowed" trust fund money or raises taxes in some way. I think it's pretty easy to predict that Social Security taxes will start drifting up to keep the program cash flow neutral. It doesn't need to happen today but there will be some heavy borrowing if the tax rate doesn't start creeping up a half dozen years from now. In the mean time, we'll have the usual rhetoric from the usual people who don't want Social Security taxes to go up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 09:28 PM
 
20,706 posts, read 13,720,547 times
Reputation: 14378
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
Not really. It's 100% funded through 2035 assuming minimal economic growth in the next 15 years. In 2035, an awful lot of Boomers will be dead. You'll notice that the shortfall percentage keeps changing. It used to be projected to be 75% funded in 2033 a few years ago. It's now more like 80% funded in 2035.



The problem with Social Security is that it's just stopped being cash flow neutral. All that "trust fund" money was spent years ago. The Federal government either borrows money to "pay back" the "borrowed" trust fund money or raises taxes in some way. I think it's pretty easy to predict that Social Security taxes will start drifting up to keep the program cash flow neutral. It doesn't need to happen today but there will be some heavy borrowing if the tax rate doesn't start creeping up a half dozen years from now. In the mean time, we'll have the usual rhetoric from the usual people who don't want Social Security taxes to go up.


Nearly every other western industrialized nation has revamped, tweaked or whatever their state social security/pension schemes to face modern realities; lone among them is the United States.


Things like longevity, changing roles of women, ratio of lower numbers of workers paying in versus benefits paid out, etc.. All have been taken into account elsewhere except the United States.


No, Congress here won't do anything until stuff really hits the fan as in having to raise taxes or borrow vast sums to pay back all those loans. This and or finding other ways to deal with the very real issues coming down the pike. All we keep hearing is that there is light at the end of the tunnel. This may be true, but sometimes that light is a train.


Number of workers supporting beneficiaries of SS has been falling for decades. More to the point advances in technology, increased worker productivity, along with vast numbers of jobs that have left this country and or otherwise aren't coming back means you have an "insurance" system that is out of whack.




By most accounts persons on SS/Medicare get back most if not all they contributed to SS in terms of payments in ten years or less after collecting. For those with spousal and or survivor benefits that period is even shorter. https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs...-in-retirement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 09:48 PM
 
13,872 posts, read 7,381,208 times
Reputation: 25351
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal View Post
Nearly every other western industrialized nation has revamped, tweaked or whatever their state social security/pension schemes to face modern realities; lone among them is the United States.


Things like longevity, changing roles of women, ratio of lower numbers of workers paying in versus benefits paid out, etc.. All have been taken into account elsewhere except the United States.


No, Congress here won't do anything until stuff really hits the fan as in having to raise taxes or borrow vast sums to pay back all those loans. This and or finding other ways to deal with the very real issues coming down the pike. All we keep hearing is that there is light at the end of the tunnel. This may be true, but sometimes that light is a train.


Number of workers supporting beneficiaries of SS has been falling for decades. More to the point advances in technology, increased worker productivity, along with vast numbers of jobs that have left this country and or otherwise aren't coming back means you have an "insurance" system that is out of whack.




By most accounts persons on SS/Medicare get back most if not all they contributed to SS in terms of payments in ten years or less after collecting. For those with spousal and or survivor benefits that period is even shorter. https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs...-in-retirement

If you inflation-adjust the employee and employer contributions, the top-20% of earners kick in way more than they're likely to receive in benefits. The bottom half pull out far more in benefits than they contributed. The payout is very progressive relative to contributions. Personally, I have no problem with it even though I'm part of that 20%. The point of the program was to prevent the elderly from starving.


Personally, I think it was totally rational behavior for Congress to leave Social Security alone until now. The program was cash flow positive until a couple of years ago. It's now just barely cash flow negative. If you assume that the "trust fund" money is spent and will never be returned, the program needs gradual tax hikes to keep it cash flow neutral. To hike it more or earlier just gives the government money to "borrow" and blow on something else. If I were emperor, I'd just change the payroll tax rate to be variable to keep the program cash flow neutral forever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 01:53 AM
 
71,459 posts, read 71,629,249 times
Reputation: 49021
Quote:
Originally Posted by athena53 View Post
Any insurance company writing annuities without adequate reserves to fund 100% of estimated future payouts (using some reasonable assumptions about mortality and rates of return) would be shut down by the regulators- for good reason. SS funding is based on unsustainable promises. If I'm wrong about this, please tell me how I can get back the tens of thousands of $$ in Federal taxes paid over the past 16 years on my late husband's, and now my, SS, which is ostensibly to beef up the solvency of SS. Thank you.
nonsense ... that is not how insurance works nor annuities ... annuities have those who die pay for those who live .i suggest you google these things to see how it works ..you can start by looking up mortality credits.

annuity's take the money from those who die daily and throw it back in to the pool where the mortality credits are added to the payout fund . the flow rate you get is based on current interest rates and mortality credits from the future dead .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 05:29 AM
 
Location: NC
6,543 posts, read 7,956,796 times
Reputation: 13438
Agree totally that it is simply an insurance policy. Do people complain when they never have a major auto accident so they can fully use all that money they put into car insurance premiums for the past thirty years? Hmm. Because it works as an annuity it is great that we have the opportunity to recover a little to all of it just because we are alive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top