T Nation

Social Security is Worse Than Most People Think

According to this article, flaws in the Social Security Administration’s forecasting models and life expectancy calculations have caused it to underestimate the cost of the baby boomer retirement wave by $800 billion.

Make sure to click on the graphic and scroll down to the fourth point: the SSA’s forecast of death rates by age predicts that, in the year 2028, about 50 percent of people who are 95 at the time will survive to 2029 while a full 100 percent of people who happen to be 55 will die that year.

edited

Yikes. While this doesn’t necessarily come as a huge surprise - no one wants to talk about SS - what is surprising is that the models used to predict longevity, etc. haven’t changed since 1935.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Yikes. While this doesn’t necessarily come as a huge surprise - no one wants to talk about SS - what is surprising is that the models used to predict longevity, etc. haven’t changed since 1935. [/quote]

Yep. It’s the so call “third rail of politics.” To touch it is to commit political suicide. I pray that a leader will emerge who will have the courage to attack this issue head on.

We should have been taught in High Schools in the U.S. instead of useless
Shit like “social studies”, “music”, and “Machine Shop”, was REAL LIFE education, what
to EXPECT and achieve success in life especially for those who couldn’t afford college.

High Schools taught us nothing about saving and investing safely to retire as millionaires or better
using the “Rule of 72” EARLY, and also some basic study of Law which is totally absent in the public
school system.
Blows my mind they didn’t even teach Vedic Math and taught us instead the difficult way of learning
numbers that frustrated ten of millions…friggin travesty.

SS was a horrible idea to begin with.

Age Group 25-54 Key Facts

â?¢In 2007 the civilian population was 125,652,000
â?¢In 2007 the labor force was 104,353,000
â?¢In 2012 the civilian population was 124,314,000
â?¢In 2012 the labor force was 101,253,000

Numbers are non-adjusted from BLS tables.

Simply put, the decrease in civilian population in age group 25-54 was 1,340,000. The decrease in the labor force was a staggering 3,100,000.

Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/#Zkt2SoImLJMQ17gl.99

The people who are to pay for SS are losing jobs and going destitute.

The prophesy of Atlas Shrugged, coming to a face near you…

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Yikes. While this doesn’t necessarily come as a huge surprise - no one wants to talk about SS - what is surprising is that the models used to predict longevity, etc. haven’t changed since 1935. [/quote]

Yep. It’s the so call “third rail of politics.” To touch it is to commit political suicide. I pray that a leader will emerge who will have the courage to attack this issue head on. [/quote]

Sarah Palin will. In high school basketball, she wasn’t ‘Sarah Barracuda’ for nothing.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

SS was a horrible idea to begin with.[/quote]

I actually think SS - or something like it - is a good idea. Some social insurance against the calamity to the revolutionary transition from mostly agrarian society to an industrial one was necessary.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

SS was a horrible idea to begin with.[/quote]

I actually think SS - or something like it - is a good idea. Some social insurance against the calamity to the revolutionary transition from mostly agrarian society to an industrial one was necessary. [/quote]

I agree but it was not meant to be used as people are using now. It was supposed to only be a supplement to retirement not relied on as the sole support in your elderly years.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I agree but it was not meant to be used as people are using now. It was supposed to only be a supplement to retirement not relied on as the sole support in your elderly years. [/quote]

Agreed. SS was never meant to be an old-age pension - it was supposed to be, truly, “insurance” and supplementary to retirement.

Isn’t it a big pyramid scheme?

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Isn’t it a big pyramid scheme?[/quote]

No. It is a ponzi scheme.

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

No. It is a ponzi scheme.
[/quote]

For the most part yes, it functions in the same way.

If you were to set up an annuity in the private sector that mirrored SSI you would promptly end up in prison. But to mention this in some circles will see you being called every name in the book. However, it doesn’t make it untrue.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

No. It is a ponzi scheme.
[/quote]

For the most part yes, it functions in the same way.

If you were to set up an annuity in the private sector that mirrored SSI you would promptly end up in prison. But to mention this in some circles will see you being called every name in the book. However, it doesn’t make it untrue.[/quote]

Free Madoff!!!

Social Security used to be a LOT more limited in scope so it wasn’t originally set up as a Ponzi scheme. Take a look at the original meaning of what work was and you’ll see that it was narrow in scope. Government workers weren’t originally entitled to it for example.

SEC. 210. When used in this title-- (a) The term “wages” means all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include that part of the remuneration which, after remuneration equal to $3,000 has been paid to an individual by an employer with respect to employment during any calendar year, is paid to such individual by such employer with respect to employment during such calendar year. (b) The term “employment” means any service, of whatever nature, performed within the United States by an employee for his employer, except- (1) Agricultural labor; (2) Domestic service in a private home; (3) Casual labor not in the course of the employer’s trade or business; (4) Service performed as an officer or member of the crew of a vessel documented under the laws of the United States or of any foreign country; (5) Service performed in the employ of the United States Government or of an instrumentality of the United States; (6) Service performed in the employ of a State, a political subdivision thereof, or an instrumentality of one or more States or political subdivisions; (7) Service performed in the employ of a corporation, community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. © The term “qualified individual” means any individual with respect to whom it appears to the satisfaction of the Board that- (1) He is at least sixty-five years of age; and (2) The total amount of wages paid to him, with respect to employment after December 31, 1936, and before he attained the age of sixty-five, was not less than $2,000; and (3) Wages were paid to him, with respect to employment on some five days after December 31, 1936, and before he attained the age of sixty-five, each day being in a different calendar year.

As a young person in the workforce pretty much all I every bitch about in politics is social security. Everything about it is geared to completely fuck me over.

[quote]csulli wrote:
As a young person in the workforce pretty much all I every bitch about in politics is social security. Everything about it is geared to completely fuck me over.[/quote]

You are right.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I agree but it was not meant to be used as people are using now. It was supposed to only be a supplement to retirement not relied on as the sole support in your elderly years. [/quote]

Agreed. SS was never meant to be an old-age pension - it was supposed to be, truly, “insurance” and supplementary to retirement.[/quote]

This…personally SS is a good thing as long as you get back in proportion to what they took from you.

I wish other countries had this, I know so many people that saved for retirement, but due to illness or other major expenses their nest egg got wiped and are back to work at 70.

[quote]Cron391 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I agree but it was not meant to be used as people are using now. It was supposed to only be a supplement to retirement not relied on as the sole support in your elderly years. [/quote]

Agreed. SS was never meant to be an old-age pension - it was supposed to be, truly, “insurance” and supplementary to retirement.[/quote]

This…personally SS is a good thing as long as you get back in proportion to what they took from you.

.[/quote]

Well, in today’s world you get back more than what you paid in. In some cases, much much more.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I agree but it was not meant to be used as people are using now. It was supposed to only be a supplement to retirement not relied on as the sole support in your elderly years. [/quote]

Agreed. SS was never meant to be an old-age pension - it was supposed to be, truly, “insurance” and supplementary to retirement.[/quote]While I may agree in principle? It’ll never happen in practice. Never. Not in a world full of sin. What it is today, which is a poverty level payout for votes, is absolutely inevitable in a society that could succeed in making it law. The only kind of culture it could ever work in is one that didn’t need it.