What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Social Security to go bust by 2030 (1 Viewer)

matttyl

Footballguy
http://news.investors.com/politics/071514-708810-social-security-depleted-by-2030-cbo-says.htm

The $2.8 trillion Social Security Trust Fund is on track to be totally spent by 2030, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.

That's one year earlier than projected in 2013 and a decade earlier than the CBO estimated as recently as 2011.

The CBO delivered the warning in a gloomy long-term budget outlook that shows federal debt reaching 106% of GDP in 25 years, up from 74% now.

The rising debt would come despite revenue rising by 1.8 percent as share of GDP (from 17.6% to 19.4%)from 2014 to 2039 and despite spending other than health entitlements, Social Security and debt service shrinking by 2.5% of GDP (9.3% to 6.8%).

The challenge: Health care spending will rise by 3.1 percent of GDP (4.9% to 8%) and Social Security 1.4 points of GDP (4.9% to 6.3%), which will in turn push interest on the debt up to 4.7% of GDP from 1.3%.

Social Security's cliff, now just 16 years away, is one that Washington would be crazy to approach. At that point, incoming revenue would be enough to pay less than 75% of scheduled benefits for all beneficiaries, whether just reaching retirement or 100 years old.

Up until the point of exhaustion, the trust fund provides legal authority — though no resources — for the government to pay all benefits despite Social Security's burgeoning cash-flow deficit, which the CBO expects to reach $320 billion in 2024 alone.

The rapid deterioration in Social Security's finances has a number of contributing factors. The drawn-out recovery from the deep recession and the extended period of low interest rates have sapped revenue and lowered the interest that Treasury pays to the trust fund based on program surpluses from 1984 to 2009.

On top of that, the CBO expects the underinvestment and long-term unemployment associated with the less-than-stellar recovery to have a lasting impact, boosting the natural rate of unemployment.

In February, the CBO significantly reined in its economic optimism, slashing its projection of the total amount of wages and salaries over the 2015-2023 period by about $3.2 trillion, or 3.6%.

Among the factors that the budget scorekeeper cited was ObamaCare's work-diminishing effect, which the CBO now estimates to be three times as large as it supposed in 2010.

The CBO said that ObamaCare would reduce employment by 2 million full-time-equivalent workers in 2017, rising to 2.5 million in 2014.

This reduction would result in a decline in aggregate employee compensation averaging 1% from 2017 through 2024, or $1.05 trillion.

An IBD analysis pegged the revenue hit to Social Security from ObamaCare work disincentives at about $120 billion through 2024.

The reduced payroll-tax contributions into Social Security would, over time, result in modestly lower benefits for those who choose less work, but the cost savings from reduced benefits would offset only a portion of the lost revenue.

The nature of Affordable Care Act subsidies — they rise as income falls and decline as income rises — will make work "less attractive" by "creating an implicit tax on additional earnings," the CBO said.

The work disincentive will lead some people to choose to work less, in part because subsidized health care will enable them to get by with less work.

In addition, the CBO expects ObamaCare to depress wages for lower earners when employers, over time, pass along the cost of the law's employer-insurance mandate by holding back on wage increases. Lower wages, in turn, will provide another reason for some people to opt for less work, the CBO says.

While the CBO expects compensation to be lower "almost entirely" because people will choose to supply less work, the CBO also expects that some employers "will respond to the penalty by hiring fewer people at or just above the minimum wage."

Another important factor clouding Social Security's future: A greater share of earnings goes to those with income above the maximum subject to payroll taxes ($117,000 in 2014).

As a result, while rising longevity and the retirement of baby boomers will make benefits grow faster than the economy, Social Security's tax revenue is expected only to keep pace with economic growth.

 
I view it as simply a tax, not a potential future benefit. I'm 30, and came to grips long ago with the reality that it's a tax and I won't see a dime from this tax program.

I do feel genuinely bad for people with ~10-15 years on me who might have been budgeting/forecasting this money into their retirement portfolios, and could get the screws put to them.

 
Glad that I contribute over $7k to this program that will have absolutely no benefit to me... I simply view it as a 6.2% raise after I have paid the max each year.

 
Glad that I contribute over $7k to this program that will have absolutely no benefit to me... I simply view it as a 6.2% raise after I have paid the max each year.
That's my favorite week of the year, when my paycheck increases by 7% without me or my employer doing anything.

 
Not to mention it would be nice if Congress put back the 2 trillion they "borrowed" to play budget games.

 
They'll do something eventually (raise age for benefits, increase tax percentage, increase wage limit that tax applies to, etc.). Unfortunately, we will always need SS. A lot of people are just too irresponsible to save on their own for retirement.

 
Haven't we already spent the trust fund. We are now spending the IOU's. Nothing to worry about. Just keep spending. Runaway inflation and financial collaspes is something that never happens.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They'll do something eventually (raise age for benefits, increase tax percentage, increase wage limit that tax applies to, etc.). Unfortunately, we will always need SS. A lot of people are just too irresponsible to save on their own for retirement.
And that's my problem to solve (pay for)?

 
They'll do something eventually (raise age for benefits, increase tax percentage, increase wage limit that tax applies to, etc.). Unfortunately, we will always need SS. A lot of people are just too irresponsible to save on their own for retirement.
Yeah, well- especially when they are told there will be SS payments...

 
They'll do something eventually (raise age for benefits, increase tax percentage, increase wage limit that tax applies to, etc.). Unfortunately, we will always need SS. A lot of people are just too irresponsible to save on their own for retirement.
Yeah.

I have seem reports where small changes to the age of withdrawal, amount of withdrawal, increase in tax etc can extend the life by like 80 years. The problem is they have to make those changes and no one wants to do it because of the political ramifications so it keeps getting put off.

I don't see the program going away but it will need adjustments pretty soon.

 
They'll do something eventually (raise age for benefits, increase tax percentage, increase wage limit that tax applies to, etc.). Unfortunately, we will always need SS. A lot of people are just too irresponsible to save on their own for retirement.
Yeah.

I have seem reports where small changes to the age of withdrawal, amount of withdrawal, increase in tax etc can extend the life by like 80 years. The problem is they have to make those changes and no one wants to do it because of the political ramifications so it keeps getting put off.

I don't see the program going away but it will need adjustments pretty soon.
Yeah it's pretty small in the overall picture. And it should be mentioned we are talking predicting the economy of the future. Who saw the internet coming?

 
I view it as simply a tax, not a potential future benefit. I'm 30, and came to grips long ago with the reality that it's a tax and I won't see a dime from this tax program.

I do feel genuinely bad for people with ~10-15 years on me who might have been budgeting/forecasting this money into their retirement portfolios, and could get the screws put to them.
Don't worry. No one 10-15 years older than you has thought any differently.

 
They'll do something eventually (raise age for benefits, increase tax percentage, increase wage limit that tax applies to, etc.). Unfortunately, we will always need SS. A lot of people are just too irresponsible to save on their own for retirement.
Yeah.

I have seem reports where small changes to the age of withdrawal, amount of withdrawal, increase in tax etc can extend the life by like 80 years. The problem is they have to make those changes and no one wants to do it because of the political ramifications so it keeps getting put off.

I don't see the program going away but it will need adjustments pretty soon.
Yeah it's pretty small in the overall picture. And it should be mentioned we are talking predicting the economy of the future. Who saw the internet coming?
We can fix our entire budget with just small incremental changes, but the fear-mongers will accuse you of starving grandma, beating children, and gasp....being a Tea Partier if you even suggest minor cuts and/or spending freezes.

 
This is pretty easily fixed by rollling back the current eligibility dates but no one has the balls to take action on it. "Social Security reform" spooks older voters and if both sides of the aisle aren't unified in message, this is going to get FOXified to death and tip elections. Nothing will be done for another ten years IMO, but it will all work out in the end. It has to based on the loss of defined pension plans and Americans unwillingness to save.

 
I hate all you old people.

I have never once thought I would get any of it back. I looooooooooooove the retirement calculators that include it as future income.

 
They'll do something eventually (raise age for benefits, increase tax percentage, increase wage limit that tax applies to, etc.). Unfortunately, we will always need SS. A lot of people are just too irresponsible to save on their own for retirement.
Yeah.

I have seem reports where small changes to the age of withdrawal, amount of withdrawal, increase in tax etc can extend the life by like 80 years. The problem is they have to make those changes and no one wants to do it because of the political ramifications so it keeps getting put off.

I don't see the program going away but it will need adjustments pretty soon.
Yeah it's pretty small in the overall picture. And it should be mentioned we are talking predicting the economy of the future. Who saw the internet coming?
We can fix our entire budget with just small incremental changes, but the fear-mongers will accuse you of starving grandma, beating children, and gasp....being a Tea Partier if you even suggest minor cuts and/or spending freezes.
That's BS. The Tea Party has been the ones who have refused minor changes, insisting on major overhauls. They've prevented anything from happening.

 
They'll do something eventually (raise age for benefits, increase tax percentage, increase wage limit that tax applies to, etc.). Unfortunately, we will always need SS. A lot of people are just too irresponsible to save on their own for retirement.
Yeah.

I have seem reports where small changes to the age of withdrawal, amount of withdrawal, increase in tax etc can extend the life by like 80 years. The problem is they have to make those changes and no one wants to do it because of the political ramifications so it keeps getting put off.

I don't see the program going away but it will need adjustments pretty soon.
Yeah it's pretty small in the overall picture. And it should be mentioned we are talking predicting the economy of the future. Who saw the internet coming?
We can fix our entire budget with just small incremental changes, but the fear-mongers will accuse you of starving grandma, beating children, and gasp....being a Tea Partier if you even suggest minor cuts and/or spending freezes.
Why do the "small incremental changes" have to be at the expense of seniors and kids? Why not cut corporate loopholes and tax breaks for the wealthy?

 
They'll do something eventually (raise age for benefits, increase tax percentage, increase wage limit that tax applies to, etc.). Unfortunately, we will always need SS. A lot of people are just too irresponsible to save on their own for retirement.
Yeah.

I have seem reports where small changes to the age of withdrawal, amount of withdrawal, increase in tax etc can extend the life by like 80 years. The problem is they have to make those changes and no one wants to do it because of the political ramifications so it keeps getting put off.

I don't see the program going away but it will need adjustments pretty soon.
Yeah it's pretty small in the overall picture. And it should be mentioned we are talking predicting the economy of the future. Who saw the internet coming?
We can fix our entire budget with just small incremental changes, but the fear-mongers will accuse you of starving grandma, beating children, and gasp....being a Tea Partier if you even suggest minor cuts and/or spending freezes.
That's BS. The Tea Party has been the ones who have refused minor changes, insisting on major overhauls. They've prevented anything from happening.
Thank you for proving my point.

 
We can fix our entire budget with just small incremental changes, but the fear-mongers will accuse you of starving grandma, beating children, and gasp....being a Tea Partier if you even suggest minor cuts and/or spending freezes.
That's BS. The Tea Party has been the ones who have refused minor changes, insisting on major overhauls. They've prevented anything from happening.
Bat signal activated!

 
They'll do something eventually (raise age for benefits, increase tax percentage, increase wage limit that tax applies to, etc.). Unfortunately, we will always need SS. A lot of people are just too irresponsible to save on their own for retirement.
Yeah.

I have seem reports where small changes to the age of withdrawal, amount of withdrawal, increase in tax etc can extend the life by like 80 years. The problem is they have to make those changes and no one wants to do it because of the political ramifications so it keeps getting put off.

I don't see the program going away but it will need adjustments pretty soon.
Yeah it's pretty small in the overall picture. And it should be mentioned we are talking predicting the economy of the future. Who saw the internet coming?
We can fix our entire budget with just small incremental changes, but the fear-mongers will accuse you of starving grandma, beating children, and gasp....being a Tea Partier if you even suggest minor cuts and/or spending freezes.
Why do the "small incremental changes" have to be at the expense of seniors and kids? Why not cut corporate loopholes and tax breaks for the wealthy?
Because, for some reason, Conservatives and (by an extension) Republicans love to punch down from their weight class. Look at the way they've classified children at the border as an "invasion". There's not many people more helpless than Seniors and Third World orphans......but for some reason the Republican Party has no problem wailing on them.

 
Well, as long as members of congress get to enjoy their pensions for life, that's all that matters, yeah?

 
They'll do something eventually (raise age for benefits, increase tax percentage, increase wage limit that tax applies to, etc.). Unfortunately, we will always need SS. A lot of people are just too irresponsible to save on their own for retirement.
Yeah.

I have seem reports where small changes to the age of withdrawal, amount of withdrawal, increase in tax etc can extend the life by like 80 years. The problem is they have to make those changes and no one wants to do it because of the political ramifications so it keeps getting put off.

I don't see the program going away but it will need adjustments pretty soon.
Yeah it's pretty small in the overall picture. And it should be mentioned we are talking predicting the economy of the future. Who saw the internet coming?
We can fix our entire budget with just small incremental changes, but the fear-mongers will accuse you of starving grandma, beating children, and gasp....being a Tea Partier if you even suggest minor cuts and/or spending freezes.
Why do the "small incremental changes" have to be at the expense of seniors and kids? Why not cut corporate loopholes and tax breaks for the wealthy?
This is the typical mindset and rhetoric which is the biggest problem. Corporate taxes are only a small portion of our tax revenues and tweaking the corporate tax structure will not fix our problems. My changes are not geared at Children or Seniors, but all tax-payers and categories of people. That is the only place where the resources are big enough to make a difference. Everyone chipping in their share is the only way to fix our trainwreck.

 
This thread is a prime example of why we suck. I suggest simple incremental changes and people jump to rhetoric about elderly and children and tea party.

 
They'll do something eventually (raise age for benefits, increase tax percentage, increase wage limit that tax applies to, etc.). Unfortunately, we will always need SS. A lot of people are just too irresponsible to save on their own for retirement.
Yeah.I have seem reports where small changes to the age of withdrawal, amount of withdrawal, increase in tax etc can extend the life by like 80 years. The problem is they have to make those changes and no one wants to do it because of the political ramifications so it keeps getting put off.

I don't see the program going away but it will need adjustments pretty soon.
Yeah it's pretty small in the overall picture. And it should be mentioned we are talking predicting the economy of the future. Who saw the internet coming?
We can fix our entire budget with just small incremental changes, but the fear-mongers will accuse you of starving grandma, beating children, and gasp....being a Tea Partier if you even suggest minor cuts and/or spending freezes.
Why do the "small incremental changes" have to be at the expense of seniors and kids? Why not cut corporate loopholes and tax breaks for the wealthy?
Not nearly enough money there.

 
This thread is a prime example of why we suck. I suggest simple incremental changes and people jump to rhetoric about elderly and children and tea party.
Um, you're the one who brought all three of those topics up.....

 
Not to mention it would be nice if Congress put back the 2 trillion they "borrowed" to play budget games.
Yea, that never seems to come up in the conversations. If the fund were whole this conversation wouldn't come up every 4 years.

They'll do something eventually (raise age for benefits, increase tax percentage, increase wage limit that tax applies to, etc.). Unfortunately, we will always need SS. A lot of people are just too irresponsible to save on their own for retirement.
Said everyone...ever. Just keep getting closer to the date (incidentally the date got tired of waiting and is coming back to us now) and every administration punts it to the next because nobody wants to be the bad guy and tell Grandma Erma her benefits are being cut and you can't draw SS until you are 70.

I also love this from the OP:

Among the factors that the budget scorekeeper cited was ObamaCare's work-diminishing effect, which the CBO now estimates to be three times as large as it supposed in 2010.

"Work diminishing effect" will be a phrase I suspect we hear more of in the future.

 
They'll do something eventually (raise age for benefits, increase tax percentage, increase wage limit that tax applies to, etc.). Unfortunately, we will always need SS. A lot of people are just too irresponsible to save on their own for retirement.
Yeah.I have seem reports where small changes to the age of withdrawal, amount of withdrawal, increase in tax etc can extend the life by like 80 years. The problem is they have to make those changes and no one wants to do it because of the political ramifications so it keeps getting put off.

I don't see the program going away but it will need adjustments pretty soon.
Yeah it's pretty small in the overall picture. And it should be mentioned we are talking predicting the economy of the future. Who saw the internet coming?
You keep saying this- at what point does it become a priority to make these "small" changes?

As far as predicting the economy, the estimates are generally more skewed to the positive side (hence the recent revised estimates that it'll run out sooner than expected). Who saw the great depression coming?

 
Not to mention it would be nice if Congress put back the 2 trillion they "borrowed" to play budget games.
Yea, that never seems to come up in the conversations. If the fund were whole this conversation wouldn't come up every 4 years.
They'll do something eventually (raise age for benefits, increase tax percentage, increase wage limit that tax applies to, etc.). Unfortunately, we will always need SS. A lot of people are just too irresponsible to save on their own for retirement.
Said everyone...ever. Just keep getting closer to the date (incidentally the date got tired of waiting and is coming back to us now) and every administration punts it to the next because nobody wants to be the bad guy and tell Grandma Erma her benefits are being cut and you can't draw SS until you are 70.I also love this from the OP:

Among the factors that the budget scorekeeper cited was ObamaCare's work-diminishing effect, which the CBO now estimates to be three times as large as it supposed in 2010.

"Work diminishing effect" will be a phrase I suspect we hear more of in the future.
Our current unemployment rate is actually zero. We just have a non-ideal work diminishing effect.

 
I view it as simply a tax, not a potential future benefit. I'm 30, and came to grips long ago with the reality that it's a tax and I won't see a dime from this tax program.

I do feel genuinely bad for people with ~10-15 years on me who might have been budgeting/forecasting this money into their retirement portfolios, and could get the screws put to them.
You will see everything you deserve. This manure rises to the top every now and then to scare people. The gov't will just accumulate more debt to pay for this. They have an infinite amount of money they can borrow.

You people don't seem to understand that if this program doesn't pay out, the economy collapses like nothing most of us have ever seen.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread is a prime example of why we suck. I suggest simple incremental changes and people jump to rhetoric about elderly and children and tea party.
Um, you're the one who brought all three of those topics up.....
I brought them up as the tactics which are used to attack people. And that is exactly the tactics which were employed.
Yelling out, "CALLED IT!" has never been and will never be a logically valid defense to perfectly reasonable criticisms.

 
They'll do something eventually (raise age for benefits, increase tax percentage, increase wage limit that tax applies to, etc.). Unfortunately, we will always need SS. A lot of people are just too irresponsible to save on their own for retirement.
Yeah.I have seem reports where small changes to the age of withdrawal, amount of withdrawal, increase in tax etc can extend the life by like 80 years. The problem is they have to make those changes and no one wants to do it because of the political ramifications so it keeps getting put off.

I don't see the program going away but it will need adjustments pretty soon.
Yeah it's pretty small in the overall picture. And it should be mentioned we are talking predicting the economy of the future. Who saw the internet coming?
We can fix our entire budget with just small incremental changes, but the fear-mongers will accuse you of starving grandma, beating children, and gasp....being a Tea Partier if you even suggest minor cuts and/or spending freezes.
Why do the "small incremental changes" have to be at the expense of seniors and kids? Why not cut corporate loopholes and tax breaks for the wealthy?
Not nearly enough money there.
Even if that was the solution, our current president and his senate have the power to change the tax code, and simply have not.

 
problem is right now its political suicide to try and not fix it, Old people vote and want their Social security

Can I opt out on paying in right now please?

Thanks for nothing

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread is a prime example of why we suck. I suggest simple incremental changes and people jump to rhetoric about elderly and children and tea party.
Um, you're the one who brought all three of those topics up.....
I brought them up as the tactics which are used to attack people. And that is exactly the tactics which were employed.
Yelling out, "CALLED IT!" has never been and will never be a logically valid defense to perfectly reasonable criticisms.
You make no sense and are just side-tracking the discussion. Either we have the balls and start doing what needs to be done or we continue the useless rhetoric.

 
problem is right now its political suicide to try and not fix it, Old people vote and want their Social security

Can I opt out on paying in right now please?

Thanks for nothing
Reagan successful made critical SS reforms and did quite well. Perot ran on making all kinds of painful fixes to our budget and did quite well, until he exposed himself as a loon. It is more of a fear than reality. The vast majority of the people know we have budget problems and would back a strong leader with the courage to take it on.

 
Solutions:

1) Move to the Chile model.

or

2) First, start moving the retirement age. If you're 40 or older today, no change. In your 30s, add a year to the Social Security age. 20s, add another year. Younger than that, add one more year. Etc. People born today should have to wait until they're in their 70s before they see SS. Then, defer payments until needed. Someone retires with $5mil in the bank and can generate $60K in yearly income, their SS payment goes into a locked account until their savings and income drop to a lower level. Gov't collects the interest.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top