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.
Obviously those in retirement are using what the younger generation is paying into but the problem is, who is going to support the younger generation when they retire? The government isn't helping and there are people on this forum who love entitlements even if it screws over other people... for the benefit of society. What will happen to my social security that I am paying into? Can social security file for bankruptcy so that all my money would be gone and I have no choice but to contribute to an obviously delinquent payer.
We can expect baby boomers to start retiring in 3 more years. I think such a huge amount of people withdrawing from social security is going to be a drain that cannot be supplied by the money we have now... that is unless they die earlier than what we have been seeing... perhaps we should tax social security at 50% so that it survives for the rest of the people.. I think the older generations owes it to the younger generation..
Gibberish. Ever heard of the Social Security surplus? All that money coming in that right-wingers keep accusing the Congress of stealing and that makes the unified budget deficit look better than the on-budget deficit each year? That's the extra money that those you call baby-boomers (who started retiring earlier this year, btw) have been paying in for the past 25 years to save up for their own retirements. Balances in the SS trust fund will continue to grow until about 2030 if things go as (pessimistically) projected. After that, the balances in the trust fund will begin to decline, reaching zero (which is where they started out 25 years ago) in something more than 30 years from now, again as projected. That's if we do nothing at all and just leave the system exactly as it is.
Gibberish. Ever heard of the Social Security surplus? All that money coming in that right-wingers keep accusing the Congress of stealing and that makes the unified budget deficit look better than the on-budget deficit each year? That's the extra money that those you call baby-boomers (who started retiring earlier this year, btw) have been paying in for the past 25 years to save up for their own retirements. Balances in the SS trust fund will continue to grow until about 2030 if things go as (pessimistically) projected. After that, the balances in the trust fund will begin to decline, reaching zero (which is where they started out 25 years ago) in something more than 30 years from now, again as projected. That's if we do nothing at all and just leave the system exactly as it is.
Sag, you missed the point of the article, they acknowledged the surplus extensively in the discussion. What the article focused on is how the surplus money is invested.
The article claimed that the Social Security Trust Fund has no financial value at all, and that this will be exposed when reserves will begin to be needed in ten years to cover the benefit checks.
The premise is that hundreds of billions will be needed to cover the annual shortfall (not immediately in 2017, but that is when the problem begins). The only way for the Treasury to get that money is for the rest of the government to spend less than it otherwise would, collect more in taxes, or borrow more (which is likely). These three options are what the Government would need to do if there were no trust fund.
We can expect baby boomers to start retiring in 3 more years. .
A significant number of the "boomers" started retireing this year. And yes, the "boomers" are going to put a hugh drain on the system that, IMO, is unstainable.
Many people, recognized this being a problem, many years ago. Hence it was one of the reasons they totally withdrew from Social Security - and have not paid into to the system.
Heck, they tell you themselves its under funded.
Maybe, if they started today to LEAVE THAT MONEY ALONE things will get better but its unlikely. Personally since congress took it I think we should garner their pay until its back. Its not my problem if they used the money to fund other programs & not for personal use. If they voted to use it they should be held accountable.
Not my problem if they werent in office at the time. They reap the benefits created for them before they came into office so should be held liable for wrongs created before they came into office.
I think congress should be voluntary anyway.
Obviously those in retirement are using what the younger generation is paying into but the problem is, who is going to support the younger generation when they retire? The government isn't helping and there are people on this forum who love entitlements even if it screws over other people... for the benefit of society. What will happen to my social security that I am paying into? Can social security file for bankruptcy so that all my money would be gone and I have no choice but to contribute to an obviously delinquent payer.
If we just took the 150 billion/year we're spending on the Iraq civil war and put a couple of years' worth of that money into Social Security, the fund would probabaly be solvent into the far future. If we have the money to squander on patently stupid misadventures that are clearly not in our national interest, then we have the money to fund programs that actually benefit Americans.
If we just took the 150 billion/year we're spending on the Iraq civil war and put a couple of years' worth of that money into Social Security, the fund would probabaly be solvent into the far future. If we have the money to squander on patently stupid misadventures that are clearly not in our national interest, then we have the money to fund programs that actually benefit Americans.
Problem is, we don't have the money to pay for Iraq either. That's why the national deficit has ballooned to $9.3 trillion in 5 years.
If we just took the 150 billion/year we're spending on the Iraq civil war and put a couple of years' worth of that money into Social Security, the fund would probabaly be solvent into the far future. If we have the money to squander on patently stupid misadventures that are clearly not in our national interest, then we have the money to fund programs that actually benefit Americans.
Sorry but, Social Security was "going broke" long before any war funding.
I support letting the American people - the American workers, have the right to make decisions what to do with some of the money coming out of their paycheck -
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.
Social security not supportable by 2017?
