« prev   random   next »


Social Security Trust Fund Surplus

By Bellingham Bill following x   2017 Oct 7, 9:05am 3,057 views   12 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    

This is taking FICA taxation received less SSA benefits paid, 1984 - 2016.

Annual numbers were adjusted for inflation -- but to compensate, credited interest is ignored since that is just printed UST bonds and shouldn't really count anyway.

FICA payers were overtaxed an average of 10% over the 1984-2009 period (since then we've been undertaxed ~$600B as the SSTF is beginning to be spent down to handle the boomer retirement surge out to 2035 or so).

So at the current run-rate, we've got about 10 years of SSA payouts before the SSTF (aka FICA payment surplus) is exhausted.

Ideally, we should phase-in a ~5% FICA increase over the next 10 years (+0.25% to worker and employer per year, +$10/month each year to the average worker) to keep the program cash-neutral over the infinite horizon, but these are far from ideal times.
1   Blurtman   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 7, 9:45am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        


By then we will be part of the greater Sinorussoamerican empire.
2   Blurtman   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 7, 1:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Everyman for himself. Kick that parasite, Grannie, to the curb!
3   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Oct 7, 1:11pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The taxation has been going up every year via the cap. Last year it was $117k. This year it was increased 7% to $128k.
So don't worry, they're going to keep the Boomers in other people's money until they finally die.
4   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 7, 5:24pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

5   HEY YOU   ignore (7)   2017 Oct 7, 5:37pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

How many Rep/Con/Nazis that are to young for SS are on some form of govt.handout & subsidies?
One of these SOCIALISTS is TOO MANY!
6   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Oct 7, 9:14pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The best part is that these same Boomers who are bleeding retirements dry across America are keen to lecture their benefactors about hard work and making it on your own! They also seem strangely hostile to socialism, perhaps not understanding that their cohort is the greatest socialism experiment in American history.
7   Blurtman   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 8, 4:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Considering longer life spans, are boomers getting more out of SS than they put in?
8   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Oct 8, 6:21am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

me123 says
The difference is you Bernie socialists want it NOW without paying into the system.

Uh no. Actually, I just want a fair deal. Unfortunately, the Boomfucks are going to bankrupt Social Security and both my pensions (which I WORKED for) before I even make it to retirement age. They won't consider taking less so those who come behind them have at least what they paid for. They want it all, they want to drain the system dry before they die.
How can anyone respect that?
9   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Oct 8, 6:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The best we can hope for is a glut of foreign doctors performing mass incidences of medical malpractice on aging Boomfucks.
Maybe in the end, their own failed policies will kill them off.
10   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2017 Oct 8, 8:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Blurtman says
Considering longer life spans, are boomers getting more out of SS than they put in?

What about the boomers who die at say 68, what do they get for paying into the system for 45 years?
11   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Oct 8, 8:53am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Sorry but your narrative fails. I know a lot of Millienials, and they all have at least one full time job. They might be the hardest working generation, even though they have little hope of affording their own residence on the reduced wages and tremendously jacked up house prices the boomers were responsible for creating with their me-first policies.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the Boomers for not having enough kids to support them in their old age, and then creating policy and conditions that gradually made it harder and harder for their kids to become independent. This is well-established fact, and its sad that you are so ill-informed that you think your kids generation are the problem.
12   Bellingham Bill   ignore (5)   2017 Oct 8, 10:01am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Blurtman says
Considering longer life spans, are boomers getting more out of SS than they put in?

SSA math is convoluted but fun to work out for your own case.

Funny how NOBODY even knows how the benefit formula works. I didn't know until a couple of years ago.

Basically your annual earnings are inflation adjusted and SSA takes your top 35 years to calculate your AIME, "average indexed monthly earnings".

I was working for my uni in college (no FICA for some reason) for 6 years then went off to Japan so I'm not going to have a full 35 years, oh well!

Anyway, the way benefits works is there are two "bend points", the first at $885 (= $10,620/yr) and the second at $5,336 ($64,032/yr). The bend points are applicable to current retirees, future bend points will be adjusted up for inflation.


AIME below the first bend point gives you a 90% SSA payout

For AIME between the two bend points you get 32% of your AIME as monthly benefit

The amount of the AIME above the 2nd bend point is good for a 15% addition to your payout.

For someone retiring today with a $5000 AIME ($60,000 average real income over 35 years)

$795.50 (first bend point x 90%) + $1316.80 (32% of 2nd band) = ~$2100 monthly benefit, $25,200 annually.

If they worked 40 years at this $60,000 average real income they'd have paid in FICA a notional (constant dollars) $300,000 over the 40 years (FICA rates were raised from 8.4% in 1970 to the 12.4% we know and love today in 1990 but I ignored that)

So it would take 12 years of retirement to get your (constant dollar) money back in SSA checks. Full retirement age is 66 now, so that would require living to age 78.

Seems like the SSA program is actuarially balanced by these ballpark numbers.

It's not supposed to be a retirement investment, it's retirement insurance. The money in & money out should give you a risk-free inflation-protected monthly income (SSA is there for survivors of payees who kick the bucket before retirement age too).

People making over the 2nd bend point really subsidize it for everyone -- redistributive socialism, ain't it grand.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions