Most likely .gov will just increase the national debt as long as there is a .gov—after that, it won’t matter anymore.
I’ve been saying this for years.
For every 1 retiree 2.8 (Let’s call it 3) are required to support. When those 3 retire, 9 will need to support them. When those 9 retire, 27 workers will be needed to support them. When those 27 retire, 81 workers will be needed to support them.
Right now there are 61 million on SS. Multiply that x3. 183 million. Now when those 183 million retire, as you can see, soon there will not be enough people in the USA to support retirees. Then there will not be enough workers in the WORLD to support retirees.
And people wonder why the Libs want unrestricted immigration.
an idiot.
SS is not part of my retirement plans (3 years and counting). If it is there, great I will do more traveling or upgrade the travel I do.
Anyone under 60 who thinks SS will be there for your lifetime -- forget it. People under 50 who think it will be there AT ALL -- forget it.
Most people should have a big goose egg for SS in their retirement plans.
I'd bet that would get a reaction from Congress.
In other words, stick the knife in and then see which pig politicians squeal the loudest. That will reveal who has their fingers in our pie.
So let’s do a little math.
- Social Security started in 1935.
- You couldn’t collect until age 65, but the life expectancy at the time was age 60. As the article noted, most people didn’t collect, or collected for a short time. And, unlike a legitimate pension, if you die, the government keeps all the unexpended amount you paid in your entire life 00 not your beneficiary.
- When Social Security started, there were 159 workers supporting 1 retiree.
So where did all that money go that so many were paying into (159 to 1) along those who died without collecting much? Any responsible pension (read: legal) would be criminally prosecuted for administering such an absurd racket which fundamentally and structurally flawed.
You do not raise the retirement age and hoping everyone dies as you are stealing from those that were forced to pay into social security.
Our money is being stolen and the gov’t is the thief.
Look what you could have had.....
How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/05/12/how-three-texas-counties-created-personal-social-security-accounts-and-prospered/#6f2c92143283
How Privatized Social Security Works in Galveston
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/how-privatized-social-security-works-in-galveston.html
The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money. Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well. Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent. The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent.
And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security. For example:
A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.
A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.
And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.
Although both programs offer disability insurance, life insurance and retirement benefits, experts agree the methods and benefits provided by the programs are difficult to compare.
In a hypothetical calculation, Mr. Gornto said, an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan. Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire with a payout of $11,490 a month.
Social Security benefits change depending on the yearly adjustment for inflation, the year of retirement, and the age of the worker. But at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits.
This is fundamentally the same problem as Universal Basic Income (just supplied, with more complication, to a smaller percentage of the population than 100%):
When everyone gets $X/yr for free, $X/yr becomes the new $0.
In the case of SS, people _have_ put in money and get it back ... but all the additional “free” pyramid-scheme money they also get is inherently devalued, having been obtained (”stolen”) without direct involved effort. Ergo, when someone receives a SS check containing more than they “put in”, they’ve received “easy money” which is of little value. Ex.: mundane retirement homes are priced with the assumption that a buyer/renter will get “free” SS money, so that money is devalued to near-worthless (supply and demand rules), with the real value of the home being applied to what actually-earned income the customer has (as there needs be some kind of friction to limit demand for limited supply).
Lesson:
It’s not just that “socialism works until you run out of other people’s money”, it’s that “socialism devalues other people’s money until it’s worthless to redistribute.”
I haven’t noticed anyone mentioning the bait and switch that was used to pass social security. It was challenged in the Supreme Court shortly after passage because the Federal government has no authority to create a retirement plan. The Supreme Court then declared that the social security contributions of workers was a “tax” as the government did have the authority to impose taxes. Hence the funds stayed in the “general fund” and were accessible to Congress and spent. There aren’t even any IOU’s because there was never a social security fund in the first place.
This is the same bait and switch that was used on the Obamacare mandate. The Supreme Court said that the federal government has no authority to force anyone to buy a product, therefore it was not a “penalty” but a “tax”.
It’s not just that an individual could do better with investing the money than the government did, it’s that the money was never invested, it was spent to buy votes.
Another factor to consider is that it used to be a good idea to have children to help provide/care for you in your old age. With the introduction of SS, that incentive to reproduce was eliminated. For parents, the incentive to ensure that their children were well educated and successful was eliminated.
The saddest thing is that all of the people who chose to not reproduce or to have fewer children did not save the dollars not spent on child-rearing for their retirement, because the children of the inferior “breeders” would be there to support them.
There is never anything good that comes from outsourcing your personal responsibility to the government. It was a ponzi scheme from the outset and the people implementing it knew it. And, we baby boomers didn’t realize how we were being scammed and didn’t do anything to correct it during our peak earning years.
The author is a visionary. What’s his take on which direction the sun rises?
But nothing about welfare going broke? it’s always the tax payer funded and promised Social Security.
Let’s remember to thank Lyndon Johnson for moving Social Security into general revenue to fund his Great Society give always. Let’s also remember to thank DemocRATS for allowing illegals to get benefits.
I paid into Social Security and Medicare for 50 years. I won’t live long enough to get my money back
Took my Social Security at age 62 since I was diagnosed with Leukemia when I was 52. My “Expiration” Date was estimated to be ten to fifteen Years at the time of my diagnosis.
My Social Security covers 3/4’s of our Obamacare era $2,100 Monthly Health Insurance Premium. I’m just a pass through, like the old Bucket Brigade.
Since I still work, part of my SS is taxable on my 1040 because of our Income level and I still pay SS Payroll Taxes.
All i know is i am screwed, you will see me in 2053 greeting Walmart shoppers at the age of 85...
Well duh....how many times do we have to be told
I was recently made aware that people can start collecting at age 62, even when they have not yet retired.
Yes, you heard that right. I had an employee that recently retired at age 69. In his exit interview, he casually mentioned that all his bills were paid off because he had been collecting social security - on top of his salary that we were paying him - for the past 7 years!
Is this crazy or what?
Wonder how long before the illegals riot?.
It’s not even advanced math. Anyone with Grade 5 math can figure out it is a pyramid scheme.
Anyone whom ever believed it was enough for retirement needs a shake.
I think it will be there, but they will means-test the bejeesus out of it, so those able and willing to save all these decades will be punished.
They never seem to run out of money for welfare...