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

Just think, you could cut-n-paste foxnews stories all day for us. And get to watch wheel of fortune.

Wifes a quick draw trigger slapper on the remote after the evening weather when those crackheads are about to shout....WHEEL OF Fortune.

[/quote]

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.[/quote]


Maximum at age 67 is 2861. At 66 it would be less. At 62 it is 1700-1800 or so. To qualify you need a minimal number of years paying, and they also use the amount of your income. So these numbers are maximum.

https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/estimator.html

Since you re a 1963, you even get less benefits than a true baby boomer.

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.[/quote]


Maximum at age 67 is 2861. At 66 it would be less. At 62 it is 1700-1800 or so. To qualify you need a minimal number of years paying, and they also use the amount of your income. So these numbers are maximum.

https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/estimator.html

[/quote]

Thanks Terry, I cant decipher a .gov website, didn't even know about the ss calculator till I read it in an earlier post, Wifes a high powered accountant, i'll let her do the leg work on this one.

NICE! I new there was a reason I never counted on ss at retirement.

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.[/quote]


Maximum at age 67 is 2861. At 66 it would be less. At 62 it is 1700-1800 or so. To qualify you need a minimal number of years paying, and they also use the amount of your income. So these numbers are maximum.

https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/estimator.html

[/quote]

All max, best case scenaro.

Gotcha, thanks



Most shiveled up little old ladies get about $1100, same for Cooter that thought it was awesome to pump gas at the Dorsey Doc for 40 years

dont feel too good. that supplemental premium will increase every year as you get older. My wife is paying double now from when she first signed up. the joke is you get a little cola benefit increase in social security, offset by a much higher premium on the insurance when means you net less.

Speaking of work, I've had the big tractor on the battery charger all morning, time to fire it up and move some implements, then brush hog the whole damn thing, what fun, I did have a nice time building a mineral station for the deer up on the mountain yesterday, played with a small milk snake, let him live, and stomped a black widow, evil looking black bitch with a fat ass and red speck on her back.

WTF they got agin us 63 models???

Rock Chuck: Underfunding is probably partly to blame - but listen to this regarding the legions and hordes of people who have never paid in a cent to "S.S." but are reaping "benefits"!
I was a policeman in a large west coast city for 29 years.
During that time I arrested about 100 pimps - all but one were negro ghetto spawn.
At least half of those "pimps" were collecting "S.S.I." and mainly due to "bad backs"!
This always puzzled me.
In fact in about 1995 two "Doctors" were arrested and charged with fraud in connection to ghetto types in that city getting undeserved "S.S.I." benefits.
Rampant abuse/abuses of the "social security" system is alive and well and certainly has an impact on "social security shortfall"!
I paid into the "social security" system for 50 years (age 16 to 66!) and receive a check each month that is one half of what I qualified for, except that I also have a civil service pension - thus the penalty!
I hope the "pimps" are having a good time spending my money.
Thank God I had the foresight to instigate other sources of retirement income besides the "shakey" social security system.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Blame my ass! First they dump the Trust Fund into general revenue, then they start doling out money to foreign refugees with PTSD, "slow" children, drug addicts, the crazy folks they dumped on the streets when they closed up mental hospitals like St. E's in D.C., plus who knows how many "disabled" groomed by attorneys and crooked doctors. When I've drawn the money they took from me and my employer at gunpoint, plus the interest that money would have earned over the years, then the bitching about what I get can begin. 'Til then, the complainers can KMA!

dont feel too good. that supplemental premium will increase every year as you get older. My wife is paying double now from when she first signed up. the joke is you get a little cola benefit increase in social security, offset by a much higher premium on the insurance when means you net less.

i started taking benefits at age 62, which caused some complications. my wife is ten years older, which meant the minute i turned 62, her little check doubled to half of mine.
The complication was i was working, still am sort of, and i exceded the amount you could make without them clawing back the payments.
gooberment being what it was, one letter stated withholding benefits for two months, followed by another letter couple weeks later withholding for four months and so. I finally hit the bullet where i could make whatever i want without it effecting benefits.
but the neat part because of other income every year i fall in the bracket where i have to pay income tax on that social security benefit.
which means the monthly check doesn't mean squat when you have to pay it back through income taxes of insurance premiums.
One of my motivating factors was while i did get a lower check than if i waited, the crossover point was around age 71, having gotten benefits for nine years it's only at age 71 where it would have benefited to wait. And i didn't want to be one of those that kacked one month after starting benefits, i wanted to get my money back.
I can say this, i was one of those that looked at social security as what you used to take a monthly trip to vegas. Thank God there is other stuff to pay the bills. I would hate to think i rely on social security alone.

LBJ didn't take any money from the so called SS Trust Fund because the was no money in to take. All the SS fund has ever had in it is Treasury notes (IOU's for the money the Treasury had already spent). Those Treasury notes (if they ever actually existed) didn't have had any actual cash value because the are both and asset and a liability. LBJ started counting them as an asset only so it would look like Treasury had more money than it actually did to convince Congress to approve his "Great Society". I've always hated LBJ even more than I hate Obama.

You're welcome, and know the feeling, Terry. Enjoy yourself, my friend.

He was a pos, and if the truth ever came out about his actions re: Vietnam, his name would be lifted from history.. and I'm not against that.

Johnson was another criminal.

Actually, mine will go down some, Ron. I took the highest premium, highest coverage available now because of my open heart surgery a year and a half ago. Am feeling good now, but wanted to make sure I wasn't absorbing too much risk.

But yeah, those cola raises are a joke. And, I'd have much rather had my money to invest myself. Didn't need .gov to "hold" it for me for 50 years.

You sure about that? When I ran the numbers for a number of different ages of of when to start accepting payments (ignoring the time value of money and any tax issues), they all hit the "breakeven point" at age 81, give or take a month. 71 seems young, especially when you must begin accepting payment at age 70.

At 62 I am withdrawing WHAT I WAS REQUIRED TO PUT INTO THE SYSTEM. Just because the government can't do math is no reason to put off meeting my needs. (Eleven years "retired".)

I’m thankful I have teachers retirement, living off SS is tough, even if you draw the max 2871. That won’t hardly keep the lights on and buy beer!

It is not the people's fault the federal government uses that money for all.

Between my bride and I, we receive a touch over $3800/month from SSA. I also draw some from my IRA to cover the monthly "shortfalls" until we are 100% debt free anyhow. Bride retired at 62 and I retired at 66. My IRA will last beyond when bride HAS to start withdrawing minimum from her 401k. We worked hard to get where we are and are tickled to get back some of what we put into SSA. I really didn't think there would be any $ to get back when I started working full time in 1975. As it is, I will be in my mid 70s before I hit the break-even point of what I put in SSA vs what I get back . . .

Pisses me off every time I hear SSA is an "entitlement" and lumped in with SSI and other pure welfare give-aways. Sure do wish I/we could have put the monies we contributed into an IRA/401k/savings account instead of the .gov coffers.

one of the other things people don't realize is that premium for part a medicare is not the same for all.
in some cases it is waived. in some cases if a high wage earner you pay a higher premium.

No sheet Raeford, You, I, have done nothing but work and follow the law.

Getting boned by birth date link below. This only applies if you work, if you are a parasite, then everything is free. Post 1960 models lose the most.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/agereduction.html

Just to keep the numbers simple, let's say you'd get $1000/mo at age 62, and $1500/mo at age 66.

In those four years, you'd take in $48,000. At 66, it would take you 96 months (eight years) to make up the $48k you didn't take. So you wouldn't "break even" until age 74.

Plug in your own numbers and then make your decision based on your health, your family lifespan history, and your financial needs at each age.

LOL, that figures, again, GLAD I never put much stock into my retirement future relying on ss, I could smell SCAM even when I was a young and much stupider man. frankly, I didn't figure to even live as long as I am now.

SS was never intended to be a retirement. When it was started, most men didn't live to 65 but their widows did. The country was awash with poor widows. SS was actually intended to support those widows.

I pay extra for Medicare, Wifey and I make too much.

Well that is because they hammer you for going early. In four more years you would be closer to $2800 a month. I think they levy such a heavy penalty because they know many will endure it, more money stays in in the long run.

I have two pensions coming to me, and I'll never see a dime of the SS I paid into for nearly 30 years. I'll have a pension from the Army Reserves at 60, and can retire with a pension from the railroad at 62 (15 more years). Since railroad retirement bought themselves out of Social Security program years ago I don't pay in anymore. If I choose to collect SS I lose my RR retirement. I should draw about $6K a month retired between the two plus my wife will draw an additional 50% of my RR retirement, so there is no way in hell I'm choosing SS.

Jeezus.....you boomers make it reeeeeeal hard to feel sorry for you people!

I'm 34. I'm not counting on this SS thing.

Railroad Retirement predates Social Security. In fact, SS was modeled after the RRA.

you see lots of talk about how much baby boomers are taking out of the system but nothing about how much they put in. If gov hadn't raided the system there might be enough. I get that it was designed for more people putting in than taking out, but it's odd that the shortfall started while the bulk of the boomer generation was still putting in.

It's all on paper and always has been. No real money has ever been raided because there's never been any to raid. There's never been a SS fund for them to take cash out of. They just juggled the books. It's true, though, that the juggling made SS look smaller after they rewrote the balance figures.

I’m 52, and don’t plan on SS being available when I hit 67. I’ve been screwed by our government enough in my life, they are nothing but a blood sucking black hole to me. Were in the ninth inning of game.

Not all completely true, they were similar as SS was established in 1935 and the Railroad Retirement in 1936 was the foundation for my current Railroad Retirement. In 1951 the railroad separated themselves from SS and had to basically buy themselves out all the way back to 1937.

Yes, prior to 1936 some rail workers had pension plans depending on which railroad you worked for. However, you could also get fired at any time and lose that pension as well. So you were correcting when you said railroad retirements predates SS, however both were essentially created at the same time.

Yep that is what advisors say, wait for 67. 5x18=90K, so it will take about 90 months or about age 75 to break even. Again that depends on your payment history, but if your family lives to 100, then it makes sense to wait. Again if you don't have a good nest egg, then you have to go early.
I guess the nest egg is 12 times highest salary, and the goal is to have 401K and SS equal about 3/4 of highest salary. Again rough numbers that I see most often. Average return above inflation is 4-6%. All the numbers are fluid, because it may be tough to live on 3/4 of 60K, compared to 3/4 of 100K. And no one will predict return.

I paid into SS for eternity.. I remember back in the 1970s of actually making a lot more money over what they set the limit for taking SS out of your pay check...that was about at 29K or so....so I only paid into SS until about August of each year or so...

I just always looked at it as another 'TAX" the Politicians could play with...

Johnson "invested" it in " I'll have those N*^gers voting democRAT for 200 years!".... along with every other minority they can flood the country with, to vote for them....

SS was kinda like Wimpey off of Popeye Cartoons... "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today"....

People like us who have worked for it... while instead it has been all given away to foreigners to vote for democRATS.... welfare rats and abusers to vote democRAT/communist... etc etc etc...

Entitlements is more along the lines, of what the politicians think they are entitled to from the sweat of our labors and actually contributing to society and the economy... instead of being not but a burden to society and the economy... like these welfare abusing minorities, these antifa bums living in mom's basement or these transients that are living like rats along our city streets, taking drugs all day and schitting on what ever they feel like schitting on.... our SS payments are being paid out by politicians to turn the largest cities in our nation, into the third world....

democRAT policy... create problems so we have to employ them to administer the social problems they created.........I pray EVERY democRAT politicians spend eternity in hell....where Republicans run things and they have to suffer the ills of their liberal utopia they created....

If you work at it, I think you could. There's allwasy Goosey, Rolling Turd, and a few others that compete with those guys. Unless you mean only "elected" sorry men. And even then you may have leave Obama and all pole smokers.