Author Topic: What do you guys think about the proposed Social Security amendment?  (Read 1292 times)

Offline jEEZY

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 259
What do you guys think about the proposed Social Security amendment?
« Reply #15 on: February 03, 2005, 03:24:13 PM »
This "explains" the problem with SS:

explainantion

Offline JB88

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10980
What do you guys think about the proposed Social Security amendment?
« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2005, 03:31:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
If it is passed.. What will happen to the existing money in the SS fund now? Our government is going to invest it for us in the stock market?? Do some not just see this as another government payout to the corporate run america that we have now?


the way that it was explained to me, the funds would only be able be moved or changed once per calendar year.
this thread is doomed.
www.augustbach.com  

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. -Ulysses.

word.

Offline JB88

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10980
What do you guys think about the proposed Social Security amendment?
« Reply #17 on: February 03, 2005, 03:33:18 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by jEEZY
This "explains" the problem with SS:

explainantion


interesting.
this thread is doomed.
www.augustbach.com  

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. -Ulysses.

word.

Offline JB88

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10980
what does factcheck.org (cheney's info hotspot) say?
« Reply #18 on: February 03, 2005, 03:59:46 PM »
Does Social Security Really Face an $11 Trillion Deficit?

Bush and Cheney say yes. But actuaries say the figure is "likely to mislead" the public on the system's true financial state.

January 21, 2005

Modified: January 21, 2005
 

President Bush and Vice President Cheney have told audiences that Social Security faces an $11 trillion shortfall if nothing is done to fix the current system. But they fail to mention that this is over the course of the “infinite future." Over the next 75 years -- still practically a lifetime -- the shortfall is projected to be $3.7 trillion.

The "infinite" projection is one that the American Academy of Actuaries says is likely to mislead the public into thinking the system "is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated," and therefore should not be used to explain the long-term outlook.
Analysis

 

In a roundtable conversation on January 11, the president said the Social Security system “is going to be short the difference between obligations and money coming in, by about $11 trillion, unless we act.”

 President Bush

Remarks at Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium, January 11, 2005

Bush: Now, I readily concede some would say, well, it's not bankrupt yet; why don't we wait until it's bankrupt? The problem with that notion is that the longer you wait, the more difficult it is to fix.  You realize that this system of ours is going to be short the difference between obligations and money coming in, by about $11 trillion, unless we act. And that's an issue. That's trillion with a "T."

Vice President Cheney echoed this claim in a January 13 speech at Catholic University when he said, “Again, the projected shortfall in Social Security exceeds $10 trillion.”

Both are correct -- but fail to mention that nearly two-thirds of that colossal bill doesn't come due until after the year 2078.

The Trustees Report

The projection comes from the 2004 Social Security Trustees report  which estimates that the system’s unfunded obligations are $10.4 trillion over the course of what they call the "infinite horizon." Historically, the infinite-horizon projection has not been included in the annual report, and was only added in 2003.

Previously the Trustees had used only a 75-year projection to estimate the system’s long-term deficits, roughly the length of a human lifetime. (Average life expectancy at birth has now increased to just over 77 years, up from just under 75 years as recently as the 1980's, according to the National Center for Health Statistics .) The Social Security Trustees' 2004 projection shows a $3.7 trillion shortfall over this 75-year period.

The Trustees reasoned that the 75-year window should be extended to the infinite future to give policymakers a better idea of the changes necessary to keep the system sustainable indefinitely -- especially beyond 2078 when they said Social Security’s deficit will be increasing even faster than during the next 75 years.

 Vice President Cheney

Remarks at Catholic University, January 13, 2005

Cheney: Another argument against Social Security reform with voluntary personal accounts is that the so-called transition costs would be too high. Yet focusing merely on transition costs is to overlook the greater cost of doing nothing. Again, the projected shortfall in Social Security exceeds $10 trillion; that figure is nearly twice the combined wages and salaries of every single working American last year. There will be no -- there will be costs no matter what we decide.
A technical panel set up to advise the Social Security Administration later said that  infinite-horizon model is useful but “it is difficult to understand." The panel recommended that the infinite-horizon calculations be expressed more prominently as a percentage of the taxable payroll rather than the actual dollar amount. Referring to the 2003 trustees report, the panel said:

    Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods: The Report also briefly mentions the infinite horizon actuarial deficit of 3.8 percent. This figure is more informative that the dollar value of the infinite horizon unfunded obligations, and should be presented more prominently….

    While the…information is useful, it is difficult to understand. The $10.5 trillion is a large figure, but it needs to be seen in the context of the present value of taxable payroll over the infinite horizon, which is on the order of $275 trillion.

Later, in the 2004 report issued last March, the Trustees updated those figures to a $10.4 trillion deficit and a $295.5 trillion taxable payroll.

Social Security Deficit and Payroll Taxes

The percent of taxable payroll is the portion of an employee’s payroll tax that goes toward Social Security and is currently set at the rate of 12.4 percent, half of which is paid by the employer and the other half by employee. Over 75 years, the Trustees estimate the actuarial deficit is 1.8 percent of taxable payroll. This means that for the system to be completely solvent over the next 75 years, without adjusting benefits, payroll taxes would have to go up to 14.2 percent immediately. And to be solvent for the "infinite future," the $10.4 trillion shortfall equals 3.5 percent of taxable payroll, or a tax increase to15.9 percent of wages.

The Infinite Horizon – Is it useful?

Contrary to the technical panel’s endorsement, the American Academy of Actuaries, a nonpartisan organization that sets standards of practice for actuaries in the US , disputes the value of the infinite horizon projection. In fact, they said it probably would mislead anyone lacking technical expertise and that it provides “little if any useful information” about the system’s long-term finances. In a December 2003 letter  to the Social Security Advisory Board, the Academy wrote:

    American Academy of Actuaries: …The new measures of the unfunded obligations included in the 2003 report provide little if any useful information about the program’s long-range finances and indeed are likely to mislead anyone lacking technical expertise in the demographic, economic, and actuarial aspects of the program’s finances into believing that the program is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated.

The Academy states that there is already much uncertainty using 75-year projections, and that extending estimates into the infinite future only increases that uncertainty, producing results that "are of limited value to policymakers.” They point out that changes which took place over the last 75 years were unforeseeable to actuaries in 1928, such as the Great Depression or the baby boom, and therefore have no reason to expect that unforeseeable changes will not occur in the future.

Demographic and economic assumptions have always been a controversial issue among demographers predicting the long-term sustainability of Social Security. Significant advances in life expectancy have taken place over the last century, which exert more pressure on the system's finances as people live longer lives.  Whether future mortality rates will continue to slow or increase with medical technology, the Academy of Actuaries argues that the inconsistencies which arise from such long-range assumptions are "inevitable" when making projections over the course of infinity. For this reason, they conclude that the infinite-horizon measurement is a “detriment” to the Trustees Report. They write:

    American Academy of Actuaries: Thus, we believe that including these values in the Trustees Report is unnecessary and is, on balance, a detriment to the Trustees’ charge to provide a meaningful and balanced presentation of the financial status of the program.

One final note: The Trustees and actuaries give the $10.4-trillion figure and others what is called "present value," a theoretical lump-sum figure that takes into account expected future inflation and interest rates. Otherwise, any continuing deficit projected into the infinite future would automatically become an infinitely large sum.
Sources

 

Table IV.B7.--Unfunded OASDI Obligations for 1935 (Program Inception) Through the Infinite Horizon, "THE 2004 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE AND DISABILITY INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS," 23 March 2004: 59.

Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods (2003), Report to the Social Security Advisory Board. Washington, D.C., October 2003.
Related Articles
Social Security Ads: Risk or Protection?

Pro-Bush group's first TV ad states the problem correctly. But the AARP uses a misleading photo.
   
Get FactChecks Automatically

FactCheck.org will send each new FactCheck and Special Report directly to your mailbox (disable pop-up blocker first).
Sign Up Now >

Copyright 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
this thread is doomed.
www.augustbach.com  

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. -Ulysses.

word.

Offline Sabre

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
      • Rich Owen
What do you guys think about the proposed Social Security amendment?
« Reply #19 on: February 03, 2005, 04:43:09 PM »
Well, it would help to actually see the final plan.  However, if you paid attention to the SOTU address, Bush said no ideas are off the table at this point.  He also mentioned that younger workers would likely be able to divert a small percentage of their SS taxes into individual accounts, voluntarily.  He further mentioned that any plan that involves individual accounts must have some checks and balances, such as no "lump-sum" withdrawels, protection from sudden and catastrophic market swings, and be mostly free from broker loading and fees.  Yes, there would be a short-term decrease in the amount of SS revenue coming in, but a reduction in the amount paid out in the long term.  With the huge influx in money for investment and capitalization resulting from all those people putting money into the market, you may (MAY) see enough economic growth in the short term to somewhat offset the decrease in percentage of contributions made by people.  Wealth is not a zero-sum game.  Spur growth and you increase the revenues collected.

Bottome line, it is accepted fact that SS needs reform.  How imediate or great that need is may be up for debate, but not the need itself.  I personally would like to see the IRA option availble.  Let's see what get's proposed before digging our heels in, shall we?

Oh, and JB88, here's a rebuttle to the FactCheck.Org article you posted above.  It is from National Review, several days ago.

Quote

As a Matter of FactCheck.org
The truth about Social Security even eludes the supposed truth-seekers.
It’s a sad commentary on the state of public discourse when you have to fact-check FactCheck.org. But that’s what it’s come to. The non-partisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania was a reliable guide to the issues during the last presidential election, even-handedly finding fault and favor with statements made by both candidates. But now that the debate over Social Security reform has gotten increasingly nasty and complex, FactCheck.org seems to have lost its way.

In a posting last week, FactCheck.org asked, “Does Social Security Really Face an $11 Trillion Deficit?” The answer, in the feature’s headline, was: “Bush and Cheney say yes. But actuaries say the figure is ‘likely to mislead’ the public on the system’s true financial state.”

It’s that headline that is “likely to mislead.” And you can be sure that the opponents of reform will seize on it to do just that — mislead. That headline gives the impression that the $11 trillion deficit is a number created by Bush and Cheney in defiance of expert advice to the contrary. In reality, Bush and Cheney are simply quoting an official deficit estimate of the Trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund in their 2003 and 2004 annual reports.
The trustees relied on the work of actuaries to come up with that deficit estimate. So, to be fair, the headline should have read, “Actuaries say yes. But other actuaries say the figure is ‘likely to mislead’ the public ... ” But that wouldn’t be an exciting headline, would it? Battling actuaries is about as dull as, well — it’s just about the dullest thing in the world.

Beyond the headline, FactCheck.org’s analysis is also “likely to mislead.” When you get right down to what was really said by the actuaries who differ with the Bush/Cheney quote, it’s not a matter of the accuracy of the number — which is the proper domain for actuarial opinion. Instead, the dispute is only about whether the number is “likely to mislead.” If the number is accurate, do we really care what one or another actuary thinks about how “likely” it is that it will “mislead the public”? Actuaries are supposed to be experts on mortality rates — not public relations.

One of the actuarial groups cited by FactCheck.org is the American Academy of Actuaries, which sent a letter to the Social Security trustees on December 19, 2003, raising these concerns. I asked Ronald Gebhardtsbauer, the American Academy’s senior pension fellow (and a member of the committee that sent the letter) what it was all about. He said it was a response to the trustees’ adoption in 2003 of a new “infinite-horizon” analysis that examines Social Security’s solvency to perpetuity, as opposed to the arbitrary 75-year period mandated by statute. That 75-year analysis shows a deficit of $3.7 trillion, but by considering the years beyond 75, the infinite-horizon analysis naturally shows a larger deficit — and a more honest one: $10.4 trillion.

According to Gebhardtsbauer, while the American Academy committee had concerns about public perceptions, the new infinite-horizon analysis has distinct advantages:
Policy wonks can use this to compare different proposals. Any solution that has effects beyond the 75th year doesn’t see those effects included. I totally understand why they developed this. With private accounts, the system bears all the costs up front, but the benefits often don’t come until after the 75th year.
A conspiracy-theory-minded critic might conclude that the new “infinite horizon” analysis was cooked up to flatter Bush administration proposals for personal accounts. But then a similarly minded critic on the other side of the debate could conclude that seeking to suppress the new analysis is a way of making personal accounts look bad.

Indeed, Gebhardtsbauer was concerned by the way the American Academy’s 2003 letter had been referenced in a New York Times editorial several weeks ago. It was cited as justification for calling the $10.4 trillion deficit number “the closest you can get to pulling a number out of the air” and “essentially bogus.” Both he and the letter’s author, Eric J. Kleiber, chairperson of the American Academy's Social Insurance Committee, strongly denied that was the meaning of the letter. Gebhardtsbauer told me, “We didn’t say it was a bogus number.”

FactCheck.org also cited concerns about public perceptions of the $11 trillion deficit number in the 2003 report of the Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods — a group of actuaries, economists, and demographers appointed by the Social Security Advisory Board. The report recommended that the infinite-horizon deficit figure should be presented as a percent of payroll, and next to the value of payrolls to the same infinite horizon. This was done in the Social Security trustees’ 2004 report. The deficit amount of $10.4 trillion was given as 3.5 percent of payroll and compared with $295.5 trillion of total payroll.

If you want context — so that the public is sure not to be misled — then how about this? That $10.4 trillion number represents the value of economic assets today that would have to be contributed to the Social Security system to assure its perpetual sustainability based on the best estimates we can make at this time. To set things right, then, we would have to contribute today virtually the entire market value of the S&P 500. We would have to throw down the gaping maw of Social Security almost every share of every major company in America today in order to satisfy the hungry beast.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2005, 04:54:00 PM by Sabre »
Sabre
"The urge to save humanity almost always masks a desire to rule it."

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
What do you guys think about the proposed Social Security amendment?
« Reply #20 on: February 03, 2005, 04:58:47 PM »
Personally I look forward to Bush re-implementing the SS.

Offline wombatt

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1016
What do you guys think about the proposed Social Security amendment?
« Reply #21 on: February 03, 2005, 05:42:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by indy007
Look at the ratio posted earlier. 16 workers per 1 social security recipient. Now it's 3:1, and still dropping. When you have more money going out than coming in, you go into the red.

 


And what hat did old george pull these scary numbers from?

Offline wombatt

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1016
Quote
Originally posted by slimm50
Recall the Bank Run scene in It's A Wonderful Life:

:

But Wombatt, your money isn't in the Bailey S&L. No, it's in Pleasant Valley Nursing Home, and it went to buy Depens and Liver pills and Geritol for Your Aunt Bessie. Don't you see Wombatt, your money's been spread out amongst millions of old farts all over this great land.


How'd I do?:D


Great I have no problem with the moneys I paid in going to help the elderly who paid before me.
just as the young people who follow me should pay for my generation thats the way the system should work any way.

And besides what the hell is so wrong with people living longer?
And safe to say someone gotta take care of them and as they have paid in all those years I say they are entitled.

Offline RedTop

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5921
What do you guys think about the proposed Social Security amendment?
« Reply #23 on: February 03, 2005, 05:46:39 PM »
Quote
What do you guys think about the proposed Social Security amendment?


I dont think about it.
Original Member and Former C.O. 71 sqd. RAF Eagles

Offline wombatt

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1016
What do you guys think about the proposed Social Security amendment?
« Reply #24 on: February 03, 2005, 05:48:50 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Halo
A government that can make war around the world, give generously to disaster victims around the world, and give more money to support various international organizations and causes, can surely continue to provide at least a minimum Social Security network free of private enterprise profiteering for its hard-working citizens who most deserve a return on their own money.



 



BINGO we have a winner:aok

Offline JB88

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10980
What do you guys think about the proposed Social Security amendment?
« Reply #25 on: February 03, 2005, 06:04:03 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Personally I look forward to Bush re-implementing the SS.




:::::   ?  :::::::
this thread is doomed.
www.augustbach.com  

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. -Ulysses.

word.

Offline Lizard3

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1563
What do you guys think about the proposed Social Security amendment?
« Reply #26 on: February 03, 2005, 06:10:43 PM »
Forget the future, what about the present?

Right now I pay a huge chunk of my check into this (cess)pool fund that is supposed to suppliment my retirement income.

I pay now in SSI a lot more than I pay in federal taxes. I pay almost as much in SSI as I do in federal, state and sales taxes combined ! For a suppliment?

This quagmire FDR entagled us in to get us out of a depression should've been temorary. This socialistic baggage we carry is bringin us down.

If I invested only a quarter of what they're taking from me in the S&P500 for the next 20 years, even giving ups and down in the market, I would be able to retire comfortably.

I WANT OUT!

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
What do you guys think about the proposed Social Security amendment?
« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2005, 06:16:30 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by wombatt
And what hat did old george pull these scary numbers from?


Those numbers are statistically accurate.  They aren't new, either.  Do a little research before you make yourself look silly.

I support privatization for several reasons.  That isn't to say if someone offers a better suggestion, I won't like that better.

First, the system is in trouble.  No one wants to touch it because it's a political landmine.  There are just more people collecting than the work force can support and remain solvent.  They cut benefits in 1977.    

Privitization has numerous benefits.

For one, it's YOUR money.  Today, if you pay into the system your entire life, retire at 70, collect your first check, then die, the rest is gone.  With privatized accounts, what's in the account is yours.  To leave to whoever you'd like.  

It's also protected.  Unlike today, the gov't can't cut your benefits.  They also don't own your money.  If your with holding increases, it doesn't go to support others, your account increases.  It's YOUR money.

In essence, absolutely nothing changes for you from day to day now, but when you retire you control your retirement, not the Feds.

Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
What do you guys think about the proposed Social Security amendment?
« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2005, 06:34:35 PM »
I've been paying into SS exactly one year longer than into my teacher retirement program.      

In November of 2004, I retired from teaching and began to draw my retirement check from the Arkansas State Teacher Retirement System.  My net from that check is $1500 dollars a month.

According to the last report I got from the Social Security system, if I continue to work for another 16 years, contributing the same amount that I am currently contributing, my monthly benefit check will be in neighborhood of $1300 a month.  Bear in mind, that my monthly donation to SS is slightly higher than that which was made to the teacher retirement system.

Do you really have to ask which system I would prefer to put my money in?
« Last Edit: February 03, 2005, 06:36:49 PM by Shuckins »

Offline Lizard3

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1563
What do you guys think about the proposed Social Security amendment?
« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2005, 06:34:52 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Halo

A government that can make war around the world, give generously to disaster victims around the world, and give more money to support various international organizations and causes, can surely continue to provide at least a minimum Social Security network free of private enterprise profiteering for its hard-working citizens who most deserve a return on their own money.


DING DING we have a loser!

How can they "surely" do that? If they stop doing all those things you listed, yeah sure, in 2075 they'll be able to get you yer check. Fact is, its not governments job to get you a check every month. Nor should it be. It should provide an environment conducive to working and raising a family. Private enterprise is what got us this far and frankly, involving the government in anything like a retirement system (SS) is asking for just what we got. An inept run slush fund for politicians. Private enterprise gets things done faster, cheaper and with better quality than any government agency could dream of. Of course, I would'nt ask P.E. to wage a war overseas, or negotiate an arms treaty or secure our borders.

Ya see, its the leeches of this nation that think of corporations and private enterprise as bad or evil. Painting them as some kind of devil for seeking to better themselves and the lives of Americans. They want a nation of herd following Euro socialistic on the dole slugs to sit on there couch watching Good Times reruns untill it implodes into anarchy and oblivion. Who are the leeches? The hangers on who contribute squat and suck the life out of the American ideals most of us revere.

Thats what I think.
Enjoy!