SS in even worse chit that was thought last year...

[pphilfran]

Benefits will need to be cut or taxes raised...if the limit were raised to the 120 or 125k range from our current 106.8K it would take care of the shortfall...

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/retirement/social-security-far-worse-shape-than-you-think/19804267/

For years, politicians and policymakers have reassured the American public that the Social Security system, which sends monthly checks out to 53 million beneficiaries, is safely solvent -- and will be for decades to come. But federal spending and income data from the Treasury Department reveal that the Social Security program is already deep in the red, with outlays exceeding payroll tax revenues by $76 billion in 2010 alone.

This stunning shortfall calls into question the rosy fiscal forecasts made by the Social Security Administration (SSA) about the program's future solvency.

The annual report of the Social Security Trustees, published in August 2010, forecast that the primary Social Security program, the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (OASI), would not exceed its tax receipts until 2018. Unfortunately, it happened in fiscal 2010, which ended in October. That year's outlays for the OASI fund were about $580 billion, while receipts came to only $540 billion -- a whopping $40 billion shortfall.

Add in the deficit from the second Social Security fund, Disability Insurance (DI), and the gap between total SSA outlays ($707 billion in 2010, according to the Treasury) and tax receipts ($631 billion) grows to $76 billion -- more than 10% of the program's expenses.

Short-Term Estimates Were Way Off the Mark

The SSA trustees had estimated a $41 billion deficit (excluding interest income), but the final deficit came to $76 billion -- almost twice what they had guessed. Just as troubling, their estimate for total SSA income in 2010 (which included both Social Security payroll taxes and interest paid by the Treasury on the Social Security Trust Funds) was $791 billion -- a number that overshot the actual total income of $741 billion (tax receipts of $631 billion plus interest income of about $110 billion) by $50 billion.

That the trustees could miss estimates only a few months into the future by such huge margins calls into question the accuracy of their long-term projections, which are stated in the report:

"Social Security expenditures are expected to exceed tax receipts this year for the first time since 1983. The projected deficit of $41 billion this year (excluding interest income) is attributable to the recession. This deficit is expected to shrink substantially for 2011 and to return to small surpluses for years 2012-2014 due to the improving economy. After 2014 deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the baby boom generation's retirement causes the number of beneficiaries to grow substantially more rapidly than the number of covered workers. The annual deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets in amounts less than interest earnings through 2024, and then by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037."


SSA's estimate for total income in 2011 is $855 billion -- fully $114 billion more than the program's actual income in 2010 ($741 billion). With employment stagnant, is a 15% jump in payroll taxes remotely plausible?

Payroll Taxes Won't Bounce Back That Fast

For context, let's look at what happened to Social Security receipts in 2009, a recession year, and 2010, a year of modest economic recovery.

According to the SSA, the system's income for 2009 was $807 billion ($698.2 billion in the OASI and $109.3 billion in the DI). Income in 2010 was $741 billion -- a massive one-year decline of $66 billion.

Given the magnitude of this recessionary drop in income, it's difficult to place much faith in the trustees' extremely optimistic forecast of double-digit payroll tax increases in 2011. As I reported on DailyFinance in December, job gains have been exceedingly modest in the 154 million-worker U.S. economy, and many of those jobs were temporary or part-time. Factor in lower incomes for the self-employed, and it's little wonder that payroll tax receipts have been flat.

The trustees' forecast of Social Security's outlays in 2010 were much more accurate than their estimates of income: The report anticipated outlays of $714 billion, and the final total came in at $707 billion. The report's estimate of 2011 outlays is $742 billion, an increase of $35 billion, which is higher than the 3.5% ($23.8 billion) jump in 2010 costs over 2009 outlays.

That $742 billion estimate for 2011 costs is almost exactly equal to 2010 income of $741 billion. That means if outlays were to rise even a bit more than expected, or income were to decline from 2010 totals, Social Security would hit a deficit that the trustees aren't expecting to occur until 2025. Given that shortfalls have already reached levels the SSA hadn't expected until 2018, it's not that big a leap to conclude that the system's projections are woefully out of alignment with the nation's new realities.

Retiring on Borrowed Time

What do these potentially large, structural deficits in Social Security mean? It's simple: The Treasury will have to borrow more money on the global bond market to fill the gap, increasing pressure on an already unprecedented federal deficit.

Given the above data, it's unsurprising to find that the Treasury needed to borrow money to pay Social Security benefits in 15 out of the last 25 months. When the cost of monthly benefit payments exceeds the Social Security tax revenues, then the Treasury has to fill the gap with borrowed money.

Policymakers and citizens alike will need to have a realistic grasp of these Social Security deficits if they're to make the tough decisions about taxes and spending that lie ahead.

[sappstuf]

Was this about the time in the scheme when Madoff got caught?

[pphilfran]

Was this about the time in the scheme when Madoff got caught?

Same kind of deal but many don't want to admit it...

As long as the base of suckers...errr, taxpayers is growing everything is fine....but once the base starts to grow at a slower pace the bottom falls out...

The exact same thing happened to Ford, GM, and Chrysler...as long as they increased sales and hired additional workers every thing was rosy...once Japan got it's foot in the door in the early 70's due to the oil embargo the Big 3 business plan went out the window...along with long term viability...

[RFH Shakes]

And they just lowered the percentage rates employees pay in to it. (but raised the fed w/h rate so basically they just moved the money from ss pocket to their main pocket)

[Aldebaran]

If we can slap the military off of the government teet, there will be plenty of room for more poor people.

I say allow the military to start taking prizes and a week of plunder in lieu of pay.

[olevetonahill]

If we can slap the military off of the government teet, there will be plenty of room for more poor people.

I say allow the military to start taking prizes and a week of plunder in lieu of pay.

Or at least Let em get back the Total cost of what ever action we did :D

[dwarthog]

Time to collect some IOU's.....


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35865764/ns/politics/

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Good thing our Chinese bankers are in town so we can take out a further line of credit.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Unless you are a babyboomer getting ready to retire, just assume the money is gone and you can consider the government has stolen your money from you. I, personnaly, do not expect a dime of benefit to come my way, it won't be there...

[sappstuf]

Unless you are a babyboomer getting ready to retire, just assume the money is gone and you can consider the government has stolen your money from you. I, personnaly, do not expect a dime of benefit to come my way, it won't be there...

Don't worry.. We can always be more like Europe!


European nations begin seizing private pensions (http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Adam-Smith-Institute-Blog/2011/0102/European-nations-begin-seizing-private-pensions)

[NormanPride]

You mean as a 28 year old working man I won't see any of the safety net that I'm paying into when I retire? Say it ain't so!

[soonerscuba]

The obivious answer is to write everybody checks for $600 again.

Also, SS is why I find it amusing everytime I hear somebody talking about the current "entitled generation" in regard to workplace activity, etc. The money wasn't stolen, you allowed your leaders to deficit spend it away, we let the pitbull off the leash.

[OUMallen]

If it collapses, will they stop taking it out of my check? I don't feel like, personally, that would be such a bad deal for me. #heartlessbastard

[TheHumanAlphabet]

The money wasn't stolen, ...

Hell it wasn't, it was a Ponzi scheme from the get go!! The only legal Ponzi scheme in the U.S. Plus, Stupid reps keep raiding the damn thing. What happened to the "lock box"???

[soonerscuba]

Hell it wasn't, it was a Ponzi scheme from the get go!! The only legal Ponzi scheme in the U.S. Plus, Stupid reps keep raiding the damn thing. What happened to the "lock box"???A ponzi scheme cannot have funding adjustments and lacks a actual funding source (in this case, taxes), so that argument is 100% pure hyperbole.

Unfunded wars, expansion or Medicare and bailouts without stock purchase pretty much.

[Aldebaran]

Your mom's face is a ponzi scheme.

[DIB]

How much would it save, if we euthanize everyone over 80?

[Aldebaran]

Star Trek Next Gen already did it. Can't remember what season. It would require a completely new norming of values.

[DIB]

Star Trek Next Gen already did it. Can't remember what season. It would require a completely new norming of values.

Not for me

[sappstuf]

How much would it save, if we euthanize everyone over 80?

I'm good with that for the next 45 years.. Oh wait.. 44 years. Whew.. That was close.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

A ponzi scheme cannot have funding adjustments and lacks a actual funding source (in this case, taxes), so that argument is 100% pure hyperbole.

Unfunded wars, expansion or Medicare and bailouts without stock purchase pretty much.

I thought the funding source for a Ponzi scheme were the "investors". SS was built on a dwindling number of people paying in vs. taking money out. Hence it is designed to fail...That or the stupid New Dealers thought that there would always be a 6/7/8 - 1 number of payees to payers...

Either way, a stupid plan or a stupid assumption.

[soonerscuba]

I thought the funding source for a Ponzi scheme were the "investors". SS was built on a dwindling number of people paying in vs. taking money out. Hence it is designed to fail...That or the stupid New Dealers thought that there would always be a 6/7/8 - 1 number of payees to payers...

Either way, a stupid plan or a stupid assumption.Nice disappearing goalpost. A Ponzi specifically exists on an intentional lack of capital. Hypothetically, if the political will was there, it would be possible to fund SS, although very expensive which of course your ilk would scream communisim, tyranny or whatever other nonsense. Under a Ponzi scheme it's literally impossible to refund an investor, whereas SS is just politically untenable, for now.

The whole "Ponzi scheme" meme is nice theatre but doesn't accurately describe the underlying issue. What SS was designed to do has little bearing on the reality of today, which is bleed money as an entitlement we refuse to fund, because tax payers demand to recieve it's benefit but bristle at it's funding.

[pphilfran]

Nice disappearing goalpost. A Ponzi specifically exists on an intentional lack of capital. Hypothetically, if the political will was there, it would be possible to fund SS, although very expensive which of course your ilk would scream communisim, tyranny or whatever other nonsense. Under a Ponzi scheme it's literally impossible to refund an investor, whereas SS is just politically untenable, for now.

The whole "Ponzi scheme" meme is nice theatre but doesn't accurately describe the underlying issue. What SS was designed to do has little bearing on the reality of today, which is bleed money as an entitlement we refuse to fund, because tax payers demand to recieve it's benefit but bristle at it's funding.



The only reason it is not a ponzi scheme is because the feds run it...

Definition...the only word that does not fit SS is fraudulent, and even that is questionable...

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.

[olevetonahill]

A few things that need to be done to Make sure that it pays off like its supposed to.
#1. Only elect Members of Congress who will Vow to Make it work
#2 Then have said members force the US Treasury to repay the Money "Borrowed" and make em stay the hell out of it,
#3 Make said Congress peeps subject to SS they have their OWN retirement now.

Change em in any order all ya want, but thats pretty much what needs to be done

[soonerscuba]

The only reason it is not a ponzi scheme is because the feds run it...

Definition...the only word that does not fit SS is fraudulent, and even that is questionable...

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.How is this not clear? SS has a transparent, self-evident and legal means of increasing capital, a Ponzi scheme does not, ergo, SS isn't a Ponzi scheme. I'm not arguing that there aren't problems with it, but to suggest that on it's face it's equivalent to fraud is intellectually dishonest.

[Aldebaran]

It's "fun" to observe Rush Limbaugh talking points in the hands of mouth breathers.

[pphilfran]

How is this not clear? SS has a transparent, self-evident and legal means of increasing capital, a Ponzi scheme does not, ergo, SS isn't a Ponzi scheme. I'm not arguing that there aren't problems with it, but to suggest that on it's face it's equivalent to fraud is intellectually dishonest.

How long has our leadership known that rates must be increased or PROMISED benefits reduced? Doesn't it border on fraud when an organization knows over the long term that it's PROMISES cannot be kept unless radical changes to the PROMISED benefits are put into place?

Let's go through the definition piece by piece...

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors.


(Check...The small returns do not support the promised payment...one of two thing MUST happen to make SS solvent over the long term...raise the tax...or decrease the benefit...this has been know for years...if the base money fails to come in, and it is failing, the scheme will fail. Also, the fed is paying that short term interest to itself, so in actuality there is no return)

The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent.

(Check...Where else can someone making minimal contributions find a investment that pays what SS promises...nowhere...though people are not enticed instead they are forced)

The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.

(Check...due to a lower number of workers supporting those that are retired we are in a boat where we must increase the tax rate or reduce PROMISED payouts the fund will fail)



If it looks like chit...smells like chit...tastes like chit...it is probably chit...

[soonerscuba]

If you cannot see within your own reasoning why being able to increase capital via taxes or decrease benefit via legislation specifically doesn't make SS a Ponzi scheme, I give up.

[pphilfran]

If you cannot see within your own reasoning why being able to increase capital via taxes or decrease benefit via legislation specifically doesn't make SS a Ponzi scheme, I give up.

All it is is a legal way to shove a bad deal up our azzes...just because someone will be able to FORCE me to pay higher rates or receive lower PROMISED returns does not make it taste any better...or seem more ethical...

Many ponzi schemes start out being legit...promise a high rate of return due to some proprietary software that has shown terrific results in the past...the software fails and promised returns cannot be paid out...the operator makes no changes to the system to keep is solvent over the long term and then requires further and larger funding to keep solvent...

Oh, and the operator of the fund takes money from the fund to use in areas that were not meant for funding...our leadership would never do that with SS...

We do know that it will not be solvent in the future if PROMISED returns are not lowered...

[AlboSooner]

If only we could give the GOP a chance to save America....if only.....oh wait we did...

[DIB]

If only we could give the GOP a chance to save America....if only.....oh wait we did...

What does that have to do with SS insolvency and the debate as to whether it acts, in practice, like a ponzy scheme? You can't argue intellectually, so you have to pull the party card?

[pphilfran]

Scuba, I understand your points...I hope you understand mine...

My biggest problem is that I have soured on our leadership...I have been heading in that direction for over a decade...

First, they talk chit about those that disagree with them...and then turn around and wonder why those opposed to their position who won't climb on board...

Second, they dig in their heels and toe the party line...won't move off of dead center to save their soul...and then point fingers at the other side and wonder why THEY won't compromise...

Third, technology has advanced far beyond our leaderships ability to understand the various processes...yet they think they are the experts and will come up with plans to control those complicated processes...and then when the solution fails they find ways to point fingers at the other side...

Fourth, their ain't no Team in Congress...

[sappstuf]

Calling SS fraudulent is silly.

I get an update of my account every 3 months or so and it says that my money is safe and that I am guaranteed a certain amount of money when I need it without any hints of trouble.

I mean if my money was is in any sort of trouble, I am sure a company couldn't just tell me that everything is ok... Right? I'm sure that would be some sort of fraud it they did.

Oh wait....

[AlboSooner]

What does that have to do with SS insolvency and the debate as to whether it acts, in practice, like a ponzy scheme? You can't argue intellectually, so you have to pull the party card?

Good point.

I can't argue intellectually about the social security. I believe if you give the responsibility to the individual to save money for retirement, then nobody will have any money for retirement.

[waynepayne]

What does that have to do with SS insolvency and the debate as to whether it acts, in practice, like a ponzy scheme? You can't argue intellectually, so you have to pull the party card?


troof. pphil, scuba please continue...

[Aldebaran]

Calling it a ponzy scheme is pulling a party card (i.e. talking point) instead of arguing intellectually. Charge the issue emotionally and frame the "debate" that follows on your terms.

Now, please continue.

[sooner ngintunr]

It's more like robbing Peter to pay Paul than a Ponzi scheme.:pop:

[THE-JROD]

Or at least Let em get back the Total cost of what ever action we did :D

Is this an attempt for you to try to sound smart?? :D:D

[TheHumanAlphabet]

It's "fun" to observe Rush Limbaugh talking points in the hands of mouth breathers.

So, you calling me a mouth breeder? I have had my opinion of SS long before Rush ever saw the air waves. What kills me from you liberals and "intellectuals" is you can't believe people can figure things out themselves and have an opinion contrary to the government or one that supports self reliance, not reliance on the government...

SS has been doomed to fail ever since its inception. It required more payees into the system than payers were paid. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is never going to work. Now, we will be seeing a large increase in payers and few payees, your children will never see a dime and most likely their taxes will go sky high to pay for the Baby Boomers over the next 40 years. Blame whoever, certainly COngress is to blame for using the SS funds in the general treasury, but regardless, this is a house of cards and will come crashing down. Someone will pay one way or another, loss of benefits or steep increase in taxes. Supposedly by 2030 or so, there will be 1 payer for every payee...

[SunnySooner]

I've never even imagined that I would get a SS check someday, we've never included it when doing any retirement planning. It's now just another tax that will never benefit me directly.

I don't know why this is such a suprise, we've know the kajillion and 6 BBers were going to be SS eligible at some point, and there's just not enough of us Gen Xers (born 1965 to 1981) to keep paying them. Duh.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I don't know why this is such a suprise, we've know the kajillion and 6 BBers were going to be SS eligible at some point, and there's just not enough of us Gen Xers (born 1965 to 1981) to keep paying them. Duh.

Glad you could see it.. Why Congress can't figure this out is unfathomable...Oh wait, Retirees vote in a large block, must keep getting re-elected...That is until they find a new voting block darling...Can we say the illegal aliens???

[dwarthog]

The point of there being fewer payers into the system than those taking out of the system although salient, isn't the core issue at this particular moment in time, IMO.

IF, our elected officials could have kept their freaking paws out of SS, there wouldn't be 2.5 trillion dollars in IOU's sitting in a three-ring binder, locked in the bottom drawer of a white metal filing cabinet in the Parkersburg offices of Bureau of Public Debt.

Instead that money would still be in the fund and it would be solvent at this time.

Folks can demagogue all they want, but the facts are the same idiots get elected cycle after cycle. We are our own enemy on this one.

[2121Sooner]

If only there was some President out there that would have tried to privatize it and make it a better investment vehicle that it currently is.


If only.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

You mean as a 28 year old working man I won't see any of the safety net that I'm paying into when I retire? Say it ain't so!

Can we stop using the phrase "paying into" when talking about Social Security?

You pay a tax which is immediately taken and given to other folk. And in order for you to collect anything from this you need to hope there are other people paying the tax when it's your turn to collect. Some would call this the very definition of a ponzi scheme.

[Howzit]

First off, SS was not doomed to failure from the start. Not saying it was the right way to go, but at the time the US population was increasing, meaning that the number of payers was continually growing in proportion to the payees. And with the baby boom (followed the inception of SS), that delta continued to grow.

Alas, congress got fat and happy with the surpluses and didn't bother to factor in reality when population growth began declining. They were accustomed to having extra moolah to play with and didn't plan for the day when baby boomers would actually want to use the money they had been paying in their whole working lives.

And when the population growth started going south and wasn't generating those oh so succulent margins, well,hellz, they just borrowed to maintain them! Never mind an entire generation, and generations to come, might actually want their money back.

The solution is obvious. You young whipper snappers get your offspring to humping and producing more offspring. Now. Start 'em at 16. 15 if you're patriotic. I you don't have offspring, have them. Now.

I've been paying into SS for over 30 years and I'm ready for someone to support my *** for a while.















disclaimer: i don't know ****

[Bourbon St Sooner]

If you cannot see within your own reasoning why being able to increase capital via taxes or decrease benefit via legislation specifically doesn't make SS a Ponzi scheme, I give up.

Taxes are not capital. A ponzi scheme pays off earlier 'investors' with new money received from more recent 'investors'. SS pays money to current retirees (early investors) by money gained from current workers (later investors). And the money the current retirees receive from SS has little correlation to what they paid in.

In an investment in capital, your return is based on the return of whatever you invested in.

[pphilfran]

There is one difference between SS and a ponzi...Bernie Madoff couldn't force you to participate...

[soonerscuba]

Taxes are not capital. A ponzi scheme pays off earlier 'investors' with new money received from more recent 'investors'. SS pays money to current retirees (early investors) by money gained from current workers (later investors). And the money the current retirees receive from SS has little correlation to what they paid in.

In an investment in capital, your return is based on the return of whatever you invested in.OK, here is a simple test for you, and there are pages and pages off people making the exact same, very wrong point over, and over and over and over again. SS is a two seperate funds (for brevity we'll call it a trust), what funds a trust? Hint, the answer is the same as any other trust, assets, or capital. Now, I think that if you aren't willing to consider SS funded through capital, you're a moron, since you're not that, we can agree that the funding vechicle for SS is money. Now, in a Ponzi scheme the manager pays out other investors looking to exit the fund at gain, there is no timeline or means of increasing basis to pay out the people exiting, it simply isn't possible to sustain on it's very face. Now, taxes provide money, or capital for the SS trust fund, so it is possible to either A) raise capital via taxes, B) cut benefits to lower out-flow or C) divert money from other programs to SS. Now all three of these options are viable and more importantly legal which is why under no under certain terms is SS a Ponzi scheme. If that were true, you would literally have to change the definition of Ponzi scheme to unfunded or underfunded entitlement.

The idea of labeling SS (which is an entitlement, not an investment) a Ponzi scheme would be appealing to a segment of society in that it suggests that nothing can be done to stop it, that simply isn't true, there just isn't the political will to do so.

[pphilfran]

OK, here is a simple test for you, and there are pages and pages off people making the exact same, very wrong point over, and over and over and over again. SS is a two seperate funds (for brevity we'll call it a trust), what funds a trust? Hint, the answer is the same as any other trust, assets, or capital. Now, I think that if you aren't willing to consider SS funded through capital, you're a moron, since you're not that, we can agree that the funding vechicle for SS is money. Now, in a Ponzi scheme the manager pays out other investors looking to exit the fund at gain, there is no timeline or means of increasing basis to pay out the people exiting, it simply isn't possible to sustain on it's very face. Now, taxes provide money, or capital for the SS trust fund, so it is possible to either A) raise capital via taxes, B) cut benefits to lower out-flow or C) divert money from other programs to SS. Now all three of these options are viable and more importantly legal which is why under no under certain terms is SS a Ponzi scheme. If that were true, you would literally have to change the definition of Ponzi scheme to unfunded or underfunded entitlement.

The idea of labeling SS (which is an entitlement, not an investment) a Ponzi scheme would be appealing to a segment of society in that it suggests that nothing can be done to stop it, that simply isn't true, there just isn't the political will to do so.

Only because the fed can force you participate and either increase your payments into the fund or reduce the benefits that your were promised...

I have been promised x amount of future monies if I pay in y amount of monthly premiums...

Now, is it ethical to now either increase those payments or cut the benefit?

I bet you would squeal like a stuck pig if your annuity forced you to raise you premium or cut your benefit...

The fund would remain solvent as long as the worker base continued to grow at a constant rate...and since that is impossible as the workforce became much larger the fund was doomed...

Hell no, it is not a true Ponzi scheme...but it is within a natazz of being one...

Our leadership knows there is a severe problem over the midterm...they have known for decades that there were problems..they have constantly raised rates and lowered benefits (age requirements) in an attempt to make it viable...to data they have done nothing to improve the situation...

What does that make our leadership when they ignore a possible disastrous future? Incompetent? Criminal? Or just someone lining their campaign war chests with money from insiders?

[Bourbon St Sooner]

there just isn't the political will to do so.

And this is why it is doomed to collapse just as a ponzi scheme is doomed to collapse. Eventually the folks paying in are going to refuse to pay an ever larger share of their earnings to pay current retirees.

And this trust fund you speak of exists in the same way that fairies and pixie dust exists. The only thing sitting in the trust fund in IOUs from the gov't. In order to fill those IOUs the gov't has to get the Chinese to loan it more money. Eventually we'll pay for all of this through hyperinflation. Whether you want to call it a ponzi scheme or not, it's still unsustainable.

[pphilfran]

And this is why it is doomed to collapse just as a ponzi scheme is doomed to collapse. Eventually the folks paying in are going to refuse to pay an ever larger share of their earnings to pay current retirees.

And this trust fund you speak of exists in the same way that fairies and pixie dust exists. The only thing sitting in the trust fund in IOUs from the gov't. In order to fill those IOUs the gov't has to get the Chinese to loan it more money. Eventually we'll pay for all of this through hyperinflation. Whether you want to call it a ponzi scheme or not, it's still unsustainable.

Well said...

[soonerscuba]

And this is why it is doomed to collapse just as a ponzi scheme is doomed to collapse. Eventually the folks paying in are going to refuse to pay an ever larger share of their earnings to pay current retirees.

And this trust fund you speak of exists in the same way that fairies and pixie dust exists. The only thing sitting in the trust fund in IOUs from the gov't. In order to fill those IOUs the gov't has to get the Chinese to loan it more money. Eventually we'll pay for all of this through hyperinflation. Whether you want to call it a ponzi scheme or not, it's still unsustainable.I don't disagree, just calling it a Ponzi scheme gets my dander up, and I don't know why. It's completely unsustainible in it's current form, but the electorate tends to skew toward the elderly so I think eventually Congress does something about it.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Congress is going to do something in the next few years. They will raise the retirement age. Why raise the retirement age you say? It's the path of least resistance. Current beneficiaries don't get cut and people below 50 aren't really focused on whether they retire at 67 or 70 or 75. It's too far away. The only ones really pissed are those within 10 years of retirement.

Needless to say, your parents are getting a pretty good deal where you won't be so fortunate. Oh, another similarity to a ponzi scheme - early 'investors' fare better than later 'investors'. It may not be a duck but it does a lot of quacking and waddling.

[soonercoop1]

\
Same kind of deal but many don't want to admit it...

As long as the base of suckers...errr, taxpayers is growing everything is fine....but once the base starts to grow at a slower pace the bottom falls out...

The exact same thing happened to Ford, GM, and Chrysler...as long as they increased sales and hired additional workers every thing was rosy...once Japan got it's foot in the door in the early 70's due to the oil embargo the Big 3 business plan went out the window...along with long term viability...

Good to see the proof many of us already knew...amazing that anyone can trust this government at all...hell they are printing money faster than they can cut the trees down for the paper...that should've been everyone's first clue that America is in serious trouble...just wait and see what happens when we lose the dollar as the worlds currency...

[C&CDean]

SS? Never paid a dime into it. All you suckers are ****ed.

[Fraggle145]

Congress is going to do something in the next few years. They will raise the retirement age. Why raise the retirement age you say? It's the path of least resistance. Current beneficiaries don't get cut and people below 50 aren't really focused on whether they retire at 67 or 70 or 75. It's too far away. The only ones really pissed are those within 10 years of retirement.

Needless to say, your parents are getting a pretty good deal where you won't be so fortunate. Oh, another similarity to a ponzi scheme - early 'investors' fare better than later 'investors'. It may not be a duck but it does a lot of quacking and waddling.

Raising the retirement age makes relative sense, since collectively everyone is healthier and living longer making them draw SS for a longer period of time.

[Sooner5030]

forget going galt or opting out........I'm going Amish.....they're exempt from SS taxes and benefits.

[SunnySooner]

Yep, when SS was created, life expectancy was about 65, right? So it was meant to be a cushion for folks who were probably horribly broken down from years of hard physical labor on a field or in a factory. Ya know, a little extra each month for the last year or two of your life.

Now, with all our tech and meds, we're living closer to 80. I've read (no link, too lazy to look it up, but I'm pretty sure...) that if you start getting your SS at 62, you get back everything you paid in, plus interest, in about 3 years. So from 65, until you kick off at 97, like my grandpa, it's free money. A gift.

That's what has to change. SS in its current form cannot stand. It will have to go back to its beginnings--a few extra bucks a month in your last coupla years. Retire whenever you want, depending on how well you saved and planned in your misspent youth, but the SS bucks don't kick in til about 78 or so.

It was NEVER meant to be the sole source of income for retirees, like it is for so many.

Sounds harsh, but a given person's lack of ability to save or plan for a time when they know they won't be able or willing to work should not be my problem to pay for.

Sacrifice, hard work, and discipline. Horrible, ugly words, I know, it sucks to have to be personally responsible. We just can't afford anything different anymore.

[Blue]

Then it should be optional.

SunnySooner, that sounds like nothing more than theft and spreading the wealth to me.

[Blue]

Sounds harsh, but a given person's lack of ability to save or plan for a time when they know they won't be able or willing to work should not be my problem to pay for.

Sacrifice, hard work, and discipline. Horrible, ugly words, I know, it sucks to have to be personally responsible. We just can't afford anything different anymore.

And since we are this personal responsibility kick, let's end all entitlements, right?

[SunnySooner]

Not sure what you mean, Blue. No, I'm not against all "entitlements". I'm just saying the system in its current state is a far cry from what it was meant to be, and if it's going to be saved in any form, it should go back to those original intentions--a safety net, a way to help retirees at the very end of their lives, not a sole source of income for retirees for 20 or more years. That's what's broken, and cannot continue. There are (and will be in the next 10 or 20 years) WAY too many people eligible for benefits, and not NEARLY enough workers to support them. Sad but true, and we've known this was coming for many years, that's where the personal responsibility comes in--if you want to stop working before you die, fine, but you should save money to support yourself in that endeavor, not ask me to support you instead.

[Blue]

Then it's a total failure of government. Had they not spent the money, the money should be there. I'm not going to blame the people for that.

It's like Seinfeld. They're good at "Taking" the money. They just don't know how to "Hold" the money.

I'm so disgusted at our govt and how they continue to loot and loot and people just say, "Oh well, its our own fault." No it's not our fault. We get Madoffed at every turn. They don't give a **** about helping anybody out but the people that own them...the banks.

[SCOUT]

\

Good to see the proof many of us already knew...amazing that anyone can trust this government at all...hell they are printing money faster than they can cut the trees down for the paper...that should've been everyone's first clue that America is in serious trouble...just wait and see what happens when we lose the dollar as the worlds currency...

Not that it really matters, but currency is printed on cotton and linen fibers.

The more you know...

[pphilfran]

Then it's a total failure of government. Had they not spent the money, the money should be there. I'm not going to blame the people for that.

It's like Seinfeld. They're good at "Taking" the money. They just don't know how to "Hold" the money.

I'm so disgusted at our govt and how they continue to loot and loot and people just say, "Oh well, its our own fault." No it's not our fault. We get Madoffed at every turn. They don't give a **** about helping anybody out but the people that own them...the banks.

Our leadership raiding the SS coffers really has nothing to do with the current situation...

Even if they had left all of the real money in place we would still be in the same situation today...

The fed debt might be lower but SS would still be in dire straights....

[sappstuf]

Our leadership raiding the SS coffers really has nothing to do with the current situation...

Even if they had left all of the real money in place we would still be in the same situation today...

The fed debt might be lower but SS would still be in dire straights....

You sure woke up early to make that post! ;)

[pphilfran]

You sure woke up early to make that post! ;)

I am training a new guy...had to get up early and get him started...gotta go back in at about 11 and show him how to close out the day...

20 years of waking up at 4 am when working at Goodyear makes 6 am sleeping late...

[sappstuf]

I am training a new guy...had to get up early and get him started...gotta go back in at about 11 and show him how to close out the day...

20 years of waking up at 4 am when working at Goodyear makes 6 am sleeping late...

Ugghh.. 17 years in the Navy and those morning don't get any easier for me..

I was up in Boise City and Keyes for New Years a couple of weeks ago. Got down to 1 degree on New Years Eve. I hadn't been in that cold in a long, long time.

[pphilfran]

Ugghh.. 17 years in the Navy and those morning don't get any easier for me..

I was up in Boise City and Keyes for New Years a couple of weeks ago. Got down to 1 degree on New Years Eve. I hadn't been in that cold in a long, long time.

:)

[pphilfran]

The underlying problem fpor SS...data from Obama budget...numbers below include fed projections into 2015...

Since 1990 Trust Fund receipts have grown at an average of 4.43%

Since 1990 SS outlays have grown at an average of 5.36%...

Houston, we have a problem...