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.
I think you are arguing with an actuary, if I’m not mistaken, about how insurance works.
Yes, I AM an actuary, but I'm from the property-casualty side. Maybe I'm mis-using terminology and Mathjak and I are misunderstanding each other but I refer you to a sentence in the cited article which states that the policymakers for SS decided to change it to a "pay-as-you-go" basis. That's what I've been trying to say.
Here's the difference. If Company X is adequately reserved, it can decide to stop writing new annuity policies tomorrow and have enough in its reserves (together with future premiums from those whose policies are still in force but NOT ANY PREMIUMS FROM NEW BUSINESS) to pay all it has promised. And yes, there are people who will quit paying the premiums for one reason or another and people who die prematurely and the money they paid in will also fund those future promises.
Let's say the federal government decides that SS would be replaced tomorrow with a new system for anyone currently in the workforce and not collecting benefits. Anyone with over 40 quarters in the "old" system will collect whatever their benefits statements said they'd get at retirement age but all future payroll taxes will be paid into the new system. Old SS would run out of money far earlier than 2034 because it's funded on a "going concern" basis and if you freeze benefits and cut it off from payroll taxes from current contributors there won't be enough money to pay all they've promised.
SSI which is for poor people that don’t qualify for SSDI and are disabled. The payment ranges from 300-700/month 7 years ago when I was working in the field. Both are extremely difficult to obtain. The only exception being if you are blind or terminal.
...or just old. Lots of career low income retirees with small Social Security checks get topped up to above poverty level with SSI.
Yes, I AM an actuary, but I'm from the property-casualty side. Maybe I'm mis-using terminology and Mathjak and I are misunderstanding each other but I refer you to a sentence in the cited article which states that the policymakers for SS decided to change it to a "pay-as-you-go" basis. That's what I've been trying to say.
Here's the difference. If Company X is adequately reserved, it can decide to stop writing new annuity policies tomorrow and have enough in its reserves (together with future premiums from those whose policies are still in force but NOT ANY PREMIUMS FROM NEW BUSINESS) to pay all it has promised. And yes, there are people who will quit paying the premiums for one reason or another and people who die prematurely and the money they paid in will also fund those future promises.
Let's say the federal government decides that SS would be replaced tomorrow with a new system for anyone currently in the workforce and not collecting benefits. Anyone with over 40 quarters in the "old" system will collect whatever their benefits statements said they'd get at retirement age but all future payroll taxes will be paid into the new system. Old SS would run out of money far earlier than 2034 because it's funded on a "going concern" basis and if you freeze benefits and cut it off from payroll taxes from current contributors there won't be enough money to pay all they've promised.
Property-casualty, life......lots of overlap. At least there was during my short actuarial stint (life side).
Turns out the oft voiced theory that baby boomers are taking and will get the most out of social security isn't true after all.
That distinction goes to another cohort; those who lived through the Great Depression and benefitted from when social security was first begun. Boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964) as a cohort on average OTOH will have paid more into the system than they will receive in benefits.
Other issues with SS are tied to problems created not long after the scheme was created. In 1939 benefits were added for spouses and surviving minor children. This meant some retirees received far more in benefits than previously would have (when SS only covered the one worker), but also created stress on the pay-as-you-go system since funds that otherwise would have been used to expand the trust fund instead were directed to paying those benefits.
Nice propaganda and disinformation piece by a Göbbels worshiper.
Smells like a bunch of kindergarten kids whining because someone got more potato chips than they did.
If there was so much "stress" as the author claims, then why did the FICA payroll tax remain 1.0% for 13 years?
The author is either ignorant, or intentionally lying.
The "stress" was caused by the ratio of workers to beneficiaries.
In 1940, there were 159.4 workers for every beneficiary.
By 1945, that had dropped to 41.9 workers for every beneficiary.
By 1950, that was reduced to 16.5 workers for every beneficiary.
In 1975, there were 3.3 workers for every beneficiary and that's where it remained for 35 freaking years until 2010.
In 2010, the ratio of workers to beneficiaries started to decrease again and it will continue to decrease until it plateaus at 2.2 workers for each beneficiary.
And, that's where it will stay for about 200 years or so.
Social Security is very simple: Revenues = #Workers * Wages * FICA Tax
What did we learn in the 6th Grade?
If we increase or decrease any of the multipliers, the product increases or decreases. Remember your teacher standing at the blackboard showing you that?
I do.
We cannot substantially increase the number of workers, because we'd permanently need 11 Million more workers and you ain't got that and never will.
You cannot substantially increase wages, either. Why? I just told you why. You need 11 Million more workers permanently.
However, you can increase the FICA tax, and you only need to increase it one more time over the next 200 years and you only have to increase it 1.8%-2.2% and the problem is solved forever.
Modify the spousal benefit system ..for one thing ,like a pension anyone who wants a spouse included needs to take less ...then we have the abuse in Ssdi to deal with .. fixing those issues brings the tax needed down even more
Thank lawyers and ADA act and unending expansion of mental “disorders”.
A 20 y. o. : “ I am uncomfortable around people and I am having panic attacks!Cant work!”
“There, there, my dear: here is your SSDI, go play some video games!”
That's not how it works.
And, I'm willing to bet you're ignorant about CDRs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasperhobbs
What would someone 20 years old disabled in a car accident get?
That depends.
Assuming the disability will last longer than 12 months or result in death and assuming they have earned 6 credits in the three years before their disability began, they qualify.
It won't be a lot of money. They'll probably need SSI to supplement it.
Before Eisenhower pulled a Castro/Allende/Ghaddafi/King Faisal/General Qasim/Mossadeq and nationalized all 48 State disability programs, it wouldn't have been a problem.
The States recognized total permanent disability, total temporary disability, partial permanent disability and partial temporary disability, but Social Security doesn't. Social Security only recognizes total permanent disability, and for at least 12 months.
If you were disabled by any means other than worker's compensation, the State would cover you. If you successfully recovered damages through legal action, you'd have to pay the State back, but otherwise no.
If you had a partial disability and couldn't work your normal job for your employer, but you could work another job and that job paid less, the State would make up the difference until you could work your normal job again.
If you could never work your job again due to your injury or medical condition, the State would re-train you in a comparable job.
All the State programs were superior. The States helped everyone and got them back to work, if possible, but, if the States caught you malingering, you'd have hell to pay.
Thanks to Eisenhower, everyone is screwed.
Unless you get injured on the job, sucks to be you.
Maybe if you're injured at home, your home-owner's insurance might cover it, but then they'll drop you or increase your premiums, and they may not cover future damages, like future lost wages.
For any other accident, you could be in court for years with no income and Social Security won't lift a finger to help you.
I know Ida Mae Fuller made out like a bandit. First person to collect a check, she paid in something like $22, and collected around $25,000 over the course of her retirement.
So?
Notwithstanding the fact that the paid in/paid out figure is never known until recipients die,
SS was, from its inception, an insurance program. As such, it's not expected that benefits paid be related to "premiums."
As a matter of fact, the only leeches are beneficiary dependents--including spouses who were never employed. And, of course, spouses who take advantage of the program's spousal schemes, er...strategies, which result in a benefit exceeding what they'd receive based on their own work history.
Unless you get injured on the job, sucks to be you.
You do know you can buy private disability insurance, right? I have to admit I never did and I was lucky I never needed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty
As a matter of fact, the only leeches are beneficiary dependents--including spouses who were never employed. And, of course, spouses who take advantage of the program's spousal schemes, er...strategies, which result in a benefit exceeding what they'd receive based on their own work history.
I have mixed feelings on this. IN THEORY, SS payroll taxes were calculated to provide these benefits. (We all know SS payroll taxes in general have proven to be inadequate but payments to spouses is anticipated in the calculations.) I can see darn good public policy reasons to keep these provisions because otherwise we'll have a whole pile of (mostly) widows and divorcees living in poverty. I was raised by a full-time mother. I worked FT my entire adult life but my son married a wonderful young woman who's home FT with the kids. I don't think I could have done what she does and she's a full partner in the marriage. There are contributions to the household other than wages.
You do know you can buy private disability insurance, right? I have to admit I never did and I was lucky I never needed it.
I have mixed feelings on this. IN THEORY, SS payroll taxes were calculated to provide these benefits. (We all know SS payroll taxes in general have proven to be inadequate but payments to spouses is anticipated in the calculations.) I can see darn good public policy reasons to keep these provisions because otherwise we'll have a whole pile of (mostly) widows and divorcees living in poverty. I was raised by a full-time mother. I worked FT my entire adult life but my son married a wonderful young woman who's home FT with the kids. I don't think I could have done what she does and she's a full partner in the marriage. There are contributions to the household other than wages.
singles are parents too and many get nothing ... in my opinion i think spousal benefits are a thing of the past .we all should eat what we kill ... all the moms in our family have kids and all work and have careers ...
not working is a personal choice .. it should have no bearing on collecting off someone else's record . like a pension there should be a penalty in amount for carrying it over to a spouse. most pensions require you to take less if you want your spouse to have rights to it.
Last edited by mathjak107; 06-12-2019 at 03:37 AM..
One man ,Eric conn was responsible for pushing through a half billion in already rejected Ssdi claims in conjunction with a crooked judge and doctor ..
I suggest you look up the definition of a ponzi scheme ... ss certainly is no ponzi scheme . It is no different then any annuity or insurance policy that counts on premiums to pay out future claims ..that is just nonsense... ss does not promise you false big returns nor is it an investment, nor does it claim the money is going in to something it is not..just by definition it can’t be a Ponzi scheme .....that is how annuities and insurance just work
As far as ida , that is how insurance works ..you can pay one life insurance premium and die and your beneficiaries can collect millions ...ss is an insurance program ....
As everyone knows a Ponzi scheme is where you eventually run out of other peoples money but the federal government will never run out because it can always print more.
From The Motley Fool is an excellent article on how to fix social security and how little it would really take.
Facing a cash shortfall of $13.9 trillion through 2093, the latest trustees report offers a very simple, yet effective, solution.
Essentially, the trustees' report estimates that if Congress were to increase the current 12.4% payroll tax on earned income by 2.78% to 15.18%, Social Security's cash shortfall would go away over the next 75 years. Although we'd still see a decline in the trust fund ratio by the time 2093 rolls around (it was 289% in 2018), the program should remain sufficiently funded so as to not to require a reduction in benefits for future retirees.
Easy enough fix now but does congress have the guts? Or the brains?
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.
As a matter of fact, the only leeches are beneficiary dependents--including spouses who were never employed. And, of course, spouses who take advantage of the program's spousal schemes, er...strategies, which result in a benefit exceeding what they'd receive based on their own work history.
