Baby Boomer Retirement Crisis

OpinionDuck 2 years ago

easyspeak

You really didn't do your homework on social security.

Probably should look at Canadian SS seeing how your in Vancouver.

Nice place.

OpinionDuck 2 years ago

easyspeak

didn't mean to have an edge.

Social Security was setup in 1935 by FDR.

Social Security is a tax with a promise of something

The age of 62 now is for reduced and not full benefits.

The age for full benefits used to be 65, but it goes up depending on your birth date.

The Congresses over the decades have used the Social Security money as a general slush fund piggy bank, they and not the recepients have drained it.

While there is a large amount of money for SS in the budget, you have to contrast it with the tax burden created by the government Federal Employee Retirement System that is paid by the taxpayers, and it increases with every increase in the size of government and as government employees retire.

You talk about SS retirees living off government welfare, consider that these people could have paid the forced SS contributions for a half century to get these paltry benefits. Then to earn enough to get by, they work at some job, and that job takes SS contributions.

My point is that instead of pointing the finger at the retirees, that finger should go to the government. We the people are paying the public servants and providing benefits we ourselves cannot get in the private sector.

Now that government wants to force National Healthcare for the people but again not for the government workers.

One solution is to split the SS based on age and let them run through its course, then the younger generation should have retirement system that is private, and controlled to grow the cntributions into a fund that will be able to pay its retirees. This is similar to th FERS federal employee retirement system. With FERS if the fund didn't make enough to pay the retiree, the taxpayer money kicks in to make the difference.

Any loss to see the SS retirees of the existing system should be made up by the government, the government engineered the plan and refused to protect the contributions and make it grow.

Thanks for asking.

OpinionDuck 2 years ago

You are correct, but unfortunately the voters haven't been too smart for the last fifty years, or more.

Thanks for the reply

OpinionDuck 2 years ago

easyspeak

Thanks for the fan mail and it is always good to share our ideas and opinions. We probably have topics we agree on and others that probably not many people agree on.

have a great hub day.

quack.

Rob 21 months ago

The legislative branch of the federal governemnt has run amok. Democracy, if it exists in this country, has been shrouded and immunized from the influence of the voters of this country. When was the last time you were aware of the earmarking of funds generated by a new tax law? Without earmarking, the generated funds could go anywhere and do, and seldom to the programs they were advertized to help when the new legislation was advertized to the voter. We see the fleecing of the middle calss over and over in this country and this subject is just another example. However, and I do not disagree with the points you are making, one comment in the discussion thread you made is very correct and extremely important: ultimately it is our responsibility and at the moment, we are genrally to blind to see the wealthy class money grabs taking place and the role the government (and the wealthy bivoucked there) is playing in it.

Thanks for sharing your insights, wish more people thought that way.

mandatory retirement 20 months ago

My full retirement age is 66, a little more than 2 years from now. My plan is to work full time until then. I'm fortunate to have a full time job in this economy. This "crisis" has been a long time coming and it will take some very creative to "fix" it.

Bill 11 months ago

The republican party is essentially correct in what they have been saying. We do not have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem.

However, what they as well as the democratic party failed to recognize is the fact that we would not have a deficit crises due to the high cost of social security and/or Medicare, if they would have left the excess revenue in the social security and/or Medicare trust funds where it belongs, instead of siphoning off the surplus tax revenues from these funds and spending them for other purposes than that in which they were intended.

For many years congress has considered social security and Medicare spending as off-budget spending.

However, the Office .of Management and Budget (OMB) recently proposed putting all federal off-budget spending back on the books.

WHAT IS OFF-BUDGET SPENDING?

Off-budget spending is federal spending or lending that, by law, is not counted as part of. the regular federal budget and as such, is isolated from the normal appropriations processes and public debate surrounding on-budget spending.

Off-budget spending, in short, is a tool used to disguise the true cost of government programs. As a result, U.S . taxpayers OMB proposals to place off-budget spending back on the books would afford an important step toward fiscal responsibility and forfeit a degree of control over the process of government.

OFF-BUDGET SPENDING AND THE POLITICAL PROCESS

Off-budget spending is the epitome of fiscal irresponsibility and governmental hypocrisy. OMB's proposal to include off-budget outlays as part of the budget should be welcomed by all those who are seriously concerned about budgetary control. The political role of off-budget spending is to allow politicians to preach fiscal responsibility and to practice political profligacy. (extravagance- reckless spending)

The following is only my opinion:

Cutting social security and Medicare funds does nothing to help offset the federal deficit. It merely places an unfair burden on the taxpayers who would have to come up with addition funding to replace the funds which the government siphoned off from the social security and Medicare funds in order to pay off other unrelated general obligations of the federal governments debt.

In other words one cannot continue to rob Peter to pay Paul. This is due to the fact that eventually Peter will run out of money and they both will end up broke. I ________________________________________________________________________

The baby boomer problem has nothing to do with the current social security crises.

Congress created the current social security crises themselves.

Congress violating the trust of people when the raised the tax rates on social security under the false pretence that the tax rate had to be increased to help offset the future cost to social security due to the pending upcoming baby boomer crisis.

This violation of the trust of people occurred due to the fact the extra revenue that was collect during the baby boomer generation in order to help offset the future cost of social security was not held in the social security trust fund as originally intended.

In 1983, the payroll tax was increased substantially in response to the recommendations, the previous year, of the Greenspan Commission on Social Security Reform. Prior to 1983, Social Security had operated on a “pay-as-you-go” basis with each generation responsible for paying for the benefits of the generation that preceded them.

The 1983 legislation changed the nature of Social Security funding. In addition to paying for the benefits of the preceding generation, as was customary, the baby boomers were also required to pay additional taxes to partially pre-fund their own retirement.

Given the fact that Section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 made it a violation of federal law to use Social Security revenue for non-Social Security purposes, it is hard to justify using the word “borrow” to refer to any of the Social Security money spent after 1990, even if it is eventually paid back.

There is something else one needs to be considered when discussing social security, which is the Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.

Office of Management and Budget

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010: A Description

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (PAYGO, or "the Act") is part of Public Law 111-139, enacted on February 12, 2010. Briefly, the Act requires that all new legislation changing taxes, fees, or mandatory expenditures, taken together, must not increase projected deficits. This requirement is enforced by the threat of automatic across-the-board cuts in selected mandatory programs in the event that legislation taken as a whole does not meet the PAYGO standard established by the law. PAYGO also established special scorecards and scorekeeping rules.

A. Principle. The principle underlying PAYGO is a rule of budget neutrality - that is, the government must not enact any new laws that would increase projected deficits.

Adherence to PAYGO does not by itself reduce projected deficits, but during the 1990s, when the first statutory PAYGO law was in effect, adherence to the principle reinforced - and effectively locked into place - the substantive deficit-reduction measures enacted in 1990 and 1993, helping to lead to surpluses in the last four years of the Clinton Administration.

B. Applicability. PAYGO applies to laws enacted after February 12, 2010, that would alter revenues or mandatory spending or collections. (Mandatory spending encompasses any spending except that controlled by the annual appropriations process.1) For simplicity, this description calls such laws "PAYGO bills."

PAYGO requires that bills reducing revenues must be fully offset by cuts in mandatory programs or by revenue increases. It also requires that any bills increasing mandatory expenditures must be fully offset by revenue increases or cuts in mandatory programs. For purposes of PAYGO, there is no fundamental distinction between mandatory and tax legislation. Although it is simplest to describe the PAYGO principle as barring legislation that would increase projected deficits, the Act, which is permanent, would continue to apply even if the budget were in surplus.

C. Enforcement. If Congress enacts PAYGO bills cutting taxes or increasing mandatory expenditures without fully offsetting the costs, the Act specifies a penalty, called "sequestration." If Congress adjourns at the end of a session with net costs – that is, more costs than savings - on the scorecard, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to calculate, and the President is required to issue a sequestration order implementing, across-the-board cuts to a select group of mandatory programs in an amount sufficient to offset the net costs on the PAYGO scorecard.

PAYGO subjects mandatory spending to sequestration, with specified exemptions. Exemptions from sequestration include Social Security; most unemployment benefits; veterans’ benefits; interest on the debt; federal retirement; and the low-income entitlements such as Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), and Supplemental Security Income.2 The major remaining mandatory programs, which are subject to sequestration, include most Medicare payments, farm price supports, vocational rehabilitation basic state grants, mineral leasing payments to states, the Social Services block grant, and many smaller programs…”

“Sequestration is also defined as confiscation.”

*Note the Exemptions to the Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010*

(which by the way just happens to include social security.)

PAYGO subjects mandatory spending to sequestration, with specified exemptions. Exemptions from sequestration include Social Security; most unemployment benefits; veterans’ benefits; interest on the debt; federal retirement; and the low-income entitlements such as Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), and Supplemental Security Income.