TOTALLY GEEKED!

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: To those who think a few minor "tweaks" will fix social security--here's a dose of reality.


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
To those who think a few minor "tweaks" will fix social security--here's a dose of reality.
Permalink  
 


The US government has a $20.4 trillion retirement problem

 

 

View photo

.
elderly old woman
(Mario Tama/Getty Images) 
Senior citizen Joyce (last name witheld) watches a bingo game at the Caring Community First Presbyterian Senior Center March 6, 2002 in New York City. 

The US government has nowhere near enough money to pay retirees.

 

According to credit rating agency Moody's state, local, and federal governments are about $7 trillion short in funding upcoming pension payments.

"The unfunded liabilities of the various federal employee pensions systems, covering civilian and military employee benefits, amount to about $3.5 trillion, or 20% of US GDP," said a release from Moody's Wednesday.

"Additionally, Moody's estimates that unfunded state and local government pension plan liabilities are of the same magnitude, bringing the total shortfall to 40% of GDP."

Additionally, Moody's said the public pensions are only one piece of the growing retirement problem in the US.

"The bigger challenge to the US comes from the unfunded liabilities for the Social Security and Medicare programs," said the report. "The Social Security funding gap is estimated at $13.4 trillion, or 75% of GDP, while the shortfall from the Hospital Insurance component of the Medicare program amounts $3.2 trillion, or 18% of GDP."

That means between the pension shortfall and the benefits shortfall, the US government is $20.4 trillion short in funding for retirees.

The combination of all these factors has led some, including Blackstone president and COO Tony James, to call this sort of retirement funding shortfall the "hidden crisis" facing America.

James' point was that with corporations moving away from large pension plans, and now the government facing massive shortfalls in retirement funding, young people will have to rely more heavily on 401(k) plans that are not earnings much.

The combination of these factors could force people to work longer or not retire at all. In fact, estimates of current retirement savings show that millennials may have to work until they're 73 years old.

Not only is this an issue for retirees, according to Moody's, but also a huge problem for the government.

"As the stand-alone sustainability of these two programs wanes with an aging population, Social Security and Medicare will be among the primary drivers behind a sharp widening of federal budget deficits that is expected to occur after the fiscal year 2018," said Steven Hess, a senior vice president for Moody's, in the release.

With this lack of funding, it seems public employees and the US government are staring down a huge retirement problem. 



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Itty bitty's Grammy

Status: Offline
Posts: 28124
Date:
To those who think a few minor
Permalink  
 


husker,

You'll support me when I retire, won't you?

flan

__________________

You are my sun, my moon, and all of my stars.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
RE: To those who think a few minor "tweaks" will fix social security--here's a dose of reality.
Permalink  
 


flan327 wrote:

husker,

You'll support me when I retire, won't you?

flan


 Undoubtedly.  Although, I hope to retire not too far behind you.



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Itty bitty's Grammy

Status: Offline
Posts: 28124
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:

husker,

You'll support me when I retire, won't you?

flan


 Undoubtedly.  Although, I hope to retire not too far behind you.


 DH wants to retire "for real" this year. He left Indy & found another FT job. He loves the library where he works, but even minimal physical activity can be too much for him.

Hopefully I'll last for 5 - 7 more years.

flan



__________________

You are my sun, my moon, and all of my stars.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2279
Date:
To those who think a few minor
Permalink  
 


I remember as Bush was exiting office he made it a loud point that SS was something that needed to be addressed. So happy to see Obama disregarded the advice.

__________________


On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

I just want to point out that SS was not "unfunded". It was raided repeatedly. Had they left the money in the SS coffers, there would be plenty. The government needs to pay it back.

__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2643
Date:
RE: To those who think a few minor "tweaks" will fix social security--here's a dose of reality.
Permalink  
 


Lawyerlady wrote:

I just want to point out that SS was not "unfunded". It was raided repeatedly. Had they left the money in the SS coffers, there would be plenty. The government needs to pay it back.


 And it started with Reagan "borrowing" back in 1983

Abuse of the Social Security Trust Fund Began in the 1980s

The mishandling of Social Security funds has been going on since the mid-1980s. As soon as the surpluses, resulting from the 1983 payroll tax hike, first began to flow into the Treasury, politicians from both political parties began using the money like a giant slush fund. At that time, it would be at least 30 years before the funds would actually be needed for Social Security, so politicians developed the bad habit of “temporarily borrowing” the money and using it for non-Social Security purposes. That bad habit never was broken, and every dollar of the $2.5 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue, generated by the tax hike, has been spent, leaving no real assets in the trust fund.

Some members of Congress were outraged by the practice and tried to nip this misuse of Social Security revenue in the bud. On October 13, 1989, Senator Ernest Hollings of SC expressed his outrage during a speech on the Senate floor. Excerpts from that speech, taken from the Congressional Record, follow. “…the most reprehensible fraud in this great jambalaya of frauds is the systematic and total ransacking of the Social Security trust fund…The public fully supported enactment of hefty new Social Security taxes in 1983 to ensure the retirement program’s long-term solvency and credibility. The promise was that today’s huge surpluses would be set safely aside in a trust fund to provide for baby-boomer retirees in the next century. Well, look again. The Treasury is siphoning off every dollar of the Social Security surplus to meet current operating expenses of the government…The hard fact is that in the next century…the American people will wake up to the reality that those IOUs in the trust fund vault are a 21st century version of Confederate banknotes.”

A year later, on October 9, 1990, Senator Harry Reid of NV expressed similar outrage. Excerpts from his Senate speech, taken from the Congressional Record, include, “…Are we as a country violating a trust by spending Social Security trust fund moneys for some purpose other than for which they were intended. The obvious answer is yes…During the period of growth we have had during the past 10 years, the growth has been from two sources. One, a large credit card with no limits on it, and, two, we have been stealing money from the Social Security recipients of this country.”

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of NY even introduced legislation in early 1990 to repeal the 1983 payroll tax increase. In an effort to keep politicians from spending the Social Security surplus money on other things, Moynihan wanted to eliminate the surplus revenue and return Social Security to a “pay-as-you-go” system. President George H.W. Bush was furious about Moynihan’s proposed legislation. Bush said, “It is an effort to get me to raise taxes on the American people by the charade of cutting them, or cut benefits. And I am not going to do it to the older people of this country.”

Bush, the “read-my-lips-no-new-taxes” president, did not need to raise taxes as long as he had access to the surplus Social Security revenue. During his four years in office, $211.7 billion in Social Security surplus revenue flowed into the U.S. Treasury. Every penny of it was spent for general government expenditures, and none of it was saved and invested for the payment of future Social Security benefits, as is commonly believed. This practice has continued until this day. The plan was that when benefit costs start to exceed payroll tax revenue, in about seven years, the Social Security trustees would begin dipping into the huge reserve that was supposed to be built up in the trust fund to make up the revenue shortfall in order to continue to pay full benefits. Unfortunately, there are no assets in the trust fund that can be dipped into.



__________________

Life is short.  Live it to the fullest.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Well, that article is missing a tad bit of information. Such as - it didn't start in the 1980s and Reagan wasn't the first president to do it, nor do only Republican presidents do it.

Lyndon B. Johnson raided SS to help pay for the Vietnam war. And he is the one that changed how SS is looked at in the budget so he could offset the deficit with SS's surplus. That was changed back in 1973 and then back again in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. , where that article picks up. But along the government was using the SS surplus to offset the deficit - basically using it to make the numbers look good up until 1990, when people suddenly realized, "oops, we may have screwed up". The language is known as "off budget" or "on budget".

From the social security website - https://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html


To illustrate the difference between the "on-budget" and "off-budget" parts of the federal budget, we can observe that for fiscal year 2004 the following figures were reported by OMB:


 
Unified Budget
Without "off-budget" items
Receipts
$1.8 trillion
$1.3 trillion
Expenditures
$2.2 trillion
$1.9 trillion
Deficit
$412 billion
$567 billion
Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2006, Table 1.1, pg. 22.





Special Note About SSA's Administrative Budget:

Although the transactions of the Social Security program itself are officially "off-budget," as explained above, the administrative budget for the agency running the program (the Social Security Administration) is not. SSA's annual administrative budget is subject to the standard budget and appropriations process. Thus each year the agency must present a separate budget request for its administrative costs (called the Limitation on Administrative Expenditures, or LAE line-item) and this request is subject to all the standard review procedures of the Office of Management and Budget and the budget and appropriations committees of the Congress.



Summary-

So, to sum up:

1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;
2- On-budget from 1969-1985;
3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;
4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.

Finally, just note once again that the financing procedures involving the Social Security program have not changed in any fundamental way since they were established in the original Social Security Act of 1935 and amended in 1939. These changes in federal budgeting rules govern how the Social Security program is accounted for in the federal budget, not how it is financed.









__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:

I just want to point out that SS was not "unfunded". It was raided repeatedly. Had they left the money in the SS coffers, there would be plenty. The government needs to pay it back.


 WTF are you talking about???  This article refutes that notion.

The total they must pay back is less than 3 trillion. 

The unfunded portion of the program going forward is more than TWENTY trillion. 

That's the point of the article.  To disabuse the ignorant of the notion that simply "paying back" the IOU's isn't going to be more than a drop in the bucket.

 

Did you not even read the article? 



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:

I just want to point out that SS was not "unfunded". It was raided repeatedly. Had they left the money in the SS coffers, there would be plenty. The government needs to pay it back.


 WTF are you talking about???  This article refutes that notion.

The total they must pay back is less than 3 trillion. 

The unfunded portion of the program going forward is more than TWENTY trillion. 

That's the point of the article.  To disabuse the ignorant of the notion that simply "paying back" the IOU's isn't going to be more than a drop in the bucket.

 

Did you not even read the article? 


 And left alone - what would 3 trillion invested for 30-50 years be, Husker?  Or do you not understand the value of compounded interest? 



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:

I just want to point out that SS was not "unfunded". It was raided repeatedly. Had they left the money in the SS coffers, there would be plenty. The government needs to pay it back.


 WTF are you talking about???  This article refutes that notion.

The total they must pay back is less than 3 trillion. 

The unfunded portion of the program going forward is more than TWENTY trillion. 

That's the point of the article.  To disabuse the ignorant of the notion that simply "paying back" the IOU's isn't going to be more than a drop in the bucket.

 

Did you not even read the article? 


 And left alone - what would 3 trillion invested for 30-50 years be, Husker?  Or do you not understand the value of compounded interest? 


 The government does NOT "invest" social security.  They never have. What a ridiculous comment. 



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
To those who think a few minor
Permalink  
 


However, that could be one "tweak"--put that money back in the private sector and let it be invested and get rid of the government portion of it.

__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

*eyeroll*

__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

The information I presented is factually correct. Not sure what the eyeroll is for.

The unfunded liabilities of future retirement and medical programs are more than 20 trillion dollars. Yes, the government needs to pay back the IOU's--but that in and of itself won't come anywhere close to fixing the problem.

__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Your comment that the government doesn't invest anything was what the eyeroll is for. Simple interest would have compounded to a fortune over that period of time. And my point was that had it been left alone, even collecting only simple interest, the money would be there.

__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

And the government doesn't invest the money b/c they have SPENT it. If they had not spent it, it could have been earning interest.

__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
RE: To those who think a few minor "tweaks" will fix social security--here's a dose of reality.
Permalink  
 


Lawyerlady wrote:

Your comment that the government doesn't invest anything was what the eyeroll is for. Simple interest would have compounded to a fortune over that period of time. And my point was that had it been left alone, even collecting only simple interest, the money would be there.


The 2.8 trillion dollars owed INCLUDES interest.  

 

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44590



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
To those who think a few minor
Permalink  
 


Plus, where do you think the 2.8 trillion will come from? No matter how you slice it--it's tax money. Given the current deficits and national debt, it's not in the budget, and neither is the other 17 TRILLION they will need to fully fund the programs.

It's simply impossible. If they do nothing, benefits will be cut across the board to levels that can be funded.

__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 3029
Date:
Permalink  
 

With the way it's set up currently Social Security was going to collapse whether the fund had been borrowed from or not. Leaving the trust fund untouched would have made little if any difference.

All Ponzi schemes eventually fall apart, even the legal, government run and mandated ones.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
RE: To those who think a few minor "tweaks" will fix social security--here's a dose of reality.
Permalink  
 


WYSIWYG wrote:

With the way it's set up currently Social Security was going to collapse whether the fund had been borrowed from or not. Leaving the trust fund untouched would have made little if any difference.

All Ponzi schemes eventually fall apart, even the legal, government run and mandated ones.


 Paying it back will postpone the inevitable for some years, maybe a decade, but without serious reforms, benefits will be cut drastically At some point.



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard