Will the baby boomers kill Social Security?

Question

It's my opinion that Social Security will cease to exist after the baby boomers retire. What does everyone else think?
http://bbsphere.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=1164#1164

Just your such a Democrat pawn. SO your saying Hillary Clinton has the answer. Well what is it then? I never hear her articulate anything other then the Iraq war is a problem.

Both parties have failed us on SS and if you can't see that then your the moron.

So your saying Republicans killed SS? You mean they caused the baby boom? Stop getting all politicized and try and add some good thought about what happened and what we can do.

The problem with SS is simply too many people drawing from it at the same time. So how do we fix it? I say baby boomers are selfish, because they are. They are not trying to fix this problem for the next generation. Nothing in life is perfect and neither is a solution for SS problems but something has to be done to make sure this program is still viable for future generations.

Justin your such a Democrat pawn. SO your saying Hillary Clinton has the answer. Well what is it then? I never hear her articulate anything other then the Iraq war is a problem.

Both parties have failed us on SS and if you can't see that then your the moron.

So your saying Republicans killed SS? You mean they caused the baby boom? Stop getting all politicized and try and add some good thought about what happened and what we can do.

The problem with SS is simply too many people drawing from it at the same time. So how do we fix it? I say baby boomers are selfish, because they are. They are not trying to fix this problem for the next generation. Nothing in life is perfect and neither is a solution for SS problems but something has to be done to make sure this program is still viable for future generations.

Answer 1

You have to remember the baby boomers paid in. and the government borrowed out and never paid back. The Jobs for the boomers were better paying jobs too. But again the government give them away to other countries.
Them better paying jobs paid more in the social security than most jobs today. Another thing that is killing social security is the S.S.I. that when you don't have to paying in you just have to be low income. So check all facts,listen to the news and use your brain.
I have seen people who never paid in the sytem get money out in the form of social security supplemental income. They get food,medical housing and all and never paid in.

Answer 2

Yes, I've read articles on this, and when Social Security began the average life expectancy of retirees was 65 years old, so retirees obviously weren't meant to be on SS (as it was originally conceived) for an extremely lengthy retirement. Now with the average life expectancy approaching 80, retirees are obviously drawing SS for years. My husband's great-grandfather lived to 93 so was on it for almost 30 years!

I've read that one working person now is working to support 3 people or so on Social Security, and the truly unfair part is if that working person never gets to use Social Security himself as it will be gone when they retire.

I think one obvious solution with the older life expectancy is that the age should be raised to 67 or 68 at least or the program will not be sustainable. They could also put it off until 2010, so that those 65 or 66 will not be affected without warning.

Another idea would be for millionaires/trillionaires to stop receiving SS benefits after the 2 years that they have received their full benefits. After about 2 years you have already received the SS benefits you paid in, why should these people receive more than they have paid in if they have no financial need?

Answer 3

In MY opinion:

Social security WAS one of few federal programs that WAS completely self sufficient... Then came the neo-cons...

Either you understand the accuracy of that statement or you are arguing for the idea that the government knows what's best for you more that you do.

You may not agree with that argument, but when you prove yourself to be a moron, who's choices screw everyone else over, you also justify it.

So.... which is it?. Is social security AS IS a good thing, or is Hillary a good choice for president? Remember, at the ballot box, its a one or the other choice.

Yes, I framed that to imply that GWB is wrong and to imply that you only get to chose the way in which his administration was wrong. I understand that...just like I understand bill o and rush hypocritically framing things to get more commercial support from the media they serve. (remember - Rush is a drug addict that support hard core punishment..... as long as its not him... a 'family man' that has done some very un-'family like' things with illegal immigrants that he also disagrees with). Yet, the entire time - do what I say.... not what I do. Nice.

However, you CHOSE to vote straight ticket republican just because you didn't like the fact that Gore and Kerry were Democrats - regardless of the fact that they were right but you couldn't accept it because it made you have to actually think for a second rather than taking the easy lemming route.

Fine - sleep in a pig's slop. As soon as you ask me to, I'm going to have issues.

Interesting when people will say I'm a hypocrite - Yes, I am/

Far more interesting when people will do what they can do ignore/attack my hypocritical statement rather than noticing that is just a counter argument in the form of a mirror.

That, after all, would be way to threatening. Logic, history and common sense are such dangerous things are they not?

Funny..... I wonder how many people who refuse logic, history and common sense are actually benefiting PERSONALLY from policy...... or does toeing the party line simply make them feel so good in the moment they don't' care?

Please - give me a LOGICAL, COMMON SENSE, PERSONALLY APPLICABLE argument.... Been waiting for around 20 years now.....

still waiting...........

Yep - I'm going off on this question. I'm that frustrated.

Don't worry - either you vote straight ticket republican and don't understand what I'm talking about OR, if you are pissed, you vote rationally and don't like me talking about the big secret that has for years benefited people in power - you wouldn't want me to threaten your chance to manipulate others for your own benefit just as you are are about to get the chance would you?

Answer 4

Down below is a link to an article I wrote on the subject of baby boomers and retirement. Apologies in advance for advertising for myself, but it's worth a look. I actually worked on it.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/120020/should_you_delaytaking_social_security.html?page=2

Best,

M.

Answer 5

Fixing Social Security is not difficult; it just requires one small measure: raise the cap of taxable income from the current first ~$90K of income to ~$250K. Then, adjust the cap to inflation each year. Problem solved.

Answer 6

I'm sure before the next two years are over with, it will be gone to. Like everything else.

Answer 7

Not one member of congress has come forward and discussed the real issue with Social Security. This is a moral issue which effects both the baby boom generation and the next generation of younger workers; and it can not be understood without a brief history lesson:

Until 1983, Social Security was a pay as you go system - a contract between generations, where the younger generation paid for the retirement of the previous generation. Although next to nothing was saved in the Social Security Trust fund, the system worked well - because as the wages of young workers increased with inflation, larger benefits could be paid to retired workers to protect of them from the effects of that inflation. But in 1983, Congress recognized that the retirement of the Baby Boom generation would put an unfair burden on the next (smaller) generation of workers unless changes were made to the system.

As a result of the massive 1983 reform package, the retirement age was scheduled to gradually be raised to 67 in order to account for longer life spans and social security taxes on wages were increased by about 1/3, in order to build up a real trust fund to help pay for the retirement of the baby boom generation. As a result, the trust fund has built up a surplus of over 2 trillion dollars - and the baby boomers became the first generation to pay for their parents' retirement while providing for their own as well. By one measure, the 1983 reform package has been wildly successful, as the surplus in the trust fund is now predicted to last at least until 2042, when the oldest baby boomers will be 96 years old if they are still alive. (Even then Social Security will not be broke - It will just have to go back to the old pay as you go system - which may not be much of a problem if the economy has done well and most of the baby boom generation is dead.)

When the social security reform legislation was signed into law by President Regean in April of 1983, he said:

"We're entering an age when average Americans will live longer and live more productive lives. And these amendments adjust to that progress. The changes in this legislation will allow social security to age as gracefully as all of us hope to do ourselves, without becoming an overwhelming burden on generations still to come.

So, today we see an issue that once divided and frightened so many people now uniting us. Our elderly need no longer fear that the checks they depend on will be stopped or reduced.

These amendments protect them. Americans of middle age need no longer worry whether their career-long investment will pay off. These amendments guarantee it. And younger people can feel confident that social security will still be around when they need it to cushion their retirement."


In order for the 1983 reforms to work, congress and the president would have had to act responsibly and not treat the social security trust fund as if it contained free money that could be spent and never paid back. And early in his first term, President Reagan did promise to balance the Federal Budget by 1983.

The problem of course is that we have had and orgy of tax cutting that primarily benefited the rich and massive budget deficits under the administrations of Reagan and Bush I and II. Because the baby boom generation has not yet started to retire, last year, congress was able to borrow and did borrow over 186 billion dollars from the social security trust fund (in addition the approximately two trillion dollars that have already been borrowed and spent), every penny of which was paid for by FICA taxes on the wages of working people - and congress has no plan in place to pay it back when it is needed to pay for the retirement of the baby boom generation.

This borrowing has masked the true size of the federal budget deficit. President Bush has stated that the fiscal 2006 budget deficit was 248 billion dollars.. But this figure does not include the 186 billion borrowed from the social security trust fund last year, nor does it include the approximately 100 billion dollars per year cost of the war. From Fiscal 2002 to Fiscal 2006, the Federal Government borrowed approximately 2.4 trillion dollars, including borrowing from social security trust fund. That 2.4 trillion dollars in borrowing means that from fiscal 2002 to fiscal 2006, approximately 1/4 of non social security government spending was financed with borrowed money. (See www.ctj.org/pdf/def0706.pdf)

The lowest paid minimum wage worker and a person making $97,500 per year pay social security (FICA) taxes at the same percentage rate. On wages over $97,500 workers only have to pay the relatively small portion of the tax that goes to support Medicare. The justification for this is that FICA taxes are like retirement savings.

When President Bush complained (in his 2005 State of the Union address) that in 2017, the trust fund will be paying out more than it takes in and when he calls the trust fund a "worthless bunch of IOU's," he is in effect asking for "debt relief." He wants to find a way to avoid repaying the debt to the trust fund so that he can preserve his 15% dividend and capital gains tax rates and his other tax breaks which primary benefit the rich.

It is true that the government bonds in the trust fund don't have economic value like a piece of real estate or stock in a corporation that pays dividends- but they have legal value (they represent a promise by the government to repay a loan when payment is due.) -

But more importantly, they have a great deal of moral value. The moral issue is: Is it right to borrow and spend somebody's retirement money and not pay it back. If the CEOs of a big corporation (like Enron or World Com) had taken all the money from their employees' pension plans and replaced it with a bunch of worthless stock or worthless IOUs, they would be headed to jail.

In the alternative, is it right to maintain tax cuts for the rich and pay back the retirement money borrowed from the social security trust fund by passing the entire cost of doing so on to the next generation - something the 1983 reforms were intended to avoid?

My personal view is that we should immediately roll back all of the Bush Tax cuts, and then roll back every other tax cut for the rich that has been enacted since President Reagan until the operation of the government is fiscally sound. President Bush believes it is more important to maintain his tax cuts because they have a stimulative effect. - But crack cocaine also has a stimulative effect and that doesn't mean it is a good thing.

The Democrats may see things a little differently, but the new Democratic controlled congress has no plans to beginning discussing rolling back the Bush tax cuts. - In order to take the high moral ground Democrats must recognize that they had a hand in creating the big deficits of the past 23 years and they must be willing confront the real issue. Both parties have been buying our votes with borrowed money for far too long. But in any event, the press and politicians have an obligation to explain to the public that it is not social security but the rest of the government that needs reforming. Neither the Democrats nor the Press have done their job.

Answer 8

You and I will continue to pay into the system long after it has been exhausted...

Answer 9

I think it does not exist now!