Durka-Durka-Muhammed-Jihad!!
I've said this before and I guess I'll say it again: what numbers are the real thing?
Social Security Said to Go Broke in 2041So once again - which numbers or sets of numbers should you look at to get a 'decent' picture of the situation?WASHINGTON (AP) - The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041 - a year earlier than previously estimated - the trustees reported Wednesday. Trustees also said that Medicare, the giant health care program for the elderly and disabled, faces insolvency in 2020.
The new projections made in the trustees annual report were certain to be cited by both sides in the massive battle to overhaul Social Security, which President Bush has made the top domestic priority of his second term.
The go-broke date for Medicare was delayed by one year, compared to the estimate that trustees gave a year ago.
The insolvency dates represent when both trust funds will have exhausted the government bonds that have been building up to take care of the pending retirement of 78 million baby boomers.
I will admit that I'm a little troubled that I cannot get anyone to say what is a good indicator of the social security solvency problem(s); I'm even a little doubtful of the numbers that the pro-privitization folks utilize. (Ummm, even I know that some cases are slanted to favor those that utilize them).
So, anyone wanna take a crack at it? I've purposefully stayed away from chatting about this cause quite frankly no one has proposed anything concrete as far as serious changes - all it's been has been 'theories'.....
Agree with you on the IRA.
As far as the system you suggest, I might compromise with a le
Read more in The Numbers Please?
scroff said:
I suppose when put in those terms my idea is a bad idea. But SS is not a retirement account, neve
Read more in The Numbers Please?
Rob@L&R said:
At some point in time, between 2020 and 2040, the outlays from SS will be more than it takes in.<
Read more in The Numbers Please?
scroff said:
All I have to know is that after all is said and done you still won't be able to control where yo
Read more in The Numbers Please?
jaws said:
I feel the same way as you do. All these different numbers swirling around.
Speaking o
Read more in The Numbers Please?
Comments on The Numbers Please?
I feel the same way as you do. All these different numbers swirling around.
Speaking of Concrete, has the President even put forward his plan?
|| Posted by jaws, March 23, 2005 05:48 PM ||All I have to know is that after all is said and done you still won't be able to control where your money goes or how much of it you can get once you retire, so wtf's the difference? If they want to 'fix' Social Security there are plenty of ways to do it without tearing it apart. My idea is to make 'benefits' contingent on what percentage of your annual income your Social Security taxes were... anybody who makes up to 90 g will get 100% benefit, whoever makes 180g will get 50%, whoever makes 360 g will get 25% etc. I heard something today that I have to check up on... that the trustees are using the assumption that life expectency will be 150 years within the next 75 years, and that the retirement age will still be 67, when they did their calculations. If they want to let people invest however they want like in an IRA and take out the entire amount when they retire to buy a house or a boat or a nice car if they want to it might be different, but you can't get the money you supposedly invest unless you buy an annuity, which will then dole out a certain amount each month, just like Social Security. If you die before the annuity is gone, you can't pass that on, it's gone. You can only pass on what you don't put into an annuity, which you then don't get while you're alive. If you die before you retire *poof* the money's gone. It's a real clusterfuck... leave it alone, either bite the bullet and raise the 90 g cap or do something like I suggested, but this crap is nuts.
|| Posted by scroff, March 23, 2005 08:18 PM ||At some point in time, between 2020 and 2040, the outlays from SS will be more than it takes in.
Which means it will be broke. Doesn't mean that the gubmint can't pay, just that it has to pay more out of the general fund (which it does anyway) than it already does and that the deficit will grow.
There is only a "trust fund" or "locked box" on paper; in reality, the money in and out of SS is spent on everything the government spends money on, but the government leaves an IOU (T-bonds or T-bills, I forget which)
Now, Treasury securities are backed by the full faith and credit of the US Govt, which means the "locked box" is full of IOUs that the government owes itself.
It's when the IOUs come due after the system goes broke that the system is considered insolvent. You will have to cut benefits or raise taxes to keep it solvent.
Cutting benefits hurts those who are near retirement and have paid into this scheme all their lives.
Raising taxes hurts those who are still paying into the system but will never see a dime of the money they have paid in.
I don't think there's any way to salvage it. What Bush is proposing certainly won't, but I think it will help keep younger workers from having nothing at all when they retire.
As it is, the return on investment (ROI) in Social Security is a joke, you can get better returns in a simple savings account at any bank. Inflation makes both bad long-term investments.
A money-market savings account is a little better, you might be able to keep up with inflation.
The stock market, though risky, is probably the best way to keep ahead of inflation in the long-term. Historically, even with the crashes in '29 & '86 (?) and the dotcom bubble burst, the market has performed at a solid 10% PER YEAR ROI average.
This is good news for those just entering the workforce; 40 to 45 years of investment, re-investing dividends and interest, the highs and lows of the market will even out.
Not good news for those set to retire in the next 10 to 15 years; not enough time to take the risk in a portfolio full of stocks.
At any rate, Social Security is broken... Terminally. There is no way to save it.
I will probably be able to collect, retiring in about 20 years.
You're 32, Mikey? Your chances of collecting are about 50/50.
My neice, 24 years old, doesn't have any chance of seeing a dime from Social Security.
There's no way to save it.
Maybe we shouldn't.
scroff: anybody who makes up to 90 g will get 100% benefit, whoever makes 180g will get 50%, whoever makes 360 g will get 25% etc
VERY bad idea: You've worked all your life, put a whole buttload of YOUR money into SS with faith that the government will repay you at the end of your working career, but you only get 1/2? or 1/4?
Only an idiot would accept 2 bits for every dollar they invested.
That's just another socia-list income redistribution scheme. (had to hyphenate that word, because cia-lis is apparently a blacklisted word.)
|| Posted by Rob@L&R, March 24, 2005 08:02 AM ||I suppose when put in those terms my idea is a bad idea. But SS is not a retirement account, never was meant to be any kind of investment. It was people paying in to ensure that people who work their whole life don't go into poverty when they can no longer work. You aren't supposed to expect to retire on it, and anyone who thinks you should doesn't get the idea. It's a way, as a nation, to help take care of our elderly. If I've worked my whole life and don't need the full benefit, I shouldn't get the full benefit. It takes some concern for the welfare of other Americans and a bit of compassion, to be sure, but it is a worthy program. The money I put in today helps our elderly today. I can't see anything wrong with that. It's like not taking the last piece of pie at Thanksgiving so someone else can have it, writ large. It does have soc-ialist overtones and it is redistribution of wealth, so what? In my not so humble opinion, someone who has worked their whole life and needs a hand at the end to live a decent life should get a hand. If the government, who will still have control over private accounts, wants to help people invest for retirement they can loosen up the laws concerning IRAs. They can exempt people who make under a certain amount from SS taxes so they can put that money into a retirement account, while either raising the cap or using a system like I suggested to make up the difference.
I keep hearing how this is a "Christian" nation founded on "Christian" principles... Love thy neighbor, remember? Instead I hear alot of "Me Me Me Mine Mine Mine", like Daffy Duck in the treasure chest... ;-)
I think it's funny that you can't write soshulist here :)
|| Posted by scroff, March 26, 2005 03:02 AM ||Agree with you on the IRA.
As far as the system you suggest, I might compromise with a less drastic benefit % dropoff, as per your example, $90k = 100%, $180k = 85% or 90%.
But then again, what would keep people from quitting their high-paying job a year or so before they start collecting SS & getting a lower-paying one just to get a higher payback % on SS?
Again, I don't see Social Security as being worth fixing.
|| Posted by Rob@L&R, March 26, 2005 11:40 AM ||