Reply With Quote
Nice catch, RG.
Social security started running deficits 5 years earlier than projected.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_social_security
-----------------------------------
Article was short on details.WASHINGTON – New congressional projections show Social Security running permanent annual deficits unless lawmakers act to shore up the massive retirement and disability program.
The Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday that Social Security will pay out $45 billion more in benefits this year than it will collect in payroll taxes, further straining the nation's finances. The deficits will continue until the Social Security trust funds are eventually drained, in about 2037.
Previously, CBO said Social Security would start running permanent deficits in 2016. In the short term, Social Security is suffering from a weak economy that has payroll taxes lagging and applications for benefits rising. In the long term, Social Security will be strained by the growing number of baby boomers retiring and applying for benefits.
CBO page:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11943
Relevant pdf summary (just 4 pages, pretty readable):
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/119xx/doc...maryforWeb.pdf
Nice catch, RG.
Sounds like a good reason to start talking about en lement reform. Too bad neither party is interested............
67 Percent Of Tea Partiers Would Rather Raise Taxes Than Raise The Social Security Retirement Age
Currently, workers pay social security payroll taxes on up to $106,800 of their salary. To ensure the long-term viability of Social Security, would you rather have people pay social security taxes on salaries above $106,800, or would you rather see benefits cut and the retirement age increased to age 69?
Raise payroll cap Cut benefits
All 77 10
Dem 84 4
GOP 69 17
Ind 77 11
Tea Party 67 20
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/24/...cial-security/
When the Repulican Study Committee excluded defense, en lements and veterans from budget cuts it underscored for me that neither major party takes the debt or the deficit very seriously.
what's the big deal with rasing the cap on compensation taxed? I keep hearing that everyone will find some pain with any en lement reform so, why not raise the cap?
"why not raise the cap"
I think it was CC who said the top quintile (starts about $105K) is so damn rich at retirement that they don't need/won't use SocSec retirement peanuts, and so damn smart with money that they can invest their own funds for retirement.
There's 100s of $Bs to be taken from rich. eg, fund managers get to declare the fees-for-services as capital gains and pay only 15%. Repugs blocked closing that blatantly unfair loophole, but that's what Repugs do.
Yep. If there's one thing that both parties can agree on, it's that they don't want to piss off the boomers by asking them to give up some of their goodies.
The problem with that is that boomers, by and large have managed to save -all for their retirement.
Take yer pick:
http://www.google.com/search?q=boome...nt+saving+news
Representative sample of articles from above search:
Given this, and that most health care spending takes place in the last 10 years of life, we are going to see a LOT of elder poverty.typical boomers are still woefully short on retirement savings
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc...ter2.5.1.shtmlThe Congressional Budget Office projects, however, that spending for Medicare and Medicaid will increase much more rapidly than will their enrollments—because the programs’ costs per beneficiary are growing faster than the economy.
CBO projects that without significant changes in policy, total spending for health care will be 31 percent of GDP by 2035 and will increase to 46 percent by 2080. Total spending for Medicare is projected to increase to 8 percent of GDP by 2035 and to 15 percent by 2080. Total spending for Medicaid is projected to increase to 5 percent of GDP by 2035 and to 7 percent by 2080
Welcome to the consequences of a graying population/planet.
This equation would only be exacerbated if there was not a safety net like SS, although quite honestly, SS is a meager living....can you imagine the millions of Americans who's safety net would have been wiped out by the Bush deficit spending bubble pop and Wing-nut privatization?
(braaapp!)
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-27-2011 at 05:22 AM.
It's never been pretty.
Later on, they won't ask.
I can. I think we will get to fully see what happens as well.
Poverty rates among the elderly will, in my opinion, reach epidemic proportions. We will literally see old people dying in the streets.
For good or ill, family support networks have eroded or evaporated for many many people.
As more get older, more people with mild dementia and other age-related cogntive problems will become unable to function. Being mildly functional, many will start falling through the cracks of that safety net. We will have to scale back benefits and programs. The problem will be made much worse by people who labor under the delusion that private charities will be able to pick up the slack, and who will violently oppose tax increases.
You only have to thinka bout those "elder alerts" on those electronic billboards to get ready-made examples of this today. It will get worse.
80 year old woman, I would guess with mild dementia, wanders out into the woods during a cold snap and dies, Austin Tx, Jan 3, 2011
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/p...-elderly-woman
When I mean dying in the streets, I mean literally.
Programs for the homeless are easy targets for Republican "why are you picking my pockets for lazy people" types who could care -all about the homeless. The poor or homeless are that way for a reason, right? It is probably completely their fault, so why should I pay to help them?
I think the 80 year old woman was living quite comfortably. Not sure why you would conflate her death with SS....
Private programs for the homeless are, by a large majority, faith based initiatives...those congregations have a largish Republican membership if you subscribe to today's conventional wisdom. But, those same Republicans are easy targets if you don't want to scrutinize your own biases, I suppose.
Hmm. That article says she wandered away from her HOME so where's this homeless rant coming from.
Another thing is where was this lady's family? The article leaves a lot of questions to be asked. We have to take care of ourselves before we ask for a handout from the government.
Social Security has been adequately funded…The problem is that Congress has been raiding Social Security funds for decades…Anyone who thinks that the Baby Boomers are the problem is grossly misinformed…
What if you never have children? How does that work out? Seould she tie up her bootstrings and get back to work?
"he Baby Boomers are the problem is grossly misinformed"
just another divisive lie that the right wingers repeat ad nauseam so Wall St can get its criminal hands on SS/retirement funds
No . They already spent our money rather than holding on, or invest it for us.
I wonder how many years money from the general fund will make up for SS payments, before the books are even. Se4 many trillions... I think about 6 trillion in excess SS payments. Add compound interest to that... How many years are SS recipients due payment from that?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
