re: In just a few years, the average retiree will be receiving 37% more in SS than he paid in

As usual the data you rely on is useless TP and incomplete analysis

Since Congress made this agreement and I was forced to accept the terms, then they owe me every dime they promised.

If I would have been allowed to invest my money all these years and get the 5-7% stock growth, I would likely have been more pleased than I will be on my $50k a year of social security and Medicare for maybe 30 years.

quote:

---

I simply don’t think the average person on the left or the right currently grasps the shite storm ...

---

It's apparent you don't.
BTW, why post an Andrew Biggs Opinion piece without a link, as if it is hard news?

Why lump Medicare and SS together as they are as different as your IRA and health insurance?

Why the angst about SS in 2032, when the rest of our budget CURRENTLY is running at that deficit level?

As Biggs lets us in on his opinion, those are questions you should be asking.

---

The fact is SS is not a retirement program.
It is not a benefit to the recipient.

It is a loan you and I and every employed American is forced to give to Uncle Sam.
The beneficiary is the Federal Government!

Uncle Sam borrows your SS contributions and converts them into paltry returning bonds or debt instruments. The correspondent debt pool is referred to as the SS Trust Fund. There is no actual money in the SSTF, just IOUs.

If the same SS contributions were invested in the stock market, munis, or even 30-yr treasuries there would be no pending 2032 program deficit. But of course, if Uncle Sam invested the money in stocks, he'd not have it to spend on Ukraine, or Solyndra, or funding of DOJ lawfare targeting Trump, etc. That would defeat the purpose.

Again, the program beneficiary is Uncle Sam, not you. Uncle Sam sets a paltry ROI, and you have no say in it. Now government claims you owe more because the ROI the feds allot doesn't cover payouts.

Meanwhile SS SOL increases roll in to further strain the program. That is no accident.

But, the bottomline is SS is currently in surplus. The rest of our budget is not.

When the Feds tell you to focus on a fiscal problem a decade off, while not addressing current areas which are far more problematic than SS will ever be, you'd better hold on to your wallet.

quote:

---

I’m not sure if it is because nobody wants it admit they are getting unearned benefits or what, but the numbers are the numbers.

---

If true, the government would have no problem letting people opt out.

quote:

---

Please explain to me how a system can be self funding if it not only pays out to each individual what they paid in, but also pays out the hypothetical market return that individuals lost out on.

---

That "system" would be an IRA.

Want another irony?
SS payouts are taxed. Ponder that for a moment. If they weren't taxed, and payouts were reduced accordingly, we could significantly extend solvency. But once again, none of this is about the recipient "beneficiary" or even program solvency. It is a money grab. With our deficits, Uncle Sam needs a bigger borrow.

So the Feds will continue to tax SS with taxes which don't return to the SSTF. They go to the general fund just like the original SS contributions did, with nothing but an IOU in the SSTF to show for it.

quote:

---

If true, the government would have no problem letting people opt out.

---

Exactly. Just pay us what we paid in with SSTF interest accrued, and zero out the program. That will never happen. The Feds need the borrow, and they need more, which is why there is such a push to raise payroll taxes 10 years before the fact.

I agree

quote:

---

This is a 100 irrelevant. You are speaking purely in hypotheticals.

---

The way you couch this indicates it is irrelevant due to being a hypothetical.
You do realize what you quote in your original post is a "hypothetical" also, right? It is a projection by the CBO...

quote:

---

The government stole the money and now they pay ss out of the general fund.

---

The government steals your money but not in the case you’re referring to here (Social Security).

This mythical theft is how people justify, in their minds, SS running dry. The reality is that it is not sustainable and that what people contributed is less than what they are receiving.

quote:

---

what people contributed is less than what they are receiving.

---

By what parameter?

You are implying that a person receiving $150 today, in return for a $100 dollar contribution made 40yrs ago, contributed less than what they are receiving.

Yet, that $150 represents only a ~1% rate of annual return on the original investment. At standard market ROI that $100 investment would have grown to $5900 over 40yrs.

So, at the same time you're lauding the government for returning more than was contributed, you should understand the average retiree is getting royally screwed in the process.