If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(US News)   Ten things you should know about social security, other than Obama is part of a Kenyan plot to destroy America   (money.usnews.com) divider line 52
    More: Interesting, Kenyan, obama, social security  
•       •       •

1791 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Feb 2013 at 11:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-19 10:52:45 AM  
 
2013-02-19 11:07:32 AM  
I don't understand when people say SS won't be there when I retire,

Well stupid only if you vote to take it away.
 
2013-02-19 11:10:16 AM  
DNRTA, was one of them the theory that Obama stole someone's SSN?
 
2013-02-19 11:14:52 AM  
Sorry, but there isn't enough hysteria in this article.

Four posts and nobody has mentioned Ponzi scheme yet. I am disappoint.
 
2013-02-19 11:19:07 AM  

JolobinSmokin: I don't understand when people say SS won't be there when I retire,

Well stupid only if you vote to take it away.


No need to vote on anything to have it taken away. It will be out of money all on its own in 2033.

Now according to the article, your Social Security tax will need to rise 1.3 percent to keep it solvent for 75 more years, or benefits cut 16.2 percent. That may be something you're interested in voting on, if somehow there were national votes on such things.
 
2013-02-19 11:19:23 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: See also:

5 Huge Myths About Social Security


Good link.  Thanks.
 
2013-02-19 11:21:16 AM  
So that's #11, then, subby? PSH! Typical LIEBERAL MEDIA!! MSM! LSM! MSG! USDA!
 
2013-02-19 11:23:08 AM  
So Obama's plan to destroy 'merica is different than the gop's?
 
2013-02-19 11:32:45 AM  

JolobinSmokin: I don't understand when people say SS won't be there when I retire,

Well stupid only if you vote to take it away.


republicans have been trying to defund Sesame Street for years now. It's days are numbered....
 
2013-02-19 11:39:24 AM  

Cletus C.: No need to vote on anything to have it taken away. It will be out of money all on its own in 2033.


Not "out of money, but no longer covering 100% of the benefit payout. There's a difference.

Cletus C.: Now according to the article, your Social Security tax will need to rise 1.3 percent to keep it solvent for 75 more years, or benefits cut 16.2 percent.


Or, we could, you know,  index the cap on SS taxed income to inflation thus increasing the the amount contributed, while at the same time, pursuing policies that actually increase employment and working class income thus increasing the size of the pool of those who contribute to SS.

And also, too...congress should take steps to pay back the 2.5 trillion dollars they borrowed from SS to cover budget deficits that were directly caused by tax policy favorable to the wealthiest among us on the promise that it would "trickle down" to the working classes...which, of course, it never did.
 
2013-02-19 11:41:34 AM  

X-boxershorts: Cletus C.: No need to vote on anything to have it taken away. It will be out of money all on its own in 2033.

Not "out of money, but no longer covering 100% of the benefit payout. There's a difference.

Cletus C.: Now according to the article, your Social Security tax will need to rise 1.3 percent to keep it solvent for 75 more years, or benefits cut 16.2 percent.

Or, we could, you know,  index the cap on SS taxed income to inflation thus increasing the the amount contributed, while at the same time, pursuing policies that actually increase employment and working class income thus increasing the size of the pool of those who contribute to SS.

And also, too...congress should take steps to pay back the 2.5 trillion dollars they borrowed from SS to cover budget deficits that were directly caused by tax policy favorable to the wealthiest among us on the promise that it would "trickle down" to the working classes...which, of course, it never did.


One infromed post and one informed post.
 
2013-02-19 11:45:16 AM  

Cletus C.: JolobinSmokin: I don't understand when people say SS won't be there when I retire,

Well stupid only if you vote to take it away.

No need to vote on anything to have it taken away. It will be out of money all on its own in 2033.


No it won't. The trust fund will be exhausted, which is different. When the trust fund is exhausted, the payouts will have to drop to match what is actually being collected in Social Security taxes. That's about 80% of promised benefits, not zero percent.

Now according to the article, your Social Security tax will need to rise 1.3 percent to keep it solvent for 75 more years, or benefits cut 16.2 percent. That may be something you're interested in voting on, if somehow there were national votes on such things.

The article also failed to mention that one other option would be to raise or remove entirely the cap on social security taxes. Currently, if you earn more than $114k per year, the income above $114k is not subject to Social Security tax. If we removed that cap Social Security would immediately be solvent for the next 75 years (which is as long as they project it).
 
2013-02-19 11:45:21 AM  
11. A lot of people believe that if we got rid of SS tomorrow, your salary would go up 12.4%--the 6.2% that's taken out of your paycheck, plus the 6.2% paid in by your employer. These people are absolutely adorable.
 
2013-02-19 11:46:32 AM  

Cletus C.: No need to vote on anything to have it taken away. It will be out of money all on its own in 2033.


Ignorance or dishonesty?
 
2013-02-19 11:47:17 AM  

mrshowrules: X-boxershorts: Cletus C.: No need to vote on anything to have it taken away. It will be out of money all on its own in 2033.

Not "out of money, but no longer covering 100% of the benefit payout. There's a difference.

Cletus C.: Now according to the article, your Social Security tax will need to rise 1.3 percent to keep it solvent for 75 more years, or benefits cut 16.2 percent.

Or, we could, you know,  index the cap on SS taxed income to inflation thus increasing the the amount contributed, while at the same time, pursuing policies that actually increase employment and working class income thus increasing the size of the pool of those who contribute to SS.

And also, too...congress should take steps to pay back the 2.5 trillion dollars they borrowed from SS to cover budget deficits that were directly caused by tax policy favorable to the wealthiest among us on the promise that it would "trickle down" to the working classes...which, of course, it never did.

One infromed post and one informed post.


What I said came straight from TFA, based on information from the Social Security Board of Trustees. If it doesn't fit your beliefs I understand your chagrin.
 
2013-02-19 11:52:26 AM  

BMulligan: Cletus C.: No need to vote on anything to have it taken away. It will be out of money all on its own in 2033.

Ignorance or dishonesty?


The Social Security Board of Trustees? You pick.
 
2013-02-19 11:58:59 AM  
Social Security will be fine unless the Baby Boomers find a way to loot every penny for themselves and leave nothing to future generations, but I don't know, I trust those guys.
 
2013-02-19 12:00:42 PM  

Zasteva: Cletus C.: JolobinSmokin: I don't understand when people say SS won't be there when I retire,

Well stupid only if you vote to take it away.

No need to vote on anything to have it taken away. It will be out of money all on its own in 2033.

No it won't. The trust fund will be exhausted, which is different. When the trust fund is exhausted, the payouts will have to drop to match what is actually being collected in Social Security taxes. That's about 80% of promised benefits, not zero percent.

Now according to the article, your Social Security tax will need to rise 1.3 percent to keep it solvent for 75 more years, or benefits cut 16.2 percent. That may be something you're interested in voting on, if somehow there were national votes on such things.

The article also failed to mention that one other option would be to raise or remove entirely the cap on social security taxes. Currently, if you earn more than $114k per year, the income above $114k is not subject to Social Security tax. If we removed that cap Social Security would immediately be solvent for the next 75 years (which is as long as they project it).


The article does mention the cap but does not project sustainability based on raising the cap. There were numerous scenarios the article could have posited to head off the 2033 insolvency.

For example, eligibility based on need would help.

Also, if Obama hadn't wimped out on the death panels idea that would have been beneficial.
 
2013-02-19 12:00:53 PM  

Cletus C.: mrshowrules: X-boxershorts: Cletus C.: No need to vote on anything to have it taken away. It will be out of money all on its own in 2033.

Not "out of money, but no longer covering 100% of the benefit payout. There's a difference.

Cletus C.: Now according to the article, your Social Security tax will need to rise 1.3 percent to keep it solvent for 75 more years, or benefits cut 16.2 percent.

Or, we could, you know,  index the cap on SS taxed income to inflation thus increasing the the amount contributed, while at the same time, pursuing policies that actually increase employment and working class income thus increasing the size of the pool of those who contribute to SS.

And also, too...congress should take steps to pay back the 2.5 trillion dollars they borrowed from SS to cover budget deficits that were directly caused by tax policy favorable to the wealthiest among us on the promise that it would "trickle down" to the working classes...which, of course, it never did.

One infromed post and one informed post.

What I said came straight from TFA, based on information from the Social Security Board of Trustees. If it doesn't fit your beliefs I understand your chagrin.


There is nothing in the article about SS being out of money by 2033.  Where you got that tidbit might explain how infromed you are.
 
2013-02-19 12:01:27 PM  

Cletus C.: What I said came straight from TFA, based on information from the Social Security Board of Trustees. If it doesn't fit your beliefs I understand your chagrin.


I take it you're referring to THIS FTFA:

"The assets in the Social Security trust funds are expected to be exhausted in 2033, according to the Social Security Board of Trustees' annual report. After that, incoming tax revenue will provide enough income to pay out about three-quarters of promised benefits. "If nothing else is done, certainly payments would be reduced dramatically to just what the tax rolls were bringing in each year, but we can always increase the Social Security tax," says Blankenship "

Which actually amounts to a poorly worded reference to THIS :

From the "5 Myths" article linked to in thread:

"
Myth No. 1: Social Security is going bankrupt
The biggest misunderstanding out there relates to Social Security's financial challenges. (A Google search for "Social Security bankruptcy" turned up 50 million hits.) But the fact is that Social Security isn't going bankrupt, nor is bankruptcy really possible as the system is currently set up.
Here's the source of the confusion: Historically, Social Security has collected more than it paid out. The extra money built up in a trust fund that collects interest. But due to demographic and economic changes (more on that in a minute), it's expected that insurance payments will begin to exceed income in 2021. Around 2033, the fund will run out."


To be fair, I understand your confusion, because the author of the original article poorly transcribed the information provided to her by the SSA.

Here's the actuarial report from the SSA that contains the chart and data referenced in the "5 Myths" article:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2012/tr2012.pdf

You should read this and, by doing so, join the legion of the informed.
 
2013-02-19 12:02:55 PM  

mrshowrules: Cletus C.: mrshowrules: X-boxershorts: Cletus C.: No need to vote on anything to have it taken away. It will be out of money all on its own in 2033.

Not "out of money, but no longer covering 100% of the benefit payout. There's a difference.

Cletus C.: Now according to the article, your Social Security tax will need to rise 1.3 percent to keep it solvent for 75 more years, or benefits cut 16.2 percent.

Or, we could, you know,  index the cap on SS taxed income to inflation thus increasing the the amount contributed, while at the same time, pursuing policies that actually increase employment and working class income thus increasing the size of the pool of those who contribute to SS.

And also, too...congress should take steps to pay back the 2.5 trillion dollars they borrowed from SS to cover budget deficits that were directly caused by tax policy favorable to the wealthiest among us on the promise that it would "trickle down" to the working classes...which, of course, it never did.

One infromed post and one informed post.

What I said came straight from TFA, based on information from the Social Security Board of Trustees. If it doesn't fit your beliefs I understand your chagrin.

There is nothing in the article about SS being out of money by 2033.  Where you got that tidbit might explain how infromed you are.


What the hell, dude?

The trust fund has a projected deficit. The assets in the Social Security trust funds are expected to be exhausted in 2033, according to the Social Security Board of Trustees' annual report. After that, incoming tax revenue will provide enough income to pay out about three-quarters of promised benefits. "If nothing else is done, certainly payments would be reduced dramatically to just what the tax rolls were bringing in each year, but we can always increase the Social Security tax," says Blankenship. Possible changes that might correct the problem include tax increases, benefit cuts, or a combination of the two approaches. The trustees found that an immediate payroll tax increase of about 1.3 percent for workers and employers or an immediate benefit reduction of 16.2 percent would both correct the projected deficit and restore the program to solvency for the next 75 years.
 
2013-02-19 12:04:26 PM  

BunkoSquad: Social Security will be fine unless the Baby Boomers find a way to loot every penny for themselves and leave nothing to future generations, but I don't know, I trust those guys.


More accurately, it's the generation following us boomers that has bought into the faux libertarian ideology that trickle down economics and free market small government policy is the road to renewed American prosperity.
 
2013-02-19 12:09:26 PM  

X-boxershorts: To be fair, I understand your confusion, because the author of the original article poorly transcribed the information provided to her by the SSA.

Here's the actuarial report from the SSA that contains the chart and data referenced in the "5 Myths" article:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2012/tr2012.pdf

You should read this and, by doing so, join the legion of the informed.


The five myths article is not at all supported by the report you linked to. Read the narrative and conclusions.
 
2013-02-19 12:09:36 PM  

Cletus C.: BMulligan: Cletus C.: No need to vote on anything to have it taken away. It will be out of money all on its own in 2033.

Ignorance or dishonesty?

The Social Security Board of Trustees? You pick.


Ah - dishonesty, then. I'm so glad we were able to clear that up.
 
2013-02-19 12:10:14 PM  

Cletus C.: mrshowrules: Cletus C.: mrshowrules: X-boxershorts: Cletus C.: No need to vote on anything to have it taken away. It will be out of money all on its own in 2033.

Not "out of money, but no longer covering 100% of the benefit payout. There's a difference.

Cletus C.: Now according to the article, your Social Security tax will need to rise 1.3 percent to keep it solvent for 75 more years, or benefits cut 16.2 percent.

Or, we could, you know,  index the cap on SS taxed income to inflation thus increasing the the amount contributed, while at the same time, pursuing policies that actually increase employment and working class income thus increasing the size of the pool of those who contribute to SS.

And also, too...congress should take steps to pay back the 2.5 trillion dollars they borrowed from SS to cover budget deficits that were directly caused by tax policy favorable to the wealthiest among us on the promise that it would "trickle down" to the working classes...which, of course, it never did.

One infromed post and one informed post.

What I said came straight from TFA, based on information from the Social Security Board of Trustees. If it doesn't fit your beliefs I understand your chagrin.

There is nothing in the article about SS being out of money by 2033.  Where you got that tidbit might explain how infromed you are.

What the hell, dude?

The trust fund has a projected deficit. The assets in the Social Security trust funds are expected to be exhausted in 2033, according to the Social Security Board of Trustees' annual report. After that, incoming tax revenue will provide enough income to pay out about three-quarters of promised benefits. "If nothing else is done, certainly payments would be reduced dramatically to just what the tax rolls were bringing in each year, but we can always increase the Social Security tax," says Blankenship. Possible changes that might correct the problem include tax increases, benefit cuts, or a combination of the two approaches. ...


I assumed you were talking about the TFA the thread is about.  There is nothing in that article related to what you are saying.  How the hell am I suppose to know what article you are thinking about in your head.  I can't see which tabs you have open in your browser right now.  But even in your own quote it says nothing about it being out of money.
 
2013-02-19 12:12:45 PM  
mrshowrules: I assumed you were talking about the TFA the thread is about.  There is nothing in that article related to what you are saying.  How the hell am I suppose to know what article you are thinking about in your head.  I can't see which tabs you have open in your browser right now.  But even in your own quote it says nothing about it being out of money.

Page 2 of TFA. And this doesn't mean out of money?

 ... assets in the Social Security trust funds are expected to be exhausted in 2033
 
2013-02-19 12:14:19 PM  

Cletus C.: X-boxershorts: To be fair, I understand your confusion, because the author of the original article poorly transcribed the information provided to her by the SSA.

Here's the actuarial report from the SSA that contains the chart and data referenced in the "5 Myths" article:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2012/tr2012.pdf

You should read this and, by doing so, join the legion of the informed.

The five myths article is not at all supported by the report you linked to. Read the narrative and conclusions.


I have and have reached an entirely opposite conclusion.
 
2013-02-19 12:23:17 PM  

Cletus C.: mrshowrules: I assumed you were talking about the TFA the thread is about.  There is nothing in that article related to what you are saying.  How the hell am I suppose to know what article you are thinking about in your head.  I can't see which tabs you have open in your browser right now.  But even in your own quote it says nothing about it being out of money.

Page 2 of TFA. And this doesn't mean out of money?

 ... assets in the Social Security trust funds are expected to be exhausted in 2033


Dusk-You-n-Me: See also:

5 Huge Myths About Social Security

 
2013-02-19 12:27:40 PM  

sendtodave: Cletus C.: mrshowrules: I assumed you were talking about the TFA the thread is about.  There is nothing in that article related to what you are saying.  How the hell am I suppose to know what article you are thinking about in your head.  I can't see which tabs you have open in your browser right now.  But even in your own quote it says nothing about it being out of money.

Page 2 of TFA. And this doesn't mean out of money?

 ... assets in the Social Security trust funds are expected to be exhausted in 2033

Dusk-You-n-Me: See also:

5 Huge Myths About Social Security


Yes, I read that. Both conclusions come from a report by the Social Security Board of Trustees, which flatly states in its narrative the fund is heading toward exhaustion by 2033. The myths article uses charts attached to the report to draw a different conclusion.
 
2013-02-19 12:36:14 PM  

Cletus C.: sendtodave: Cletus C.: mrshowrules: I assumed you were talking about the TFA the thread is about.  There is nothing in that article related to what you are saying.  How the hell am I suppose to know what article you are thinking about in your head.  I can't see which tabs you have open in your browser right now.  But even in your own quote it says nothing about it being out of money.

Page 2 of TFA. And this doesn't mean out of money?

 ... assets in the Social Security trust funds are expected to be exhausted in 2033

Dusk-You-n-Me: See also:

5 Huge Myths About Social Security

Yes, I read that. Both conclusions come from a report by the Social Security Board of Trustees, which flatly states in its narrative the fund is heading toward exhaustion by 2033. The myths article uses charts attached to the report to draw a different conclusion.


The fund currently has a surplus. THAT is what is going to be exhausted by 2033.
The fund will continue to take in enough SS tax revenue to pay out 75% of it's mandated benefits.

There is a significant distinction between the 2 and you refuse to acknowledge that.
 
2013-02-19 12:44:25 PM  

X-boxershorts: Cletus C.: sendtodave: Cletus C.: mrshowrules: I assumed you were talking about the TFA the thread is about.  There is nothing in that article related to what you are saying.  How the hell am I suppose to know what article you are thinking about in your head.  I can't see which tabs you have open in your browser right now.  But even in your own quote it says nothing about it being out of money.

Page 2 of TFA. And this doesn't mean out of money?

 ... assets in the Social Security trust funds are expected to be exhausted in 2033

Dusk-You-n-Me: See also:

5 Huge Myths About Social Security

Yes, I read that. Both conclusions come from a report by the Social Security Board of Trustees, which flatly states in its narrative the fund is heading toward exhaustion by 2033. The myths article uses charts attached to the report to draw a different conclusion.

The fund currently has a surplus. THAT is what is going to be exhausted by 2033.
The fund will continue to take in enough SS tax revenue to pay out 75% of it's mandated benefits.

There is a significant distinction between the 2 and you refuse to acknowledge that.


This is from the conclusion of the Social Security Board of Trustees annual report.

The Trustees project that annual cost will exceed non-interest incomethroughout the long-range period under the intermediate assumptions. The dollar level of the combined trust funds declines beginning in 2021 until assets are exhausted in 2033. Considered separately, the DI Trust Fund becomes exhausted in 2016 and the OASI Trust Fund becomes exhausted in 2035. The projected exhaustion date occurs two years earlier for the DI Trust Fund and three years earlier for the OASI Trust Fund and the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds.
 
2013-02-19 12:47:46 PM  
This thread is shaping up nicely.
 
2013-02-19 12:50:59 PM  

Zasteva: Currently, if you earn more than $114k per year, the income above $114k is not subject to Social Security tax. If we removed that cap Social Security would immediately be solvent for the next 75 years (which is as long as they project it).


Sounds good to me. ( I highly doubt I'll make more than $114,000 per year in the near future....)
 
2013-02-19 12:52:17 PM  
This has been the battle line for the political parties.

Republicans: Social Security is running out of money and something must be done.
Democrats: Everything's fine. Republicans want grandma to eat dog food.

Ideally for all of us, Democrats would be right. Chill, bro.
 
2013-02-19 12:58:55 PM  

BunkoSquad: Social Security will be fine unless the Baby Boomers find a way to loot every penny for themselves and leave nothing to future generations, but I don't know, I trust those guys.


Know how I know you DRTFA, or even understand the concept of Social Security?  There's no way for "the Baby Boomers" to actually "loot every penny" from SS.  It's not like there's this huge vault in the basement of the Capitol filled with $100 bills that sends out 54 million envelopes every month just waiting for Casey Affleck and Carl Reiner to ride zip lines down in there and walk out with dufflebags full of porno flyers.

It's a tax that gets paid out of every paycheck in America.  It comes into the government regularly and goes out regularly.  As long as there are people getting paychecks in America, Social Security will have at least some minimum amount of money.  As the article says, the current level of tax will not keep up with the current level of benefits, starting in approximately 2033.  But this is not a complicated fix, or a confusing problem, or something that requires a large amount of study.  We either put more money into Social Security, or we pay out less.  And the decision on what to do will most likely be made at least 10-15 years from now (judging by how much current Republicans care about the future) and therefore will reflect the attitudes of far fewer baby boomers than if there were an actual "emergency".
 
2013-02-19 12:59:08 PM  

Cletus C.: X-boxershorts: Cletus C.: sendtodave: Cletus C.: mrshowrules: I assumed you were talking about the TFA the thread is about.  There is nothing in that article related to what you are saying.  How the hell am I suppose to know what article you are thinking about in your head.  I can't see which tabs you have open in your browser right now.  But even in your own quote it says nothing about it being out of money.

Page 2 of TFA. And this doesn't mean out of money?

 ... assets in the Social Security trust funds are expected to be exhausted in 2033

Dusk-You-n-Me: See also:

5 Huge Myths About Social Security

Yes, I read that. Both conclusions come from a report by the Social Security Board of Trustees, which flatly states in its narrative the fund is heading toward exhaustion by 2033. The myths article uses charts attached to the report to draw a different conclusion.

The fund currently has a surplus. THAT is what is going to be exhausted by 2033.
The fund will continue to take in enough SS tax revenue to pay out 75% of it's mandated benefits.

There is a significant distinction between the 2 and you refuse to acknowledge that.

This is from the conclusion of the Social Security Board of Trustees annual report.

The Trustees project that annual cost will exceed non-interest incomethroughout the long-range period under the intermediate assumptions. The dollar level of the combined trust funds declines beginning in 2021 until assets are exhausted in 2033. Considered separately, the DI Trust Fund becomes exhausted in 2016 and the OASI Trust Fund becomes exhausted in 2035. The projected exhaustion date occurs two years earlier for the DI Trust Fund and three years earlier for the OASI Trust Fund and the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds.


But revenue continues to come in, sufficient to cover 75% of the benefit outlays.
 
2013-02-19 01:01:36 PM  

Cletus C.: Democrats: Everything's fine. Republicans want grandma to eat dog food.


And THIS comment is blatantly false. Not a single Democrat thinks everything associated to SSA is fine.
But, Republicans want to leave retirement up to the whims of Wall St, which proved disastrous already to thousands of pensionj benefit plans across the country.
 
2013-02-19 01:06:52 PM  

Cletus C.: mrshowrules: I assumed you were talking about the TFA the thread is about.  There is nothing in that article related to what you are saying.  How the hell am I suppose to know what article you are thinking about in your head.  I can't see which tabs you have open in your browser right now.  But even in your own quote it says nothing about it being out of money.

Page 2 of TFA. And this doesn't mean out of money?

 ... assets in the Social Security trust funds are expected to be exhausted in 2033


My apologies.  I didn't know there was a second page.
 
2013-02-19 01:11:46 PM  

mrshowrules: Cletus C.: mrshowrules: I assumed you were talking about the TFA the thread is about.  There is nothing in that article related to what you are saying.  How the hell am I suppose to know what article you are thinking about in your head.  I can't see which tabs you have open in your browser right now.  But even in your own quote it says nothing about it being out of money.

Page 2 of TFA. And this doesn't mean out of money?

 ... assets in the Social Security trust funds are expected to be exhausted in 2033

My apologies.  I didn't know there was a second page.


Cool. But we can continue to disagree about everything else.
 
2013-02-19 01:14:20 PM  

Cletus C.: mrshowrules: Cletus C.: mrshowrules: I assumed you were talking about the TFA the thread is about.  There is nothing in that article related to what you are saying.  How the hell am I suppose to know what article you are thinking about in your head.  I can't see which tabs you have open in your browser right now.  But even in your own quote it says nothing about it being out of money.

Page 2 of TFA. And this doesn't mean out of money?

 ... assets in the Social Security trust funds are expected to be exhausted in 2033

My apologies.  I didn't know there was a second page.

Cool. But we can continue to disagree about everything else.


And isn't that what healthy debate is all about?
 
2013-02-19 01:23:49 PM  
Ten things you should know about social security, other than Obama is part of a Kenyan Keynesian plot to destroy America

FTFS
 
2013-02-19 01:26:43 PM  
Am I the only one that noticed that the author writing about retirement for U.S. News looks like she just graduated college?  Has she even been in the workforce long enough to have a Social Security deduction hit one of her paychecks?  Not saying we need an old geezer in the post, but someone with a bit more experience in the workforce would lead me to believe that the author isn't just regurgitating a Wikipedia entry.
 
2013-02-19 01:31:29 PM  

Cletus C.: mrshowrules: Cletus C.: mrshowrules: I assumed you were talking about the TFA the thread is about.  There is nothing in that article related to what you are saying.  How the hell am I suppose to know what article you are thinking about in your head.  I can't see which tabs you have open in your browser right now.  But even in your own quote it says nothing about it being out of money.

Page 2 of TFA. And this doesn't mean out of money?

 ... assets in the Social Security trust funds are expected to be exhausted in 2033

My apologies.  I didn't know there was a second page.

Cool. But we can continue to disagree about everything else.


you accepted my apology like a gentleman.  When they round up the non-believers for Obama's training camps, I will put in a good word for you.
 
2013-02-19 01:33:36 PM  
As the article says, the current level of tax will not keep up with the current level of benefits, starting in approximately 2033.  But this is not a complicated fix, or a confusing problem, or something that requires a large amount of study.  We either put more money into Social Security, or we pay out less.  And the decision on what to do will most likely be made at least 10-15 years from now (judging by how much current Republicans care about the future) and therefore will reflect the attitudes of far fewer baby boomers than if there were an actual "emergency".


Actually, current tax levels are already insufficient to meet current benefits and have been for a couple of years, 2010 if I remember correctly. Right now SS trust fund is still actually growing (not much) even though benefits are exceeding tax receipts due to interest payments on the money invested in the trust fund, but the insurance will only be enough for a few years (as in <10) and then we will begin depleting the fund to be able to continue to make the payments. The trust fund is projected to be empty by 2033, so Cletus was correct above.

That doesn't mean we need to panic but we need to address it and not wait until the last minute, which will only mean that the changes we have to make to keep it solvent are going to be more drastic than if we act now and gradually faze in a few minor changes over several years so that we can avoid any kind of shock. We also need to avoid turning this into a partisan political topic and accusing anyone who proposes something to fix it as trying to throw grandma off of a cliff or make her eat dogfood. It doesn't need to be like that and it's the biggest obstacle there is to fixing the problem.
 
2013-02-19 02:18:57 PM  

runin800m: Actually, current tax levels are already insufficient to meet current benefits and have been for a couple of years, 2010 if I remember correctly. Right now SS trust fund is still actually growing (not much) even though benefits are exceeding tax receipts due to interest payments on the money invested in the trust fund, but the insurance will only be enough for a few years (as in <10) and then we will begin depleting the fund to be able to continue to make the payments. The trust fund is projected to be empty by 2033, so Cletus was correct above.


I stand corrected, I was pulling numbers FTFA.   Not having done much research on this, how much is in the trust fund and how fast is it going down?  What I'm asking, generally speaking, is how big the gap is between money coming in and money going out - TFA presented it as something like 25%, but it's unclear if that's the current gap or what it is projected to be in 2033 when the trust fund zeroes out (and when a lot more boomers are dead).

That doesn't mean we need to panic but we need to address it and not wait until the last minute, which will only mean that the changes we have to make to keep it solvent are going to be more drastic than if we act now and gradually faze in a few minor changes over several years so that we can avoid any kind of shock. We also need to avoid turning this into a partisan political topic and accusing anyone who proposes something to fix it as trying to throw grandma off of a cliff or make her eat dogfood. It doesn't need to be like that and it's the biggest obstacle there is to fixing the problem.

Agreed.  To me, it seems like the simplest solution is to index the cap to an inflationary rate as was proposed above, so that people making more money pay more into SS, if there's not the political power to removing the cap entirely.  Repayment of the loans taken out also sounds like a good idea.  I'm not sure, but is there currently a floor on SS contribution?  I don't think so, but I'd be worried about raising the rates on lower income people - they're already hit hard enough.  Raising the minimum wage and other sorts of economic stimulus that gets more people employed also sounds like a good idea, but is much more nebulous as far as "fixing social security" in my opinion.
 
2013-02-19 04:04:16 PM  

Cletus C.: JolobinSmokin: I don't understand when people say SS won't be there when I retire,

Well stupid only if you vote to take it away.

No need to vote on anything to have it taken away. It will be out of money all on its own in 2033.

Now according to the article, your Social Security tax will need to rise 1.3 percent to keep it solvent for 75 more years, or benefits cut 16.2 percent. That may be something you're interested in voting on, if somehow there were national votes on such things.


And now we all see why you have named yourself Cletus.

1. No way in Hell will the Govt. slash Social Security. Social Security may be the only reason left why the citizenry haven't rioted and dragged out the guillotines yet. It's like a pact that reads "Okay, we will spy on you, tax you, put stuff into your water and act like idiots, but in return we will provide you with a modest allowance every month in your declining years so you won't have to rummage garbage cans for food. Deal?" Take away Social Security from them, and it's Batsh*t Time.

2. Social Security WILL have full funding, one way or another.

3. Next time some dickhead jibbers about Social Security running insolvent, ask them what year that the Pentagon is going to run out of money.
 
2013-02-19 04:05:08 PM  

X-boxershorts: JolobinSmokin: I don't understand when people say SS won't be there when I retire,

Well stupid only if you vote to take it away.

republicans have been trying to defund Sesame Street for years now. It's days are numbered....


The gop thinks "The mind is a terrible thing."
 
2013-02-19 04:45:07 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Cletus C.: JolobinSmokin: I don't understand when people say SS won't be there when I retire,

Well stupid only if you vote to take it away.

No need to vote on anything to have it taken away. It will be out of money all on its own in 2033.

Now according to the article, your Social Security tax will need to rise 1.3 percent to keep it solvent for 75 more years, or benefits cut 16.2 percent. That may be something you're interested in voting on, if somehow there were national votes on such things.

And now we all see why you have named yourself Cletus.

1. No way in Hell will the Govt. slash Social Security. Social Security may be the only reason left why the citizenry haven't rioted and dragged out the guillotines yet. It's like a pact that reads "Okay, we will spy on you, tax you, put stuff into your water and act like idiots, but in return we will provide you with a modest allowance every month in your declining years so you won't have to rummage garbage cans for food. Deal?" Take away Social Security from them, and it's Batsh*t Time.

2. Social Security WILL have full funding, one way or another.

3. Next time some dickhead jibbers about Social Security running insolvent, ask them what year that the Pentagon is going to run out of money.


Messing with Social Security is political suicide? I see. Doesn't really solve the problem, but I see.
 
2013-02-19 04:45:13 PM  
Is it just me or is everyone in here arguing but saying the same thing?

SS trust fund done in 2033 unless we raise income into it.
 
2013-02-19 04:46:31 PM  
Sorry, hit send :

It will then be only supported by what it brings in, which is estimated to be enough to pay out about 75% of mandated rate.

Right?

So let's get rid of the cap.  It's stupid and horribly regressive.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report