• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Social Security Fund to Be Empty by 2037

1. CBO analysis shows that if all income were subject to the Social Security tax (as opposed to just the first $106,800), Social Security's trust fund would last through 2083. Given the imprecision of 75-year economic forecasts, that should be good enough for now.

2. A poll conducted for USA Today by Gallup shows that 67% of Americans support lifting the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax.

Problem solved. In fact, it was so easy to solve, it's really not much of a problem.

AMEN Brother Harry... Amen. Lets do that and do it ASAP.
 
it's solved!

LOL!

baby boomers beam!

bottom line---500 a month in (for LOW earners) for 40 to 50 years, 1000 a month out for those lucky enough to make it to 67 (or 69, or 70, or whatever the engineers ultimately determine) for as long as a retiree can hang on

even a low earner would have to survive to 120 just to break even

and soc sec is still upside down

realists realize, in addition, that "contributions" are gonna have to go up, while benefits eventually must be cut

a program in need of such draconian FIX is no success

it's a tragedy
 
Last edited:
it's solved!

LOL!

baby boomers beam!

bottom line---500 a month in (for LOW earners) for 40 to 50 years, 1000 a month out for those lucky enough to make it to 67 (or 69, or 70, or whatever the engineers ultimately determine) for as long as a retiree can hang on

even a low earner would have to survive to 120 just to break even

and soc sec is still upside down

realists realize, in addition, that "contributions" are gonna have to go up, while benefits eventually must be cut

a program in need of such draconian fixing is no success

it's a tragedy

The American people have heard the constant whining from the right wing extremists and two-thirds of them know how to fix this problem. Pop the cap, freeze benefit levels, say hello to the next seven decades of a safe and sound program.
 
1. tell it to barack

2. soc sec was never sposed to be a welfare program

3. another fundamental promise unfulfilled

4. 500 a month in, for low earners, for a lifetime

5. 1000 a month back for those who make it to whatever the newest, most recently revised retirement age turns out to be

6. if the program were a success it would not be in such desperate need of such dire remediation
 
Last edited:
from the soc sec website:

Most financial advisors say you'll need about 70 percent of your pre-retirement earnings to comfortably maintain your pre-retirement standard of living. If you have average earnings, your Social Security retirement benefits will replace only about 40 percent. The percentage is lower for people in the upper income brackets and higher for people with low incomes. You'll need to supplement your benefits with a pension, savings or investments.

Retirement Planner: Learn About Social Security Programs

fair enough, mr secretary

but exacly how are shania and deshawn gonna SUPPLEMENT when they're outta pocket, as a dual earning young couple with 2 daughters, sasha and malia, a cool THOUSAND A MONTH off the top?

think about it, mr secty

in other words, get real
 
1. CBO analysis shows that if all income were subject to the Social Security tax (as opposed to just the first $106,800), Social Security's trust fund would last through 2083. Given the imprecision of 75-year economic forecasts, that should be good enough for now.

2. A poll conducted for USA Today by Gallup shows that 67% of Americans support lifting the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax.

Problem solved. In fact, it was so easy to solve, it's really not much of a problem.

Not a fan of this because it would hurt me drastically :3
I'm already going to pay in more to SS than I take out, even with the cap.

SS was never meant to be a welfare program.
 
I'm already going to pay in more to SS than I take out, even with the cap.

.
Life isn't alway fair.
My Dad died at 60 and never collected a dime. But he was glad SS existed so he didn't have to worry about surviving in the future.
 
Life isn't alway fair.
My Dad died at 60 and never collected a dime. But he was glad SS existed so he didn't have to worry about surviving in the future.

Yes, but see, SS wasn't meant to be a welfare program. I have no problems with welfare or supporting those who can't literally can't support themselves (mentally ill, disabled, etc.), but SS was just meant to be a retirement savings plan.
It ended up being great for the first generation or two at the expense of every generation after that.
I have a different retirement plan and I don't need SS. If you're going to make it a welfare program, take the $6,621.60 from me - I won't collect any of it at the end. Just let me use the rest of my money to make my own plan.

Removing the cap would stop any masquerade of SS being a retirement plan.
 
Removing the cap would stop any masquerade of SS being a retirement plan.

The robbing of the SS trust by the government and spending the money on other things already proved that.
 
The robbing of the SS trust by the government and spending the money on other things already proved that.

I agree with you here. We probably wouldn't need to reform SS if every president to date hadn't stolen from the SS fund and actually invested and conserved it like they were supposed to.
 
1. tell it to barack

2. soc sec was never sposed to be a welfare program

3. another fundamental promise unfulfilled

4. 500 a month in, for low earners, for a lifetime

5. 1000 a month back for those who make it to whatever the newest, most recently revised retirement age turns out to be

6. if the program were a success it would not be in such desperate need of such dire remediation

You have changed the subject... we are not discussing the merits of SS, only whether it is solvent. On the relevant topic, there is not need for dire remdiation. Hyperpole does not make for a compelling argument. You've lost this one. Move on.
 
"we" are not discussing the merits of soc sec

only it's insolvency

LOL!

bleeding 45B per year a generation too soon, the boomers beginning to belly up

in need of draconian reform, all adults know, including almost assuredly a combination of ALL prescriptions, the age, the payroll, the bennies, the means, the cap...

ie, pain for all

so shanisha and shalom who are currently putting in a thousand per month between em in hopes of someday making it to 69 or 70 or who knows, by then, so she or he can pull out hopefully that 1076 per, adjusted by then of course to current quarters and nickels and dimes...

yes, they can cheerfully look forward, AFTER reform, to paying in some 1200 per in order to get some 976...

because the cavalier crowd has FIXED the whole thing with a casual click

grow up
 
just pop the cap and freeze benefits to todays levels plus inflation and the problem is solved for the next seven decades.
 
just revise fundamentally soc sec into a welfare program and cut out for the foreseeable cost of living adjustments for folks utterly dependent and promised all their lives...

that's all

as divorced from political reality as a neo narcissus

astonishing

no wonder the party in power took such a shellacking in november
 
Here we come gang. Seventy seven million baby boomers at your throats demanding benefits. Half of us haven't saved one red cent for retirement. So you young folks are going to save us. It's your duty. :)
 
Here we come gang. Seventy seven million baby boomers at your throats demanding benefits. Half of us haven't saved one red cent for retirement. So you young folks are going to save us. It's your duty. :)

It is the duty of the nation, its government and its people to honor the long standing terms of the deal that people have honored their entire working lives.
 
yup

and that's why draconian alterations to those long standing terms---eligibility age, payroll obligations, benefits due, etc---all changes made to the detriment of the membership, is a big govt betrayal to those hundreds of millions of people who have honored that deal their entire working lives...
 
It is the duty of the nation, its government and its people to honor the long standing terms of the deal that people have honored their entire working lives.

The only group large enough to provide for the care and comfort of seniors is the young. They must accept the yoke and harness. It's their duty. The young must subordinate all of their dreams and hopes to protecting the welfare of each and every one of America's seniors until the very last one of the baby boomers passes from the scene.
 
yup

and that's why draconian alterations to those long standing terms---eligibility age, payroll obligations, benefits due, etc---all changes made to the detriment of the membership, is a big govt betrayal to those hundreds of millions of people who have honored that deal their entire working lives...

I disagree with your premise. The people who paid into SS are the same ones who elected the representatives that pillaged it. This is still a Republic, after all. Changing the age of retirement is therefore a betrayal of the people, by the people. We've made our bed and now we must sleep in it.
 
FoxNews.com - Social Security Fund to Be Empty by 2037
Essentially, the SS trust fund has a big IOU in it, and nothing else.

Yup. I feel safe and secure about SS. How about you?

Do you detect the difference between what the article said and what you said? One has it right and the other, yours, has it wrong. The important aspect that is escaping many critics here is that money keeps flowing into Social Security each year, even 2037; yes, the obligations exceed the resources in that year, but, modest benefit changes can alter that reality. Social Security has been a great boon to American society; we should focus on fixing it not killing it.
 
I'll pass on the best advice someone ever gave me - I really didn't even know them at the time:

"Plan, save and invest for your own retirement like Social Security never existed."


That was 12 years ago, and I seriously took that advice. I'm planning on working until I'm 60 - that's another 17 years. Unless the entire country goes economically belly up, I should be able to work part time as a Walmart greeter past 60 if I want to get out of the house, but I have a feeling my hobbies will keep me busy. If SS still exists and I get a few sheckels, great - but I'm not holding my breath. I seriously wish the government would allow me to opt out and give me back my money via tax brakes over the next 10 years so I can take the extra money and put it where it will actually do me some good.
 
I'll pass on the best advice someone ever gave me - I really didn't even know them at the time:

"Plan, save and invest for your own retirement like Social Security never existed."


That was 12 years ago, and I seriously took that advice. I'm planning on working until I'm 60 - that's another 17 years. Unless the entire country goes economically belly up, I should be able to work part time as a Walmart greeter past 60 if I want to get out of the house, but I have a feeling my hobbies will keep me busy. If SS still exists and I get a few sheckels, great - but I'm not holding my breath. I seriously wish the government would allow me to opt out and give me back my money via tax brakes over the next 10 years so I can take the extra money and put it where it will actually do me some good.

If the last 17 years are any indication, the economy will probably go belly up in the next 17 years. The only thing propping up the stock market right now is low interest rates. People are forced to put their money there to get any kind of return. More and more jobs are moving overseas, energy costs are rising, inflation is right around the corner, unemployment is rising, and the states are bankrupt. Things are only going to get worse.


I have also followed the rules, lived within my means, saved every dime and prepared like SS did not exist. Doesn't mean I'm not worried.
 
Last edited:
Not likely. The people have spoken

With all due respect to the people, most of them are stupid.

The USA and its currency are about to be unloaded worldwide. The minute foreign nations dump the dollar, every social program will become insolvent overnight. We actually already are insolvent as a nation. Our only saving grace is the fact we just keep printing money. But that can't last much longer either.

States are going bankrupt and the money they have been getting from the federal government is drying up, which means the federal government is drying up to, which is understandable. You can't spend yourself out of debt. But the average voter is to stupid to figure this out, so the politcians will continue scaring people about other groups wanting to take their freebees away and we continue down this insane course a little while longer to its miserable end eventually.
 
If the last 17 years are any indication, the economy will probably go belly up in the next 17 years. The only thing propping up the stock market right now is low interest rates. People are forced to put their money there to get any kind of return. More and more jobs are moving overseas, energy costs are rising, inflation is right around the corner, unemployment is rising, and the states are bankrupt. Things are only going to get worse.


I have also followed the rules, lived within my means, saved every dime and prepared like SS did not exist. Doesn't mean I'm not worried.

If that's the case, we'll all be hitting each other over the heads with clubs again in 17 years. Until that happens however, I'm not relying on the Government for a GOD-damned thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom