E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe fiscal cliff negotiations are reviving the debate about that other financial elephant in the room: Social Security.
Under current government estimates, Social Security could face funding shortfalls in about two decades if nothing changes. That’s because the U.S. population is aging -- and generally living longer.
That sounds like a disheartening scenario for workers who are currently paying into Social Security and worry that they won’t get as much out of it once they retire. About half of the Americans polled by Pew Research Center earlier this year believe it’s not likely there will be enough money in Social Security and Medicare to maintain current benefit levels into the future.
But experts say there are ways to fix Social Security. Politicians just may not like trying to sell those changes to the American people.
It has happened before, though. In the mid-1980s, none other than President Ronald Reagan, working with Democrats in Congress, oversaw a major overhaul of the nation’s retirement safety net.
That’s something many say seems less likely these days.
“There are politicians – and especially in the Senate but also in the House as well – who could work together and come to an agreement,” said Alan Auerbach, a professor of law and economics at the University of California, Berkeley. “But they’re not the majority of Congress.”
Experts say there are two ways to fix Social Security, and neither of them are pretty: reduce benefits or increase revenue.
Reduce benefits
One of the few parts of the fiscal cliff negotiations that President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner seem willing to compromise on involves a change in the way Social Security increases are calculated going forward.
The proposed switch to calculating cost of living increases using the chained Consumer Price Index instead of the current method would result in smaller annual Social Security raises. That’s because that method assumes that people change their spending habits when prices go up.
Proponents say the switch could save billions and is a more realistic method of how Americans really adjust to rising prices.
But opponents say the chained Consumer Price Index isn’t a good way to measure the needs of older and disabled Americans, because their expenditures are disproportionately focused on things like health care. A family of four may choose to eat more chicken if beef prices go up, but an elderly person can’t easily choose to spend less on heart medicine, they argue.
“It’s the biggest hit on the people that couldn’t take it,” said Dean Baker, an economist with the liberal-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research who is opposed to the measure.
One of the longer-term options for reducing benefits is to simply tell people they have to wait longer to get their full benefits. By extending the age at which you can get full benefits, proponents argue that Social Security would be keeping up with trends toward longer life expectancies.
But opponents, including CEPR’s Dean Baker, say that a closer look at the data shows that the bulk of improvements in life expectancies have come from wealthier Americans. They say a broad-based increase in the age at which people can get benefits would punish less wealthy Americans, who haven’t seen such big life expectancy gains.
Andrew Biggs, resident scholar with the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, argues that another option would be to dial down benefits for middle- and high-income people while maintaining the current system for the poorest Americans.
Biggs argues that if wealthy people are told to expect less Social Security, they have more leeway to prepare for it than poor people.
“If you cut my Social Security benefits I’m going to react by saving money and working longer,” he said. “That’s good for the economy.”
Another option would be to reduce the Social Security benefits available to spouses. Some critics argue that’s growing outdated now that more women work and earn their own Social Security payments.
“It’s kind of a relic from a different era,” Baker said.
Increase revenue
Under the current rules, the maximum taxable earnings for Social Security in 2012 is about $110,000. Some argue that an easy fix would be to simply raise the cap on Social Security taxes to include higher wages.
Baker, of CEPR, proposes raising the cap to around $190,000, reflecting the growing wealth at the top of the income scale. Raise it higher than that, he said, and wealthy earners will just start finding ways to dodge it.
But others say that it’s unlikely politicians will propose raising taxes on high earners now, when many expect those taxpayers to already see increases as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations.
“The timing of it just seems kind of awkward,” Auerbach said.
Another option would be to add an across-the-board increase in payroll taxes that go toward Social Security. Although that would help solve the system’s future funding woes, experts say it’s also likely to be a hard sell in these tough times.
For one thing, Americans may already be facing higher payroll taxes in 2012. For the past two years, Americans have enjoyed a payroll tax holiday that reduced the amount of money they paid toward Social Security, but that could end in the coming year.
“I suspect that’s going to be a not very attractive option right now,” Auerbach said.
Politicians may be nervous about proposing any reform to Social Security that costs more or results in fewer benefits, but Americans seem to accept that some changes are needed.
About 66 percent of those polled by Pew Research Center said they would support raising payroll taxes on high-income earners, while 55 percent said they would support reducing benefits for high-income seniors.
Just 38 percent said they’d support raising the eligibility age.
Leave a Comment:
It's not a retirement safety net. It's retirement. We paid into it, we should get out of it what was paid in, and then some. I will have paid for a half a century before I can draw on it. Where's my money? My dad, grandfather, his father--all paid into it, and they drew out very little because they died before hitting 70. The women live little longer, so they get their share, and they paid in, too.
If congress will keep their fingers out of our money, it would be a GOOD thing. They should quit playing this game of "no more funds." It's a lie, there haven't been any funds since it was raided years ago. The "funds" are on two pieces of paper (IOUs) stored at the National Debt building in Parkersburg, WV.
Now that it's time to pay the piper, all we hear is the "Boo Hoo," so sorry, tough crap. Too bad I'm not buying it. Cough it up. If you can't, it's embezzlement, and that's a crime.
(BTW, I saw this coming a long time ago. I made my own safety net. It's shameful the way politicians are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of so many.)
RussH, A lot of people won't live to be 70. The men in my family generally don't. I suppose letting us die off, instead of being paid our due, is the "fix" that politicians like. I'm certainly glad you don't get to pick what health care I get, either. What's it going to be next? Let's just not pay for cancer? After all, most cancer is caused by exposure to some substance that "ignites" it. That's part of a lifestyle which includes "exposure." What about second-hand smoke? That, too? Kids don't get much of a choice on that one. My brother has never smoked, but our parents did. He's suffering terribly now for it. He probably won't live to be 65 (let alone 70), and it's because of smoking. Talk about "Death Panels!" You should sign up now.
And yes, it was a retirement program, not a safety net.
Fortunately, I saw this financial mess coming decades ago, and I'll be okay. A lot of others, not so much.
Allison Linn is a liar and is probably paid by the Fix the Debt group who want to end SS. The raising the earnings cap option is far and away the best way to "fix" the exaggerated "crisis" that the sadistic, self centered monsters in Fix the Debt are using in order to impose pain and hardship on working class seniors.
You need to stop complaining you made your own safety net so you don't need the money.
I spent every cent I made and still have a huge mortgage to pay that will eat almost my complete social security check. You need to get out of the way so they can increase my benefits so I can live as good as you do in retirement.
Its not fair that those who saved their money can get social security and live better than me.
.........Oh I forgot that would be my brother I too have my own safety net.
You all are ignoring the fact that we are required, by law, to pay into this fund. You make it sound like personal failing that the government appropriated our money, raided the SS trust fund to treat that money like general tax revenue and now tells us we can't have it back!
Congreess rapes the Social Security funds to "balance" the budget years ago - twice in fact. And then O'bummer passes a law to allow people to pay less into the program so they will have a larger take home check and wants to extend that "stimulus" and people wonder why there is less and less in the entitlement package.
People need to fend for themselves. Politicians have long since abandoned the concept of looking out for their constituents and been solely looking out for themselves. SS was devised to "help" people through some tough times but never meant to be a sole means of support. But people have relied on the government to provide for them because they are unwilling to "save" for themselves.
Keep electing those same wothless politicians and keep crying the blues when they continue to "F" you. BOHICA - Bend Over Here It Comes Again.
For all those who say tax the other guy, cut the other person's benefits, etc., what are YOU willing to do that affects or will affect your own SS check? Just askin'; easy enough to sacrifice with tainted money- you know, money that taint yours, but what are you willing to do to "save" the system that affects or would affect your payout?
Looking for zero responses but had to ask.
If our govt wasn't providing so many benefits to illegal immigrants, maybe they could help their own citizens.
Who will take care of the 15+ million illegal immigrants when they get old? ....they aren't going to pay into Obamacare and the hospitals won't refuse them.
Right now illegal immigrant children receive free meals at school that average $2.84 each, while a single American taxpayer receives $1.42 per meal in food stamps.
(google it and look up Mayor Booker challange)
social security fund has been Congress piggy bank since 1965, they have raided it for every program they can think about,the interest owed by the Treasury has not been paid for over 40 years, (only a IOU); it is the largest single revenue source for the Government(38% odf all revenue). they have saddled it with SSI, food stamps, atdc,housing allowance, cell phones, even paid for 3 wars with the money borrowed(stolen); now they must convince America that it is opnly a gift from your benevolent uncle sugar; you even pay the tax on the social security taken out of your paycheck while working since it is set up as a savings account.
norm- gradually raise the starting age (a month or two a year increase wouldn't cause much of a fuss but would save quite a bit), as I have a few decades before I'm eligible, it would have a few years affect on me.
let the ss tax holiday expire, maybe in a couple years, increase it a small amount (1/2 percent?)
Thanks inmissouri for your input. It gets tiresome reading about how the politicians screwed it up (they did), and why this or that isn't fair, or why someone else should pay the bill (but not me!).
Fact is the system is bust. Doing something painful now seems better than having to do something incredibly painful later.
zapper,thank you for those comments.all of the younger ones are convinced that 401k's are the way to go even though as a baby boomer I know that every penny invested into those funds can be lost.Our government needs to get off of their wealthy high horses and raise the cap and also pay back what was borrowed under two presidents.
Yep....All you liberals need to thank Obama for that payroll tax holiday...HA HA HA...You didn't even realize you were spending your Social Security did you? Obama fooled you into think he was actually GIVING you something.
Shows how smart Obama is.
Watch for the "kick the can down the road"....because congress is scared to death to do what's right because people will figure out how amazingly messed up the country is. Half of us already know it's a spending problem.
Just a cleaning lady: Please read my post #1.8. Additionally, when you suggest "our government", and I presume it is your government, too, and say the gov't should pay back what was borrowed, who do you think pays it back?
My presumption is that as a cleaning lady you pay neither income tax nor social security (most cleaning ladys work under the table). Is that true? If so, what right do you have to say anything? Just askin'... and if the latter two assertions are unfounded, my apologies.
We found a bunch of the original documents introducing Social Security in my Uncle's house after he passed. It all reads like a ponzi-scheme..... if you are close to retirement, it doesn't matter.... you still get paid...... the whole thing is nothing more than "free money".....
The article had a number of good ideas. The answer is: DO ALL OF THEM. Raise the retirement age gradually, change the inflation factor, raise the taxable salary base, more means testing for payouts. There is something here for everyone to hate. Everyone will suffer and adjust a little bit, but the system will survive.
It will never pass because the idea of everyone giving a little bit to save a program is just so 1980s. I am a Reagan Republican, and am proud that he improved Social Security stability despite screaming on the right and the left. He(and democrasts) also reformed the tax code despite screaming from the right and the left. We need LEADERS!
This article would leave you to believe that there is a problem with social security and there are only 2 ways to fix it.
There is no problem with SS that employment at decent wages wouldn't fix. To fix SS in the midst of a still potent recession when so many aren't working or are either underemployed takes advantage of a temporary problem with a permanent solution.
Again, this is penalizing workers to preserve the exemptions of the wealthy and the Defense Department and Big Oil.
Not buying it. And stop publishing propaganda.
"My presumption is that as a cleaning lady you pay neither income tax nor social security (most cleaning ladys work under the table). Is that true?"
How ugly. She's an American isn't she? She has a vote doesn't she? Or do we take away the right to debate and cast a vote in this country based on lack of wealth or occupation?
Even if she was being paid cash (which would be illegal both for her and her employer) and not being paid benefits (a situation which most employers of personal help delight in) does not mean she is any less American and meaningful than you.
Simple fix: no cap and make all types of income (including "capital gains") subject to the tax.
Better yet, just make all revenue subject to the tax (including "gifts." and "inheritance") any transfer of any type gets taxed.
KeenInsight: The point of the question was not denying her right to vote or any other right, I'm simply asking what is her stake in the solution? If she or others don't pay in and only take out it is important to know. Easy enough to promote solutions that don't affect you but cost others. Right Dirp?
Full disclosure: I pay the max.
The social security system is indeed broken and broke. The 2.6 trillion surplus exists only as IOU's from the government. If social security still maintained its "lockbox" system meaning its funds were completely separate from the general fund, we would be fine. Typically however, government's loath seeing large amounts of money sequestered for a specific purpose and lust after it. This is what happened in the mid 60's when LBJ eliminated the social security lockbox and merged the monies into the general fund. Doing this insured a disaster down the road, and we're now there.
These are the kinds of honest discussions that need to take place BEFORE elections, instead of allowing politicians to just LIE and tell people untruths about the future of social security...
All this stuff about fixing all our problems by just "having the rich pay a little bit more" should be called out for what it is. BULL. We can't fix our problems through revenue alone...
They're just trying to figure out a way to renege on the 2.6 trillion owed to the ss trust fund. That 2.6 trillion basically was borrowed to fund tax cuts to the rich from Regan and to funnel more money to the war machine and it's contractors.
The money is spent, the rich have it , the IOU is worthless unless the politicians can figure out a way to make future generations pay it back. All thanks to the GOP's destruction of our revenue system for the personal gain of a few.
Here is a short recap from a author of a book about it.
Norm:
Do you think our elected officials in Congress have a personal stake in the situation? Do you think they will be dependent on social security benefits when they retire? Will William Buffett? Tom Cruise? Mitt Romney?
I'm willing to concede that someone who doesn't have a stake in this situation could offer a meaningful contribution. But we can't tell people to shut up about it if they don't. If that were the case, then Congress should shut up about it because most of them are millionaires who won't have to depend on either Social Security of Medicare when they reach retirement age.
Remember the story about a year ago...that there was a guy who was dying....and his wife wanted to adopt a child....they pushed the adoption along at record breaking speed....even allowing mistakes on the adoption papers to be corrected AFTER the adoption was finalized....The woman was at the courthouse...the man was at home on his deathbed....The Adoption was final at NOON.....The home healthcare worker got a phonecall it was complete....she listed his Time of Death at 12:06 PM....Now his newly adopted child gets $1800 a month Child Survivor Benefits and the "WIDOW" gets $1800 a month to raise "his" child...for 18 years...which, by the way is when the young widow will Qualify for Spouse Retirement Benefits....
$3,600 month X 18 years = $777,600....Plus CPI-W or Chained CPI yearly increases........then after that she gets Spousal Retirement Checks for who knows.....another 20 years.....Nice Scam if you can pull it off....
She's a very attractive 48 yr.old....gonna make some catch for the guy waiting in the wings....She makes $43,200 a year to stay home and raise that child....and cook dinner for her new boy toy....
There is no serious problems with Social Security.The most serious problem is with having in Government people that have always hated Social Security and are/have spread fear around that the system will fail,to further their own interests.
Ever since the Reagan years our Governments have raided Social Security funds to help fund the Government,and left IOU's in there place.When its time to pay the money back,they start whining about Social Security being in trouble.
There are three simple resolutions to all Social Security issues,that will prevent any worries about Social Security's solvency. First,the Government needs to be prevented from taking money out of the system. It needs to be returned to the way it was meant to be,separated from Government finances. Second,the Social Security tax needs to be restored to the full amount. Cutting it,and then complaining it doesn't have enough money coming in to the system is ridiculous.And third,and most importantly,there should never be a cap on Social Security taxes,or the sources of income taxed for Social Security.Social Security should never be denied to our citizens,rich or poor. We pay into it,and its a program available to all our citizens regardless of class.
All this complaining about Social Security is just spreading distrust in a program that is not in danger of failing.But instead of doing the right thing,once again,Congress would rather try and strip the poor and middle-class of programs that serve them.
KeenInsight: Everyone has the right to speak on the subject; after all, we are all Americans, but disclosure about whether they pay into the system or not, whether they are retired or not, etc. is helpful and adds or detracts credibility to their position.
Way too many people here are all for the other guy paying as long as they aren't affected. I'm curious to know what sacrifices they are willing to make, along with the ones they would impose on others. But we know the answer to that: none.
That's the same crap we hear all of the time for Christ's sake. Sure the population is aging. We're the ones who payed our 'dues' for 30 or 40 decades. Our illustrious truth bending politicians tell everyone S.S. and Medicare are programs the Federal Government gives us out of the kindness of their hearts (mostly Republicans.) They say these programs are "Entitlements." And they are absolutely right. I AM entitled to at least, what I put into it as far as I'm concerned and my employer's share. Maybe if our 'business friendly' Congresses and past Presidents REPRESENTED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE instead of Corporate interests and the interests of the COMMUNIST CHINESE we just might have had enough people paying into the programs. Certainly the F'n Chinese don't. It's YOUR government and big money interests who have engineered this debacle and then telling us it's just because of an aging population......SWALLOW THAT ONE and I'll sell you a bridge in New York too..........
With over 300 million people in this country and with many of them working at low wage jobs, it's little wonder that S.S. is nose level with drowning. Billie Gates runs to Congress every time he wants more foreign workers to come into this country to work also. Just take an evening and go through our VISA programs in this country and how they're set up. It'll make you puke. We don't take care of our own because corporate America wants CHEAP ASS LABOR. Our kids go to the exact same Universities these 'Imports' go to but try get an American kid a job. The foreign labor undercuts our kids by three fold quite often.....THAT.....ought to be a crime.
Social Security should not have been broken in the first place. The Dems raided the trust fund and and gave it worthless IOU's. That was wrong.
"It has happened before, though. In the mid-1980s, none other than President Ronald Reagan, working with Democrats in Congress, oversaw a major overhaul of the nation’s retirement safety net."
Then he and Greenspan immediately proceeded to raid it to make the deficit from the tax breaks for the rich smaller. It was a con game "fixing" it then and we'll all get screwed when they "fix" it again.
Waldo:
I agree. We need Bernie Sanders and Tom Harkin to protect our backs from Obama's plan to use a deficit cliff deal to gut Social Security in 2013. That's his diabolical evil plan. Can enough votes be put together to block him? This article is trying to stampede the gutting of Social Security by democrats for Obama's criminal Wall Street friends. I want them to fail!
I have zero answers about how they should fix it because it doesn't really matter. It just pisses me off that I keep having to pay into it (I am a young person) and will never get anything back out of it. It's not an entitlement, its a robbery. It is very frustrating taking care of everyone else to retire at 65 only to be told that yours wont happen until your 70 if ever.
SS can be "fixed" very easily. It's a two step process. First, Congress puts back ALL the money it's "borrowed" over the years. Second, Congress keeps it's hands off ALL money in SS in the future. Additionally, if needed, mean test future retirees and raise the amount taxed to the first $200,00/$250,000. The problem is fixed.
-----------------------------------------
Super Bee
We need Bernie Sanders and Tom Harkin to protect our backs from Obama's plan to use a deficit cliff deal to gut Social Security in 2013. That's his diabolical evil plan.
superbee,
Do you cons sleep at night or just lie awake thinking (I'm using that word loosely) about rediculous things to come up with? Let's see, President Obama is going to take away your guns. President Obama wasn't born in the U.S. President Obama is going to do this, no, wait he's going to do that. How's all your fantasies working out for you. They haven't come to fruitation have they? That's alright, just continue to listen to your right wing buddies who are just as extreme as you are.
-----------------------------
GTR5
Social Security should not have been broken in the first place. The Dems raided the trust fund and and gave it worthless IOU's. That was wrong.
gtr, sadly this country will not get fixed until people like you, on both sides of the political spectrum, come to one, simple realization: It's not just one party or the other that has caused our problems. BOTH parties, and the American people, are responsible for where we are today. Nor are our problems something that has just sprung out of no where. Our financial problems started with the end of WW2.
You blame the Dems. I also throw in the rethugli-cons. Nixon resigning in disgrace, Ronnie Ray-Guns signing both the biggest tax increase and an illegal alien amnesty bill, george jr spending like a drunken sailor and that is w/o putting the costs of two wars on the books. And, yes, the Dems are also responsible. Yet who has the most responsibility? The American people. We continue to listen to the same lies, reelect the same folks, and we too have spent like there is no tomorrow. Look in the mirror and decide whether you want to continue being part of the problem or do you honesty want to help fix it.
@ ...whitewolf:
The White House decision to propose cuts in future Social Security benefits is of enormous political significance. Social Security has long been characterized as the “third rail” of American politics—touch it and you die. Obama and Boehner are seeking to break this taboo and create a new political framework for imposing brutal austerity measures on working people.
Whatever the immediate outcome of the talks in Washington, whether or not a deal is reached before December 31, the overall direction is clear: entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are to be gutted. The only significant area of federal spending will be the military-police agencies required to defend the interests of the financial aristocracy—overseas against foreign rivals and revolutions, at home against the American working class.
No @!$%#! I am one of those people and some months I cannot get all my meds on time and suffer with the results. No American that worked 45 years as I did should have to live like this.
The Government @!$%#ed with my money by borrowing and not repaying it all. I want what is mine! I am ENTITLED TO IT!
Super Bee, I am a Dem, voted for Obama, and I have to agree with you. there is NO REASON to cut SS, since it 1. doesn't contribute to the deficit, and 2. seniors have PAID FOR their benefits. But clearly Obama just doesn't like seniors, or he bought into the Fix the Debt propaganda and I think this has been his goal for some time. Agree that Sanders and Harkin are the two best senators serving the country.
Well!
An economy of workers who make $10 an hour with no benefits won't make much of a tax base to fund your retirement!
How arrogant can you be?
jw101
If our govt wasn't providing so many benefits to illegal immigrants, maybe they could help their own citizens."
It is not just illegals in this country that cost us...our tax money is sent everywhere..spent everywhere yet all the complaints by all of congress is on the small amount SS drawers get. Congress never considers the funds sent to other country's....nor do they consider the pay raises they give to themselves without asking the tax payers whop elected them to begin with. Nor...did congress ask anyone about the retirement benefits they gave to themselves..which I find interesting since they are in elected positions and can be voted out..why should they be allowed to retire from politics and have the tax payers pay them much more than anyone drawing SS would ever be considered to get. Health insurance also...they have access to over 80K a year in health ins..and compain about what medicare cost are. Why is there a cap of anyt kind on money taxed for SS to begin with ? Who benefits from that cap other than the wealthy who get to keep tons more of their earnings than any of the middle class.
It seems however all of our politicans look for the easy fix..and that is to stick it to all of those who can not afford it. And give bigger breaks to their wealthy firends
Super Bee
Obama and Boehner are seeking to break this taboo and create a new political framework for imposing brutal austerity measures on working people.
@super bee,
You read/heard this where? Take off your tin foil hat. You represent the part of the internet I love. Unfounded rumors, talk shows/news programs that spew outragous garbage that people actually believe. These are the same people who believe every story they read in the National Enquirer. Let's see. About 8 to 10 years ago it was bush resigning as U.S. President to become the President of the combined country encomposing (sp) America, Canada, and Mexico. That worked out real well didn't it? If you scream something load enough and long enough people start to believe it. Doesn't matter than it came from an unindentified person on the internet. What a cynical country we've become. Unfortunately it seems fewer and fewer people actually think for themselves.
There are going to be changes made in how we spend our money. Social programs will be just part of it. So will defense/home land security. This farce we call the fiscal cliff does nothing to address our national debt. All it does is slightly slow down the rate of yearly deficit spending. Even if it's not addressed by early next year the mandated cuts will not stop an additional $10 trillion in new debt over the next 10 years.
If they want to change somethings with SS is fine with me..but wait 5 or 7 years more..I get full SS benefits in two more years (age 66). Will retire then..job opening then in two more years.
@ ...whitewolf:
Look at Bowles-Simpson recommendations for a starter. Obama has been bought by Wall Street. Look at his interview on Bloomberg TV with Julianna Goldman. He keeps putting Earned Benefit Insurance programs on the negotiating table, time after time after time...he still has you hood-winked ugh! His small bargain will contain entitlement reform with Bowles-Simpson formula on seroids. All those CEOs are not slipping into the White House for nothing. Fooled by Obama again Whitewolf?
The thinker-318752 #1.7,
Without a major reduction of population on our poor planet, there is NO way out of this problem.
Bring up the debt clock. look at US unfunded liabilities __— $122 trillion .
Now look at US National assets _____________________— $92 trillion .
Now how & where are we going to come up with $30 trillion ?
And this is just the US, what about the rest of this world !
Social Security was designed with only one income per couple, but many couples both work. That means that there should be a huge excess in the fund, but it has been raided for wars (Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan). What is left now? Nothing.
Could it still work even so? The answer is yes, even after those raids, it could work, that is, if hedge funds like Romney's weren't sending all the better-paid high tech jobs overseas. Social Security only works if there is a next generation paying into it.
As more and more jobs are replaced by robots, it seems as though we will have to tax the robots and tariff the slave labor from overseas. That isn't just true for Social Security and the "safety net," but for every living person, including young adults. If this isn't done, then the computers, whether they have achieved "artificial intelligence" or not, will have reached a "singularity" that makes the human race unnecessary to mine or farm, manufacture, ship, and even consume goods.
We put savings into 401Ks, and watched those be drained in the 1987 crash and the 2008 crash. Privatization is the worst option possible. Because of that privatization, we do not have enough to retire on. It won't matter much for my husband, who has cancer and will be lucky to live to 65, but it might matter to me. Yes, I'm selfish, I don't want to sit on street corners like all the homeless I pass every day.
@ Gordan90N:
Social Security is not the driver of our debt. Its big bankers - The Federal Reserve System (Private) that controls our (Public) Treasury. The Bush Tax cuts and two wars with The Federal Reserve are the drivers of our debt.
Super Bee #1.45,
Actually, if you want to blame entities, I'd have to say that we should be blaming our Congress and Presidents for their failure to properly handle their fiduciaries responsibilites (past & present).
This should also make it very clearly that federal expenditures need to go on a serious diet. We need to cut back on foreign aid. We really need to go on an austerity program for however long it takes to get our financial house in oeder.
If you want it fixed then lets make all the politicians and gov workers payinto it as well and take away their golden parachute retirements.
You would see it fixed in 48 hours.
How to fix SSI. 1. Cash in all the IOU's which will put trillions of dollars back in the fund. 2. Keep congress's greedy hands out of the fund.
Well said me-lady!
As is typical the author does not understand where the money went. The system had plenty of money to support it into the future but congress confiscated the SS Trust fund and spent the money!! Doesn't anyone understand this simple fact. Without the trust funds SS became dependent on congress, which those jerks love, us being dependent on them. Darn, wake up people, if you are going to write an article you should do the basic research to see where the money is going rather than repeating the political talking points. The system, as designed originally, was to be self supporting based on the trust fund earing interest on investments (such as treasury's). But congress can't stand seeing money building up in any account so they spent it without replacing it plus the interest owing on it. This crap just pisses me off to see how simplistic we have become and to believe all the stuff fed to us each day. Use your heads people.
Yes I read the article; it puts the wagon train in the proverbial circle, as the ruts would have foretold you, and hoped the wild savages will pass by without noticing we are out of ammunition, and fails to notice that the enemy is inside holding up the white flag so that the massacre can begin.
The system was set up for failure and was never formatted to sustain itself long-term. Just look at these statistics:
Social Security first started paying out benefits and could start receiving at 65 years of age in 1940:
Do you know what the average life span was in 1940? It was 63. That's right, it was NEVER intended to be a retirement program. It was set up so if you were LUCKY enough to live beyond your average life span we were going to make sure your last 2 or 3 years were not living in a box on Main Street.
But the age was not changed until recently but even to those turning 65 this year they can still apply for Social Security. Do you know what the average life span is today? Almost 80 years old!! That means for everyone who applies for Social Security today on average we will be paying benefits for 15 YEARS!! THAT is unsustainable.
But let's look further: In 1940 there were 42 workers contributing for every Social Security recipient. By 1960 there were still 4.9 workers contributing for every Social Security recipient. Now it is less than 3 workers contributing for every Social Security recipient and within a decade there will be less than 2 workers for every Social Security recipient.
It is called "math" and the math doesn't add it. It is collapsing before our very eyes. There were so many mistakes made when they set up Social Security and so you are aware I teach Economics and I have been saying for the last 10 years it is unsustainable. Everybody knew it but was political suicide to bring it up - so politicians continued to put their head in the sand and pretend it was not collapsing. At least Romney and Ryan were willing to tell the people the truth and, as mentioned above, was political suicide so they lost the election.
But that doesn't change the facts. Social Security is unsustainable. At MINIMUM the retirement age to collect Social Security must be raised proportional to the average life span. In other words to REALLY fix Social Security they need to raise the "retirement age" to 78 or 80 years old. Of course politicians won't do what is necessary to SAVE Social Security so I suggest you start saving on your own because for those of us 50 or younger the system just won't be there when we reach retirement age. It is called "math" and the math just won't allow it.
You go Zapper and Saxon, tell them like it is! What they are trying to do is force austerity on the "peasants" (the 99%). If we allow it to happen we deserve it. Even the farcical "fiscal cliff" is nothing more then austerity. Don't let the government fool you as they continue to bail out the banks.
We are witnessing the biggest bank robbery in history and the banks are doing the robbing. If we stopped bailing out the banks, warring with the world for the Oil, Banking and Corporate cartels and coined our own money we would all live in abundance and that is a fact! Wake up! End the Fed!
Democratic campaign heckler slogan for 2014-..."Don't vote - Boo!"
Troubled about Social Security? Say thank you Lyndon Johnson, for setting up the modern Welfare system under the guise of the Great Society! Then raiding Social Security to fund it!
Yes, it's an old story! Taking money from workers to fund non workers1
Our current liability of 122 trillion is money mostly owed to the Social Security fund! When slick Willie came up with his mystical surplus it was done by once again short changing Social Security!
How do you fix something that the Democrats use as their personnel piggy bank!
Say good-bye to SS and let it die. "Progressive liberals", you need to learn to work harder and longer and live a shorter life. This is what you voted for so deal with it!!!
...congress 'borrowed' the social security trust fund about 50 years ago, let congress pay back that money plus interest and make social security an independent agency. then we can see how solvent social security is, and how able it is to pay recipients. we'll also see whether congress can do its job without the social security funds!
fire.camp, you are right except only one mistake, they embellzed the money, they knew that they would never pay it back. You see most of these readers refuse to put the blame on these thiefs. Besides that, I have read many professional reports that shows this is a huge lie in order for the politicions to get out of having to return the money. I read one report that the government owes the social security trust fund five trillion dollars much less what is being paid into the fund now. I want the age limit moved back to 65, and I want all those people who have paid in to the fund to get a decent raise every year. What we need to do for the future generations to have the fund to fall back on, is raise the employer contribution to double what it is now on both social security and medicare and to have a unbrakable law that says no one can get their hand on the money except those who it was intended for. I am sick and tired of these stealing thiefs getting rich and richer off the backs of their employees. They will find away to steal it back, they always find the loopholes to gte out of paying.
jerry- good idea, but the people that can make those changes are the ones stealing from it.
fie camp,thank you for those comments.You seem to be one of the few besides me that knows money was borrowed from this fund and never paid back.Social Security was also moved into the general fund,I'm not sure under which president,and used as a piggy bank for other shortfalls.These people have committed a treasonous act on the American public.
And where is the real money going to come from to "Pay it back"? From us in the form of raised taxes, that's where. DUH.
Nukeman-And where is the real money going to come from to "Pay it back"? From us in the form of raised taxes, that's where. DUH.
So? The money was taken from "we the people",it was our money. It was used under the promise of being repaid to us.Instead of the Government raising taxes at that time,to fund "our government".So yes it needs to be repaid to us. They need to be forced to fulfill their promise.That shouldn't even be a question.
Lord, a very few people that actually know the real story. How do we get them to admit what they did and start talking about repaying those funds then putting a huge padalock on the fund!??? And they blame us for living longer, what a piece of crap that is. Line them up and shoot them. How do we solve these issues with our congress??
Swallow Look at #3 below!! You are being misled by mental midgets whoo only know how to repeat what other mental midgets have told them!!!
"It won't be pretty"
Hmmm let's see, what does she mean by that?
That they are going to have to raise taxes on the rich?
No.
That the already stingy benefits won't be cut further so things like the bloated military budget will be cut instead?
No.
Oh, I know, it's that they are just going to have stick it to seniors and cut the benefits even if it means they wind up sitting in freezing room because can't pay the heating bill and eating Kibbles N' Bits because they don't have enough money to buy food.
Ding ding ding, YES, thats it how did you guess?!?
Whenever you hear someone in politics (like the President) or someone in the media talking about "tough choices" or "it won't be pretty" etc. etc. rest assured they aren't talking tough choices for themselves themselves or their family or their rich friends.
They are talking about screwing YOU, the little guy, and reducing your standard of living still further.
Socail Security is a Ponzi scheme and if you did it in the private sector you would go directly to jail. However our government is above the law and they keep on stealing our money and we keep electing these people.
Social Security is an insurance program. Is the private Insurance Industry a Ponzi scheme? Both receive premiums. If one is a Ponzi scheme, they both are Ponzi schemes.
Super BEE when you buy insurance you pay for it. The government is taxing us for ss they can spend it and have spent it for whatever they want. Thats why ss is going to run out. When the government taxes you it is not put in your name like premiums would be for an insurance company. Actualy what you put in now goes to pay people that are receiving it now. Its like a pyamird the ones at the top get paid but the ones at the bottom just getting get screwed. However the government dips into the pot and spends the money that is for ss which means that its a big fat scam and we are going to get screwed.
Imagine that I save twenty dollars each week to go toward my retirement. Imagine that instead of saving it in a secure location I place the money outside on the sidewalk so people can steal it. My retirement plan is broken because the money is no longer there. What should I do? Here are the choices:
Choice A: Continue putting money on the sidewalk but increase the amount. Choice B: Continue putting money on the sidewalk but delay retirement. Choice C: Continue putting money on the sidewalk but expect less money during retirement. Choice D: Continue putting money on the sidewalk but...
It is simply not reasonable to consider funding options as a solution to fixing this problem. The reason is because ownership of the money is not guaranteed. If the funding is made available it becomes an even more tempting target to steal from.
Until we define a program that guarantees the security of the money, the program will stay broken.
@ High Roller:
The Progressive Caucus has proposed legislation to keep the premiums paid by the FICA withholding to only be used for its intended purpose, to pay benefits to those that have earned enough credits or for SSI. Same as an insurance company taking premiums and buying reinsurance policies. These insurance companies can be raided and gutted by CEOs that deposit the profits offshore in tax free havens. I do not see a national insurance commissioner preventing this. So, I stand by my previous post. If one of them is a Ponzi scheme, they both are a Ponzi scheme.
Ok whatever you say I still dont see it that way. Insurance premiums are not mandatory you can choose not buy insurance. You dont have the choice to put your ss money in your name. That my friend is why ss is a ponzie scheme because its a mandatory tax that you have to pay. If it was voluntary like insurance you would be right but you have to pay the ss tax.
66% agree with raising payroll taxes on the wealthy and 55% agree with reducing benefits on the same group!!??? Just like every other proposal. Raise taxes but on someone else!! The majority are for shared sacrifice as long as someone else is doing the sacrificing. I see posted in this venue "I paid for it, I want my benefits". Is it possible that the wealthy feel the same.
The money that was "stolen" still exists in the form of bonds (IOU'S) and they do earn interest! This has NO effect on the solvency of the program. That money must be reborrowed to pay benefits when needed. And because the government is printing money to keep interest rates low, the rate of return barely beats inflation!! That is why the % of tax on wages must increase or the money must be partially invested in stocks (because it is unlikely that people will want a decrease in benefits).
SS was never meant to be a replacement for retirement income. It was designed to be a supplement. Now some believe the minimum should be enough to replace retirement income!
GM found that defined benefit plans do not work when the employee works for 30 years and draws retirement benefits for 40 years!!!!
I will step to the plate. Eliminate this ridiculous program before my generation expects to collect their benefits.
You don't have any basis for saying what SS "was supposed to be". You were not around when the program was created, and have no historical knowledge. There was a huge depression during the 30's, with people living on the streets, and in "Hooverville" camps for the homeless. They would not have been living this way if they had these "private retirement plans" people like you keep referring to. Today's retirees PAID FOR their meager benefits, and need them. People like you and ctviking are sociopaths who want to kill off seniors.
The retirement age is now 67. In order for someone to "draw benefits for 40 years", they would have to live to 107. Is it your argument that there are a lot of 107 year olds out there?
The wealthy have a cap on how much is deducted to meet their SS payment requirements. It comes nowhere near what it would be if their whole income was taken into account.
The IOUs are just paper. The only backing they have is the say so of the government. That's it. And if the government doesn't "say so," tough luck, suckers. I think that's where we are now with the "fiscal cliff." Tough luck, suckers.
SS needs a real fix, and playing with it like our politicians are, hurts all of those (us) who plan on using/getting it when we need it. I was forced to pay into it. I had no choice. Now, I want my payback. If no one else likes it, that's too d@mn bad.
To all those who want social security to end, are you so naive to believe that all of the people will actually be able to save or have a savings plan for retirement. You will pay for them in the end no matter what, the difference is as to how, with them at least contributing some towards their old age or you paying for it with welfare and food stamps. Do some research and you will find out that very few companies have a retirement plan and even then the chance of them being around to pay it back to their employees is nill. Pension plans are going broke by the minute because of the bad business practices of companies, I know of a person who worked for thrity years at a company and it filed backruptcy, he paid into this companys retirement plan for most of those years and he had to start throwing newspapers to live. I do not trust companies or the government, but the social security fund is the only way to insure that I will get some of the money I paid into it for back.
skylark I suggest you read and learn about the SS act!
zapper The wages subject to SS tax are capped because benefits are roughly proportional to contributions and benefits are capped! What you want is another welfare program and another mechanism for wealth transfer!!!!
Tes-66% agree with raising payroll taxes on the wealthy and 55% agree with reducing benefits on the same group!!??? Just like every other proposal. Raise taxes but on someone else!! The majority are for shared sacrifice as long as someone else is doing the sacrificing. I see posted in this venue "I paid for it, I want my benefits". Is it possible that the wealthy feel the same.
I guess I'm in the 45% that believes benefits to the wealthy SHOULD NOT be reduced or denied. Social Security is a common program available to Americans.We should remove any caps on income taxed to support Social Security. A 100% of my income is subject to Social Security taxes,and that's true for most Americans. Having a cap at $110-115,000 is ridiculous,there should be no cap at all.And full benefits should be provided to all citizens paying in to the system.
The money that was "stolen" still exists in the form of bonds (IOU'S) and they do earn interest! This has NO effect on the solvency of the program. That money must be reborrowed to pay benefits when needed. And because the government is printing money to keep interest rates low, the rate of return barely beats inflation!! That is why the % of tax on wages must increase or the money must be partially invested in stocks (because it is unlikely that people will want a decrease in benefits).
I don't see if everyone paid in on all income,the percentage would need to be raised. As for investing the money in stocks. That is a discussion we as a country need to have,true. But we need to remember that many investments in stocks have been wiped out over the years. The latest disaster in 2008-2009,shows how dangerous that would be. The whole idea of Social Security,was as a hedge against just those worries. Its not an accident that Social Security came about as a response to the great depression stock market disaster.
SS was never meant to be a replacement for retirement income. It was designed to be a supplement. Now some believe the minimum should be enough to replace retirement income!
That may have been the theoretical idea. But its never been true for the vast numbers of poor and lower middle-class Americans.In a huge number of cases it is the sole source of income for seniors.Before Social Security,poor seniors had to depend on their families when they were able and willing to help. On charity,from Churches,soup kitchens, and begging on the streets. And many seniors starved or killed themselves.Social Security was meant to prevent those horrific problems.
GM found that defined benefit plans do not work when the employee works for 30 years and draws retirement benefits for 40 years!!!!
There are real problems with a study like that. Most people start paying in to Social Security at 18 to 21 years of age. Unless on disability Social Security,you aren't eligible until 62-65 years of age for benefits.The difference there is 44-47 years of work if you started at 18,and 41-44 years of work if you were 21 when you started paying in to Social Security. And how many people live until they're 102-105 (62-65 plus 40 years). I see BS like this posted all the time. They count on people just paying attention to "sound bites" and not really thinking about what is said.
Skylark:
Tell it like it is baby!
In a report last year, the SSA gave the median amount of benefits collected at 17. This means half of the people receiving social security, collected 17 or less payments, and half collected more.
Uncle Bob What you want is another welfare program!!!! If I pay in with no cap and benefits are capped, that is what it becomes! There are producers of resources and consumers of resources. I can tell by your post (as you can from mine) which side you are on. Your attitude is you have it, I don't, but I want it , so you should give it to me! I have completely recovered from the last stock market downturn. I will say again that over the LONG TERM stocks will still outperform fixed income. History has shown this.
Benefits have been roughly proportional to contributions (this was more true before portions were taxed based on income). If you uncap wages subject to SS taxes, benefits will also rise. This does not help the situation. What you want is for me to pay more for each dollar of benefit than others. Again this tells me you are a taker and not a giver.
Benefits have been roughly proportional to contributions (this was more true before portions were taxed based on income). If you uncap wages subject to SS taxes, benefits will also rise. This does not help the situation. What you want is for me to pay more for each dollar of benefit than others. Again this tells me you are a taker and not a giver.
Benefits of course should be structured by how much is contributed when you get into higher payers. But none the less,Social Security is available to all citizens and all income needs to be taxed for it. As for your sound bites "takers and givers" or the ever popular Republican favorite "job creators".They are meaningless,and only seek to divide our people into them and us. That's the last thing we need in the 21st century.
The left is no slouch about dividing us. Lord Obama is the chief divider!!! It is he who said for years that the Bush tax cuts were "tax breaks for the wealthy" and "tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires". He did this to foster class warfare (divide us and buy votes from the other 98%). We found out that even he didn't believe this nonsense when he will fight to the last breath to allow them to expire only on "the wealthy"!! He says it will cripple the middle class. You can't have it both ways. He did the same turnabout when he called them massive tax breaks for the wealthy but when he argues for them to expire only on the wealthy, he says they should pay "just a little bit more"!!!
Again I say, what you want to do is turn SS into just another welfare program.
You cnnot reasonably dispute the fact that there are givers and takers! What you should remember is that it takes a certain number to pull the wagon and when it becomes easier to ride than to pull, we better have a long a@@ hill!!! Greece, Spain, Italy, etc have taught us this. Do you think our way is somehow better and won't follow this path!!??
@ TES -2640989:
Obama is a liar about the Bush tax cuts. Social Security reform can take place at a later time. If Obama's fiscal cliff small bargain can be filibustered by Bernie Sanders in the Senate, we can go over the cliff with military cuts and all the Clinton rates restored. Start seeing real debt reduction in 2013.
I agree. The fiscal cliff will be a be a good thing in the long term. The only problem is with all that increased tax money the left will have to find more spending (not very difficult for them)!!
I believe we should start reforming SS and Medicare NOW. $60T in unfunded liabilities makes a $16T debt look like chump change!
" reduce the Social Security benefits available to spouses. Some critics argue that's growing outdated now that more women work and earn their own Social Security payments. It's kind of a relic from a different era,"
Oh so? My daughter has four degrees (count 'em -BA, MA, MBA and JD) had a great job but had an autistic baby. Husband then left and pays minimum child support. Society has no provision for a 24/7/365 caretaker for the child. It falls back on the family. My daughter cannot now work nor will she likely ever be able to do so. Her best hope for old age security is for a late second marriage and a trickle of spousal social security.
Throw out all 'think tank' lobby experts. Throw out all politicians. Start with a clean slate in government. It will take at least a decade or two before the new ones become totally corrupt. Amazing how we give trillions away on non-declared wars and 'foreign aid'....yet politicians now want to renege on pensions paid for by our citizens.
That is exactly who it should fall on - not the taxpayers.
ctviking, you are a sadistic stinking piece of sh*t who doesn't even understand how SS works.
When did it become society's burden to care for sick family members?
There is a difference between choosing to stay home and having to stay home to tend to a child. How many other families have autistic children and "cannot" work? She needs to put her JD degree to work and get a better lawyer and file for increased support from her ex.
Hey Skylark,
Take your opinion and shove it straight up your a_— . I know exactly how SS works. And it's people like you who are ruining this country, always blaming someone else for your problems and expecting everyone else to make up for your shortcomings.
@VWDAWG - I am truly sorry for your daughter's plight. But let me ask one question. Why does your daughter have more right to my property than I do? And to get politicians to force me to give it to her is immoral (but perfectly legal). Having said that, let me say that I willingly donate of my money to help several families get by. That's the way it's supposed to be.
@ ctviking:
Social Security is funded by PAYROLL FICA pemiums and NOT taxpayers.
groan.... employees also pay FICA. But aren't we all taxpayers? Even the employer.
Nope! I'm the idle rich. I do not work or pay FICA on my dividends.
so, super bee you just sit there, rubbing your "richness" into everyone else's wounds? WTF?
congress needs to pay back what thet stole yes stole from that fund with their money plus interest ....
The money used by congress is not a factor in SS funding issues. They consider all of that money available to SS.
Translation: the younger working generations are going to pay enormous taxes to keep social security afloat for the older generation that elected the crooks who stole from it in the first place
The boomers are going to make us pay for their mistakes, and when they finally are all gone there will be nothing left. There is no way any politician will vote for legislation that will negatively impact such a huge voting population.
I know you paid into it all your life, but you were also the leading voting force when it was allowed to get to the sorry state it is in now.
Allow me to opt out. If the program is as solvent as people say it is, then you shouldn't care. If it isn't solvent (i.e. it will fail without fresh blood) then it is the definition of a ponzi scheme. You can't have it both ways.
Remydon, if you're smart you will invest in a retirement plan on your own. Anyone in their right mind knows/knew SS was never going to be enough to support retirement years. OBTW, The same thing will happen to funds with Obama care.
I know a lot of you folks want the feds to take care of you but they won't. Soon we will run out of other peoples money LOL
Once again, this is not other people's money! We are required, by law, to pay into the SS fund for our retirement. How much would that money have made if it was invested instead of being squandered by the government.
And, before the righties all chime in with lies about the Dems squandering that money, let me remind you that it was Saint Reagan who first started raiding the SS fund to pay for his tax cuts!
Trust me - it wasn't the "boomers" that elected or re-elected Mr. Entitlements that currently resides in La Casa Blanca. There were already problems with the SS program and he exacerbated the issue when he stimulated everybody by having them contribute less to the program.
So you Gen-Xers can enjoy your paycheck now, keep relying on the government for all of your needs and see what your standard of living is like at your retirement age. The boomers won't give a $h!t because they will be long gone and not able to hear your moans of despair.
Someday people will learn that the government is not going to look out for the common people's best interest. Look back through history and you will see that the more impoverished the govenment keeps its societal members and the more it keeps the people dependent on its programs the easier it is to control. Go ahead people - keep sucking off the government teats. Maybe if you took a little more time off from sucking than to just complain how the teats ares drying up and did something for yourselves you might prosper.
There are only so many government "nipples" and "milk" but more and more teat suckers every day. Enjoy.
@EEngineer, If I am not mistaken It was LBJ that started raiding the SS Fund to continue to finance social reform and the Viet Nam war, such as waste of life and other resources. So you blame Reagan, just remember he did have Democratic support for everything he did.
@Remydon, Just remember it was people that voted the Tax and spend liberials into office. Obama will spend this country into a depression that will take a generation to get out of. Also I heard that he may try to repeal the 23rd amendment, and for those that is the Presidential term limit amendment. If repealed he could run again and again and again... NO WAY.
Jay, you are correct! It was your namesake.
remy-The boomers are going to make us pay for their mistakes, and when they finally are all gone there will be nothing left. There is no way any politician will vote for legislation that will negatively impact such a huge voting population.
The "boomers" are our parents and grandparents.They are the people that gave us life and raised us.The people we see at Holiday's.The people that held us as babies,fed us,gave us toys.Bought our school books,and helped us do homework.Its easy to dismiss people in the abstract,but they are our families.I for one,will never vote to throw my parents or grandparents,nor your's,under the bus.
We talk about them voting for bad politicians.Well that's true,a lot of the politicians they voted for were trash.But I assume most people posting here are old enough to vote,and do vote. Yet,the same trash are still getting elected to the HOR,so I guess we don't have much room to blame others,do we.
Well, as usual, it is not quite that simple...
Yes, LBJ did start the practice of calculating deficit including receipts for Social Security.
But Ronald Reagan was responsible for the political sleight-of-hand that involved giving income tax cuts and then paying for them by increasing SS contributions to net a balanced or at least decreased budget deficit.
The fact of the matter is, though, that of our current $16T national debt, almost $5T of it is owed to SS and Medicare trust funds. Those that claim we have a SS crisis AND a Medicare crisis AND a national debt crisis don't recognize the fact they are ALL a national debt crisis.
well, Uncle Bob, I don't care that they are our parents and grandparents. My grandparents are all dead and even when they were alive, they didn't do a whole lot to help my situation growing up, except to pass judgement. They reaped what they sowed. As Gen X, I am resentful that i am paying A LOT of money into SS and probably won't see a dime. I wish we could opt out and provide for our own retirement. The boomers have screwed me coming and going.
I, for one, would like the option of putting my social security taxes into my 401k. It's obvious we can't trust the government with our money. They still insist on calling it an entitlement, for pete's sake. At least this way it will be earning something.
When articles like this talk about "fixing" Social Security, look out! They mean "fixing" Social Security. Notice how they lumped Social Security in with Medicare at the beginning of the article, when the 2 programs have nothing to do with each other? Look out!
In reality, Social Security doesn't need fixing or "fixing". Some very, and I mean very, small tweaks to the program will keep it working as one of the most successful government programs for as far as the eye can see.
All you have to remember is that Republicans were against the Social Security program when it was first created, and they have been against it ever since. And as is typical with Republicans, they have absolutely no problem lying about the program if it helps them to destroy it. Also remember that the press is often either too stupid to see this, or complicit.
But it has been mostly Democrats that have raided the SS funds for Social spending and that is why the SS fund is going broke. It's all those 30 year treasure bonds coming due with full interest. And it Was Bill Clinton that also tried to push through Privtae retirement accounts for both the young and old. He also increased taxes for social security.
SO don't blame the republicans Blame ALL politicians.
Uh, no, no it has not! You certainly have a short memory. When Clinton left office this was fixed! CBO estimates at that time showed that we would have paid off the national debt by 2012.
In 2000, our total national debt was $5.7T, of which $2.3T was owed to the SS and Medicare trust funds. CBO estimates, with the budgets projected at that time, were to have that entire $5.7T debt paid off by 2012.
Then along came George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.
By the end of Bush's last budget, Sept 30, 2009, our total national debt was $11.9T, of which $4.4T was owed to the SS and Medicare trust funds.
As of 2012, national debt is $16.6T with $4.7T owed to the SS and Medicare trust funds. Obama put an end to some of the trust fund raiding and slowed the robbery of these trust funds. Of course, that makes deficits look much worse!
When Bush left office the debt was less than $10T and in four years obama increased it by nearly $7T. And obama has NEVER had a budget and he doesn't care because he can spend all he wants anyway. Until congress takes his checkbook away from him he will continue to drive up the debt. He signed the fiscal cliff into law and is now trying to foist it onto the repubs. He make it so there had to be spending cuts and tax increases and he says that the repubs that are causing the problems.
@EEengineer, It's Obama that is raiding the Medicare fund for Obama care... Where do you think he is getting the money to pay for that. That sounds like raiding to me....
@EEngineer, Here is a link to the facts of teh SS Fund,..
Read a weep,
LBJ Broke the SS safety net... DEMOCRAT!!
I was mistaken on one thing It was Jimmy Carter that gave immagrants the right to colect SS payments WITHOUT PAYING IN.
The link didnt past, here is is:
www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/changes.asp
It was Clinton who showed a "balanced" budget by using SS funds. The total government debt went up each year for the past 40! The CBO and Tax Policy center data show that the difference between PROJECTED surplusses and $12T in debt between 2002 and 2012 was primarily due to recession and increased spending. Only 4% was due to the tax cuts for high income individuals!
@Jay,here is the link you tried to post. But you obviously didn't read the whole article. It first shows the ideas you posted. Then goes and debunks them. You need to reread the article.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/changes.asp
You will get something, even if all the Trust Fund is depleted. At worst, the annual payroll tax take gets paid out to recipients. The current estimate is that benefits would get reduced to about 70% of the current schedule.
Considering that younger workers are barely breaking even as it is with social security, lowering benefits by 30% makes it literally sticking the money in your mattress a better option.
@GW-Skeptic, That 70% reduction would print my estimated SS payment to about 400/month. Retirement is somewhere in the 2024.
Reading the comments, it is shocking how little people know about the Social Security program they are criticizing!
I'm 12 years away from retirement and am scared the the politicains will screw that up. As for SS Pay back ALL the treasure bonds that are there, repeal ANY Former Presidents use of the SS fund (Bill Clinton) and either make the SS funds UNAVAILABLE to the politicians to use as spending money for anything or privitize it so I can put it into a 401k or a Roth IRA, this also makes it so when I die I can will to my wife, kids or whom ever I wish. and Not let the politicians have it.
We are ready for real change but our current two party system does not allow for it. We rarely see anything that resembles the campaign promises of Republicans and Democrats after they are elected. These candidates appear to be more interested in patting each other on the back than in doing the next right thing. I propose that we open up the three branches of government to public scrutiny and affix a fourth, Impartial, branch to provide a new set of checks and balances to the others. We need a final say of whether our elected officials are truly representing us.
Want to see change, sign my petition by clicking here
You can sign my petition by doing the following, since I cannot embed a link.
Copy the link below, paste it into your address bar and remove the spaces:
change .org/ petitions/ congress-house-of-representatives-senate-and-presidential-administration-create-a-fourth-impartial-branch-of-government
The Trustees say that IN A GOOD ECONOMY the system may pay full benefits until 2033. That means that anyone 63 or younger expects to outlive full benefits. Anyone 46 or younger will retire after the fund is gone.
Here's a thought ~ close the door on congress being allowed to confiscate Social Security surplus funds each year. Since the practice started in the mid-1960s, over $2.65-TRILLION dollars has been pilfered from Socisl Security to pay for ordinay budgetary items. If SS had that money now ~ plus the interest owed on it ~ there would be no need to "fix" it for it would be solvent for years to come. I'm sure you will never hear a member of congress resort to this solution for it eliminated "funny" money they don't have to account for.
Social Security and Medicare are entitlement programs which "directly" benefit the recipients. Likewise these programs are "directly" funded through payroll tax deductions of future recipients.
Longer life expectancy and the associated benefits were not anticipated when these programs were initiall created.
Fifty years ago bread was 19 cents a loaf and now the cost is over a dollar and every American pays todays price. Using this reality as a basis, if the cost of Social Security and Medicare has increased the beneficiaries should be willing to pay todays cost to keep these programs solvent.
Remove the income caps and make "all" income subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes.
This is simple, clear, and offers to all Americans the guaruntee of the programs being able to fund their obligations when each of us reach retirement age.
Stop playing politics with the citizens retirement future!
TDallas: Obviously your suggestion doesn't affect you. What are you willing to do that actually affects you as opposed to have someone else pay your bills?
Same question for the rest of the "let the other guy pay" crowd; what are you willing to do to "save" SS that actually affects you vs. having someone else pay your bills?
norm-Same question for the rest of the "let the other guy pay" crowd; what are you willing to do to "save" SS that actually affects you vs. having someone else pay your bills?
All my income is subject to the Social Security tax,and most Americans income as well.What makes you so special that you shouldn't be subject to the same taxes we are.
First of all, any changes to SS should be grandfathered back to when you contributed your first dollar into the program. After you started contributing, you should be guaranteed the benefits that were in place when you contributed your first dollar.
Second, current retirees were given generous benefits and many are drawing on pensions. Future retirees are much less likely to get any form of pension and now the government is reducing benefits... that we already paid for mind you... This will leave many future retirees living in poverty...
Finally, if the tax breaks that are being discussed (regarding the fiscal cliff) are to be extended to those making up to $1 Million per year, then the maximum taxable income on SS needs to be $1 Million per year (not the paltry $110,000). You should not be able to have it both ways...
Another comment... I watch my neighbors (in their early 80's), both retired and living the retirement life I can only dream of... Several vacations and cruises each year... Driving a luxury car... And no, they weren't executives, managers, doctors, lawyers, etc.
They both were blue-collar workers in manfacturing jobs... textiles and a machine shop... Both retired with generous pensions and generous SS benefits... For them, retirement life is great...
I will receive NO pension and by the time I can retire in 15 years, SS will be greatly reduced... I will be lucky to live a retirement that will cover my basic expenses... travel and luxury cars will be out of reach... yet, I worked just as hard and paid into SS all my working life... just like they did...
Unless you are retired now, be prepared to get screwed...
@vinca, I have to believe that the pension is what makes if for them, SS for i person retired today I think is capped at about 2200 a month.
Your retired friends are not receiving generous SS benefits, the max is $2200 per month currently thus either their pension or savings is funding their dream retirement. Just how much are you saving for your retirement? Why do you believe you're entitled to more than you paid into the SS trust fund? Part of the problem with our SS fund is that people like you believe that you are entitled to more than you paid in just because you see people who also receive pensions or saved to have their dream retirement.
I don't believe that I am entitled to more than I paid into the SS trust fund... But, by the same token, I should not have to settle for less... Which is what the government is doing... raising the retirement age and reducing benefits... I should be entitled to the same benefits that the current retirees receive... I should not have to wait until age 67 to retire... I should not have to settle for reduced benefits... My retirement age and benefits level should be based on what was in place in 1978, which is when I contributed my first dollar...
i see people everyday on my job that are on social security dissability, but heres the catch, their not really disabled. you can get ssi for anything now, panic attacks, obesesity, depresssion etc. thats whats wrong social security. stop that and you could save millions.
How do you know that these people aren't disabled, "nick the greek?" Are you judge and jury? Do you know everyone's medical condition? Social Security disability is very difficult to receive. You need to fill out numerous forms with a doctor's diagnosis. This doctor is chosen by SS disability, not by the patient. Most people are denied and have to apply again. Some people wait years for disability approval. Maybe we should put these people out on the streets and let them die. We can hold our noses as we walk over their bodies. Oh wait, we already have that with our homeless. Sick!
I paid into this for my parents and their "the greatest generation" for 40 working years of my life, now it is my turn to get my money starting in January 2013. I am so excited.
What gets me is all the GULLABLE, STUPID people in this country. Did you every here of money laundring ? That's what your "leaders" or scum in Wash. DC are doing with YOUR SS money! Why do you think they aren't in our SS program & where does the money come from that pays there retirement program ? Do you really think the middle east is not getting 1 cent of it. What pays for the illegal's (health care etc) & you young people, if its up to the scum in DC they'll have you working for every! These thieves in DC make Bernie Madoff look like Mr. Rogers. The problem with goes NO further than the AS#HOLES running it.
Larry
Why all the focus on Social Security. It isn't broken [yet] . It is still self sustaining. Our focus should be to get rid of all rich people entitlements. Get rid of subsidies for the oil companies, paying farmers to not grow crops, eliminate companies, that are sending American jobs over seas , their tax benefits. Eliminate write offs for companies that pay virtually NO TAXES. Social security is still solvent ,leave it alone. We could get rid of the perks that congressmen/women enjoy. There shouldn't be any pensions/healthcare except for the very top leaders of the country and btw install term limits for ALL politicians of no more than what the POTUS has-2, 4 year terms with NO PENSION or Healthcare. Let them buy their own like we have to do. Also eliminate P.A.C.s that lobby for garbage unneeded legislation that cost the trillions of U.S. debt...
60's: Are you suggesting that because it is "solvent" (not really) today, knowing that there are big problems ahead nothing should be done now? Really? Or are you simply concerned with feathering your own nest at the expense of others?
norm-60's: Are you suggesting that because it is "solvent" (not really) today, knowing that there are big problems ahead nothing should be done now? Really? Or are you simply concerned with feathering your own nest at the expense of others?
All non-partisan economists say Social Security is 20-30 years from having insolvency issues at all. Removing the income cap on Social Security taxes,would add another 75-100 years to that. So yeah,there is no problem with Social Security. But the other issues,60's veteran,brought up,are immediate problems.And they are concerning people feathering their own nests at the expense of others,US.