Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Baby Boomer Social Security shortfall

The boomers are often blamed for the coming shortfall but here's a different perspective. It comes down to congress underfunding SS from the beginning.


Baby boomers aren't to blame for Social Security troubles, study suggests
By Ann SchmidtPublished June 12, 2019Social Security BenefitsFOXBusiness


Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.) discusses how growing the U.S. economy will help save Social Security.
Baby boomers are often blamed for putting a strain on Social Security, but a new study has found that the generation may not actually be responsible.

A new report from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College has found that the problems facing Social Security today are a result of the way the program was developed in the late 1930s.

Social Security programs have increasingly been facing the threat of long-term insolvency. An official forecast released in late April projects the 84-year-old Social Security program will only be able to pay about 80 percent of the benefits promised in 2035.

“At or around 2034, you're either going to have to cut Social Security benefits very sharply or you're going to have raised taxes to basically keep benefits as they were," MarketWatch columnist Brett Arends told FOX Business’ Neil Cavuto at the time.

Social Security and Medicare currently account for 45 percent of federal spending in the U.S. Economists have also projected that the cost of the entitlement programs is estimated to be nearly 8.7 percent of GDP in 2019.

According to the study, the troubles with Social Security began in its earliest year. Originally, Social Security was more similar to a private insurance plan, where a trust fund would have been accumulated. However, an amendment in 1939 added spouses and survivor benefits, which had been previously unfunded.

In those early years after the amendment was passed, retirees received more than they had contributed, according to the study.

“The decision essentially gave away the trust fund that would have accumulated and, importantly, gave away the interest on those contributions,” the report said.

The study referred to this as the “Missing Trust Fund.” That missing fund, along with the fact that Social Security is a “pay-as-you-go” system, makes it more expensive to maintain today.

Being a “pay-as-you-go” system means that "today's workers pay Social Security taxes into the program and money flows back out as monthly income to beneficiaries," the National Academy of Social Insurance explains online.

Though there was a buildup of reserves after a 1983 amendment to prepare for baby boomers, there wasn’t enough to fully fund the program. Workers would still have to contribute 14.3 percent in order to maintain a 36 percent replacement rate, according to the study. That is 3.7 percent more than if Social Security had already been fully funded over time.

“Essentially, the full amount of the shortfall can be attributed to the fact the program does not have a trust fund producing interest,” the report said.

The report also found that instead of causing problems for Social Security, baby boomers — people born between 1946 and 1964 — will actually have paid more into Social Security than they are set to receive because of the 1983 buildup.

The report suggested two solutions to the problems with Social Security, either to raise taxes permanently to replace the missing interest from the “Missing Trust Fund” or to increase taxes by a higher amount temporarily “until a trust fund consistent with a fully funded program is built up.”

Fox Business’ Jennifer Earl and Elise Oggioni contributed to this report.

Got my first check last week, I only get 1600.00 a month because I only paid social security for 18 years, before I I started paying into TRS. My social security will go down 448.00 when I retire since I have teachers retirement. It is nice to get the extra money a month.

"The decision essentially gave away the trust fund that would have accumulate"

There has never been a SS trust fund. SS taxes have always gone straight into the treasury just like all other income taxes for anything Congress wants to spend it on. Just out of curiosity when I started drawing SS at age 66 I calculated how much gold the Feds could have bought for me with the SS taxes I had paid for the precious 52 years. If they bought gold at the end of every year at the current price I would have has over $500,000 worth of gold in my SS account to leave to my heirs. I could have gotten one SS check and died. Walter Williams has written many articles about our government's Social Security lies.

https://www.richmond.com/opinion/th...62083bf-ba71-55b8-9b2a-002bb6afbd9f.html

Agreed. That it is, sir.

Just started getting mine in Feb. Medicare has kicked in. Have my supplemental and Part D in place and humming. It's nice to go to the doctor and not have to give them ANYTHING.

Not counting Medicare deduction from Social Security and cost of supplemental policy, of course.

Life is good! Good luck to anyone else coming up on this milestone.

I think I get 1800 a month at 62. At least that is what the quick calculator says on the SS website.
That is about 22K per year.

"entitlement programs" My Ass.

Go for it, Terry.

I should have taken friends' advice and started taking mine at 62.

I'll start collecting in 2 years at age 62. I could hold off because I don't really need it right now, but I'd rather invest it myself than have the govt cut it in the future. The whole "a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush" thing.

If I remeber correctly Johnson raided SS funds to finance his Great Society boondoggle.

Just hit the ss calculator, 2793 per month if retired now, I've worked too hard and paid too damn many taxes I guess, the real reasons for the shortfall is .gov mismanagement and NO ONE working behind us, these puke faced millennial's are living at home with mom and pop till they're 40 just like their commie hero little bernie.

The Liberal left always blame the Republicans for the SS shortfall and being "war mongers"! However they have forgotten that it was the late and great Lyndon B. Johnson that "borrowed" $200 million from the 'Social Security Trust Fund' to fund his Viet Nam war! Seems him and all of our brightest on both sides have forgotten that "borrowed" usually means you intend to pay it back doesn't it? I think it was only after several more "borrows" that it was then just included in the general fund so it could all be mixed together and hopefully forgotten where much of it went?

I hope that mother fu-ker was coughing up lung chunks as he died.

That prick was a complete scavenger scalawag.

I can't say I am lucky, but I also socked away a ton in 401K, so I am really pondering retiring at 59. I can drawl on my 401K at 59.5, then get the SS bonus at 62. Worked hard to do that, had cancer once, so my time may be limited. Looking forward to those good days of hunting, fishing, and shooting.
Thanks for the good wishes.

Damn that's killer. 👍

I don't know of anyone that gets paid that much.

Youre gonna make Field Grade punch himself in the ballsack. lol

LOL, I need to see what it'd be in 10 more years if I retired at 66, I aint relying on it anyway Slumlord, it may not even be there when time comes for me to sign up.

I'm sure there are some Johnson voters on here hanging back outside this thread.

Pretending to be busy filling the hummingbird feeder.

Yup, I hit the dirt in '63 so it sure as fu-k wasn't me.

Plus, I think the good Lt. may have been right, i'll retire when they cut my boots off. just cant sit around like a house bitch.

This country will be paying a big price for a long time for electing LBJ , Ted Kennedy and Obama. I can’t think of three sorrier men. Hasbeen