Social Security has not been destroyed. However, it could use some modifications (in terms of tax rates and benefits) to reflect current and future demographics as a way of preventing unreasonable SS tax increases in the future (in order to maintain current benefits). I will let you define what "unreasonable" is. The last major changes were over 30 years ago. Whether we will get those changes in the near term is doubtful, in my opinion.

The fundamental issue that makes Social Security viable today, and into the future, is that each worker produces more than he needs and some of that productivity is siphoned off, in the form of taxes, to support retired people. Social Security is a "pay as you go plan". Increases in productivity and/or decreases in benefits will control how much the workers are taxed to support Social Security. The $2.6T "trust fund" simply marks the point in time where Congress will have to make changes to SS or, by law, will be forced to reduce the current benefit schedule. SS has already turned the corner and is paying out more than it takes in but the Treasury department can legally take on new global debt to pay the short fall. Once the "trust fund" (which is only IOUs from Treasury to SS that were issued when SS taxes exceeded benefits payed) is "exhausted", SS will not be legally able to pay 100% of benefits. I believe the projection is 77% of benefits in 2033. Don't be confused by Government rhetoric: the "trust fund" is really an illusion to everybody but Government accountants. For example, in your own personal finances you don't typically write yourself an IOU for $1000 and then go a buy a new TV and call it a wash. If you do, your probably have debt problems.

SS benefits must be paid by incoming SS taxes otherwise the Government must take on additional debt. That is where we are today: incoming SS benefits are larger than incoming SS taxes and the Government is taking on additional debt when the "trust fund" IOUs are exchanged for real money on the global debt markets. The IOUs will have all been "cashed in" in 2033, by current projections.

Originally Posted by Guest

I must admit that I have come to ignore some of the technical aspects of government speak because there has been so many layers of creative accounting by pols that one could get caught up in Abbott's/Costello's "Who Is On First?" and its obviously intentional on their part and I am not going to continue to play their game.

Few if any presidential candidates have the political power or will to effectively alter social security. Social security was a good thing that pols greed destroyed. I say so because some folks just will never save they can't or won't and at least this safety net reduce some actual entitlements (ie things they never paid for, unlike SS deductions. For those of us who did save or do, SS has been the third leg of our retirement program.

I agree with adjustments in retirement age and monthly deductions because people live longer and because income brackets etc have changed over the years.

So again we have the pols diverting the problem as being social security when the problem is with thir management and perhaps the focus ought to be on their mismanagement. I write my representatives often and flatly tell them to keep their hands off our money

Personal Best Regards:

Don't forget, politicians, governors or presidents DO NOT pay into Social Security, so what is their commitment to fix it? They will still draw their huge taxpayer funded pensions after Social Security goes broke.

This is just plain incorrect information. You really should learn to do some basic research before posting in a public forum. Members of Congress pay into Social Security and does the president, vice-president, judges, etc. It all changed on January 1984 - this is really old news - you are living in the past.

Originally Posted by Guest

Don't forget, politicians, governors or presidents DO NOT pay into Social Security, so what is their commitment to fix it? They will still draw their huge taxpayer funded pensions after Social Security goes broke.

Originally Posted by Guest

Unfortunately, you appear to have failed to grasp the significance of what I wrote. Please reread and try to understand what I was saying. I clearly was not putting lipstick on anything. I was trying to explain what the "trust fund" actually is. I never said it was backed by assets. You appear to only want to vent some anger. So I will repeat. The "trust fund" is a commitment to do nothing more than go out on the global markets to borrow money to pay benefits. So there is no further confusion on your part, this is not a good thing. I will not make the mistake again of trying to explain things is a calm, coherent manner only to be ridiculed by someone like you.

I did not mean that as a personal attack and apologize. But if we continue to refer to "SS Trust Fund" it takes the urgency away which I believe all pols and most people getting a check want to do. The only fixes I've heard agreement on mean increased taxes, lower benefits, and later retirement date for future retiries (our children and grandchildren) and that is not ok for some of us.

Originally Posted by Guest

This is just plain incorrect information. You really should learn to do some basic research before posting in a public forum. Members of Congress pay into Social Security and does the president, vice-president, judges, etc. It all changed on January 1984 - this is really old news - you are living in the past.

Absolutely right. Same as Federal Government employees. Those hired in 1983 or earlier contributed to the Civil Service Retirement System - actually a .5% higher than Social Security. Those after 1983 contribute to the Social Security system and receive retirement under the Federal Employee Retirement System which is a combo of Social Security and Thrift Savings Plan.

You can call it what you want but it doesn't impact how people view SS. Pol won't touch it because they want to get reelected and I would guess less than 1% of the general public understand how SS works and the state it is in.

The reason you have only heard of fixes such as increased taxes, lower benefits, and later retirement date is because those are the only options. There are only two "knobs" to turn: increase the amount of money coming in and/or decrease the amount of money going out. This is basic budgeting and SS is a pay as you go program.

Originally Posted by Guest

I did not mean that as a personal attack and apologize. But if we continue to refer to "SS Trust Fund" it takes the urgency away which I believe all pols and most people getting a check want to do. The only fixes I've heard agreement on mean increased taxes, lower benefits, and later retirement date for future retiries (our children and grandchildren) and that is not ok for some of us.

If they would stop the freebies to illegals and to the people that never worked and stop moving the funds over to and absorbing the money to the general fund and accounting for where the money has gone we would never run out of money for SS. The account has been mismanaged and robbed for years so now they want cuts or move the age higher. BS . Any time our wonderful government gets involved with money which is all the time we get s---wed. They have great ideas and nothing really works. Maybe we should listner to that guy in that landed in DC capital building

SS is a pay was you go program. Money is not put away in an account under your name. The reality of the situation is that each working person is "supporting" more retired people now then in the past and the ratio will only get worse. SS taxes must increase and/or benefits must be reduced to continue the program as America continues to grey. People are living longer than ever and collecting benefits for a longer period of time than ever before. Raising the retirement age is one way to stabilize the program.

The SS program has not been mismanaged. other than there inability to effectively clamp down on fraud. Congress has not addressed the funding issue yet but there is time to change the trajectory. The Government has no vehicle for investing the SS surpluses of the past other than Treasury Bills - essentially IOUs from Treasury to SS. Those IOUs will be used up in 2033, at which point there is no legal way to borrow money (and the cashing in of those IOUs is nothing more than borrowing money on the global market) to fund the shortfall. Benefits will have to be reduced at that time if no changes to SS are made. If you want to discuss the inability of our Government to balance the budget that is an entirely different topic, and yes they have done a miserable job.

Originally Posted by Guest

If they would stop the freebies to illegals and to the people that never worked and stop moving the funds over to and absorbing the money to the general fund and accounting for where the money has gone we would never run out of money for SS. The account has been mismanaged and robbed for years so now they want cuts or move the age higher. BS . Any time our wonderful government gets involved with money which is all the time we get s---wed. They have great ideas and nothing really works. Maybe we should listner to that guy in that landed in DC capital building

Originally Posted by Guest

If they would stop the freebies to illegals and to the people that never worked and stop moving the funds over to and absorbing the money to the general fund and accounting for where the money has gone we would never run out of money for SS. The account has been mismanaged and robbed for years so now they want cuts or move the age higher. BS . Any time our wonderful government gets involved with money which is all the time we get s---wed. They have great ideas and nothing really works. Maybe we should listner to that guy in that landed in DC capital building

Actually the "illegals" are subsidizing the SS program. It would be in a lot worse shape if it wasn't for them to a tune of 5-10 % of the trust funds assets per year!

Edward Schumacher-Matos - How illegal immigrants are helping Social Security

You are incorrect. The article estimated that the total illegal contribution was $120-240B, which is 5-10% of the current "trust fund". This is not per year - this is the total amount ever paid. Big difference. SS paid out $894B in 2014. Illegal aliens had a net contribution to Social Security of $12B last year. That is a little more than 1% - hardly a significant amount on an annual basis.

Originally Posted by Guest

Actually the "illegals" are subsidizing the SS program. It would be in a lot worse shape if it wasn't for them to a tune of 5-10 % of the trust funds assets per year!

Edward Schumacher-Matos - How illegal immigrants are helping Social Security

That is 12 Billion Dollars that was not there before!

Illegal immigrants pay into Social Security when they are paid above the table AND they will not be getting any of it back.

Most retirees will get back ALL of their contributions PLUS a lot more.

Chris Christie has the right idea!

Of course Chris Christie has the right idea. Anyone and everyone who talks about making changes to SS has the right idea. The current trajectory of SS is very bad. Regarding the illegal contribution to SS, every little bit helps but 1% is not significant.

Originally Posted by Guest

That is 12 Billion Dollars that was not there before!

Illegal immigrants pay into Social Security when they are paid above the table AND they will not be getting any of it back.

Most retirees will get back ALL of their contributions PLUS a lot more.

Chris Christie has the right idea!

Originally Posted by Guest

You are incorrect. The article estimated that the total illegal contribution was $120-240B, which is 5-10% of the current "trust fund". This is not per year - this is the total amount ever paid. Big difference. SS paid out $894B in 2014. Illegal aliens had a net contribution to Social Security of $12B last year. That is a little more than 1% - hardly a significant amount on an annual basis.

Contractors pay either pay the illegal workers under the table cash or allow them every two years to change their name and SS# while claiming the absolute most dependents. Then pay almost no taxes. Thus they never file state or federaltax forms. They live in section 8 housing with their illegal girl friends who get to stay home with their babies and free food too.
While the lucky middle class couples with kids have two jobs paying taxes while also paying $2000 and up for day care.
What a great system..

Originally Posted by Guest

SS is a pay was you go program. Money is not put away in an account under your name. The reality of the situation is that each working person is "supporting" more retired people now then in the past and the ratio will only get worse. SS taxes must increase and/or benefits must be reduced to continue the program as America continues to grey. People are living longer than ever and collecting benefits for a longer period of time than ever before. Raising the retirement age is one way to stabilize the program.

The SS program has not been mismanaged. other than there inability to effectively clamp down on fraud. Congress has not addressed the funding issue yet but there is time to change the trajectory. The Government has no vehicle for investing the SS surpluses of the past other than Treasury Bills - essentially IOUs from Treasury to SS. Those IOUs will be used up in 2033, at which point there is no legal way to borrow money (and the cashing in of those IOUs is nothing more than borrowing money on the global market) to fund the shortfall. Benefits will have to be reduced at that time if no changes to SS are made. If you want to discuss the inability of our Government to balance the budget that is an entirely different topic, and yes they have done a miserable job.

Is the highlighted above intended to infer that SS funds have not been used for anything other than SS benfit?

Originally Posted by Guest

SS is a pay was you go program. Money is not put away in an account under your name. The reality of the situation is that each working person is "supporting" more retired people now then in the past and the ratio will only get worse. SS taxes must increase and/or benefits must be reduced to continue the program as America continues to grey. People are living longer than ever and collecting benefits for a longer period of time than ever before. Raising the retirement age is one way to stabilize the program.

The SS program has not been mismanaged. other than there inability to effectively clamp down on fraud. Congress has not addressed the funding issue yet but there is time to change the trajectory. The Government has no vehicle for investing the SS surpluses of the past other than Treasury Bills - essentially IOUs from Treasury to SS. Those IOUs will be used up in 2033, at which point there is no legal way to borrow money (and the cashing in of those IOUs is nothing more than borrowing money on the global market) to fund the shortfall. Benefits will have to be reduced at that time if no changes to SS are made. If you want to discuss the inability of our Government to balance the budget that is an entirely different topic, and yes they have done a miserable job.

Really?
So loaning private funds to a general fund account is backed by IOU's??

How many investments would the general public make based on being given an IOU? With a company that can only profess to be able to borrow money to pay back the investor?!?!?!

I do not know the answer, but where is it written that there is no place to go except Treasury bills?