Alot of people have their ideas of why It will not be able to meet its goals I am interested in what they are. Also My question: Would it meet its goals if the Government wasn't dipping into it to pay for other things? http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=847 Rocket River
i think it would still fail. ss was designed so that current workers pay for retired workers. birth rate has been on the decline. hence there wont be enough future workers to support the vast number of retired people. in the long run ss will collapse under its own weight.
Because our birthrate, immigration rate, and increase in productivity isn't high enough to keep up with our retirement rate and increase in longevity. Medicare is in worse shape than Social Security. I think this report, by David Walker, is the most important thing that's come out of Washington in decades and should explain: http://www.gao.gov/press/citizensguide21408.pdf Also, if you can find a showing, watch I.O.U.S.A. It explains all of this.
when ss was implemented, life expectancay was in the 60's, there were like two years of life expectancy for the average american after the beginning of benefits. also there were like 15 to 1 workers per retiree, now its like 3 to 1. its simple math.
I guess the only good news is the fact that since the birth rate has declined, when the baby boomers get out of the work force there will be employment shortages that should lead to driving up wages and driving down unemployment, hopefully offsetting some of the fact that social security might or might not fail. (I doubt it will fail completely, it may be funded some other way or it may be just reduced). Also, don't forget the social security retirement ages were kind of arbitrary numbers that encouraged older folks to get out of the workforce during the depression to create jobs for younger people. The ages are kind of outdated. I think we'll see more of a an extenstion of the age for benefits AND less people leaving the workforce at those ages anyways as people stay healthy well into their 70s now. It has to do with a little bit of the shortsightedness of most legislation with any kind of arbitrary numbers that don't account for any kind of future trends. Its like the AMT tax catching millions of middle class folks now when it was meant for rich folks for the simple fact it wasn't adjusted for inflation. The retirement age was set 70 years ago and wasn't adjusted for population, employment, or life expectancy changes. (although I think we are starting to see some adjustments).
there is a cap, set at like $80,000 or so.... after that it doesn't matter how much somebody is making, they're not contributing above that line. so while wages may increase, i don't think it will be enough to offset the number of people who have or will retire.
Well, my point being, if your wages increase significantly, you may be less reliant on a social security system in the first place, if we could teach ANYONE some personal savings responsibility. Anyways, doesn't Obama want to get rid of the caps?
its scary to rely on ss alone for retirement. decrese in benefits + increase in inflation = not good. people need to save. put it in a savings accounts and bonds. you could invest in the market but youd better be willing to assume the risks involved.
QFT. There are many older people in this country who look to social security as their MAJOR form of retirement. Its going to hurt. If you are young, you need to not count on social security being there, or if it is there, it being greatly reduced. Think of it as gravy. Your 401K, IRAs, and general savings need to be the meat and potatoes.
People are living much longer, not only is this the biggest problem for SS, its also a huge drain on the overall medical cost.
That's what I'm worried about most. Medical costs will continue to drag on medicare. When people live longer, they can work longer in most cases, but medical costs for older people continue to climb.
It was never intended to be the sole retirement benefit. "We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age."-- President Roosevelt upon signing Social Security Act Here is a pretty interesting history: http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html
Those people are either idiots or suckers. SS was NEVER intended to be anything more than a "don't let our older citizenry starve in the streets" plan. Young people should not count on SS at all.
it certainly wouldnt be in bad of shape as it is if it wasnt excessively used for items that it was unintended.
Some proof: AP Poll data on Baby Boomer Retirement I understand there are a lot of "not my fault" type situations, but for the vast majority of these older folks - they did not plan appropriately, and have no one to blame but themselves.
Social security is not failing. Do some research beyond the anti-social security folks. try googling "dean baker social security" for instance.
The Me-First generation is gonna screw the others below them. Quite frankly, I'm not sure why I have to pay for their mess when they've already frontloaded all this debt to go along with their nest egg.
It's one of several reasons why I'm not totally opposed to massive cuts in SS payouts, raising the retirement age, etc.
