A $2,641 Per Household Tax Increase

[syracusa]

There is nothing in the constitution which suggests all people must get the same medical care, live at same locations or get everything they want.

The psychology lying beneath such doctrine is certainly scary. SS is not devised for "everyone to live at the same location or to get everything they want". How ridiculous, mysanthropic, exagerated and obtuse.
God Forbid should we prevent suffering or struggle for other people. The more God Forsaken are out there, the more self-righteous and VALID, us, "little good savers"/"great people", we can feel.

If I knew that I have to pay taxes so that undeserving people can be spoilt and live in luxury while I make sacrifices - then I would have a major problem with it. (And I do - I am already doing this for major corporate bail-outs). But to even suggest that it is OK for some people to completely collapse under misfortune (including NOT receiving the medical care when they are in need), it is downright animalic and disgusting. Where the Heck did you people get such nasty bias - it is OK to save fat cats from their own nasty greedy mistakes but it is not OK to give a God Forsaken medical care when they drown in misfortune?
Honestly, I hate people like this! With a passsion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tripods68]

Well, actually the money you put in does not go right out to a current recipient. Currently, Social Security is running a $150 billion surplus each year

I don't doubt social security help fights poverty and helps our older society overall. It's interesting you mentioned about SS running into surplus each year. When the baby boomers peaks retirement age (around 60-78 Million) by 2022 it will start running deficit and fully dissolved by 2041. In fact beginning 2019 when the outlays for social security are projected to exceed revenues that's when problems really begins. That's just one problem. The "real" back breaker for the US economy is rising health care cost "medicare" alone which is projected to consume 40 percent of our GDP by 2060 based on CBO - The Long Term Budget Outlook published in 2007. Those ratios are not sustainable long term.

If you want Social Security to be around when you retire - fight for it not against it.

I'm not totally against it, but the System must be overhauled for "real" permanent solutions not put bandages around the injury.

[sweeps]

Social Security won't "dissolve" in 2041 (or whatever the date). If it runs out of reserves, it would only be able to pay out what is coming in from tax revenues. So that might, for example, mean a 50% cut in benefits.

Also I would say be wary of projections that go out some 30-odd years. Economists that make even 5- and 10- year projections are typically way off.

Social security is not perfect, but it's unclear what could be done to it to make it "perfect". Completely getting rid of it is realistically not an option. Plus I would say there are much bigger issues to deal with in the short-term.

[tripods68]

I trust no one except CBO. CBO uses "real data" to support their numbers and analysis. Their primary purpose is to serve congressional agency charged with reviewing congressional budgets and other legislative intitiatives with budgetary implications. You can get better numbers than CBO produces IMO unless you start reading reports from self-interest lobbying groups. Not a chance!

The bottom line, CBO projections are updated on annual basis or every other year to maintain certain level of confidence which often reflects in its' President's own annual budgets.

This topic is obviously highly political. CBO knows, to "touch" entitlements is political suicides. So we don't hear enough about this topics at the forefront pages of every newspapers because congressional seats at stake. I also think there just too many people put their heads in the sand and ignores what's ahead and thats when the real "**** happens". (no pun intended). Y' know what i'm sayin'

[noppenbd]

Chris Farrell of Marketplace Money made an interesting point about SS. The current SS rate is 12.4% per employee (half paid by employer if not self-employed). Raising that by 1.70% (.85% for employed individuals) to a total of 14.1% would keep the system solvent for 75 years. Much of this is due to immigrants who pay into the system but never collect on it...so we are not talking about a huge hit to the average worker.

However, Medicare is the big elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.

APM's Marketplace: My Two Cents: Thank You, Immigrants

[JimInOK]

The S.S. problem would be a little closer to being solved if the government didn't skim the surpluses the system has historically produced off to fund other government programs. Those surpluses will soon turn into deficits. Since past surpluses have been squandered on initiatives that were not their intended purpose, the safety net has been eliminated.

A little like endowing a university chair with a lump sum contribution, intending future funding to come from the contribution's proceeds. Then taking those proceeds, spending them elsewhere, and wondering why the system's all of a sudden in a bind.

[katwoman]

Chris Farrell of Marketplace Money made an interesting point about SS. The current SS rate is 12.4% per employee (half paid by employer if not self-employed). Raising that by 1.70% (.85% for employed individuals) to a total of 14.1% would keep the system solvent for 75 years. Much of this is due to immigrants who pay into the system but never collect on it...so we are not talking about a huge hit to the average worker.
However, Medicare is the big elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.

APM's Marketplace: My Two Cents: Thank You, Immigrants

Thank you! I have been screaming this from the rooftops ever since I actually saw it in action some years back when the realisation hit me right between the eyes!