Medicare and Social Security Will Run Dry

[WHO U KIDDIN]

Realize that neither political party really gives a 'hoot' about the poor or lower middle class Americans that may depend on SS for their future retirement. Both parties have consistently proved that their loyalties lie with the elites and both have done whatever possible to destroy the SS system that has served retired Americans for the past 70 years.

The endgame is privatization of the SS Trust fund.

[Kowalski]

Realize that neither political party really gives a 'hoot' about the poor or lower middle class Americans that may depend on SS for their future retirement. Both parties have consistently proved that their loyalties lie with the elites and both have done whatever possible to destroy the SS system that has served retired Americans for the past 70 years.

The endgame is privatization of the SS Trust fund.

I think so, too.

[WHO U KIDDIN]

I think so, too.

I think George Carlin said it all in this stand-up routine:

Edited June 10, 2013 by WHO U KIDDIN

[Kowalski]

I think George Carlin said it all in this stand-up routine:

And he is absolutely right....

[+DieChecker]

yes it is. 75% payout if no minor changes are made. That's not zero. 2026 and 2033 are a LONG way off.

That is the problem. The Liberal answer is... "It is SOOOO FAR away, so don't worry...."

75% is not 100%... Dude...

Why should I have to pay 100% into it and get 75% out? Isn't that exactly what happened to people who went to retire in 2009 and 2010?? The Stock Market had dropped to 75% what it was in 2007 and EVERYONE was saying how that was a travisty against the Elderly, but if it is SS and the FedGov giving out that 75% out of 100% then it is super-duper-fine??

That is such a far place in the future that MINOR changes can easily make it up. SS is not bankrupt. It is NOT out of money. And will not be out of money when that article says. We could make up most of it by just removing the SS tax income ceiling. Currently after you make 120,000+ I can't remember the exact amount, you don't have to pay it anymore in that year. It's a gift for rich people.

Very True!! I agree that the ceiling should be removed. But, I don't think that alone will fix SS.

Now I just want to see those changes done IMMEDIATELY!! We need to either 1) increase the FICA tax by 4 cents per dollar (4%), or, 2) we need to drop all SS payments by 20%. That will insure solvancy into Infinity...

http://www.pbs.org/n...is-fooling.html

Take the just-released 2013 Trustees Report on Social Security's long-run finances. Table IVB6 shows an infinite horizon fiscal gap of $23.1 trillion separating the Social Security system's projected costs and taxes after taking into account the several trillion in the Social Security trust fund. To give you a sense of how massive this shortfall is -- and it grew by fully 8 percent last year alone -- it is 50 percent larger than U.S. GDP and almost twice the size of total federal debt held by the public.

Eliminating the infinite horizon fiscal gap would require an immediate and permanent 4-cents-on-the-dollar hike in Social Security's current 12.4 percent Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax rate. That's a 32 percent increase, implying that Social Security is 32 percent underfunded! Alternatively, we could cut all Social Security benefits immediately and permanently by 22 percent.

President Obama keeps telling us that Social Security just needs to be tweaked. He should take a look at Table IVB6, and so should the press, which, as it does every year, has completely ignored this true and truly terrible assessment of the system's financial status.

Edited June 18, 2013 by DieChecker

[little_dreamer]

I have no proof that SS will NOT be there when I reach 65 (20+ years from now). Just basing my opinion on trends like raising the retirement age for benefits, etc. I think the age for full SS benefits will continue to rise some more, and that benefits will be adjusted for inflation less often.

I just think it will pay less and less, compared to current SS benefits for people retired now.

[+DieChecker]

Which is a wiser action...

1) Assume SS will be there and pay out 100% of what it says it will. Plan for nothing bad to happen. Depend on SS for your home and food.

2) Assume SS will not be there and assume you'll get nothing. Plan to save for yourself and your home and food. Do not depend on SS for home and food.

The person in situation #2 will always be better off then the person in situation #1.

You can also assume SS will be there and also save, but then really, isn't that the same as saying that you don't believe SS will be enough to help anyway?

[questionmark]

I have no proof that SS will NOT be there when I reach 65 (20+ years from now).

If the federal government is capable of returning what they took out of the till you might be right. I just have very little confidence in the government being able to do that.

Instead of buying a new car every 4 years try for 8 and save the balance for your retirement. It will come handy... even if SS is still there.

[darkmoonlady]

It isn't some great conspiracy, it's called baby boomers reaching retirement age. There is however a large young workforce out there still paying into the system and funnily enough if we offered immigration reform so that illegals could work to become citizens easier they too could start paying into social security and bolster the funds in the coffers.

[+DieChecker]

It isn't some great conspiracy, it's called baby boomers reaching retirement age. There is however a large young workforce out there still paying into the system and funnily enough if we offered immigration reform so that illegals could work to become citizens easier they too could start paying into social security and bolster the funds in the coffers.

That is one of the reasons I favor Nationalizing the illegal immigrants currently living here. BOOM! Make them US Citzens, give them SSN and get them paying taxes and stop the billion dollar buisiness of money under the table.

I say Nationalize the illegals, because that makes them a resource. Calling it an Amnesty would indicate it was doing them a favor.

[lightly]

I've paid into SS since i was 14 .. i think i might be "entitled" to some of that money when i retire soonish? .. I've also tried to save for retirement.. problem is, it just looses value as it's "saved" .. by the time i spend it , i estimate it will be practically worthless. lol , financial wizard .. i ain't !

My savings grew , slowly, when banks actually had to pay decent interest (on CDs and such) to attract money. Banks don't need to offer incentives anymore... most people use direct deposit and now SS checks are governmentally mandated into bank coffers .. the cashless society is like mana from heaven for the banks.

[ninjadude]

Why should I have to pay 100% into it and get 75% out?

you don't. you pay a percentage of your income.

Isn't that exactly what happened to people who went to retire in 2009 and 2010??

no. SS paid out full benefits.

The Stock Market had dropped to 75% what it was in 2007 and EVERYONE was saying how that was a travisty against the Elderly, but if it is SS and the FedGov giving out that 75% out of 100% then it is super-duper-fine??

It was a travesty for 401Ks not SS.

Very True!! I agree that the ceiling should be removed. But, I don't think that alone will fix SS.

The size and design of SS means that you make minor course corrections that can make a huge benefit in far future years.

[+DieChecker]

Here is what I can get at my credit union for interest bearing savings account...

Interest Checking (Tiered Rate)Rates Effective: 6/18/2013 Deposit Amount Interest Rate Annual Percentage Yield¹ Minimum Balance to Avoid Service Fees Monthly Service Fee if Below Minimum Balance² $0 - $999.99 0.05% 0.05% $500 Avg/Month $7.00 $1,000 - $4,999.99 0.05% 0.05% $500 Avg/Month $7.00 $5,000 and higher 0.05% 0.05% $500 Avg/Month $7.00 ¹Annual Percentage Yield subject to change.

²Fees could reduce earnings on the account.

0.05%.... One twentieth of one percent interest yearly!!! WOW!!! Need to open that savings account right now and start saving....

So if I put 10,000 dollars in there and let it sit for 10 years, that would be about 52 dollars earned.

If I put that 10,000 dollars in SS, it would make me.... 0 dollars.

And if I put it into a Mutual fund with a 7% record over 25 years, that would be 11,000 dollars earned (in 10 yrs).

Please let math decide the best use for your retirement money.

[ninjadude]

Which is a wiser action...

1) Assume SS will be there and pay out 100% of what it says it will. Plan for nothing bad to happen. Depend on SS for your home and food.

2) Assume SS will not be there and assume you'll get nothing. Plan to save for yourself and your home and food. Do not depend on SS for home and food.

SS isn't based on assumptions. It is not a retirement plan but an insurance policy against poverty. Of course you should plan for yourself.

[+DieChecker]

you don't. you pay a percentage of your income.

Ummm... Nope. SS sends me a letter every year that says how much I've paid in and what my expected pay out is going to be. But that Pay out will drop to 75% what it would otherwise be. That is not getting the "Value" out of what I paid in. SS is making me a written prediction, which is threatened with drastic cuts if THEY don't do something about it. But... nothing will be done. And I'll simply be forced to eat the change.

But.... At least I am not a government cool aid drinker and I am saving for the day that I will retire. And I'll actually have 0 need of SS, because I planned ahead.

True lots of people can't save money, and I agree that SS should help them out, but they are fools to depend on it. Because in the short term nothing will be done. And the long term (in politics) is simply a bunch of short terms linked together.

no. SS paid out full benefits.

It was a travesty for 401Ks not SS.

Come on 'Dude, I was making an analogy.

The situation is the same. SS will have to cut payments to 75% of what they would otherwise be. When this happens in other payment systems it is called a horrendous problem.

The size and design of SS means that you make minor course corrections that can make a huge benefit in far future years.

So where are these corrections? I want them to happen. I don't even mind paying a few more percentages into the system, but I want to see them FIX it. If they wait till 2025, it is going to be much, much harder to make it happen politically.

[ninjadude]

Ummm... Nope. SS sends me a letter every year that says how much I've paid in and what my expected pay out is going to be. But that Pay out will drop to 75% what it would otherwise be. That is not getting the "Value" out of what I paid in. SS is making me a written prediction,

You notice that the forecast changes from year to year. Actually the Value is quite a bit more than you paid in. You've really gotten a bee in your bonnet today!

[+DieChecker]

SS isn't based on assumptions. It is not a retirement plan but an insurance policy against poverty. Of course you should plan for yourself.

Insurance is bought based on assumptions. Almost entirely on assumptions in fact.

SS is a bit of a gamble too. The FedGov is gambling that you'll not live long enough to collect all the value that you've put in. But the FedGov is loosing that gamble right now and the Trust Fund is withering away. People are living longer and longer.

I think it is Japan that is facing an even greater social issue.... They have been having small familys and now the taxes to support the retired are very high due to a shortage of young workers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elderly_people_in_Japan

Japan's population is aging (see Aging of Japan). During the 1950s, the percentage of the population in the 65-and-over group remained steady at around 5%. Throughout subsequent decades, however, that age group expanded, and by 1989 it had grown to 11.6% of the population. It was expected to reach 16.9% by 2000 and almost 25.2% by 2020. Perhaps the most outstanding feature of this trend was the speed with which it was occurring in comparison to trends in other industrialized nations. In the United States, expansion of the 65-and-over age group from 7% to 14% took 75 years; in the United Kingdom and Germany, this expansion took 45 years. The same expansion in Japan only took 24.5 years, passing 7% in late 1970 and 14% in early 1995.

[+DieChecker]

You notice that the forecast changes from year to year. Actually the Value is quite a bit more than you paid in. You've really gotten a bee in your bonnet today!

It changes but it does not change from say 40,000 a year to 30,000 a year due to lack of funds. That change of 10,000 is going to starve people. It is critical.

Edited June 19, 2013 by DieChecker

[tapirmusic]

Filthy Baby Boomers.

At least by 2033 most of them will be gone.

[ninjadude]

the Trust Fund is withering away.

it's supposed to. It was built up in expectation of baby boomers who are retiring now.

[Harte]

This may be part of the problem.

The government needs to stay out of it. Not their money to spend.

What would you have the SSA invest this money in, then? Other than the "special" government bonds they but with it now.

They depend on the money growing. It's not like they can just stash a bunch of cash in some giant vault.

Harte