Social Security is Fine...

by **Trapper Gus** 2014-05-15, 19:29

Just because this board doesn't have this topic yet... cat

by **Trapper Gus** 2021-12-08, 19:30

It is still fine and the Progressives in Congress are proposing bills that will make it finer yet.

by **Trapper Gus** 2021-12-22, 08:08

Life expectancy for the U.S. population in 2020 was 77 years, a decrease of 1.8 years from 2019.

Death rates increased for each age group 15 years and older in 2020, according to the CDC's final 2020 death data released Wednesday.

https://www.axios.com/cdc-life-expectancy-deaths-covid-eed370c5-ab33-47f9-a5c5-aa42dfbe31cc.html

by AvgMSUJoe 2021-12-22, 12:51

Huh... Huzzah Covid I guess... killing of idiots to give me a more secure retirement.

Thanks non-Vaxers!

by **Trapper Gus** 2021-12-22, 18:52

AvgMSUJoe wrote:Huh... Huzzah Covid I guess... killing of idiots to give me a more secure retirement.

Thanks non-Vaxers!

In general, the Social Security Administration and their actuaries have been overestimating the life span of those over 65 for years. However, this covid brings this point home nicely.

by spartanwill 2022-01-13, 17:46

Trapper Gus wrote:
AvgMSUJoe wrote:Huh... Huzzah Covid I guess... killing of idiots to give me a more secure retirement.

Thanks non-Vaxers!

In general, the Social Security Administration and their actuaries have been overestimating the life span of those over 65 for years. However, this covid brings this point home nicely.

Low Blow Joe is doing his part to kill off seniors by not earmarking any money for treatment that's for sure.

Also, you are truly a one trick pony. There are several other factors besides life expectancy that contribute to the solvency of social security. One being the ratio of workers contributing per retirees and the decline in real income and low income growth. You should also mention that you are basing your theory on your own analysis vs thousands of professional actuaries at the SSA.

by PennSpartan 2022-01-13, 18:18

spartanwill wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

In general, the Social Security Administration and their actuaries have been overestimating the life span of those over 65 for years. However, this covid brings this point home nicely.

Low Blow Joe is doing his part to kill off seniors by not earmarking any money for treatment that's for sure.

Guess you never heard of the American Rescue Plan Act.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-01-13, 18:38

spartanwill wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

In general, the Social Security Administration and their actuaries have been overestimating the life span of those over 65 for years. However, this covid brings this point home nicely.

Low Blow Joe is doing his part to kill off seniors by not earmarking any money for treatment that's for sure.

Also, you are truly a one trick pony. There are several other factors besides life expectancy that contribute to the solvency of social security. One being the ratio of workers contributing per retirees and the decline in real income and low income growth. You should also mention that you are basing your theory on your own analysis vs thousands of professional actuaries at the SSA.

Having been watching this for almost 20 years, reading the SSA report every year, where they say every year that "next year" is the year that Social Security will start using the trust fund money, just to see that every year they have to push that back by another year, I haven't been convinced those actuaries are doing anything but making excuses to frighten people about the financial state of social security. edit - to be fair to them, the headline number is the Average of their thousands of simulations, meaning that 50% of the simulations say it will run out sooner and 50% say it will take longer, the longest time those simulations predict is that it will never run out.

Yes, of course there are a number of other factors, the rate of GDP growth, the rate of wage growth, the interest rate on federal bonds, all come into it. The worker to retiree ratio isn't one of the issues so much now, it was 30 or 40 years ago when the number went from multiplies of 10 to 20 workers per retiree to under 4 worker per retiree. As a ratio of workers to retiree it hasn't changes all that much in 10 to 20 years or more, though, to be clear, it has been very, very slowly dropping.

That Social Security was projecting the average age of death of people who lived to be 65 to be in the mid to upper 80's by now in predictions around 2000, and it has stubbornly remained just under 80 has a larger direct effect on spending than any other single factor.

edit - that's your first post, you could have at least said "Hi" to the board before you started ...

by spartanwill 2022-01-14, 11:53

PennSpartan wrote:
spartanwill wrote:

Low Blow Joe is doing his part to kill off seniors by not earmarking any money for treatment that's for sure.

Guess you never heard of the American Rescue Plan Act.

From the WSJ:

That’s an especially good question given that the stated purpose of Democrats’ $1.9 trillion spending bill last March was Covid relief. Yet less than 1% of the spending was allocated for therapies. About as much money was given last year to New York’s financially ailing transit system as the Administration spent procuring Covid therapies. The result: A persistent treatment shortage and countless preventable deaths.

***
It was obvious even early in the pandemic that treatments were going to be critical to living with Covid, especially oral antivirals that patients can pick up at pharmacies soon after developing symptoms. Francis Collins, then the National Institutes of Health director, explained this on CBS’s “60 Minutes” in March. But therapies were a very low priority for the White House Covid team.

by spartanwill 2022-01-14, 11:59

PennSpartan wrote:
spartanwill wrote:

Low Blow Joe is doing his part to kill off seniors by not earmarking any money for treatment that's for sure.

Guess you never heard of the American Rescue Plan Act.

From the WSJ:

That’s an especially good question given that the stated purpose of Democrats’ $1.9 trillion spending bill last March was Covid relief. Yet less than 1% of the spending was allocated for therapies. About as much money was given last year to New York’s financially ailing transit system as the Administration spent procuring Covid therapies. The result: A persistent treatment shortage and countless preventable deaths.

***
It was obvious even early in the pandemic that treatments were going to be critical to living with Covid, especially oral antivirals that patients can pick up at pharmacies soon after developing symptoms. Francis Collins, then the National Institutes of Health director, explained this on CBS’s “60 Minutes” in March. But therapies were a very low priority for the White House Covid team.

spartanwill wrote:
PennSpartan wrote:
Guess you never heard of the American Rescue Plan Act.

From the WSJ:

That’s an especially good question given that the stated purpose of Democrats’ $1.9 trillion spending bill last March was Covid relief. Yet less than 1% of the spending was allocated for therapies. About as much money was given last year to New York’s financially ailing transit system as the Administration spent procuring Covid therapies. The result: A persistent treatment shortage and countless preventable deaths.

***
It was obvious even early in the pandemic that treatments were going to be critical to living with Covid, especially oral antivirals that patients can pick up at pharmacies soon after developing symptoms. Francis Collins, then the National Institutes of Health director, explained this on CBS’s “60 Minutes” in March. But therapies were a very low priority for the White House Covid team.

HI!

From the SSA Website

 In 1940, the life expectancy of a 65-year-old was almost 14 years; today it is just over 20
years.
 The number of Americans 65 and older will increase from about 57 million in 2021 to
about 76 million by 2035. 1
 There are currently 2.7 covered workers per each Social Security beneficiary. By 2035,
there will be 2.3 covered workers for each beneficiary

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-01-14, 12:37

spartanwill wrote:

HI!

From the SSA Website

 In 1940, the life expectancy of a 65-year-old was almost 14 years; today it is just over 20
years.
 The number of Americans 65 and older will increase from about 57 million in 2021 to
about 76 million by 2035. 1
 There are currently 2.7 covered workers per each Social Security beneficiary. By 2035,
there will be 2.3 covered workers for each beneficiary

Okay ...

These are the published by the SSA numbers

edit - just one point to be made which is "life expectancy" is an estimate of how long, average, that people will live. To know how long they actually did live a mortality average is needed.

by PennSpartan 2022-01-14, 12:40

spartanwill wrote:
PennSpartan wrote:
Guess you never heard of the American Rescue Plan Act.

From the WSJ:

That’s an especially good question given that the stated purpose of Democrats’ $1.9 trillion spending bill last March was Covid relief. Yet less than 1% of the spending was allocated for therapies. About as much money was given last year to New York’s financially ailing transit system as the Administration spent procuring Covid therapies. The result: A persistent treatment shortage and countless preventable deaths.

***
It was obvious even early in the pandemic that treatments were going to be critical to living with Covid, especially oral antivirals that patients can pick up at pharmacies soon after developing symptoms. Francis Collins, then the National Institutes of Health director, explained this on CBS’s “60 Minutes” in March. But therapies were a very low priority for the White House Covid team.
spartanwill wrote:

From the WSJ:

That’s an especially good question given that the stated purpose of Democrats’ $1.9 trillion spending bill last March was Covid relief. Yet less than 1% of the spending was allocated for therapies. About as much money was given last year to New York’s financially ailing transit system as the Administration spent procuring Covid therapies. The result: A persistent treatment shortage and countless preventable deaths.

***
It was obvious even early in the pandemic that treatments were going to be critical to living with Covid, especially oral antivirals that patients can pick up at pharmacies soon after developing symptoms. Francis Collins, then the National Institutes of Health director, explained this on CBS’s “60 Minutes” in March. But therapies were a very low priority for the White House Covid team.

HI!

From the SSA Website

 In 1940, the life expectancy of a 65-year-old was almost 14 years; today it is just over 20
years.
 The number of Americans 65 and older will increase from about 57 million in 2021 to
about 76 million by 2035. 1
 There are currently 2.7 covered workers per each Social Security beneficiary. By 2035,
there will be 2.3 covered workers for each beneficiary

American Rescue Plan Covid-19 funding:
The bill contains the following COVID-19 funding (including for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and contact tracing) and other healthcare-related funding:
$50 billion to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for vaccine distribution and assistance.[76] Additionally, FEMA will reimburse up to $9,000 for a funeral held for a COVID-19 victim.[96]
$47.8 billion on COVID-19 testing, mitigation, and transmission prevention, including diagnosis, tracing, and monitoring.[97]
$13.48 billion for Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare programs through September 30, 2023.[97]
$10 billion under the Defense Production Act for personal protective equipment and other medical gear, and for response to pathogens that could become future public health emergencies.[97]
$7.66 billion for workforce programs for state, local, and territorial public health departments and certain nonprofits, including funds to hire and train "case investigators, contact tracers, social support specialists, community health workers, public health nurses, disease intervention specialists, epidemiologists, program managers, laboratory personnel, informaticians, communication and policy experts, and any other positions as may be required to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19."[97]
$7.6 billion to community health centers and Federally Qualified Health Centers to combat COVID-19, including promotion, distribution, and administration of the COVID-19 vaccine; COVID-19 tracing and mitigation; COVID-19-related equipment; and COVID-19 outreach and education.[97]
$7.5 billion to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for COVID-19 vaccine distribution, administration, and tracking,[97] including preparation of community vaccination centers and mobile vaccine units and acceleration of vaccine deployment.[3][97] The bill funds 100,000 public health workers for vaccination outreach and contact tracing.[3]
$6.05 billion for "expenses related to research, development, manufacturing, production and purchase of vaccines".[97]
$5.4 billion to the Indian Health Services.[97]
$3.5 billion in block grants to states, evenly split between the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant program and the Substance Abuse Prevention Treatment Block Grant program.[97]
$1.75 billion for genomic sequencing, analytics, and disease surveillance.[97]
$1 billion to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for vaccine confidence programs to increase vaccination rates.[97]
Approximately $750 million on global health security to fight COVID-19 and other emerging infectious diseases.[97]
$500 million to the Food and Drug Administration to evaluate vaccine performance and facilitate vaccine oversight and manufacturing.[97]
$330 million for teaching health centers with graduate medical education programs.[97]
$500 million to the CDC for public health surveillance and analytics, including a modernization of the U.S. disease warning system to predict COVID-19 "hot spots" and emerging public health threats.[97]
$200 million for nursing loan repayment programs.[97]
$100 million for the Medical Reserve Corps.[97]
$100 million for a Behavioral Health Workforce Education and Training Program.[97]
$80 million for mental and behavioral health training.[97]

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-01-15, 10:18

However, deaths were 20-50% above average levels for most age groups.

https://usafacts.org/articles/preliminary-us-death-statistics-more-deaths-in-2020-than-2019-coronavirus-age-flu/?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=ND-StatsData&msclkid=4143acd4fb43124ddc0dcd361f38f954

Having gone through this back around 2008 it is hard to find mortality rates over time for the over 65 age group.

Life expectance, sure, all over the place. Actual death rates, not so much.

However, I did find this source, and I suggest looking at the first chart, which shows that before 2009 deaths were dropping verses population, but after 2009 deaths and population were tracking each other.

https://deadorkicking.com/death-statistics/us/per-year/

Something I was arguing would be happening back around 2008. The big gains in reducing death, better health care for old people (Medi-Care started 1965), less smoking (starting in the 1960's), and other medical advances, were all in place in 2008, so much less effect on lengthening lives anymore, yet the SSA actuaries were basing their numbers on the idea that death rates would keep falling.

Now, of course we have coivid, killing 1% of those over age 65, so I just read.

by spartanwill 2022-01-28, 11:18

Trapper Gus wrote:
AvgMSUJoe wrote:Huh... Huzzah Covid I guess... killing of idiots to give me a more secure retirement.

Thanks non-Vaxers!

In general, the Social Security Administration and their actuaries have been overestimating the life span of those over 65 for years. However, this covid brings this point home nicely.

Trapper. Apparently, the IRS actuaries didn't get your message on life expectancy...and its going to cost/delay the US gov't tax revenue. I'm a big fan of this new RMD plan.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rmds-may-soon-start-even-210210847.html

https://smartasset.com/retirement/new-rmd-tables

by **Motown Spartan** 2022-01-28, 11:49

The difference between where SS is today and funding it for the next 75 years is a 1.7% increase in the SS payroll tax which equates to .85% to the employer and .85% to the employee.

We were closer to SS insolvency when Reagan was first elected. In 1981 he tasked the Greenspan Commission with fixing SS which was lead by Alan Greenspan (how ironic). In 1982 the my came up with the plan that funded SS FULLY through 2032.

We got time.

by **GRR Spartan** 2022-01-28, 11:58

Spartanwill shows up with a right wing generated derogatory nickname.

Is Spartanwill Kid Rock?

If you are a broker or a retirement advisor you’re in for a windfall and be pushing for the GOP to play the bootstraps card because all those funds that get deducted will now be exposed to their commission /fees.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-01-28, 12:05

spartanwill wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

In general, the Social Security Administration and their actuaries have been overestimating the life span of those over 65 for years. However, this covid brings this point home nicely.

Trapper. Apparently, the IRS actuaries didn't get your message on life expectancy...and its going to cost/delay the US gov't tax revenue. I'm a big fan of this new RMD plan.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rmds-may-soon-start-even-210210847.html

https://smartasset.com/retirement/new-rmd-tables

I'm pretty sure that all these agencies use the same life expectancy tables. I believe the CDC does the calculations.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/life-expectancy.htm

I suggest you look at the charts of actual deaths that I provided above.

by spartanwill 2022-01-28, 13:33

GRR Spartan wrote:Spartanwill shows up with a right wing generated derogatory nickname.

Is Spartanwill Kid Rock?

If you are a broker or a retirement advisor you’re in for a windfall and be pushing for the GOP to play the bootstraps card because all those funds that get deducted will now be exposed to their commission /fees.

Interesting conspiracy theory but I would rather have the freedom to choose paying fees to advisors rather than taxes on forced distributions to the government. My name by the way was established in 2004 on the other site - which I simply carried over -- like you and others have. I'm flattered that this site decided to name it after me in the plural.

by spartanwill 2022-01-28, 13:41

Motown Spartan wrote:The difference between where SS is today and funding it for the next 75 years is a 1.7% increase in the SS payroll tax which equates to .85% to the employer and .85% to the employee.

We were closer to SS insolvency when Reagan was first elected. In 1981 he tasked the Greenspan Commission with fixing SS which was lead by Alan Greenspan (how ironic). In 1982 the my came up with the plan that funded SS FULLY through 2032.

We got time.

I don't disagree with you. Some of the fixes are still being implemented from the Reagan administration. For instance, the income limit subject to social security has been going up over the years. I believe it has been raised to 147k for 2022. I think you have to agree that the longer congress waits, the more severe the fixes. The problem is nobody wants to touch the issue. Political suicide.

by **GRR Spartan** 2022-01-28, 15:46

spartanwill wrote:
GRR Spartan wrote:Spartanwill shows up with a right wing generated derogatory nickname.

Is Spartanwill Kid Rock?

If you are a broker or a retirement advisor you’re in for a windfall and be pushing for the GOP to play the bootstraps card because all those funds that get deducted will now be exposed to their commission /fees.

Interesting conspiracy theory but I would rather have the freedom to choose paying fees to advisors rather than taxes on forced distributions to the government. My name by the way was established in 2004 on the other site - which I simply carried over -- like you and others have. I'm flattered that this site decided to name it after me in the plural.

More BS.

You think folks on Social Security are struggling now?

Not everyone is a smug, my broker or myself know how to beat the market and will consistently bet right to outperform Social Security that will always be there and prohibits early withdrawals until 62.

Look at the the folks who are unvaccinated and dying. They got their info from FoxNews, Facebook, Breitbart. All those also regularly also advertise why “Now is the best time to invest in gold” for the last 2 decades.

You realize how many of the same suckers who aren’t vaccinated and some that are will going to get ripped off by the deluge of well targeted ads for brokers to invest for them.

Guys like you remind me of the folks respond to the cost of higher Ed saying you don’t need college while they have their degrees and often graduate degrees.

Just because you make $100K+ don’t assume the majority of Americans have the time or smarts to work with a broker and recognize when they’re getting screwed over.

In 2019 the average US income was $51K however the media was $35K. That means 50% of workers make less. Give them the “investment” opportunity or take the SS deduction and use it now, what do you think will happen.

SS keeps a lot of parents from living with their kids, extended family. You want to bring back poor farms?

by spartanwill 2022-01-28, 16:58

GRR Spartan wrote:
spartanwill wrote:

Interesting conspiracy theory but I would rather have the freedom to choose paying fees to advisors rather than taxes on forced distributions to the government. My name by the way was established in 2004 on the other site - which I simply carried over -- like you and others have. I'm flattered that this site decided to name it after me in the plural.

More BS.

You think folks on Social Security are struggling now?

Not everyone is a smug, my broker or myself know how to beat the market and will consistently bet right to outperform Social Security that will always be there and prohibits early withdrawals until 62.

Look at the the folks who are unvaccinated and dying. They got their info from FoxNews, Facebook, Breitbart. All those also regularly also advertise why “Now is the best time to invest in gold” for the last 2 decades.

You realize how many of the same suckers who aren’t vaccinated and some that are will going to get ripped off by the deluge of well targeted ads for brokers to invest for them.

Guys like you remind me of the folks respond to the cost of higher Ed saying you don’t need college while they have their degrees and often graduate degrees.

Just because you make $100K+ don’t assume the majority of Americans have the time or smarts to work with a broker and recognize when they’re getting screwed over.

In 2019 the average US income was $51K however the media was $35K. That means 50% of workers make less. Give them the “investment” opportunity or take the SS deduction and use it now, what do you think will happen.

SS keeps a lot of parents from living with their kids, extended family. You want to bring back poor farms?

I'm not sure where all this angst is coming from. I'm actually arguing that SS should be fixed now. The OP made a statement that SS is fine based on his own analysis against the professional actuaries. I don't believe he can make a blanket statement like that. I do happen to save outside of SS as it is supposed to be a supplement only. Nobody can beat the market.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-01-28, 17:25

spartanwill wrote:
GRR Spartan wrote:

More BS.

You think folks on Social Security are struggling now?

Not everyone is a smug, my broker or myself know how to beat the market and will consistently bet right to outperform Social Security that will always be there and prohibits early withdrawals until 62.

Look at the the folks who are unvaccinated and dying. They got their info from FoxNews, Facebook, Breitbart. All those also regularly also advertise why “Now is the best time to invest in gold” for the last 2 decades.

You realize how many of the same suckers who aren’t vaccinated and some that are will going to get ripped off by the deluge of well targeted ads for brokers to invest for them.

Guys like you remind me of the folks respond to the cost of higher Ed saying you don’t need college while they have their degrees and often graduate degrees.

Just because you make $100K+ don’t assume the majority of Americans have the time or smarts to work with a broker and recognize when they’re getting screwed over.

In 2019 the average US income was $51K however the media was $35K. That means 50% of workers make less. Give them the “investment” opportunity or take the SS deduction and use it now, what do you think will happen.

SS keeps a lot of parents from living with their kids, extended family. You want to bring back poor farms?

I'm not sure where all this angst is coming from. I'm actually arguing that SS should be fixed now. The OP made a statement that SS is fine based on his own analysis against the professional actuaries. I don't believe he can make a blanket statement like that. I do happen to save outside of SS as it is supposed to be a supplement only. Nobody can beat the market.

For the record I have no issue with "fixing" Social Security now as long as it increases the benefits and lowers the retirement age. Adding more money to the piggy bank has only minor effects on the economy, which would be the only concern, and if it means that people feel better about Social Security, have the Government sock more money into the trust fund is great.

by **Cameron** 2022-01-28, 18:46

spartanwill wrote:
GRR Spartan wrote:

More BS.

You think folks on Social Security are struggling now?

Not everyone is a smug, my broker or myself know how to beat the market and will consistently bet right to outperform Social Security that will always be there and prohibits early withdrawals until 62.

Look at the the folks who are unvaccinated and dying. They got their info from FoxNews, Facebook, Breitbart. All those also regularly also advertise why “Now is the best time to invest in gold” for the last 2 decades.

You realize how many of the same suckers who aren’t vaccinated and some that are will going to get ripped off by the deluge of well targeted ads for brokers to invest for them.

Guys like you remind me of the folks respond to the cost of higher Ed saying you don’t need college while they have their degrees and often graduate degrees.

Just because you make $100K+ don’t assume the majority of Americans have the time or smarts to work with a broker and recognize when they’re getting screwed over.

In 2019 the average US income was $51K however the media was $35K. That means 50% of workers make less. Give them the “investment” opportunity or take the SS deduction and use it now, what do you think will happen.

SS keeps a lot of parents from living with their kids, extended family. You want to bring back poor farms?

I'm not sure where all this angst is coming from. I'm actually arguing that SS should be fixed now. The OP made a statement that SS is fine based on his own analysis against the professional actuaries. I don't believe he can make a blanket statement like that. I do happen to save outside of SS as it is supposed to be a supplement only. Nobody can beat the market.

The investment geniuses in Congress can...

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-01-28, 18:49

spartanwill wrote:

I'm not sure where all this angst is coming from. I'm actually arguing that SS should be fixed now. The OP made a statement that SS is fine based on his own analysis against the professional actuaries. I don't believe he can make a blanket statement like that. I do happen to save outside of SS as it is supposed to be a supplement only. Nobody can beat the market.

So just a minor riff on this topic for my own pleasure.

As a design and development engineer for massed produced products, automotive electronics, my background is to never trust the experts blindly. Measure the data and if it agrees with the experts then some level of confidence in the expert analysis can be established. Funny thing about the statement I just typed. In my professional life I am both the expert, using the analytic tools to develop the expert position, and the skeptic, using measurements and tests to verify that expert position verses what is happening in the "real world".

So, when people cite the actuaries who the SSA relies on to calculate all the various ins and outs of the performance of the Social Security systems and predicted results, I get it. Absolutely, within the bounds and assumptions the actuaries set for themselves they are providing the expert position as to the expected outcomes for Social Serurity operations.

However, are they measuring their past predictions verses the actual results? This is the basic feedback loop of analytic modeling. I have yet to find any evidence they are doing this.

When I first became interested, I read a bunch of articles and papers by actuaries' both working for SSA and independent of SSA. They had many articles and papers talking about their models, but I have never found one paper or article which talks about verifying their models based on past predictions.

Thus, I began, on what was the simplest parameter they use, life expectancy, to see if I could find data to use to test their past predictions of life expectancy verses actual lives lived. That I found it difficult to do was not a surprise. What was a surprise is how deeply hidden the actual deaths in the United States are, not necessarily intentionally hidden, but hidden all the same.

I also spent some time understanding the events which changed the actual lives lived. Events such as clearer air, better health care and people taking better care of themselves and was able to see the effect of these events on the life expectancy tables, and how the actuaries were guessing that there would be additional events which would increase life expectancy in the future. I have yet to see one actuary who included a negative event, such as covid, within their models.

Thus, I became highly skeptical of the models they were using verses the real world.

While I was unable to find detailed real lives lived, aka mortality tables, for the past, I was able to find life expectancy tables starting in about 1900, by age group in 10-year intervals. Thus, I could look at the life expectancy of say people born in 1900 and calculate how their life expectancy changed over time. What this method showed was that there were events which changed the life expectancy of someone born in 1900 over their lifetime. This could be done for any population which was born at the average life expectancy and who had lived those years.

I found events, such as Social Security, Medicare, antibiotics clearly showing up as improvements. Examining the life expectancy tables beyond the time we have already lived I saw that the actuaries were assuming additional major life lived improvements, with, as far as I could tell, no logic to support these improvements. Social Security, Medicare and antibiotics, are low hanging fruit and one-time events. Events like those are unlikely to occur again, and thus the actuaries assumption that they will, which is much of what drives their predicting longer life expectancy, is questionable.

Recently actual lives lived lifetimes have been dropping, something completely not predicted by the actuaries in their life expectancy tables.

Therefore, what they are predicting with their models verses what is happening do not agree. The models are too optimistic. In Engineering when the models don't match the measurements, we go back to understand what is incorrect with the models. As of yet I haven't observed the SSA actuaries performing this basic step.

And finally, that is why I continue to say the SSA is just fine, a bit hyperbolic I know, but the predictions being given do not seem to be taking conditions in reality verses the models they are using into account, and so far, my back of the envelope analysis of the situation has been more in line with what has been happening than theirs has been.

You are welcome to your opinion that they are "the experts" and I am all wet. However, in a field where I am "the expert" in I can say with no question that an "expert" who ignores the real-world data is not an "expert" at all, but instead is a very educated fool.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-01-28, 18:50

Cameron wrote:
spartanwill wrote:

I'm not sure where all this angst is coming from. I'm actually arguing that SS should be fixed now. The OP made a statement that SS is fine based on his own analysis against the professional actuaries. I don't believe he can make a blanket statement like that. I do happen to save outside of SS as it is supposed to be a supplement only. Nobody can beat the market.

The investment geniuses in Congress can...

I think that is called putting your thumb on the scales...

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-04-08, 09:11

The average U.S. life expectancy has fallen by more than two years in 2020 and 2021, according to a new study, not yet peer-reviewed.

By the numbers:

There was a historically high drop in estimated life expectancy in 2020, from about 78.9 years in 2019 to 77 years in 2020, a fall of 1.9 years, the study led by the University of Colorado Boulder found.

Life expectancy dropped by another 0.4 of a year in 2021, they found, leading to a net loss of 2.26 years over the two-year period.

In comparison, a collection of 19 peer countries averaged a 0.4-year decrease in life expectancy between 2019 and 2020 and a 0.28-year increase between 2020 and 2021, with a net loss of 0.3 years over the two-year period.

https://www.axios.com/us-life-expectancy-drops-again-e20de564-2f70-4649-88a5-eafc2bb72ecf.html

This is a huge number regarding how much Social Security will be paying out. The average years dropping from about 14 years to 11.75 years or in percentage about 16%

by spartanwill 2022-04-08, 09:26

Trapper Gus wrote:
The average U.S. life expectancy has fallen by more than two years in 2020 and 2021, according to a new study, not yet peer-reviewed.

By the numbers:

There was a historically high drop in estimated life expectancy in 2020, from about 78.9 years in 2019 to 77 years in 2020, a fall of 1.9 years, the study led by the University of Colorado Boulder found.

Life expectancy dropped by another 0.4 of a year in 2021, they found, leading to a net loss of 2.26 years over the two-year period.

In comparison, a collection of 19 peer countries averaged a 0.4-year decrease in life expectancy between 2019 and 2020 and a 0.28-year increase between 2020 and 2021, with a net loss of 0.3 years over the two-year period.

https://www.axios.com/us-life-expectancy-drops-again-e20de564-2f70-4649-88a5-eafc2bb72ecf.html

This is a huge number regarding how much Social Security will be paying out. The average years dropping from about 14 years to 11.75 years or in percentage about 16%

Three cheers for people dying younger. Is this due to Obamacare? Was that why Obama had a lovefest at the White House this week? I wonder how much better the SSA's financial condition would be if Putin presses the magic button. Or maybe if Hunter Biden just paid his taxes instead of paying 10% of his bribes to the "Big Guy."

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2022-04-08, 09:27

I'm retiring in 8 years.. it better be fine.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-04-08, 09:34

spartanwill wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

https://www.axios.com/us-life-expectancy-drops-again-e20de564-2f70-4649-88a5-eafc2bb72ecf.html

This is a huge number regarding how much Social Security will be paying out. The average years dropping from about 14 years to 11.75 years or in percentage about 16%

Three cheers for people dying younger. Is this due to Obamacare? Was that why Obama had a lovefest at the White House this week? I wonder how much better the SSA's financial condition would be if Putin presses the magic button. Or maybe if Hunter Biden just paid his taxes instead of paying 10% of his bribes to the "Big Guy."

I'm a bit disappointed with your response, as there are better ones and you know it.

To answer your point, pretty sure this is muchly due to covid and pre-existing conditions of the over 65 year people.

If Obamacare had been around all of their lives, or better yet MediCare for All, probably fewer would have died from covid.

Nothing to do with Obama or Putin, no matter how emotional you feel.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-04-08, 09:39

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I'm retiring in 8 years.. it better be fine.

Well, the SSA estimates that the Boomer Trust Fund will run out on an average simulation in 2034, if my memory is working. At which point the old age insurance will be paying between 70% to 80% of what it is currently scheduled to pay. So, for a few years at the fully scheduled amount, then if Congress does nothing it drops down. Most expect there will be a fix in Congress which will be very expensive as opposed to fixing it earlier would have been.

One person, me, thinks that the actuaries are using numbers that are way too conservative, and that the exhaustion of the Boomer Trust Fund is much further away in time, if ever. To be fair to thaos actuaries, their simulations also show that it is possible the Boomer trust Fund never runs out, just that is a low likelihood.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2022-04-08, 14:58

Trapper Gus wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:I'm retiring in 8 years.. it better be fine.

Well, the SSA estimates that the Boomer Trust Fund will run out on an average simulation in 2034, if my memory is working. At which point the old age insurance will be paying between 70% to 80% of what it is currently scheduled to pay. So, for a few years at the fully scheduled amount, then if Congress does nothing it drops down. Most expect there will be a fix in Congress which will be very expensive as opposed to fixing it earlier would have been.

One person, me, thinks that the actuaries are using numbers that are way too conservative, and that the exhaustion of the Boomer Trust Fund is much further away in time, if ever. To be fair to thaos actuaries, their simulations also show that it is possible the Boomer trust Fund never runs out, just that is a low likelihood.

thanks.. also have my pension.. I just want to be an active participant in socialism.

by **DWags** 2022-04-08, 16:10

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

Well, the SSA estimates that the Boomer Trust Fund will run out on an average simulation in 2034, if my memory is working. At which point the old age insurance will be paying between 70% to 80% of what it is currently scheduled to pay. So, for a few years at the fully scheduled amount, then if Congress does nothing it drops down. Most expect there will be a fix in Congress which will be very expensive as opposed to fixing it earlier would have been.

One person, me, thinks that the actuaries are using numbers that are way too conservative, and that the exhaustion of the Boomer Trust Fund is much further away in time, if ever. To be fair to thaos actuaries, their simulations also show that it is possible the Boomer trust Fund never runs out, just that is a low likelihood.
thanks.. also have my pension.. I just want to be an active participant in socialism.

Welcome to the 8% of michiganders Who have one. I’m looking forward to getting a ss check and a pension check each month. Now if anyone would just buy a pain in the ass business from me.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-06-03, 08:54

AP News wrote:The annual Social Security and Medicare trustees report released Thursday says Social Security’s trust fund will be unable to pay full benefits beginning in 2035, instead of last year’s estimate of 2034. The year before that it estimated an exhaustion date of 2035.

The projected depletion date for Medicare’s trust fund for inpatient hospital care moved back two years to 2028 from last year’s forecast of 2026.

AP News for Social Security

Social Security Workes PR

Social Security 2022 Report Summary

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-06-07, 19:41

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/column-social-security-trustees-say-the-u-s-is-rich-enough-to-expand-not-shrink-benefits/ar-AAYcdyu?bk=1&bk=1&ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0866cfa13e1c4581a0ba37b875df9a3e

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-08-31, 19:31

https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-pandemics-centers-for-disease-control-and-prevention-0807d52898e7b01b4cb9be8addc5c191

Life expectance at birth is now 76 years.

Posting this because for years on TOB I was involved in an argument about Social Security estimates being way too optimistic on how long people would live, which effects Social Secuity's ability to pay due to increasing old people populations.

While few would argue that falling life expectancy is a good thing, and I don't think it is, this is just to point out that it is falling.

edit - with COVID now being a permanent thing, which kills more old people than others, and other economic issues which unless we get a Democratic Party majority for 20 years are going to get worse, the likelihood of life expectancy going back up to what was projected around 2000 seems low.

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-01-19, 08:09

Looks like someone in MSM is noticing that the income cap has hurt the projected future of Social Security.

https://www.axios.com/2023/01/19/social-security-inequality

by **kingstonlake** 2023-10-12, 10:40

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/social-security-cola-increase-2024/

Despite two years of sizable adjustments — the COLA for 2022 was 5.9%, followed by this year's 8.7% — more seniors are falling into poverty, according to U.S. Census data. About 1 in 7 seniors were living in poverty last year, up from 1 in 10 in 2021, the agency found.

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-11-28, 07:34

Paul Krugman presents some basic facts about the condition of Social Security this morning.

- The first thing you should know about Social Security is that the actual numbers don’t justify the apocalyptic rhetoric one often hears ... the exhaustion of the system’s trust fund, currently projected to occur in roughly a decade, wouldn’t mean that benefits disappear.

- the system would need additional revenue to continue paying scheduled benefits in full

(Benefits drop to 80% of full benefits without the extra revenue - TG)

.... long-term projections from the Congressional Budget Office show Social Security outlays rising to 6.2 percent of gross domestic product in 2053 from 5.1 percent this year, not exactly an earth-shattering increase.

- Social Security does face a funding gap. How should it be closed?

- Anyone who says that the retirement age should rise in line with increasing life expectancy is being oblivious, perhaps willfully, to the grim inequality of modern America. Until Covid struck, average life expectancy at 65, the relevant number, was indeed rising. But these gains were concentrated among Americans with relatively high incomes. Less affluent Americans — those who depend most on Social Security — have seen little rise in life expectancy, and in some cases actual declines.

- How, then, should the Social Security gap be closed? The obvious answer — which happens to be favored by a majority of voters — is to raise more revenue.

(Surveys have shown that voters even favor raising their own taxes to close the gap - TG)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/27/opinion/nikki-haley-social-security.html[/quote]

by **Heat Miser** 2023-11-28, 09:30

Eliminate the cap on withholding, $168,600 for 2024. That's right...rich people get a nice little bump in their paycheck when they hit this magic number during the year.

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-11-29, 08:18

In related news...

https://michiganadvance.com/2023/11/28/u-s-senate-panel-advances-former-maryland-governors-nomination-to-lead-social-security/

Replacing another place where Trump was building the Deep State that he keeps bitching about.

Also, a reminder that the Republicans have been working for years to rip your social security insurance away from you.

https://hartmannreport.com/p/will-the-gop-launch-their-2023-catfood

edit - just going to put this here for referrence...

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-american-life-expectancy-trends-2023/

by Sponsored content