Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Riot
Nobody is ignoring Social Security. It has already been "scheduled to go broke" twice in it's lifetime, and it has been adjusted-helped? That was known when it was first formed. It is fine through 2025, - not "in the next couple of years that's it" as you mistakenly think - and when it gets close to not being fine, we don't - and haven't - just stood by wringing our hands, doing nothing about it. We change things to fix that.
I don't understand why you and 'Zig don't think that will continue.
|
maybe it has something to do with the advice, repeated many times, not to count on it and to set up other retirement savings? or am i supposed to just ignore that?
revenue will be exceeded by expenses in a few years. that's certainly not debatable. retirees are always funded by the employed, with more retirees on the horizon, along with less workers-it's not hard to see how things will go. it's already been difficult enough with revenue currently exceeding outlay. witness changes to retirement age over the years. it will get worse, and benefits will continue to decrease.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/yo.../16retire.html
But unless something is done to reform the system, the trust funds will begin to lose money in 2016 and run out by 2037, though Social Security tax income would be enough to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2083, said John Shallman, a Social Security spokesman.
None of this bodes well for younger generations, who will probably end up paying more in Social Security taxes and receive less in benefits. Many younger people don’t think they’ll get anything at all.
“It’s more likely that they would reduce the benefits for younger people and go after the next generation some more, which is pretty awful,” said Professor Kotlikoff. “But it’s the way Congress works all the time.”