When our govt decided to start giving it to immigrants who never paid into it, and also to use that money for things they wanted to buy but had no funding, is when it was doomed. Why do they not just limit who gets it, to who paid into it.

I never believed in SS as the way to go and would gladly have paid that money into a private savings account, but how could our "leaders" redistribute that wealth?
Just another damn dumb democrat idea. But just to clarify, there are plenty of Reps to help give that money away, since they are not on that play. Notice how they were never on SS?
Well, they are not on obamacare either.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:....How can you disagree with a mock?

I mean it the same way Michael Corleone did when he remarked that Hyman Roth had been dying of the same cancer for 20 years.

The reality is closer to what you say of course, maybe worse. But they have smoke and mirrored it so that no office holders have been disgraced by this debacle.

OK Jallen, my bad.

(But in my defense, I am preparing mid-term exams for my Summer accounting class).

I did read recently in a college teachers union newsletter that the unfunded CA public pension is somewhat of a scare tactic, there would be ample money to pay all teachers pensions, not to worry.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquabird:...I never believed in SS as the way to go and would gladly have paid that money into a private savings account....

I did the calcs, my social security plus employer matching since a sr in high school through about age 62. If all such money was invested annually in some private fund at 4%, through age 62, less the present value of what I would have received from filing for social security at age 62 (assuming I lived to age 85), the value of the private fund would be ~$400K more than the PV of the social security payments.

Whenever I meet someone new who mentions something about his/her work, I thank them for my SS checks.

We're into the second page, and no one has identified the real problem, why SS is going to go bust significantly sooner than even the article in the OP states.

There is not SS Trust Fund. On a real functional basis, it doesn't exist. It's basically an accounting fraud. Why? The answer to that goes to what it is invested in, US government bonds. The SS admin lends every dive of surplus to the US Treasury in return for bonds. What does the treasury do with the money? It spends it. It has no reserve to repay the bonds from. The Treasury is already running a huge deficit. So when SS needs the funds from those bonds back, where is the Treasury going to get that money.

Look at what SS would have had to do to fund itself if the trust fund was never formed. It would have had to raise taxes, borrow, or monetize the expense (have the Fed whip up some money to cover the outlays.) So now, what's treasury going to do to pay back the SS Admin when it needs first the interest, then the principle of the trust fund bonds? Exactly the same thing.

I always heard in my younger days that the retirement stool had 3 legs.

1. An employer pension.
2. Private savings.
3. Social security.

For future retirees it will be a mono pod.

Doesn't the government owe SSA about 3 trillion $ it "borrowed" (stole) from the fund?

Here's hoping Trump's expanding economy and jobs effort is highly successful.

Is it even possible, under best case scenario, that that could make a measurable effect on the shortfall?

Help me out on this.
Can't recall... Obama increased the withholding did he not? It was a temporary thing IIRC, did they let that expire?

quote:

Originally posted by cparktd:
Help me out on this.
Can't recall... Obama increased the withholding did he not? It was a temporary thing IIRC, did they let that expire?

In 2011 and the first two months of 2012, there was a reduction of the amount withheld from employees' pay from 6.2% to 4.2%. Employers still had to pay in 6.2%.

For those who had to deal with payroll software changes on December 31, 2010 and March 1, 2012, it was a b*tch.

Members of congress do, in fact, pay into social security! Have since 1984.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:....The SS admin lends every dive of surplus to the US Treasury in return for bonds. What does the treasury do with the money? It spends it. It has no reserve to repay the bonds from. The Treasury is already running a huge deficit. So when SS needs the funds from those bonds back, where is the Treasury going to get that money....

Well, from taxpayers, of course, one way or another (the Treasury will borrow it).

I think many here see/know the underlying issue, which is debt: the formal or "booked" debt, the part of the iceberg we see above the water; and the much larger unfunded liabilities below the water.

I didn't hear him in person, but John Adams reportedly noted "there are two ways to conquer a nation, the first is by the sword, the second is by debt". We may see some fulfillment of those words.

quote:

Originally posted by italia:

quote:

Originally posted by cparktd:
Help me out on this.
Can't recall... Obama increased the withholding did he not? It was a temporary thing IIRC, did they let that expire?

In 2011 and the first two months of 2012, there was a reduction of the amount withheld from employees' pay from 6.2% to 4.2%. Employers still had to pay in 6.2%.

For those who had to deal with payroll software changes on December 31, 2010 and March 1, 2012, it was a b*tch.

Oh yea, had it wrong. Thanks for the refresher...

quote:

I didn't hear him in person, but John Adams reportedly noted...

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
I did read recently in a college teachers union newsletter that the unfunded CA public pension is somewhat of a scare tactic, there would be ample money to pay all teachers pensions, not to worry.

Yeah, and Neville Chamberlain staffers wrote Munich had bought 'peace in our time' too.

I've never considered Social Security anything less than another contribution to the government in addition to my taxes.

It is not calculated in my retirement plan at all.

Cheers~

The only realistic way to extend this is to slowly raise the retirement age and to crack down on the huge increase to bogus disability claimants.
Even though the whole thing is a pyramid scheme, no politician is going to anything other than come up with a short term adjustment.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
I did read recently in a college teachers union newsletter that the unfunded CA public pension is somewhat of a scare tactic, there would be ample money to pay all teachers pensions, not to worry.

Yeah, and Neville Chamberlain staffers wrote Munich had bought 'peace in our time' too.

In one way, you are comparing apples with kumquats. Yet both were significant lies to the people, both lies with painful consequences.

My guess is they will start means testing SS benefits in the future. You have 1 million or more in assets in home equity and 401K/IRAs/investments? No or very reduced SS for you. Just not fair you know that millionaires get SS.

If they really do end up reducing benefits by 17 percent I wonder how that will work out if general welfare recipients face no reductions and SS recipients do.

quote:

My guess is they will start means testing SS benefits in the future. You have 1 million or more in assets in home equity and 401K/IRAs/investments? No or very reduced SS for you. Just not fair you know that millionaires get SS.

Yes, if liberal Democrats get their way. I think it more likely that the age for full benefits will be pushed into the future. Kick the can down the road. That is what has been done all along. If you are a high income earner and working in retirement your Part B Medicare premiums are higher. The other problem is that this sort of thing will not raise much revenue.

I managed my retirement fund and averaged better than 15% return. Something tells me SSA isn't in the same ballpark.