Social Security
#1
Do you believe it will be there for you? Should there be changes made?
Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again.

I don't have any humble opinions.
Reply
#2
I'm still 40 years away from the current retirement age for my age bracket. I'm not counting on it being there.
Sheldon: I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.

~ The Big Bang Theory
Reply
#3
Wow, Gamgee, I remember you from way back, so you're younger than I pictured Wink

Let me ask the question in another way...I referred to SS as a Ponzi scheme a while back in another location. One of my Left-leaning friends pretty much tuned me out at that point. I argue, however, that there is no functional difference between a Ponzi scheme and SS. A Ponzi scheme, by definition, invests in nothing, and pays early investors with the proceeds collected from later investors. It continues until such time as there are not enough new investors to support returns to old investors. Can you, or anyone, tell me how that is functionally different from SS, which pays benefits to current retirees from the taxes collected from current workers? This is merely a structural question...we will get to other issues presently.

Now, solvency. When SS was implemented, the national life expectancy was 67. Eligibility was set at 65. Wonder why that was? Yeah, me neither. National life expectancy is much higher, and more to the point, life expectancy upon reaching 65 is higher still. Oh, and the number of workers per retiree was 16. It's now 4, and as the Boomers retire, will shrink to close to 2. The math is pretty simple....as the number of new "investors" dwindle, they will be asked (commanded) to pay more.

Ok, so you're saying, "Bite me, Bacchus, there is a trust fund." Well, yeah, sort of. The problem is that the "trust fund" is an accounting fiction. There does indeed exist the most valuable filing cabinet on the planet. It is stuffed full of US Treasuries, the safest investment on the planet. On paper, there are trillions of dollars there. But here's the problem: every time the SS fund ran a surplus, it bought US Treasuries. Those funds were used by the government to pay other bills (as opposed to borrowing from someone else, raising taxes, or cutting spending). Therefore, functionally, it's no different from me taking money from my left pocket, putting it in my right, spending it, and promising to pay myself back later. I've got a lot of IOUs in my left pocket, but it doesn't mean I have money there.

Now, what's REALLY awesome about all of this is that no one will address the problem honestly. We quite simply can't pay off the promises we've made. I'm 43. I will probably get a little of my money back, but not all. You guys younger than me have no hope. And our politicians work on a 2, 4, or 6 year cycle, so stuff 20 years out that will cost them votes today interests them about as much as you might think.
Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again.

I don't have any humble opinions.
Reply
#4
Well, I think it will be there for me when I need it. But they have already started shaving away at the benefits, and I believe that process will continue. Military veterans are given short shrift now compared to how we used to treat them 30 years ago. Their benefits are being whittled away bit-by-bit with each change in Congressional priorities.
Reply

MYCode Guide

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Social Security badlands 4 884 November 8th, 2017, 03:08 AM
Last Post: Bacchus

Forum Jump: