Wait... I thought Social Security was solvent until 2035?

[LouderVol]

Your Dad a CPA in Chatt? So is my Dad..uto, this might be ackward...bro?

We always did joke he had another family he was visiting during "tax season".

Does your dad deal with a lot of SDAs bro?

 

[NorthDallas40]

And I pointed out the fallacy in their stance. My dad is a CPA and is heavily invested in my financial future, he is more concerned than I am. As you pointed out Goldman Saschs has a vested interest in the system, not a vested interest in your actual future, or at least your kids. You should.

The surplus pays the benefits right now. What's left gets rolled over, so we dont draw from the pot. However more and more of the surplus is being spent. Soon enough, 2035ish, there wont be surplus to roll over. The interest gained wont cover payments out. Which means we will not only pay out the interest, aka surplus, but also some of the pot. With a smaller pot, we have less interest. Which means more of the pot is needed, and was going to be needed anyway, with ever growing payouts. And it just keeps snowballing. It's a pryamid/ponzu scheme. They are illegal for a reason.

The other fixes above arent fixes. They just delay that rollover point. Unless they are willing to put a hard cap on total SS payments, lol, there is no fix.

A higher tax isnt a fix for anyone over the break even point. It actually lowers the break even point. And for most working Americans that means they are getting less and less back. Which makes my plan even more attractive.

Lower payments and delayed payments do the same thing.

The easiest way to actually fix the issue is get people off of SS. Half the SS rate for drop outs. The leaches keep getting their wealth redistribution, there is less demand later, opt outs are able to reinvest the half they keep for a better return.

I know, it's crazy to think that trusting people is a better long term solution than trusting the government which got us into this situation to begin with. If only the RINOs actually really cared.

I don’t think your view on wealth management firms is completely valid. A healthy dose of skepticism is one thing but don’t go full tin foil hat. All I need to do is look at my plan. They are expecting a haircut that’s being prudent. They aren’t expecting Armageddon

 

[LouderVol]

I don’t think your view on wealth management firms is completely valid. A healthy dose of skepticism is one thing but don’t go full tin foil hat. All I need to do is look at my plan. They are expecting a haircut that’s being prudent. They aren’t expecting Armageddon

What happens in this nation when there MIGHT be a shortage of something?

We dont actually have to hit the Revelation based Armageddon for Armageddon to hit.

 

[Orangeburst]

Deleting..getting too close to doxxing myself.

 

[NorthDallas40]

What happens in this nation when there MIGHT be a shortage of something?

We dont actually have to hit the Revelation based Armageddon for Armageddon to hit.

Oh I’m not saying people won’t over react and be dumbasses that goes with out saying. I just think the real fallout vs the idiot panic reaction won’t reconcile on par with each other.

You’ll get a haircut. If I get a haircut too I think yours will be steeper. My benefits are 10 years away right now so no mine won’t see a huge hit. Even on your haircut I’d guess it’s less that 25% of current levels and even then you’re planning for it so you’ll be fine.

The other clueless idiots in your generation are doomed if they aren’t maxing out their yearly 401k match at least.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Those are all pretty dramatic changes. Under the current system it's something like if you made an average of 50k a year and only live to 80 you already dont get your full mount back.

Decreasing payouts, while increasing the rates, and postponing benefits just drives the break even point even lower.

And you are missing something in your surplus point. That surplus is what they are paying out of. When its gone they will have to draw from the actual funds. As they draw more and more there will be less and less interest gained. Which means they will draw from the balance more and more. Which means less interest, and so on and so forth.

At the very least our trillion dollar deficit government will have to pay out from the general funds into SS to fund the losses.

The pyramid scheme is coming down.

Nearly 80% of the benefits paid come from taxes on current payrolls. I think you’re putting too much weight on the 2-3% interest that is earned on the trust funds surpluses that are being borrowed for/by the general fund of the government.

The last time that the surplus was trending toward zero the full retirement age was tweaked. That legislation was enacted almost 40 years ago. So far the FRA has been raised by slightly more than a year and will be phased up to two years (67) in about the next 4 years… those born in 1960 or later won’t have full benefits until age 67.

It will only require small adjustments to the variables to push the projected date of the surplus becoming a deficit out by decades. The maximum earnings that the tax is based on has already been ratcheting upward… it’s around $140k right now. That is an easy piece to continue raising. The government needs to admit that SSI is actually a tax instead of pretending that it is a benefits plan for workers. But any politician that addresses the issue by promoting (or voting for) a solution will be under attack by their opponents. They should nut up now and begin fine tuning the variables ASAP instead of delaying it and compressing more pain into a smaller time frame and hitting future workers and recipients even harder.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Social Security is not going away. The mania over possible insolvency is way overblown. The surplus being drawn down is what is happening. VERY slight tweaks to the variables will easily rebuild a surplus. Slightly delaying the age that benefits begin. Slightly increasing the 2x 6.2% funding from payrolls. Slightly decreasing the COLAs.

Increasing the age and decreasing the COLA... That will get demagogued to death.

In a worst case scenario the only benefits paid to the recipients will be what is collected from current payrolls. Even something that drastic likely only decreases payments by a third.

From current payrolls... not from what the SS recipient put into the system. That is a Ponzi scheme.

This is more in line with what my financial advisor is telling me also although they indicated some eventual hit to benefits would have to occur at some point. But SS is not going away and the cut would not be deep.

The truth of the matter is they are going to pay you every single penny they owe you. Every penny. They won't do anything politically to pizz off the Boomers or rile up the liberals. They will print as much money as they need to file in the gaps.

 

[LouderVol]

Nearly 80% of the benefits paid come from taxes on current payrolls. I think you’re putting too much weight on the 2-3% interest that is earned on the trust funds surpluses that are being borrowed for/by the general fund of the government.

The last time that the surplus was trending toward zero the full retirement age was tweaked. That legislation was enacted almost 40 years ago. So far the FRA has been raised by slightly more than a year and will be phased up to two years (67) in about the next 4 years… those born in 1960 or later won’t have full benefits until age 67.

It will only require small adjustments to the variables to push the projected date of the surplus becoming a deficit out by decades. The maximum earnings that the tax is based on has already been ratcheting upward… it’s around $140k right now. That is an easy piece to continue raising. The government needs to admit that SSI is actually a tax instead of pretending that it is a benefits plan for workers. But any politician that addresses the issue by promoting (or voting for) a solution will be under attack by their opponents. They should nut up now and begin fine tuning the variables ASAP instead of delaying it and compressing more pain into a smaller time frame and hitting future workers and recipients even harder.

But once that interest disappears that's another 2 to 3 percent, read tens of billions of dollars, that get footed by tax payers. That's on something that is already failing. Plus you add in all the lost jobs, and retirements with Covid and there is a lot more strain on that failing system. Add in the rapid development and deployment of robotics to replace MW and you dump another chunk of the support.

What's the end goal with SS? Let's say worker contribution bumped to 7% matched increase on comps. Age raised another 2 years to 69. That just resets. Where does everyone admit enough is enough? What's the line to get people to finally admit it doesnt work? You cant keep playing with those numbers every few years.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Member when Bush talked about letting you invest your SS money like an adult? That gave me hope for like 4 solid minutes.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

But once that interest disappears that's another 2 to 3 percent, read tens of billions of dollars, that get footed by tax payers. That's on something that is already failing. Plus you add in all the lost jobs, and retirements with Covid and there is a lot more strain on that failing system. Add in the rapid development and deployment of robotics to replace MW and you dump another chunk of the support.

What's the end goal with SS? Let's say worker contribution bumped to 7% matched increase on comps. Age raised another 2 years to 69. That just resets. Where does everyone admit enough is enough? What's the line to get people to finally admit it doesnt work? You cant keep playing with those numbers every few years.

The numbers haven’t really been played with since 1983. The taxation on 50% and 85% of benefits is revenue for the general fund. The increase in the full retirement age was decided in 1983 and went into effect decades later.

Raising to 7% (14%) and making the FRA 69 should take care of everybody that’s alive today if it would be done NOW. Politicians know that they will be cancelled if they do that so the can will just keep getting kicked down the road for another generation until the surplus is a deficit. Then they can simply run an annual deficit or use the general fund for another generation.

The surplus has grown by around 75x since Baby Boomers have all become of working age (mid 80s to now). So they will also be pretty much paid from that surplus that they created. Maybe if pandemics keep coming around they can be killed off faster and create nicer actuarial tables. For the following generations, they need to get into the mindset that it is more socially responsible to work for the starter wages rather than expect the universal income to become an ongoing thing. The jobs are there. The entitled classes don’t want to work their way up through the corporate world. We need plumbers and roofers. Becoming a well paid truck driver can happen in about a month. We don’t need European Poetry History majors.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

They will pay you ever dime they owe you...

 

[Orangeburst]

They will pay you ever dime they owe you...

What I was saying as well...purchasing power is dimished. Like he was intentionally avoiding the "I" word.
Greenspan in that second clip just admitted that our fiat currency is detrimental. Not sure I ever heard them say it, certainly not recently.

 

[LouderVol]

The numbers haven’t really been played with since 1983. The taxation on 50% and 85% of benefits is revenue for the general fund. The increase in the full retirement age was decided in 1983 and went into effect decades later.

Raising to 7% (14%) and making the FRA 69 should take care of everybody that’s alive today if it would be done NOW. Politicians know that they will be cancelled if they do that so the can will just keep getting kicked down the road for another generation until the surplus is a deficit. Then they can simply run an annual deficit or use the general fund for another generation.

The surplus has grown by around 75x since Baby Boomers have all become of working age (mid 80s to now). So they will also be pretty much paid from that surplus that they created. Maybe if pandemics keep coming around they can be killed off faster and create nicer actuarial tables. For the following generations, they need to get into the mindset that it is more socially responsible to work for the starter wages rather than expect the universal income to become an ongoing thing. The jobs are there. The entitled classes don’t want to work their way up through the corporate world. We need plumbers and roofers. Becoming a well paid truck driver can happen in about a month. We don’t need European Poetry History majors.

Whether or not you realize it, you are reinforcing my point.

The fixes arent fixes. Politicians dont want to fix it even though they know its broke. All we are doing is sucking down the next generation. If they at least offer a way out, something they will also never do, you are at least giving people a chance.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Whether or not you realize it, you are reinforcing my point.

The fixes arent fixes. Politicians dont want to fix it even though they know its broke. All we are doing is sucking down the next generation. If they at least offer a way out, something they will also never do, you are at least giving people a chance.

My point has never changed. All it will take are a few simple adjustments (“fixes”) to reverse the trend of the diminishing surplus and to maintain positive fund balances much further out. If it begins now then the impact of the lower benefits will be spread out over a longer time frame.

All we are talking about is doing nothing and eventually facing a worst case scenario of a 20-25% reduction in benefits OR using the discretionary portion of the budget to prop up the system. Those suggesting that the system will entirely fail are spreading fake fear. The health of the economy will have a far bigger impact on people’s lives in future generations.

 

[LouderVol]

My point has never changed. All it will take are a few simple adjustments (“fixes”) to reverse the trend of the diminishing surplus and to maintain positive fund balances much further out. If it begins now then the impact of the lower benefits will be spread out over a longer time frame.

All we are talking about is doing nothing and eventually facing a worst case scenario of a 20-25% reduction in benefits OR using the discretionary portion of the budget to prop up the system. Those suggesting that the system will entirely fail are spreading fake fear. The health of the economy will have a far bigger impact on people’s lives in future generations.

But what is your metric of acceptance for SS? As it is you sound like you have an incredibly low floor they have to clear for SS to be considered working.

If they are taxing individuals at 10% and you dont get to draw until you are 75, are they really serving the people?

Imo the government should have dropped SS and transferred it all to privately held 401ks as soon as that gave the better return.

Instead we have people arguing to continue the ponzi scheme with worse returns instead of just facing facts that SS is a bad deal.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

My point has never changed. All it will take are a few simple adjustments (“fixes”) to reverse the trend of the diminishing surplus and to maintain positive fund balances much further out. If it begins now then the impact of the lower benefits will be spread out over a longer time frame.

All we are talking about is doing nothing and eventually facing a worst case scenario of a 20-25% reduction in benefits OR using the discretionary portion of the budget to prop up the system. Those suggesting that the system will entirely fail are spreading fake fear. The health of the economy will have a far bigger impact on people’s lives in future generations.

I missed you adding in that suggestion earlier in the thread. Interesting.

Still, I think the main point that needs to be remembered in your comments is this:

In a worst case scenario the only benefits paid to the recipients will be what is collected from current payrolls.

That is a Ponzi scheme.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

But what is your metric of acceptance for SS? As it is you sound like you have an incredibly low floor they have to clear for SS to be considered working.

If they are taxing individuals at 10% and you dont get to draw until you are 75, are they really serving the people?

Imo the government should have dropped SS and transferred it all to privately held 401ks as soon as that gave the better return.

Instead we have people arguing to continue the ponzi scheme with worse returns instead of just facing facts that SS is a bad deal.

You are moving the goal posts. My points are related to the solvency of the SS system. Changing to a 401(k) type of alternative is an entirely different discussion. There are no personally owned accounts with SSI. It is like any form of insurance… some take more out than they put in and vice versa.

It isn’t anything close to a Ponzi scheme. The worst case scenario is a reduction in benefits of around 25%. That can be reduced by adjusting the variables or by kicking in revenues from the discretionary budget. The way that it is organized as a trust fund really just disguises it as NOT being a tax. In reality it is a regressive tax that is being promoted as something other than another entitlement.

It has changed over time. Originally it might have been enough to pay 100% of what retirees needed to survive. Now it is just a supplement to what is needed. The rest is either made up with responsible saving with other retirement strategies or by government handouts like Welfare.

Admit it. Without SS the majority of the population will have zero from voluntary retirement participation.

It is what it is. It is not going to collapse. Again, the health of the overall economy will have a far greater impact on people’s lives.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

I missed you adding in that suggestion earlier in the thread. Interesting.

Still, I think the main point that needs to be remembered in your comments is this:



That is a Ponzi scheme.

It is a tax. A tax that has little impact on the highest earners.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

You are moving the goal posts. My points are related to the solvency of the SS system. Changing to a 401(k) type of alternative is an entirely different discussion. There are no personally owned accounts with SSI. It is like any form of insurance… some take more out than they put in and vice versa.

It isn’t anything close to a Ponzi scheme. The worst case scenario is a reduction in benefits of around 25%. That can be reduced by adjusting the variables or by kicking in revenues from the discretionary budget. The way that it is organized as a trust fund really just disguises it as NOT being a tax. In reality it is a regressive tax that is being promoted as something other than another entitlement.

It has changed over time. Originally it might have been enough to pay 100% of what retirees needed to survive. Now it is just a supplement to what is needed. The rest is either made up with responsible saving with other retirement strategies or by government handouts like Welfare.

Admit it. Without SS the majority of the population will have zero from voluntary retirement participation.

It is what it is. It is not going to collapse. Again, the health of the overall economy will have a far greater impact on people’s lives.

I'll let everything you say here stand on its on merit with the exception of the highlighted. Everything else you said is technically factual. Unfortunately, you don't appear to have an issue with it.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

It is a tax. A tax that has little impact on the highest earners.

Also technically correct. It is a tax... that was (and is) sold as a retirement plan.

 

[LouderVol]

You are moving the goal posts. My points are related to the solvency of the SS system. Changing to a 401(k) type of alternative is an entirely different discussion. There are no personally owned accounts with SSI. It is like any form of insurance… some take more out than they put in and vice versa.

It isn’t anything close to a Ponzi scheme. The worst case scenario is a reduction in benefits of around 25%. That can be reduced by adjusting the variables or by kicking in revenues from the discretionary budget. The way that it is organized as a trust fund really just disguises it as NOT being a tax. In reality it is a regressive tax that is being promoted as something other than another entitlement.

It has changed over time. Originally it might have been enough to pay 100% of what retirees needed to survive. Now it is just a supplement to what is needed. The rest is either made up with responsible saving with other retirement strategies or by government handouts like Welfare.

Admit it. Without SS the majority of the population will have zero from voluntary retirement participation.

It is what it is. It is not going to collapse. Again, the health of the overall economy will have a far greater impact on people’s lives.

Oh I have never argued that people dont think of retirement beyond SS. I just think that has little to do with what the government should be doing. I have sid from the start we need a change and that change will come with temporary suffering. But better that than waiting for the system to fail. Either thru bankruptcy or so completely unbalanced between what it draws and what it pays put tht people demand it be dropped.

The 401k thing isnt a goalpost move. It's a way to fix the system. Similar to my opt out option, or the raising taxes while decreasing pay outs.

All those last two things do is lengthen the Ponzi scheme, making it worse. "Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investing scam which generates returns for earlier investors with money taken from later investors. This is similar to a pyramid scheme in that both are based on using new investors' funds to pay the earlier backers." That is exactly what SS is, a ponzi scheme. It's just legal because.....yay government?

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

I'll let everything you say here stand on its on merit with the exception of the highlighted. Everything else you said is technically factual. Unfortunately, you don't appear to have an issue with it.

My issue is that the surplus could easily be managed if it wasn’t a political football.

It’s just insurance (actually more like a tax). The buyer’s actual returns will always be less than 100% due to administrative costs. In this case the dot gov is the administrator and they do not have a track record of high efficiency.

It is also sustained by ignorance. Inflation erodes everybody’s return. Most citizens have no clue.

Employees should easily get more than their 6.2% returned to them since there is a 100% match by employers.

It is what it is. Use it to supplement other sources to fund a retirement and it will suffice. Those using it to fund 100% of their retirement will just make up the difference by taking from the other entitlement programs being run by the government. Charitable organizations also contribute.

Assuming that you are defining a Ponzi scheme as simply taking new money to pay earlier participants it is nowhere near that degree. Ponzi schemes don’t take in more than they payout and build up a nearly $3 trillion surplus 80+ years into it.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Also technically correct. It is a tax... that was (and is) sold as a retirement plan.

Honest politicians that address it will quickly be run out of DC.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Assuming that you are defining a Ponzi scheme as simply taking new money to pay earlier participants it is nowhere near that degree. Ponzi schemes don’t take in more than they payout and build up a nearly $3 trillion surplus 80+ years into it.

Meh, not many Ponzi schemes have the ability to create more money out of thin air to pay current obligations. Also, most Ponzis run their course when they lose people entering the scheme. As long as US population is kept growing (with the help of immigration), then there will always be a certain number of people at the bottom of the pyramid holding up the recipients at the top.

Mandator participation keeps the numbers of people in the scheme. The ability to change the rules in midstream is a way to control how many people they have to pay out.

Pretty good racket.

 

[LouderVol]

Honest politicians that address it will quickly be run out of DC.

Which makes it a Ponzi scheme. If the government cant speak openly about what it does, it shouldnt be doing it.