Boston U. Econ. Prof. calculates $202 Trillion US Fiscal Gap

[davelj]

The problem, of course, is that the money paid into the system by each retiree – even adjusted for inflation and returns on the money paid in – doesn’t cover the average retiree’s benefits received. More specifically, the average beneficiary of Social Security takes out far more money in retirement than they paid into the system. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have a problem. The simplest solutions to this problem are to (1) raise the ceiling on earnings to which the SS tax is applied, and (2) raise the age at which initial benefits can be received.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]
And yet the age at which benefits begin has, for all intents and purposes, not been changed much.

[/quote]

I think the important point here is that birth to death life expectancy isn’t, by itself, the least bit meaningful in comparing benefits between 1935 and now. Life expectancy at age 60 (or maybe better, if available would be at age 65.)

I’ve seen a whole lot of stats that isolated the change in life expectancy at age 60, and most of them (depending on which cross-tab, if any, is deemed most important) add somewhere between 5-8 years to life expectancy. Three years has been added to to normal retirement age, so while the entire delta hasn’t been adressed, a significant portion of it has.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]
And yet the age at which benefits begin has, for all intents and purposes, not been changed much.

[/quote]

I think the important point here is that birth to death life expectancy isn’t, by itself, the least bit meaningful in comparing benefits between 1935 and now. Life expectancy at age 60 (or maybe better, if available would be at age 65.)

I’ve seen a whole lot of stats that isolated the change in life expectancy at age 60, and most of them (depending on which cross-tab, if any, is deemed most important) add somewhere between 5-8 years to life expectancy. Three years has been added to to normal retirement age, so while the entire delta hasn’t been adressed, a significant portion of it has.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]
And yet the age at which benefits begin has, for all intents and purposes, not been changed much.

[/quote]

I think the important point here is that birth to death life expectancy isn’t, by itself, the least bit meaningful in comparing benefits between 1935 and now. Life expectancy at age 60 (or maybe better, if available would be at age 65.)

I’ve seen a whole lot of stats that isolated the change in life expectancy at age 60, and most of them (depending on which cross-tab, if any, is deemed most important) add somewhere between 5-8 years to life expectancy. Three years has been added to to normal retirement age, so while the entire delta hasn’t been adressed, a significant portion of it has.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]
And yet the age at which benefits begin has, for all intents and purposes, not been changed much.

[/quote]

I think the important point here is that birth to death life expectancy isn’t, by itself, the least bit meaningful in comparing benefits between 1935 and now. Life expectancy at age 60 (or maybe better, if available would be at age 65.)

I’ve seen a whole lot of stats that isolated the change in life expectancy at age 60, and most of them (depending on which cross-tab, if any, is deemed most important) add somewhere between 5-8 years to life expectancy. Three years has been added to to normal retirement age, so while the entire delta hasn’t been adressed, a significant portion of it has.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]
And yet the age at which benefits begin has, for all intents and purposes, not been changed much.

[/quote]

I think the important point here is that birth to death life expectancy isn’t, by itself, the least bit meaningful in comparing benefits between 1935 and now. Life expectancy at age 60 (or maybe better, if available would be at age 65.)

I’ve seen a whole lot of stats that isolated the change in life expectancy at age 60, and most of them (depending on which cross-tab, if any, is deemed most important) add somewhere between 5-8 years to life expectancy. Three years has been added to to normal retirement age, so while the entire delta hasn’t been adressed, a significant portion of it has.

[davelj]

[quote=SK in CV]Three years has been added to to normal retirement age, so while the entire delta hasn’t been adressed, a significant portion of it has.[/quote]

I agree that the metric to look at is the change in life expectancy for 65 year-olds… which appears to be about 7 years. While a “significant” portion of the delta may have been addressed, clearly we’re still a pretty long ways off from getting the system balanced (because the aggregate gap continues to grow each year, per the OP’s article), so we probably should go ahead and address the remainder, yes?

[davelj]

[quote=SK in CV]Three years has been added to to normal retirement age, so while the entire delta hasn’t been adressed, a significant portion of it has.[/quote]

I agree that the metric to look at is the change in life expectancy for 65 year-olds… which appears to be about 7 years. While a “significant” portion of the delta may have been addressed, clearly we’re still a pretty long ways off from getting the system balanced (because the aggregate gap continues to grow each year, per the OP’s article), so we probably should go ahead and address the remainder, yes?

[davelj]

[quote=SK in CV]Three years has been added to to normal retirement age, so while the entire delta hasn’t been adressed, a significant portion of it has.[/quote]

I agree that the metric to look at is the change in life expectancy for 65 year-olds… which appears to be about 7 years. While a “significant” portion of the delta may have been addressed, clearly we’re still a pretty long ways off from getting the system balanced (because the aggregate gap continues to grow each year, per the OP’s article), so we probably should go ahead and address the remainder, yes?

[davelj]

[quote=SK in CV]Three years has been added to to normal retirement age, so while the entire delta hasn’t been adressed, a significant portion of it has.[/quote]

I agree that the metric to look at is the change in life expectancy for 65 year-olds… which appears to be about 7 years. While a “significant” portion of the delta may have been addressed, clearly we’re still a pretty long ways off from getting the system balanced (because the aggregate gap continues to grow each year, per the OP’s article), so we probably should go ahead and address the remainder, yes?

[davelj]

[quote=SK in CV]Three years has been added to to normal retirement age, so while the entire delta hasn’t been adressed, a significant portion of it has.[/quote]

I agree that the metric to look at is the change in life expectancy for 65 year-olds… which appears to be about 7 years. While a “significant” portion of the delta may have been addressed, clearly we’re still a pretty long ways off from getting the system balanced (because the aggregate gap continues to grow each year, per the OP’s article), so we probably should go ahead and address the remainder, yes?

[bearishgurl]

Rather than focus on actuarial data that we can’t change, I think a change of SS laws is in order to preserve future OASDI benefits for those workers that contributed to the “system.”

In reference (below) to the phrase “never-employed,” I also mean, “lacking in sufficient quarters of contibutions to SS to qualify for a benefit in their own right.” There are patently unfair parts of the SS laws that I don’t agree with, such as:

-Allowing a never-employed 62 to 65 year old to “choose” which of their spouses they want to base their benefit on, even if formerly widowed or divorced from that spouse, ESP if that former spouse is already collecting a SS benefit based upon their own contributions;

-allowing a never-employed 62 to 65 year old to base their benefit on a current spouse when that spouse is still living and also drawing a benefit based upon their own contributions;

-allowing an over-62-year-old (age at the time of immigration) immigrant to draw a benefit in the form of SSI (which I have no doubt is being “borrowed” from the OASDI fund) who was sponsored by a family member who expressly promised the INS in writing that they would support that individual for life as a condition of obtaining a “green card” for them and then later reneges on that promise for any reason;

-allowing minor child(ren) of a deceased-worker (who did not live to be retirement age) to collect $1400-$2200 mo SS each when the actual contributions of the deceased worker-parent would warrant a far lower benefit, amounting to unjust enrichment to their custodial parent; and,

-allowing a 5-45 year-old (yes, some are children) to collect SSD indefinitely for having “vague” disabilities or injuries with which, as adults, they could perform some kind of meaningful work but would rather passively follow the “gravy-train,” esp. if they have contributed little to nothing in SS themselves (this does not apply to persons who sustained paralysis, loss of limb or brain injuries).

IMO, the reasons above are why a lot of workers think of SS as a “ponzi-scheme,” and worry that it won’t be around for them when they need it after they contributed to it their entire working lives. I’m all for removing my OWN contributions now and investing it for myself, in lieu of waiting to collect a monthly payment when I reach retirement age. [end of rant]

[bearishgurl]

Rather than focus on actuarial data that we can’t change, I think a change of SS laws is in order to preserve future OASDI benefits for those workers that contributed to the “system.”

In reference (below) to the phrase “never-employed,” I also mean, “lacking in sufficient quarters of contibutions to SS to qualify for a benefit in their own right.” There are patently unfair parts of the SS laws that I don’t agree with, such as:

-Allowing a never-employed 62 to 65 year old to “choose” which of their spouses they want to base their benefit on, even if formerly widowed or divorced from that spouse, ESP if that former spouse is already collecting a SS benefit based upon their own contributions;

-allowing a never-employed 62 to 65 year old to base their benefit on a current spouse when that spouse is still living and also drawing a benefit based upon their own contributions;

-allowing an over-62-year-old (age at the time of immigration) immigrant to draw a benefit in the form of SSI (which I have no doubt is being “borrowed” from the OASDI fund) who was sponsored by a family member who expressly promised the INS in writing that they would support that individual for life as a condition of obtaining a “green card” for them and then later reneges on that promise for any reason;

-allowing minor child(ren) of a deceased-worker (who did not live to be retirement age) to collect $1400-$2200 mo SS each when the actual contributions of the deceased worker-parent would warrant a far lower benefit, amounting to unjust enrichment to their custodial parent; and,

-allowing a 5-45 year-old (yes, some are children) to collect SSD indefinitely for having “vague” disabilities or injuries with which, as adults, they could perform some kind of meaningful work but would rather passively follow the “gravy-train,” esp. if they have contributed little to nothing in SS themselves (this does not apply to persons who sustained paralysis, loss of limb or brain injuries).

IMO, the reasons above are why a lot of workers think of SS as a “ponzi-scheme,” and worry that it won’t be around for them when they need it after they contributed to it their entire working lives. I’m all for removing my OWN contributions now and investing it for myself, in lieu of waiting to collect a monthly payment when I reach retirement age. [end of rant]

[bearishgurl]

Rather than focus on actuarial data that we can’t change, I think a change of SS laws is in order to preserve future OASDI benefits for those workers that contributed to the “system.”

In reference (below) to the phrase “never-employed,” I also mean, “lacking in sufficient quarters of contibutions to SS to qualify for a benefit in their own right.” There are patently unfair parts of the SS laws that I don’t agree with, such as:

-Allowing a never-employed 62 to 65 year old to “choose” which of their spouses they want to base their benefit on, even if formerly widowed or divorced from that spouse, ESP if that former spouse is already collecting a SS benefit based upon their own contributions;

-allowing a never-employed 62 to 65 year old to base their benefit on a current spouse when that spouse is still living and also drawing a benefit based upon their own contributions;

-allowing an over-62-year-old (age at the time of immigration) immigrant to draw a benefit in the form of SSI (which I have no doubt is being “borrowed” from the OASDI fund) who was sponsored by a family member who expressly promised the INS in writing that they would support that individual for life as a condition of obtaining a “green card” for them and then later reneges on that promise for any reason;

-allowing minor child(ren) of a deceased-worker (who did not live to be retirement age) to collect $1400-$2200 mo SS each when the actual contributions of the deceased worker-parent would warrant a far lower benefit, amounting to unjust enrichment to their custodial parent; and,

-allowing a 5-45 year-old (yes, some are children) to collect SSD indefinitely for having “vague” disabilities or injuries with which, as adults, they could perform some kind of meaningful work but would rather passively follow the “gravy-train,” esp. if they have contributed little to nothing in SS themselves (this does not apply to persons who sustained paralysis, loss of limb or brain injuries).

IMO, the reasons above are why a lot of workers think of SS as a “ponzi-scheme,” and worry that it won’t be around for them when they need it after they contributed to it their entire working lives. I’m all for removing my OWN contributions now and investing it for myself, in lieu of waiting to collect a monthly payment when I reach retirement age. [end of rant]

[bearishgurl]

Rather than focus on actuarial data that we can’t change, I think a change of SS laws is in order to preserve future OASDI benefits for those workers that contributed to the “system.”

In reference (below) to the phrase “never-employed,” I also mean, “lacking in sufficient quarters of contibutions to SS to qualify for a benefit in their own right.” There are patently unfair parts of the SS laws that I don’t agree with, such as:

-Allowing a never-employed 62 to 65 year old to “choose” which of their spouses they want to base their benefit on, even if formerly widowed or divorced from that spouse, ESP if that former spouse is already collecting a SS benefit based upon their own contributions;

-allowing a never-employed 62 to 65 year old to base their benefit on a current spouse when that spouse is still living and also drawing a benefit based upon their own contributions;

-allowing an over-62-year-old (age at the time of immigration) immigrant to draw a benefit in the form of SSI (which I have no doubt is being “borrowed” from the OASDI fund) who was sponsored by a family member who expressly promised the INS in writing that they would support that individual for life as a condition of obtaining a “green card” for them and then later reneges on that promise for any reason;

-allowing minor child(ren) of a deceased-worker (who did not live to be retirement age) to collect $1400-$2200 mo SS each when the actual contributions of the deceased worker-parent would warrant a far lower benefit, amounting to unjust enrichment to their custodial parent; and,

-allowing a 5-45 year-old (yes, some are children) to collect SSD indefinitely for having “vague” disabilities or injuries with which, as adults, they could perform some kind of meaningful work but would rather passively follow the “gravy-train,” esp. if they have contributed little to nothing in SS themselves (this does not apply to persons who sustained paralysis, loss of limb or brain injuries).

IMO, the reasons above are why a lot of workers think of SS as a “ponzi-scheme,” and worry that it won’t be around for them when they need it after they contributed to it their entire working lives. I’m all for removing my OWN contributions now and investing it for myself, in lieu of waiting to collect a monthly payment when I reach retirement age. [end of rant]

[Author]

Posts