- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Coming Social Security Crisis
Posted on 3/28/24 at 10:57 am to RoosterCogburn585
Posted on 3/28/24 at 10:57 am to RoosterCogburn585
Life expectancy is a bit of a tricky number since historically it was held down due to high infant mortality, youthful accidents and medical limitations affecting the averages.
My grand mother was born in the 1880's and she lived until 97. Her sister, my great aunt, lived to 101 and her other sister in the high 90's. Great uncles went into their late 80's.
My grand mother was born in the 1880's and she lived until 97. Her sister, my great aunt, lived to 101 and her other sister in the high 90's. Great uncles went into their late 80's.
0
Posted on 3/28/24 at 11:06 am to GumboPot
quote:
Congress made it's promise, appropriate funding as promised
You don't think raising the SS benefit age is reasonable when life expectancy has been raised nearly 15 years since Congress made this promise?
When it was signed into law in 1935, the social benefit age was 65 and older. At the time, life expectancy in the US was about 63 yo.
quote:
Raising the SS benefit age is tantamount to increasing taxes and growing government.
So, having more people dependent on a check from the federal government is shrinking government, and having fewer people dependent on a check from fedgov is growing government? That seems f'd.
This post was edited on 3/28/24 at 11:08 am
Posted on 3/28/24 at 11:08 am to CharlesUFarley
quote:
You have to pay in for 7 years to get benefits.
It's 10 years or 40 quarters but really good level headed post.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 11:14 am to Zarkinletch416
It was a decent program. Before private retirement services became a thing. SS is a losing financial vehicle and if you expect it to pay for your retirement in the next 20 years good luck with that. Maybe there will be just enough left over to occasionally enjoy your old man’s McDonalds breakfast but prol have to bring your own coffee and order the McMuffin a la carte.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 11:56 am to David_DJS
quote:
You don't think raising the SS benefit age is reasonable when life expectancy has been raised nearly 15 years since Congress made this promise?
When it was signed into law in 1935, the social benefit age was 65 and older. At the time, life expectancy in the US was about 63 yo.
This sounds like an agreement with the mob. "Pray that I do not alter the agreement any further". Also, this number reflects life expectancy at birth, not life expectancy after reaching adulthood so it's a bit misleading for you to use this as an argument.
quote:
So, having more people dependent on a check from the federal government is shrinking government, and having fewer people dependent on a check from fedgov is growing government? That seems f'd.
IT IS NOT A CHECK FROM THE GOVERNMENT. It is the government allowing you to have SOME of the money they FORCEFULY TAKE from you back. It's your goddamn money and not a fricking handout you disingenuous frick.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 12:08 pm to La Place Mike
quote:
Not for educated males in white/gray collar occupations. Men in this category can easily live to 85 or longer. Their spouses even longer than that.
Why would you retire when you don't do manual labor but, I'm betting that category you described are the ones leaving the work force early.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 12:10 pm to lazlodawg
quote:
It's your goddamn money and not a fricking handout you disingenuous frick.
It's someone else's money. Your money was already spent 20 years before you were eligible to collect.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 12:12 pm to RoosterCogburn585
Tax Chats episode 97 is a fantastic overview of what is happening.
Duke and UNC tax professors have a guest who is well informed on the subject.
Points of discussion:
Tax revenue
Spending
Debt
Interest on debt
The relation of all of the above to GDP.
The reason why if we keep going the way we are going, we will be broke/hit an actual crisis.
They discuss a few things that are possible. The goal even in the calculations isn’t to eliminate debt or balance the budget but something like stabilizing debt held by the public at about 95% of GDP (where it is now). Ok to run deficit of GDP around 3%.
The way to achieve this (not the only way, but a reasonable way (which they admit is never going to happen)) is to add about 6% of GDP to the budget (by cutting programs or adding tax revenue) by around the 2040s. It’s about $1.5T (annually).
The fun math numbers they pull out (not advocates of the idea. Just using math to prove (or disprove) the political talking points:
30% minimum tax to “millionaires” would raise $66BN per DECADE (0.03% of GDP)
Raise corporate rate 21–>35%? You get 0.5% of GDP (from a purely static calculation, excluding the ones who would leave and assuming nothing changes)
An amusing mathematics equation: if you confiscated 100% of earnings >$1MM and no behaviors changed, you hit 3.7% of GDP.
Same but $500K, 5%
Lift the SS cap from payroll taxes? 0.8%
Double the top 2 tax brackets (and the FICA above) ? 1.5% of GDP
The extreme measures needed to hit 6% in combination (that he throws around as “the most reasonable (of the batshit insane ways you could even figure out how to do it)”):
20% VAT will get you 3%
Hike payroll tax 9% for everyone
Wealth tax 20%
Duke and UNC tax professors have a guest who is well informed on the subject.
Points of discussion:
Tax revenue
Spending
Debt
Interest on debt
The relation of all of the above to GDP.
The reason why if we keep going the way we are going, we will be broke/hit an actual crisis.
They discuss a few things that are possible. The goal even in the calculations isn’t to eliminate debt or balance the budget but something like stabilizing debt held by the public at about 95% of GDP (where it is now). Ok to run deficit of GDP around 3%.
The way to achieve this (not the only way, but a reasonable way (which they admit is never going to happen)) is to add about 6% of GDP to the budget (by cutting programs or adding tax revenue) by around the 2040s. It’s about $1.5T (annually).
The fun math numbers they pull out (not advocates of the idea. Just using math to prove (or disprove) the political talking points:
30% minimum tax to “millionaires” would raise $66BN per DECADE (0.03% of GDP)
Raise corporate rate 21–>35%? You get 0.5% of GDP (from a purely static calculation, excluding the ones who would leave and assuming nothing changes)
An amusing mathematics equation: if you confiscated 100% of earnings >$1MM and no behaviors changed, you hit 3.7% of GDP.
Same but $500K, 5%
Lift the SS cap from payroll taxes? 0.8%
Double the top 2 tax brackets (and the FICA above) ? 1.5% of GDP
The extreme measures needed to hit 6% in combination (that he throws around as “the most reasonable (of the batshit insane ways you could even figure out how to do it)”):
20% VAT will get you 3%
Hike payroll tax 9% for everyone
Wealth tax 20%
Posted on 3/28/24 at 12:16 pm to Chrome
quote:
I never factored SS as part of my retirement. If you are counting on it to be there you will be sorely disappointed.
They're gonna take your 401k before they'll scrap SS.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 12:24 pm to RoosterCogburn585
I say we seize all of Larry Fink's and Blackrock's assets to help pay for Social Security
Posted on 3/28/24 at 12:25 pm to RoosterCogburn585
Maybe Ukraine will loan us some money.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 12:31 pm to lazlodawg
quote:
This sounds like an agreement with the mob.
That's one way to look at it. Another way would be to simply recognize what SS was intended to be and sticking with that.
quote:
Also, this number reflects life expectancy at birth, not life expectancy after reaching adulthood so it's a bit misleading for you to use this as an argument.
I googled "life expectancy" - wasn't misleading anyone. Do you think infant mortality would change the argument? I don't, and didn't before looking for this -
Percent of population surviving from age 21 to 65:
1940 - 57%
1990 - 78%
And that's just to 1990.
quote:
IT IS NOT A CHECK FROM THE GOVERNMENT. It is the government allowing you to have SOME of the money they FORCEFULY TAKE from you back. It's your goddamn money and not a fricking handout you disingenuous frick.
Well, this escalated quickly. Are you okay?
The government has no money of its own. Do you understand that? The government decides how much of your money it will confiscate, and then it turns around and decides how much of your money you'll get back, and in what form you'll receive it. It does this for everything. Social security is just another tax, and social security benefits are just another form of government benefits.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 12:36 pm to Hopeful Doc
quote:
The fun math numbers they pull out
None of these "fun math numbers" that you're giddy about even account for the 10's of thousands of illegals that come across every single day. When you're ready for a serious root cause debate which includes Potato reaching across the aisle to the Senate Committee on Finance, let me know. In the meantime you and the other academia useful idiots can continue playing GoodWill Hunting fun math in your think-tank echo chambers. Good luck with that.
This post was edited on 3/28/24 at 12:38 pm
Posted on 3/28/24 at 12:38 pm to RoosterCogburn585
Retirement at 65 isn’t as big an issue to me as the seeming explosion of total disability claims. Folks out there collecting checks that can still work.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 12:42 pm to La Place Mike
quote:
I don't see any returns less than 2.09,
Interesting article none the less.
I could be wrong but I don't see any data supplied for workers that pass before full retirment age. I am sure they would have a hard time tracking that down. I am also sure that would push the ROI on the program as a whole lower.
The truth of the matter is... It is a horrible program for retirement and the government still can't get its act together to not steal from it.
In my case I will have paid in about $432,000 ($864,000 with employer match) by full retirement age with a $40,800 year payment (If no changes made to restrict it) per year. If I live to my expected life age of 79, I will have collected $489,000 on a combined investment of $864,000.00.
It is also modeled like an annuity. Once you die the benefits cease except for surviorship for minors (I have none any longer) and my spouse provided she doesn't remarry by 67. The rules and crap tied into this program make it very lucrative for the Govt but totally screw us. Now they want to restrict it more.
I ran the #'s. At 44 years of age I would have been better off forfeiting all contributions walking away from the program left to invest future contributions with a disability rider. The program is that bad.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 12:43 pm to Tomatocantender
quote:
None of these "fun math numbers" that you're giddy about even account for the 10's of thousands of illegals that come across every single day. When you're ready for a serious root cause debate which includes Potato reaching across the aisle to the Senate Committee on Finance, let me know. In the meantime you and the other academia useful idiots can continue playing GoodWill Hunting fun math in your think-tank echo chambers. Good luck with that.
…the whole point of the episode is that you can’t raise taxes enough to do anything so spending cuts are necessary, and any political talking points to the opposite are unfounded.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 12:44 pm to RoosterCogburn585
quote:
What they fail to mention is the tremendous strain people who have never contributed a dime to, but collect from social security. How about we put a little more pressure on the deadbeats instead of telling the working man he just needs to give a little bit more.....
Dream on...DEI to the 'aggrieved'.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 12:52 pm to Tomatocantender
quote:
In the meantime you and the other academia useful idiots can continue playing GoodWill Hunting fun math in your think-tank echo chambers. Good luck with that.
Look broski you're gonna need your thinking cap on to calculate trillions of dollars worth of SS obligations. Do you think the tax professor is the same as the gender studies professor??
Posted on 3/28/24 at 12:56 pm to David_DJS
quote:
That's one way to look at it. Another way would be to simply recognize what SS was intended to be and sticking with that.
Yes, a defined benefit program. Stick with that.
quote:
I googled "life expectancy" - wasn't misleading anyone. Do you think infant mortality would change the argument? I don't, and didn't before looking for this -
Percent of population surviving from age 21 to 65:
1940 - 57%
1990 - 78%
And that's just to 1990.
You were misleading. You made the statement using life expectancy at birth which supports you stance. Including adult life expectancy does not support your stance as well, so you ignored it and used numbers that helped you instead of ones that didn't help you as much.
quote:
Well, this escalated quickly. Are you okay?
The government has no money of its own. Do you understand that? The government decides how much of your money it will confiscate, and then it turns around and decides how much of your money you'll get back, and in what form you'll receive it. It does this for everything. Social security is just another tax, and social security benefits are just another form of government benefits.
I'm great! Thanks for asking. And to your point - Here, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of the mindset of the socialist. We have polar opposite ideas of what the function of our government was intended to be (and was for most of our history) and what it has turned into. Social security was created as a defined benefit program and sold that way. Why not just take all of it and not pay any benefits then? You are not suggesting that are you? Of course not. You think they should be able to steal some of it. Maybe most of it even. I say they should not be able to steal ANY of it.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 1:01 pm to IamNotaRobot
quote:
t was a decent program.
Absolutely, and had the S/S fix enacted in the mid-eighties been allowed to stand, we wouldn't be discussing the solvency (or lack thereof) of the so-caled "Social Security Trust Fund". So now we know, the Social Security fix was a "bait and switch" scheme thought up by Joe Biden and his crooked pals in Congress. I know, I was there, I saw the fix drawn up in Congress to insure the solvency of the fund - and I saw Potatus (aka Joe Biden) and his crooked pals in Congress steal the fund. Yep, it was a blatant theft - makes Bernie Madoff's Ponzi Scheme look like a walk in the park.
It sure ticked off Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY). I remember Senator Moynihan scolding his colleagues when he said,"It's official,we're stealing from the American People". Poor guy, they hounded him out of office. AT the time, I distinctly remember thinking - there will come a day when some bureaucrat (prolly democrat) will step up to the podium and announce - Social Security is insolvent - we cannot pay full benefits (or pay them at all). They stole, and continue to steal Social Security Funds to this day.
I will say without question, the theft of Social Security by the crooks in Congress (including the fraud Joe Biden) is one (if not the most) blatant crime in the history of the United States. Pure Bait and Switch. Promise one thing- deliver something else.
.....and you know what is even more disgusting about this theft.......the law information voters will most likely reelect Joe Biden to office. Joe Biden lies and smiles at you as he's fleecing you.
I know I saw him and his crooked pals steal Social Security. Don't believe what I say - wait!
FJB.
This post was edited on 3/30/24 at 12:14 pm
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News