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

[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]

[Eugene]

[quote]As of 2006, a US citizen’s life expectancy at the age of 60 was 23.78 years. So, we can probably say that it’s about 24 years today.[/quote]

20.70 for males and 23.78 for females.

To compensate for that, the retirement age was raised, and the social security tax was raised repeatedly (from 3% during Kennedy times to 6.2% since 1990).

The real problem is on the Medicare side. Compared with 1935, people live longer because they receive lots of sophisticated and expensive treatments during late years of their lives, treatments that didn’t exist back then. And it’s going to get worse. Right now a single organ transplant costs on the order of $100,000. Medicare is only spared the massive expenses of having to transplant new hearts, lungs and livers to every second elderly patient at some point in their lives because of a severely limited supply of donor organs. But we have lots of biotech companies working on artificial organs (making them from scratch or growing them from patient’s stem cells). Imagine the cost dynamic when those organs go mainstream.

[Eugene]

[quote]As of 2006, a US citizen’s life expectancy at the age of 60 was 23.78 years. So, we can probably say that it’s about 24 years today.[/quote]

20.70 for males and 23.78 for females.

To compensate for that, the retirement age was raised, and the social security tax was raised repeatedly (from 3% during Kennedy times to 6.2% since 1990).

The real problem is on the Medicare side. Compared with 1935, people live longer because they receive lots of sophisticated and expensive treatments during late years of their lives, treatments that didn’t exist back then. And it’s going to get worse. Right now a single organ transplant costs on the order of $100,000. Medicare is only spared the massive expenses of having to transplant new hearts, lungs and livers to every second elderly patient at some point in their lives because of a severely limited supply of donor organs. But we have lots of biotech companies working on artificial organs (making them from scratch or growing them from patient’s stem cells). Imagine the cost dynamic when those organs go mainstream.

[Eugene]

[quote]As of 2006, a US citizen’s life expectancy at the age of 60 was 23.78 years. So, we can probably say that it’s about 24 years today.[/quote]

20.70 for males and 23.78 for females.

To compensate for that, the retirement age was raised, and the social security tax was raised repeatedly (from 3% during Kennedy times to 6.2% since 1990).

The real problem is on the Medicare side. Compared with 1935, people live longer because they receive lots of sophisticated and expensive treatments during late years of their lives, treatments that didn’t exist back then. And it’s going to get worse. Right now a single organ transplant costs on the order of $100,000. Medicare is only spared the massive expenses of having to transplant new hearts, lungs and livers to every second elderly patient at some point in their lives because of a severely limited supply of donor organs. But we have lots of biotech companies working on artificial organs (making them from scratch or growing them from patient’s stem cells). Imagine the cost dynamic when those organs go mainstream.

[Eugene]

[quote]As of 2006, a US citizen’s life expectancy at the age of 60 was 23.78 years. So, we can probably say that it’s about 24 years today.[/quote]

20.70 for males and 23.78 for females.

To compensate for that, the retirement age was raised, and the social security tax was raised repeatedly (from 3% during Kennedy times to 6.2% since 1990).

The real problem is on the Medicare side. Compared with 1935, people live longer because they receive lots of sophisticated and expensive treatments during late years of their lives, treatments that didn’t exist back then. And it’s going to get worse. Right now a single organ transplant costs on the order of $100,000. Medicare is only spared the massive expenses of having to transplant new hearts, lungs and livers to every second elderly patient at some point in their lives because of a severely limited supply of donor organs. But we have lots of biotech companies working on artificial organs (making them from scratch or growing them from patient’s stem cells). Imagine the cost dynamic when those organs go mainstream.

[Eugene]

[quote]As of 2006, a US citizen’s life expectancy at the age of 60 was 23.78 years. So, we can probably say that it’s about 24 years today.[/quote]

20.70 for males and 23.78 for females.

To compensate for that, the retirement age was raised, and the social security tax was raised repeatedly (from 3% during Kennedy times to 6.2% since 1990).

The real problem is on the Medicare side. Compared with 1935, people live longer because they receive lots of sophisticated and expensive treatments during late years of their lives, treatments that didn’t exist back then. And it’s going to get worse. Right now a single organ transplant costs on the order of $100,000. Medicare is only spared the massive expenses of having to transplant new hearts, lungs and livers to every second elderly patient at some point in their lives because of a severely limited supply of donor organs. But we have lots of biotech companies working on artificial organs (making them from scratch or growing them from patient’s stem cells). Imagine the cost dynamic when those organs go mainstream.

[CA renter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]

The fallacy of increased life expectancy.

[quote]Between 1920 and today, US infant mortality has decreased from more than 100 per 1000 to 10.9 per 1000. Yet during this same time span, life expectancy is said to have increased from 50 to roughly 80 years. That’s a thirty year difference we are told to swallow.

Now consider this: According to statistics, when an adult in 1920 turned 60 years old, he could expect to live an average of 16 more years, to about 76. Today, a 60 year old adult can expect to live 20 more years, to about 80.

So instead of a 30 year increase, we are looking at a mere four-year difference in life expectancy. The only dramatic change in the last eighty six years has been our chance of surviving to 60.[/quote]

http://www.articlesbase.com/alternative-medicine-articles/the-fallacy-of-increased-life-expectancy-2126995.html%5B/quote%5D

I’m very glad you brought this up, SK.

My family has a large Mormon population, so our family history is well documented and pretty extensive. A number of years ago, I decided to track the life expectancy of my ancestors going back many generations. This is just anecdotal, but I found that for those who made it through infancy and childhood, child bearing (a surprising number of deaths from pregnancy/childbirth, BTW), and the years during which people did a lot of physical work on the farms, etc., my relatives actually lived longer 100+ years ago relative to the last generation or two. We had a number of people who lived well into their late 80s, 90s, and even their hundreds, and almost none of them (except one branch) do so now. My husband’s family also shows the same trend (though the historical records are not as extensive).

From what I’ve found, it looks like antibiotics are the primary reason for the increased life expectancy, and in a related note, fewer fetal and maternal deaths (many of which resulted from infections, it appears). Also, workplace safety plays a significant role in the significant reduction in worker deaths.

[CA renter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]

The fallacy of increased life expectancy.

[quote]Between 1920 and today, US infant mortality has decreased from more than 100 per 1000 to 10.9 per 1000. Yet during this same time span, life expectancy is said to have increased from 50 to roughly 80 years. That’s a thirty year difference we are told to swallow.

Now consider this: According to statistics, when an adult in 1920 turned 60 years old, he could expect to live an average of 16 more years, to about 76. Today, a 60 year old adult can expect to live 20 more years, to about 80.

So instead of a 30 year increase, we are looking at a mere four-year difference in life expectancy. The only dramatic change in the last eighty six years has been our chance of surviving to 60.[/quote]

http://www.articlesbase.com/alternative-medicine-articles/the-fallacy-of-increased-life-expectancy-2126995.html%5B/quote%5D

I’m very glad you brought this up, SK.

My family has a large Mormon population, so our family history is well documented and pretty extensive. A number of years ago, I decided to track the life expectancy of my ancestors going back many generations. This is just anecdotal, but I found that for those who made it through infancy and childhood, child bearing (a surprising number of deaths from pregnancy/childbirth, BTW), and the years during which people did a lot of physical work on the farms, etc., my relatives actually lived longer 100+ years ago relative to the last generation or two. We had a number of people who lived well into their late 80s, 90s, and even their hundreds, and almost none of them (except one branch) do so now. My husband’s family also shows the same trend (though the historical records are not as extensive).

From what I’ve found, it looks like antibiotics are the primary reason for the increased life expectancy, and in a related note, fewer fetal and maternal deaths (many of which resulted from infections, it appears). Also, workplace safety plays a significant role in the significant reduction in worker deaths.

[CA renter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]

The fallacy of increased life expectancy.

[quote]Between 1920 and today, US infant mortality has decreased from more than 100 per 1000 to 10.9 per 1000. Yet during this same time span, life expectancy is said to have increased from 50 to roughly 80 years. That’s a thirty year difference we are told to swallow.

Now consider this: According to statistics, when an adult in 1920 turned 60 years old, he could expect to live an average of 16 more years, to about 76. Today, a 60 year old adult can expect to live 20 more years, to about 80.

So instead of a 30 year increase, we are looking at a mere four-year difference in life expectancy. The only dramatic change in the last eighty six years has been our chance of surviving to 60.[/quote]

http://www.articlesbase.com/alternative-medicine-articles/the-fallacy-of-increased-life-expectancy-2126995.html%5B/quote%5D

I’m very glad you brought this up, SK.

My family has a large Mormon population, so our family history is well documented and pretty extensive. A number of years ago, I decided to track the life expectancy of my ancestors going back many generations. This is just anecdotal, but I found that for those who made it through infancy and childhood, child bearing (a surprising number of deaths from pregnancy/childbirth, BTW), and the years during which people did a lot of physical work on the farms, etc., my relatives actually lived longer 100+ years ago relative to the last generation or two. We had a number of people who lived well into their late 80s, 90s, and even their hundreds, and almost none of them (except one branch) do so now. My husband’s family also shows the same trend (though the historical records are not as extensive).

From what I’ve found, it looks like antibiotics are the primary reason for the increased life expectancy, and in a related note, fewer fetal and maternal deaths (many of which resulted from infections, it appears). Also, workplace safety plays a significant role in the significant reduction in worker deaths.

[CA renter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]

The fallacy of increased life expectancy.

[quote]Between 1920 and today, US infant mortality has decreased from more than 100 per 1000 to 10.9 per 1000. Yet during this same time span, life expectancy is said to have increased from 50 to roughly 80 years. That’s a thirty year difference we are told to swallow.

Now consider this: According to statistics, when an adult in 1920 turned 60 years old, he could expect to live an average of 16 more years, to about 76. Today, a 60 year old adult can expect to live 20 more years, to about 80.

So instead of a 30 year increase, we are looking at a mere four-year difference in life expectancy. The only dramatic change in the last eighty six years has been our chance of surviving to 60.[/quote]

http://www.articlesbase.com/alternative-medicine-articles/the-fallacy-of-increased-life-expectancy-2126995.html%5B/quote%5D

I’m very glad you brought this up, SK.

My family has a large Mormon population, so our family history is well documented and pretty extensive. A number of years ago, I decided to track the life expectancy of my ancestors going back many generations. This is just anecdotal, but I found that for those who made it through infancy and childhood, child bearing (a surprising number of deaths from pregnancy/childbirth, BTW), and the years during which people did a lot of physical work on the farms, etc., my relatives actually lived longer 100+ years ago relative to the last generation or two. We had a number of people who lived well into their late 80s, 90s, and even their hundreds, and almost none of them (except one branch) do so now. My husband’s family also shows the same trend (though the historical records are not as extensive).

From what I’ve found, it looks like antibiotics are the primary reason for the increased life expectancy, and in a related note, fewer fetal and maternal deaths (many of which resulted from infections, it appears). Also, workplace safety plays a significant role in the significant reduction in worker deaths.

[CA renter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]

The fallacy of increased life expectancy.

[quote]Between 1920 and today, US infant mortality has decreased from more than 100 per 1000 to 10.9 per 1000. Yet during this same time span, life expectancy is said to have increased from 50 to roughly 80 years. That’s a thirty year difference we are told to swallow.

Now consider this: According to statistics, when an adult in 1920 turned 60 years old, he could expect to live an average of 16 more years, to about 76. Today, a 60 year old adult can expect to live 20 more years, to about 80.

So instead of a 30 year increase, we are looking at a mere four-year difference in life expectancy. The only dramatic change in the last eighty six years has been our chance of surviving to 60.[/quote]

http://www.articlesbase.com/alternative-medicine-articles/the-fallacy-of-increased-life-expectancy-2126995.html%5B/quote%5D

I’m very glad you brought this up, SK.

My family has a large Mormon population, so our family history is well documented and pretty extensive. A number of years ago, I decided to track the life expectancy of my ancestors going back many generations. This is just anecdotal, but I found that for those who made it through infancy and childhood, child bearing (a surprising number of deaths from pregnancy/childbirth, BTW), and the years during which people did a lot of physical work on the farms, etc., my relatives actually lived longer 100+ years ago relative to the last generation or two. We had a number of people who lived well into their late 80s, 90s, and even their hundreds, and almost none of them (except one branch) do so now. My husband’s family also shows the same trend (though the historical records are not as extensive).

From what I’ve found, it looks like antibiotics are the primary reason for the increased life expectancy, and in a related note, fewer fetal and maternal deaths (many of which resulted from infections, it appears). Also, workplace safety plays a significant role in the significant reduction in worker deaths.

[Author]

Posts