Social Security Shortfall
ksammut
Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭
American Numismatic Association Governor 2023 to 2025 - My posts reflect my own thoughts and are not those of the ANA.My Numismatics with Kenny Twitter Page
Instagram - numismatistkenny
My Numismatics with Kenny Blog Page Best viewed on a laptop or monitor.
ANA Life Member & Volunteer District Representative
2019 ANA Young Numismatist of the Year
Doing my best to introduce Young Numismatists and Young Adults into the hobby.
0
Comments
People who have decades until retirement understand demographics and probably don't think it's fair to be asked to support retirees at a 2:1 ratio compared to the historic 3:1 ratio with proportionately higher taxes.
If the banks weren't stealing trillions and if the government weren't so bloated and expensive, half the problem would evaporate.
I knew it would happen.
Which begs the question- who thought it was a good idea to cut SS witholding by 3% in 2011? I know this is part of the Bush tax cut extension compromise, and believe me I don't mind the extra $62 a paycheck (net of other tax changes for 2011) I get, but seriously, why?
Will I ever see it??? That is the $64,000 question or should I say 14 trillion $ question???
<< <i>I have paid my SS tax for 30+ years. Yes, I expect & look forward to my check!
Will I ever see it??? That is the $64,000 question or should I say 14 trillion $ question???
See. I have always figured, the politicians would never disassemble the SS program. It'd political death.
However, cutting it and freezing benefit increases.... that's something they can get away with.
I think everyone will see a check.
The question is: for how much?
I think the days of living modestly off social security are officially over.
Live with your parents? Heh. Your parents will live with you.
since there is no security in social security anymore, they should change the name to bingo checks.
I have been paying since I was 13. That is 35 years. It is the corrupt politicians that stole this money out of this trust fund of the American People and replaced it with worthless Treasury I.O.U.s. Its was not a Ponzi Scheme until the politicians stole from this Trust Fund.
Box of 20
<< <i>I have paid my SS tax for 30+ years. Yes, I expect & look forward to my check!
Will I ever see it??? That is the $64,000 question or should I say 14 trillion $ question???
Fred, Las Vegas, NV
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
roadrunner
<< <i>and as a follow up,
since there is no security in social security anymore, they should change the name to BUNKO checks. >>
Fixed it fer ya.
<< <i>Just recently filed and expect to get my first check/direct deposit in February. Had I waited until 66, I would have given up about $65K in benefits which would have taken me about 11 years to recover at the higher rate. As one guy who left a couple months before me said. Take it now while you can; in a few years it might not be there. >>
I got my first check last month. Wait until I'm 66? I'll take it while it is here.
Eliminate the cut off. Right now you get taxed only on the first $108,000 you make (my guess). Any
income after that is not taxed for SS. Now, the few years that I made in excess of the amount taxed
I got a great increase in my take home. But, you know what? I could have cared less if the gov't had
continued to tax me on the above the cut off point. So, want to fix SS. Just keep the tax on all income
and the problem goes away in about 8 years (my guess). It's the old CPA coming out in me!
bob
PS: I'm receiving SS as is my wife. Retired 15 months ago and would like to see it continue!!
<< <i>Simple fix.
Eliminate the cut off. Right now you get taxed only on the first $108,000 you make (my guess). Any
income after that is not taxed for SS. Now, the few years that I made in excess of the amount taxed
I got a great increase in my take home. But, you know what? I could have cared less if the gov't had
continued to tax me on the above the cut off point. So, want to fix SS. Just keep the tax on all income
and the problem goes away in about 8 years (my guess). It's the old CPA coming out in me!
bob
PS: I'm receiving SS as is my wife. Retired 15 months ago and would like to see it continue!! >>
That's a great solution, from the perspective of a retiree, lol. From everyone else's perspective, the entire system is a ripoff.
My previous job of 19 yrs earned a modest pension starting at age 65. At the time that was 10 yrs in the future. I was surprised to find out that it was not indexed for inflation in any way. I decided to start getting it immediately at a much reduced rate because in <10-20 yrs it will either be negated in a takeover or bankruptcy, etc. or it will be conveniently inflated away to zero by the dollar.
roadrunner
pension obligations to teachers, firefighters, police, state militia, public
health and other government employees into a "compartment" and then declare
bankruptcy of only that unit.
Thats like the crooked business deals of the 1980s and 1990s where a company
"spun off" it's bad assets into a separate company and THAT company declared
Bankruptcy, leaving the original company's assets untouched.
pension obligations to teachers, firefighters, police, state militia, public
health and other government employees into a "compartment" and then declare
bankruptcy of only that unit.
Thats like the crooked business deals of the 1980s and 1990s where a company
"spun off" it's bad assets into a separate company and THAT company declared
Bankruptcy, leaving the original company's assets untouched.
Whether it's crooked or not crooked, Cornyn isn't the one who created the mess that those states & municipalities find themselves in. The real crooks are the administrators and politicians who created the unsustainable promises for cushy retirements. Yeah, at some point the public employees are going to be told that they are just too expensive.
If it were a private company who didn't have the money for pensions saved and allocated for pension payments, the retirees would have no retirement. I know this first-hand. A company that I worked for in the '80s went bust and made off with 5 year's worth of my retirement money. Why should public employees be any different?
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>Texas senator John Cornyn is in talks to find a way that states and municipalities can lump their
pension obligations to teachers, firefighters, police, state militia, public
health and other government employees into a "compartment" and then declare
bankruptcy of only that unit.
Thats like the crooked business deals of the 1980s and 1990s where a company
"spun off" it's bad assets into a separate company and THAT company declared
Bankruptcy, leaving the original company's assets untouched.
Whether it's crooked or not crooked, Cornyn isn't the one who created the mess that those states & municipalities find themselves in. The real crooks are the administrators and politicians who created the unsustainable promises for cushy retirements. Yeah, at some point the public employees are going to be told that they are just too expensive.
If it were a private company who didn't have the money for pensions saved and allocated for pension payments, the retirees would have no retirement. I know this first-hand. A company that I worked for in the '80s went bust and made off with 5 year's worth of my retirement money. Why should public employees be any different? >>
I was raised on principles = Right & Wrong.
I get feeling know one knows or cares WTF that even means anymore!
Dog eat dog meanest low down dog wins.
Rich get richer~ Poor get poorer! History repeats no matter how advanced we get
<< <i>In "The Forgotten Man", FDR stated that SS would not last beyond 1982. He knew it was a Ponzi scheme from the beginning. I would suspect the reasons for its continuance lies with Greenspan, 76 million BB's, and J6P entering the market in the mid-1970's when the 401k was adopted. The 401k was the first warning, IMO, that both the Co. and the Gov't would run out of funds securing one's retirement. Just too many promises during a time of great growth with a young population. Now we will follow Japan, not exactly of course, into decades of no growth until all the BB's are dead. By that time China will have us by the 'nads... >>
A bleak, but very possible future prediction.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
The easiest way to justify cutting Social Security benefits, is to reduce the taxation. Raise income taxes, reduce SS taxes. That way Mother Government can take more, but you expect less (if that's possible).
We need to re-frame the debate...
<< <i>This notion that we must save Social Security is revolting. What is more important- preserving a failed Ponzi-scheme entitlement program or ensuring the freedom to secure economic independence and prosperity?
We need to re-frame the debate... >>
I wonder what old and disabled people rioting would look like.
There wouldn't be a good tunout and the cops could handle them though.
I also think you are underestimating old-man strength.
Medicare and medicaid however are the true dark clouds of the storm.
Groucho Marx
<< <i>Medicare and medicaid however are the true dark clouds of the storm. >>
Health care (not just Medicare/Medicaid) has been in the headlines for the last couple years but there is one question I never see asked;
Why has the cost of health care been rising so much?
I really do not believe my doctor is getting overpaid. I suspect insurance companys may be though.
<< <i> Why has the cost of health care been rising so much?
>>
That's easy.
It's overpriced because no one as to pay for anything. People would go die elsewhere if the hospital
charged them $15 for an aspirin but it's just a joke when the insurance company or someone who pays
cash has to ante up. It's the same with malpractice insurance and everything else. Millions of lawyers
chase ambulances because that's where the money is. Doctors spend more and more time dealing with
and answering to insurance companies and less and less with patients.
After WWII doctors came to your house when you were sick. Think about that a little; the doctor is
healthy and the patient is sick. A hospital stay for three days was $80 and the doctor bill was $45. Peo-
ple were financially ruined by an unexpected trip to the hospital. But very few people had insurance.
If you want cheaper health care get rid of the deep pockets. Get rid of a system built for and by insur-
ance companies. This means people will have to pay more of their health care as the prices plummet.
Bring competition back. No one wants to go back to the old ways apparently so the only rad from here
to there is a one payer system. Anything else will probably just be another layer of red tape and less
efficiency.
No doctors, lawyers, or insurance salesmen were killed making this post. It is primarily composed of
recyclable electrons. Results may vary. I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV...
Get a waiver
<< <i>
<< <i>Medicare and medicaid however are the true dark clouds of the storm. >>
Health care (not just Medicare/Medicaid) has been in the headlines for the last couple years but there is one question I never see asked;
Why has the cost of health care been rising so much?
I really do not believe my doctor is getting overpaid. I suspect insurance companys may be though. >>
Part of the reason that health care has risen so much is that progress in science, technology and research have far outpaced society's commitment to discuss how this progress will be paid for and how best to use the data from this progress. High level scientific research is an extraordinarily expensive, long term, high risk venture that few would ever want to put their funds into in order to move the research forward. However, since the public wants and demands this progress and any possible benefits from this progress, it is up to the government (read: the taxpayer) to fund this research. Another component of the rising expense of health care is that the sometimes dramatic, other times marginal progress that is made in the fields of science, technology and medicine is exceptionally expensive to bring to the front line or clinic in a manner that will sufficiently shield or protect from lawsuit those that administer the progress to the public. Science, technology and medicine are fields of study and are also tools that can be used to the benefit of the public, but the public has never had a meaningful discussion as to how to best pay for these tools or how best to use the fields of study.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Most talk is about Medicare/Medicaid or about providing health coverage. It seems the cart is being put in front of the horse; Obama wants to provide coverage to those that do not have it. One reason many of those do not have it is because it's to expensive. If to many people not having coverage is a problem don't just say we're going to find a way to pay for it; that's ignoring what created the problem. If the cost of Medicare/Medicaid is to much burden do not just cut it. Why not look at the root of a problem for a solution?
A few years ago in Readers Digest there was an article about malpractice insurance. At the time in Nevada there was a shortage of doctors because the insurance was so expensive. This cost was so high from a couple problems. First the law suits; some should have gone to court, many should not have. For the ones that should have many went above and beond, they where settled for ridiculous amounts. Settlements need to be addressed fairly. The second issue was that 80% of the law suits were against 5% of the doctors. This tells me there is a handfull of doctors causing the majority of law suits. What I do not understand is why the other 95% of doctors are not screaming about the 5% responsible for their insurance to be so expensive; the AMA will not take a stand against their black sheep brothers.
IMHO issues such as these should be addressed first ((1st) priority)) to bring the cost down before O-care is even considered. Medicare/Medicaid would not require so much money. Put the horse in front of the cart.
"Frugal innovators in China and India, are making medical devices that are cheaper--sometimes by an order of magnitude--than their Western equivalents. Companies such as China's Mindray and India's TRS serve home markets that include vast numbers of people for whom every yuan or rupee counts. So these companies focus relentlessly on reducing costs. They create products that are stripped to their essentials: scanners that cost $10,000 rather than $100,000; portable electrocardiographs that cost $500 instead of $5,000.
These devices are not merely cheap knock-offs of Western designs. Often they are just as effective as the gold-plated kit used in the West, yet they are rarely found in rich world hospitals. Their absence explains the massive disparity in costs...."
In India as well, they are producing basic vanilla cheap cell phones, basic autos, etc. all for fractions of the costs of similar devices in the West, targeting an emerging market of people with limited but growing resources.
Unless US manufactures compete in this market, the market for "gold-plated" bells-and-whistles hardware are going to dry up fast, and they are left with only a US market of hospitals and providers who are immune from market forces because consumers are only remoted and insensible involved in the payment process.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
<< <i>
Part of the reason that health care has risen so much is that progress in science, technology and research have far outpaced society's commitment to discuss how this progress will be paid for and how best to use the data from this progress. High level scientific research is an extraordinarily expensive, long term, high risk venture that few would ever want to put their funds into in order to move the research forward. However, since the public wants and demands this progress and any possible benefits from this progress, it is up to the government (read: the taxpayer) to fund this research. Another component of the rising expense of health care is that the sometimes dramatic, other times marginal progress that is made in the fields of science, technology and medicine is exceptionally expensive to bring to the front line or clinic in a manner that will sufficiently shield or protect from lawsuit those that administer the progress to the public. Science, technology and medicine are fields of study and are also tools that can be used to the benefit of the public, but the public has never had a meaningful discussion as to how to best pay for these tools or how best to use the fields of study. >>
It is true that all this technology costs money and it especially costs a lot of
money to bring it to market but I don't believe that it by itself is a significant
cause of the 100 fold increase in health care costs in the last 60 years. The
simple fact is that technology often dramatically lowers the cost of care and
treatment rather than increasing it. We used to have 100's of hospitals fill-
ed with the chronically mad but there are non of these for long term care any
longer. They have been replaced by medications which are effective so long
as the patient remembers to take them. Those who forget often end up in
prisons or living on the street. Treatments for almost everything have been
dramatically streamlined and simplified. If it weren't for the longer lifetimes
made possible largely by these improvements the net cost of treatment pro-
bably would have actually decreased.
But it's these longer lifetimes that are part of the problem for higher costs; ef-
fort is wasted on end of life procedures and people are living so long that they
are far more likely to get diseases like alzheimers which are necessarily going
to be expensive.
And waste is the primary problem all around. Waste is simply encouraged by
the system in place. People don't pay for medical care because they either
have insurance or can't afford the cash price which is as much as eight or ten
times the price insurance companies pay. It's a system geared to treat those
with insurance and insurance is geared to drop coverage for those who get
sick. The poor don't pay at all but often can't get treatment at all until it's an
end of life problem then they cost as much as the insured. Hospitals keep peo-
ple alive in comas for decades if they have the insurance. Instead of money
flowing from patients to doctors it all goes to the insurance companies and
pigs slop at the trough. Everyone has his nose in it and many are denied sim-
ple highly effective treatment simply because they don't have money or ins-
urance.
The system is inefficient and wasteful. There's no way back that's politically
possible so the only real option is to just fix it. But this thing is the effective
equivalent of a severed jugular and there ain't no bandage or red tape that's
going to work for fixing it. There may be too many pigs to do anything more
than having the dogs reword what's on the barn.