Will there be enough social security funds for me to retire in 2025?

Answer 1

No there will not be enough funds, regardless of what others on this board say. It is really rather simple to understand.

Basically, the money you pay every paycheck goes to those who currently receive SSI funds. I am always surprised to hear how many people thing SSI is a personal account. It is not.

Now, the population of the US is growing only because of immigration. Americans are having fewer children on the average. Add in the baby boomers, who will place a huge strain on SSI when they receive their benefits.

Baby boomers are living longer, and healthier, but without a large young working generation paying into the system, it will go bust.

Think of SSI as a triangle pointed upward. Those at the top of the triangle are receiving funds and the bottom of the triangle is paying for the top. With the baby boomers coming of age, the triangle inverts. Now there are fewer young workers paying into SSI and more retirees getting benefits. The result is that younger worker will have to pay more than previous generations did.

I always have the feeling that the Feds know this, and that it is the real reason why illegal immigration is allowed. Think about it, they know that there are not enough workers to fund SSI, so every so often there is an amnesty to illeagals, just for the SSI money.

SS is known as the "Third Rail of Politics" because no politician wants to tackle the problem. Democrats want you to believe that all is well, and that the Republicans want to take SS away. Even Bill Clinton wanted to reform SSI, and was basically told by the Democratic party to abandon the idea because the party felt they would lose votes. The Republicans simply want to make sure than thing is funded, and it can't be funded the way it currently is.

I am 31 and I truly believe that Social Security is a waste of my hard earned money and will not be there when I need it, if I live long enough to qualify for it.

Answer 2

No there won't be. Right now all the baby boomers are retiring or getting ready to. Currently there is one person paying into social security while ten are receiving social security checks. It will get even worse as more baby boomers retire. Eventually there will be no more money to fund social security.

Answer 3

Nope.
Both Clinton in 1996, and Bush 2 years ago tried to sell a plan to partially privatize SS. Both got slammed.
Like many things in America, there will be no real disussion on this until it's too late.
Both sides will blame the other and "Scare" seniors into thinking one side is trying to take their SS.
So, in the next few years expect a huge tax increase for it.
10 years ago 20 workers paid in for every 1 who recieved benefits.
Today, it is about 10 to 1. In 20 years they expect it to be 4 or 5 to 1.
So because both parties are so busy blaming eachother,
folks in their 20's and 30's now, will pay the brunt.
This is no longer political. It is an American issue.
See how well it works when we put Government in charge of money?
And we want to give them our Health Care too? Not!!!

Answer 4

Yes, it is just a myth that SS is going broke.

Around 2017, SS tax revenue, will not be enough to continue to pay benefits at current levels.

But, SS has invested in about 3.5 trillion dollars worth of US Treasury Bonds.

By cashing in the Treasury Bonds, SS will have enough revenue to continue paying full benefits untill around 2070.

After 2070, then SS tax revenue will not be enough to continue paying benefits at todays level.

But SS will still be paying benefits, just not as much.

Reason?

Because when SS was started, there were 15 people paying SS tax's for every person collecting SS benefits.

Today there are 5 people paying SS tax's for every person collecting SS benefits.

By 2070 there will be only 3 people paying SS tax's for everyone collecting SS benefits.

This is due to people living about 25 years longer now, than when SS was started and declining birth rates, people are having fewer children today.

There are simple fix's that can push the 2017 and 2070 dates back.

1.Slightly cut SS benefits
2.Increase the income level that has to pay SS tax's,now you only pay SS tax's on the first $87,500 in earnings.

3. Increase the retirement age.
4. Increase the SS tax rate slightly.

Answer 5

Yes,
There will always be Social Security. You need to make sure with your vote. Tell your senator and rep. that there better be something in the pot for you,since you are paying now!!!!

Answer 6

Its rather doubtful
I'm sure this war has stripped most of it thanks George


What do you do when you want to screw only the working people of your nation with the largest tax increase in history and hand those trillions of dollars to your wealthy campaign contributors, yet not have anybody realize you've done it? If you're Ronald Reagan, you call in Alan Greenspan.
Through the "golden years of the American middle class" - the 1940s through 1982 - the top income tax rate for the hyper-rich had been between 90 and 70 percent. Ronald Reagan wanted to cut that rate dramatically, to help out his political patrons. He did this with a massive tax cut in the summer of 1981.
The only problem was that when Reagan took his meat axe to our tax code, he produced mind-boggling budget deficits. Voodoo economics didn't work out as planned, and even after borrowing so much money that this year we'll pay over $100 billion just in interest on the money Reagan borrowed to make the economy look good in the 1980s, Reagan couldn't come up with the revenues he needed to run the government.
Coincidentally, the actuaries at the Social Security Administration were beginning to get worried about the Baby Boomer generation, who would begin retiring in big numbers in fifty years or so. They were a "rabbit going through the python" bulge that would require a few trillion more dollars than Social Security could easily collect during the same 20 year or so period of their retirement. We needed, the actuaries said, to tax more heavily those very persons who would eventually retire, so instead of using current workers' money to pay for the Boomer's Social Security payments in 2020, the Boomers themselves would have pre-paid for their own retirement.
Reagan got Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Alan Greenspan together to form a commission on Social Security reform, along with a few other politicians and economists, and they recommend a near-doubling of the Social Security tax on the then-working Boomers. That tax created - for the first time in history - a giant savings account that Social Security could use to pay for the Boomers' retirement.
This was a huge change. Prior to this, Social Security had always paid for today's retirees with income from today's workers (it still is today). The Boomers were the first generation that would pay Social Security taxes both to fund current retirees and save up enough money to pay for their own retirement. And, after the Boomers were all retired and the savings account - called the "Social Security Trust Fund" - was all spent, the rabbit would have finished its journey through the python and Social Security could go back to a "pay as you go" taxing system.
Thus, within the period of a few short years, Reagan dramatically dropped the income tax on America's most wealthy by more than half, and roughly doubled the Social Security tax on people earning $30,000 or less. It was, simultaneously, the largest income tax cut in America's history (almost entirely for the very wealthy), and the most massive tax increase in the history of the nation (which entirely hit working-class people).
But Reagan still had a problem. His tax cuts for the wealthy - even when moderated by subsequent tax increases - weren't generating enough money to invest properly in America's infrastructure, schools, police and fire departments, and military. The country was facing bankruptcy.
No problem, suggested Greenspan. Just borrow the Boomer's savings account - the money in the Social Security Trust Fund - and, because you're borrowing "government money" to fund "government expenditures," you don't have to list it as part of the deficit. Much of the deficit will magically seem to disappear, and nobody will know what you did for another 50 years when the Boomers begin to retire 2015.
Reagan jumped at the opportunity. As did George H. W. Bush. As did Bill Clinton (although Al Gore argued strongly that Social Security funds should not be raided, but, instead, put in a "lock box"). And so did George W. Bush.
The result is that all that money - trillions of dollars - that has been taxed out of working Boomers (the ceiling has risen from the tax being on your first $30,000 of income to the first $90,000 today) has been borrowed and spent. What are left behind are a special form of IOUs - an unique form of Treasury debt instruments similar (but not identical) to those the government issues to borrow money from China today to fund George W. Bush's most recent tax cuts for billionaires (George Junior is still also "borrowing" from the Social Security Trust Fund).
Former Bush Junior Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill recounts how Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Cheney was either ignorant or being disingenuous - it would be more accurate to say, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter if you rip off the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for them, and don't report that borrowing from the Boomers as part of the deficit."

Answer 7

I will be dead by then and won't care. I am getting my Social Security checks on a regular basis. Thank you for paying your taxes.

Answer 8

They will take it out of the general fund

Answer 9

NO.

By then we will be on the Smith & Wesson retirement plan. As soon as the wealthy can no longer use you to become more wealthy, they shoot you.