Social security information

[senior citizen]

July 2, 2013, 9:12 a.m. EDT
10 things Social Security won’t tell you

The truth about the agency’s bottom line

By Jonnelle Marte (Jonnelle.Marte@dowjones.com)

1. “Long-term deficit? We can hardly afford our bills today.”
About a third of workers in their 50s expect Social Security benefits to be their primary source of income in retirement, according to the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies. That reliance gives pre-retirees reason to worry about the future of the program. The Social Security Administration itself has said that unless something is done to reform the system, it will have to reduce benefit payments to retirees within the next few decades.

Five things Social Security won't tell you
Nearly 80 years after Social Security was established, it is facing significant challenges, as the U.S. population is growing and people are living longer. MarketWatch's Jim Jelter discusses five things that the Social Security Administration won't tell you. (Photo: Getty Images)

Less talked about, perhaps, is the concern that the program is having a hard time paying its bills today. In 2010, the Social Security Administration began collecting less revenue in taxes than it needs to cover benefit payments, forcing the agency to tap its $2.7 trillion trust fund sooner than some had expected. It was the first time since 1983 that expenditures had exceeded noninterest income, and the shortage is expected to continue. “It’s almost like a family running huge deficits throughout their budget,” says Eugene Steuerle, an economist with the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C.

A Social Security spokeswoman points out that interest income from the Treasury bonds held in the trust fund will allow it to keep growing until 2020—even if the agency has to siphon off some money to offset shortages in tax revenue. The fund won’t be exhausted until 2033, around the time Gen Xers are expected to begin retiring. But that is already a few years earlier than previous projections. After that, the agency says, tax income under the current system will only cover about three-fourths of benefit payments through 2087.

[zcaveman]

This is nothing new. Except from printing something from an article, do you have anything to enlightening us with?

And what are the other nine things that they will not tell us?

Z

[buggyone]

It is downright amazing that some posters actually believe that Social Security was ever meant to be their sole method of retirement income during their retirement life.

It was and is a supplemental source of income based upon your work income during your earning years.

What ever happened to the idea of putting something aside each payday in a savings account or investment income?

Even the 401k plans from your employer helped by matching your investments into the 401k as did IRA accounts.

Stop blaming the Social Security System and point the finger at yourself if you do no have enough savings to get you through retirement.

[eweissenbach]

Alarmists would have us believe that social security is in dire straits and in imminent danger of collapse. This is not the case at all according to most experts who I won't bother to link to, but you can find them. Will it have to be tweaked -- yes, just as it has had to be tweaked dozens of times since its inception, otherwise you would still top out at a seventy dollar a month benefit, and hardly any of your income would be subject to ssa tax. An easy fix would be to raise the amount of income subject to the tax, but the current political climate is not conducive to such a common sense solution. The political clout of the baby boomers should be strong enough to keep any drastic reductions at bay. The biggest problem is Medicare, as the result of double digit medical inflation, liability costs, and rampant fraud. The Affordable Healthcare Act made a stab at controlling some of those costs, but by the time all the special interests got their ingredients stirred into the mix, it was probably neutered and ineffective at accomplishing anything positive

[Bucco]

Alarmists would have us believe that social security is in dire straits and in imminent danger of collapse. This is not the case at all according to most experts who I won't bother to link to, but you can find them. Will it have to be tweaked -- yes, just as it has had to be tweaked dozens of times since its inception, otherwise you would still top out at a seventy dollar a month benefit, and hardly any of your income would be subject to ssa tax. An easy fix would be to raise the amount of income subject to the tax, but the current political climate is not conducive to such a common sense solution. The political clout of the baby boomers should be strong enough to keep any drastic reductions at bay. The biggest problem is Medicare, as the result of double digit medical inflation, liability costs, and rampant fraud. The Affordable Healthcare Act made a stab at controlling some of those costs, but by the time all the special interests got their ingredients stirred into the mix, it was probably neutered and ineffective at accomplishing anything positive

I would agree with you that politics will either delay or prevent the "tweaking" much needed on social security.

I was more struck by your comments on the affordable care act and Medicare

Could you speak to the "stab" at controlling Medicare costs, or refer me to a credible link to read about this ?
.

[Duvalboomer]

When I worked I never liked the fact that I had to contribute to SS. I could have earned a much larger return elsewhere and not have been subject to the whims of politicians.

[Bucco]

When I worked I never liked the fact that I had to contribute to SS. I could have earned a much larger return elsewhere and not have been subject to the whims of politicians.

Suggestion to privatize was made a few years ago...which by the way I agree with you on.

Anyway, the suggestion was not only pushed aside, it was ridiculed and joked about.

[rubicon]

From the time politicians began raiding Social Security experts have been warning that Social Security will go broke.

The phrase "build it and they will come" takes on a different meaning when applied to Social Security and Medicare. Fraud permeates both systems and industries have grown up around both of them that in most cases are only self serving.

There can be no better examples of poor stewardship than those two programs unless you want to include Fannie and Freddie.

The Affordable Act is Medicare/Medicaid on steroids The Affordable Act is 3x as large as our tax code is going to require an army of people to run it.
Get ready for the rubber stamp brigade

[Bill Tasker]

It is downright amazing that some posters actually believe that Social Security was ever meant to be their sole method of retirement income during their retirement life.

It was and is a supplemental source of income based upon your work income during your earning years.

What ever happened to the idea of putting something aside each payday in a savings account or investment income?

Even the 401k plans from your employer helped by matching your investments into the 401k as did IRA accounts.

Stop blaming the Social Security System and point the finger at yourself if you do no have enough savings to get you through retirement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a pretty bold statement and spoken like someone who represents the 1% we are always hearing about. Social Security was introduced during the great depression when it was feared that a large percentage of Americans, especially seniors had fallen below the poverty line. It was never inteneded as "supplemental income." I suppose if you are fortunate enough to have a pesnion and or savings, 401K, IRA, etc. , you may consider SS a supplement.

The reality is people are hurting today. It takes everything you make just to get by. Very few households have any "disposable" income. Savings vanished along with pensions and not every employer contributes to a 401K. In my personal opinion, our country has been on a finaicial spiral since the Regan plunder of deregulation and voodoo economics. Small businesses and even many large corporations disappeared through mega mergers. Many people, myself included lost our careers and lived on what savings we had until we could find replacement employment, which was never equivilant in salary or benefits. My employer at the time, merged with a larger firm, bankrupted our pension plan and put us all out the door.

One thing SS does not talk about and neither does our government, once the baby boomers turn up their toes, SS should be able to breathe a sigh of financial relief.

[rubicon]

Bill: You said One thing social security does not talk about......baby boomers
Gosh how many baby boomers do you believe would be upset if they beat the social security mortality tables? Hmmmmmmmmmm" Now I am determined to go vagan I'll show those @#$%^&*bureaucrats.:D

[Duvalboomer]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" I suppose if you are fortunate enough to have a pesnion and or savings, 401K, IRA, etc. , you may consider SS a supplement.



I take issue with this statement. My wife and I don't have a pension, but do have savings, not because we are "fortunate enough" or lucky or had it handed to us but because we set goals. We raised 4 kids with my wife staying home to raise them. We shopped at Goodwill, we bought used cars, we went without cable, went out to eat at most once a year. We waited until we had the cash before we bought anything and we retired at 50. Not because we were "fortunate" but because we worked hard and didn't waste money. In that time frame I was laid off several times and at times worked two full time jobs and we did it and other could too if they set goal and budgets and delayed gratification. Basically live within their means.

[l2ridehd]

The "affordable care" act is just that an act. Had my first experience with it and it just passed more cost to me. Here are the facts.

July 1, 2013 many of the first changes to the “not affordable care” went into effect and my first experience is a bust. I had an appointment scheduled a couple months ago with my Dermatologist for a full body exam. I have had several skin cancers so this is an annual exam. When I got there, I had a small place on my temple I wanted him to check. He did and decided to biopsy it as it looked suspicious. Well after that because of the new “Affordable care” he could not do the full body exam. Medicare now only allows one procedure per visit. So now I have to get another appointment, travel there again vs getting everything done on one visit. All because the idiots in Washington passed this without reading it and now can’t eliminate this Albatross they forced on the public. What they have done is move additional cost to us and made the whole system less efficient in the name of affordable care.

[Bucco]

I take issue with this statement. My wife and I don't have a pension, but do have savings, not because we are "fortunate enough" or lucky or had it handed to us but because we set goals. We raised 4 kids with my wife staying home to raise them. We shopped at Goodwill, we bought used cars, we went without cable, went out to eat at most once a year. We waited until we had the cash before we bought anything and we retired at 50. Not because we were "fortunate" but because we worked hard and didn't waste money. In that time frame I was laid off several times and at times worked two full time jobs and we did it and other could too if they set goal and budgets and delayed gratification. Basically live within their means.

These are the problems encountered when posters make personal judgements of others on here.

The first judgement started it and it is downhill from there.

[JP]

When I worked I never liked the fact that I had to contribute to SS. I could have earned a much larger return elsewhere and not have been subject to the whims of politicians.

I agree with you but the problem is there a lot of MORONS out there that would have blown their social security money on: bad investments, the casino, cigarettes and booze, etc ...you name it. Without any social security money left these people would have been saying, "ooh poor me" and we, the responsible people, would have been forced to pay for the "less fortunate" through new taxes on anything and everything you can think of. Blah. Unfortunately, we should keep it the way it is with modifications to keep it solvent for the future.

[Bill Tasker]

Bill: You said One thing social security does not talk about......baby boomers
Gosh how many baby boomers do you believe would be upset if they beat the social security mortality tables? Hmmmmmmmmmm" Now I am determined to go vagan I'll show those @#$%^&*bureaucrats.:D

LOL....thats the plan. :MOJE_whot:

[Bill Tasker]

I take issue with this statement. My wife and I don't have a pension, but do have savings, not because we are "fortunate enough" or lucky or had it handed to us but because we set goals. We raised 4 kids with my wife staying home to raise them. We shopped at Goodwill, we bought used cars, we went without cable, went out to eat at most once a year. We waited until we had the cash before we bought anything and we retired at 50. Not because we were "fortunate" but because we worked hard and didn't waste money. In that time frame I was laid off several times and at times worked two full time jobs and we did it and other could too if they set goal and budgets and delayed gratification. Basically live within their means.

I agree with you that there are many who live beyond their means and squander their potential savings. But that brush doesn't cover everyone. I would say you are very "fortunate", not luck, if you were able to meet your goal, stay within your budget, have an agreeable wife to stay at home and raise 4 children. But that is not the picture of the household majority today. Congratulations to you though. I'm happy for you.

[Duvalboomer]

I agree with you that there are many who live beyond their means and squander their potential savings. But that brush doesn't cover everyone. I would say you are very "fortunate", not luck, if you were able to meet your goal, stay within your budget, have an agreeable wife to stay at home and raise 4 children. But that is not the picture of the household majority today. Congratulations to you though. I'm happy for you.

Not "fortunate", it called communicating with your potential mate during courtship and making sure you want the same thing before you get married. It's also called hard work! "fortunate" makes it sound as if it happened by chance or some dumb luck and if some else was just as "fortunate" it would have happened to them! It didn't happen to us, we made it happen!

[TrudyM]

What I heard discussed that will affect a lot of people if they ever put it through was to make it so you only collect on your own social security eligibility unless you are widowed. That would mean if you didn't work your whole life but stayed home with the kids you would get much less or nothing. Half of my husbands social security is way higher than the minimum amount I would get as I always worked in a low paying industry.
Spouses who never worked would be out of luck. I think it will go through at some point as the law of the land is moving toward treating people as individuals instead of as extensions of a marital unit.
My son says no one he knows figures social security is anything other than another tax and it will give them no benefit, now he is in his thirties and they have been saying soc security was in trouble most of his adult life. The consensus of his peers is that they should just increase the income tax rate levels and do away with it as it taxes everyones first dollar and is just shuffling money through the government from the working poor. Take 6.2% of a persons check who already isn't making enough to live on and then make him sign up for food stamps to get it back. You pay until you hit 113,000 so those who can afford to pay more don't and those who can't do. They pretend it is your money invested so you will get it back, it's a tax just stop playing games and say so.
I think it is those who are in their 50's who planned on it that are really in trouble. The nation will have to figure out a way to care for the poor elderly weather it be a fix for social security or some sort of eldercare system but the middle upper class level of todays younger workers will probably get nothing from it.

[buggyone]

I do not agree with some that say Social Security is not a supplement to their retirement.

In fact, I know lots of people who have received Social Security for years and years and have taken out MORE than they ever contributed to it.

I even know of some Canadian citizens who live in Florida for a shade under 6 months per year who are collecting Social Security based upon their work in the USA - as well as for their spouses who have never worked. To me, that is wrong!

As far as those who say they would have liked to save and invest their own money instead of contributing to Social Security - that is a lot of bunk for most people. Sure, some could have done it but most would have frittered it away and not saved any and would just depend on the government to bail them out so they would not live under a freeway in a refrigerator box.

Am I a 1%er? Maybe so, but I worked for it and am now living a good life in The Villages.

[batman911]

When I worked I never liked the fact that I had to contribute to SS. I could have earned a much larger return elsewhere and not have been subject to the whims of politicians.

I believe a lot of people changed their minds about that after the last stock market down turn.

[batman911]

SS could be solvent a lot longer if all the social pay outs were taken out. Lots of people getting checks (some very young) that have paid little or nothing into the system. When the incoming funds were more than the payouts, it was easy for Congress to use the SS program as a social welfare program instead of limiting it to workers who are retired. Now those chickens are coming home and it's getting a little crowded in the nest.

[NIPAS K-9]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that's a pretty bold statement and spoken like someone who represents the 1% we are always hearing about. Social security was introduced during the great depression when it was feared that a large percentage of americans, especially seniors had fallen below the poverty line. It was never inteneded as "supplemental income." i suppose if you are fortunate enough to have a pesnion and or savings, 401k, ira, etc. , you may consider ss a supplement.

The reality is people are hurting today. It takes everything you make just to get by. Very few households have any "disposable" income. Savings vanished along with pensions and not every employer contributes to a 401k. In my personal opinion, our country has been on a finaicial spiral since the regan plunder of deregulation and voodoo economics. Small businesses and even many large corporations disappeared through mega mergers. Many people, myself included lost our careers and lived on what savings we had until we could find replacement employment, which was never equivilant in salary or benefits. My employer at the time, merged with a larger firm, bankrupted our pension plan and put us all out the door.

One thing ss does not talk about and neither does our government, once the baby boomers turn up their toes, ss should be able to breathe a sigh of financial relief.

not when they add those 11 million illegals on it who havent paid a nickel in..................:(

[buggyone]

SS could be solvent a lot longer if all the social pay outs were taken out. Lots of people getting checks (some very young) that have paid little or nothing into the system. When the incoming funds were more than the payouts, it was easy for Congress to use the SS program as a social welfare program instead of limiting it to workers who are retired. Now those chickens are coming home and it's getting a little crowded in the nest.

Social Security is a whole lot more than retirement.

The larger and better known programs under the Social Security Act and amendments are:

Federal Old-Age (Retirement), Survivors, and Disability Insurance
Unemployment benefits
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled (Medicare)
Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs (Medicaid)
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Benefits are not provided for illegal immigrants.
Spouses of persons receiving Social Security retirement also get a monthly amount - and those spouses may never have earned money. Should they be excluded altogether or when their spouse dies?

[JoelJohnson]

10,000 "baby boomers" turn 65 EVERY day! And will for a long time.
When SS was started, the avg life of a man was only 63!
To make SS last all they have to do is raise the full retirement age for anyone under 50 by a year or two.

The biggest problem is Medicare.

[buggyone]

10,000 "baby boomers" turn 65 EVERY day! And will for a long time.
When SS was started, the avg life of a man was only 63!
To make SS last all they have to do is raise the full retirement age for anyone under 50 by a year or two.

The biggest problem is Medicare.

Why wait all those years? Why not just an immediate raise of the full retirement age to 69 right now with no early retirement offered? That surely would save money.

Also, no Canadian citizen should be entitled to any Social Security.

[rubicon]

The "affordable care" act is just that an act. Had my first experience with it and it just passed more cost to me. Here are the facts.

July 1, 2013 many of the first changes to the “not affordable care” went into effect and my first experience is a bust. I had an appointment scheduled a couple months ago with my Dermatologist for a full body exam. I have had several skin cancers so this is an annual exam. When I got there, I had a small place on my temple I wanted him to check. He did and decided to biopsy it as it looked suspicious. Well after that because of the new “Affordable care” he could not do the full body exam. Medicare now only allows one procedure per visit. So now I have to get another appointment, travel there again vs getting everything done on one visit. All because the idiots in Washington passed this without reading it and now can’t eliminate this Albatross they forced on the public. What they have done is move additional cost to us and made the whole system less efficient in the name of affordable care.

12ridehw Look to Bill Tasker's comments concerning experts ignoring the mortality factor when addressing social security. Apparently the Affordable Act was enacted to counter that in fact speed up the mortality tables to save social security:D

[senior citizen]

10,000 "baby boomers" turn 65 EVERY day! And will for a long time.
When SS was started, the avg life of a man was only 63!
To make SS last all they have to do is raise the full retirement age for anyone under 50 by a year or two.

The biggest problem is Medicare.

Joel is correct as far as the average life span of a man (back in the initial days of Social Security).......but what if that man lived to age 91 and had no one to "take him in".............

We've heard many stories over the years, from old timers who lost their businesses and homes during the Great Depression era.......so back then, after the hopelessness of that era.........the simple thought of social security upon retirement must have been most welcome......

My Irish Scottish stepdad LOVED President Roosevelt......for how he helped folks back then.........

In 1995, when we became responsible for my widowed mom, she would receive her monthly "pension" check from the factory she went to work for when we were in elementary school, retiring at age 62......30 years or so later.

$59. a month. Maybe back in the early 1950's that seemed like a good thing to look forward to. Her s.s. check was very low as well.....about $700 or so a month with a few small increases.

Obviously, she was welcomed into our home and passed in 2003.
Had she not had children or a savings account.......believe me, no one could have lived on what she got monthly. The fact that they sold their home and moved into an apartment, did help.....then when he passed, she moved in with us.

Vermont is not an expensive state to live in as for the most part, people are pretty down to earth, many are rural, and most do not live beyond their means......but it still would have been a very low income, even for a single elderly lady. Her pension and s.s. check were from N.J. originally.

She made good wages when she worked...........but it didn't really keep up with the cost of living..........she actually made a "man's wages" and was part of a union.

Everyone's posts have been very valuable and really "food for thought" as we all age in place........

[Schaumburger]

10,000 "baby boomers" turn 65 EVERY day! And will for a long time.
When SS was started, the avg life of a man was only 63!
To make SS last all they have to do is raise the full retirement age for anyone under 50 by a year or two.

The biggest problem is Medicare.

I'm a younger baby boomer (born in 1960), so my age to collect full SS is 67. Oh please don't raise it another year. But I guess if that is what it takes to make SS last, I will just have to suck it up...

Luckily my dad was able to retire at age 62. He turned 83 in May, so it has been 21 years since he retired, but he earned every minute of his retirement after spending 40 years working in a meat packing plant. At work I sit (most of the day) working at a computer or attending meetings so there is no comparison between my dad's physically demanding job and my mostly sedentary job.

[buggyone]

I'm a younger baby boomer (born in 1960), so my age to collect full SS is 67. Oh please don't raise it another year. But I guess if that is what it takes to make SS last, I will just have to suck it up...

Luckily my dad was able to retire at age 62. He turned 83 in May, so it has been 21 years since he retired, but he earned every minute of his retirement after spending 40 years working in a meat packing plant. At work I sit (most of the day) working at a computer or attending meetings so there is no comparison between my dad's physically demanding job and my mostly sedentary job.

Do you think that your dad has recouped the 40 years of Social Security ontributions in the 21 years of retirement? My guess would be YES!

[Schaumburger]

Do you think that your dad has recouped the 40 years of Social Security ontributions in the 21 years of retirement? My guess would be YES!

That is a good question; I should ask him. He deserves every minute of his peaceful retirement, especially after having to take care of my mom during her last 3 years. Now if I could just convince him to let me hire a snow shoveling/snow plowing service for him during the winter months for his home in Iowa...

[manaboutown]

Do you think that your dad has recouped the 40 years of Social Security ontributions in the 21 years of retirement? My guess would be YES!

Is this statement based upon X dollars in, X +Y dollars out? If so it is essentially meaningless, an old time life insurance salesman's trick. Money has interest earning capability if not left in a sugar bowl or safe. An accurate calculation would reflect "interest" earned on the money as well as adjust for inflation over the last 61 years.

Social Security is nothing more than a government sponsored Ponzi scheme. New contributors pay premiums which, in part, fund payments to retirees. In addition Social Security funds have been raided by politicians to meet other government programs and a seemingly ever increasing vast smorgasbord of entitlements. Plus, nowadays there are far fewer earners per retiree than in earlier days of the program.

My father, born in 1898, living 94 years, paid in very little in from 1937 to 1963 yet he received 29 years of Social Security benefits as well as 27 years of medicare. He did indeed profit from his contributions but those days are long over. He used to tell my brother and me that we were funding his SS retirement benefits through our payroll deductions and of course he was correct.

[Gerald]

did anyone think that the date talked about is during a time when hundreds of thousands lost their jobs and were not paying into SS.

[buggyone]

Is this statement based upon X dollars in, X +Y dollars out? If so it is essentially meaningless, an old time life insurance salesman's trick. Money has interest earning capability if not left in a sugar bowl or safe. An accurate calculation would reflect "interest" earned on the money as well as adjust for inflation over the last 61 years.

Social Security is nothing more than a government sponsored Ponzi scheme. New contributors pay premiums which, in part, fund payments to retirees. In addition Social Security funds have been raided by politicians to meet other government programs and a seemingly ever increasing vast smorgasbord of entitlements. Plus, nowadays there are far fewer earners per retiree than in earlier days of the program.

My father, born in 1898, living 94 years, paid in very little in from 1937 to 1963 yet he received 29 years of Social Security benefits as well as 27 years of medicare. He did indeed profit from his contributions but those days are long over. He used to tell my brother and me that we were funding his SS retirement benefits through our payroll deductions and of course he was correct.

I understand what you are saying but do not agree.

Do you think that a person should be allowed to opt out os SS 100 percent and do their own investing for retirement? Then IF that did not work out for him by the end of his career, that person would be left with absolutely nothing and no government agency would give him anything! Good idea or not?

I opine, you decide.