Re: What About Social Security Was McCain Calling a "Disgrace?"

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:45:36 -0700 (PDT), allan.sanger@xxxxxxxxx
wrote:

On Jul 18, 9:04 am, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:22:03 -0700 (PDT), allan.san...@xxxxxxxxx
wrote:



On Jul 17, 4:41 am, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:22:11 -0400, Thumper <jaylsm...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:07:22 -0700 (PDT), Werner <whetz...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Jul 15, 11:30 pm, "George Z. Bush" <georgezb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
...

Doesn't it even give you pause that an overwhelming majority of the nation
disagrees with your view of our President? Do you think that everyone's out
of step but you?

George Z.

An overwhelming majority believes SS is a good thing. They are out of
step with reality.
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtml

The 2008 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the
combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached $101.7
trillion in today's dollars! That is more than seven times the size of
the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national
debt. The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits
that have been promised to retirees and what will be collected in
dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. Last year alone, the size of
the debt rose by $11.5 trillion. If no other reform is enacted, this
funding gap can only be closed in future years by substantial tax
increases, large benefit cuts or both.
http://retirementreform.org/socialsecurity/brief-analysis-616-social-...

So fund it!
Thumper

SS is funded, by the proceeds from generations of
surpluses that were invested supposedly with the
"full faith and credit" of the US government. It
won't go into the red until after 2040 even if nothing
changes, just as if I have $500,000 in i-bonds and
$20,000 in ready cash, that doesn't mean I only
have $20,000.

Not exactly.....the OASI surplus represents about 3 years of spend.

There are many years of accrued interest.

You need to look at the balance *** of OASI. There is 2 trillion or
so dollars in assets in OASI. We add 700 billion in revenues and
spend about 600 billion each year and each year the spend goes up fast
than the revenues. In 2017 or so, we will take in as much as we spend
in any single year.


Yes, but as you already noted, it won't be until 2040 that
the fund runs out, even if nothing is done.


In years thereafter we will spend more than we
take in meaning that the accrued capital will begin being depleted.
These numbers are readily available for your revue on the SSA website.

It (SS) would go into the red by 2011 in the absence of current
employees and employers contributions. This means that every dollar
that walks in the door today is spent within three years - though
there are a couple left over that go into the trust fund. In 2017 or
so, there is no longer any growth to the trust fund. By 2040
something all the trust fund money is gone and we will be literally
living hand to mouth plus red ink.

Yes, 2040 is what I said. Something should be done.
My preference is to raise the age at which one can begin
to receive benefits, just as the least undesirable solution.

It has already happened.



True, retirement age used to be 65, but now it's moving up
to 67. I'd say it needs to move higher if raising the age is
the only action taken to make it self-sustaining.



Others suggest removing the cap, but that turns SS from
being effectively "insurance" into just being a tax, though
a flat rather than a graduated tax.

If you increase contributions then you need to increase benefits,
otherwise it is income redistribution, not a retirement program or a
social insurance.


It would still be a flat tax, still much more beneficial
to the wealthiest than a graduated tax.



The government might
think it can raid what is just a tax more easily than it can
raid what is insurance paid disproportionately by the
middle class.

Currently, the folks that pay more in get proportionately less out. I
maxed out my contributions every year for most of my career. I am
eligible for a $2150 a month. And no, I don't take it - it
complicates things and I don't really need it. I still do a bit of
consulting even in my advanced age and any benefit would disappear
anyway.


I take it, though I only get $1362 a month (June bank
statement). I retired at 54, and only worked three days
a week after age 52. Before that, I took three two-year
vacations where I didn't work at all. Those vacations
didn't make much difference, since I got about 25
years in at or close to maximum, and the benefits are
calculated on the best 35 years.

I don't feel badly about getting more out of SS than
most single people do because of how I did things,
since single people get screwed under SS anyway
because they don't get "surviving spouse" benefits
out of the common pot though they paid in as much
as did people who do get that benefit (statistically).




Lichtenstein never paid a dime into SS. You?


Yep, as noted above.


It would be great if the dollar bill people paid today actually would
be the same dollar plus interest they get out 40 years from now, but
that's not how it works.

al

.

Loading