Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I would stop the ability to claim SS if you've never paid in.

Who gets SS if they don't pay in? I thought you had to have 40 quarters of earning, and the benefit is figured in your top 35 years.

DH grandma got SS for decades after her husband died. She never worked a job a day in her life. I'm certain she was not a citizen but drew a check for almost 50 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the hell are you ranting about? I've only made two posts in this thread and you quoted both of them. Nice job ranting at me for things I didn't post.

1. Population aging is a filunction of low population growth. The poster I was responding to was clearly suggesting that population growth in absolute terms created the SS mess, not that lack of population growth created the mess.

2. Let me get this straight: That SS will continue to pay out 75% of benefits is a positive? The program will cost five (perhaps six) times what it was originally projected to cost and will deliver only 75% of its benefits. Only a leftist would hold this out as a success or positive. That's a hell of a consolation prize.

3. You claim that SS is free of investment risk and will remain an inflation adjusted source of income. First, those are some pretty incredible claims to make in the same post in which you acknowledge that SS will soon only be capable of paying out 75% of its obligations. You're really arguing that a quasi-retirement program that needs ever escalating amounts of money confiscated through state power and that continuously faces near term shortfalls is free of investment risk? Second, SS is only free of investment risk and a good guard against inflation if you assume the federal government is incapable of default and if you believe that the dollar will remain a reserve currency forever. I wouldn't bet a mortgage payment on either of those assumptions, let alone 5-6% of the national GDP. Your claims are borderline irrational at this point.

4. The real problem is that the political left simply doesn't have the will to accurately price entitlements (e.g., Obamacare, nationalization of student loan program). As a result, entitlement programs virtually always cost more than originally projected and deliver fewer benefits than were originally promised. While myRAs are a decent concept in the abstract, what do you think is going to happen to short term economic growth when employees have fewer discretionary dollars to spend? Do you really believe hat state and federal governmwnts are going to be able to restrain themselves from trying to funnel myRAs toward government debt (increasing systemic risk in the process). Sure, in 30-40 years things should balance out if governments don't default in heir debts, but there will be short term pain.

5. SS will be significantly restructured at some point in time and some cohort of beneficiaries will feel significant financial pain from it. The only relevant questions are when will it happen and how bad will it hurt.

6. Your solution is to simply do the same thing that has been done for 75 years: throw more money at the problem through higher taxes and additionally reduce discretionary income through myRA plans. This time things will be different, right?

Oh FFS. Grow up and act like an adult, and argue like one.

Your uninformed ranting doesn't deserve a lengthy response.
1. If you can't understand the dependency ratio, I can't help you. However, you've basically admitted that I'm right about population aging, even if you tried to twist my argument around.
2. Social Security continues to keep 1/3 of older Americans out of poverty, and yes, that's a huge success. If you're one of those conservatives who thinks the elderly need to go back to living off cat food, again, I can't help you.
3. You're confusing investment risk with political risk--I was very careful to choose my terms but you obviously can't see the distinction. Again, I can't help you become smarter.
4. You're confusing Obama's myRAs with state autoIRA proposals, but these are two very different things. Also, you seem unaware that auto-IRA proposals would rely on private investment managers, so the state or federal governments involved would not handle the funds. Even if the government did handle the auto-IRA funds (which it won't), you also missed the post above about how government bonds as investments are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government and would take Congressional action to change--reading comprehension really doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

For the rest, yes I agree there will be restructuring. But even Trump doesn't think SS should go away completely. Trump has actually said that he wants to preserve Social Security in its present form, all of it. You're out of step with most of your conservative buddies. There's much more likelihood than you want to think that there will be a compromise that preserves a solid first tier benefit, and one that will help the poor in particular.

(And huh? You say I quoted both of your two posts, and so you're mad that I'm talking to you? Huh?)

PS, re #3, if you think Congress will stop funding Social Security to their constituents, you don't understand Congress. Social Security was the piece that led to resolution in the past several budget and debt ceiling crises. That's right, Congress acted only when the debt ceiling reached the point where it would be impossible to pay Social Security benefits. Congress is deathly scared that their constitutents' checks won't arrive on time.

Of course Congress won't stop funding SS. But that doesn't mean that SS will be funded forever. Eventually the capacity to continue borrowing will be exhausted.

The borrowing is temporary to cover the baby boomers. A permanent solution for the next generation does not require borrowing.

A permenant solution for the next generation does not require borrowing if the economic and demographic assumptions underlying such solution prove to be correct. The fundamental problem is that politicians are incentivized to choose the most optimistic assumptions possible in designing/modifying entitlement programs in order to keep the cost of those programs to a minimum (see Obamacare). Hence, entitlement programs tend to cost more than projected and deliver less benefit than promised because the best case projection rarely comes to fruition. Hence, SS needs an ever increasing amount of resources. The solution typically takes the form of significant tax increases every 10-15 years. This has been happening for 75 years and every single time people are convinced that government is enacting the permenant solution that will address solvency problems inherent to the program itself.

This is a fundamental problem of life itself. Every single project undertaken by every corporation, every job started by every individual, every car you ever bought was done based on assumptions that usually turn out too optimistic. There is just no way around this, except maybe we could let poor old people just starve to death unless some easily curable disease gets them first.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I would stop the ability to claim SS if you've never paid in.

Who gets SS if they don't pay in? I thought you had to have 40 quarters of earning, and the benefit is figured in your top 35 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the hell are you ranting about? I've only made two posts in this thread and you quoted both of them. Nice job ranting at me for things I didn't post.

1. Population aging is a filunction of low population growth. The poster I was responding to was clearly suggesting that population growth in absolute terms created the SS mess, not that lack of population growth created the mess.

2. Let me get this straight: That SS will continue to pay out 75% of benefits is a positive? The program will cost five (perhaps six) times what it was originally projected to cost and will deliver only 75% of its benefits. Only a leftist would hold this out as a success or positive. That's a hell of a consolation prize.

3. You claim that SS is free of investment risk and will remain an inflation adjusted source of income. First, those are some pretty incredible claims to make in the same post in which you acknowledge that SS will soon only be capable of paying out 75% of its obligations. You're really arguing that a quasi-retirement program that needs ever escalating amounts of money confiscated through state power and that continuously faces near term shortfalls is free of investment risk? Second, SS is only free of investment risk and a good guard against inflation if you assume the federal government is incapable of default and if you believe that the dollar will remain a reserve currency forever. I wouldn't bet a mortgage payment on either of those assumptions, let alone 5-6% of the national GDP. Your claims are borderline irrational at this point.

4. The real problem is that the political left simply doesn't have the will to accurately price entitlements (e.g., Obamacare, nationalization of student loan program). As a result, entitlement programs virtually always cost more than originally projected and deliver fewer benefits than were originally promised. While myRAs are a decent concept in the abstract, what do you think is going to happen to short term economic growth when employees have fewer discretionary dollars to spend? Do you really believe hat state and federal governmwnts are going to be able to restrain themselves from trying to funnel myRAs toward government debt (increasing systemic risk in the process). Sure, in 30-40 years things should balance out if governments don't default in heir debts, but there will be short term pain.

5. SS will be significantly restructured at some point in time and some cohort of beneficiaries will feel significant financial pain from it. The only relevant questions are when will it happen and how bad will it hurt.

6. Your solution is to simply do the same thing that has been done for 75 years: throw more money at the problem through higher taxes and additionally reduce discretionary income through myRA plans. This time things will be different, right?

Oh FFS. Grow up and act like an adult, and argue like one.

Your uninformed ranting doesn't deserve a lengthy response.
1. If you can't understand the dependency ratio, I can't help you. However, you've basically admitted that I'm right about population aging, even if you tried to twist my argument around.
2. Social Security continues to keep 1/3 of older Americans out of poverty, and yes, that's a huge success. If you're one of those conservatives who thinks the elderly need to go back to living off cat food, again, I can't help you.
3. You're confusing investment risk with political risk--I was very careful to choose my terms but you obviously can't see the distinction. Again, I can't help you become smarter.
4. You're confusing Obama's myRAs with state autoIRA proposals, but these are two very different things. Also, you seem unaware that auto-IRA proposals would rely on private investment managers, so the state or federal governments involved would not handle the funds. Even if the government did handle the auto-IRA funds (which it won't), you also missed the post above about how government bonds as investments are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government and would take Congressional action to change--reading comprehension really doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

For the rest, yes I agree there will be restructuring. But even Trump doesn't think SS should go away completely. Trump has actually said that he wants to preserve Social Security in its present form, all of it. You're out of step with most of your conservative buddies. There's much more likelihood than you want to think that there will be a compromise that preserves a solid first tier benefit, and one that will help the poor in particular.

(And huh? You say I quoted both of your two posts, and so you're mad that I'm talking to you? Huh?)

PS, re #3, if you think Congress will stop funding Social Security to their constituents, you don't understand Congress. Social Security was the piece that led to resolution in the past several budget and debt ceiling crises. That's right, Congress acted only when the debt ceiling reached the point where it would be impossible to pay Social Security benefits. Congress is deathly scared that their constitutents' checks won't arrive on time.

Of course Congress won't stop funding SS. But that doesn't mean that SS will be funded forever. Eventually the capacity to continue borrowing will be exhausted.

The borrowing is temporary to cover the baby boomers. A permanent solution for the next generation does not require borrowing.

A permenant solution for the next generation does not require borrowing if the economic and demographic assumptions underlying such solution prove to be correct. The fundamental problem is that politicians are incentivized to choose the most optimistic assumptions possible in designing/modifying entitlement programs in order to keep the cost of those programs to a minimum (see Obamacare). Hence, entitlement programs tend to cost more than projected and deliver less benefit than promised because the best case projection rarely comes to fruition. Hence, SS needs an ever increasing amount of resources. The solution typically takes the form of significant tax increases every 10-15 years. This has been happening for 75 years and every single time people are convinced that government is enacting the permenant solution that will address solvency problems inherent to the program itself.

Anonymous wrote:The federal government does not see it as a welfare program, but an investment into your retirement. Curent federal government employees are repeatedly informed that their retirement has thepree legs: TSP, FErS pension, and SS. If the government suddenly began telling its employees that it's only three legs if the employee has not saved enough in their TSP, how many people do you think would be diligent about putting money aside? i definitely would not. I can find ways to use some of that Biweekly deduction into TsP right now. I'm sure it's the same for people who are non-federal employees, denying themselves today as they plan for the future.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the hell are you ranting about? I've only made two posts in this thread and you quoted both of them. Nice job ranting at me for things I didn't post.

1. Population aging is a filunction of low population growth. The poster I was responding to was clearly suggesting that population growth in absolute terms created the SS mess, not that lack of population growth created the mess.

2. Let me get this straight: That SS will continue to pay out 75% of benefits is a positive? The program will cost five (perhaps six) times what it was originally projected to cost and will deliver only 75% of its benefits. Only a leftist would hold this out as a success or positive. That's a hell of a consolation prize.

3. You claim that SS is free of investment risk and will remain an inflation adjusted source of income. First, those are some pretty incredible claims to make in the same post in which you acknowledge that SS will soon only be capable of paying out 75% of its obligations. You're really arguing that a quasi-retirement program that needs ever escalating amounts of money confiscated through state power and that continuously faces near term shortfalls is free of investment risk? Second, SS is only free of investment risk and a good guard against inflation if you assume the federal government is incapable of default and if you believe that the dollar will remain a reserve currency forever. I wouldn't bet a mortgage payment on either of those assumptions, let alone 5-6% of the national GDP. Your claims are borderline irrational at this point.

4. The real problem is that the political left simply doesn't have the will to accurately price entitlements (e.g., Obamacare, nationalization of student loan program). As a result, entitlement programs virtually always cost more than originally projected and deliver fewer benefits than were originally promised. While myRAs are a decent concept in the abstract, what do you think is going to happen to short term economic growth when employees have fewer discretionary dollars to spend? Do you really believe hat state and federal governmwnts are going to be able to restrain themselves from trying to funnel myRAs toward government debt (increasing systemic risk in the process). Sure, in 30-40 years things should balance out if governments don't default in heir debts, but there will be short term pain.

5. SS will be significantly restructured at some point in time and some cohort of beneficiaries will feel significant financial pain from it. The only relevant questions are when will it happen and how bad will it hurt.

6. Your solution is to simply do the same thing that has been done for 75 years: throw more money at the problem through higher taxes and additionally reduce discretionary income through myRA plans. This time things will be different, right?

Oh FFS. Grow up and act like an adult, and argue like one.

Your uninformed ranting doesn't deserve a lengthy response.
1. If you can't understand the dependency ratio, I can't help you. However, you've basically admitted that I'm right about population aging, even if you tried to twist my argument around.
2. Social Security continues to keep 1/3 of older Americans out of poverty, and yes, that's a huge success. If you're one of those conservatives who thinks the elderly need to go back to living off cat food, again, I can't help you.
3. You're confusing investment risk with political risk--I was very careful to choose my terms but you obviously can't see the distinction. Again, I can't help you become smarter.
4. You're confusing Obama's myRAs with state autoIRA proposals, but these are two very different things. Also, you seem unaware that auto-IRA proposals would rely on private investment managers, so the state or federal governments involved would not handle the funds. Even if the government did handle the auto-IRA funds (which it won't), you also missed the post above about how government bonds as investments are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government and would take Congressional action to change--reading comprehension really doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

For the rest, yes I agree there will be restructuring. But even Trump doesn't think SS should go away completely. Trump has actually said that he wants to preserve Social Security in its present form, all of it. You're out of step with most of your conservative buddies. There's much more likelihood than you want to think that there will be a compromise that preserves a solid first tier benefit, and one that will help the poor in particular.

(And huh? You say I quoted both of your two posts, and so you're mad that I'm talking to you? Huh?)

PS, re #3, if you think Congress will stop funding Social Security to their constituents, you don't understand Congress. Social Security was the piece that led to resolution in the past several budget and debt ceiling crises. That's right, Congress acted only when the debt ceiling reached the point where it would be impossible to pay Social Security benefits. Congress is deathly scared that their constitutents' checks won't arrive on time.

Of course Congress won't stop funding SS. But that doesn't mean that SS will be funded forever. Eventually the capacity to continue borrowing will be exhausted.

The borrowing is temporary to cover the baby boomers. A permanent solution for the next generation does not require borrowing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the hell are you ranting about? I've only made two posts in this thread and you quoted both of them. Nice job ranting at me for things I didn't post.

1. Population aging is a filunction of low population growth. The poster I was responding to was clearly suggesting that population growth in absolute terms created the SS mess, not that lack of population growth created the mess.

2. Let me get this straight: That SS will continue to pay out 75% of benefits is a positive? The program will cost five (perhaps six) times what it was originally projected to cost and will deliver only 75% of its benefits. Only a leftist would hold this out as a success or positive. That's a hell of a consolation prize.

3. You claim that SS is free of investment risk and will remain an inflation adjusted source of income. First, those are some pretty incredible claims to make in the same post in which you acknowledge that SS will soon only be capable of paying out 75% of its obligations. You're really arguing that a quasi-retirement program that needs ever escalating amounts of money confiscated through state power and that continuously faces near term shortfalls is free of investment risk? Second, SS is only free of investment risk and a good guard against inflation if you assume the federal government is incapable of default and if you believe that the dollar will remain a reserve currency forever. I wouldn't bet a mortgage payment on either of those assumptions, let alone 5-6% of the national GDP. Your claims are borderline irrational at this point.

4. The real problem is that the political left simply doesn't have the will to accurately price entitlements (e.g., Obamacare, nationalization of student loan program). As a result, entitlement programs virtually always cost more than originally projected and deliver fewer benefits than were originally promised. While myRAs are a decent concept in the abstract, what do you think is going to happen to short term economic growth when employees have fewer discretionary dollars to spend? Do you really believe hat state and federal governmwnts are going to be able to restrain themselves from trying to funnel myRAs toward government debt (increasing systemic risk in the process). Sure, in 30-40 years things should balance out if governments don't default in heir debts, but there will be short term pain.

5. SS will be significantly restructured at some point in time and some cohort of beneficiaries will feel significant financial pain from it. The only relevant questions are when will it happen and how bad will it hurt.

6. Your solution is to simply do the same thing that has been done for 75 years: throw more money at the problem through higher taxes and additionally reduce discretionary income through myRA plans. This time things will be different, right?

Oh FFS. Grow up and act like an adult, and argue like one.

Your uninformed ranting doesn't deserve a lengthy response.
1. If you can't understand the dependency ratio, I can't help you. However, you've basically admitted that I'm right about population aging, even if you tried to twist my argument around.
2. Social Security continues to keep 1/3 of older Americans out of poverty, and yes, that's a huge success. If you're one of those conservatives who thinks the elderly need to go back to living off cat food, again, I can't help you.
3. You're confusing investment risk with political risk--I was very careful to choose my terms but you obviously can't see the distinction. Again, I can't help you become smarter.
4. You're confusing Obama's myRAs with state autoIRA proposals, but these are two very different things. Also, you seem unaware that auto-IRA proposals would rely on private investment managers, so the state or federal governments involved would not handle the funds. Even if the government did handle the auto-IRA funds (which it won't), you also missed the post above about how government bonds as investments are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government and would take Congressional action to change--reading comprehension really doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

For the rest, yes I agree there will be restructuring. But even Trump doesn't think SS should go away completely. Trump has actually said that he wants to preserve Social Security in its present form, all of it. You're out of step with most of your conservative buddies. There's much more likelihood than you want to think that there will be a compromise that preserves a solid first tier benefit, and one that will help the poor in particular.

(And huh? You say I quoted both of your two posts, and so you're mad that I'm talking to you? Huh?)

PS, re #3, if you think Congress will stop funding Social Security to their constituents, you don't understand Congress. Social Security was the piece that led to resolution in the past several budget and debt ceiling crises. That's right, Congress acted only when the debt ceiling reached the point where it would be impossible to pay Social Security benefits. Congress is deathly scared that their constitutents' checks won't arrive on time.

Of course Congress won't stop funding SS. But that doesn't mean that SS will be funded forever. Eventually the capacity to continue borrowing will be exhausted.

Anonymous wrote:I think I would stop the ability to claim SS if you've never paid in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the hell are you ranting about? I've only made two posts in this thread and you quoted both of them. Nice job ranting at me for things I didn't post.

1. Population aging is a filunction of low population growth. The poster I was responding to was clearly suggesting that population growth in absolute terms created the SS mess, not that lack of population growth created the mess.

2. Let me get this straight: That SS will continue to pay out 75% of benefits is a positive? The program will cost five (perhaps six) times what it was originally projected to cost and will deliver only 75% of its benefits. Only a leftist would hold this out as a success or positive. That's a hell of a consolation prize.

3. You claim that SS is free of investment risk and will remain an inflation adjusted source of income. First, those are some pretty incredible claims to make in the same post in which you acknowledge that SS will soon only be capable of paying out 75% of its obligations. You're really arguing that a quasi-retirement program that needs ever escalating amounts of money confiscated through state power and that continuously faces near term shortfalls is free of investment risk? Second, SS is only free of investment risk and a good guard against inflation if you assume the federal government is incapable of default and if you believe that the dollar will remain a reserve currency forever. I wouldn't bet a mortgage payment on either of those assumptions, let alone 5-6% of the national GDP. Your claims are borderline irrational at this point.

4. The real problem is that the political left simply doesn't have the will to accurately price entitlements (e.g., Obamacare, nationalization of student loan program). As a result, entitlement programs virtually always cost more than originally projected and deliver fewer benefits than were originally promised. While myRAs are a decent concept in the abstract, what do you think is going to happen to short term economic growth when employees have fewer discretionary dollars to spend? Do you really believe hat state and federal governmwnts are going to be able to restrain themselves from trying to funnel myRAs toward government debt (increasing systemic risk in the process). Sure, in 30-40 years things should balance out if governments don't default in heir debts, but there will be short term pain.

5. SS will be significantly restructured at some point in time and some cohort of beneficiaries will feel significant financial pain from it. The only relevant questions are when will it happen and how bad will it hurt.

6. Your solution is to simply do the same thing that has been done for 75 years: throw more money at the problem through higher taxes and additionally reduce discretionary income through myRA plans. This time things will be different, right?

Oh FFS. Grow up and act like an adult, and argue like one.

Your uninformed ranting doesn't deserve a lengthy response.
1. If you can't understand the dependency ratio, I can't help you. However, you've basically admitted that I'm right about population aging, even if you tried to twist my argument around.
2. Social Security continues to keep 1/3 of older Americans out of poverty, and yes, that's a huge success. If you're one of those conservatives who thinks the elderly need to go back to living off cat food, again, I can't help you.
3. You're confusing investment risk with political risk--I was very careful to choose my terms but you obviously can't see the distinction. Again, I can't help you become smarter.
4. You're confusing Obama's myRAs with state autoIRA proposals, but these are two very different things. Also, you seem unaware that auto-IRA proposals would rely on private investment managers, so the state or federal governments involved would not handle the funds. Even if the government did handle the auto-IRA funds (which it won't), you also missed the post above about how government bonds as investments are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government and would take Congressional action to change--reading comprehension really doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

For the rest, yes I agree there will be restructuring. But even Trump doesn't think SS should go away completely. Trump has actually said that he wants to preserve Social Security in its present form, all of it. You're out of step with most of your conservative buddies. There's much more likelihood than you want to think that there will be a compromise that preserves a solid first tier benefit, and one that will help the poor in particular.

(And huh? You say I quoted both of your two posts, and so you're mad that I'm talking to you? Huh?)

PS, re #3, if you think Congress will stop funding Social Security to their constituents, you don't understand Congress. Social Security was the piece that led to resolution in the past several budget and debt ceiling crises. That's right, Congress acted only when the debt ceiling reached the point where it would be impossible to pay Social Security benefits. Congress is deathly scared that their constitutents' checks won't arrive on time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the hell are you ranting about? I've only made two posts in this thread and you quoted both of them. Nice job ranting at me for things I didn't post.

1. Population aging is a filunction of low population growth. The poster I was responding to was clearly suggesting that population growth in absolute terms created the SS mess, not that lack of population growth created the mess.

2. Let me get this straight: That SS will continue to pay out 75% of benefits is a positive? The program will cost five (perhaps six) times what it was originally projected to cost and will deliver only 75% of its benefits. Only a leftist would hold this out as a success or positive. That's a hell of a consolation prize.

3. You claim that SS is free of investment risk and will remain an inflation adjusted source of income. First, those are some pretty incredible claims to make in the same post in which you acknowledge that SS will soon only be capable of paying out 75% of its obligations. You're really arguing that a quasi-retirement program that needs ever escalating amounts of money confiscated through state power and that continuously faces near term shortfalls is free of investment risk? Second, SS is only free of investment risk and a good guard against inflation if you assume the federal government is incapable of default and if you believe that the dollar will remain a reserve currency forever. I wouldn't bet a mortgage payment on either of those assumptions, let alone 5-6% of the national GDP. Your claims are borderline irrational at this point.

4. The real problem is that the political left simply doesn't have the will to accurately price entitlements (e.g., Obamacare, nationalization of student loan program). As a result, entitlement programs virtually always cost more than originally projected and deliver fewer benefits than were originally promised. While myRAs are a decent concept in the abstract, what do you think is going to happen to short term economic growth when employees have fewer discretionary dollars to spend? Do you really believe hat state and federal governmwnts are going to be able to restrain themselves from trying to funnel myRAs toward government debt (increasing systemic risk in the process). Sure, in 30-40 years things should balance out if governments don't default in heir debts, but there will be short term pain.

5. SS will be significantly restructured at some point in time and some cohort of beneficiaries will feel significant financial pain from it. The only relevant questions are when will it happen and how bad will it hurt.

6. Your solution is to simply do the same thing that has been done for 75 years: throw more money at the problem through higher taxes and additionally reduce discretionary income through myRA plans. This time things will be different, right?

Oh FFS. Grow up and act like an adult, and argue like one.

Your uninformed ranting doesn't deserve a lengthy response.
1. If you can't understand the dependency ratio, I can't help you. However, you've basically admitted that I'm right about population aging, even if you tried to twist my argument around.
2. Social Security continues to keep 1/3 of older Americans out of poverty, and yes, that's a huge success. If you're one of those conservatives who thinks the elderly need to go back to living off cat food, again, I can't help you.
3. You're confusing investment risk with political risk--I was very careful to choose my terms but you obviously can't see the distinction. Again, I can't help you become smarter.
4. You're confusing Obama's myRAs with state autoIRA proposals, but these are two very different things. Also, you seem unaware that auto-IRA proposals would rely on private investment managers, so the state or federal governments involved would not handle the funds. Even if the government did handle the auto-IRA funds (which it won't), you also missed the post above about how government bonds as investments are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government and would take Congressional action to change--reading comprehension really doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

For the rest, yes I agree there will be restructuring. But even Trump doesn't think SS should go away completely. Trump has actually said that he wants to preserve Social Security in its present form, all of it. You're out of step with most of your conservative buddies. There's much more likelihood than you want to think that there will be a compromise that preserves a solid first tier benefit, and one that will help the poor in particular.

(And huh? You say I quoted both of your two posts, and so you're mad that I'm talking to you? Huh?)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Does anyone know how high up the income ladder we need to move the cap to keep the program solvent for the next 75 years? An increase to $200k would be around an extra $5000 - manageable at that level, and perhaps it could even be viewed as a wise " investment"' to ensure the program is solvent when it's time to claim. (The other "half" would have to be paid by the employer, but again, not a deal-killer at that level.)

While I like the idea of raising the cap, for political purposes it would be easier to get through if changes are seen as a "shared burden." How high would the cap have to be raised if we ALSO moved the retirement age up by one year, gradually over time?

I ask because we seem to have some very knowledgeable people responding. Anyone know the numbers?

Hi Op, this is the PP from last night. Your questions are good ones. The answers will feed into any political compromise about Social Security, including the one I mentioned earlier this am about deciding at what level to set benefit levels under Social Security as a pay-as-you-go first-tier benefit. There seems to be a growing consensus around that one. Two guys from Heritage (very right) and Brookings (middle-of-the-road/left) collaborated on inventing the auto-IRA (personal savings) tier. Obviously conservatives would like a lower first tier SS system, but at this point I only know of a few conservatives, and these guys are really out there on the right, who are still saying publicly that it's a good idea to do away with a first-tier guaranteed, inflation-indexed SS benefit completely. Most conservatives get that asking their housekeepers to save the necessary 15% out of their incomes just isn't going to happen, politically or realistically, and so we need SS's progressive structure to give low-income workers a solid base for retirement. Liberals are happily working away on the 2nd tier personal savings (auto-IRA) part. Really there does seem to be room for consensus here.

So yes, your questions will be important in establishing a solid first tier of SS benefits. Here are some thoughts. I have to run off soon, but this should get you started.

1. You're correct that a balance of benefit cuts and tax increases would be more politically realistic. In fact, balance between tax increases and benefit cuts was the stated goal of Reagan's Greenspan commission in the early 1980s.
2. You're correct that raising the retirement age is effectively a benefit cut. As you probably know, but others may not, there's a reduction to monthly benefit amounts if you claim your benefits before your early retirement age. If you raise everybody's retirement age, then somebody who still claims at a given age (62, 63 or whenever) gets an even bigger cut than they do today.
3. An issue with raising the retirement age, as some have mentioned, is that some workers who do hard labor can't keep working past 62. It's not going to work to ask people to do construction work or lift heavy things at age 63. So you need a plan to protect these people, and that's going to cost money. So far nobody has come up with a good solution for identifying who needs to be protected or how to help them.
4. Re raising the income cap, many shy away from completely eliminating the cap, for political reasons. Instead, most proposals would raise the cap to cover 90% of national aggregate wages (long story, but historically the cap covered 90% but growing income inequality has changed that). Or, some proposals would do a donut as somebody mentioned. Or, some proposals would tax all wages/salaries above the current cap, but they'd only tax the higher wages/salaries at 3%. As an aside, I didn't totally follow the response that said the increase would be more than $5K, but to the extent that person said that workers generally absorb any payroll tax increases in the form of lower wages, that's true.
5. Also re raising the income cap, many proposals would pay more benefits to those who have to contribute more because they're above the current cap. It's a tough call. Do we want to pay Bill Gates more benefits? On the other hand, for a lot of people earning somewhat less above $118,000, paying more benefits seems a reasonable compromise.

Some of the links I gave you go through these issues in more detail.

OK, on to solvency estimates. That will be my next post.

Anonymous wrote:SS, in its current form, is projected to run dry by 2034. (And while some people are talking about increasing benefits, it's obvious we need to cut.) From what I understand, a couple of minor "tweaks" can save the program. What would you be willing to sacrifice? I would vote for three changes:

1) Gradually increase the full retirement age to 68. ?There should be no change for people within 10 years of retirement, but for others, we could add a month every year until we get to 68. When SS was introduced, people barely lived 5 years past retirement age (on average), and now we have people claiming for 20 to 30 years.

2) Increase the cap on the amount people pay the SS tax.

3) Lower the benefits for people in the uppermost brackets - in retirement - by about 25%. My parents have a retirement income of about $150k - no pensions, just responsible lifelong savings and investments - and they tell me they wouldn't miss a SS cut of a few hundred dollars a month.

Opinions?