Major Social Security trust funds could be tapped out by 2033: CBO

raise the caps, problem solved

 

The proposals have that in them. Try again here we are once again me struggling to have a conversation with you as you avoid addressing points made and questions asked.

What would you rather those surplus funds be invested?



The retirement ages will have to go up because people simply live and work longer. Instead of 65, as was the age when I first started working, I retired at 67. People in their mid-life should plan on 68 at the least more like 70 by then. Raise the contribution levels then you have to raise benefits accordingly and it will not fund future needs as I cited above.



Yes the return on those funds need to be increased and people take some ownership of their contributions. And I know of no such proposals that would allow such speculation with those monies can you cite me a few?

 

This system is on life support. It was created at a time when workers outnumbered retirees 15-1 and life expectance was in the low 60. Today 2 1/2 workers support one retiree and life expectance in in the high 70's, or more. And with popular decline that ratio can only get worse.

 

Hasn't worked so far; you now about what they say about people who try the same thing over and over and expect different results, right?

 

they do not have them in it, were talking at the time of retirement, compare which will give you more and pick

 

we have not done it to the extent needed and the longer we wait, the more it will be

more tax cuts for the rich? Trickle down doesn't work!

 

If you raise the cap do you raise the amount of payout in the future? If SS is not fixed all you would be doing kicking the ball down the road.

 

I don't recall being given any choice in the matter. I would have much preferred to manage my own retirement money, but, my employers took the money without asking, and sent it to the government for my benefit. And, I intend to take every bit of it back, because it belonged to me when they took it, and it still does.

 

Ah, the me, me, me, me, me generation hard at work lol.

We have been through this before and Congress has repeatedly "kicked the can down the road" per se. Historically, the Social Secuity Trust Fund has always been underfunded and Congress has always "borrowed" from the fund to help pay for the Budget and lower that deficit. But the issue is that the federal government "borrows" from the fund. We are also living longer, having less workers to retiree ratios to continue the program sustainability and a whole bunch of other factors. Getting rid of SS is not an option here. Even if we did, people who are working would still have to pay into it for a long time until the last SS recipient passes away.

Congress, especially the GOP is not going to give you a "lump sum" of all the prior Social Security taxes you have already paid. They won't do that and the GOP, as bad as they are, is really not incluined to give you a dime. They will give all that money to themselves for "helping you" and not paying further taxes.

Proposals have included raising the FICA and SECA taxes by 4.9%, evenly split between employer and employee. However, there are other ways as well without privatizing or making SS and Medicare discretionary. They include raising the Social Security pay wage gap and increasing the number of workers paying into the system. This would mean getting rid of the pension programs for the military exclusively. They can still have a retirement account, through the TSP, and pay into Social Security, make sure illegals who are here are paying their taxes, which includes paying into social security on Schedule SE if their net profit is $400 or more, reducing social security benefits for higher earners, and a few other items. But "privatizing it" the way the GOP wants to privatize it will leave the lower-income folks to a financial detriment, but then again, the GOP is not really for the little guy anyway. Never has.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/retirement/how-to-save-social-security/

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2022/05/02/how-fix-social-security-its-political-it-can-be-done

 

Not necessarily, payouts for both minimum and maximum are already capped and have been that way since the 2000s.

 

yep, we add a new segment at 2% for amounts over 150k

boomers won't be around forever, this is just a temporary fix

 

No. You do not qualify for disability benefits via SS unless you have actually worked and paid into it. Only those who have worked and their surviving spouses qualify for it.

Why is it absurd? The payment credits are based on what you have earned though previous work.

That's the kind of system I said we could transition to in the future.

Millennials are a bigger generation than Boomers.

 

I wish you were right, but, unfortunately here's the facts about "Social Security Disability Insurance" (SSDI):
https://www.hq-law.com/blog/social-security-disability/social-security-for-people-never-employed/

Next, I wanted to see exactly how this "SSDI" is funded, and found this, among others:
https://mhhdisabilitylaw.com/how-is-social-security-funded/

So, essentially, whether the claims are completely legitimate or totally bogus, it looks like workers put money "in the pot", and everything connected in any way to "Social Security" gets paid for out of that. It shouldn't be that way, but, what the hell....

 

We were talking about Social Security Disability Insurance benefits (SSDI) and even your link confirms its only for those who have paid into it. Lot people confuse it with SSI.

Is there a better way to handle long term disability? Probably. US is unique in the sense that out health care system is based on private insurance, so disability has to be covered in some other way. The problem is that is just has to be covered one way or another.

Life expectancy was in high 60s, not low 60s, but there was another thing, which no longer exists: private pensions. They disappeared in 1980s and 1990s, and it was not due to some evil conspiracy. The banks and corporations tricked people into thinking 401K would make you a millionaire if you invest 10% starting in your 20s, but now we know that was mostly BS, because very few have millions in their 401K, and the average is waaaayy less than even 1 million.

 

Do you think you will be able to support yourself comfortably without SS? Do you plan to refuse it when you reach retirement age?

 

The problem is if you don't raise payouts but raise the contribution cap essentially all you are doing is imposing a new tax. This group will be paying more and getting nothing in return. The people that should have paid more were the boomers when they were still working but no politician wanted to do that because it would have been unpopular with the voters at the time.

 

Not so simple.

Yes, of course the caps should be raised to keep up with inflation, but otherwise raising the caps will go against the premise of what the program was originally intended to be.
You might as well just take money from the general fund to pay for the program, in that case.

Another option could be just to reduce payments to everyone, by an equal percentage. This is probably the most logical and pragmatic, but would not be the most popular and would be politically more difficult.

I predict what will end up happening is they will incentivize people to start pulling out the money at a later and later age, with harsh penalties if they want to start pulling out the money earlier, they will get much less money. (This is of course will tragically harm those who were forced into retirement earlier in their career than they expected due to health problems or job loss)
Also the payments will not be raised enough to keep up with inflation.

 

I would gladly give up any rights to SS if they allowed me to opt out now. All the money I contributed for 20+ years I would consider a gift. I think they should allow everyone this option.

 

They already have your 20 years of contributing but you still have to take care of me.

 

yep, we add a new segment at 2% for amounts over 150k <-- that is the payouts

we already knew the right would demand that for the rich

https://money.usnews.com/money/reti...es/how-much-you-will-get-from-social-security

90% for the first $1,115 90%,
32% for the remaining earnings up to $6,721
15% for earnings over $6,721
2% for earnings over 12,500 <---- new

 

Sorry, snipping below in case I can't post all I want without getting kicked/errored out.

To all below, I have read at the behest of Turd Flinging Monkey, materials that point out that FDR wanted SS to be self sustaining and not a welfare program. FDR was fairly quickly disabused of that idea as even back then when people died at 50, the numbers did not add up. It is not and has never been self sustaining.

It describes the system going bust in 2019. We're past that and it is still going. Without completely removing caps, just bump it from $80K to $110K 30 years ago? I'd have to think the system would be better off today than it is.

Correct. A free society assumes the competence of its citizens. Since FDR, we now assume a large portion of our society is incompetent and requires a nanny state. At some point, even the most incompetent may find they are worse off than if they just fended for themselves. I think that is what happened to the USSR. Until then, SS is the 3rd rail of politics.

We have a radio personality in New England named Howie Carr. He has been begging, loudly, since the 1990s at least, that sure, he had paid a ton his entire working life into SS and he would call all of it a loss if they would just let him walk away now. That's not how welfare programs and redistribution work. Money is to be transferred from those that could fend for themselves better than waiting for the government to help them, to those that do or can not fend for themselves for whatever reason (bad fortune, illness, sloth).

Hence I think it will drop to 70% on the dollar of what has been promised. At least until the entire house of cards collapses. I'm advised that such a drop will keep the US hobbling along.

I don't know if it all will collapse, or the US will become what one writer feared: a nanny state for the elderly with a couple of military tanks.

 

if republican block raising the cap for ss income tax, yes, will probably happen

 

The RP, aka The Stupid Party, should not discuss Social Security until it comes up with a plan to double benefits to the productive working class.
IOW, not until the 12th of Never, 'and that's a long long time'.

 

as the population grows, more money needs to be in circulation, use ss to do that

 

Well, if either establishment party blocks raising the cap. Today's top elected Republican party officials are "controlled opposition". The same people controlling the Democrats want both of them to keep doing what they're doing. What I mean is, if at some point, a Democrat says, "we have to raise the cap" a Republican will say "no!" and the Democrat, in this case, will say, "aw shucks that dang Republican minority, guess we'll have to do what they say." as the same people own them. Hence Obama gave us a more expensive Romney Care, no min wage hike in forever (wages, thanks to inflation, are around what was promised 14 years ago) lots of new wars that have nothing to do with us, etc.