WASHINGTON — Laid-off workers and aging baby boomers are flooding Social Security's disability program with benefit claims, pushing the financially strapped system toward the brink of insolvency.
Applications are up nearly 50 percent over a decade ago as people with disabilities lose their jobs and can't find new ones in an economy that has shed nearly 7 million jobs.
The stampede for benefits is adding to a growing backlog of applicants — many wait two years or more before their cases are resolved — and worsening the financial problems of a program that's been running in the red for years.
New congressional estimates say the trust fund that supports Social Security disability will run out of money by 2017, leaving the program unable to pay full benefits, unless Congress acts. About two decades later, Social Security's much larger retirement fund is projected to run dry as well.
Much of the focus in Washington has been on fixing Social Security's retirement system. Proposals range from raising the retirement age to means-testing benefits for wealthy retirees. But the disability system is in much worse shape and its problems defy easy solutions.
The trustees who oversee Social Security are urging Congress to shore up the disability system by reallocating money from the retirement program, just as lawmakers did in 1994. That would provide only short-term relief at the expense of weakening the retirement program.
Claims for disability benefits typically increase in a bad economy because many disabled people get laid off and can't find a new job. This year, about 3.3 million people are expected to apply for federal disability benefits. That's 700,000 more than in 2008 and 1 million more than a decade ago.
"It's primarily economic desperation," Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue said in an interview. "People on the margins who get bad news in terms of a layoff and have no other place to go and they take a shot at disability,"
The disability program is also being hit by an aging population — disability rates rise as people get older — as well as a system that encourages people to apply for more generous disability benefits rather than waiting until they qualify for retirement.
Retirees can get full Social Security benefits at age 66, a threshold gradually rising to 67. Early retirees can get reduced benefits at 62. However, if you qualify for disability, you can get full benefits, based on your work history, even before 62.
Also, people who qualify for Social Security disability automatically get Medicare after two years, even if they are younger than 65, the age when other retirees qualify for the government-run health insurance program.
Congress tried to rein in the disability program in the late 1970s by making it tougher to qualify. The number of people receiving benefits declined for a few years, even during a recession in the early 1980s. Congress, however, reversed course and loosened the criteria, and the rolls were growing again by 1984.
The disability program "got into trouble first because of liberalization of eligibility standards in the 1980s," said Charles Blahous, one of the public trustees who oversee Social Security. "Then it got another shove into bigger trouble during the recent recession."
Today, about 13.6 million people receive disability benefits through Social Security or Supplemental Security Income. Social Security is for people with substantial work histories, and monthly disability payments average $927. Supplemental Security Income does not require a work history but it has strict limits on income and assets. Monthly SSI payments average $500.
As policymakers work to improve the disability system, they are faced with two major issues: Legitimate applicants often have to wait years to get benefits while many others get payments they don't deserve.
Last year, Social Security detected $1.4 billion in overpayments to disability beneficiaries, mostly to people who got jobs and no longer qualified, according to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.
The deficit reduction package enacted this month would allow Congress to boost Social Security's budget by about $4 billion over the next decade to invest in programs that identify people who no longer qualify for disability benefits. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that increased enforcement would save nearly $12 billion over the next decade.
At the same time, the application process can be a nightmare for legitimate applicants. About two-thirds of initial applications are rejected. Most of these people drop their claims, but for those willing go through an appeals process that can take two years or more, chances are good they eventually will get benefits.
Astrue has pledged to reduce processing times for applicants' appeals, and he has had some success, even as the number of claims skyrockets. The number of people waiting for decisions has increased, but their wait times are going down.
"It's ludicrous to say that the backlog problem is getting worse," Astrue said. "The backlog problem has gotten dramatically better."
Patricia L. Foster said she was working as a nurse in a hospital in Columbia, S.C., in 2005 when she was attacked by a patient who was suffering from a mental illness. Foster, 64, said she injured her neck so bad she had a plate inserted. She said she also suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder.
Foster was turned down twice for Social Security disability benefits before finally getting them in 2009, after hiring an Illinois-based company, Allsup, to represent her. She said she was awarded retroactive benefits, though the process was demeaning.
"I have to tell you, when you're told you cannot return to nursing because of your disability, you don't know how long I cried about that," Foster said. "And then Social Security says, 'Oh no, you don't qualify.' You don't know what that does to you emotionally. You have no idea."
As more Baby Boomers retire, the problem will get worse. This is what happens when you have one generation paying for the benefits of another generation. A change in population from one generation to the next can put a huge load on the Social Security system (and thus, the taxpayers). I'm surprised the people who created Social Security didn't think of that. Or maybe they just didn't care?
This is one of the reasons I prefer to call the New Deal the "Raw Deal".
IP: Logged
06:58 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Don't forget, Social Security has money in the form of U.S. Bonds. (those are the IOUs the government gave when it spent the cash) If SS can't redeem those bonds to pay it's bills, that means US Bonds are no longer solvent.
If you think our credit downgrade before was a problem, you ain't seen nothing yet.
IP: Logged
07:38 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 35920 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Nine Misconceptions About Social Security By Dean Baker
1. The Social Security Trust Fund is an accounting fiction. The Social Security tax has been raising more money than is needed to pay for current benefits, in order to build up a surplus to help finance the retirement of the Baby Boom generation. All of this surplus is lent to the U.S. Treasury when the Social Security Trust Fund buys bonds from it. The money is then used to finance the federal deficit, just like any other money the government borrows. The bonds held by the fund pay the same interest as bonds held by the public. These bonds are every bit as real (or as much of a fiction) as the bonds held by banks, corporations, and individuals. Throughout U.S. history the federal government has always paid its debts. As a result, government bonds enjoy the highest credit ratings and are considered one of the safest assets in the world. Thus the fund has very real and secure assets.
It is true that the interest the government pays on these bonds is a drain on the Treasury, as will be the money paid by the government when the fund ultimately cashes in its bonds. But this drain has nothing to do with Social Security. If the Social Security Trust Fund were not currently building up a surplus, and lending the money to the government, the government would still be running a deficit of approximately $60 billion in its non-Social Security operations. It would then have to borrow this money from individuals like H. Ross Perot and Peter G. Peterson and to pay out more interest each year to the people it borrowed from. Therefore, the government's debt to the fund is simply a debt it would have incurred in any event. The government's other spending and tax policies, not Social Security, will be the cause if there is any problem in the future in paying off the bonds held by the fund.
The government bonds held by the Social Security Trust Fund will always be a comparatively small portion of the government's debt, and therefore a relatively minor burden. They will hit a peak of about 14.4 percent of gross domestic product in 2015, whereas the debt now held by individuals and corporations is about 47 percent of GDP. Therefore, at its peak the burden of interest payments to the fund will be less than a third as large as the interest burden the government now bears.
2. The government uses overly optimistic numbers to convince people that Social Security will be there for them. The situation is much worse than the government admits. Actually, Social Security projections are based on extremely pessimistic economic assumptions: that growth will average just 1.8 percent over the next twenty years, a lower rate than in any comparable period in U.S. history; that growth will slow even further in later years, until the rate is less than half the 2.6 percent of the past twenty years; that there will be no increase in immigration even when the economy experiences a labor shortage because of the retirement of the Baby Boom generation; and that this labor shortage will not lead to a rapid growth in wages. Both possibilities excluded in these projections—increased immigration and rapid wage growth—would increase the fund's revenues. These projections are genuinely a worst-case scenario.
3. The demographics of the Baby Boom will place an unbearable burden on the Social Security system. Those who want to overhaul Social Security make their case with the following numbers: in 1960 there were more than five workers for each beneficiary; today there are 3.3 workers; by 2030 there will be only two workers for each beneficiary. At present the fund is running an annual surplus of more than $80 billion, approximately 20 percent as much as its current expenditures. This surplus will generate interest revenue to help support the system as the ratio of workers to beneficiaries continues to fall in the next century. Also, the fact that workers are becoming more productive year by year means that it will take fewer workers to support each retiree. The United States had 10.5 farm workers for every hundred people in 1929; it has fewer than 1.1 farm workers for every hundred people today. Yet the population is well fed, and we even export food. Rising farm productivity made this possible. Similarly, increases in worker productivity (which have been and should be reflected in higher incomes), however small compared with those of the past, will allow each retiree to be supported by an ever smaller number of workers.
In fact the demographics of the Baby Boom have very little to do with the long-range problems of Social Security. The main reason the fund will run into deficits in future years is that people are living longer. If people continue to retire at the same age but live longer, then a larger percentage of their lives will be spent in retirement. If people want to spend a larger portion of their lives in retirement, either they will have to accept lower incomes (reduced benefits) in their retirement years relative to those of their working years, or they will have to increase the portion of their incomes (higher taxes) that they put aside during their working years for retirement.
This is the main long-range problem facing Social Security. Current projections show that the annual deficit will be 5.71 percent of taxable payroll in 2070, long after the Baby Boom will have passed into history. But the annual deficit is expected to be only 4.44 percent of taxable payroll in 2035, when the worst crunch from retired Baby Boomers will be felt.
Examining just the change in the ratio of beneficiaries to workers overstates the burden that workers will face in the future. To assess the burden accurately it is necessary to examine the total number of dependents—beneficiaries and children—each worker will have to support. It is projected that this ratio will rise from 0.708 per worker at present to 0.795 in 2035. But even this number is well below the ratio of 0.946 that prevailed in 1965. And the fund's trustees project a lower birth rate, meaning that the increased costs of providing for a larger retired population will be largely offset by the reduction of expenses associated with caring for children.
4. Future generations will experience declining living standards because of the government debt and the burden created by Social Security. Projections indicate that workers' real wages will increase by approximately one percent a year. If Social Security benefits are left unchanged, in order to meet the fund's obligations it will be necessary to raise the Social Security tax by 0.1 percent a year (0.05 percent on the employer and 0.05 percent on the employee) for thirty-six years, beginning in 2010. This will be a total tax increase of 3.6 percent, approximately the same as the increase in Social Security taxes from 1977 to 1990.
Even with this schedule of tax increases, real wages after Social Security taxes are deducted will continue to rise. By 2046, when the tax increases are fully phased in, the average wage after Social Security taxes will be more than 45 percent higher than at present. As noted earlier, this is based on pessimistic projections about wage growth.
5. By 2030 federal spending on entitlement programs for the elderly will consume all the revenue collected by the government. By far the greatest part of the projected increases in federal spending on entitlement programs for the elderly is attributable to a projected explosion in national health-care costs, both public and private. According to projections from the Health Care Financing Administration, average health-care spending for a family of four in 2030 will be more than 80 percent of the median family's before-tax income. If such an explosion in health-care costs actually occurred, the economy would be destroyed even if we eliminated entitlement programs altogether. If health-care costs in the public and private sectors are brought under control, the problems posed by demographic trends will be quite manageable.
It is very deceptive to combine other spending categories with health care; projected health-care costs by themselves will consume most of the budget. For example, projected federal spending on education, highways, and health care combined should be more than 80 percent of federal revenues in 2030; defense spending plus projected health-care spending should come close to 70 percent of federal revenues.
6. If Social Security were privatized, it would lead to a higher national saving rate and more growth. By itself, privatizing Social Security would not create a penny of additional savings. All the privatization plans call for the government to continue to pay Social Security benefits to current recipients and those about to retire; therefore spending would be exactly the same after privatization as it was before privatization. Yet the government would no longer be collecting Social Security taxes. Each dollar an individual put into a private retirement account rather than paying it to the government in Social Security taxes would still be a dollar the government must borrow. Individuals would be saving more, but the government would have reduced its saving (increased its borrowing) by exactly the same amount. Most of the privatization schemes being put forward call for additional taxes and additional borrowing to finance a transition while benefits were being paid out under the old system. Any additions to national savings attributable to these plans would stem entirely from the tax increase. This tax increase would have the identical effect on national savings if it were not linked to privatizing Social Security. In other words, raising taxes is one way to increase national savings, and if we are willing to raise taxes, we need not privatize Social Security.
The fact that individuals might put their savings in the stock market or in other private assets, whereas the Social Security Trust Fund buys government bonds, doesn't affect the level of saving at all. If it did, the government could increase the level of saving in the economy by borrowing money and then investing it in the stock market, or by borrowing money and giving it to individuals with the requirement that they invest it in the stock market. If either step could increase the level of saving in the economy, the government should take it independent of any changes in the Social Security system.
In fact, all else being equal, if individuals invested the money they would otherwise pay out in Social Security taxes, less saving would result, because a large portion of this money would be siphoned off by the financial industry. Currently stock brokers, insurance companies, and other financial institutions charge their customers an average of more than one percent a year on the value of the money they hold. Thus if $1,000 is invested through a brokerage firm for forty years, the investor will have been charged in excess of $400 in fees on the original investment, plus an additional one percent a year on all gains. These fees are a big cost from the standpoint of the individual investor, and a complete waste from the standpoint of the economy as a whole. Meanwhile, the operating expenses of the Social Security system are less than $8.00 for every $1,000 paid out to beneficiaries.
It is easy to see why costs in the private financial sector are so much higher. The private sector pays hundreds of thousands of insurance agents and brokers to solicit business. It also incurs enormous costs in television, radio, newspaper, and magazine advertising. In addition, many executives and brokers in the financial industry receive huge salaries. Million-dollar salaries are not uncommon, and some executives earn salaries in the tens of millions. Privatization would add these expenses, which are currently absent from the Social Security system.
7. If people invest their money themselves, they will get a higher return than if they leave it with the government. This may be true for some people, but it cannot be true on average, for much the same reasons as noted above. Some people may end up big winners by picking the right stocks, but if the national saving rate has not increased, the economy will not have increased its growth rate, and the economic pie will be no larger in the future with privatization than it would have been without it. Thus high returns for some must come at the expense of others. In fact, since the cost of operating a retirement system is so much greater through the financial markets than through the Social Security system, the average person will actually be worse off.
Some advocates of government-mandated saving plans argue that individual investors can get real returns of seven percent on money invested in the stock market (the historical rate of return), and that this would ensure a comfortable retirement for everyone. Certainly people have gotten far better returns in the market in the past few years, but if Social Security projections are accurate, such rates of return cannot be sustained. Profits can rise only as fast as the economy grows (unless wages fall as a share of national income, which no one is projecting). If stock prices maintain a fixed relationship to profits, then stock prices will grow at the same rate as the economy. The total return will therefore approximate the ratio of dividends to the stock price (currently about three percent) plus the rate of economic growth (two percent over the next ten years, but projected to fall to 1.2 percent in the middle of the next century). This means that the returns people can expect from investing in the stock market will be five percent in the near future and 4.2 percent later in the next century. For stock prices to rise enough to maintain a real return of seven percent, price-to-earnings ratios would have to exceed 400:1 by 2070.
8. The Consumer Price Index overstates the true rate of increase in the cost of living. Social Security recipients are therefore getting a huge bonanza each year, because their checks are adjusted in accordance with the CPI. There is considerable dispute about the accuracy of the CPI. The Boskin Commission, which was appointed by the Senate Finance Committee to examine the CPI, stated in its final report, in 1996, that overall the CPI had been overstating the cost of living by 1.3 percentage points a year. However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that the CPI understated the cost of living when compared with an index that measured the cost of living for the elderly. This is because the elderly spend an unusually large share of their income on health care and housing, which have risen relatively rapidly in price. Questions remain about the accuracy of the CPI, and they cannot be resolved without further research.
However, one point is clear. If the CPI has been overstating inflation, then future generations will be much better off than we imagined. If inflation has been overstated, then real wage growth must have been understated, since real wage growth is actual wage growth minus the rate of inflation. If we accept the Boskin Commission's midrange estimate of CPI overstatement, average real wages in 2030 will be more than $54,000 (measured in today's dollars). If the commission's high-end estimate is right, average wages will be nearly $65,000. By 2050 average wages will be at least $82,000 and possibly as much as $108,000.
Another implication of a CPI that overstates inflation is that people were much poorer in the recent past than is generally recognized. This conclusion is inescapable: if the rate of inflation is lower than indicated by the CPI, then real wages and living standards have been rising faster than is indicated by calculations that use the CPI. If wages and living standards have been rising faster than we thought, then past levels must have been lower. Projecting backward, the Boskin Commission's estimate of the overstatement of the CPI gives a range for the median family income in 1960 of $15,000 to $18,000 (in today's dollars)—or 95 to 110 percent of income at the current poverty level.
If the Boskin Commission's evaluation of the CPI is accepted, any assessment of generational equity looks very bad from the standpoint of the elderly: they lived most of their lives in or near poverty. And the future looks extremely bright for the young. Average annual wages in 1960, when today's seventy-three-year-olds were thirty-five, was between $10,006 and $11,902 in today's dollars. Average annual wages in 2030, when today's newborns are thirty-two, will be between $54,000 and $65,000 in today's dollars. Such numbers make it hard to justify cutting Social Security for the elderly in order to enrich future generations, on the grounds of generational equity.
9. Social Security gives tens of billions of dollars each year to senior citizens who don't need it. This money could be better used to support poor children. Most of the elderly are not very well off. Their median household income is only about $18,000. However, even if they were better off, it would be hard to justify taking away their Social Security on either moral or economic grounds.
Social Security is a social-insurance program, not a welfare program. People pay into it during their working lives. They have a right to expect something in return, just as they expect interest payments when they buy a government bond. Social Security is already progressive: the rate of return on tax payments is much lower for the wealthy than for the poor. This progressivity is enhanced by the fact that Social Security income is taxable for middle- and high-income retirees but not for low-income retirees. If benefits for higher-income retirees were cut back further, those people would be receiving virtually no return for the taxes they paid in. This would be certain to undermine support for the program.
From an economic standpoint, means testing or any other way of denying benefits to the wealthy would be foolish, because it would give people a great incentive to hide income and thereby pass the means test. There are many ways this could be done. Parents could pass most of their assets on to their children and then continue to collect full benefits. People could move their money into assets that don't yield an annual income, such as land or some kinds of stock. Most of the income of retirees is from accumulated assets, which makes it much easier to hide than wage income. Means testing would in effect place a very high marginal tax rate on senior citizens, giving them a strong incentive to find ways to evade taxes. It may be desirable to get more revenue from the wealthy, but means testing for Social Security makes about as much sense as means testing for interest on government bonds.
Thanx for the link.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 08-21-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:35 PM
htexans1 Member
Posts: 9110 From: Clear Lake City/Houston TX Registered: Sep 2001
Nine Misconceptions About Social Security By Dean Baker
1. The Social Security Trust Fund is an accounting fiction. The Social Security tax has been raising more money than is needed to pay for current benefits, in order to build up a surplus to help finance the retirement of the Baby Boom generation. All of this surplus is lent to the U.S. Treasury when the Social Security Trust Fund buys bonds from it. The money is then used to finance the federal deficit, just like any other money the government borrows. The bonds held by the fund pay the same interest as bonds held by the public. These bonds are every bit as real (or as much of a fiction) as the bonds held by banks, corporations, and individuals. Throughout U.S. history the federal government has always paid its debts. As a result, government bonds enjoy the highest credit ratings and are considered one of the safest assets in the world. Thus the fund has very real and secure assets.
Like I said - if SS can't make it's payments, that means US Bonds are not redeemable and our economy is officially over.
IP: Logged
09:57 PM
jim94 Member
Posts: 1221 From: jacksonville, fl. usa Registered: Jan 2010
SSDI pisses me off SO BAD!!! I have no problems with the idea of ssdi OR the people who NEED it, but I know too many people who are on it and obviously DO NOT DESERVE IT! I don't know how the hell they got approved for it, but they did. Pieces of **** ! I hate them just knowing that they are stealing from a well intended program just because they're too ****ing lazy to work for their money....not because they can't.
I know a guy on ssdi because he has some crippling bone disease. The problem is, I see him driving his Chevy Suburban (tall truck to get into for having a bone problem) or his Bobcat skid-steer, or his Harley Davidson Dyna Glide or his new Dodge Challanger. These are all things he's gotten AFTER being approved for ssdi. The guy can get around just as well as I can or any other joe. HOW DID HE GET APPROVED?!?!?!? I honestly can't see a thing wrong with him when he comes by. He can stand for hours on end, ride motorcycles, opperate his own skid steer, mows his own lawn with a rider, I've seen him lift a good 100 lbs.
Maybe I'm missing something? I don't know the guy well enough to question him on it, but this seems ridiculous!
SSDI pisses me off SO BAD!!! I have no problems with the idea of ssdi OR the people who NEED it, but I know too many people who are on it and obviously DO NOT DESERVE IT! I don't know how the hell they got approved for it, but they did. Pieces of **** ! I hate them just knowing that they are stealing from a well intended program just because they're too ****ing lazy to work for their money....not because they can't.
I know a guy on ssdi because he has some crippling bone disease. The problem is, I see him driving his Chevy Suburban (tall truck to get into for having a bone problem) or his Bobcat skid-steer, or his Harley Davidson Dyna Glide or his new Dodge Challanger. These are all things he's gotten AFTER being approved for ssdi. The guy can get around just as well as I can or any other joe. HOW DID HE GET APPROVED?!?!?!? I honestly can't see a thing wrong with him when he comes by. He can stand for hours on end, ride motorcycles, opperate his own skid steer, mows his own lawn with a rider, I've seen him lift a good 100 lbs.
Maybe I'm missing something? I don't know the guy well enough to question him on it, but this seems ridiculous!
Sometimes people have good and bad days. I know a woman that will hurt for a week because she spends "extra" time with family or friends. She does it, after all she will hurt one way or another.
Poor jim has some major issues... from another thread:
quote
i am a diabetic high bood preassure high chlorestrol 5 lower back surgerys left and right knees left and right carpel tunnel left elbow nurve release and right elbow torn ligament sewn back on
i went for a cat scan and have broken screws in my lower back and yes my back has been hurting i try to eat well, my dr. changed my diabeties meds and have been loosing weight because i cannot do anything other than sit or walk. i am disabled on ssi meds are the only thing keeps me going some days. i am dreading another back surgery
I pray for him to have better days.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-22-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:41 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
There are abuses within the system. I know of someone who is overweight, double knee replace surgery (because of the weight) and now she is on disability. HUH? How about putting her on a diet instead? Then, there is my brother, who died before he could get on disability because of the waiting period. The system has problems, maybe clean up some of the leeches and see how the system improves.
Yes, I certainly believe there should be better quality oversight on disability payouts. Not like their lives would have to be under constant scrutiny, but at LEAST a follow exam to make sure those who were denied myight actually be in need, and those that are collecting are not just faking it.
No need for Private Investigators or spies, just a second opinion from a list of approved doctors, along with the original analysis from the family doctor and any specialists/surgeons.
I also think there should be a salary cap so to speak on it... why should people be collecting on SSI/D if they have good insurance and more than enough income to pay their bills? So maybe a financial advisor/ audit would also be in order to cross the Ts and dot the Is.
It seems like more hoops to jump through, certainly, but it would make sure that someone who is paralyzed is not necessarily denied (Like Bdub's mom) and those who just need to lose 20 lbs to take weight off their knees get treatment, and eventually taken off SS when they are well enough to retun to the workforce.
Mental disabilities play a big roll in SSI/D, and I am not ashamed to say I am glad SOME of those crazies are at home and not in the workforce. I worked with a depressed, bi polar borderline sociopath. I mean, its admirable he wanted to work, but I was never happy having to work with him. It was ALWAYS something.
..Being crazy is no reason not to work,have a buddy 55 years old he does not work for 5 years now,,because he gets nervous??over $$1200 a month,he is stayng with me now,goes to the library in morning, then to GYM,, then active in spirituallist community,,millions like him Give people Social Security for 10 years,a good retired life,, then place 100 of them on an iceberg or ice flow with Viagra,,seal & whale blubber for rations & 10 gallons of Kentuck & lynchburg HOOTCH for a last old fart Geezer cruise & party
Of course 55 women & 45 men,,decorated colorful Floats for QUEERS
[This message has been edited by uhlanstan (edited 08-22-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:59 PM
kslish Member
Posts: 1475 From: Womelsdorf, PA Registered: Apr 2000
Interestingly despite the Social Security issue, Obama wants to extend the the 2% Soc. Security payroll tax cut for another year that shortchanged the system $120 billion this year. It was a stupid idea to cut Social Security's source of funding in the first place, but it seems the government loves using the system as it's honeypot for when it needs money.
Even though I'm a fiscal conservative overall, I believe in the Social Security system as a retirement plan for those not lucky enough to work a job with real pension plan options or for those that legitimately can no longer work. I pay into the system, but honestly hope to actually never need it with my current financial planning, but it's nice to know it could be there.
I also don't get the current cap of only taxing your first $106,800 of wages (which was set in 1983). If you want to ensure the system's solvency eliminate the cap...or make it optional....if you make more that $106,800 and don't pay taxes past that, then you forfeit your future benefits (after all, if your making that kind of money and aren't stupid with your retirement planning, odds are you probably won't really need Soc. Security income later on).
IP: Logged
02:26 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 35920 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
I have a neighbor lady on it and she's never worked a day of her life in the USA. Similarly, my 96 year old grandma who never worked or paid into the system has been collecting for over 30 years now. SS was not meant to support disabled people.
[This message has been edited by carnut122 (edited 08-22-2011).]
IP: Logged
07:24 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Interestingly despite the Social Security issue, Obama wants to extend the the 2% Soc. Security payroll tax cut for another year that shortchanged the system $120 billion this year. It was a stupid idea to cut Social Security's source of funding in the first place, but it seems the government loves using the system as it's honeypot for when it needs money.
That's a major reason why any flat tax or national sales tax (to replace income and business taxes) would have a hard time passing. Too many political favors and too much power exists in controlling the power to tax or give tax breaks.
IP: Logged
09:34 PM
FriendGregory Member
Posts: 4833 From: Palo Alto, CA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
As more Baby Boomers retire, the problem will get worse.
I want to go on SSDI for alcoholism. I can not find the fix for SSDI but, SS needs to have the retirement date moved up every year the average life expectancy moves up. When the program started, people were expected to die several years before they were eligible for Social Security. Maybe move the date up one month a year until the program reflects the way it started. SSDI would have to stay about the way it is as it is the bridge for the people unable to work. The way I figure it SSDI should be the real program. When you "can no longer work", you draw on the system that you built.
Promises of our forefathers my butt. If it is unsustainable or stupid, change it.
I want to go on SSDI for alcoholism. I can not find the fix for SSDI but, SS needs to have the retirement date moved up every year the average life expectancy moves up. When the program started, people were expected to die several years before they were eligible for Social Security. Maybe move the date up one month a year until the program reflects the way it started. SSDI would have to stay about the way it is as it is the bridge for the people unable to work. The way I figure it SSDI should be the real program. When you "can no longer work", you draw on the system that you built.
Promises of our forefathers my butt. If it is unsustainable or stupid, change it.
Life expectancies, I believe, are now on the way back down. At least by generation.. Gen X was the apex, people of gen Y and later (is there anything after gen "why?" ????) are dying sooner.
Looks like we hit our peak with Gen X, who woulda thunk it?
IP: Logged
11:48 PM
Aug 23rd, 2011
cliffw Member
Posts: 35920 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by Boondawg: I'm betting it will get fixed at the last minute, just like this kind of stuff always does.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: At what cost ?
It was an earnest question. At what cost ? There is always a cost. We wake up each morning. We always do. It could be in a hospital, a jail, unemployed, but we always wake up. Till one day. When is that day and how is it gonna get fixed ? What will be the cost ? This is the time to make your voices heard.
IP: Logged
10:57 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Life expectancies, I believe, are now on the way back down. At least by generation.. Gen X was the apex, people of gen Y and later (is there anything after gen "why?" ????) are dying sooner.
Looks like we hit our peak with Gen X, who woulda thunk it?
I think it's "Millennials" that came after Gen Why Oh Why Me?
Of course life expectancy is going down. ObamaCare passed.
IP: Logged
12:13 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Ponzi schemes never work. Now, we are starting a new one. ObamaCare. The young pay for the old, just like Social Security.
And the greatest tragedy of all is that the young are buying into this enslavement as "Enlightenment". Wait til they get out of college and have to work for the rest of their lives for someone else's benefit. The revolution has been announced!
IP: Logged
12:19 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
"The Big Picture" works just like a credit card. You can ignore the cost for a while, but sooner or later the bill comes due.
"The Big Picture" creditcard cost goes far beyond just the personal cost (that's watching the wrong hand). The closed door deals and manipulations at the "Word Bank" level is where the "cost" is really being calculated, in very frightening terms. But the average day-to-day person never really thinks about it on that level, now do they? But that would be watching the correct hand.
The "cost" we think we have control of is really of little consiquence beyond each of our own little worlds. But it sure do keep us busy and occupied.
This day-to-day & year-to-year government happenings & misstidings are all just "busywork". The real happenings are on a decade scale.
Nothing in government ever gets done promptly; it's ALWAYS last minute, and all most always when all other options have expired.
I'm betting it will get fixed at the last minute, just like this kind of stuff always does.
You have no other choice BUT to bet on it.
What you are NOT saying in your statement is that you are betting it will get fixed at the last minute at someone else's expense, and that someone else is most likely going to be our offspring and those people's offspring. That "bet", was placed a long time ago, and if SS is bailed out by redeeming those US Govt bonds, it will be by borrowing even more (selling yet more debt), and the responsibility for repaying it will kicked on down the road to future generations as well. Unless of course, the bond market does it's job at some point, and we default, and everything including SS comes crashing down, in which case, there will be nothing but dry tits left to suck on for those who bet on it.
IP: Logged
01:51 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
I'm betting it will get fixed at the last minute, just like this kind of stuff always does.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:
You have no other choice BUT to bet on it.
Not true. I could bet against it getting fixed at the last minute. Or getting fixed at all. Or not bet at all. Plenty of other choices.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:
What you are NOT saying in your statement is that you are betting it will get fixed at the last minute at someone else's expense, and that someone else is most likely going to be our offspring and those people's offspring. .
That's right. I didn't say any of those things. Nor did I intend to. I said exactly what I ment to say. No more & no less.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 08-23-2011).]
