Full Version: Social Security Underfunded
In a column in the Dallas Morning News today, Scott Burns discusses the impact the impending baby boomer retirement will have on the Federal deficit and debt: New kind of deficit is coming . This is an issue neither party wants to discuss, but will likely have a very large impact on all of us--and much sooner than you might think.
In Bad guess on Social Security Scott shows how the so-called trust fund is likely to run out of money as early as 2010--just 6 short years from now. Since the money that was supposed to be going to the Trust Fund was instead spent on other things, that means that the Federal government will be faced with a huge liability which it is ill-prepared to address.
There are only two tools available to it to address this liability--drastically cut services or drastically raise taxes. I'm not overly thrilled with either of these solutions. I am even less thrilled by the prospect because we shouldn't be in this situation. We have been paying taxes specifically ear-marked to address this problem for over 20 years. But it wasn't used for its intended purpose, instead it was squandered away. I put the blame for this squarely on both parties--both were aware of it, and neither wanted to do anything about it. So, I don't want this to turn into another he said, she said political forum. Past history doesn't matter--the situation is what it is. Rather, I would like to focus on the following questions for debate.
1. Are you concerned with this impending problem, and what it will likely take in either increased taxes or reduced services to pay for it? Why or why not?
2. Are you upset that you will likely be taxed again to fund the very surplus we have already been paying for for over 20 years? Is this issue important to you? Why or why not?
On a related issue, I lived in the Washington Penninsula many years ago. A toll bridge there was built on the north end of Hood Canal, with the tolls being stipulated to be solely for funding the bridge. It was discovered years later that the bridge had been funded (several times over, in fact); thereby removing the legal basis for collecting the toll. Eventually (after a couple of minor uprisings
), the toll booths were removed. (Later the bridge was destroyed in a storm, but the government wasn't allowed to erect new toll booths to pay for its reconstruction since those funds too had already been collected). My point here is:
3. Should the government even be allowed to raise taxes to pay for an item for which tax money has already been explicity collected? Is there anything that can be done, legally, to prevent such double taxation?
Obviously, forcing the government to deal with this mess without additional taxes will lead to some rather large consequences. However, failure to do so is giving the government carte blanche to openly lie to us when creating legislation (many have already indicated their severe displeasure with this).
4. Would you be willing to back an effort to refuse to pay any additional taxes to cover this impending deficit? Why or why not?
Finally, as a conservative, I find my representatives refusal to deal with this problem repugnant (and have sent them letters expressing this, to which I received no reply).
5. If a conservative, is your party's refusal to address this issue belying the principles they are supposed to be standing on? Or is this an albatross best not dealt with because of the political issues it would create?
QUOTE
In fact, a new kind of deficit is coming our way. It will change our economy.
QUOTE
When the employment tax surplus disappears, Social Security will start to redeem the hoard of Treasury obligations in the trust fund. Basically, we'll be running the 30 years of surplus Social Security revenue in reverse. Instead of reducing government need to borrow from the public, Social Security Trust Fund redemptions will increase government borrowing from outside sources.
This will be a new kind of federal deficit. It will be materially larger than anything we have experienced with the exception of World War II. It will have an impact on everyone and everything
This will be a new kind of federal deficit. It will be materially larger than anything we have experienced with the exception of World War II. It will have an impact on everyone and everything
In Bad guess on Social Security Scott shows how the so-called trust fund is likely to run out of money as early as 2010--just 6 short years from now. Since the money that was supposed to be going to the Trust Fund was instead spent on other things, that means that the Federal government will be faced with a huge liability which it is ill-prepared to address.
QUOTE
Will our government be able to borrow all those trillions?
If it can, interest expense will displace other government spending.
If it can, interest expense will displace other government spending.
QUOTE
But check the "high cost assumptions." They tell us that OASDI will be short of cash by 2013. The combined programs will be cash-short by 2010.
That's six years away.
Being cash short for Social Security and Medicare benefits wouldn't be worrisome if our friends in Washington were enjoying revenue collections beyond their wildest dreams. But they are not. They're looking at deficits from here to eternity. They won't be able to tap general revenues because general revenues will already be thoroughly tapped.
That's six years away.
Being cash short for Social Security and Medicare benefits wouldn't be worrisome if our friends in Washington were enjoying revenue collections beyond their wildest dreams. But they are not. They're looking at deficits from here to eternity. They won't be able to tap general revenues because general revenues will already be thoroughly tapped.
There are only two tools available to it to address this liability--drastically cut services or drastically raise taxes. I'm not overly thrilled with either of these solutions. I am even less thrilled by the prospect because we shouldn't be in this situation. We have been paying taxes specifically ear-marked to address this problem for over 20 years. But it wasn't used for its intended purpose, instead it was squandered away. I put the blame for this squarely on both parties--both were aware of it, and neither wanted to do anything about it. So, I don't want this to turn into another he said, she said political forum. Past history doesn't matter--the situation is what it is. Rather, I would like to focus on the following questions for debate.
1. Are you concerned with this impending problem, and what it will likely take in either increased taxes or reduced services to pay for it? Why or why not?
2. Are you upset that you will likely be taxed again to fund the very surplus we have already been paying for for over 20 years? Is this issue important to you? Why or why not?
On a related issue, I lived in the Washington Penninsula many years ago. A toll bridge there was built on the north end of Hood Canal, with the tolls being stipulated to be solely for funding the bridge. It was discovered years later that the bridge had been funded (several times over, in fact); thereby removing the legal basis for collecting the toll. Eventually (after a couple of minor uprisings
), the toll booths were removed. (Later the bridge was destroyed in a storm, but the government wasn't allowed to erect new toll booths to pay for its reconstruction since those funds too had already been collected). My point here is:3. Should the government even be allowed to raise taxes to pay for an item for which tax money has already been explicity collected? Is there anything that can be done, legally, to prevent such double taxation?
Obviously, forcing the government to deal with this mess without additional taxes will lead to some rather large consequences. However, failure to do so is giving the government carte blanche to openly lie to us when creating legislation (many have already indicated their severe displeasure with this).
4. Would you be willing to back an effort to refuse to pay any additional taxes to cover this impending deficit? Why or why not?
Finally, as a conservative, I find my representatives refusal to deal with this problem repugnant (and have sent them letters expressing this, to which I received no reply).
5. If a conservative, is your party's refusal to address this issue belying the principles they are supposed to be standing on? Or is this an albatross best not dealt with because of the political issues it would create?
1. Are you concerned with this impending problem, and what it will likely take in either increased taxes or reduced services to pay for it? Why or why not?
I am highly concerned for two reasons:
1. The baby-boomer generation is aging and many of them are nearing the time when they would start taking social security benefits out of the system. This is really going to start spinning up in the next 5 to 10 years. Seeing as how this is a huge generation of people it will put a very large demand on the system.
2. Everyone (and I mean both sides of the political spectrum) seems to be ignoring the big elephant in the room here. There isn't a single politician that has put forth a plan to bail us out of the social security problem because none of them think more than 4 years into the future. Recently Bush handed out tax cuts in which he borrowed in large part from the social security fund to be able to do that. (discussed in this thread)
2. Are you upset that you will likely be taxed again to fund the very surplus we have already been paying for for over 20 years? Is this issue important to you? Why or why not?
I am very upset about this prospect for a few reasons:
1. The amount of money I have paid into the system thus far in my working career isn't exactly chump change.
2. Considering that I'm only 26 right now I know full well that whatever money I put in to the system I'll likely never see anyway because it will have been abandoned by the time I reach retirement age.
3. I disagree with the premise of social security in today's society in the first place, I think now that we have 401K's easily accessible with almost every employer people should be taking responsibility for their own retirement and we shouldn't be forced to pay for social security. Social Security was created a a time when there was no better solution to life after retirement, there are much better solutions now.
3. Should the government even be allowed to raise taxes to pay for an item for which tax money has already been explicity collected? Is there anything that can be done, legally, to prevent such double taxation?
I personally don't think that they should be able to do this, because afterall it only encourages wastefulness. Let's say that as a wedding present my parents gave me $10K for a down payment on a house. If I went out and blew that money partying and buying shiny new toys would it make sense for me to crawl back to my parents and ask for another $10K? I didn't think so, the same is true of the government.
The problem is, that isn't the way things work and I'm not sure there is any law legally preventing them from engaging in that type of behavior. When you think you have an unlimited source of funds you aren't going to be careful and smart with that money. When you have a budget that you can't break you watch every cent. I think the solution here in part would be to force every member of the federal government to experience living paycheck to paycheck on a strict budget for a year or two.
4. Would you be willing to back an effort to refuse to pay any additional taxes to cover this impending deficit? Why or why not?
Yes, because frankly I don't care if the baby boomers have money from social security to retire or not. If they placed all their eggs in one basket with the government then that was their stupidity, not mine. As to what to do about that? I hear WalMart is hiring.
I generally wouldn't expect Democrats to support anything as drastic as what I'm advocating, but I would fully expect this would be the domain of Conservatives and Republicans. I will say I'm very disappointed that none of them have stood up in protest of this idea in Congress.
I am highly concerned for two reasons:
1. The baby-boomer generation is aging and many of them are nearing the time when they would start taking social security benefits out of the system. This is really going to start spinning up in the next 5 to 10 years. Seeing as how this is a huge generation of people it will put a very large demand on the system.
2. Everyone (and I mean both sides of the political spectrum) seems to be ignoring the big elephant in the room here. There isn't a single politician that has put forth a plan to bail us out of the social security problem because none of them think more than 4 years into the future. Recently Bush handed out tax cuts in which he borrowed in large part from the social security fund to be able to do that. (discussed in this thread)
2. Are you upset that you will likely be taxed again to fund the very surplus we have already been paying for for over 20 years? Is this issue important to you? Why or why not?
I am very upset about this prospect for a few reasons:
1. The amount of money I have paid into the system thus far in my working career isn't exactly chump change.
2. Considering that I'm only 26 right now I know full well that whatever money I put in to the system I'll likely never see anyway because it will have been abandoned by the time I reach retirement age.
3. I disagree with the premise of social security in today's society in the first place, I think now that we have 401K's easily accessible with almost every employer people should be taking responsibility for their own retirement and we shouldn't be forced to pay for social security. Social Security was created a a time when there was no better solution to life after retirement, there are much better solutions now.
3. Should the government even be allowed to raise taxes to pay for an item for which tax money has already been explicity collected? Is there anything that can be done, legally, to prevent such double taxation?
I personally don't think that they should be able to do this, because afterall it only encourages wastefulness. Let's say that as a wedding present my parents gave me $10K for a down payment on a house. If I went out and blew that money partying and buying shiny new toys would it make sense for me to crawl back to my parents and ask for another $10K? I didn't think so, the same is true of the government.
The problem is, that isn't the way things work and I'm not sure there is any law legally preventing them from engaging in that type of behavior. When you think you have an unlimited source of funds you aren't going to be careful and smart with that money. When you have a budget that you can't break you watch every cent. I think the solution here in part would be to force every member of the federal government to experience living paycheck to paycheck on a strict budget for a year or two.
4. Would you be willing to back an effort to refuse to pay any additional taxes to cover this impending deficit? Why or why not?
Yes, because frankly I don't care if the baby boomers have money from social security to retire or not. If they placed all their eggs in one basket with the government then that was their stupidity, not mine. As to what to do about that? I hear WalMart is hiring.
I generally wouldn't expect Democrats to support anything as drastic as what I'm advocating, but I would fully expect this would be the domain of Conservatives and Republicans. I will say I'm very disappointed that none of them have stood up in protest of this idea in Congress.
I'm on an online registration strike. ;)
Are you concerned with this impending problem, and what it will likely take in either increased taxes or reduced services to pay for it? Why or why not?
SS funding concerns me but raising taxes hardly addresses the problem.
Economic forecasts don't take politics into account (i.e., immigrants supply the economy with a readily available, relatively young workforce but can be an unpopular subject, laws can pass to reflect this and the economist's projection is thrown off kilter; U.S. birth rates and social attitudes, etc.). Cutting back services and/or raising the SS tax can provide a short term fix to but it glosses over our government's "best practices." D.C. has been sticking its hand in the SS cookie jar for years to pay off debt and recently fund security.
Gotta have tax cuts!
Congress did the right thing in 1983. Unfortunately it didn't repeat that success by paying off annual debt and repealing the increased payroll tax to an upgraded medium. Probably because a) reaching an agreement on both sides is a daunting undertaking that doesn't generate brownie points back home like judicial confirmation cat fights and legislation addressing postal drive-by shootings of hypothetical pregnant women, b) siphoning SS is easier than broaching the unpopular subject of raising federal taxes, and c) no Social Security PAC.
Back to the tax question, I would support raising taxes if Congress passes a bill that would prohibit the House and Senate from working trust fund projections into annual budget numbers, bars both Houses from using the "surplus" for other than paying off debt, and SS benefits remain the same, effective in two years.
Roosevelt did not intend SS to be the mother lode of all things pork. Cuffing Congress’ hand every time it reaches for the cookie jar would force politicians to come to terms with the public on the costs of running the government (equipment for our troops, infrastructure, federal programs, etc.). It may be one less thing politicians can poke each other in the eye about, but SS’s reputation as the socialist hell spawn of all things evil could fade away into sweet oblivion. I can dream, can’t I?
Are you concerned with this impending problem, and what it will likely take in either increased taxes or reduced services to pay for it? Why or why not?
SS funding concerns me but raising taxes hardly addresses the problem.
QUOTE
The annual cost of Social Security benefits represents 4.3 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) today and is projected to rise to 6.6 percent of GDP in 2078. The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the combined Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds is 1.89 percent of taxable payroll, down slightly from 1.92 percent in last year's report. The program continues to fail our long-range test of close actuarial balance by a wide margin. Projected OASDI tax income will begin to fall short of outlays in 2018 and will be sufficient to finance only 73 percent of scheduled annual benefits by 2042, when the combined OASDI trust fund is projected to be exhausted.
Social Security could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years in various ways, including an immediate increase in payroll taxes of 15 percent or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent (or some combination of the two). To the extent that changes are delayed or phased in gradually, greater adjustments in scheduled benefits and revenues would be required. Ensuring the sustainability of the system beyond 2078 would require even larger changes.
Social Security could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years in various ways, including an immediate increase in payroll taxes of 15 percent or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent (or some combination of the two). To the extent that changes are delayed or phased in gradually, greater adjustments in scheduled benefits and revenues would be required. Ensuring the sustainability of the system beyond 2078 would require even larger changes.
Economic forecasts don't take politics into account (i.e., immigrants supply the economy with a readily available, relatively young workforce but can be an unpopular subject, laws can pass to reflect this and the economist's projection is thrown off kilter; U.S. birth rates and social attitudes, etc.). Cutting back services and/or raising the SS tax can provide a short term fix to but it glosses over our government's "best practices." D.C. has been sticking its hand in the SS cookie jar for years to pay off debt and recently fund security.
QUOTE
Back in 1983, as part of a deal to save Social Security from impending demographic doom, Congress enacted legislation to essentially increase payroll taxes and reduce benefits. As a result, the government began to collect more Social Security payroll taxes than it paid out to beneficiaries each year. The theory was that the government would use these surpluses to pay down the national debt. That way, when baby boomers retire—and comparatively more people are collecting benefits while comparatively fewer people are working—the government would be in a better position to borrow the necessary funds to provide the promised benefits.
So much for theory. The reality? For the first 15 years, every penny of the surplus was spent, first by Republican presidents and then by a Democratic president. According to figures provided by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the surpluses were relatively insignificant for much of this period. Between 1983 and 2001 a total of $667 billion in excess Social Security payroll taxes was spent—about $35 billion per year. It was only in fiscal 1999 and 2000, when the government ran so-called on-budget surpluses, that excess Social Security funds were actually used to retire debt.
In the 2000 campaign, Vice President Al Gore said we should sequester the Social Security surpluses in a "lockbox" to prevent appropriators from spending them. Bush agreed in principle. But that commitment went out the window soon after the inauguration. In his first three budgets, Bush (who had the good fortune to take office at a time when the surpluses were growing rapidly) and Congress used $480 billion in excess Social Security payroll taxes to fund basic government operations—about $160 billion per year!
By so doing, Washington spenders have masked the size of the deficit. For Fiscal 2004—which began in October 2003—if you factor out the $164 billion Social Security surplus, the on-budget deficit will be at least $639 billion, rather close to the modern peak of 6 percent of GDP. And according to its own projections (the bottom line of Table 8 represents the Social Security surplus), the administration plans to spend an additional $990 billion in such funds between now and 2008. That year, according to the Office of Management and Budget's projections, the on-budget deficit will be about $464 billion. Only by using that year's $238 billion Social Security surplus does the administration arrive at a total, unified deficit of $226 billion.
-- Slate: The Unlock Box
So much for theory. The reality? For the first 15 years, every penny of the surplus was spent, first by Republican presidents and then by a Democratic president. According to figures provided by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the surpluses were relatively insignificant for much of this period. Between 1983 and 2001 a total of $667 billion in excess Social Security payroll taxes was spent—about $35 billion per year. It was only in fiscal 1999 and 2000, when the government ran so-called on-budget surpluses, that excess Social Security funds were actually used to retire debt.
In the 2000 campaign, Vice President Al Gore said we should sequester the Social Security surpluses in a "lockbox" to prevent appropriators from spending them. Bush agreed in principle. But that commitment went out the window soon after the inauguration. In his first three budgets, Bush (who had the good fortune to take office at a time when the surpluses were growing rapidly) and Congress used $480 billion in excess Social Security payroll taxes to fund basic government operations—about $160 billion per year!
By so doing, Washington spenders have masked the size of the deficit. For Fiscal 2004—which began in October 2003—if you factor out the $164 billion Social Security surplus, the on-budget deficit will be at least $639 billion, rather close to the modern peak of 6 percent of GDP. And according to its own projections (the bottom line of Table 8 represents the Social Security surplus), the administration plans to spend an additional $990 billion in such funds between now and 2008. That year, according to the Office of Management and Budget's projections, the on-budget deficit will be about $464 billion. Only by using that year's $238 billion Social Security surplus does the administration arrive at a total, unified deficit of $226 billion.
-- Slate: The Unlock Box
Gotta have tax cuts!
Congress did the right thing in 1983. Unfortunately it didn't repeat that success by paying off annual debt and repealing the increased payroll tax to an upgraded medium. Probably because a) reaching an agreement on both sides is a daunting undertaking that doesn't generate brownie points back home like judicial confirmation cat fights and legislation addressing postal drive-by shootings of hypothetical pregnant women, b) siphoning SS is easier than broaching the unpopular subject of raising federal taxes, and c) no Social Security PAC.
Back to the tax question, I would support raising taxes if Congress passes a bill that would prohibit the House and Senate from working trust fund projections into annual budget numbers, bars both Houses from using the "surplus" for other than paying off debt, and SS benefits remain the same, effective in two years.
Roosevelt did not intend SS to be the mother lode of all things pork. Cuffing Congress’ hand every time it reaches for the cookie jar would force politicians to come to terms with the public on the costs of running the government (equipment for our troops, infrastructure, federal programs, etc.). It may be one less thing politicians can poke each other in the eye about, but SS’s reputation as the socialist hell spawn of all things evil could fade away into sweet oblivion. I can dream, can’t I?
The SS problem is one which should have been dealt with, but no politcian has the power to touch it. Maybe, that would be the one great positive effect of a real war. The government would have to utilize all resources towards the military and would have to crush social spending. Ok, there has got to be a better solution than starting a war. Really, though, until we get a president , high on capitalism, and with an approval rating of about 80%, this conversation is about as useful as trying to swat a gnat with a kitchen spoon. Everyone knows the system is broken. Everyone knows it has gone way beyond its original intent. Everyone knows the AARP won't let anyone touch it with a ten foot pole. Maybe we need an opposing lobby such as AAARP Association of Americans Against Retired People. There has got to be more of us then them. Ok, not very tenable either. How about this, though... the next time we look to create another federal project which is based on need, let's remember SS. We can't stop SS, but we can stop other abominations like SS from happening. Single payer health care and national education would be a good start. For every TVA which is able to eventually get dismantled, there are dozens of other federal programs which bleed the American taxpayer dry. I don't know if this is much of a solution, but it is the best I can think of without yodeling fantasy through a paper straw.
QUOTE(ibelsd @ Aug 3 2004, 05:34 PM)
Everyone knows the AARP won't let anyone touch it with a ten foot pole.
Not really. AARP isn't worried about social security; their current retirees are paid for. And people like us are assuming SS won't be available when we retire. We don't have an interest group telling politicians to stop leveraging SS surplus in the budget. No one is lobbying to protect SS 20 to 40 years from now.
Of course, we could try convincing neocons Jesus believes in Social Security.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Aug 3 2004, 09:48 PM)
QUOTE(ibelsd @ Aug 3 2004, 05:34 PM)
Everyone knows the AARP won't let anyone touch it with a ten foot pole.
Not really. AARP isn't worried about social security; their current retirees are paid for. And people like us are assuming SS won't be available when we retire. We don't have an interest group telling politicians to stop leveraging SS surplus in the budget. No one is lobbying to protect SS 20 to 40 years from now.
Of course, we could try convincing neocons Jesus believes in Social Security.
I think we basically agree that there isn't a politiian, for whatever reason, willing to take on this issue.
I am in total agreement with most of the opinions that have been posted.
Especially concerning a future tax hike. We had the past SS payroll tax hike in 1983 which gave us plenty of leeway for future retirees. But what happened. The irresponsible members of Congress(both parties) allowed the surplus each year to be spent. So if we have another tax hike for SS it will be spent too. I have absolutely NO FAITH in either party to solve this problem.
Maybe the solution to cover the shortfall for SS in the coming years could be taken from our WONDERFUL members of Congress own retirement fund. Yes, that would get their attention.
Or better yet,sue members of Congress for every last penny that was spent on the General fund instead of being put in a SS account.
Especially concerning a future tax hike. We had the past SS payroll tax hike in 1983 which gave us plenty of leeway for future retirees. But what happened. The irresponsible members of Congress(both parties) allowed the surplus each year to be spent. So if we have another tax hike for SS it will be spent too. I have absolutely NO FAITH in either party to solve this problem.
Maybe the solution to cover the shortfall for SS in the coming years could be taken from our WONDERFUL members of Congress own retirement fund. Yes, that would get their attention.
Or better yet,sue members of Congress for every last penny that was spent on the General fund instead of being put in a SS account.
What this issue really needs is a leader with Bill Gates type of money and influence....someone who can challenge the do nothing political leaders of this country.
Unlimited resources would allow this type of person to become a one issue man who can organize a group of fellow patriots (maybe the America's Debate group of posters?) to take on the powers that be in Washington.
A constant, daily and unyielding spotlight on congress through television ads, newspaper ads...heck...even a network devoted to showing progress on this issue would help "inspire" our congress. The sky's the limit. Supporting challengers in all congressional races if the current crop doesn't complete the job would be the consequence if the issue was not acted upon.
Watch how quickly you get action then....
Anybody got a few billion dollars to spend?
Unlimited resources would allow this type of person to become a one issue man who can organize a group of fellow patriots (maybe the America's Debate group of posters?) to take on the powers that be in Washington.
A constant, daily and unyielding spotlight on congress through television ads, newspaper ads...heck...even a network devoted to showing progress on this issue would help "inspire" our congress. The sky's the limit. Supporting challengers in all congressional races if the current crop doesn't complete the job would be the consequence if the issue was not acted upon.
Watch how quickly you get action then....
Anybody got a few billion dollars to spend?
QUOTE
Everyone knows the AARP won't let anyone touch it with a ten foot pole
I disagree. All you need is a politician with some EDITED TO REMOVE NON-MEDICAL TERM FOR HUMAN ANATOMY to take them on. It's quite simple--ask them why they feel their children and children's children should have to suffer because of their selfishness. I don't think that's a cross they want to bear. In fact, they have already retreated--retirement ages have gone up. Honestly, if you ask a 30 year old whether they're concerned if the retirement age goes up two more years--that's completely irrelevant to him. It doesn't affect anyone currently near retirement (phased in over time)--so it really should be an easy issue to accomplish.
No, what I think the 900 pound gorilla is is that no politician wants to stand up and admit they've been stealing us blind, and that we're going to have to fund this all over again. That would be facing reality--it would also be political suicide. We don't seem to have a leader willing to make that sacrifice for the common good--which kind of makes you wonder just who's good they're working for then, doesn't it?
How out of character of the baby boomers that they want to have their own retirement cake but make sure that their having it means the nobody who comes after them will get anything like as good.
In the 50s everything was about the family (for which read children). In the 60s everything was geared to the needs of teens and tweens, being centred on your culture and teenage angst. In the 70s it was all about tweens. In the 80s, when the boomers hit their thirties, the world got into making serious money, which hadn't been fashionable until then. In the 90s, the world had a mid-life thing where money wasn't doing it any more and all the new age hippy bovine excreta got revived. Now when they're all in their 50s and 60s all the chatter is about pensions. They suck every teat dry that they can possibly find, and the politicians will pander to their every whim because:
a) the boomers are still the big population bump which carries the most votes
most politicians are themselves boomers.
Maybe in 20 years' time, when they are starting to die off, the rest of society can organise itself around what is best for everybody, instead of constantly pandering to what the demographic bump of the most solipsistic generation ever to appear on the planet wants at everyone else's expense.
Though of course, by then, we'll all need at least two generations to pay off the debts that the selfish expletive-deleteds have run up at our expense.
I will be 37 in October, and I fully expect that my retirement will be forever pushed a little farther away, like the race between Achilles and a tortoise. Doesn't bother me too much - golf and pastel slacks hold little or no appeal to me.
In the 50s everything was about the family (for which read children). In the 60s everything was geared to the needs of teens and tweens, being centred on your culture and teenage angst. In the 70s it was all about tweens. In the 80s, when the boomers hit their thirties, the world got into making serious money, which hadn't been fashionable until then. In the 90s, the world had a mid-life thing where money wasn't doing it any more and all the new age hippy bovine excreta got revived. Now when they're all in their 50s and 60s all the chatter is about pensions. They suck every teat dry that they can possibly find, and the politicians will pander to their every whim because:
a) the boomers are still the big population bump which carries the most votes
most politicians are themselves boomers.Maybe in 20 years' time, when they are starting to die off, the rest of society can organise itself around what is best for everybody, instead of constantly pandering to what the demographic bump of the most solipsistic generation ever to appear on the planet wants at everyone else's expense.
Though of course, by then, we'll all need at least two generations to pay off the debts that the selfish expletive-deleteds have run up at our expense.
I will be 37 in October, and I fully expect that my retirement will be forever pushed a little farther away, like the race between Achilles and a tortoise. Doesn't bother me too much - golf and pastel slacks hold little or no appeal to me.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Aug 3 2004, 08:13 PM)
3. I disagree with the premise of social security in today's society in the first place, I think now that we have 401K's easily accessible with almost every employer people should be taking responsibility for their own retirement and we shouldn't be forced to pay for social security. Social Security was created a a time when there was no better solution to life after retirement, there are much better solutions now.
{EDIT}
4. Would you be willing to back an effort to refuse to pay any additional taxes to cover this impending deficit? Why or why not?
Yes, because frankly I don't care if the baby boomers have money from social security to retire or not. If they placed all their eggs in one basket with the government then that was their stupidity, not mine. As to what to do about that? I hear WalMart is hiring.
{EDIT}
4. Would you be willing to back an effort to refuse to pay any additional taxes to cover this impending deficit? Why or why not?
Yes, because frankly I don't care if the baby boomers have money from social security to retire or not. If they placed all their eggs in one basket with the government then that was their stupidity, not mine. As to what to do about that? I hear WalMart is hiring.
Let's be clear: anyone who believed that SS Trust Fund nonsense is an utter fool. Anyone who believes that a politician is now going to put huge amounts of cash into any kind of 'locked box' is a fool twice over. Anyone who believed that the money coming out his check today was covering his future, elderly hiney.. well, fool me three times?
As for 401(k)s, ok, nifty concept, if it works in the long haul. There's no one who can say if those 401(k)s will do the job of financing people's retirement 20-30 years from now. How many people lost a 401(k) pile in the last stock retrenchment? And if those funds fall short, is it okay by you that some 80-year- old Alzheimer's patient starves to death? Of course not, so the taxpayers will end up at least partially picking up the tab there too. To my mind, as a society, we might as well 'fess up now to the responsibility of taking care of our own.
Lastly, one point that I have not seen addressed here is the fact that SS is not just a pension for geezers. When you say things like, "I hear Walmart is hiring," tell it to a blind guy with one leg who gets Disability payments from SS.
QUOTE(KyleCoyote @ Aug 20 2004, 12:56 PM)
As for 401(k)s, ok, nifty concept, if it works in the long haul. There's no one who can say if those 401(k)s will do the job of financing people's retirement 20-30 years from now. How many people lost a 401(k) pile in the last stock retrenchment? And if those funds fall short, is it okay by you that some 80-year- old Alzheimer's patient starves to death? Of course not, so the taxpayers will end up at least partially picking up the tab there too. To my mind, as a society, we might as well 'fess up now to the responsibility of taking care of our own.
You are right, 401k's are not immune from stock market fluctuations. If we were to calculate the odds of Social Security still being around in 40 years when most of us retire or the stock market generally being stable, I'll take the stock market anytime.
With 401K's education and counseling is important. Just saying you have a 401K does not imply what kind of portfolio you have or even if you are investing intelligently. I'm in my 20's right now and therefore my plan is very aggressive. It'll pay off in the long run and yes it will fluctuate in the short term. If someone is in their 40's they would be better off going for the more stable investments such as government bonds, etc.
So if an 80 year old senior was still invested in aggressive small and mid-cap stocks with their 401k and they lost their shirt then no, I wouldn't have simpathy for them because that is pure stupidity. If they were invested in stable government bonds, there is really very little chance of them losing their money. I would suggest that it is their family's responsibility to take care of them if something happened, not mine.
QUOTE(KyleCoyote)
Let's be clear: anyone who believed that SS Trust Fund nonsense is an utter fool. Anyone who believes that a politician is now going to put huge amounts of cash into any kind of 'locked box' is a fool twice over. Anyone who believed that the money coming out his check today was covering his future, elderly hiney.. well, fool me three times?
Given that sentiment I'm not sure how you can support funding social security when you admit that it isn't even used for the correct purpose.
Edited to add: Post 1000!
I spend too much time here 
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Aug 20 2004, 08:12 PM)
Given that sentiment I'm not sure how you can support funding social security when you admit that it isn't even used for the correct purpose.
My point about being fooled relates to realism versus politics. SS needs to be there and it needs to be funded, but that doesn't mean you have to believe the sweet syrup so generously ladled over the reality of its funding source.
It comes out of the general fund, always has and always will. I wish politicians of both parties hadn't lied about it, but whattayagonnado?
That doesn't mean they should stop. They should just be open about it, and raise the money required. Yup, that means some people will feel as they 'pay twice.' Tough. Life's unfair, and government policy is less fair than life.
It's going to happen one way or the other; we might as well get on with it so the funds can be raised over time, rather than workers ten years from now seeing a whopping tax bill all at once.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.