Social Security to start cashing Uncle Sam's IOUs

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 03-15-2010, 04:42

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Having less kids puts a higher burden on them when they become taxpayers supporting us. All the current workers are paying for current retirees, under the assumption that it'll be our turn on the top of the pyramid once we retire. However, the fund is forecast to be completely bankrupt well before my retirement age. I've been paying in for my entire working life and, as it stands, am likely to receive no benefit. Sounds like a ponzi scheme.

Yeah, I had that backwards somehow. I was thinking about someone how someone in the last thread mentioned that the baby boomers retiring was putting a strain on it. If there was a bump in babies that dissipated it would help the system out it seems.

Although life expectancy will probably increase as well, especially with the drop in smoking.

But the forecast is a "if the current system doesn't change" forecast, yeah?

**drone** · 03-15-2010, 05:12

I knew 20 years ago that I would never see a dime back from my FICA "payments". The boomers are going to suck the teat dry, the last act of the worst generation.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 03-15-2010, 07:15

The problem is self correcting in the long run, necessary taxation precautions need to be taken to survive the baby boom hump before social security sees a return to a stable multi generational birth level at which point changes can be made back to pre baby boomer status.

**KukriKhan** · 03-15-2010, 13:57

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The problem is self correcting in the long run, necessary taxation precautions need to be taken to survive the baby boom hump before social security sees a return to a stable multi generational birth level at which point changes can be made back to pre baby boomer status.

I can see that. You 18-35'ers need to get out there are make moar babeez. Makes Grampa proud, and gives him beer money.

**Gregoshi** · 03-15-2010, 16:24

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

I can see that. You 18-35'ers need to get out there are make moar babeez. Makes Grampa proud, and gives him beer money.

Will a six pack of both do the trick Gramps?

**drone** · 03-15-2010, 16:31

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The problem is self correcting in the long run, necessary taxation precautions need to be taken to survive the baby boom hump before social security sees a return to a stable multi generational birth level at which point changes can be made back to pre baby boomer status.

If it was just the boomer retirement years, Social Security would survive. The main problem is that the social security fund has been raided by Congress for other projects, now the bill is coming due. This is not so much a demographic problem, but a bad government problem. What would normally be a funded entitlement is now a debt liability on top of the mess we already have.

**PanzerJaeger** · 03-15-2010, 18:07

More of FDR's chickens coming home to roost. Once an entitlement is given, it is nigh on impossible to take away - regardless of how it effects the nation's finances. Privatize it or kill it, doesn't matter to me. I'm never going to see a penny from it anyway.

What's scary is how tiny SS is in relation to how big of an entitlement health care will be - making demographic changes even more crippling to the country.

**Strike For The South** · 03-15-2010, 20:27

Let's just annex Mexico and put a tax on chicklets.

**Centurion1** · 03-15-2010, 21:52

i think we should annex canada........ or have we i always forget?

**KukriKhan** · 03-16-2010, 04:36

Originally Posted by drone

If it was just the boomer retirement years, Social Security would survive. The main problem is that the social security fund has been raided by Congress for other projects, now the bill is coming due. This is not so much a demographic problem, but a bad government problem. What would normally be a funded entitlement is now a debt liability on top of the mess we already have.

Yeah. And the SS Trust Fund isn't the only one. They regularly raid any "loose money" they see apparently just laying around doing nothing but slowly accruing tiny interest for its contributors. The Fed's Thrift Savings Plan (a 401(k) knockoff) is another. Congress, and Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac have tapped that money yearly, especially hard since the armed services got brought into the Plan about 6 years back; and they repay, slowly, with Treasury Bonds.

And that 'tapping any loose money' has me wondering, with some much of TARP $$ left un-committed, where, exactly is that cash, and who makes $$ off where it sits? Please don't tell me AIG.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 03-16-2010, 05:01

Ok, so if the problem is congress raiding money from the program, institute greater transparency and make it illegal to remove any money from the program period. Then make the necessary taxation changes and continue as I explained above.

**KukriKhan** · 03-16-2010, 05:56

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Ok, so if the problem is congress raiding money from the program, institute greater transparency and make it illegal to remove any money from the program period. Then make the necessary taxation changes and continue as I explained above.

A perfect problem-solving answer. Bravo!

It mirrors Al Gore's "lockbox theory" for Social Security solvancy from 15-16 years ago. And I agree.

BUT: What do you do, from where does the money come, when unforseen events occur? Tornadoes, wars, earthquakes, floods, market meltdowns, and the like? I mean: you can plan for floods, and storms and earthquakes and employee retirements - set money aside for those things. Then somebody flies a couple of planes into some big NY and DC buildings, and the next thing you know, your army is in southwest Asia, needing beans and bullets. Not to mention that Aunt Sarah's street needs its potholes filled; you remember Aunt Sarah, the one who donated $5k to your election campaign, as 'primer money' for her garden club to imitate? To the tune of $125k, just enough to buy enough air-time on W-Podunk radio to put you over the edge and into office?

And that money is just sitting there. And your predessessors wrote provisions into the law creating those funds, allowing congressional dabbling.

All you, an elected Rep, have to do, is to convince 51% of 434 (that'd be 222 of them) other reps that you're right, and that their soldiers will be fed and provisioned, and their Aunt Sarah's potholes will be fixed, along with your own.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 03-16-2010, 19:52

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Ok, so if the problem is congress raiding money from the program, institute greater transparency and make it illegal to remove any money from the program period. Then make the necessary taxation changes and continue as I explained above.

Have fun watching the economy grind down when two workers have to support the social security of one person with only social security taxes. That is, on top of federal income tax, state income tax, property taxes, paying for food and housing, etc. etc., each worker in America will have to pay half of the social security cost of someone.

So, yeah, taxes could work in gathering money. But the system needs to fixed (damn you FDR), and that means allowing people to have control over where they invest.

But nooooooooooooooooooooooooo, the democrats had to stop Bush's plan that would have fixed that, just because they wanted to be contrary.

CR