Colorado Right

Living Right under the Peak

Social Security – The Real Deadline

I noted before the fake bankruptcy year for Social Security – here’s what really needs to be noted from BizzyBlog:

That is, of course, incorrect, as The Heritage Foundation noted (bolds are mine):

Social Security spending will exceed projected tax collections in 2017. These deficits will quickly balloon to alarming proportions. After adjusting for inflation, annual deficits will reach $67.8 billion in 2020, $266.5 billion in 2030, and $330.9 billion in 2035.

….. From (2017) on, Social Security will require large and growing amounts of general revenue money in order to pay all of its promised benefits. Even though this money will technically come from cashing in the special issue bonds in the trust fund, the money to repay them will come from other tax collections or borrowing. The billions that go to Social Security each year will make it harder to find money for other government programs or require large and growing tax increases.

There’s a method to Old Media’s studied ignorance. Heritage explains the problem, but doesn’t make the ultimate connection:

Every year, there is one less year of surplus and one more year of deficit. Once those deficits start in 2017, the Trustees Report shows that they will never end. Each year, with the disappearance of another year of surplus, reforming Social Security gets more expensive.

At some point, it will get too expensive to fix, and the USA’s retirement system will be stuck in the ruts seen in France, Germany, and other countries that refused to confront their demographic and financial realities. Those who defend Social Security as it is, and wish for political reasons to perpetuate the dependency culture it fosters in the senior population, would actually prefer that the US go down that same failed road. They know full well that all they have to do is run out the clock for something like 5-10 years. At that point, the partial privatization of Social Security to include personally managed investment accounts that could save the system will likely become fiscally impossible.

Don’t think for a minute that Old Media doesn’t understand this. They know that the less they cover Social Security’s real problems, and the more they allow it to be demagogued by its diehard supporters, the less likely it is that reform will occur. Their focus on 2041 instead of 2017 is no accident.
 Don’t listen to the pundits who tell you to not take early beneifts from Social Security.  It will be long gone if you wait.

April 30, 2007 - Posted by coloradoright | Culture, Dead Stream Media, Democrats, Republicans, Social Security | | 2 Comments

2 Comments »

  1. The really sad thing is that there are so many people who haven’t saved for their retirement because they actually believe social security will be there for them. They are “dumb” enough to believe those stupid reports the Social Security Administration sends them every year or so. But even if the SSA was telling the truth, the amount of money most people would get is barely enough to live on.

    Comment by COgirl | April 30, 2007 | Reply

  2. Social security is really not the big problem that alarmists say that it is. There’s a very simple fix: apply the social security deduction to all incomes, with no cutoff. Currently, there is a cutoff at 97k. What that means, is that for people earning ABOVE 97k, the social security deduction decreases as a percent of their income.

    If 15% is ok for someone making 20k, then why isn’t it ok for someone making 200k? Only 7.5% is actually taken out of your check, but, the other 7.5% is paid by your employer, and factors into their decisions about raises and hiring.

    Barack Obama has a plan to fix this problem, but I don’t like it. Obama would exempt people making between 97k and 150k from paying the increase, but he would apply the increase to everyone making above 150k.

    I don’t like it for two reasons. It isn’t fair, and it isn’t necessary. A better solution: Remove the cap and apply the deduction to all income, and THEN, cut the rate for everyone to 10%.

    If we did that, we could still alleviate the pain for the families in the 97k-150k range (they would get a very small increase), raise enough money to save the system, and give a really nice tax break for the majority of us. No benefit cuts, no extraordinary tax hikes for the average person, and the rich pay the same rate as everyone else.

    I don’t like so-called “privatization.” Take a look at the state of our pension funds. That’s a worse worry than social security, IMO. How do we fix THAT ONE?

    Comment by T.D. | September 11, 2008 | Reply


Leave a comment