Posted on 03/05/2022 4:16:53 AM PST by where's_the_Outrage?
Millions of seniors today rely on Social Security as a critical source of retirement income. And chances are, many future retirees will depend heavily on those benefits as well.
But Social Security is facing its share of financial challenges that could have devastating consequences for current and future retirees alike. And if lawmakers don't intervene, the results could be downright catastrophic.
There's a serious revenue shortfall at play
Social Security primarily relies on payroll taxes (the ones we all hate paying) to stay afloat. But in the coming years, that income stream is expected to shrink. That's because baby boomers are expected to exit the workforce in droves, and it's anticipated that the number of workers entering the labor force won't suffice in replacing retired boomers.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Now that I’m close to retirement I’m good with the salary cap being removed in a few years.
“Crazy checks”. That’s the slang term for SSI by people who don’t want to work, but could.
“They’ll just keep increasing the age for full benefits...in conjunction with underestimating inflation, they’ll keep it solvent.”
I’m good with that, as long as it doesn’t start for a while.
(funny how age affects one’s position on Social Security)
That nonsense was encouraged by the Otoken regime to hide their unemployment disaster; remember the “funemloyment” term (when they pretended it was voluntary for many)?
When ObamaCare cost jobs as predicted, they scrambled to get people other sources of income that would get them out of that unemployment figure.
It already started; my age for full benefits is 67.
“I was standing in line at my local SS office once. Two young Hispanic ladies were in front of me with small children. As they entered the building a lady asked what their visit was for. They said “disability”. I assume they were trying to get it.”
The expansion of ‘disability’ to include people having a bad day and the fact that most people stopped smoking are the two factors destroying Social Security (with Medicare also being destroyed by the lack of smokers dying off young).
...of course the media won’t tell you the above.
It will be “fixed” over time by:
1). Adding means testing for benefits. If the government deems your savings are sufficient, SS benefits for you are reduced or eliminated.
2). If they are concerned #1 will have too much pushback they can raise the IRMAA payments on Medicare.
3). Raise the retirement age.
4). Reduce the COLA to a % of the the growth of inflation.
5). Accelerate the die off of seniors by withholding medical treatment after certain government mandated ages.
6). Push elderly patients out of the hospital before they have fully recovered from surgery or disease thereby increasing the risk of death after they return home.
7). Make “voluntary” euthanasia legal and have doctors encourage elderly patients to opt for euthanasia rather than expensive and painful treatment.
8). Make euthanasia mandatory after a certain age. Zeke Emanuel will be proud.
9).Raise inheritance taxes and apply them to all estates (i.e. eliminate the exemptions). Dedicate that money to Social Security.
10). Ultimately the government will simply appropriate private savings in tax deferred retirement accounts - 401K, IRA, etc. The Social Security administration will administer the accounts. Earnings will be determined by the government, (say an annual 2-3% interest payment) instead of by the market return on securities. Eventually withdrawals of principal will be restricted and upon death the assets will simply retained in the Social Security fund instead of being part of the deceased’s estate.
The robots replacing entry level jobs won't pay SS.
“It already started; my age for full benefits is 67.”
Oh, a youngster, at least for this site. But I hear you. The only real choices they have is to further punish working-age people for the fact that the government grabbed the money that was contributed over the decades and busted the system. And it’s hard to see SS being allowed to go broke, given that the haircut from today’s benefit level would be something like 25% immediately and then increasing to some level. So they have to hit up working people, either directly through SS or through income taxes, but same effect.
Two young Hispanic ladies were in front of me with small children.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When I applied for S.S. at age 62, there were 20-25 people in the waiting room ahead of me. I couldn’t help but noticing that I was easily the oldest person in the room by far.
I quit working at age 56 because the GVT would not give my Thai Fiancé a visa, said the hell with it and moved to Thailand to be with her. Otherwise I’d probably still be working my 6 figure job because I enjoyed it.
So I became a “Crazy Check” at age 62.
That’s a good point; what happens to SS in a “post-work” economy (at least for many unskilled workers)?
“1). Adding means testing for benefits. If the government deems your savings are sufficient, SS benefits for you are reduced or eliminated.”
I expect military retirements to be the 1st hit for being double dippers and the wrong political viewpoint.
I’m less than 20 years from 67; I expect that will rise for those under 30 today...
You mean the big bad COVID didn’t kill off all our seniors?
Guess it wasn’t much of a “pandemic” after all.
Ah, the trust fund, a.k.a. the lockbox. Government charged more taxes than needed for Social Security and saved the excess to be spent later. The problem was that their method of "saving" was to spend the money immediately on other programs and leave a special type of bond behind promising to pay it back with interest. Since SS taxes don't cover taxes today, we are at the point where the government has to "pay itself back" with either general fund taxes or borrowing.
Now, here is the interesting bit. If the government had just spent the money and never messed with the bonds or lock box we would be in exactly the same position. They would have spent the same amount in earlier years, today's and future shortfalls would be exactly the same and we would be borrowing just as much to cover it. The future reduction in SS, increased taxes or increased borrowing would be the same. In fact, no lock box would probably be a hair better because they would not have had to spend the money to print the bonds, file them and count them in Parkerburg, WV.
IOU's might work, but an IO-Me is just a way of lying to yourself about overspending.
And yet, Americans have to work 40 quarters (10 years) to be eligible...
Not exactly. The origin of the term is from the common practice of some people to get diagnosis of mental illness which they then use to claim a disability so they get SSI.
SSI used to be paid out with checks every month (now it’s direct deposit), hence the term “crazy checks”.
This sort of thing has apparently become much more common since “welfare reform”....
“Millions of useful idiots who put their trust in criminal government instead of themselves are about to suffer. No sympathies.”
Last time I checked SS deductions are mandatory. Some people may not have any extra $ left to invest after 14+% is “deducted” (confiscated) from their sweat equity.
“I quit working at age 56 because the GVT would not give my Thai Fiancé a visa, said the hell with it and moved to Thailand to be with her. Otherwise I’d probably still be working my 6 figure job because I enjoyed it.
So I became a “Crazy Check” at age 62.”
Does your Thai wife get a check ? I’m in Japan and my Japanese wife gets half of what I get from SSI . I never thought she was entitled but the US Embassy in Tokyo informed me she was , when I applied .
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.