• 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 To Go Bust By 2030: CBO

J

JoeTheEconomist

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
2,802
Reaction score
517
Location
Atlanta, GA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
JoeTheEconomist said:
The $2.8 trillion Social Security Trust Fund is on track to be totally spent by 2030, the Congressional Budget Office : http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45519-QFR_Hatch.pdf

That's a decade earlier than the CBO estimated as recently as 2011.


Social Security To Go Bust By 2030 Thanks Partly to ObamaCare: CBO - Investors.com
Click to expand...

Which is why we must take action to
1 - pop the cap on FICA contribution so that ALL 100% of earners pay FICA on all 100% of their earnings just like 93% of earners do today
2 - freeze benefit levels with a possible modest inflation increase

Studies and experts have demonstrated that if you do these two things, you solve over 80% of this financial problem.
 
Any free lunch is unsustainable.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Great. Just great. That's the year after I can start drawing - of course.
Click to expand...

It could be worse. It could be just an estimate that has lost 10 years of solvency over the last 3. Oh wait. That is what it is. I have a serious question. At what point will you make Social Security a voting priority.
 
haymarket said:
Which is why we must take action to
1 - pop the cap on FICA contribution so that ALL 100% of earners pay FICA on all 100% of their earnings just like 93% of earners do today
2 - freeze benefit levels with a possible modest inflation increase

Studies and experts have demonstrated that if you do these two things, you solve over 80% of this financial problem.
Click to expand...

I am guessing that you don't read threads before you reply, or that you haven't updated your clichés. The experts - in the report I posted - say that it is about 2/3rds not 80%. But let's not allow facts get in the way of ideology.
 
haymarket said:
Which is why we must take action to
1 - pop the cap on FICA contribution so that ALL 100% of earners pay FICA on all 100% of their earnings just like 93% of earners do today
2 - freeze benefit levels with a possible modest inflation increase

Studies and experts have demonstrated that if you do these two things, you solve over 80% of this financial problem.
Click to expand...

You are close but that would require 100% of income, not just earnings, to be subject to SS withholding. Tinkering with the inflation adjustment is simply lowering benefits.
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
I am guessing that you don't read threads before you reply, or that you haven't updated your clichés. The experts - in the report I posted - say that it is about 2/3rds not 80%. But let's not allow facts get in the way of ideology.
Click to expand...

The problem is how SS is setup to begin with. the ponzi scheme is collapsing on itself. it needs to be changed to a separate account system that you save for yourself.
the government contributes a % every year to that account.

the problem is we have to many people pulling from SS and not enough people paying in. the ratio i think is about 2:1 and the last time i checked it was 1.5:1 in other places.

there have been to many people added to the SS fund that shouldn't be there. it was meant as a retirement system not a subsidy program for everything else.
 
Im gonna get hated for saying this but I hope it happens sooner so that it can be brought up right in the open. The sooner it gets addressed seriously by people willing to antagonize retirees the better because its a ticking timebomb and can no longer be put off.
 
How does a pay as you go system go bust? Misleading headline is misleading.
Beaudreaux said:
Great. Just great. That's the year after I can start drawing - of course.
Click to expand...
Under our current system, you'd still be able to draw Social Security. The question would simply be how much.
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
The $2.8 trillion Social Security Trust Fund is on track to be totally spent by 2030, the Congressional Budget Office : http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45519-QFR_Hatch.pdf

That's a decade earlier than the CBO estimated as recently as 2011.


Social Security To Go Bust By 2030 Thanks Partly to ObamaCare: CBO - Investors.com
Click to expand...

We did calculations over a decade ago, when we were looking at various national pension schemes. The numbers you mention sound early but about right unless the real payouts are reduced. This is true for almost all programs in the OECD, whereby GB had the most robust. The American was also near the top. The two financial crisis have reduced the quality of the system.
 
ludin said:
The problem is how SS is setup to begin with. the ponzi scheme is collapsing on itself. it needs to be changed to a separate account system that you save for yourself.
the government contributes a % every year to that account.

the problem is we have to many people pulling from SS and not enough people paying in. the ratio i think is about 2:1 and the last time i checked it was 1.5:1 in other places.

there have been to many people added to the SS fund that shouldn't be there. it was meant as a retirement system not a subsidy program for everything else.
Click to expand...

The Ponzi scheme has been dead for nearly 50 years. People born in 1960 expect to get less back from SS than they contribute. If the ratio is the problem, why did SS reach insolvency in 1983? Who are you talking about when you say that people have been added?
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
The $2.8 trillion Social Security Trust Fund is on track to be totally spent by 2030, the Congressional Budget Office : http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45519-QFR_Hatch.pdf

That's a decade earlier than the CBO estimated as recently as 2011.


Social Security To Go Bust By 2030 Thanks Partly to ObamaCare: CBO - Investors.com
Click to expand...

that 2.8 trillion dollars has been borrowed by the government and has NOT been paid back. the government will have to issue MORE debt to pay the benefits in the future associated with the borrowed 2.8 trillion trust fund.
 
TheNextEra said:
How is it free when people are PAYING into it?
Click to expand...

It is a free lunch for those collecting. When you say that people paid into it, it doesn't mean that they paid the full amount. Up until 2010, retirees collected an above average market return.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You are close but that would require 100% of income, not just earnings, to be subject to SS withholding. Tinkering with the inflation adjustment is simply lowering benefits.
Click to expand...

As I recall, he isn't talking about freezing everyone's benefits just the high wage earners.
 
Slyfox696 said:
How does a pay as you go system go bust? Misleading headline is misleading.
Under our current system, you'd still be able to draw Social Security. The question would simply be how much.
Click to expand...

The problem with your thought is that the current system is subject to the approval of future voters. They may tire of paying 12.4% of wages to support a system which has a negative return now, and will pay a depleted rate thereafter. I can't imagine what could go wrong with that idea.
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
The problem with your thought is that the current system is subject to the approval of future voters. They may tire of paying 12.4% of wages to support a system which has a negative return now, and will pay a depleted rate thereafter. I can't imagine what could go wrong with that idea.
Click to expand...
Or they could opt to pay 16% of wages to support those loved ones who can no longer work and need to be cared for. We can play that game all day long.

What we SHOULDN'T do is pretend that Social Security is going bust. Like I said, your headline was grossly misleading.
 
mtm1963 said:
that 2.8 trillion dollars has been borrowed by the government and has NOT been paid back. .
Click to expand...

Both of these are true, and there is no credible person who believes that the money will not be repaid with interest. If it isn't, the date of insolvency is pushed forward to the day on which the Trust Fund stops functioning. If the government doesn't repay bonds today with interest... Benefits are immediately cut.

mtm1963 said:
the government will have to issue MORE debt to pay the benefits in the future associated with the borrowed 2.8 trillion trust fund.
Click to expand...

You need to explain your point. The government has to repay debt 2.8 trillion to Social Security just like it has to repay debt to China. The govt will have to issue MORE debt to pay back the bonds held by China. So I do not understand your point.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Or they could opt to pay 16% of wages to support those loved ones who can no longer work and need to be cared for. We can play that game all day long.

What we SHOULDN'T do is pretend that Social Security is going bust. Like I said, your headline was grossly misleading.
Click to expand...

I have to guess that you picked 16% out of a hat. We shouldn't pretend that we have any idea where Social Security is going regardless of what the headline says. I suspect that 12.4% of wages is a tough sell to future voters. You are basically suggesting that future voters are going to be more willing to pay taxes that we wouldn't.
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
I am guessing that you don't read threads before you reply, or that you haven't updated your clichés. The experts - in the report I posted - say that it is about 2/3rds not 80%. But let's not allow facts get in the way of ideology.
Click to expand...

So there is a difference of opinion - some could even say a small difference of opinion on the exact number. Regardless, if we get 2/3 or 4/5 to a solution that is a hell of a long way and I call that substantial progress. With that in place we can then do smaller tweaks to make up the rest of the difference of simply take the money out of general funding.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You are close but that would require 100% of income, not just earnings, to be subject to SS withholding. Tinkering with the inflation adjustment is simply lowering benefits.
Click to expand...

I have long favored that ALL income be subject to the same tax schedule so that sounds acceptable to me.

yes - tinkering with inflation might well be lowering benefits and that might be a small sacrifice we have to make. But please not I stated there would be a modest inflation increase if possible.
 
RDS said:
Yes, from taxes they give u free lunch.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like when I go to mcdonalds and give them cash, and I get a free lunch!
 
haymarket said:
So there is a difference of opinion - some could even say a small difference of opinion on the exact number. Regardless, if we get 2/3 or 4/5 to a solution that is a hell of a long way and I call that substantial progress. With that in place we can then do smaller tweaks to make up the rest of the difference of simply take the money out of general funding.
Click to expand...

Facts don't matter is what you are saying.

The last time we ran this discussion. It was just eliminate the cap and it is fixed. Then it was no... It is solvent. Then it was no... It is 77% of solvent. Then it was no... if we eliminate the cap and cap benefits of someone who was a high wage worker (mind you this person now may be penniless) it is 80% solvent. And no matter how many times you are wrong you follow it up with well it is better than what we have today. You don't really care about Social Security. You just want to throw other people's money at the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom