17 votes

Social Security: It's Worse Than You Think

By Gary King and Samir S. Soneji | The New York Times

Click here for multimedia

CONGRESS and President Obama have pushed through a relatively modest stopgap measure to avoid the “fiscal cliff,” but over the coming years, the United States will confront another huge cliff: Social Security.

In the first presidential debate, Mr. Obama described Social Security as “structurally sound,” and Mitt Romney said that “neither the president nor I are proposing any changes” to the program. It was a rare issue on which both men agreed — and both were utterly wrong.

For the first time in more than a quarter-century, Social Security ran a deficit in 2010: It spent $49 billion dollars more in benefits than it received in revenues, and drew from its trust funds to cover the shortfall. Those funds — a $2.7 trillion buffer built in anticipation of retiring baby boomers — will be exhausted by 2033, the government currently projects.

Those facts are widely known. What’s not is that the Social Security Administration underestimates how long Americans will live and how much the trust funds will need to pay out — to the tune of $800 billion by 2031, more than the current annual defense budget — and that the trust funds will run out, if nothing is done, two years earlier than the government has predicted.

Continue reading...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

They listened to the Government con-men and were scammed

It's a sad story.

What if one saved a dollar deducted under FICA over the years at market prices for silver over the years?

Grandma was cheated. Her SS contributions are repaid in script that is losing 9% of its value every year against silver for the last 100 years.

How much silver will a SS check buy buy today.

Average contribution priced in silver minus the average payout in checks priced in silver.

Using Constitutional Coin we can find out how bad grandma was cheated.

They put the touch on granny then they hid real money in order to trick her.

Thank you FDR for your Crook Deal, in the end it was nothing new.

Free includes debt-free!

No. Social Security is not

No. Social Security is not regressive in that way. The cap is at 110,000, and people who make more than that do not COLLECT more than that. It isn't like Bill Gates is collecting SS based on his income....he collects based on the % he paid on 110,000.

Now, if you want to raise the cap due to inflation, go ahead. But people should always collect what they paid in.

On another note, SS tends to be regressive because it tends to favor those who live longer. That includes the rich. Without consideration for gender, race, health, or education, SS pays out to everybody on the assumption that you will live to 81.

This is the reason why women collect around 96% of the SS they paid in, while men collect less than 80%. Blacks tend to make out worse since they do not live as long. The more educated you are, the longer you are likely to live, etc. etc. This is the regressivity of the system.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Another way it's regressive

is as Peter Schiff points out in "The Real Crash" that while current retirees and those soon to retire (many of them well-off) will collect on most and some more than what they paid in, people in their 20s and 30s (most of them less well-off than current retirees) and even children and teenagers today will have to be the ones to pay back those retirees since Congress has already spent most of the money the current retirees paid in. The problems is that once current young workers retire forty years from now, if they get anything back, it will be heavily reduced and most likely by then taxed again. But, even that will have to come out of the paychecks of young workers who will be considerably poorer than retiring Millennials.

Honesty from the NYT?

I only makes sense, people are living longer and longer and with fewer workers taking their place(usually at lower wages) the system is heading for insolvency.