Social Security payout to exceed pay-in this year

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Social Security payout to exceed pay-in this year
Threshold was not expected to cross until at least 2016

The bursting of the real estate bubble and the ensuing recession have hammered jobs, home prices and now Social Security.

This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36028908/ns/business-the_new_york_times/

barack obama: yes we did!
 
When the level of the trust fund gets to zero, you have to cut benefits,” Alan Greenspan, architect of the plan to rescue the Social Security program the last time it got into trouble, in the early 1980s, said on Wednesday.

That episode was more dire because the fund could have fallen to zero in a matter of months. But partly because of steps taken in those years, and partly because of many years of robust economic growth, the latest projections show the program will not exhaust its funds until about 2037.
 
Yurt said:
When the level of the trust fund gets to zero, you have to cut benefits,” Alan Greenspan, architect of the plan to rescue the Social Security program the last time it got into trouble, in the early 1980s, said on Wednesday.

That episode was more dire because the fund could have fallen to zero in a matter of months. But partly because of steps taken in those years, and partly because of many years of robust economic growth, the latest projections show the program will not exhaust its funds until about 2037.
Click to expand...

The only thing in the Trust Fund is IOU's.
 
Sure - this is Obama's fault. You have a keen understanding of economics.

What a hater.

As for SS, the only answer is privatization. It will have to happen sooner or later; may as well be sooner.
 
Onceler said:
Sure - this is Obama's fault. You have a keen understanding of economics.

What a hater.

As for SS, the only answer is privatization. It will have to happen sooner or later; may as well be sooner.
Click to expand...

If they aren't going to do that they at least need to push the age back from 65 when people start receiving benefits but old people as a whole vote the most so I can't imagine the hookers, I mean politicians, wanting to risk angering them.
 
cawacko said:
If they aren't going to do that they at least need to push the age back from 65 when people start receiving benefits but old people as a whole vote the most so I can't imagine the hookers, I mean politicians, wanting to risk angering them.
Click to expand...

Die you gravey sucking pig
 
Onceler said:
Sure - this is Obama's fault. You have a keen understanding of economics.

What a hater.

As for SS, the only answer is privatization. It will have to happen sooner or later; may as well be sooner.
Click to expand...

who said it was obama's fault alone? or are you just doing your troll thing?
 
Onceler said:
Sure - this is Obama's fault. You have a keen understanding of economics.

What a hater.

As for SS, the only answer is privatization. It will have to happen sooner or later; may as well be sooner.
Click to expand...
Obama bought the economy with the stimulus package, previously it was owned by Bush, who bought it with a mortgage program called TARP, however most of that is paid back...

;)

And yes, privatization is the answer, we agree on that.
 
we should means test and then there would be plenty of money. Remember this is an insurance. It was supposed to insure that people that worked jobs with no retirement had something when they got old.
 
Socrtease said:
we should means test and then there would be plenty of money. Remember this is an insurance. It was supposed to insure that people that worked jobs with no retirement had something when they got old.
Click to expand...

die, we will never allow that. AARP:good4u:
 
Topspin said:
die, we will never allow that. AARP:good4u:
Click to expand...
LOL.

However, if such testing is used there should be a way out of forcing us to purchase the insurance. If you, for instance, can prove that you have enough savings to improve on the insurance payout then you should be able to stop buying in.
 
Socrtease said:
we should means test and then there would be plenty of money. Remember this is an insurance. It was supposed to insure that people that worked jobs with no retirement had something when they got old.
Click to expand...

It was also meant to cover those who couldn't work for the last couple of years of their lives. It was not designed to be a 20+ year payout. When it was designed the life expectancy was 66 years of age. People were expected to work until at least 65.

That said, the means test may be a path we have to take to help SS survive.

Personally, I think we should end the ponzie scheme and privatize the accounts. You pay in to an account set up for you and that is what you have at retirement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top