Is Social Security in trouble?

Republicans are saying yes. Biden doesn't seem fussed about it.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bidens-2024-budget-include-plan-shore-social-securitys/story?id=97773441

Rs are saying yes because taxing people isn't an option.

That's why Bidens recent proposals taxing the uber wealthy, etc. Is the best way to own the conversation. Everytime an R brings up bad economic shit (Ss, debt, etc) Dark Brandon will point to this and say Kay, I got a fix. And now it's on them to protect billionaires tax bill instead of cutting Ss or the deficit.

Said it here before and I’ll say it again, we were closer to insolvency in 1980 when Reagan tasked Alan Greenspan to fund Social Security long term before it ran out of money in 1982. They found a was to fully find it for 50 years (through 2032).

Now, the difference between doing nothing and funding SS through the year 2107 is 1.7% additional SS tax.

The short answer is NO. And BTW...eliminating the cap on SS withholding (currently $160,200) buys something like 30 more years. But you know rich people don't like to be taxed.

BTW #2: even if nothing is done, that doesn't mean everybody gets zero. There are still new funds coming in every pay period. The payout would just be reduced to match incoming funds. That's projected to be more than %70 of what you would've gotten.

Never mind the US government's 31+ trillion debt that exists right now thanks to Reaganomics & tax cuts for the rich & corporate America. Lets focus on the decades away potential issues with currently debt free Social Security.

FYI...at the end of 2022, the SSA was sitting on $2.852 trillion. Most of it, of course, is "invested" in US govt. debt. See the vicious cycle there if the govt. defaults on its $31+ trillion debt? It's not just China that gets the shaft. Currently, %14 of the federal budget goes to servicing the debt.

More btw thoughts add to Motown & HM posts.

The actuaries in 1980 probably assumed that the income distribution would remain about the same as it was in 1980 and before, thus not taking into account that a higher percentage of the overall income would rise above the income cap, which means their numbers for sustainability were probably incorrect.  The correction for this is to raise the cap on income taxes so that the same percentage of overall national income is always the same, and to add a third tier to the insurance paid at a lower rate than tier two to reward those paying on their additional income so that people get something for their additional contributions.

The actuary numbers, and here it must be noted that the cross over year for the exhausting of the Trust Fund is the statistical mean of a Monte-Carlo simulation which has outcomes all the way from funds run out next year to funds never run out, the SSA (and CBO) relies on, have historically proven to be over-estimating the gap between the revenues and the expenses plus payouts.  (A further aside is that this can be seen in the yearly estimate reports from the SSA which have been constantly adjusted to lower gaps short term while maintaining the larger (fictious) gaps long term)  A guess is that the actuaries have an emotional bias to under-estimate, time-wise, when there will be no more money in the trust fund, which also, btw, hasn't started withdrawals from the principle, yet, (Earlier SSA estimates showed this would be happening by now) as the actuaries will be roasted over hot coals if they are wrong to the short time wise side but cheered if they are wrong to the long side, thus their estimates are likely going to show funds being exhausted sooner, rather than later.

btw - another tBIN thread on this topic

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/

So here is one of the ways that the SSA actuaries make assumptions which seem to be questionable.

In the chart below they are included higher mortality rates than they were estimating before covid for 2023 & 2024 and then assumed that there will be no more covid deaths, or so few they don't matter, beyond 2024.  Do they think there will be a magic cure?

Why is this important for SSA projections?

Because dead people don't pay taxes for those under age 62 or collect old age benefits, for those over 62.  Just one way their assumptions distort their projections.



Of course, by 2047 they are estimating longer life spans, growing by about 1.5% per year. This is a SWAG at best, but it seems like it could be optimistic. Since for the last few years the mortality rates have been increasing their SWAG's from the past were significantly wrong, there is little reason to think they have done a better job with the current ones, though they have seen the problem and there is a long discussion about it in the following link.

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2023/2023_Long-Range_Demographic_Assumptions.pdf

WASHINGTON (AP) — Most U.S. adults are opposed to proposals that would cut into Medicare or Social Security benefits, and a majority support raising taxes on the nation’s highest earners to keep Medicare running as is.

The new findings, revealed in a March poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, come as both safety net programs are poised to run out of enough cash to pay out full benefits within the next decade.

Few Americans would be OK with some ways politicians have suggested to shore up the programs: 79% say they oppose reducing the size of Social Security benefits and 67% are against raising monthly premiums for Medicare. About 65 million older and disabled people access government-sponsored health insurance through Medicare and rely on monthly payments from Social Security.

Instead, a majority — 58% — support the idea of increasing taxes on households making over $400,000 yearly to pay for Medicare, a plan proposed by President Joe Biden last month.

Ninety-year-old Marilyn Robinson disagrees with nearly everything the Democratic leader says, but she thinks his plan to increase taxes on wealthy Americans to pay for the health care program’s future makes sense.

https://apnews.com/article/social-security-medicare-cuts-ap-poll-biden-9e7395e8efeab68063d741beac6ef24b

Trapper Gus wrote:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Most U.S. adults are opposed to proposals that would cut into Medicare or Social Security benefits, and a majority support raising taxes on the nation’s highest earners to keep Medicare running as is.

The new findings, revealed in a March poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, come as both safety net programs are poised to run out of enough cash to pay out full benefits within the next decade.

Few Americans would be OK with some ways politicians have suggested to shore up the programs: 79% say they oppose reducing the size of Social Security benefits and 67% are against raising monthly premiums for Medicare. About 65 million older and disabled people access government-sponsored health insurance through Medicare and rely on monthly payments from Social Security.

Instead, a majority — 58% — support the idea of increasing taxes on households making over $400,000 yearly to pay for Medicare, a plan proposed by President Joe Biden last month.

Ninety-year-old Marilyn Robinson disagrees with nearly everything the Democratic leader says, but she thinks his plan to increase taxes on wealthy Americans to pay for the health care program’s future makes sense.

https://apnews.com/article/social-security-medicare-cuts-ap-poll-biden-9e7395e8efeab68063d741beac6ef24b

Within the next decade??? There is literally nothing to support that statement.

Heat Miser wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

https://apnews.com/article/social-security-medicare-cuts-ap-poll-biden-9e7395e8efeab68063d741beac6ef24b

Within the next decade??? There is literally nothing to support that statement.

Their statement is a stretch, for sure.

Social Security’s reserve funds will “run out,” but the majority of benefits will still be covered by taxpayers. And if Congress adjusts the structure of the program by 2035 through tax increases, benefit reductions or some other method, Social Security may be able to continue providing full benefits.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/social-security/will-social-security-run-out

Why are people confused about Social Security financing?

Maybe it is because the fucking MSM hasn't got a clue that Social Security is financed by a dedicated tax and Trust Fund and that because of this it has nothing to do with the government debt at all.

The cost of programs like Social Security --- No! No! No! and Medicare continue to drive up the debt, as do factors beyond a president’s control, like COVID-19 or the recession inherited by Obama.

FWIW Social Security owns over 2 Trillion dollars of the national debt, meaning the US Treasury owns that money to Social Security in the form of coupon bonds.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-national-debt-donald-trump-barack-obama-ee3e613646fe500edf803e57959c776e

Sorry if this was posted in a different thread since the story broke yesterday.

House GOP releases budget that would 'destroy Social Security as we know it'

The proposal outlined by the 175-member Republican Study Committee (RSC), led by Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), would gradually raise Social Security's full retirement age—the age at which people are eligible for full Social Security benefits—to 69, up from the current level of 67 for those born in 1960 or later.

Vote them all out.

Floyd Robertson wrote:Sorry if this was posted in a different thread since the story broke yesterday.

House GOP releases budget that would 'destroy Social Security as we know it'

The proposal outlined by the 175-member Republican Study Committee (RSC), led by Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), would gradually raise Social Security's full retirement age—the age at which people are eligible for full Social Security benefits—to 69, up from the current level of 67 for those born in 1960 or later.

Vote them all out.

This should be bellowed from the mountaintops... we shouldn't be able to take a leak without our phones and TVs and every other form of invasive media we have screaming this at us... but will we? nope. Will we even see it on a ad during the next round of campaigns? nope. Not one little old lady who votes R cause their husband told them to in 1972 will ever hear about this.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:Sorry if this was posted in a different thread since the story broke yesterday.

House GOP releases budget that would 'destroy Social Security as we know it'



Vote them all out.

This should be bellowed from the mountaintops... we shouldn't be able to take a leak without our phones and TVs and every other form of invasive media we have screaming this at us... but will we? nope. Will we even see it on a ad during the next round of campaigns? nope. Not one little old lady who votes R cause their husband told them to in 1972 will ever hear about this.

Oh, you know darn well the Dem PACs will be showing pictures of little old ladies in wheelchairs, wrapped up in the shawls, with the tag line "Republicans want to KILL your grandma."

People will hear about it. Over and over and over again...