Thread: Social Security

More of what we know:

Social Security not deal it once was for workers
People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It's a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

---

Social Security: Who gets it?
About 56 million people receive monthly Social Security benefits. Who they are, and how much they get:

-36 million retired workers. Average monthly benefit: $1,235.

-8.7 million disabled workers. Average benefit: $1,111.

-2.5 million spouses. Average benefit: $590.

-4.3 million children. Average benefit: $564.

-4.4 million widows and widowers. Average benefit: $1,152.

You can't get these returns today
The first person to get a monthly retirement check from Social Security certainly got her money's worth. Ida May Fuller, a retired legal secretary from Ludlow, Vt., received her first monthly check in January 1940. She was 65 years old and lived to be 100. She had paid Social Security taxes for three years.

---

Social Security taxes paid by Fuller during her career: $24.75.

Fuller's first monthly benefit check: $22.54.

Fuller's lifetime benefits: $22,888.92.

Source: Social Security Administration.

Entire: Social Security not deal it once was for workers | Nation & World | The Seattle Times

It has begun. The slow, unstoppable downward trend.
This is why social security has always been a shit idea.
BOHICA American taxpayers.
Thank your lawmakers for this disaster.

And the baby boomer wave has not even hit yet. It's only in the beginning phases:

Social Security and Disability Payments Hit Annual Records—With Month Left in FY
By Terence P. Jeffrey
September 13, 2012

(CNSNews.com) - By the end of August, according to data released Thursday by the U.S. Treasury, the federal government had already paid out record annual amounts in both Social Security and disability benefits during fiscal 2012—even though there was still a month left in the year.

Social Security and Disability Payments Hit Annual Records

I guess all those trillions in the Social Security Trust fund are just too tempting for the corporatist raiders to leave alone. Better to build up a mythology of disaster to convince people they should abandon their life boat for the freedom of the high seas.

For all of you who keep wringing your hands over the feared "SS Apoccalypse"
consider thinking in the long term.

[quote]
Dec. 17 — Q: We keep hearing "privatizing social security" or "letting young people invest in private funds". What does this really mean? My understanding is that Social Security is a pay as you go program and if you divert those funds that we'll have to borrow to pay retirees today? Can you please clarify this — Linda B., Amelia, Ohio

A: Despite lots of noise, there’s been very little clarity in the current debate surrounding the federal retirement program that Americans have relied on since it was set up more than 65 years ago. And the debate is really two debates. The first centers on the question of whether Social Security is “going broke.” The second is over the more ideological question: Who should be managing your retirement savings, you or Uncle Sam?
The first question is pretty straightforward, even though much of what you’re hearing these days is simply dead wrong. While the Social Security system is in need of another overhaul (similar to the one it got in 1983), the fund is hardly “going broke.”

This year’s report by the trustees who oversee the fund found that, if left alone, the Social Security system will continue to be able to pay its bills for at least the next 40 years — thanks in part to a $1.4 trillion nest egg of Treasury securities that has been stashed away over the past several decades. (A separate analysis by the Congressional Budget Office figures the fund is in good shape until 2052.)




True, some of the money to be paid to soon-to-be-retired Baby Boomers will have to come from future payments from younger workers. But a big chunk of the bill has already been set aside. And by 2015, the amount set aside in the trust fund will swell to five times the estimated annual payouts. So the idea that Boomers will somehow be sponging off the next generation for all of their retirement funds just isn't true. (Full disclosure: We're on the Boomer side of the ledger.)
[/QUOTE]
More at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7080681/ns/business-answer_desk/t/social-security-really-going-broke/

My Way News - Psst, taxes go up in 2013 for 163 million workers

So much for that payroll tax 'holiday' that was supposed to stimulate the economy, eh?

^ Boon,

This 2% cut in SS (payroll tax) was a 'holiday' which means it was temporary.

SS payed out more than it took in last year.

SS is bullsh*t, and so is the tax, but so is complaining about the end of this temporary 'holiday.'

While Rethugs and Libertarians are out to "fix" Social Security, (at the expense of a modicum of security for the society it serves) with privatization or giving its vast wealth over to the "security" of the Stock Market, here's some information that may turn your head around, depending on your priorities.

The Giant Lie Trotted Out by Fiscal Conservatives Trying to Shred Social Security
Social Security hustlers use the life expectancy argument to justify gutting America's best-loved program.
November 19, 2012 |
Trying to convince the public to cut America’s best-loved and most successful program requires a lot of creativity and persistence. Social Security is fiscally fit, prudently managed and does not add to the deficit because by law it must be completely detached from the federal operating budget. Obviously, it is needed more than ever in a time of increasing job insecurity and disappearing pensions. It helps our economy thrive and boosts the productivity of working Americans. And yet the sharks are in a frenzy to shred it in the upcoming “fiscal cliff” discussions.
The most popular red herring Social Security hustlers have unleashed into the waters of public discourse has grown into such a massive whale of a lie that liberals frequently subscribe to it. The idea goes like this: We need to somehow “fix” Social Security because people are living longer – “fix” in this context being code for “cut.” Two groups stand to benefit in the short-term from such a scheme: the greedy rich, who do not want to pay their share in taxes, and financiers, who want to move towards privatizing retirement accounts so they can collect fees. As for the masses of hard-working people who have rightfully earned their retirement, the only “fix” is the fix they will be in if already modest benefits are further reduced.
Here are five clear reasons why the life expectancy argument is nonsensical, counterproductive and based on a pack of lies.
1. Social Security’s original designers considered rising life expectancy.
2. Life expectancy gains since 1935 have been modest.
3. The Greenspan Commission already raised the retirement age two years
4. Longevity gains have gone mostly to high earners.
5. Life expectancy rises are likely to slow in the future.

Full article at
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/giant-lie-trotted-out-fiscal-conservatives-trying-shred-social-security?akid=9701.213190.JnmgOI&rd=1&src=newslett er747428&t=3&paging=off

No surprise here. Disability is the latest scam. It's becoming very popular, in addition to the Social Security Administration sending out payments mistakenly.

Social Security makes $1.3 billion in overpayments

By Blake Ellis @blakeellis3 September 13, 2013
Define Ext
2013 Obama HARP Program
Verify Your Eligibility Status Now! Obama HARP Refinance Verification.
Verify.HarpMortgageRates.net

Thousands of Americans are receiving billions of dollars in benefits that they're not eligible for, a new study finds.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
The Social Security Administration has paid an estimated $1.3 billion in disability insurance payments to thousands of people who weren't eligible for the benefits, a government watchdog report finds.

Entire: http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/13/pf/s...ent/index.html

^ Been going on for a long, long time dude.

Another new and very expensive scam in the US is Social Security Disability.

A sentence cut from the article below:

The crush of new recipients is putting unsustainable financial pressure on the program. Federal officials project that the program will exhaust its trust fund by 2016 — 20 years before the trust fund that supports Social Security’s old-age benefits is projected to run dry.

U.S. disability rolls swell in a rough economy

By Michael A. Fletcher, Published: September 20

MILLINOCKET, MAINE — The huge mills along the Penobscot River roared virtually nonstop for more than a century, turning the dense Maine forests into paper and lifting the thousands of men who did the hot and often backbreaking work into the middle class.


But the mills have struggled in recent years, shedding thousands of jobs. Now this area, whose well-paying jobs provided an economic foothold for generations of blue-collar workers, has become a place where an unusually large share of the unemployed are seeking economic shelter on federal disability rolls.


Between 2000 and 2012, the number of people in Penobscot County receiving Social Security disability benefits skyrocketed, rising from 4,475 to 7,955 — or nearly one in 12 of the county’s adults between the ages of 18 and 64, according to Social Security statistics.

The fast expansion of disability here is part of a national trend that has seen the number of former workers receiving benefits soar from just over 5 million to 8.8 million between 2000 and 2012. An additional 2.1 million dependent children and spouses also receive benefits.

Entire: U.S. disability rolls swell in a rough economy - The Washington Post

^ I've started to view it as the "working man's welfare" ... they believe they've earned it. Which technically they have if they've paid in their 40 quarters to SS. But if somebody starts drawing this in their 30s or 40s they more than likely will draw out way more than they ever paid in. And on top of SSI-D they frequently qualify for subsidized housing in the form of Section 8 or other forms of low income housing.

And ... it's not new either. I first heard of it back in the early 90s from people who were jealous of others on it and were themselves trying to figure out a way to get on it.

A dose of reality from the Wall St. Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...trending_now_2

The renowned money manager goes back to school to explain how entitlements are helping the Baby Boomers rip off future generations.

While many seniors believe they are simply drawing out the "savings" they were forced to deposit into Social Security and Medicare, they are actually drawing out much more, especially relative to later generations. That's because politicians have voted to award the seniors ever more generous benefits. As a result, while today's 65-year-olds will receive on average net lifetime benefits of $327,400, children born now will suffer net lifetime losses of $420,600 as they struggle to pay the bills of aging Americans.
One of the great ironies of the Obama presidency is that it has been a disaster for the young people who form the core of his political coalition. High unemployment is paired with exploding debt that they will have to finance whenever they eventually find jobs.

Are the kids finally figuring out that the Obama economy is a lousy deal for them? "No, I don't sense that," says Mr. Druckenmiller, who is a registered independent. "But one of my points is neither party should own your vote. And once they know they own your vote, you're not going to get any action on this particular issue."

When the former money manager visited Stanford University, the audience included older folks as well as students. Some of the oldsters questioned why many of his dire forecasts assume that federal tax collections will stay at their traditional 18.5% of GDP. They asked why taxes should not rise to fulfill the promises already made.

Mr. Druckenmiller's response: "Oh, so you've paid 18.5% for your 40 years and now you want the next generation of workers to pay 30% to finance your largess?" He added that if 18.5% was "so immoral, why don't you give back some of your ill-gotten gains of the last 40 years?"

He has a similar argument for those on the left who say entitlements can be fixed with an eventual increase in payroll taxes. "Oh, I see," he says. "So I get to pay a 12% payroll tax now until I'm 65 and then I don't pay. But the next generation?instead of me paying 15% or having my benefits slightly reduced?they're going to pay 17% in 2033. That's why we're waiting?so we can shift even more to the future than to now?"

Every time some government bureaucrat announces that Social Security will run out of money I automatically wonder when food stamps, foreign aid and payroll for government employees will run out as well.

The social welfare programs never seem to run dry. Strange, huh?

Originally Posted by MrG

-snip-

The first question is pretty straightforward, even though much of what you’re hearing these days is simply dead wrong. While the Social Security system is in need of another overhaul (similar to the one it got in 1983), the fund is hardly “going broke.”

[/URL]This year’s report by the trustees who oversee the fund found that, if left alone, the Social Security system will continue to be able to pay its bills for at least the next 40 years — thanks in part to a $1.4 trillion nest egg of Treasury securities that has been stashed away over the past several decades. (

"...the Social Security system will continue to be able to pay its bills for at least the next 40 years — thanks in part to a $1.4 trillion nest egg of Treasury securities that has been stashed away over the past several decades."



Does the author not see what he just said? He said that the US Federal Government has loaned the recipients' money to itself and has in return stashed US Treasuries into the SS Trust Fund.

How does one loan money to himself, assured that he will some day pay himself back?

The borrower has issued IOU's (treasuries) to himself - all being the federal government. The money has indeed long ago been spent. The Trust Fund has given its real money to the Feds in return for IOU's.

The cost goin' up, up, and away......


$944,143,000,000: Social Security Administration Spending Hit Record in FY2015; $6,345 For Every American With a Job

By Terence P. Jeffrey | November 9, 2015

(AP Photo/Bradley C. Bower)
(CNSNews.com) - Spending by the Social Security Administration--which includes payments for Social Security and disability benefits as well as Supplemental Security Income payments and the administrative costs for these programs--hit a record $944,143,000,000 in fiscal 2015, according to data published by the U.S. Treasury.

Even in constant 2015 dollars (with adjustments made using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator), that was up $33,748,280,000 from the $910,394,720,000 the Social Security Administration spent in fiscal 2014.

$944,143,000,000: Social Security Administration Spending Hit Record in FY2015; $6,345 For Every American With a Job

Gen Xers in LOS:

Get vested in SS and save your dough.

What Gen X Doesn’t Know About Social Security
Generation Xers could get smaller payments because they lack knowledge about Social Security.

By Emily Brandon April 26, 2013
Members of Generation X, those born between 1965 and 1976, are planning to collect Social Security at an average age of 65, according to a recent survey. But that could be a mistake. Gen Xers won’t qualify for the full Social Security payments they have earned until age 67. Those who sign up for Social Security at age 65 will get permanently lower payments for the rest of their lives.

[Read: 10 Things Everyone Should Know About Social Security.]

The Social Security full retirement age at which you can claim the entire benefit you have earned is 67 for everyone born in 1960 or later. Gen Xers who sign up for Social Security at age 65, as 29 percent plan to do, will see their monthly payments reduced by about 13.3 percent.

What Gen X Doesn?t Know About Social Security - US News

^ Don't most people take SS at 62? Not sure it matters what generation you're from as you're going to short yourself by taking it early. Unless you live a long life.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

^ Don't most people take SS at 62? Not sure it matters what generation you're from as you're going to short yourself by taking it early. Unless you live a long life.

I don't know if most take it at 62. (I'm sure that data is available.)

For Gen Xers the minimum take is 65.

Yes, it can reduce the payments.



(Long time now see. Hope you stick around here.)

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

^ Don't most people take SS at 62? Not sure it matters what generation you're from as you're going to short yourself by taking it early. Unless you live a long life.

I just started this last year - full benefits the day the day I turned 66. Also a small amount for each of my kids for a couple of years until they turn 18. Nothing for the spouse until she turns 60. Unless you really need it, don't take it before you qualify for full benefits as this will impact on your surviving spouse's payment amount down the road. And, in your case, don't expect much as I believe you get one or two USG pensions already. I get a substantial USG pension, thus my SS is pocket change.

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

^ Don't most people take SS at 62? Not sure it matters what generation you're from as you're going to short yourself by taking it early. Unless you live a long life.

I just started this last year - full benefits the day the day I turned 66. Also a small amount for each of my kids for a couple of years until they turn 18. Nothing for the spouse until she turns 60. Unless you really need it, don't take it before you qualify for full benefits as this will impact on your surviving spouse's payment amount down the road. And, in your case, don't expect much as I believe you get one or two USG pensions already. I get a substantial USG pension, thus my SS is pocket change.

Small amount for your kids? Children under the age of 18 of SS recipients are eligible for 50% of your max payment. I don't know about you Davis, but that is over $1000/month for my 5 year old son and I did not know about this benefit until last year.

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

^ Don't most people take SS at 62? Not sure it matters what generation you're from as you're going to short yourself by taking it early. Unless you live a long life.

I just started this last year - full benefits the day the day I turned 66. Also a small amount for each of my kids for a couple of years until they turn 18. Nothing for the spouse until she turns 60. Unless you really need it, don't take it before you qualify for full benefits as this will impact on your surviving spouse's payment amount down the road. And, in your case, don't expect much as I believe you get one or two USG pensions already. I get a substantial USG pension, thus my SS is pocket change.

I'm pretty sure my military pension will have no impact on my SS benefits. But Indont have the same level of confidence about the FERS retirement that I'll qualify for in another 4 years. If I'm not mistaken it's only CSRS pensions that don't work with SS.

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

I get a substantial USG pension, thus my SS is pocket change.

That's my situation. I haven't started collecting SS yet, but it was one way Reagan f*cked the average Joe to pay off his corporate buddies.