Will Social Security exist when I retire in 25 years?

[Zippy Chippy]

Do you think social security will be around in 25 years? I read everywhere that it will be gone by 2035 or so, but don't you think they'll get the money from somewhere else? It doesn't really seem fair youd put into it your whole life and not get it, and everyone gets it now. I don't see how anyone will survive unless they've planned their retirement perfectly. People will have to hope they're dead when they retire

[TJDave]

Short answer is yes. I'd expect the retirement age to be 70+ by then, though.

The fact you're 25 years away is a blessing. You've got time to prepare for a proper retirement.

Start NOW.

[Rookies]

This is an interesting question for every country, but certainly all the world's democracies. It is clear that in places like the EEU, the concept of Social Security was way out of whack. The Greeces of the world were allowing it to be taken at 50 or not much later; whereas the Germans were held off until 65. Those disparities needed to be closed. In general, any economic reforms now force people to work longer to get it andin some cases- less of it.

In Canada, the Con gov't already has in place similar amendments beginning in Jan 2012. i.e. You can get a reduced one at age 60, but as the years go by,that amount will be further squeezed. At the other end- 65, you will get more by waiting. Any retirement courses tell you to take it immediately at 60, as actuarially speaking you won't start losing on the total sum until you are 77. :rolleyes:

As it happens, I will hit 60 next year, and will be taking it immediately.

Finally, Social Security/ Old Age type benefits are not, nor were they ever meant to sustain you. Simply a top up of Pensions/ Investment Funds, etc.

[chickenhead]

Short answer is yes. I'd expect the retirement age to be 70+ by then, though.

The fact you're 25 years away is a blessing. You've got time to prepare for a proper retirement.

Start NOW.

This.

I don't see how anyone will survive unless they've planned their retirement perfectly. People will have to hope they're dead when they retire

When Social Security was implemented -- the "retirement age" was higher than the average life span. It wasn't really meant to be a retirement, it was insurance in case you lived an abnormally long time, SS was there to keep you in cat food if that happened. The retirement ages haven't moved up nearly as fast as our lifespans have -- which is in large part the root of the problem. People aren't meant to stop working cold turkey "just because"...unless they can afford to.

[GameTheory]

There will probably be *something* for *somebody*, but the real answer is to plan on being rich enough that it won't matter.

[Tom]

I don't see how anyone will survive unless they've planned their retirement perfectly. People will have to hope they're dead when they retire

See, now this where Obama-Care comes in........:eek:

There will probably be *something* for *somebody*, but the real answer is to plan on being rich enough that it won't matter.

And then hope the morons in DC don't screw up the economy and wipe you out. A lot of hard-working good people have been hurt by the miserable excuse of leaders we have in the miserable excuse of a government. A curse on them all.

[GameTheory]

See, now this where Obama-Care comes in........:eek:



And then hope the morons in DC don't screw up the economy and wipe you out. A lot of hard-working good people have been hurt by the miserable excuse of leaders we have in the miserable excuse of a government. A curse on them all.I think in your financial dealings, it is wise to consider yourself a "citizen of the world" and don't tie yourself exclusively to the fate of this nation.

[Tom]

Once was the time that this nation meant something.
No longer.

[Tampa Russ]

Do you think social security will be around in 25 years? I read everywhere that it will be gone by 2035 or so, but don't you think they'll get the money from somewhere else? It doesn't really seem fair youd put into it your whole life and not get it, and everyone gets it now. I don't see how anyone will survive unless they've planned their retirement perfectly. People will have to hope they're dead when they retire

Will humans even be around in 25 years? Lately, Soylent Green seems less and less like a fictional movie to me.

[cj's dad]

Not sure about SS, but I guarantee that all the give aways will be alive and well; you know funding of children by unwed mothers, food stamps, section 8 housing, medical assistance. Why? If not, there would be anarchy. The folks waiting for SS are to old to rise up, but in the immortal words of the typical subsidy queen, "where my check? where my card for food," you understand what I'm sayin' ?

We are in deep s--t !! This mess has been created by the bleeding heart libs. please prove me wrong; please !!

[lamboguy]

what an interesting question?

my guess is that this country will not have the same government by then. i highly doubt that the dollar as we know it will exist.

[maddog42]

Do you think social security will be around in 25 years? I read everywhere that it will be gone by 2035 or so, but don't you think they'll get the money from somewhere else? It doesn't really seem fair youd put into it your whole life and not get it, and everyone gets it now. I don't see how anyone will survive unless they've planned their retirement perfectly. People will have to hope they're dead when they retire
This is from AOL Financial news:

"But a close reading of the Trustees report and the Congressional Budget Office analysis paints a different picture. Social Security received about $37 billion less in payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits in 2010. It will have a larger shortfall again this year because the federal government decided to give workers a 2% tax holiday on the amount they pay toward Social Security in 2011.

But Social Security has a trust fund of $2.6 trillion. This is money that was paid into the system but hasn't yet been spent by it. The money is all held in government bonds for which the Treasury must pay interest. It earned $119 billion in interest in 2010 and is projected to receive a similar amount in 2011. Total income in 2010 was $788 billion; total outgo was $706 billion. Does that sound like bankruptcy?

Now, some people regard those interest payments as contributing to the federal deficit. That's correct in in a strictly bookkeeping sense, because the federal government must pay them out of general revenues. But if Social Security didn't own these bonds, someone else would -- perhaps China or a pension fund in California. It is nonsense to suggest they are contributing to the federal deficit, too.

Minor Change Would Help Keep Program Solvent

David Certner, legislative policy director for AARP, points out that the trust fund has enough money to pay all of its projected benefits for the next 26 years. "The rest of the budget is out of balance, not Social Security, which takes in more money than it pays out," he says. Even after the 26 years are up, the program will have enough income from taxes to pay 75% of all benefits."

Most reasonable People think SS will be able to pay 80% of benefits if nothing is done in the next 25 years. There has been a lot of hysteria and lies told about SS lately. This seems to be the facts.

[TJDave]

This is from AOL Financial news:

"But a close reading of the Trustees report and the Congressional Budget Office analysis paints a different picture. Social Security received about $37 billion less in payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits in 2010. It will have a larger shortfall again this year because the federal government decided to give workers a 2% tax holiday on the amount they pay toward Social Security in 2011.

But Social Security has a trust fund of $2.6 trillion. This is money that was paid into the system but hasn't yet been spent by it. The money is all held in government bonds for which the Treasury must pay interest. It earned $119 billion in interest in 2010 and is projected to receive a similar amount in 2011. Total income in 2010 was $788 billion; total outgo was $706 billion. Does that sound like bankruptcy?

Now, some people regard those interest payments as contributing to the federal deficit. That's correct in in a strictly bookkeeping sense, because the federal government must pay them out of general revenues. But if Social Security didn't own these bonds, someone else would -- perhaps China or a pension fund in California. It is nonsense to suggest they are contributing to the federal deficit, too.


Those "special" bonds are an accounting parlor trick. There ain't no trust fund.

Here's why SS is safe:

Money for retirees is paid by current workers. No one would pay into the system without guarantees of future payments. It's a Ponzi scheme but because the government can print money...a successful one. ;)

[maddog42]

Those "special" bonds are an accounting parlor trick. There ain't no trust fund.

Here's why SS is safe:

Money for retirees is paid by current workers. No one would pay into the system without guarantees of future payments. It's a Ponzi scheme but because the government can print money...a successful one. ;)

Those bonds are good as long as the government is intact. Not quite a Ponzi scheme.

[elysiantraveller]

But Social Security has a trust fund of $2.6 trillion. This is money that was paid into the system but hasn't yet been spent by it. The money is all held in government bonds for which the Treasury must pay interest. It earned $119 billion in interest in 2010 and is projected to receive a similar amount in 2011. Total income in 2010 was $788 billion; total outgo was $706 billion. Does that sound like bankruptcy?

Yes.

Because the influx of recipients is just now starting with the first of the Baby-Boomers retiring...

[nijinski]

Not sure about SS, but I guarantee that all the give aways will be alive and well; you know funding of children by unwed mothers, food stamps, section 8 housing, medical assistance. Why? If not, there would be anarchy. The folks waiting for SS are to old to rise up, but in the immortal words of the typical subsidy queen, "where my check? where my card for food," you understand what I'm sayin' ?

We are in deep s--t !! This mess has been created by the bleeding heart libs. please prove me wrong; please !!

reminds of the news I just saw. One of these welfare moms just beat her
toddler to death ( very sad) however she's pregnant again . people like this should should not be enabled and paid for with taxpayer money .

[TJDave]

Those bonds are good as long as the government is intact.

It's exactly like make believe money loaned to yourself. Even the interest is make believe.

If everyone says the sun sets in the East...I guess it does. :rolleyes:

[maddog42]

Yes.

Because the influx of recipients is just now starting with the first of the Baby-Boomers retiring...

Drag out your calculator and figure those numbers.
Total income in 2010 was $788 billion; total outgo was $706 billion. Does that sound like bankruptcy? Plus $2.6 trillion trust fund. The Boomers WILL chip away at that trust fund. It will take at least 20 years. Social Security needs to be fixed in the next 10 years. It has been a very successfull and popular program.
The lifespan of people has caused most of the problems. We have borrowed against Social Security with those bonds. We need to cut other programs but not social security. And woe to those who would drastically change it. They will not get reelected.

[Robert Goren]

I have been hearing social security will broke in 20-25 years since I was a kid in the 50s. I have gotten to the point where I put those naysayers in with the "world will end on such and such a date" people.

[elysiantraveller]

Drag out your calculator and figure those numbers.
Total income in 2010 was $788 billion; total outgo was $706 billion. Does that sound like bankruptcy? Plus $2.6 trillion trust fund. The Boomers WILL chip away at that trust fund. It will take at least 20 years. Social Security needs to be fixed in the next 10 years. It has been a very successfull and popular program.
The lifespan of people has caused most of the problems. We have borrowed against Social Security with those bonds. We need to cut other programs but not social security. And woe to those who would drastically change it. They will not get reelected.

I'm not saying we need to do away with it. I am saying it isn't solvent and going bankrupt and the influx of baby-boomers is the problems.

CHICAGO (AP) -- Through a combination of procrastination and bad timing, many baby boomers are facing a personal finance disaster just as they're hoping to retire. Starting in January, more than 10,000 baby boomers a day will turn 65, a pattern that will continue for the next 19 years.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Baby-boomers-near-65-with-apf-654311409.html

[newtothegame]

Outlook Worsening for Social Security, Medicare, Trustees Say



Published May 13, 2011

| FoxNews.com

If you're 58 or older and plan to live to the average American life expectancy of 83 years, then you're in good shape.

But if you're planning to live past the year 2036, don't count on Social Security.

And if you're relying on Medicare, don't even think about the math.

That's the picture laid out in a new report released Friday by Social Security and Medicare trustees, who say the bad economy has shortened the life span of the trust funds for the nation's two biggest benefit programs, even as Americans' life spans are getting longer.

Currently, 46 million American seniors use Medicare. For those depending on the medical insurance plan, the hospital fund exhaustion deadline is now set at 2024, five year's earlier than last year's estimate.

The report says the Social Security trust fund that now helps 55 million retirees, disabled people and children who have lost parents will be exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than before.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/13/trustees-worsening-picture-social-security-medicare/?test=latestnews

[Robert Goren]

Gee, in 2036 they might have raise taxes to fund whatever war they want to fight instead of taking the money from social security like they in the past.

[newtothegame]

Gee, in 2036 they might have raise taxes to fund whatever war they want to fight instead of taking the money from social security like they in the past.

Robert....when these baby boomers all start to retire, there will be more math problems to solve the issues......
Fact is, our politicians have not done the right things in the past. Lets see where they go forward...I dont have much faith.

[PaceAdvantage]

Outlook Worsening for Social Security, Medicare, Trustees Say



Published May 13, 2011

| FoxNews.com

If you're 58 or older and plan to live to the average American life expectancy of 83 years, then you're in good shape.

But if you're planning to live past the year 2036, don't count on Social Security.

And if you're relying on Medicare, don't even think about the math.

That's the picture laid out in a new report released Friday by Social Security and Medicare trustees, who say the bad economy has shortened the life span of the trust funds for the nation's two biggest benefit programs, even as Americans' life spans are getting longer.

Currently, 46 million American seniors use Medicare. For those depending on the medical insurance plan, the hospital fund exhaustion deadline is now set at 2024, five year's earlier than last year's estimate.

The report says the Social Security trust fund that now helps 55 million retirees, disabled people and children who have lost parents will be exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than before.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/13/trustees-worsening-picture-social-security-medicare/?test=latestnewsThe point of my recent rants was to make sure people only reproduced one or two paragraphs of copyrighted text...I count six here? :faint:

[newtothegame]

The point of my recent rants was to make sure people only reproduced one or two paragraphs of copyrighted text...I count six here? :faint:

Touche' but you at least have to admit they were the shortest 6 you may have seen...???? :lol:
But seriously, I will do better next time Mike...thanks for your patience!

[maddog42]

Yes.

Because the influx of recipients is just now starting with the first of the Baby-Boomers retiring...
According to the non-partisan Committee and SS, the trust fund will be deleted in 2036 and the benefits that are paid after that would be 77%. This is from The Christian Science Monitor article. One estimate that I heard on the radio was that SS withholding would have to be bumped up by 10%, and the interest on that money would fund ss forever. Not quite the hysteria that some people would have you believe.

[chickenhead]

According to the non-partisan Committee and SS, the trust fund will be deleted in 2036 and the benefits that are paid after that would be 77%. This is from The Christian Science Monitor article. One estimate that I heard on the radio was that SS withholding would have to be bumped up by 10%, and the interest on that money would fund ss forever. Not quite the hysteria that some people would have you believe.

The traditional federal budget accounting includes SS, when in the past SS has run a surplus it gets spent elsewhere, and makes the overall budget look better. As the SS surplus dries up and turns into a deficit (begins to draw down the "trust fund") it is the federal deficit that balloons as that extra SS money dries up. This is already happening, each year, as the surplus has shrunk.

It makes no sense to look at SS in isolation, anymore than it makes sense to look at just HUD, or any other gov't program, in isolation. It makes little difference going forward that in the past it used to run a surplus, that money is gone. As soon as SS goes into deficit -- overall federal spending will be cut, or taxes raised, or the deficit and debt will increase. There isn't a 4th option. Since the program called SS becomes such a pain point as the demographics change, it will likely be involved in any cuts or tax changes that take place. And that is not when the "trust fund" is depleted -- that is very soon after it begins to run a deficit.

[maddog42]

The traditional federal budget accounting includes SS, when in the past SS has run a surplus it gets spent elsewhere, and makes the overall budget look better. As the SS surplus dries up and turns into a deficit (begins to draw down the "trust fund") it is the federal deficit that balloons as that extra SS money dries up. This is already happening, each year, as the surplus has shrunk.

It makes no sense to look at SS in isolation, anymore than it makes sense to look at just HUD, or any other gov't program, in isolation. It makes little difference going forward that in the past it used to run a surplus, that money is gone. As soon as SS goes into deficit -- overall federal spending will be cut, or taxes raised, or the deficit and debt will increase. There isn't a 4th option. Since the program called SS becomes such a pain point as the demographics change, it will likely be involved in any cuts or tax changes that take place. And that is not when the "trust fund" is depleted -- that is very soon after it begins to run a deficit.

It makes plenty of sense to look at SS in isolation. It was a promise made to the elderly in this country, Hence a "trust Fund". I am a fiscal conservative, but SS is off the table.Lets cut some of these other sacred cows : Welfare, defense, whatever. Not SS .
Spending is rampant in this country. Republicans are just as guilty as Dems.

[chickenhead]

It makes plenty of sense to look at SS in isolation. It was a promise made to the elderly in this country, Hence a "trust Fund". I am a fiscal conservative, but SS is off the table.Lets cut some of these other sacred cows : Welfare, defense, whatever. Not SS .
Spending is rampant in this country. Republicans are just as guilty as Dems.

No one, so far as I know, has in the history of this country ever suggested renegging on any promise, or cutting a single dollar, to anyone that is elderly -- it is a dishonest flag that gets thrown up.

But SS and the gov't are certainly dishonest about things, as well.

SS sends me a letter each year showing my projected monthly payments, and at what age I can get them. They also tell me every year that the projections they show themselves paying me aren't actually completely funded, aren't actually budgeted for, and they don't know where or if the money will come.

Is that the promise they are making me?

I am 35. I don't want the government to cut SS on the current elderly, I want SS to cut SS for me, when I'm elderly. I don't want a promise they can't keep.

I'm saying -- quit lying to everyone my age. You don't have the money -- and you won't have the money. Adjust my numbers and my retirement age now, to match the money you will have. 50%, 70%, whatever. Just cut my projected benefits to that, now. And adjust my retirement age. Really, I won't be mad.

And -- whammo -- SS is now solvent. *like magic*

The only thing that makes SS "insolvent" currently is the lack of political will to be honest -- and to adjust the project outlays to match their projected inflows. There never should have been a projection mailed to anyone, ever, that showed a single dollar more than they projected they would have. It's called a lie. There should never have been a promise made to anyone, anywhere -- to spend money that isn't budgeted, and probably never will be.

We have a lag time of DECADES for people to adjust, but we continue pretending, for no good reason whatsoever.

[Bettowin]

Gee, in 2036 they might have raise taxes to fund whatever war they want to fight instead of taking the money from social security like they in the past.


Won't you be long gone by then?

[Robert Goren]

Won't you be long gone by then?Probably considering my current health. I'd be 88.

[BetHorses!]

A friend of mine showed me the SS Master beneficiary records from 2009 and it was very strange.

Puerto Rico had a total of 776,374 beneficiaries of those 159,775 are disabled workers (20.5%). New York was 3,214,780 bene with 470,783 disabled workers (14.6%)......many other states were weird percentages even after you compare them to general population numbers from 2009. Let me see if i can link the chart

[Robert Goren]

The recession has increased the SS rolls greatly. A lot of older and disabled workers were considered by their companies to expendable. They had no chance of ever getting another decent paying full time job (or a job period in many cases). They ended up on SS.