Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What would you do about Social Security

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-11 09:33 PM
Original message
Poll question: What would you do about Social Security
What would you do based on the 2010 OASDI Trustees Report :

<...>

Under the intermediate assumptions, OASDI cost is projected to exceed non-interest income in 2010 and 2011 due to increased benefits and reduced tax revenue as a result of the economic recession, and to an expected $25 billion downward adjustment to 2010 income that corrects for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the Trust Funds in earlier years. For 2012‑14, however, non-interest income will exceed cost as the economy recovers. OASDI cash flow, excluding interest, will then become negative in 2015 due to demographic trends. Throughout the period 2010 through 2024, trust fund income, including interest income, is more than is needed to cover costs, so combined trust fund assets will continue to grow. Beginning in 2025, combined trust fund assets will diminish until assets are exhausted in 2037.

Based on the low-cost assumptions, the trust fund ratio for the DI program increases from 2017 through the end of the long-range projection period, and reaches the extremely high level of 1,799 percent for 2085. At the end of the long-range period, the DI trust fund ratio is rising by 36 percentage points per year. For the OASI program, the trust fund ratio rises to a peak of 422 percent for 2018, drops to a low of 282 percent for 2048, and rises thereafter to a level of 457 percent for 2085. At the end of the period, the OASI trust fund ratio is rising by 8 percentage points per year. For the OASDI program, the trust fund ratio peaks at 376 percent for 2019, falls to 306 percent for 2041, and increases thereafter, reaching 622 percent for 2085. Because the trust fund ratios are large and increasing at the end of the long-range period, subsequent Trustees Reports are likely to contain projections of adequate long-range financing of the OASI, the DI, and the combined OASDI programs under the low-cost assumptions. Thus, under the low-cost assumptions, each program would achieve sustainable solvency.

In contrast, under the high-cost assumptions, the OASI trust fund ratio is estimated to peak at 400 percent for 2011, thereafter declining to fund exhaustion by the end of 2032. The DI trust fund ratio is estimated to decline from 156 percent for 2010 to fund exhaustion by the end of 2015. The combined OASI and DI trust fund ratio is estimated to decline from 354 percent for 2010 to fund exhaustion by the end of 2029.

Thus, because large, persistent annual deficits are projected under all but the low-cost assumptions, it is likely that income will eventually need to be increased, program costs will need to be reduced, or both, in order to prevent exhaustion of the trust funds.

Even under the high-cost assumptions, however, the combined OASI and DI funds on hand plus their estimated future income would be able to cover their combined cost for 19 years (until 2029). Under the intermediate assumptions, the combined starting funds plus estimated future income would be able to cover cost for 27 years (until 2037). The program would be able to cover cost for the foreseeable future under the more optimistic low-cost assumptions. In the 2009 report, the combined trust funds were projected to become exhausted in 2029 under the high-cost assumptions and in 2037 under the intermediate assumptions.

<...>


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-11 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. NOTHING: the moment we claim that SS is in trouble, benefits will be gutted
Edited on Wed Apr-20-11 09:44 PM by MannyGoldstein
See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x931203#932172 Social Security has zero problems, let's not play their little game of pretending their is.

Obama's "Deficit Commission" recommended both an increase on the cap, AND a 22% cut in benefits - more than $56,000 in lifetime cuts for the average recipient.

Just leave it the fuck alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtown1123 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-21-11 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. You're 100% right. MAny SS experts and economists say the shortfall may never occur in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-11 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
2. make everyone pay on every dollar earned, get rid of the cap.
Right now you stop paying in on every dollar OVER ~$107,000 earned. Why? Keep paying in - those who earn more can surely afford it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-11 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
3. raise the cap at the very least
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-11 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. Other. Privatize it.
Just kidding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ed Suspicious Donating Member (336 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-11 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
5. Remove the cap and lower the retirement age to 55.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-11 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Yes, the
retirement age needs to be lowered.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-21-11 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. That would really help open up many jobs to younger people.
Keeping the retirement age high just makes older people work longer and contributes to high unemployment amongst younger people.

Lowering the age to 55 alone would probably shave 2 full points off the official unemployment rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-21-11 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Agree. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-21-11 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Of course, because of that, it would be opposed by many business interests.
The last thing the business community wants is the government artificially shrinking the labor pool by encouraging older workers to retire earlier. With fewer workers to fill the jobs necessary to run their machinery, they might actually have to compete to attract what few workers there are, by offering higher pay and better benefits.

Unfortunately, it seems the monied business interests have more power over our politicians than the laborers who make their power possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lpbk2713 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-11 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
7. Lock box.



Al Gore was right.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoneOffShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-11 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
8. Lower the retirement age and raise the cap. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 01:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC