Social Security Running 130B Deficit This Year, Trust "Fund" Empty By 2037.

• Manhattan Buckeye

  "But draconian cuts to those entitlements will only manifest itself as an even larger economic albatross if and when that occurs. "
  
  It doesn't have to be draconian. It just needs to be shared, if they aren't cut at all the boomers are kicking the albatross (which will be just as big if not bigger) down the road. They've had a lifetime with these pie-in-the-sky promises and simply accepted they would always be there. If my employer promised me a mansion on the moon with a chariot pulled by flying unicorns when I retire (just joking, retirement simply won't be an option for most people today) isn't there some sort of "shame on me" for buying in to it?
• FatHobbit

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;662273 wrote:If my employer promised me a mansion on the moon with a chariot pulled by flying unicorns when I retire (just joking, retirement simply won't be an option for most people today) isn't there some sort of "shame on me" for buying in to it?

  
  To play devil's advocate here, if the govt. had left that money alone do you think there would be enough money left to cover what they were supposed to paid? Why did anyone let them raid the piggy bank?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  FatHobbit;662294 wrote:To play devil's advocate here, if the govt. had left that money alone do you think there would be enough money left to cover what they were supposed to paid? Why did anyone let them raid the piggy bank?

  
  No. The system has never been properly adjusted for the continuing increase in longevity.
• believer

  

  FatHobbit;662294 wrote:To play devil's advocate here, if the govt. had left that money alone do you think there would be enough money left to cover what they were supposed to paid? Why did anyone let them raid the piggy bank?

  Exactly....and because they couldn't resist dipping into the SS cookie jar, the Boomers are now being accused of being selfish and believing in fairy tales.
  
  I've paid in $250,000 with 12 more years before I can collect on my fairy tale. I suppose I should be a martyr and donate that quarter of a million dollars to help pay off the SS debt created by the morons in DC who will no doubt receive their own lucrative federal retirement packages for their public disservice.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Who's making any accusations? It isn't an accusation, it simply is. The definition of "selfish" from Merriam-Webster:
  
  "1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
  2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>"
  
  Isn't telling others that they need to pay more and accept less for the gain of themselves on its face selfish?
• believer

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;662315 wrote:Who's making any accusations? It isn't an accusation, it simply is. The definition of "selfish" from Merriam-Webster:
  
  "1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
  2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>"
  
  Isn't telling others that they need to pay more and accept less for the gain of themselves on its face selfish?

  I'm not asking anyone to do that.
  
  By the same token, don't expect me to accept the notion that I need to sacrifice any of MY MONEY that the Feds confiscated by mandate for 40 years out of my paychecks because they were idiots. If I had put that money in a simple interest bearing savings account over the past 40 years we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
• Footwedge

  CenterBHSFan;662198 wrote:Nope, Footie. I'm a Gen-X'er.

  Hooh boy...all those fantasies of mine on our impending hook up....down the shitter I guess.
• Footwedge

  Manhattan Buckeye;662304 wrote:No. The system has never been properly adjusted for the continuing increase in longevity.

  Not "properly"...that's for sure...but there has been some token attempts made...i.e. increasing the age before bennies kick in...and the raising of FICA by Reagan in the early eighties.
• Footwedge

  fan_from_texas;661794 wrote:In 1970, the debt to GDP ratio was approx. 35%. Now, we're over 94%, so almost 2.7 times as much on an apples-to-apples basis.
  
  For whatever reason, Boomers appear unique in American history to massively expand their own handouts while simultaneously dropping the ball on innovation/productivity such that the GDP hasn't grown fast enough to carry the debt.
  
  .

  
  I can't believe that you said that. The advancement of technology alone smashes that claim. Call us names....but don't call us lazy nor stupid...because we are neither. As for keeping up with the GDP....productivity has more than kept up...it's just that the productivity increases have been farmed out to countries that circumvent fair labor and safety laws.
  
  Gross "International" Product has never been better...than over the past 20 years.
• believer

  

  Footwedge;662360 wrote:Not "properly"...that's for sure...but there has been some token attempts made...i.e. increasing the age before bennies kick in...and the raising of FICA by Reagan in the early eighties.

  That's true. When I first started my federally mandated SS "contributions" back in the early 70's, the SS retirement age was - I believe - 62. That was subsequently adjusted to 66 and half for my age group. My younger siblings have to wait until they're 67. Plus that eeeeeevil conservative Reagan did raise FICA taxes significantly in an effort to offset the growing SS deficit back in the early 80's.
  
  But what the hell....we all need to sacrifice, right MB?
  

  Footwedge;662366 wrote:I can't believe that you said that. The advancement of technology alone smashes that claim. Call us names....but don't call us lazy nor stupid...because we are neither. As for keeping up with the GDP....productivity has more than kept up...it's just that the productivity increases have been farmed out to countries that circumvent fair labor and safety laws..

  That's true and I generally agree. However we can't blame that all on private business. We have our own overreaching and costly federal and state regulations that encourage American private enterprise to do business with countries that don't share our costly enthusiasm for "fair" labor, safety and environmental laws. And there's grave danger in asking the Feds to implement protectionism to compensate.
• fan_from_texas

  believer;662259 wrote:For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You can thump your chest and tell tens of millions of Boomers that their federally mandated contributions for the past few decades to SS must be sacrificed for the greater good all you want. But draconian cuts to those entitlements will only manifest itself as an even larger economic albatross if and when that occurs.

  
  Everyone agrees that cuts need to be made somewhere. The question is whether those cuts should fall on people who weren't alive when the decisions were made, or on the people who were alive and voted for politicians who supported policies that gave them handouts now at the expense of the future.
  

  Footwedge;662366 wrote:I can't believe that you said that. The advancement of technology alone smashes that claim. Call us names....but don't call us lazy nor stupid...because we are neither. As for keeping up with the GDP....productivity has more than kept up...it's just that the productivity increases have been farmed out to countries that circumvent fair labor and safety laws.

  My argument isn't that your generation didn't innovate, it's that you didn't innovate or increase productivity to the extent necessary to keep the bottom of the pyramid growing fast enough to keep pace with your spending increases at the top. It's unsustainable.
  
  And, FWIW, there's a lot of economic literature out there (I'm particularly thinking of Tyler Cowen's "The Great Stagnation") that argues that meaningful innovation has essentially slowed down since the 1970s. I won't rehash his arguments here, but I'd recommend his book (pamphlet? booklet?), which is definitely interesting.
• believer

  

  fan_from_texas;662379 wrote:Everyone agrees that cuts need to be made somewhere. The question is whether those cuts should fall on people who weren't alive when the decisions were made, or on the people who were alive and voted for politicians who supported policies that gave them handouts now at the expense of the future.

  Horse shit....sorry. I've voted since 1976. Every single person I've voted for since that time has been for the most conservative candidate on the ballot. Yet the "handouts" occurred nonetheless.
  
  Hence the rise of the conservative movement the past 20 years.
  
  I wasn't around to vote for FDR but his socialist policies were thrust upon me through no fault of my own. His policies became the law of the land and as such a social contract is in place. They took my FICA taxes in exchange for a SS check when I retire. I want my money back.
  
  Hence the pitfalls of socialist policies.
• sleeper

  

  believer;662393 wrote:Horse shit....sorry. I've voted since 1976. Every single person I've voted for since that time has been for the most conservative candidate on the ballot. Yet the "handouts" occurred nonetheless.
  
  Hence the rise of the conservative movement the past 20 years.
  
  I wasn't around to vote for FDR but his socialist policies were thrust upon me through no fault of my own. His policies became the law of the land and as such a social contract is in place. They took my FICA taxes in exchange for a SS check when I retire. I want my money back.
  
  Hence the pitfalls of socialist policies.

  I find it hilarious that in most of your posts you bash the system, but instead of being an actually agent of change, you want to continue to benefit from the system itself.
  
  No one here is asking boomers to give up their entire SS entitlement as you've also mentioned from time to time, we are simply asking you to be willing to sacrifice maybe a 1/3 of what you are promised so the system can be fazed out over time. The sacrifice being made by my generation is paying into a system in which we will receive NOTHING, and you are balking at a reduction of maybe 40%(I don't have the exact numbers in front of me but assuming we raise taxes I assume it would be around this).
  
  I mean like it or not, what I've just described is going to happen, there is no way around it.
• BGFalcons82

  

  believer - I'm going to weigh in on this from a slightly different perspective. The fundamental question in this social security debate is this: Is social security a "trust fund", wherein if you pay into it, then you are promised a return? --OR-- is it a tax that is collected for the benefit of everyone who reaches retirement age or becomes disabled?
  
  Like you, believer, I think it's a "trust fund" wherein we receive yearly statements regarding how much we've had confiscated over time and how much of our money they'll allow us to have upon our retirement date....whenever we decide to hang 'em up. If it is indeed a trust fund and we are all contributing members, then I would be fine with receiving at least what I've paid into it if they are going to shut it down.
  
  If people believe it is just another vehicle for Uncle Sam to tax the nation's populace and it all goes to the greater good of society, then we have no claim to anything we've paid into the "system".
  
  How was it originally "sold" by FDR? Was it to be considered a retirement account or just an entitlement for those lucky enough to live that long?
• O-Trap

  

  BGFalcons82;662429 wrote:believer - I'm going to weigh in on this from a slightly different perspective. The fundamental question in this social security debate is this: Is social security a "trust fund", wherein if you pay into it, then you are promised a return? --OR-- is it a tax that is collected for the benefit of everyone who reaches retirement age or becomes disabled?
  
  Like you, believer, I think it's a "trust fund" wherein we receive yearly statements regarding how much we've had confiscated over time and how much of our money they'll allow us to have upon our retirement date....whenever we decide to hang 'em up. If it is indeed a trust fund and we are all contributing members, then I would be fine with receiving at least what I've paid into it if they are going to shut it down.
  
  If people believe it is just another vehicle for Uncle Sam to tax the nation's populace and it all goes to the greater good of society, then we have no claim to anything we've paid into the "system".
  
  How was it originally "sold" by FDR? Was it to be considered a retirement account or just an entitlement for those lucky enough to live that long?

  
  I'd say a distinction has to be made between how it was sold and how it has functioned.
  
  If the money you're paying ... literally that same money ... is still there for you, then great; it's functioning like a trust fund. If, however, the money you paid in was used by a previous generation, and now the Fed is just planning on feeding you what the NEXT generation is putting in, then counting on feeding that next generation what the following puts in, etc., then it's functioning like a ponzi scheme ... NOT a trust fund.
  
  So then, the question does remain as to what it is. However, I don't think how it was sold defines that. I could wrap feces in aluminum foil, stick fish hooks on them, and sell them to you as precious metal earrings ... doesn't make it true, though, regardless of whether or not you believe me.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  According to SCOTUS, there is no contractual right to receive payments - that was a 1960 case that was criticized (and SS enthusiasts claim that it isn't as damaging as it appears) but as far as I know it is still good law.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Footwedge;662355 wrote:Hooh boy...all those fantasies of mine on our impending hook up....down the shitter I guess.

  
  haha! You wouldn't be the first this year
• believer

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;662477 wrote:According to SCOTUS, there is no contractual right to receive payments - that was a 1960 case that was criticized (and SS enthusiasts claim that it isn't as damaging as it appears) but as far as I know it is still good law.

  So in other words SCOTUS - which could very well tell us that the mandate in ObamaKare is unconstitutional so therefore the bill is illegal - is telling us that the Feds, in addition to regular income tax can confiscate FICA taxes from my paychecks every month by mandate and send me yearly statements telling me how much I've paid in and how much I can expect to receive when I hit 66 and a half. Yet despite the written documentation I have indicating what benefits I can expect to receive (IE: a "contract"), the Feds are under no obligation to make good on that mandated retirement investment?
  
  That's theft....period.
  
  So "good law"? Legal maybe, but good? I realize it's a figure of speech but I'm just sayin'...
  
  Social Security should have been scrutinized in the late 30's in much the same manner as ObamaKare is today. Unfortunately this particular "entitlement" has become very ingrained in our culture. If the Feds renege on that apparently "hollow promise" you can rest assured that they will have a much, much bigger problem on their hands than trying to figure out how to repay the "trust" fund they couldn't resist tapping into.
  
  Politicians and bureaucrats on both sides of the aisle (who are in no danger of losing their cushy federal retirement packages by the way) understand that.
  
  Once again this should be a lesson to Americans who are attracted to the failures of socialism. Once the entitlements are thrust upon us, it is very, very difficult to make it go away.
  
  And sleeper - laugh all you want but this is PRECISELY why I can be a staunch conservative on most issues but when it comes to this you bet your ass I WANT MY FUCKING MONEY BACK. What is so difficult to understand about this?
• O-Trap

  

  believer;662902 wrote:So in other words SCOTUS - which could very well tell us that the mandate in ObamaKare is unconstitutional so therefore the bill is illegal - is telling us that the Feds, in addition to regular income tax can confiscate FICA taxes from my paychecks every month by mandate and send me yearly statements telling me how much I've paid in and how much I can expect to receive when I hit 66 and a half. Yet despite the written documentation I have indicating what benefits I can expect to receive (IE: a "contract"), the Feds are under no obligation to make good on that mandated retirement investment?
  
  That's theft....period.

  It absolutely is. Why do you think generations after you are upset? Not just the young'ens, either. Grown people, with families, are going to be losing out, and will be pissed as hell, because 2037 is close enough that they could be dicked as well. Projection may change, and then the hot potato may change as well, but it's theft, regardless of when it happens.
  
  So you can see why (a) the people currently most likely to bear the brunt of it are pissed, and (b) it needs to go away.
  

  believer;662902 wrote:So "good law"? Legal maybe, but good? I realize it's a figure of speech but I'm just sayin'...
  
  Social Security should have been scrutinized in the late 30's in much the same manner as ObamaKare is today. Unfortunately this particular "entitlement" has become very ingrained in our culture. If the Feds renege on that apparently "hollow promise" you can rest assured that they will have a much, much bigger problem on their hands than trying to figure out how to repay the "trust" fund they couldn't resist tapping into.

  Which basically means, when Uncle Sam asks to borrow a nickel, promising he'll pay it back, don't count on it. Until such time that the government is afraid of its people (as it should be), it will continue to "borrow" with impugnity.
  

  believer;662902 wrote:Politicians and bureaucrats on both sides of the aisle (who are in no danger of losing their cushy federal retirement packages by the way) understand that.
  
  Once again this should be a lesson to Americans who are attracted to the failures of socialism. Once the entitlements are thrust upon us, it is very, very difficult to make it go away.

  Agreed, but it's gotta be tried. Try to get rid of it, and you'll probably fail. Don't try to get rid of it, and you'll certainly fail.
  

  believer;662902 wrote: I WANT MY FUCKING MONEY BACK.

  
  Me too. Sleeper too.
• believer

  

  O-trap,
  
  I fully understand and agree with you on this stuff. While I love my country and the richness of its people and its history, I have little trust in the morons running our gubmint.
  
  That being said I still naively harbor the notion that it's still OK to hold that gubmint accountable to its own full faith and credit claims.
  
  If the Feds screw us over on this SS thing then we may as well chuck things like the FDIC, shit can our worthless monetary system, etc.
  
  The gubmint is us. If we can't trust each other than what's the point?
  
• sleeper

  

  And sleeper - laugh all you want but this is PRECISELY why I can be a staunch conservative on most issues but when it comes to this you bet your ass I WANT MY FUCKING MONEY BACK. What is so difficult to understand about this?

  I understand you want your money back and I understand you, yourself, have voted for staunch conservatives. Here's the thing that you are not understanding,
  
  There are really only 2 scenarios:
  
  1) Stay the status quo. Boomers receive all the money they paid into the system, Gen Y pays money into the system and receive NOTHING. This option ends in default or hyperinflation, economically destroying the United States of America. Will the USA survive? Absolutely, but we will no longer be a power in the world and anyone who lives in this country will have a substantially lower standard of living for a very very long time.
  
  2) Change the system. Boomers receive roughly 60% of their earnings that they paid into the system, Gen Y pays money into the system and receives NOTHING. The United States continues to be a relatively strong country and survives the crisis with minor economic pain.
  
  Pick one. Option 1, you are a selfish POS(sorry, but you are). Option 2, I salute you. As you can see, either way my generation, which has barely contributed to the problem, is getting ROYALLY FUCKED, but that's on your conscience, not mine.
• believer

  

  So the Feds confiscate by federal mandate and through no voluntary choice on my part a quarter of a million dollars of MY money over 4 decades and counting and I'm a selfish piece of shit for expecting that to be returned to me?
  
  OK :rolleyes:
• O-Trap

  

  believer;663696 wrote:So the Feds confiscate by federal mandate and through no voluntary choice on my part a quarter of a million dollars of MY money over 4 decades and counting and I'm a selfish piece of shit for expecting that to be returned to me?
  
  OK :rolleyes:

  
  If:
  
  (a) You are coping fine without it, and
  (b) you expect subsequent generations to do what you are unwilling to do (put into SS without return), then
  
  You kind of would be. Nevermind the implications, nationally.
• sleeper

  

  believer;663696 wrote:So the Feds confiscate by federal mandate and through no voluntary choice on my part a quarter of a million dollars of MY money over 4 decades and counting and I'm a selfish piece of shit for expecting that to be returned to me?
  
  OK :rolleyes:

  I asked you to pick one of the two scenarios I laid out. Those are your only options, that is the reality. I understand you want your money back, so would I, but I'd also want the future generations of America to have a fighting chance of maintaining the same standard of living that I had.
  
  You keep avoiding my questions with this useless shit in which I've already conceded is wrong, but this is REALITY. Welcome to it.
• sleeper

  

  I guess it doesn't really matter what you pick. Option 2 is going to happen anyway(and 60% is probably a high estimate), so I hope you're ready to riot.