The propaganda campaign to wreck Social Security is right on track

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Some 70% of adults now worry about Social Security running out of funding during their lifetimes, including not just 78% of Generation X but even 64% of baby boomers, who are already 57 or older.

And a third of adults fear they will not see “a dime” of the Social Security benefits they have earned, including 15% of non-retired boomers, 30% of Generation X, and 47% of millennials.

-snip-

And the defeatism about America’s retirement plan is getting worse (or, if you consider Social Security akin to communism and want to destroy it, better). The survey shows a big bump compared with last year in the number of people who expect to have to keep working in retirement because Social Security won’t be able to support them, and a big bump in the numbers planning to start claiming benefits early even while working. Some 42% now plan to file for benefits early, up from 36% just a year ago.

-snip-

The propaganda scam against Social Security is proving to be a master class. It is and has always been a massively popular government program, right from when it was started. Politicians used to call Social Security the third rail of American politics: “Touch it and die.” So how do you persuade people to kill off a popular program? Simple: You persuade them it’s already dead!

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-propaganda-campaign-to-wreck-social-security-is-right-on-track-11659105163

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

1. I can tell you that younger people have been concerned

about Social Security not being there when they retire for at least 50 years now.

I'm 73, and when I was in my early 20s, co-workers would say that Social Security would be long gone before we'd retire. Even then I'd tell them they were nuts, and didn't really understand how SS worked. Interestingly enough, those same co-workers were averse to saving for their own retirement.

And collecting early is a dumb move, because most people will live a fuck of a lot longer than they think they will. I held out until age 70 to collect, and I'm very glad I did. Keep in mind that yearly increases, when they occur, are a percentage, and so the more you start out with, the more it will increase over time, especially compared to the early takers.

[FalloutShelter]

3. Mr Fallout did the same.

It’s the smart play if your health allows.

[GP6971]

4. While I was still working

those of us approaching 66 discussed when to start SS. We kind of evenly split...those only working a year or so after turning 66 took it right away. Those staying on to work longer seemed to lean toward taking it at age 70 or when they retired.

My son has always said he's not counting on SS to be around when he retires and he's 45.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

8. Again, the fear that Social Security won't be around

goes back a very long time, as I said before.

If your son is not counting on SS to be around when he retires, I sincerely hope he is putting many other retirement things in place.

Oh, and to all who praise pensions, there's a lot you need to know. Such as, my pension was cut by two-thirds when the airline I had worked for declared bankruptcy, and foisted their pension obligation to the PBGC, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Which is why, honestly, things like 401k plans are truly a lot better.

And for those of you with at municipal or state retirement? Guess what? They have been vastly underfunded for decades, and you will be screwed in the near future.

[GP6971]

10. My son retires from the military

next year. So he has that.

I have a small pension and the the company was so cheap that it's not indexed to inflation. I just got in...I was there just 5 years when they ditched the pension and went to the 401.

My wife has a state retirement and so far so good. And from what I can tell it's pretty well funded.

[Deuxcents]

2. I remember my working years

And when payday came, we’d bitch n squawk about the SS n Medicare deductions while believing we’d never see a dime of our money. I am so grateful for these benefits as I depend on them now. We paid it forward n now some are still at it to destroy it. SS, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, regulations for safe food n water.. all the institutions we know n have served us well are on the chopping block if they get their way. Vote like we depend on them for our livelihood..b/c we do

[progree]

5. But the trust funds have been pilfered (or so I read on DU)

Response ( https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142925306 )

It hasn't been pilfered. BY LAW, each year the surpluses are loaned to the federal government
and no, that didn't start with Reagan. Nor did it start with LBJ. It has been that way from the beginning.

The government in turn creates special issue treasury securities that are deposited in the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. These earn interest -- paid in the form of more special issue treasury securities. In a year when Social Security revenues fall short of benefits then trust fund securities are redeemed to make up the difference. This is already occurring:

"At the end of 2021, Social Security’s trust fund reserves were $2,852 billion, having decreased by $56 billion over the year." - Source: 2022 Trustees report, https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

Similarly the Medicare Trust fund.

Anything you read about "pilfering" of the programs is literal fucking bullshit.

Social Security Trustees 2022 report -- https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

Edited to add, from the above link:

Federal law requires that the Trustees invest all excess funds in interest-bearing securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The Department of the Treasury currently invests all program revenues in special non-marketable U.S. Government securities, which earn interest equal to rates on marketable securities with durations defined in law. The balances in the trust funds, which represent the accumulated value, including interest, of all prior program annual surpluses and deficits, provide automatic authority to pay benefits.

(By the way, the 4 trustees are all high level Biden administratrion appointees. This isn't a report by right wing economists or the right wing media or such)

The report is signed by:
    Janet Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury, and Managing Trustee of the Trust Funds.
    Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Trustee.
    Martin J. Walsh, Secretary of Labor, and Trustee.
    Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, and Trustee.

(and if some idiot says, well what do you expect liberal Democrats to say? Well, the same language is in Trump era SS Trustees reports too, for example this snapshot from 2019: https://web.archive.org/web/20191125074043/https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/ )

Actuarial Note #142 of January 1999 (how interest rate determined, the trust fund securities etc.) http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/NOTES/note142.html

[progree]

6. But isn't it "game over" when the SS Trust Fund runs out in about 2035?

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

The OASI and DI funds ((that make up the SS Trust Funds -Progree)) are separate entities under law. The report also presents information that combines the reserves of these two funds in order to illustrate the actuarial status of the Social Security program as a whole. The hypothetical combined OASI and DI funds would be able to pay scheduled benefits on a timely basis until 2035, one year later than reported last year. At that time, the combined funds' reserves will become depleted and continuing tax income will be sufficient to pay 80 percent of scheduled benefits.

Signed by 4 top Biden administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Janet Yellin.

In other words, Social Security doesn't go away when the trust funds are depleted. FICA taxes continue to be collected and used to fund benefits, but at an estimated level of 20% less than scheduled. Congress will have to act to avoid this cut.

More about closing the gap in the 2nd half of this post: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142927989#post57

[progree]

7. As for taking benefits before age 70 - it depends on one's situation

Only a simpleton would make a blanket statement about what everyone else should or should not do.

As for me, I'm glad I collected at 66, and not at 70.

I didn't need the "early" money, so I invested it. My spreadsheet analysis is that I will have a higher net worth at death this way than if I had started collecting at 70 (even given that my SS benefit would be 8% higher per year of delay), out to well beyond my expected longevity (there are longevity calculators that even allow one to put in some health information). And yes, including inflation.

My tax / financial adviser also used to urge me taking benefits early, but I ended up waiting until my full retirement age (66). That's when I took a more detailed look at it.

I would only add that for people who have to carry credit card balances in order to delay taking S.S., then delaying SS just won't work out financially. Or ones who delay repairs, or delay dealing with health or dental work, and so on of the type that get significantly more expensive to deal with the longer one delays, delaying SS is not going to work out either (assuming one uses the early S.S. money to deal with those kinds of issues).

On the other hand, those who spend the early money on non-necessities won't be better off financially by taking money early.

[JT45242]

9. Take it when you can enjoy it

I heard the same when I negotiated teacher contracts. Wrote a clause that if you retired when you were first eligible, they would rehire you for up to 5 years, as long as you had tenure.

They bought sick days at a higher rate. You were drawing pension and a beginning teacher's salary.

Even did spreadsheets to show how long you had to live before waiting to retire was better. For masters plus 15 and above who reached retirement eligibility at 54, it was age 80.

But, at age 54 you would have had a bunch of extra money to travel, pay for kids college, etc.

My dad and both grandfathers died before they retired.

I left teaching, but still plan to walk away by age 62. The only thing that could stop me is lack of health insurance. So, if they lower Medicare to 60 or lower (or better yet, Medicare for all), sometime before 62nd birthday.

Of course, live frugally now. Put a lot in IRA/403b so I will be healthy enough to travel etc when I don't have to work.

Too many people,wait to take the money and can't enjoy it. But, I understand that for some they didn't roll a pension into a retirement account or have matching funds from employers. For those of us who can, European workers shake their heads at why we don't retire when we are eligible.

[OldBaldy1701E]

11. It isn't propaganda for some of us.

I have issues and being able to work to support myself is not feasible. So, I applied for the benefits that I was told were there when people end up in the position I am in. After a three year battle, the SSA just said "No." So, I get nothing. I am trying again. I doubt it will succeed. I hope the program is not near death because it was a great idea and it still would be once you remove the insanity created by those who want to keep it as flush as they can so that they can raid it when they finally rig the laws to let them. But right now, it might as well be dead for people like myself.