Solid figures on Social Security

[MAlibdem]

Anyone have them?

How much money does Social Security have saved up? How much will they need? When would Social Security in its present form run out (theoretically)? How would changes to the current system such as raising the retirement age to 70 or increasing the income taxable for social security to 200k affect the vaibility of this extremely popular government program?


By the way, see what I did in the last sentence...It was tricky, and it was a Republican tactic, but it works. Every time we talk about Social Security, we should mention that it is an EXTREMELY POPULAR GOVERNMENT PROGRAM. It is extremely popular, and we should not be shy about pointing that out.

SOCIAL SECURITY=EXTREMELY POPULAR GOVERNMENT PROGRAM

[stevebreeze]

1. go to social security online

the trustee report 2004, page 186. It give cost assets and taxes for the past several and next 75 years. http://www.ssa.gov/SSA_Home.html

It has about $2trillion now will have 3.8 trillion in 2018 when the GOP is now claiming that SS is in danger of "bankruptcy". You gotta love the balls of um though. SS will be 'bankrupt" when it has 3.8 trillion in the bank?

By the way SS, with no changes can pay more to Seniors beyond 2042 when it has paid out more then it has taken in, then todays seniors get in inflation adjusted dollars. This is because promised benefits increase not with inflation but with average income.

Also SS demise is based on an extremely pessimistic growth in GDP of 1.8%. This is less then half the rate of growth in the us since the civil war. It is also far slower then the 3% the Presidents Council of economic advisor's projection for the next 10 years. That study was released just the other day. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/

One of these growth projections is obviously wrong. Either we grow very slow and SS is in trouble(not to mention the whole economy) or we grow fast as required of the stock market to return 7% on private accounts. What a bunch of crooks uh?

[MAlibdem]

2. Thanks a lot.

We need to win this round, we need to stop the tide here.

[Pepperbelly]

3. Bob Somerby presents a very good perspective with the facts at ...

http://www.dailyhowler.com

Read the last half dozen or so entries.

[InvisibleBallots]

4. Social Security is VERY popular in America

Americans sure do love their Social Security. It is, in fact, an extremely popular government program - woe unto any Republicans/DLCers who try to privatize/steal it.

[stevebreeze]

5. my letter to the editor. plagiarism is the sincerest from of flattery

In his radio address on the “looming danger” to the existing SS system, President Bush stated “In the year 2018, for the first time ever, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than the government collects in payroll taxes.” This statement is not true. The Social Security’s web site (www.socialsecurity.gov) clearly states that “So far there have been 11 years in which the Social Security program did not take in enough FICA taxes to pay the current year's benefits. During these years, Trust Fund bonds in the amount of about $24 billion made up the difference.” In addition, in 2018 the “bankrupt” SS will have more then enough income from taxes and interest on the SS trust Fund to cover all expenses AND over $3.7 trillion in assets. The assets in the SS Trust fund are excess payroll taxes we have been paying for the past 20 years which Ronald Reagan and Allen Greenspan insisted we needed to do to keep SS solvent so we have basically been prepaying for our retirement.

That two trillion dollar fund (I just can’t get over the enormity of this con) is overpayment of SS payroll taxes from working Americans, not taxes on income from stocks or interest or inheritance.
The very idea that SS is bankrupt rests on the premise that for the first time in history the US will default on it’s treasury bonds. How can a tax system be in trouble when it has $3.7 trillion in assets?

The basic deal working people are being offered is, to forgive the $ 3.7 Trillion we are owed, the government will borrow $2 trillion in our name, remove the security from Social Security in the hopes that investing in Wall Street will more then overcome the difference. Do they really believe the public is that gullible?

Call you’re representative and Senator today and tell them how outraged you are and to stop this nonsense before it starts!
....................................................................
It's been is the Daily Heraldd, and should be in the Aurora Beacon news, both Chicago area papers.

[NoFederales]

6. 51% Must Be Considered Stupid

Or maybe just gullible does it for some, but nice euphemisms aside, what are the rest of us prepared to do? I encourage all to speak and write locally, frame the issue as it truly has been outlined here, and elsewhere; copy-paste the hell out of articles and sites and get the message around that a long term effort to kill Social Security and hide the massive fraud is coming to fruition. Every time one of the evil, greedy-lying SOB's puts the spin on SS--THE EXTREMELY POPULAR GOVERNMENT PROGRAM--there should ten's, hundred's, or more of us COUNTERMANDING their venomous evil.

NoFederales

(On Edit, Packers fan since 1962, stevebreeze.)

[stevebreeze]

18. I am in IL now...but headed up to Milwaukee to watch the game with family

you have to take into consideration that "SS is going broke" is all most people have ever heard. Thanks corp media!

[greenohio]

7. SSA says there is a problem.

We looke like dolts when we respond by saying there isn't. Bush's plan is going to suck. We really have no plan.

http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm

Social Security's financing problems are long term and will not affect today's retirees and near-retirees, but they are VERY LARGE and SERIOUS. People are living longer, the first baby boomers are five years from retirement, and the birth rate is low. The result is that the worker-to-beneficiary ratio has fallen from 16-to-1 in 1950 to 3.3-to-1 today. Within 40 years it will be 2-to-1. At this ratio there will not be enough workers to pay scheduled benefits at current tax rates.

[NoFederales]

8. Don't Use the Framing of the Conservative ThinkTankers

I've seen this reasoning floating around like raw sewage--it's spewed from the extremists and is disinformation at its worst. There are some problems that SS needs to address for future beneficiaries, but there is NO goddamned "CRISIS"!

Do not let the conservatives frame your thinking. Barge around all over the 'net; no one can take on faith the "truth" of the conservatives, and they mean to kill SS, a painful, lying--but kindly euphemistic--SS Death.

NoFederales

[greenohio]

9. Welcome to DU. Uhh, your gripe is with SSA. They say its large and

serious. It is printed on every statement they send out. Saying there is no problem is sticking your head in the sand.

[Pepperbelly]

11. It is printed on everything because Bush is shamelessly using the ...

organs of government to push for his plan to bankrupt the system and allow Wall Street to steal this biggest nest egg of all.

[greenohio]

12. Is Clinton part of the conspiracy too?

They did it then. That is why Clinton held a commision to "save" SS.

[Pepperbelly]

14. Clinton NEVER proposed ...

diverting SS money into private accounts.

Not once.


Not a single time.

Ever.

[greenohio]

17. Wrong. Diverting was one of the options his commission proposed.

But I never said that Bush's solution was the right one. I said that there is a problem. Clinton said it and the SSA said it. We have no plan except denying there is a problem.

[Pepperbelly]

20. here's a plan that will fix it for perpituity...

eliminate the caps on income subject to the tax and the "problem" is solved.

[greenohio]

21. Hey I never heard that would fix it for perpituity

do you have some links, I could use those?

[Pepperbelly]

23. Any way you cut it ...

the problem will be over by 2060.

[greenohio]

26. No links?

[Pepperbelly]

28. nope ...

not everything is on the internets nor is this vague piece of SSA propaganda worthy of much more time or energy. I think I deconstructed it effectively in response to your post below.

However, I would really recommend that you peruse what Bob has done the last few weeks.

http://www.dailyhowler.com

[greenohio]

34. Deep actuarial analysis from a comedian.

I can't believe SSA hasn't hired him. Its useful to have blogs tell you how to think. It appears to be the in thing here.

Funny thing is, he certainly does not say that raising the cap will keep it solvent for "perpituity". Don't you have at least one comedian blog that says what you posted?

In fact, your link says raising the cap will only postpone it until next century. Let our grandkids deal with it. Or better yet, let our great grandkids deal with it. We'll be dead. Screw em.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greenohio]

47. Saying that people believe BS is not polite.

The problem is beyond 2050.

You were not consistently courteous.

I have not poddy mouthed to make my point, as you have.

Have a happier holidays.

[Pepperbelly]

10. YOU are buying into the bullshit...

The worker ratio is irrelevant. Look at the facts. With a 3.3-to-1 ratio today, the system is operating at surplus. True, the surplus is being borrowed by the Congress but even that matter little. The funds are borrowed through T-notes, the same as all other government debt and you know what? They pay off T-notes and T-bills every day.

The relevant facts.

The SS fund will run a surplus for a good number of years. The fund will not be in any trouble whatsoever until 2052. At that point, the system is not bankrupt because even with current rates of SS tax, even with the cap, even with the same retirement age, and even with the economy growing at a conservative rate, the system could still pay 80% of the benefits it now pays. If any one of those things is tweaked (i.e. a half % increase in the tax, the cap raised incrementally, etc.), it will be able to pay off 100% of benefits.

And remember this even more importantly ... the actuarial challenge posed by the Boomers is very much a sine wave demographically, one that WILL eventually pass. We are not talking a great number of years for that to happen either.

The SS scare is BULLSHIT! They have been propagandizing the citizenry for DECADES to get to the point where the monied investment interests can get their money grubbing hands on this biggest of all nest eggs. Fuck them. We MUST fight them to the death over this.

[greenohio]

13. That is a direct quote to SSA, I included the link.

If the SSA doesn't know what is going on, the the system is in danger of mismanagement. So which is it, SSA is mismanaging, or SS has a real problem?

[Pepperbelly]

15. Read their EXACT words and you will see ...

that they are leaving wiggle room.

What I described is the EXACT consequence of doing nothing. Doing virtually ANYTHING but what Bush proposes will ensure 100% benefits from that point on.

From the SSA quotation you posted: "Within 40 years it will be 2-to-1. At this ratio there will not be enough workers to pay scheduled benefits at current tax rates."

Scheduled benefits at current tax rates.

80% of benefits with absulutely nothing done.

Any action ... an increase in the tax rate, increasing the cap incrementally, eliminating the cap altogether, or raising retirement age guarantees 100% benefit payment. A bit more vigorous growth in the economy would, btw, have the same effect as well.

[greenohio]

16. So now you agree with the post.

Make up your mind. Why did you blast the post if you now agree with it?

[Pepperbelly]

19. Read what I wrote in both posts and what you will find is that ...

the SSA says what I say and it is not a system in crisis. They are shouting crisis but even their OWN "supporting" details put the lie to their conclusion.

[greenohio]

22. If you read what I posted, you'll see I never used the word crisis.

You used that word. I said we have a problem...and we do.

[Pepperbelly]

24. What problem?

Define it please. What exactly IS the problem?

[greenohio]

25. At the sake of being REDUNDANT

http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm

"Social Security's financing PROBLEMS are long term and will not affect today's retirees and near-retirees, but they are VERY LARGE and SERIOUS. People are living longer, the first baby boomers are five years from retirement, and the birth rate is low. The result is that the worker-to-beneficiary ratio has fallen from 16-to-1 in 1950 to 3.3-to-1 today. Within 40 years it will be 2-to-1. At this ratio there will not be enough workers to pay scheduled benefits at current tax rates."

If you have a problem with that then you have a problem with SSA. Email em and tell there there are no PROBLEMS and thus cannot be LARGE or SERIOUS.

[Pepperbelly]

27. this is really quite simple ...

My position is that it is propaganda. Let's break down bit by bit.

"Social Security's financing PROBLEMS are long term and will not affect today's retirees and near-retirees, but they are VERY LARGE and SERIOUS."

VERY LARGE AND SERIOUS. That is alarming. This is going to be bad. Real basd. I can feel it in my bones.

"People are living longer ..."

So this must present some huge actuarial problem. Is that what they are saying? Otherwise, it seems kinda like a positive to me.

" ... the first baby boomers are five years from retirement..."

Okay. And? Besides being untrue, that is. They are actually, to quibble a bit with the SSA, 3 years away (i.e. the war ended in August 1945 which would put the first Boomers being born in 1946.)

" ... and the birth rate is low."

I thought that Zero population growth was actually a good thing but hey, I guess this means that the actuarial bugaboo is once again raising its head.

So next it will tell us what the effect of all this will be.

"The result is that the worker-to-beneficiary ratio has fallen from 16-to-1 in 1950 to 3.3-to-1 today."

Okay. I presume that this is the actuarial problem. Is it in fact a problem? They do not actually tell us what this problem is. They leave us to assume some implication.

So the worker to beneficiary rate has fallen dramatically. That would have to mean that right now, we are seeing these problems. Are we?

Is is an actuarial problem when the structure and the system are running at a surplus? And has been running at a surplus since the mid-1980s?

"Within 40 years it will be 2-to-1."

Okay. So here is the killer, right?

"At this ratio there will not be enough workers to pay scheduled benefits at current tax rates."

Now what exactly does this mean? Does it mean that in 2045, with 2 workers to each beneficiary, the money coming into the system will not be sufficient to pay all of the benefits at current tax rates? I presume that is what it means. It does not, however, note that the surplus in the fund is still held in treasury notes and bonds? And that can be used to pay benefits.

Actually, they will use the t-notes and t-bonds much more quickly than in 2045 so what they actually did was very poorly construct their propaganda.

Sorry. This stuff really doesn't say much at all except for a blurby assertion of problems without the comman courtesy of a fucking reach around. The writer actually seems to hold the citizens in contempt.

[greenohio]

32. I'll believe SSA over Pepperbelly any day of the week.

and twice on Sundays.

You go on living in your little world where SSA is fine. Meanwhile the rest of the country believes there IS a problem.

[sonicx]

33. it's fine for awhile. i don't think it should be called a 'crisis'

[greenohio]

35. I never called it a crisis. SSA called it a problem. Pepperbelly

has trouble seeing that there is a problem.

[Pepperbelly]

40. you're pretty fucking rude to someone who has stayed civil through

all you your idiocy, bub.

I believe that YOU are pretty much fucked if you believe Bush propaganda. But what they hell ... I never saw you here before and clearly you have a difficult time with many subjects so I won't sneak up on you with any more of that logic and shit.

Ta-ta.

[greenohio]

48. Thats rich, coming from a poddy mouth who swears every other sentence

I never said that you bought into the BS, as you said to me.

I made my points, supported them with links, and apparently,

made you mad. Making you mad, was just a bonus.

Have a happy holidays.

[NoFederales]

45. Having A Hissy, Are We?

Greenohio, my original statement that the SS problem(s) is not the progagandized "crisis" it is being made out to be by the eschelon Bushists (and many other talking heads) stands. I never said there were no problems--read carefully before jumping to conclusions--and don't ever put words into my mouth. As far as I can tell we aren't even arguing with each other over differences, so I do not understand the animosity that has been generated. If one man's truth is propaganda to you, then let it go after duly giving a heartfelt notice; continued delving into the sources usually outs the real deal.

Peace. And have a good Holiday, bud. :toast:

NoFederales

[greenohio]

46. No. I never said that you said there were no problems.

That was PepperBelly who is asking where the problems were. I posted on this thread that SSA says there is a problem. Some people have trouble with that.

I don't.

Happy holidays to you as well.

[xerenthar]

29. Tyranny of the majority is abhorrent.

I don't care if it's popular. SS will NOT be around for my generation ( I am 17. ) We must keep our promises to the people who have paid into this their entire lives, but we should abolish or at the very least privatize it for everyone else. SS is a government sinkhole that is taking my money that will not be around to do what it said it would do when I am 70. It's stealing, plain and simple.

[Skittles]

30. you are SO MISINFORMED

it is PITIFUL.

[xerenthar]

31. Since you're following me around....

Debate me on AIM or IRC.

[MAlibdem]

36. WHAT?!?!

SS is not only popular, it's SUCCESSFUL. It should continue as part of the social safety net. It's an important insurance plan for Americans to be able to retire on.

[xerenthar]

37. Tyranny of the majority.

It's stealing. I gave no consent.

Furthermore, it won't be around when I'm 70.

[sonicx]

38. so...you don't pay taxes, huh?

[MAlibdem]

39. Taxation is not stealing...

It WILL be around when you're 70, that is, if our generation chooses to keep it. Right-wing LIES about a Social Security crisis are blinding. When you're 70, ill be 71, so don't give me crap about me wanting to take your money, either.

[Debs]

43. The way to look at it is

We are all in this together. I paid for those who retired before me. When I retire you will pay for me and when its your turn those who come after you will pay for you. SS is socially gauranteed. It WILL be around for you. Dont let the right wing liars panic you. It is NOT a sinkhole. SS pays out more than 99% of its income in benifits. Chile and Britian which HAVE privitized pay out more than 20 time as much, if you allow the Bushy liars to panic you into giving up guaranteed benifits for a gamble on the privatization roulette wheel, the only guaranteed winners will be Wall Street, because when they buy or sell when the market goes up or down, they get their cut and they want their cut of SS. IF you go for privitization and everything goes well you make out, if they invest in Enron you eat dogfood. Dont let the liars stampede you into a bad decision

[Yupster]

54. I have no doubt that privatization

is a bad idea.

In fact in my opinion the only way it would pass is if the Democratic Party buries its head in the sand and refuses to put forth an alternative.

Obviously if a program sends checks to old people and old people live longer, there's going to be a problem eventually. That's just common sense. In this case it's been made worse by the congress looting the trust fund that was supposed to be saving hundreds ofbillions of dollars for rainy days that we all know are coming.

Argue against privatization - yes, but if you argue that there's no problem, you'll lose.

[Pepperbelly]

44. you are waaaaaaay wrong about that.

It just isn't true.

[greenohio]

49. Even with the problem, SS will be around for your retirement.

Right now its your children and grandchildren who are set to get screwed.

[xerenthar]

50. Also unacceptable. Scrap it.

[TahitiNut]

51. Glad to hear you're ready and able to take care of your parents and ...

... grandparents to whatever degree they need it, all by yourself. Good luck. :eyes:

[xerenthar]

52. Keep our promises to our seniors. I said that already.

[zann725]

53. And our Disabled. Let's not forget SSDI pays Disability benefits to those

on long-term disability.

[DemBones DemBones]

55. Let's not forget our Disabled, period. The left does NOT

pay enough attention to those who are Disabled, just start a thread here on a Disability issue and watch it die.

Not to hijack this thread, just to point this out to everyone. Thanks.

[DemBones DemBones]

56. People have been saying this ever since Social Security began and

it's never been true. It will be there for you 17 year-olds unless we stupidly allow the GOP to "reform" it out of existence. Don't buy into their propaganda.

[Yupster]

57. People have been saying this

since the program started and it's always been true.

If a program is based on lifespans and actuarial tables, it will constantly have to be adjusted as people live longer.

That's why social security has had many "adjustments" over the years.

It started out as a maximum 1 % tax on just a little bit of income. Over time congress has had to raise the payroll tax and expand the amount of income covered by it over and over again. They also raised the retirement age.

Now between social security and medicare the tax is 15.8 % and it's on over $ 80,000 of your income, and full retirement comes at 67, not 65.

If you don't think they'll have to be more adjustments made as people live longer, I'd like to know how anyone could think that?

After 70 years all of the sudden the laws of arithmetic are supposed to stop because Bush sucks?

Obviously we will have to again raise the cap and raise the payroll tax or cut the benefit or raise the retirement age, or probably three of the four things to keep the program actuarily sound for another generation. The question then becomes how many times can you raise taxes? It's already 15.8 % in addition to the income tax.

How much higher will young people accept before they decide the program is a rip-off to them?

[sonicx]

59. So are you saying that after we run out of "adjustments"...

we need to get rid of it?

[greenohio]

60. Your right....

we should double the SS tax again as Reagan did in the 80s. Then SS will be a huge win for Dems.

[Yupster]

61. We'll never run out of adjustments

Some day hopefully, people will live to an average age of 125 and the social security age will be 80, and that will be considered reasonable because people will keep their health a lot longer than today.

What's not reasonable is to have people live to an average age of 125 and have them retiring at age 65. No retirement formula could support that.

No, part of the beauty of the program is its flexibility. As the actuary tables change, the program can change with them.

[sonicx]

62. ok, so...

why is SS being discussed so much if there are solutions already availiable? Let's apply the solutions already (or at least propose them...)

[Yupster]

63. That's my point exactly

To beat Bush's bad idea, let's just propose our own solutions.

I'm just arguing against the ones who stick their heads in the sand and say nothing needs to be done.

It's like people think arithmetic no longer applies because Bush sucks.

Bush sucks, therefore social security needs no more adjustments.

[sonicx]

64. How many people are saying do nothing?

I've seen plenty of people say we need adjustments and I'll bet most people would say we need adjustments if we started a poll. The person you were replying to (DemBones DemBones) wasn't even commenting on that anyway. They were just countering the silly notion that SS wouldn't survive or should be abolished unless we do privitization (read xerenthar's post. he was tombstoned, btw).

[IStriker]

58. There's a good reason people have been saying it since...

it began. IT'S A PONZI SCHEME. They can keep adjusting it by raising the age of retirement and the taxes paid in and lowering the benefits, etc. but at some point, (long before 87% or whatever amount it is that people born this year will be paying in when they start to work) the young workers on the bottom are going to say "NO WAY!"

[GetTheRightVote]

42. They have declared war on SSN, FDR + Democrat gift to USA

The Repubs hate this program because of how popular it is with the Citizens of this country. They hate because it is a social program and they do like them. It is the last line of defense for the elderly against proverty but yet they wish to destroy it because it is a Democratically developed program.

It is our working cash put aside for us when we retire yet they what to treat like it is theirs to play with on the market so that they may lose it for us. We will not have control of how it used or spent. That is like letting someone control your checking account even though it is your money you earned in it. Just think about it.