AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 4, 2012 10:13:45 GMT -5
The outlook for Social Security's trust fund has deteriorated to an astonishing degree over the past year, new Congressional Budget Office projections show.
The nonpartisan budget scorekeeper released the estimates Tuesday as part of broader economic and budget forecasts. CBO expects the trust fund to peak in 2018 and decline to $2.7 trillion in 2022 — a full $1 trillion less than Social Security's own actuaries predicted last year.
The new trajectory suggests that the trust fund's current depletion date of 2036 may jump ahead several years when Social Security's trustees release their annual report this spring, making the retirement program more central to the 2012 election .
The trust fund doesn't mean much for the government's ability to afford benefits — Social Security's assets are offset by Treasury's equal debt. But it does give the program the legal authority to pay all promised benefits until its special Treasuries are spent. The rest of the article is here: news.investors.com/Article/599776/201202020805/social-security-trust-fund-missing-trillion.htm?src=HPLNewsYeah, well as it turns out you have to have people ON THE PAYROLL to have them paying the payroll tax. It really doesn't matter "when" it goes bankrupt, the key fact people need to come to grips with is "that" it is going bankrupt. If we continue on the Democrat path, the government runs out of money and everyone due Social Security is suddenly cut off and without remedy. The GOP has numerous ideas out there that would preserve the program, but for political reasons, the Democrats are using demagoguery / scare tactics to avoid reforming and extending the life of these programs. I personally don't like big, bloated government programs- so I'm not married to "how" they go away. I'd like to see us go through a gradual transition, but I'm not going to feel sorry for people that don't see the end coming.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 9:46:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2012 10:24:37 GMT -5
"Sounds like Bernie Madoff... "
No, it doesn't. Even if the budget is balanced tomorrow, the SS fund could still by gov't debt to earn a riskless rate of return. Or it could invest in other low-risk assets. The SS fund is earning interest on the debt it holds, helping it at least stay even with inflation.
The problem with the SS fund investing in gov't debt is that the gov't is too deep in debt. The fix to that problem is balancing the budget, not disconinuing buying gov't debt with money from the SS fund.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2012 11:38:17 GMT -5
Actually while it is correct that our government borrowed from this fund and without a doubt borrowed and spent recklessly for decades and gave in to political pressure from the liberals to extend benefits to many who were not intended to collect from this fund, it is also a fact that even though many boomers had to know the direction was wrong and unsustainable we allowed it to continue by voting the same two groups of thugs in year after year. We sold our children's future for todays benefit. The trend continues. Now they are selling theirs. misguided spending is not the sole property of "liberals". our misadventures in Iraq are responsible for about 3% of the debt, all by itself. the S&L scandal, another 10%, the financial meltdown? 5%. mistakes, wars, and absolute recklessness have lead to this problem. prior to Obama, about 2/3 of all deficit spending happened under Republican administrations. placing the blame on Democrats, let alone "liberals" misses all of these facts.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Feb 4, 2012 11:38:24 GMT -5
: and btw, no one will be getting screwed with grandma and/or grandpa in the next bedroom. [image]
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2012 11:39:28 GMT -5
"Sounds like Bernie Madoff... " No, it doesn't. Even if the budget is balanced tomorrow, the SS fund could still by gov't debt to earn a riskless rate of return. Or it could invest in other low-risk assets. The SS fund is earning interest on the debt it holds, helping it at least stay even with inflation. The problem with the SS fund investing in gov't debt is that the gov't is too deep in debt. The fix to that problem is balancing the budget, not disconinuing buying gov't debt with money from the SS fund. precisely right, bob. SS is actually the least of our worries. a couple of minor tweaks will fix it. i am MUCH MORE WORRIED about medicare and the flagging revenue stream for our general fund.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2012 11:44:14 GMT -5
Yeah, well as it turns out you have to have people ON THE PAYROLL to have them paying the payroll tax. true. so it stands to reason that as people re-enter the workforce, SS will start to right itself, no?It really doesn't matter "when" it goes bankrupt, the key fact people need to come to grips with is "that" it is going bankrupt. false. social security might not pay out 100% of benefits, but it will NEVER....i repeat....NEVER go bankrupt.If we continue on the Democrat path, the government runs out of money and everyone due Social Security is suddenly cut off and without remedy. false. nobody is ever going to be cut off, except possibly those that can afford it.The GOP has numerous ideas out there that would preserve the program, but for political reasons, the Democrats are using demagoguery / scare tactics to avoid reforming and extending the life of these programs. false. the GOP is not really interested in preserving the system. they are interested in "unwinding it".I personally don't like big, bloated government programs- so I'm not married to "how" they go away. I'd like to see us go through a gradual transition, but I'm not going to feel sorry for people that don't see the end coming. the end is not coming soon. it is coming NEVER.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2012 11:45:52 GMT -5
misguided spending is not the sole property of "liberals". our misadventures in Iraq are responsible for about 3% of the debt, all by itself. the S&L scandal, another 10%, the financial meltdown? 5%. mistakes, wars, and absolute recklessness have lead to this problem. prior to Obama, about 2/3 of all deficit spending happened under Republican administrations. placing the blame on Democrats, let alone "liberals" misses all of these facts. You are correct. Do you now think that the Republicans feel they are on notice? i do, actually. i think they are positively freaking out about it. and candidly, i remember them freaking out during the Reagan administration, too. but nothing was done about it then- and he is now regarded as some sort of supply side Jesus, so forgive me if i am more than a little cynical about their solutions to this problem, now.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2012 11:55:42 GMT -5
Sorry but when you were forced to contribute to ss and told you would collect and collect a certain amount based on your contributions, the govt has no right to means test or do anything else to it based on the fact that they stole from it and put people on it who have no business being on it. The demographics are changing. People are living longer. The first baby boomers are just five years from retirement and the birth rate is low. Today, there are 3.3 workers paying Social Security payroll taxes for every one person collecting Social Security benefits. That number will drop to 2 to 1 in less than 40 years. At this ratio there will not be enough workers to pay scheduled benefits at current tax rates. Its math. there are three obvious solutions to that problem. one would be paying 2/3 of what we project. the second would be raising tax rates. and the third would be not paying 1/3 of those who are projected to be paid. (and of course, some combination of the above).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2012 11:56:42 GMT -5
the end is not coming soon. it is coming NEVER. Hey, what about that 2012 doomsday thingy? hahaha. that would solve all of our problems!
|
|
The Home 6
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:24:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,906
Location: Bourbon Country
Favorite Drink: Wine. With a wine chaser.
|
Post by The Home 6 on Feb 4, 2012 15:52:37 GMT -5
And I just finished reading "Boomsday" by Christopher Buckley! Bribing Baby Boomers to off themselves before they collect Social Security...that book is a RIOT.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Feb 4, 2012 16:13:16 GMT -5
Which is fine if the government promises benefits based on those assumptions. Right now, they're promising a horribly priced product that they know, and have known since before the early 80's, could not be paid. Fixed deferred annuities are not a complex product - the government needs to quit fucking around with their welfare experiment.
Agree on Medicare too - one more reason the government shouldn't be in the medical insurance business.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 9:46:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2012 16:21:12 GMT -5
So the fund has been mismanaged & you want to put more money in? Brilliant.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 9:46:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2012 16:57:43 GMT -5
"Which is fine if the government promises benefits based on those assumptions."
Yes.
------------------------------------------- "Agree on Medicare too - one more reason the government shouldn't be in the medical insurance business."
Remember that guy Chessplayer who used to use Medicare and how efficient it supposedly is as his rationale for having gov't run healthcare? That was always hilarious. Of course, Medicare is 100% over budget and still can't pay enough to cover actual costs of hospitals, doctors, etc. Without private payments to subsidize it, Medicare would go bust pretty quick.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Feb 4, 2012 17:00:27 GMT -5
MEANS TESTING
PERSON A: He is 65 and earned an average of $100K over his lifetime. He lived below his means. He drove his cars until they died and lives in a modest home with a paid off mortgage. He saved/invested his way to a $1.5M retirement account.
PERSON B: He is 65 and earned an average of $100K over his lifetime. He liked driving newer cars and bought a McMansion. He also liked being the first on the block to have the latest in electronic toys. He has very little saved for retirement.
PERSON B gets SS while PERSON A is means tested out.
Ya, like that's going to fly.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 4, 2012 17:40:26 GMT -5
MEANS TESTING PERSON A: He is 65 and earned an average of $100K over his lifetime. He lived below his means. He drove his cars until they died and lives in a modest home with a paid off mortgage. He saved/invested his way to a $1.5M retirement account. PERSON B: He is 65 and earned an average of $100K over his lifetime. He liked driving newer cars and bought a McMansion. He also liked being the first on the block to have the latest in electronic toys. He has very little saved for retirement. PERSON B gets SS while PERSON A is means tested out. Ya, like that's going to fly. Um, actually it is going to fly. It's exactly what will happen. And you've already described the unintended consequence: Person A's will start spending like crazy as they approach eligibility.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 4, 2012 17:40:45 GMT -5
This already happens with Medicare, btw.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 4, 2012 17:43:37 GMT -5
This already happens with Medicare, btw. ....and being the genius I am... I will ask yet one more time. How does this help the struggling middle class? I've asked this question at least a dozen times, and no one has answered.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 4, 2012 19:18:32 GMT -5
This already happens with Medicare, btw. ....and being the genius I am... I will ask yet one more time. How does this help the struggling middle class? I've asked this question at least a dozen times, and no one has answered. It doesn't. We're not going to have a middle class much longer. We're going to have a two-tiered society. You're going to be rich, or you're going to be poor.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Feb 4, 2012 21:28:04 GMT -5
This already happens with Medicare, btw. Yes, it means tested; but not to the extent that people don't get it at all.
|
|