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.
When Social Security was first implemented in the 1930s, the government assigned the "retirement age" to be 65. After that, you could start drawing benefits.
By some strange coincidence, the average age of death in the 1930s was..... 65.
Meaning, half the people who would pay in all their lives, would never draw out a dime, except for death benefits.
And the rest wouldn't draw out very much before they, too, kicked off.
Social Security was designed to be "self-supporting"... for that time. With no thought of what might change in the future... like medical science advancing enough to enable people to live a LOT longer.
BTW, all the money you've paid in, has already been spent. In the SS Trust Fund is nothing but IOUs from the government. Remember Obama's statements a year or so ago, that if the Debt Ceiling wasn't raised, Social Security checks couldn't be written to its benefits recipients?
The money has been "borrowed" by other government agencies, and spent. All the money being paid in benefits to retirees, is coming from the money you and I are paying in now. None of it is being saved for us. This is the defining characteristic of a Ponzi scheme.
Which brings us to the other issue.
Remember the other predictions various govt officials have made, saying that SS sill be "solvent" for the next 15 or 20 or 30 or 50 years (depending on which politician you listen to)? They mean that they will be able to pay retirees their scheduled benefits from that money supposedly in the Trust Fund, until then.
But all the Trust Fund money has been "borrowed", and is gone. This means that those agencies that "borrowed" it, have to pay back ALL the money by that deadline (15 or 20 or etc. years from now), so it can be paid out to retirees that need it. And of course, if they are going to be replenishing the Trust Funds this way, they can't borrow any more while they're paying it back.
So, how much money is owed to the SS Trust Fund and other such govt-held trust funds?
Answer: 30.1% of the entire National Debt is owed to these Trust Funds. That's $4.7 trillion. (See reference below.)
That's how much must be paid back into the SS Trust fund and other such funds, to keep them "solvent" for that long.
Has anyone heard of any plans to pay off 30% of the National Debt within the next 15 years? Or 20? Or.....?
Neither have I.
Next time someone tells you how solvent the Social Security Trust fund is, or any other government trust fund, show him the numbers and see what he says then.
That was smart. Carter couldn't have spent it on the Vietnam war, though. What did he spend it on? Cancelling our defense treaty with Taiwan? Ending US military aid to Guatemala?
So why don't they ever wonder if the food stamp program, SSI, WIC, Section 8 and other welfare handout programs can stay solvent? Why don't they raid those programs to pay for Social Security, like they raided Social Security to pay for other programs.
If cuts need to be made, they need to be made across the board and not just on the retirees.
When Social Security was first implemented in the 1930s, the government assigned the "retirement age" to be 65. After that, you could start drawing benefits.
By some strange coincidence, the average age of death in the 1930s was..... 65.
Meaning, half the people who would pay in all their lives, would never draw out a dime, except for death benefits.
And the rest wouldn't draw out very much before they, too, kicked off.
Social Security was designed to be "self-supporting"... for that time. With no thought of what might change in the future... like medical science advancing enough to enable people to live a LOT longer.
I assume this is part of the reason that the age to receive social security is slowly being raised.
Now, I know they have "a plan", which includes privatizing the system, etc. But that isn't what Americans want.
They don't want you to change social security or medicare, but cut everywhere else to make those programs work.
Thats your "mandate", now what do you have to fix that? It can be done, but Republicans lack the will, or the ability, to do anything about it. Democrats fail on this as well, but at least they aren't talking about dismantling the systems.
This is so easy to fix. But the political will is missing.
your correct
it is an easy fix, but lets first look at history and facts
SS was NEVER meant to be an individuals retirment fund or pension..it was a SUPPLEMENTAL SOCIAL INSURANCE to be used IN CONJUNCTION with ones retirement/pension
when SS was implemented life expectancy was 61 years old, and was set the age at 65 (A FOUR (4) YEAR DIFFERENCE........TODAY: the life expectancy is about 80, yet SS is WAY BEHIND THAT
SS originally (the 1935 law) only paid to the PRIMARY worker...not the spouse..and certainly not disability
it was MANDATED that ONLY 1% (for each ; the individual and the business)...not the current 6.?%
so the fix:
1. make it optional....and/or
2. give the INDIVIDUAL control of how to invest HIS MONEY....and/or
3. raise the eligibility to 84 (4 years more than the life expectancy)
4. disqualify any person who has never PAID INTO IT..might sound harsh, but giving a "credit" for a person who worked overseas (ie emigrent) is just wrong
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.
