Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. May Alter Social Security Projection; Immigration, Life Expectancies Should Change Projections
Associated Press ^ | 10-23-03

Posted on 10/23/2003 3:32:08 PM PDT by Brian S

Immigration and Life Expectancies Should Change Social Security Projections, Panel Says

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Oct. 23 — The government should change how it projects Social Security's future finances by assuming significant increases in immigration, longer life expectancies and lower inflation, an advisory panel said Thursday.

If adopted, the system's projected 75-year deficit would rise by $200 billion to $3.7 trillion, according to a report by a panel of economists, actuaries and demographers appointed to review methods now used to project Social Security's future financial status.

Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, in which workers' payroll taxes fund benefits for current retirees. The system faces financial problems as the large baby boom generation starts retiring in five years, while there are fewer workers to pay Social Security taxes.

The most urgent change would be to assume an increase in immigration rather than a decline, the report said.

"Given the steady increase in immigration experienced since World War II, the panel believes that the current assumption of a decline in the annual number of immigrants is unrealistic," it said.

Immigration has increased by an average of about 4 percent a year since 1950. Yet Social Security trustees assume a drop this year from 1.2 million to an annual total of 900,000 in 2023 and after, the report said.

"In light of the sustained, rapid increase of net migration over more than five decades, the panel finds this assumption to be highly implausible," the report said. "Since immigration results in a larger and younger population, the effect of a mistaken migration assumption on projected trust fund balances should be a major cause of concern."

The panel also recommended that assumptions for mortality rates be changed to result in a projected life expectancy of 84.4 years instead of the current 82.9 years for someone born in 2070.

On labor force participation, Social Security trustees should eliminate an assumption recently added that rates will rise because of increases in life expectancy. The report said sufficient evidence does not yet exist that points to a sustained trend of Americans working longer and postponing retirement.

Other recommendations include an increase in the assumed rate of real wage growth and a decrease in the assumed rate of inflation.

The Social Security Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods was appointed by the Social Security Advisory Board, an independent, bipartisan board created in 1994 to advise the president, Congress and the Social Security commissioner.

On the Net:

Social Security Advisory Board:


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: immigrantlist; immigration; socialsecurity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: Age of Reason
Well, soon the living standard will rise in the 3rd world and they might see that is not necessary to produce like rabbits.

In the meantime, our living standard, education level will substantially decline and we will forget that it is unbeneficial to breed like rabbits. We won't need 3rd world immigrants---we'll start making our own!!!

And you guys thought we wouldn't be producing anything in the future!?

21 posted on 10/23/2003 4:31:38 PM PDT by riri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf; riri
You mean this isn't their plan already? LOL....

Well, yes--I'm afraid that the best our leaders can do.

Besides, with the extra money those new immigrants will put into SS--just think of all the other things aside from retirements our leaders can spend it on.

22 posted on 10/23/2003 4:39:51 PM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: *immigrant_list; A Navy Vet; Lion Den Dan; Free the USA; Libertarianize the GOP; madfly; B4Ranch; ..
ping
23 posted on 10/23/2003 4:54:44 PM PDT by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster
We are being over run.
I've got an idea. Move back retirement to 75 and make having kids less onerous. Kill the marriage penalty and create a larger subsidy for parenthood in the tax code.
24 posted on 10/23/2003 4:56:41 PM PDT by rmlew (Peaceniks and isolationists are objectively pro-Terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
If the current SS System = Enron, then Dubya's "privatization" plan = Arthur Anderson.

Both major political parties perpetuate The Big Lie regarding Social Security. The Big Lie has existed since Social Security's inception. The debate over "privatization" is only the latest version of The Big Lie.

The Big Lie is that Social Security is some kind of retirement savings plan.

It is NOT.

Social Security is a socialist income redistribution scheme, nothing else.

Those who are working are taxed to provide a "safety net" for those who are less fortunate.
Originally, this meant retirees and surviving dependents.
Congress has, of course, complicated it far beyond this over the last 65 years.

But one fact remains: it is NOT a "savings plan", it is an income redistribution scheme.

A major facet of The Big Lie is that "we have to do something so that Social Security remains solvent in the future.

Poppycock!

In today's age of modern computerization, the computation for operating an income redistribution scheme that remains perpetually solvent is quite simple:

This month's total SS tax receipts = Next month's total SS tax disbursements

The only change necessary to the current system is that monthly payments to eligible recipients would be a variable amount, not fixed.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR A MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR "TRUST" FUND!!!

Congress should NEVER have been permitted to confiscate so much money from the American People in the name of The Big Lie. This fund is nothing but a slush fund that Congress raids to pay for other government expenditures. If private sector employers did the same thing with their companies' pension funds, they'd be placed in prison. The "privatization" plan proposed by Bush is merely an attempt by Wall Street brokerage firms and financial institutions to get in on the scam: grab a portion of a constant revenue stream (guaranteed by taxation) from which they can skim their commissions.

Daschle's "concern" over the Social Security system is a lie.

Bush's plan to Enronize the system is worse.

The American People need to wake up and put these liars and thieves in prison.

25 posted on 10/23/2003 4:59:16 PM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
DUH !

Illegal immigration bankrupts Social Security in 29 years !!! The Feds should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail filled with rusty nails. ButtHeads!

26 posted on 10/23/2003 5:02:06 PM PDT by ex-Texan (My tag line is broken !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackdog
we wouldn't be asking where Social Security went wrong in 2015.

It's my opinion that Social Security "went wrong" because it's flawed to begin with. Ponzi schemes Do Not Work.

27 posted on 10/23/2003 5:03:30 PM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE! NOW! NOW! NOW!
28 posted on 10/23/2003 5:11:40 PM PDT by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DumpsterDiver
Oh, I agree. But that being said, and the likelyhood of civil war over scrapping SSI, it's odds of being with us for another 45 years are pretty strong.

I'm merely stating the obvious based on what we're stuck with. One of the real downsides to the market crash of late is that it completely stripped all momentum from the privatization of SSI. With the level of corruption on Wallstreet going on and continuing to do so, that it lost momentum is a good thing. Once some integrity returns to the markets it will be time to give it another shot.

29 posted on 10/23/2003 5:22:30 PM PDT by blackdog ("This is everybody's fault but mine")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
Open borders, anyone?
30 posted on 10/23/2003 5:27:19 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackdog
I guess I should've prefaced my post by saying that I am rabidly against most all social programs. :-)

The government usually FUBARizes everything it touches and their bookkeeping schemes are just as bad, if not worse, than most corporations.

I'm not gonna live long enough to see S.S. ended, but I still keep on dreamin' about it.

31 posted on 10/23/2003 5:30:02 PM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Open borders, anyone?

Who you talkin' to, Vicente or Jorge?

32 posted on 10/23/2003 5:32:54 PM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DumpsterDiver
To borrow a phrase from another freeper, "Quagmirey" is exactly what we are in regarding SSI. It's either dealt with by tough love and a swift conclusion, or a lengthy strategy which pares it down like starting off with a Redwood and ending up with a toothpick during fifty years or so.

Vote buying whores we call politicians do not have the grit for the first option and certainly not the long term resolve for the second.

"I'll choose civil war in 2020 Alex for $500". It's what I anticipate.

33 posted on 10/23/2003 5:40:10 PM PDT by blackdog ("This is everybody's fault but mine")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: blackdog
"I'll choose civil war in 2020 Alex for $500". It's what I anticipate.

Heck, I'm ready now. Let the games begin!

34 posted on 10/23/2003 5:46:50 PM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
If adopted, the system's projected 75-year deficit would rise by $200 billion to $3.7 trillion ... The panel also recommended that assumptions for mortality rates be changed to result in a projected life expectancy of 84.4 years instead of the current 82.9 years for someone born in 2070.

What does the life expectancy of someone born in 2070 have to do with a projection of the deficit for the next 75 years?

35 posted on 10/23/2003 5:51:08 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
I wonder how many of the French retirees who passed away because of the heat this summer were trusting their lives to their government. Don't retire ---- at least if you keep on working, you can work in an airconditioned building or vacation in a cooler place. If you retire, make sure you aren't depending on the government to take care of you.
36 posted on 10/23/2003 6:30:00 PM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DumpsterDiver
Who you talkin' to, Vicente or Jorge?

And Vicente is demanding that whatever Mexicans are left in Mexico get in on our Social Security program. He figures he can buy votes with American taxpayer dollars that way.

37 posted on 10/23/2003 6:35:54 PM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Why should a larger and younger population result in a larger deficit? I would have thought it would help to pay the costs.

If they're working off the books they're not paying anything into Soc Sec, but they may be eligible for SSI.

38 posted on 10/23/2003 6:46:17 PM PDT by YankeeReb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
Vicente not only wants the whole enchilada, he wants the whole damn country. He needs a burrito shoved up his... (and so does Jorge).

On that note, I bid you goodnight, Fitz. It's time for my annual viewing of Blazing Saddles.

39 posted on 10/23/2003 6:50:24 PM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
I wonder if they know how stupid they look trying to peddle this pathetic farse year after year. UFOs are more believable and less threatening than the governments obsession with this ponzi fraud scam.
40 posted on 10/23/2003 6:51:25 PM PDT by yoswif
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson