^It's the most efficient and helpful department in the Embassy, and I've dealt with most of them.
Printable View
^It's the most efficient and helpful department in the Embassy, and I've dealt with most of them.
You don't have to agree with the author's tone and perhaps he's histrionic. That said, nothing will be done to shore up the math issue. I don't like the "personal 401K or IRA noted as well. Hidden fees..... I see the age of eligibility being raised and inflation stats skewed lower to save on the c.o.l.a.
Scathing New Report Sends Alarm On Social Security
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2016/07/223.jpg
By Sovereign Man on June 29, 2016 12:35 pm in Business
Last week, a group of analysts published an astonishing report about the future of Social Security in the United States, and their remarks were nothing short of damning.
According to their calculations, for example, these analysts claim that Social Security is already running a huge deficit to the tune of tens of billions of dollars each year.
In fact, this Social Security funding deficit has been taking place for several years now, and it’s actually accelerating. So the problem worsens each year.
According to the analysis, the astounding rise in Social Security recipients vastly outpaces any growth in tax revenue received into the program. And this trend will continue for decades.
The report goes on to describe Social Security’s two main trust funds, OASI (for ‘Old Age Survivors Insurance’) and DI (‘Disability Insurance’).
They tell us that DI actually went bust several months ago.
But rather than attack the root cause of the problem and restructure the program, Congress quietly slapped a band-aid on DI by simply diverting funds from OASI, just enough for DI to limp along for a few more years.
So in other words, they robbed from OASI to pay DI, and keep it afloat through the next presidential election. It’s incredibly short-sighted.
Among the other programs slammed in this report, the Hospital Insurance (HI) fund, one of Medicare’s major trust funds, is of particular concern.
Their brutal analysis shows HI is going to completely run out of money in 2028, just twelve years from now (when President Clinton finishes her third term).
2028 is actually two years earlier than they had originally projected.
[IMG]
And they project the entire Social Security program will be fully depleted six years later in 2034.
Like I said, this report is incredibly damning.
But it raises an important question– just who are these crazy, fringe analysts predicting all of this doom and gloom?
After all, the political establishment has been telling everyone for years that Social Security is going to be just fine. And they seem to have a solid grip on the situation, right?
Well, the report was actually published by the Social Security Administration itself, signed by (among other cabinet officials) the Treasury Secretary of the United States of America.
It’s absolutely incredible. The government is publishing this data in black and white.
They’re telling anyone who’s willing to listen that Social Security has dug itself into an impossible hole.
More importantly, they’re telling us there’s a 0% chance that the government will be able to honor its existing commitments.
They’ll either have to radically raise taxes, or simply reduce (or eliminate) the Social Security benefits that they’ve been promising taxpayers for decades.
The younger you are, the steeper the price you’ll pay.
If you’re in your 60s, for example, you may likely see your benefits cut. If you’re in your 40s or 50s, you can count on it.
And if you’re in your 30s or younger, you can not only forget about Social Security, but you can expect to pay more and more taxes to bail out a program that won’t be there for you when it comes time for you to collect.
This is what happens when nations go bankrupt.
History is full of so many examples of dominant powers who think their wealth will last forever… and so they make far too many promises to far too many people for far too many years.
But eventually the reality of simple arithmetic catches up.
(As we discussed yesterday, arithmetic is slowly dying off in the Land of the Free, so perhaps this explains a thing or two).
We’re seeing this now in the US, and we’ll continue to see this problem worsen in the coming years until it becomes a full-blown emergency and people cry out, “Why didn’t anyone see this coming?!?”
Here’s the good news: you have ample time to prepare, and there are plenty of solutions to fix this.
Don’t get me wrong– I don’t mean “fix Social Security”. Oh no. That program is toast.
I’m talking about fixing this for yourself.
Retirement is one of those life events that is completely predictable. We know it’s going to happen.
And with a little bit of education, planning, discipline, and execution, we can vastly influence the outcome and prevent any major catastrophe from interfering with our goals.
You can dramatically boost your own nest egg, for example, and have much greater say over your retirement assets by setting up a structure like a solo 401(k) or a self-directed IRA.
(When structured properly, you can contribute potentially north of $50,000 per year to your retirement.)
It also makes sense to invest in your financial education; learning more about investing will clearly be beneficial in boosting your returns, and this can have a profound effect over time.
Especially if you’re younger, increasing your average return by just 1% over the course of 20-40 years can add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional retirement savings.
You may also want to consider retiring abroad where you can live the lifestyle you’ve always wanted at a fraction of the price, and substantially stretch the time and value of your retirement savings.
Look, I’m convinced that Social Security will become a national emergency some day. Just remember that since its demise is conspicuously predictable, the impact on your life is completely preventable.
Scathing New Report Sends Alarm On Social Security - ValueWalk
https://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html
"Critics of Social Security privatization often warn that such proposals hold serious dangers for the elderly poor. However, a closer examination of the evidence indicates that the poor would be among those who would gain most from the privatization of Social Security.
By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need. Although the current Social Security system is ostensibly designed to be progressive, transferring wealth to the elderly poor, the system actually contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are much more likely than their wealthy counterparts to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs.
In addition, the progressivity of Social Security is undermined by differences in life expectancy. Because the wealthy generally live longer than the poor, they receive more total Social Security payments over the course of their lifetimes. In a privatized system, an individual's benefits would not be dependent on life expectancy. Individuals would have a property right in their benefits. Any benefits remaining at their deaths would become part of their estates, inherited by their heirs.
Finally, Social Security drains capital from the poorest areas of the country, leaving less money available for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor.
For those reasons, Social Security privatization should be viewed as a big boost to America's poor".
Open link to read entire article.
^ What a bunch of BS. The cato institute. A libertarian "think tank" founded by the Koch brothers. Come on Stores.
Didn't say I agree with privatization. I don't. But the piece is a legitimate presentation of the argument some people make.Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
Not too much different than what the government has done by reducing federal and military pensions over the years and added a Thrift Savings option.
The best argument(s) against privatization seems to be (basically) that most people don't have the training or education to manage their own retirement accounts. And that simple bad timing could results in people hitting a market down turn just as they're about ready to retire.
I don't know really but I do think it's sad that SS is what the majority of Americans have come to rely on in old age.
And what crony investiment bank would be awarded the contract to oversee this crap shoot I wonder?
^ My money's on Goldman's Sack.
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2016/11/107.jpg
btw...with SS allegedly in trouble how many have considered the implications of Flemming V. Nestor(1960)
https://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html
more at the link...Quote:
Background to the Case:
The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.
There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.
In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.
I would imagine since it's the government it would be run similar to the Thrift Savings Plan, so:Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
https://www.tsp.gov/InvestmentFunds/...iew/index.html
* The G Fund assets are managed internally by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. The G Fund buys a nonmarketable U.S. Treasury security that is guaranteed by the U.S. Government. This means that the G Fund will not lose money.
* The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board currently contracts BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. (BlackRock) to manage the F, C, S, and I Fund assets. The F and C Fund assets are held in separate accounts.
* The L Funds are invested in the five individual TSP funds based on professionally determined asset allocations.
IMHO ... the biggest implication for TD posters is how something like that could possibly happen to our foreign born spouses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Storekeeper
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold Pizza
Why in these reports is nothing mentioned of the large amounts of money owed to the SS fund by the federal government?
Got my three monthly checks today......
The eagle flew over my credit union and left one for me too ... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storekeeper
To me it means, if at some future point the SS situation is deemed hopeless, just because you(and your employers) paid FICA taxes that doesn't mean you have a guarantee that you'll get any return on those 'contributions'...foreign born spouse or otherwise.Quote:
entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.
The govt can change the rules at any time. They can legally do this.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKkin
Indeed and Barry closed some loopholes while peeps were napping:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold Pizza
Social Security, Medicare changes are coming with new budget law
The changes in the link have already been implemented.
Only recently learned about the "File and Suspend Strategy" that is now dead. Now that was an awesome tactic for married couples to milk the system.
Fixed that for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Storekeeper
Thanks for this info.Quote:
Originally Posted by Storekeeper
I'll check it out now. I've not heard of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storekeeper
Fixed again...Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
I had never heard of that one either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Storekeeper
Which makes me wonder why you didn't just say that in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKkin
It was a Bipartisan bill.
There are other things that need to be looked at as well. For example, a couple could have married in 1962 and then divorced in 1972 ... and then say roughly 35 years later the lower earning divorcee can claim SS based on the higher earner and basically not claim their own SS until they turn 70.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKkin
I'm trying to find more info but I'm wondering what the record is for number of divorcees meeting the 10 year rule who have all claimed benefits on the same one person's work history. Not sure I'm being clear ... Does that make sense?
In the US one might have a valid argument because I would like to know what the average wage earner gets from SS.
In countries like Sweden, Canada, etc I don't think the discussion would bear fruit. Even in Canada health care is not free though there is a separate tax for that goes along with school tax and , and. I think the average Canadian works for the government until about June!
Off the top of my head it seems to me the number I've seen is right around $1400 for the average SS recipient.Quote:
Originally Posted by VocalNeal
Not sure that figure is the same as what an "average wage earner" gets.
I used to get a 'statement' via snail mail every year from the SSA, but they stopped that a few years back.
I'm assuming I could find that info online now, but have never done so. Have you SK?
But you didn't pay into SS during those almost 30 years in the Navy, right?
I used to get those pamphlets in the mail also.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKkin
The SSA went digital to save paper.
I'm sure it's available online if you go to their site and type in your info.
They now mail a paper statement every 5 years. But, yes you can get one online.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKkin
Military started paying into SS long before I joined cuz. I'm projected to draw SS check of roughly $1500 a month if I take it at 62.
And FYI ... when federal government switched from the CSRS retirement system over three decades they too started paying into SS. Yes, I'm on track to be a triple dipper. Or a quadruple dipper if you count TSP.
There's one more dip I could potentially take :) (VA disability but I haven't even filed).