Medicare insolvent in 2017, Social Security depleted by 2037. GO TEAM!

RAMSTORIA

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (100%)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Social Security and Medicare are fading even faster under the weight of the recession, heading for insolvency years sooner than previously expected, the government warned Tuesday.

Medicare already is paying out more money than it receives, something that happened for the first time last year. And Social Security will be by 2016, a year sooner than had been projected, the trustees' annual report said.

Unless changes in Social Security are enacted, the retirement fund will be depleted in 2037, four years sooner than projected last year. The Medicare trust fund is in even worse shape. It is projected to become insolvent in 2017, two years earlier than expected.

More immediately, the trustees do not expect Social Security recipients to get cost-of-living increases in 2010 or 2011, something that hasn't happened since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975. The Social Security Administration will set next year's cost-of-living adjustment in October, based on inflation over the previous year.

"We should neither be casual nor hysterical about the revised insolvency dates," Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue said. "The Social Security system will weather this recession. However, the sooner we get on with the task of reforming the system, the easier it will be to make the tough choices."

The recession is hurting both funds, which are financed by payroll taxes. The U.S. has lost 5.7 million jobs since the recession began, meaning fewer payroll taxes are flowing into the funds. At the same time, aging baby boomers and rising health care costs are adding to expenditures.

The trust funds — which exist in paper form in a filing cabinet in Parkersburg, W.Va. — are bonds that are backed by the government's "full faith and credit" but not by any actual assets. That money has been spent over the years to fund other parts of government. To redeem the trust fund bonds, the government would have to borrow in public debt markets or raise taxes.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the head of the trustees group, said reducing health care costs is the key to saving Medicare.

"The most effective entitlement reform measure will be a major health reform that helps bring down the growth rate of national health care spending," Geithner said.

President Barack Obama and Congress have been working to overhaul the health care system with the goal of increasing coverage and lowering costs. But there is no consensus on how to pay for it.

"This report underscores the urgency of action on comprehensive health care reform this year," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. "As costs continue to rise, the Medicare program so important to so many American families is put in jeopardy."

Republicans agreed that health care reform is urgent, but they warned against creating another government-run system.

"When we can't afford the public health plan we have already, does it make sense to add more?" asked Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Finance Committee.

House Republican leader John Boehner said the trustees report "confirms what we already knew: Our nation cannot afford to continue this reckless borrowing and spending spree."

Geithner said the Obama administration plans to tackle Social Security once it health care is addressed. The options for fixing Social Security are simpler than for Medicare, though just as politically daunting: either raise revenues or cut benefits.

Workers fund Social Security by a paying 6.2 percent payroll tax on the first $106,800 of their earned income. Employers match the payment. Increasing revenues could be accomplished by increasing the tax rate or increasing the amount of earnings that are taxed.

Workers can currently retire with full benefits at age 66. The retirement age is scheduled to gradually rise to 67 for those born in 1960 or later. One option for cutting benefits would be to raise the retirement age even further.

"Social Security is really a math problem," said David Certner, director of legislative policy for the AARP. "Can you make sure that the money coming in is the same as the money going out?"

The trustees report projected that Social Security's annual surpluses would "fall sharply this year," then remain at a reduced level in 2010 and be lower in the following years than last year's projections. The report said that the Social Security annual surplus would be eliminated entirely in 2016, reflecting increased demands from the wave of 78 million baby boomers retiring.

That means Social Security will have to turn to its trust fund to make up the difference between Social Security taxes and the benefits being paid out beginning in 2016. After the fund is depleted in 2037, annual Social Security taxes collected would be enough to pay for three-fourths of current benefits through 2083.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5itEsngHqX8_Z7vFalDVcYKaRANpQD984VJH80

The previous election I thought the candidates largely ignored the problem with entitlement programs. The new admistration has carried that through the first several months, and I'm sure this will ruffle some feathers for a week or so. Obama will say something about his health care reform, and then it'll be quiet until the next annual report.

I know I'm not the only CAG out there that finds this more than concerning. So what are your thoughts? ideas?

I'm 27, so I'm not too keen on the current structures. I like privatizing, or semi-privatizing the programs. I also think we need to stop squandering the surplusses (replace with "good faith" IOUs) that social security gets and medicare used to get for starters. but the latter will only extend the life of the programs and not offer any long term solutions.
 
The IOUs are eerily similar to the FDIC not collecting premiums because it "didn't need them" in the good times. Hey, dumbasses, the trust fund was meant to be built up in the good times to meet the needs of the bad times! But of course government doesn't plan as well as anyone would like, which is why government shouldn't have control of these things in the first place. Just look in your paycheck (those of you on this board who actually get one) and see how much is taken out for Social Security and Medicare. Then weep (or get angry).
 
yay lets take the interest from social security and pay for wars and other stuff instead of reinvesting it, it will never catch up with us.
 
Remove the cap so that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet pay the same % of their income into medicare/SS as their secretaries, and the problem is solved overnight.
 
Social Security depleted by 2037. GO TEAM!
That means Social Security will have to turn to its trust fund to make up the difference between Social Security taxes and the benefits being paid out beginning in 2016. After the fund is depleted in 2037, annual Social Security taxes collected would be enough to pay for three-fourths of current benefits through 2083.

75% of benefits in 30 years != insolvent

The same boomers that refused to fund the program that would keep them out of the poor house in old age is now going to let those same people down. If our generation wants it, we'll do something about it. If not, we'll get less also.

What's the problem?
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Remove the cap so that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet pay the same % of their income into medicare/SS as their secretaries, and the problem is solved overnight.[/QUOTE]

itd help. a lot. but that would be a tough sell, and ultimately wouldnt change the bad practices already in place for the program (ie spending a suprlus and replacing them with paper). itd be easier to sell a raise in the cap to congress, maybe to 250k, 500k, or even 1 mil.


[quote name='speedracer']75% of benefits in 30 years != insolvent

The same boomers that refused to fund the program that would keep them out of the poor house in old age is now going to let those same people down. If our generation wants it, we'll do something about it. If not, we'll get less also.

What's the problem?[/QUOTE]

so how is only being able to pay 75% of the SSAs obligations not insolvent again? also, your solution is well take care of it hopefully?
 
First step to solving the problem: Getting that money out of the federal budget every year through a Constitutional Amendment

Second step: Stop spending that damn money
 
If you had the choice, how many of you would forfeit all Social Security benefits in exchange for not having to pay into it?
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']so how is only being able to pay 75% of the SSAs obligations not insolvent again? also, your solution is well take care of it hopefully?[/QUOTE]

1. Baby boomers refuse to adequately fund SS.
2. SS savings run out.
3. Baby boomers SS is funded ("only" partially) through the work of another generation.

What's the problem? Perhaps you and I have different opinions on what insolvent means. When I intentionally under invest in a perpetuity meant to pay me into old age and then it doesn't pay my required rate of return, that doesn't mean the perpetuity is insolvent. It means I'm an idiot.

Maybe I'm a bad person, but I'm looking forward to the worst generation eating dog food.

[quote name='rickonker']If you had the choice, how many of you would forfeit all Social Security benefits in exchange for not having to pay into it?[/QUOTE]
I would still pay in, only because I pity the disgusting boomers enough to allow them dog food instead of starving outright.
 
[quote name='rickonker']If you had the choice, how many of you would forfeit all Social Security benefits in exchange for not having to pay into it?[/QUOTE]
*raises hand
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']My parent's generation might eat dog food. Then again, they might vote for my generation to eat dog food.[/QUOTE]
And that'll be the great irony of the situation. These sons of bitches are going to vote themselves everything that isn't nailed down as soon as they can after pissing away the surplus of one of the most absurd wealth generation arcs in history on McMansions and Escalades.

God I hate boomers. Self-righteous assholes.
 
[quote name='speedracer']And that'll be the great irony of the situation. These sons of bitches are going to vote themselves everything that isn't nailed down as soon as they can after pissing away the surplus of one of the most absurd wealth generation arcs in history on McMansions and Escalades.

God I hate boomers. Self-righteous assholes.[/QUOTE]

People used to think nuclear holocaust is the worst possible future.

Give me peak oil and 10 billion selfish people.
 
Social security is just a big Ponzi scheme. Of course it's eventually going to collapse. I'm not banking on it being there when I retire.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Social security is just a big Ponzi scheme. Of course it's eventually going to collapse. I'm not banking on it being there when I retire.[/QUOTE]

You're going to let it die?

Your parents are going to raise your SS taxes to the point that you'll be splitting Ramen with your family until you are 70 and you're just going to let SS die when you can finally withdraw from it?
 
[quote name='rickonker']If you had the choice, how many of you would forfeit all Social Security benefits in exchange for not having to pay into it?[/QUOTE]
Right here.
 
[quote name='speedracer']What's the problem?[/QUOTE]

Are the actually using numbers assuming the recession is going to last forever?

If so that would be a big problem, from what I have read any changes would to keep SS solvent would be relatively minor.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You're going to let it die?

Your parents are going to raise your SS taxes to the point that you'll be splitting Ramen with your family until you are 70 and you're just going to let SS die when you can finally withdraw from it?[/QUOTE]

Well, if social security exists in any form by the time I retire (30+ years from now), I'll take whatever scraps the government will give me. I'm just not taking social security into account in my retirement planning.
 
I'd rather pay into social security, even if I may never need it. I like the idea of Social Security and evidently so does our majority and our government.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You're going to let it die?

Your parents are going to raise your SS taxes to the point that you'll be splitting Ramen with your family until you are 70 and you're just going to let SS die when you can finally withdraw from it?[/QUOTE]

it wont be around for me to collect it at this rate.

[quote name='pittpizza']

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."[/QUOTE]

is this what youre telling the retirees that keep the program from changing?
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I'd rather pay into social security, even if I may never need it. I like the idea of Social Security and evidently so does our majority and our government.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."[/QUOTE]

Some of us think rationally though, and realize that throwing our money into something that won't help us is g_d damn retarded.
 
[quote name='rickonker']If you had the choice, how many of you would forfeit all Social Security benefits in exchange for not having to pay into it?[/QUOTE]

I'd take that in a heartbeat. I'd even give up the substantial amount I've paid into it already to be free of it for the rest of my life. Medicare too.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']
is this what youre telling the retirees that keep the program from changing?[/QUOTE]


I try not to tell retirees anything, they're hard of hearing.

Liquid, believe it or not, there are some people out there who are willing to give money to their government even when they're not going to see any of that money spent on them personally.

It's not all about you Liquid, and what you're getting out of it! I think this is what JFK was getting at.

Are all taxes/government programs irrational? If I think my government ought to pave my roads, teach my kids, care for the nation's elderly, etc. does this make me irrational?

Why don't you tell me which ones are rational and which ones aren't. Surely if an opinion is different then yours, it is irrational. It has to be. That's reason for you!
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I'd rather pay into social security, even if I may never need it. I like the idea of Social Security and evidently so does our majority and our government.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."[/QUOTE]

What if, as is the case, Social Security is a bad deal for both the individual and the government? Why would keeping it around be something we "do" for our country? It would be far better to reform it or kill it (kill it preferably).
 
You assume it is the case. I bet the thousands (millions?) of people receiving benefits from it might disagree with you. Evidently our government and by proxy the people of this country do.

I see your point though, and if it were true that is a bad deal for the individual and the government, then I'd be all about reforming it or killing it.

I'll be the first to admit I don't have a lot of education dealing with high-finance and govt programs like SS. Do you have any proof that it is a bad deal for everyone? We know it's ailing but is it commonly accepted that our Nation would be better off without it? IF it were, wouldn't it have ended already? After all, Congress does represent their constituents...in theory anyway.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']You assume it is the case. I bet the thousands (millions?) of people receiving benefits from it might disagree with you. Evidently our government and by proxy the people of this country do.[/quote]

This is because people are ignorant. Social Security has an abysmal rate of return that is close to inflation. It does do somewhat better for low-income people, but even then they would be better off with other investments, even other safe investments. Try these links:

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/01/approximating-social-securitys-rate-of.html

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n1-4.html (check out the after-tax table versus the other investments table)

cda98-01cht2.gif


[quote name='pittpizza']I see your point though, and if it were true that is a bad deal for the individual and the government, then I'd be all about reforming it or killing it.[/quote]

See above and join the cause of those who are informed and correct. :D

[quote name='pittpizza']I'll be the first to admit I don't have a lot of education dealing with high-finance and govt programs like SS. Do you have any proof that it is a bad deal for everyone? We know it's ailing but is it commonly accepted that our Nation would be better off without it? IF it were, wouldn't it have ended already? After all, Congress does represent their constituents...in theory anyway.[/QUOTE]

See above again. Congress has coveted the money from the Social Security trust fund (they spend it every year and replace it with IOUs). Plus, it's very popular. It's easy to scare senior citizens about losing Social Security, taken as losing their earned retirement benefits, so no real reforms have happened since the 1980s. It's a political fire trap from which few have returned. In short, it doesn't matter how crappy the performance is, if people like it and will vote out politicians who mess with it, they aren't going to touch it with a 10' pole.
 
Good info elprincipe (and it has changed my opinion), however your last paragraph is telling. People do seem to like it the way it is. It is very popular. The end of SS is not just scary to seniors, but to everybody who may need it. You said it does do better for low income (what is this income level anyway, probably the majority right?) people.

Also even if there was a zero rate of return, just having the amount you saved given back to you later in life is a nice form of savings. I recognize that most financial planners would say that it is idiotic to just save money, without investing it. Ben Franklin would disagree: "A penny saved..."

Your premis seems to be that people COULD do better by investing that money, but guess what: COULD AND WOULD are two totally different things. People can still invest in private savings accounts and retirement funds. SS seems more of a buffer and a way to force the financially irresponsible, who are either unwilling or unable to secure their own financial futures, into saving for their future.

Still, a penny saved is a penny earned and isn't SS a form of government forced savings?
 
Rather than taking everyone's social security taxes and pooling into a fund which the government can raid as needed, make it more as an individual "forced" savings account for retirement which the government has no access (or at least it wold be political difficult to do so). Your SS taxes, matched by your employer as before, pay into your own personal SS account invested into U.S. treasuries which you have no access to until retirement age. On retirement you get 4% disbursements until death with the government pooling any excess money into a "shortfall" fund to cover those who may outlive their original accumulated savings.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Rather than taking everyone's social security taxes and pooling into a fund which the government can raid as needed, make it more as an individual "forced" savings account for retirement which the government has no access (or at least it wold be political difficult to do so). Your SS taxes, matched by your employer as before, pay into your own personal SS account invested into U.S. treasuries which you have no access to until retirement age. On retirement you get 4% disbursements until death with the government pooling any excess money into a "shortfall" fund to cover those who may outlive their original accumulated savings.[/QUOTE]

That's called a 401k, a 403b, or a 457. And what happens if you die before you reach the withdraw age requirement ? Who gets the money? And what happens to the money while it's in the account? How does it accrue interest? It can't if it just sits there, it has to DO something to gain in value and that means inherent risk is involved.

Let's stop pretending that a safety net can realistically be woven that will cover our asses in all circumstances. I'll vote for freedom in every case and let me handle my own money. None of this auspice of security by confiscation. If you're forced to contribute, it's confiscation even if the account has your name on it. If you can't withdraw it when you choose, it's not yours. Let's get past this 'mandatory' thingy in all cases and have a return to freedom, instead of the illusion of security.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']That's called a 401k, a 403b, or a 457. And what happens if you die before you reach the withdraw age requirement ? Who gets the money? And what happens to the money while it's in the account? How does it accrue interest? It can't if it just sits there, it has to DO something to gain in value and that means inherent risk is involved.

Let's stop pretending that a safety net can realistically be woven that will cover our asses in all circumstances. I'll vote for freedom in every case and let me handle my own money. None of this auspice of security by confiscation. If you're forced to contribute, it's confiscation even if the account has your name on it. If you can't withdraw it when you choose, it's not yours. Let's get past this 'mandatory' thingy in all cases and have a return to freedom, instead of the illusion of security.[/QUOTE]

What do you propose should be done for older people who (for whatever reason) have no money? Leave it up to charity?
 
Does anyone actually believe that paying any type of taxes is actually a form of "helping out their country" anymore?

Come on, we've all been around long enough to see how every tax with good intentions behind it soon becomes a requirement for the government to even run and doesn't even end up doing what it was suppose to - yet we somehow keep letting ourselves get duped.

I think JFK was referring to actual service, which is measurable, tangible, and has direct positive results. But any time the government tries to convince it's populace that forceful taking of more money from their paychecks is somehow service -- well you just fell for the ultimate ponzi scheme.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']That's called a 401k, a 403b, or a 457. And what happens if you die before you reach the withdraw age requirement ? Who gets the money? And what happens to the money while it's in the account? How does it accrue interest? It can't if it just sits there, it has to DO something to gain in value and that means inherent risk is involved.

Let's stop pretending that a safety net can realistically be woven that will cover our asses in all circumstances. I'll vote for freedom in every case and let me handle my own money. None of this auspice of security by confiscation. If you're forced to contribute, it's confiscation even if the account has your name on it. If you can't withdraw it when you choose, it's not yours. Let's get past this 'mandatory' thingy in all cases and have a return to freedom, instead of the illusion of security.[/QUOTE]

It's similar to a 401K/403b but it forces people to save for their retirement. If you die before you're eligible, the money goes into the shortfall fund. It's basically a government backed annuity.

I'm personally for doing away with entitlement programs altogether but realistically, that will never happen. This type of set up would at least be palatable to me and I think politically feasible.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Good info elprincipe (and it has changed my opinion), however your last paragraph is telling. People do seem to like it the way it is. It is very popular. The end of SS is not just scary to seniors, but to everybody who may need it. You said it does do better for low income (what is this income level anyway, probably the majority right?) people.

Also even if there was a zero rate of return, just having the amount you saved given back to you later in life is a nice form of savings. I recognize that most financial planners would say that it is idiotic to just save money, without investing it. Ben Franklin would disagree: "A penny saved..."

Your premis seems to be that people COULD do better by investing that money, but guess what: COULD AND WOULD are two totally different things. People can still invest in private savings accounts and retirement funds. SS seems more of a buffer and a way to force the financially irresponsible, who are either unwilling or unable to secure their own financial futures, into saving for their future.

Still, a penny saved is a penny earned and isn't SS a form of government forced savings?[/QUOTE]

Even if the government mandated you put money into CDs you would do better than you do with Social Security. I'm certainly not against saving; I don't spend all I earn by any stretch of the imagination. What I'm against is government-forced saving, and even worse, government-forced saving that gives you shitty returns.

Although there is another thing you should know about Social Security other than the retirement part - it also functions as a disability insurance program. If you were to be disabled at work when you're 30, Social Security would cover you. So in the interest of full disclosure we should also consider this fact when talking about it. I still think we would do better doing this another way, obviously.
 
The government goes to great lengths to discourage saving. What would be the point of combining that with some kind of forced savings plan?
 
Yeah, I could have done better with the money I pissed away into Social Security. In fact, I'm pretty sure sticking it in the bank and letting it sit is better than waiting until you're old and getting money paid out to you. Assuming it exists. And assuming you're still alive. And assuming that China hasn't sold us to Korea for slave labor. Holy crap, could that happen?
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']Assuming it exists. [/QUOTE]

it doesnt exist. medicare and social security are backed by monopoly money. when the government dips into the surpluss they just leave an IOU which we assume is backed by something.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']it doesnt exist. medicare and social security are backed by monopoly money. when the government dips into the surpluss they just leave an IOU which we assume is backed by something.[/QUOTE]

It exists ... in the form of higher taxes and inflation in the future.

futurama_bender.jpg
 
Pretty much. There isn't anyone in Washington with any idea of how to fix the problem, or the balls to stand up and give a good solution.
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']Yeah, I could have done better with the money I pissed away into Social Security. In fact, I'm pretty sure sticking it in the bank and letting it sit is better than waiting until you're old and getting money paid out to you. Assuming it exists. And assuming you're still alive. And assuming that China hasn't sold us to Korea for slave labor. Holy crap, could that happen?[/QUOTE]

Who knows? Right now the government is in the process of selling our children's future to the Chinese for money to give their banker, union and political buddies.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Who knows? Right now the government is in the process of selling our children's future to the Chinese for money to give their banker, union and political buddies.[/QUOTE]


Right now as in the last twenty years of Democratic and Republican government. Oh, I forgot, you conservatives think Dems are the only ones that run up huge deficits.

Wait a minute, I got it. Obama was secretly controlling the Republican White House for the last two terms. It makes perfect sense when you think like a conservative. Nothing is ever the fault of the Republican Party and there are a million excuses why conservatives got absolutely spanked in 08.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Right now as in the last twenty years of Democratic and Republican government. Oh, I forgot, you conservatives think Dems are the only ones that run up huge deficits.

Wait a minute, I got it. Obama was secretly controlling the Republican White House for the last two terms. It makes perfect sense when you think like a conservative. Nothing is ever the fault of the Republican Party and there are a million excuses why conservatives got absolutely spanked in 08.[/QUOTE]

I thought the Republican party lost because their women have tupperware titty.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Wait a minute, I got it. Obama was secretly controlling the Republican White House for the last two terms. It makes perfect sense when you think like a conservative. Nothing is ever the fault of the Republican Party and there are a million excuses why conservatives got absolutely spanked in 08.[/QUOTE]

You're doing it wrong - everything is Dubya's fault. Terrorists attacks, Global Warming, Hurricanes - it's all his fault.
 
Why is it that the same people who think we need to fix our fiscal programs to prepare for the future are the same folks, generally, who don't give a single flying fuck about our environmental future?

We MAY not have money in thirty years: fix the programs now before things get bad!
We MAY not have a planetary surface to live on in the future: but I don't believe you!
 
Because the Republican Party only believes in the all mighty dollar and the benefits free capitalism will have on our frozen wasteland in the future.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']FROZEN! HA! so you admit theres no global warming![/QUOTE]

That's because I think global warming will cause mass droughts which will lead to famines and global pandemics. The remaining people in power will use nuclear weapons to take out the last remaining crop producing peoples and result in a nuclear winter that will leave us with a frozen wasteland. So, yeah. Frozen wasteland.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Why is it that the same people who think we need to fix our fiscal programs to prepare for the future are the same folks, generally, who don't give a single flying fuck about our environmental future?

We MAY not have money in thirty years: fix the programs now before things get bad!
We MAY not have a planetary surface to live on in the future: but I don't believe you![/QUOTE]

I'm curious as to when you feel we may not have a planetary surface to live on? Unless you're talking about everyone using all their nuclear weapons at once.
 
bread's done
Back
Top