Are we headed for a world wide meltdown?

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Isn’t that exactly what social security is.

Your idea of saving and everyone elses must be different. My 401K isn't insolvent, but probably will be stolen anyway when the Commies run out of other funds. I'll note it's my money, I worked for it and if it's taken from me, then that makes me a slave... hence eligible for reparations.

Social Security Will Be Insolvent in 12 Years
Without policy changes, beneficiaries will receive only 78 percent of what was promised starting in 2034.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by texassapper

Your idea of saving and everyone elses must be different. My 401K isn't insolvent, but probably will be stolen anyway when the Commies run out of other funds. I'll note it's my money, I worked for it and if it's taken from me, then that makes me a slave... hence eligible for reparations.

Social Security Will Be Insolvent in 12 Years
Without policy changes, beneficiaries will receive only 78 percent of what was promised starting in 2034.

This caught my eye, from your link,

"Inflation is also going to take a toll on Social Security. The Wall Street Journal reports that senior administration officials believe the program will automatically provide 6 percent cost-of-living adjustments next year. That's significantly higher than the 1.3 percent and 1.6 percent adjustments provided in the past two years."

I presume assets held by Social Security are mostly T bills and T bonds and the like. Is it possible real interest rates will stay negative for a long, long time? By that, I mean interest rates stay lower than inflation. But payments per beneficiary go up at the rate of inflation. If so, what's the effect on Social Security? Does it go bankrupt that much quicker?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Isn’t that exactly what social security is.

Excellent question, or point, Blackman.

No, it's like the difference between a defined contribution pension plan and a Ponzi scheme. Historically people drawing social security benefits have taken out more than they put in, because the population of working aged Americans has grown. What happens when that stops? Does the system fall apart, like a Ponzi scheme?

I'm kind of pulling numbers out of the air here, because I'm too lazy to do the reading to refresh my memory. But Singapore makes both employers and employees contribute something like 17% of wages each to a savings plan for the employee. So around 35% total. The money is used for retirement. It also works kind of like our Health Savings Accounts. Physicians and hospitals compete based on quality and price, and Singapore citizens withdraw money from their savings plan to pay for health services. Major medical expenses are paid for by insurance. Singapore spends something like 4% or 4.5% of GDP on health care, compared to about 18% in the USA, and has better health care outcomes than we do, so their system works. Unlike here, you've got consumers shopping around to get the best price for quality health care.

You can also take money out of your savings plan to pay part of the cost of a house, or for education.

Australia has a variation of this kind of scheme, just for retirement, where outfits like Fidelity manage the savings instead of a government agency, like Singapore.

I suspect something like this would be superior to social security, but neither party is going to go for it. George W. Bush proposed something similar, like Australia's superannuation scheme, and it got no traction whatsoever.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Excellent question, or point, Blackman.

No, it's like the difference between a defined contribution pension plan and a Ponzi scheme. Historically people drawing social security benefits have taken out more than they put in, because the population of working aged Americans has grown.

The other metric to watch is # of contributors to recipients. Early in the Ponzi scheme it took 3 workers to cover one recipient. It is now closer to 9 and our birth rates are declining rapidly. Not to worry though, there is a plan currently underway to bring more low end workers to make up the difference - it's called Open Boarders.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Sorry to break the news to you, but they pulled the wool over your eyes. There is no lock box. We're 20 trillion in debt, not counting what the federal government owes the federal government.

At least that's the only thing our government has lied to us about. Right?

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

You mean Social Security is optional?!? Medicare too?!? I thought they put that shit in a 'lock box' for our future savings, instead of borrowing to finance whatever wet dream de jour and leave behind a worthless IOU.

Originally Posted by Tiny

Sorry to break the news to you, but they pulled the wool over your eyes. There is no lock box. We're 20 trillion in debt, not counting what the federal government owes the federal government.

My only contribution, so far, to another excellent thread from Tiny:

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by texassapper

Your idea of saving and everyone elses must be different. My 401K isn't insolvent, but probably will be stolen anyway when the Commies run out of other funds. I'll note it's my money, I worked for it and if it's taken from me, then that makes me a slave... hence eligible for reparations.

Social Security Will Be Insolvent in 12 Years
Without policy changes, beneficiaries will receive only 78 percent of what was promised starting in 2034.

they've been saying that "SS will be insolvent in 12 years" for a few years now.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Excellent question, or point, Blackman.

No, it's like the difference between a defined contribution pension plan and a Ponzi scheme. Historically people drawing social security benefits have taken out more than they put in, because the population of working aged Americans has grown. What happens when that stops? Does the system fall apart, like a Ponzi scheme?

I'm kind of pulling numbers out of the air here, because I'm too lazy to do the reading to refresh my memory. But Singapore makes both employers and employees contribute something like 17% of wages each to a savings plan for the employee. So around 35% total. The money is used for retirement. It also works kind of like our Health Savings Accounts. Physicians and hospitals compete based on quality and price, and Singapore citizens withdraw money from their savings plan to pay for health services. Major medical expenses are paid for by insurance. Singapore spends something like 4% or 4.5% of GDP on health care, compared to about 18% in the USA, and has better health care outcomes than we do, so their system works. Unlike here, you've got consumers shopping around to get the best price for quality health care.

You can also take money out of your savings plan to pay part of the cost of a house, or for education.

Australia has a variation of this kind of scheme, just for retirement, where outfits like Fidelity manage the savings instead of a government agency, like Singapore.

I suspect something like this would be superior to social security, but neither party is going to go for it. George W. Bush proposed something similar, like Australia's superannuation scheme, and it got no traction whatsoever.

dubya proposed privatizing SS.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

they've been saying that "SS will be insolvent in 12 years" for a few years now.

So you're saying SS is like Climate change? Always coming, never arriving?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

My only contribution, so far, to another excellent thread from Tiny:

Excellent!

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

The other metric to watch is # of contributors to recipients. Early in the Ponzi scheme it took 3 workers to cover one recipient. It is now closer to 9 and our birth rates are declining rapidly. Not to worry though, there is a plan currently underway to bring more low end workers to make up the difference - it's called Open Boarders.

Great point. There are now 2.7 workers per beneficiary. By 2035 there will only be 2.3 workers per beneficiary! See the last bullet point here,

https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/facts...icfact-alt.pdf

[the_real_Barleycorn]

SS was enacted in 1934. The first recipient was Ida May Fuller. She had made one payment into the system before she retired. She lived to be over 100 years old and drew hundreds of thousand from a system that she put in about ten dollars. Kind of foreshadowing, don't you think? Anyway, it was designed that just over half of the people would die before they collected. Scam right there. Anyway, not everyone had to be part of the system. First it was the elderly, blue collar types, and other lowly plebes. Professionals (doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers) were added later until 1967 when everyone (except political representatives) were on SS. It was also in 1967 that LBJ and the democrat-controlled congress did away with the lock box and blended the money into the general fund to hide how much Vietnam was costing. So...for over 50 years, SS has been operating off the general fund while the government lied to us. You see, this was the beauty of the Covid response by democrats like Cuomo, Whitmer, and Newsome. The elderly were hardest hit by death. So Obama care saved money caring many years for dying people and the government gets to keep any SS money left over. Simple but brutal logic; kill the elderly and save money for government programs.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

So you're saying SS is like Climate change? Always coming, never arriving?

yeah. similar playbook, different format. lol.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

SS was enacted in 1934. The first recipient was Ida May Fuller. She had made one payment into the system before she retired. She lived to be over 100 years old and drew hundreds of thousand from a system that she put in about ten dollars. Kind of foreshadowing, don't you think? Anyway, it was designed that just over half of the people would die before they collected. Scam right there. Anyway, not everyone had to be part of the system. First it was the elderly, blue collar types, and other lowly plebes. Professionals (doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers) were added later until 1967 when everyone (except political representatives) were on SS. It was also in 1967 that LBJ and the democrat-controlled congress did away with the lock box and blended the money into the general fund to hide how much Vietnam was costing. So...for over 50 years, SS has been operating off the general fund while the government lied to us. You see, this was the beauty of the Covid response by democrats like Cuomo, Whitmer, and Newsome. The elderly were hardest hit by death. So Obama care saved money caring many years for dying people and the government gets to keep any SS money left over. Simple but brutal logic; kill the elderly and save money for government programs.

teachers were excluded but you had to be at a certain year to be grandfathered in.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

SS was enacted in 1934. The first recipient was Ida May Fuller. She had made one payment into the system before she retired. She lived to be over 100 years old and drew hundreds of thousand from a system that she put in about ten dollars. Kind of foreshadowing, don't you think? Anyway, it was designed that just over half of the people would die before they collected. Scam right there. Anyway, not everyone had to be part of the system. First it was the elderly, blue collar types, and other lowly plebes. Professionals (doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers) were added later until 1967 when everyone (except political representatives) were on SS. It was also in 1967 that LBJ and the democrat-controlled congress did away with the lock box and blended the money into the general fund to hide how much Vietnam was costing. So...for over 50 years, SS has been operating off the general fund while the government lied to us. You see, this was the beauty of the Covid response by democrats like Cuomo, Whitmer, and Newsome. The elderly were hardest hit by death. So Obama care saved money caring many years for dying people and the government gets to keep any SS money left over. Simple but brutal logic; kill the elderly and save money for government programs.

No. she collected $22,888.92 total. still not too bad for $24.75 in contributions for about three years. that's a nearly 1,000 percent return on investment. VitaDude wishes he could do so well. bahahahaaaaaaaa


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_May_Fuller#Career


Fuller worked under Social Security for a little short of three years and paid $24.75 in Social Security tax.[14] She filed her retirement claim on November 4, 1939; while visiting Rutland, she stopped at the regional Social Security office to ask about benefits.[15] She later observed: "It wasn't that I expected anything, mind you, but I knew I'd been paying for something called Social Security and I wanted to ask the people in Rutland about it."[15] Her application was transmitted to the Claims Division in Washington, D.C. for adjudication.[15] After approval, it was sent to the Treasury Department.[15] Claims were grouped in batches of 1,000, and a certification list for each batch was sent to Treasury.[15] Fuller's claim was the first one on the first certification list, so the first Social Security check (check number 00-000-001), dated January 31, 1940, was issued to Fuller in the amount of $22.54 (equivalent to $416 in 2020).[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_May_Fuller#Later_life



Later life
During her retirement, Fuller collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.[14][15] As monthly payments increased in the 1950s and 1960s, Fuller typically received the first check issued for the new amount, which was usually the subject of news reports.[16] When she received the first check following a September 1965 increase in monthly benefits, it arrived with a letter from President Lyndon Johnson, who also called Fuller to extend good wishes on her birthday.[17]


TRB is off on his numbers by a order of magnitude on what she received and 2.5 times less what she put in however the real point is she lived to 100 years old and the system wasn't designed for people living anywhere near long enough to get back what they put in.


i myself at 2,800 a month at 67 would have to live to be the oldest human in known existence to break even.