Soon Social Security benefits may pay you only 77%

[lockedout]

While engaging in the mundane task of gathering financial statements for a “secure retirement” meeting with my husband’s and my adviser, this Baby Boomer stumbled upon documented proof that our nation does not have the guts to confront one of its most serious economic problems. The realization came when I pulled from my files a document statement innocently titled, “Your Social Security Statement.” At first glance, the statement did not appear menacing. I was told I could expect to receive a benefit of “about $2,136 a month” upon reaching age 70 — which certainly seems like good news. But immediately I thought of a parallel of President Obama’s infamous Obamacare promise: “If you like your Social Security, you can keep your Social Security.” Then, as if on cue, I saw an asterisk with the following message: The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2033, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 77 percent of scheduled benefits.

Sitting in the back of my Social Security file was an earlier statement dated March 10, 2009. Again, followed by an asterisk was a sentence that read exactly like my 2015 statement except for two major differences (emphasis added): The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2041, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 78 percent of your scheduled benefits.

Clearly, in 2009, the government’s prediction — that Social Security would have to be cut to 78 percent of benefits come 2041 — was overly optimistic. Now, in 2015, they are projecting 2033, eight years earlier, with one percentage point less of my projected benefits. The projections have steadily worsened over the past few years, helped by a much weaker economy than the federal government expected. Does anyone really expect these numbers to get better?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...t-baby-boomers

[drwelfare]

I expect to see no social security unless I become disabled in the near future.

Every year when I pay myself I really feel that money is being thrown away.

[Captain N]

Got anything better than a Conservative Website that has a header describing the "Obama Security Hoax"?

I mean I don't pay into nor benefit from Social Security in any way, but this journalism from a Daily Caller reporter isn't someone I'd consider to be exceptionally credible.

[lockedout]

Got anything better than a Conservative Website that has a header describing the "Obama Security Hoax"?

I mean I don't pay into nor benefit from Social Security in any way, but this journalism from a Daily Caller reporter isn't someone I'd consider to be exceptionally credible.

Did you read the article? If so are you claiming it's lying? If not what's the problem?

[I Push Buttons]

Damn Obama, why didn't you make Social Security better when you implemented it 80 years ago!?

[Captain N]

Did you read the article? If so are you claiming it's lying? If not what's the problem?

It's heavily biased and typical of your posts. Considering it was written by a satire journalist it's something difficult to take seriously?

[lockedout]

Got anything better than a Conservative Website that has a header describing the "Obama Security Hoax"?

I mean I don't pay into nor benefit from Social Security in any way, but this journalism from a Daily Caller reporter isn't someone I'd consider to be exceptionally credible.

The trustees of the Social Security system’s finances released their annual report on Wednesday afternoon. They say the combined trust funds that help pay old age and disability benefits are likely to run out by 2034, the year when today’s 48-year-olds reach full retirement age. The trustee’s estimate reflects the latest economic and demographic projections, and it changes a bit most years. Last year’s estimate for trust fund depletion was 2033.

But what does it mean to say the Social Security trust fund has run out?

Let’s be clear: Social Security benefits won’t disappear entirely when that happens. If nothing else changes, the payroll taxes still being paid by younger people in the workforce will be enough to fund about 79% of scheduled benefits, says the report.

http://time.com/money/topic/social-security/

- - - Updated - - -

It's heavily biased and typical of your posts. Considering it was written by a satire journalist it's something difficult to take seriously?

Typical of my posts? Blatant lie.

[Raeph]

I see three scenarios for Social Security

1) It goes bankrupt (meaning the reserves in the trust fund ensuring 100% outgoing benefits are exhausted and they have to pay benefits based on incoming taxes) in the 2030s because the government dysfunction stay's the way it is now. Those that are receiving benefits then will see the mentioned 23% cuts in benefits, which may end up being deeper depending on the ratio between workers and benefits recipients.

2)Dysfunction eases enough for a short term fix that may push the critical date from 2030s to 2050s or beyond, however it essentially just kicks the can down the road.

3) Liberals get realistic and Conservatives bury Grover Norquist in a field somewhere and adjustments are made to the program along side a modest payroll tax increase and the issue is resolved for the foreseeable future.

[Wildtree]

Typical of my posts? Blatant lie.

I've to defend you here.... it's not really typical..
although if you were female, I'd ask you whether you're on political pms or something lately

[lockedout]

I've to defend you here.... it's not really typical..
although if you were female, I'd ask you whether you're on political pms or something lately

Nah no PMS just like to post things I think people aren't so aware of or don't think about regularly that will wake them up, elephant in the room and all that. Everyone is to busy staring at their mobile devices walking around in a fog.

[I Push Buttons]

Nah no PMS just like to post things I think people aren't so aware of or don't think about regularly that will wake them up, elephant in the room and all that. Everyone is to busy staring at their mobile devices walking around in a fog.

I don't think anyone was not aware that social security as it stands is not sustainable... Literally every politician quips about it at every campaign stop. Especially in places like Florida.

[lockedout]

I don't think anyone was not aware that social security as it stands is not sustainable..

No one huh? I would say you're wrong there.

[Wildtree]

Nah no PMS just like to post things I think people aren't so aware of or don't think about regularly that will wake them up, elephant in the room and all that. Everyone is to busy staring at their mobile devices walking around in a fog.

that is indeed true.

[Kujako]

(shrug) I expect the retirement age for full benefits to be pushed back to 70+. It's only logical given the extended working age & lifespan.

Also, since the money has been going into the general fund thanks to Lyndon Johnson, I see no reason payouts can't do the same.

[Independent voter]

I just know soon as I'm ready to retire they'll up the age another 20 years or disband social security entirely.

I've read that Germany moved retirement age up to 67.

[Kujako]

I just know soon as I'm ready to retire they'll up the age another 20 years or disband social security entirely.

I've read that Germany moved retirement age up to 67.

It's 67 in the US now as well. I expect it to be 70+ by the time I'm ready to retire.

[lockedout]

I just know soon as I'm ready to retire they'll up the age another 20 years or disband social security entirely.

I've read that Germany moved retirement age up to 67.

While you can sign up for Social Security as early as age 62, your payments will be reduced unless you wait until your full retirement age to start payments. The full retirement age is 65 for everyone born in 1937 and earlier, but has since increased to 66 for most baby boomers and will further climb to 67 for everyone born in 1960 or later. "You are not tapping into the full potential of Social Security if you elect to claim Social Security before age 66 because it is significantly discounted. Some people might call it a haircut," Neiser says. "That smaller amount adds up to thousands and thousands of dollars less throughout your lifetime."

[Captain N]

It's 67 in the US now as well. I expect it to be 70+ by the time I'm ready to retire.

It's probably close to an impossibility at this point, but I think Social Security should be implemented just as Railroad Retirement is. You're paying a higher tax rate based on Tier I and II earnings but after 30 years of service you get the average of your best 5 years of service as a pension. That's on top of any other savings you may already have.

There wouldn't be any of that waiting til your 70 to retire stuff.

[lockedout]

It's probably close to an impossibility at this point, but I think Social Security should be implemented just as Railroad Retirement is. You're paying a higher tax rate based on Tier I and II earnings but after 30 years of service you get the average of your best 5 years of service as a pension. That's on top of any other savings you may already have.

There wouldn't be any of that waiting til your 70 to retire stuff.

Were done attacking the source now?

[Kujako]

Were done attacking the source now?

No point, you wont find an unbiased source 'cause it may not agree with you and we're too lazy. So we'll just discuss the idea rather then debate if it's true or not.

Frankly I'm so lazy (and frankly too warm) I'm not even reading the original post or link...