“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
@CP Will - We have to have 25years or else we screw up everyone who has planned their life around certain expectations. We have to resolve it now, but the process should take 25years to full work out. Unless you want to see riots that is. Also, the only reason we have "8 years" is because of bond maturity in 2025. We can fiance the bond maturity without touching SS, Medicare, or Medicaid by cutting useless government departments.
Hayek - too liberal for republicans
even the AARP now admits this won't come even close to funding Social Security in the coming years. if you were to tax everyone making $200,000 and up at a rate of 100%; that would only give you enough to cover Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security for the next five years.
I guess you being still on the rock, and not seeing the latest AARP commercials inundating the tubes here eh?
The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say
“The Social Security Trustees reaffirm that the program is financially strong for decades to come and can be strengthened for the future with relatively modest adjustments. With pensions, savings, and home equity down, many older workers unable to find jobs; and health costs continuing their upward climb, Social Security’s guaranteed benefits are more crucial than ever."
AARP: Report shows Social Security is viable for another 25 years
Social Security's real problem is not the trust fund - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blog Term Sheet
This is a pretty good read … and points out just some of the troubles with SS … seeing it CNN maybe liberals will actually read it .. and understand how slight of hand book keeping can make anything look good. ….. then again …But the trust fund balance isn't the right way to figure out Social Security's financial status. Rather, you need to look at the program's cash flow: the difference between the cash it collects and the benefits that it pays out.
Friday's report said that Social Security now projects cash flow deficits as far as the eye can see. It's the first time that's happened since Social Security taxes were raised and growth in benefits was trimmed back in the early 1980s. That's the real numbers news, as opposed to the trust fund stuff.
Why do I pooh-pooh the trust fund, the metric almost everyone uses, and care about cash flow, which is widely ignored? Because the "trust fund" is an abstraction whose shortfalls can be "solved" by diverting general revenues into the system or by simply giving Social Security more Treasury securities. But the cash flow deficit can't be covered over with fancy financial footwork.
Take this year as an example. Social Security projects that it will collect about $46 billion less in cash than it will pay out in retirement and disability benefits. However, Social Security's revenues include about $105 billion it will get from the Treasury to cover the cost of this year's "tax holiday" for employees, who pay only 4.2% Social Security tax on their wages of up to $106,800 rather than the normal 6.2%. The Treasury has to borrow that $105 billion, in addition to borrowing the $46 billion to redeem the Treasury securities that Social Security will cash in to cover its cash shortfall. Total Social Security-related borrowing: about $150 billion.
"No, I'm not saying that Social Security is in crisis. And I think it would be only fair for the government to make good on its trust fund obligations, because they represent money that wage earners thought was being set aside for their future benefits, but was spent on general government purposes."
I think it is fairly obvious that increased funding of SS through an increase in the FICA cap will be needed for the next 25 years to pay back the SS money that was used to fund the M.E. wars in order to prevent payment problems projected in 2036.
But I go back and wonder what was the average life expectancy of a working man back when SS was first started? Was it meant to pay people for and average of 13 years of non productivity? (in the work force) I see nothing wrong with raising the retirement age to early retirement to 65, and full retirement to 67, to keep it fair .. a one year raise in the first 10 years, the next raise in the next 10 years. That would mean that a worker who is 50 today .. will have to work one more year .. and workers that are 40 would have to work two more years, those above 50 would not be effected.
If that doesn't do it, then lets look at a very small increase in the tax rate of SS for all people for the first 10 years, along with raising the cap .. say $25,000 to see us through until the older age kicks in. Make that tax increase the very same as Bush made his tax cuts, they just expire after 10 years.
This way everyone, is helping to cure a problem not just 10% of the working population, everyone agrees these are hard times, shouldn't all people kick in to help ?
BTW, the problem of insufficient SS funds is not due to increased benefits being paid out, it is due to SS revenue being used to fund other General fund obligations that taxes should have been raised to pay for, such as our decade long multiple unfunded ME wars.
If all people had received an an equal break in taxes that created the problem that would make sense, but since the wealthy got way more in tax breaks they should pay way more to fix the problems their tax breaks created.