[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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

[Duvalboomer]

Originally Posted by Bill Tasker

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" 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]

Originally Posted by Duvalboomer

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

LOL....thats the plan.