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 it was back around 1980 that I read an in-depth article that showed SS was cash rich at the time and capable of funding itself indefinitely, with no need for contribution hikes, ever. And I remember, not too long after that article was published, Congress trying to get approval to tap the SS funds to help pay for some debt-loaded "necessity" they wanted to pour money into.
There was a lot of angry people who said they feared that loan would never be paid back. But our politicians promised the loan would be paid back, and with interest. Then they went ahead and approved the loan.
It wasn't long before we started hearing reports SS was going broke.
Our biggest problem has always been the people we elect to represent us.
You continue a mythology that some seniors want to believe because it avoid certain inconvenient truths.
The average life expectancy in this country has increased to beyond 80 years for a woman and into the late seventies for a man. This is not simply a function of more children surviving their early years. Its also a function of far more people living into their senior years and collecting social security benefits for an extended period of time. The second inconvenient truth is that the birthrate has steadily declined since the enactment of the Social Security Act. Fewer births translates into fewer workers paying into the system. Finally, the third inconvenient truth is that quality jobs are not available for younger people in the same numbers that they have been available in the past. As we put the last recession further into history, I'm hoping that wages for entry level workers will significantly increase. However, it hasn't happened yet. Low paid workers pay less into the system than higher paid workers do.
The real problems with the social security system are demographic in nature. It has little to do with what Congress has done. If Congress has borrowed money from the trust fund, there is no entity on Earth that has a better track record than the US Government for honoring its bills. If we can keep a few right wing bomb throwers in Congress from deliberately defaulting on the country's debts, all will be just fine in this respect.
Some changes are needed in the system. I pretty much go along with those recommended by the Simpson/Bowles Commission. I think we need to increase retirement ages gradually to reflect increasing life expectancy. We should very gradually raise payroll taxes by 1% over a period of perhaps four years. I also support basing future COL increases in social security benefits on core CPI instead of CPI-W. Core CPI takes into account that people make substitutions in the way they live when confronted with inflation and in real life that is what occurs. Such a program requires modest sacrifices from all age groups. The young must work longer to get benefits. Those already working must pay slightly higher taxes. Those receiving benefits must accept slightly lower COL increases. If we implement these changes, we can make social security a permanent program that will pay benefits indefinitely. The sooner these changes are made, the less severe they will have to be.
I think it was back around 1980 that I read an in-depth article that showed SS was cash rich at the time and capable of funding itself indefinitely, with no need for contribution hikes, ever. And I remember, not too long after that article was published, Congress trying to get approval to tap the SS funds to help pay for some debt-loaded "necessity" they wanted to pour money into.
There was a lot of angry people who said they feared that loan would never be paid back. But our politicians promised the loan would be paid back, and with interest. Then they went ahead and approved the loan.
It wasn't long before we started hearing reports SS was going broke.
Our biggest problem has always been the people we elect to represent us.
Well said Tujuleez.
Do you suppose that corrupt politicians have helped dumb down our education system during the past sixty years so they could depend on the BRAINWASHED masses our inept education system has turned out to VOTE for bigger and more corrupt government and keep career politicians in office?
If Congress has borrowed money from the trust fund, there is no entity on Earth that has a better track record than the US Government for honoring its bills.
Not when it is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
I realize there are a lot of different points of view on the history of SS and how the money was handled being bantered about today. I conveyed what took place long before the Internet, where you can find anything you are looking for, and at a time when responsible reporting was more commonplace than it is today.
I tend to put more credence in what I lived than anything found on the Internet.
Although you were responding not to me, but to MadManofBethesday, I would point out that he was not addressing disagreement, as you imply, but rather facts which are clear and unambiguous. Your rude and insulting personal attack on him is inexcusable.
I was addressing his remarks about my posted opinions and observations regarding the SS COLA and other related items which he implied were as fallacious as he said the comments about the Bay of Pigs comment was. I guess the tone of his post was not obvious to you, as it seemed to me his intent was to ridicule and express his dislike of my other comments, which as we all know, was really the intent of this response about the Bay of Pigs comment. Otherwise there would have been no need for him to even mention the SSCOLA comments. Perhaps it was beneath me, but I responded in kind.
The original plan didn't offer spousal benefits and several other goodies now included. Equally certain changes were made to remove and or adjust benefits.
All this being said it is therefore useless to make arguments against altering SS; change has happened before in response to various socio-economic situations and shall continue to do so.
One of the main problems with SS and that will need to be addressed sooner or later is that it is based upon a "Ozzie and Harriet" family model that largely no longer exists in the USA. In particular married women (or *spouses*) who have never worked can receive substantial payments compared to someone that was employed all their lives. What is more these spouses and certain children receive benefits regardless if they are required or not. SS has little to nil "means testing" IIRC but rather relies upon the tax code to in some limited way address persons receiving "excess" SS income.
Even with all this SS is heavily distorted towards married couples versus singles. In particular elderly spinsters on average do now and will in foreseeable future fair worse under SS than either men (single) or married couples. The Next Social Security Crisis and American Women
Meanwhile individuals or couples earning rather puny annual incomes ($25k and $32k respectively) must pay some sort of income tax on their SS benefits.
Do you suppose that corrupt politicians have helped dumb down our education system during the past sixty years so they could depend on the BRAINWASHED masses our inept education system has turned out to VOTE for bigger and more corrupt government and keep career politicians in office?
There's a little talked about "model" politicians use to keep their corrupt system rolling. The idea is to keep the electorate fighting among themselves in order to distract the electorate from focusing on the real problem - political corruption.
A politician on one side of the aisle takes an emotionally charged issue (guns, abortion, etc) and vilifies the other side for not supporting their side. Then a politician on the other side does the same thing. Both get the electorate worked up into a frenzy then watch us get in another big brawl while they walk away fat and happy. One only needs to step back to see how well this model is working.
As long as we keep battling each other and fail to unite and focus our anger towards the people who abuse the power we've given them, politics will remain corrupt.
And we all should know that somehow over the years the company PENSIONS that were in place when SSI was created vaporized to be replaced by..........nothing.
I remember when my pension was axed in favor of profits, it was mid 2000. When I went to work for the company we had a pension, profit sharing, ESOP program, access to a 401k with 20% match and short/long term disability insurance paid by the company along with decent healthcare and tuition reimbursement.
That was a great reason I went to work for said company, they really took care of the employees.
Unfortunately (for greedy people) they were only growing profits at 10% per year and that was not enough for the stockholders/BOD who wanted much MORE.
I went from having all of that to only having a 401k (no match) and paying much more for healthcare. Now the good part (for investors) was profits jumped significantly and the new CEO (who was brought in to replace the CEO and company founder) made millions in bonus.
Oh, it's not like the employees got any kind of raise after losing all of that and in fact the CEO cut staffing by about 1/3 so I was doing the jobs done previously by 4 people.
So much for having any shot at retirement savings unless my family ate nothing but pasta and peanut butter 4 days a week.
So, one little thing that could save millions of workers a poor fate and return SSI to a income supplement would be to just bring back company funded pensions or maybe a 50% match 401k.
Amen to that. The same thing happened to my husband, they froze his pension, cut out profit sharing. Offered a 401k with some kind of match for a few years then eliminated the match. They cut out all forms of insurance and ended up offering medical insurance that cost more than it would to buy it through a broker. The entire time they were earning a profit, and this is a fortune 100 company that I'm talking about.
Amen to that. The same thing happened to my husband, they froze his pension, cut out profit sharing. Offered a 401k with some kind of match for a few years then eliminated the match. They cut out all forms of insurance and ended up offering medical insurance that cost more than it would to buy it through a broker. The entire time they were earning a profit, and this is a fortune 100 company that I'm talking about.
Most big companies did that starting in the mid to late 90's.
I lucked out when my company got off the pension bandwagon..age/time of service kept me in it.
I took full advantage of the 401K when it got implemented at my company.
We used to have free health insurance as the company paid for it but it wasn't like health insurance today. It was still 80/20 and most normal doctor/drug stuff was still out of pocket and not covered.
Insurance back then was needed more for hospital stays. And maternity was an option that you had to pay for.
You continue a mythology that some seniors want to believe because it avoid certain inconvenient truths.
The average life expectancy in this country has increased to beyond 80 years for a woman and into the late seventies for a man. This is not simply a function of more children surviving their early years. Its also a function of far more people living into their senior years and collecting social security benefits for an extended period of time. The second inconvenient truth is that the birthrate has steadily declined since the enactment of the Social Security Act. Fewer births translates into fewer workers paying into the system. Finally, the third inconvenient truth is that quality jobs are not available for younger people in the same numbers that they have been available in the past. As we put the last recession further into history, I'm hoping that wages for entry level workers will significantly increase. However, it hasn't happened yet. Low paid workers pay less into the system than higher paid workers do.
The real problems with the social security system are demographic in nature. It has little to do with what Congress has done. If Congress has borrowed money from the trust fund, there is no entity on Earth that has a better track record than the US Government for honoring its bills. If we can keep a few right wing bomb throwers in Congress from deliberately defaulting on the country's debts, all will be just fine in this respect.
Some changes are needed in the system. I pretty much go along with those recommended by the Simpson/Bowles Commission. I think we need to increase retirement ages gradually to reflect increasing life expectancy. We should very gradually raise payroll taxes by 1% over a period of perhaps four years. I also support basing future COL increases in social security benefits on core CPI instead of CPI-W. Core CPI takes into account that people make substitutions in the way they live when confronted with inflation and in real life that is what occurs. Such a program requires modest sacrifices from all age groups. The young must work longer to get benefits. Those already working must pay slightly higher taxes. Those receiving benefits must accept slightly lower COL increases. If we implement these changes, we can make social security a permanent program that will pay benefits indefinitely. The sooner these changes are made, the less severe they will have to be.
I wish more people were as rational and as objective as you are. You care about facts. Those who are more into emotionally driven rants will not even be able to "hear" what you have written because it does not play into their anger and resentment. Too bad.
Whatever happened to the concept of people taking care of themselves?
Besides, just because some European countries have made modest adjustments to their welfare states doesn't mean those countries have thrown seniors to the dogs.
Yes, there is economic malaise world-wide in first world countries, partly due to demographic changes (lower birth rates). But that is not the same as those societies "dying". The world is severely over-populated, and it will be well worth the necessary adjustments if population can be reduced.
You have quite a talent for exaggeration.
I could make personal attacks too, but I will try hard not to get back at you.
About Europe's demographic cliff. Just because you are ignorant of it, it doesn't mean it does not exist. I have documented this at length in the Healthcare Forum. I have provided many links to EU studies, etc. Etc. It's a big deal in Europe.
Repeating myself. Just 12 months ago King of Holland declared that Era of Welfare is over. Does he have a talent for exaggeration too??
Many say "oh it's just demographics. People just are not having too many kids now."
Well, that's just half the sentence. Low birth rates are simply a symptom of the low or stagnant economic growth.
Yet, when fundamentals are changing, many people are fighting to keep the status quo.
And when we question this idiocy, it's as if something is wrong with us. We "have a chip on our shoulder" or "have a talent for exaggeration", or spreading "mythology"
Last edited by Henry10; 10-18-2015 at 12:57 PM..
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.
