Slashdot Mirror
Mathematics of the Social Security "Crisis"
ScottyB writes "Here's a good start for reading into the economics and history of the much-discussed 'crisis' in Social Security. It's from the NY Times magazine, so you know the drill...'A Question of Numbers.'"
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
Please read this article, it's probably the most well researched and insightful look at the current health of our social security program. The end conclusion: It's Fine. Seriously. No Really. Totally OK.
If you took the worst case scenario given out by the Social Security Trustees as the future exactly as it will happen, Everyone will continue to recieve 100% of benefits until 2048, and then, after that, we'd recieve only 75% of benefits, and the system would continue to hum. That's if the worst case scenario mixture of immigration and ecomonmic slowdown happen, and absolutley NOTHING done to the system. Their realistic scenario call for complete 100% solvency of the system for the next 75 years, again, with NOTHING done to the system.
Social Security is the best running government program ever devised in this country. Everyone here will be able to recieve their retirement benefits that they've been paying into their whole lives.
The Social Security "crisis" stems from that 25% reduction in benefits in 2048. If we were to give everyone 100%, then we'd run about a $3 trillion deficit in SS over the next 75 years, in the mean time, Medicare is projected to start deficit spending in only 10 years, and will run an $11 trillion hole. And both of these self financed systems have a better outlook than out general acocunt budget, the pot of money that pays for the rest of the government. Best guess estimates are that our government will go $15 TRILLION MORE into debt over that same $75 years.
So what is more in crisis, $3 trillion that we don't need to even go into deficit for, or $15 that we absolutely must? Our current $440 billion deficit is the real crisis.
The president and all of the conservative commentors here want to reneg on the deal President Reagan made in 1983 when he reformed social security. He raised payroll taxes beyond the amount needed so we would run a surplus, and that would go into a trust fund that would pay for the burden of the Baby Boomer retirement. That trust fund was mandated by law to buy treasury bills, which have consequently been used to finance the upper class tax cuts. Basically, the president has done a transfer of wealth from the working class who payed more into the system than they had to so the super rich could mooch off the government even more.
I Repeat: SOCIAL SECURITY IS FINE! RTFA!
Th
from Wiki:
State pension systems lack a number of basic features that define Ponzi schemes, and so are fundamentally different:
* There is no belief that there are large profits coming from something; rather, it is clear that these are pay-as-you go systems, where workers (at any given time) are providing money to those who have retired.
* There is no growth of incoming funds driven by the enticement of high returns over a short period of time, with new investors continually entering in order to support payouts to early investors.
* State pension systems are in some way insurance rather than investment systems. A person who dies before retirement gets no money back (regardless of what he/she paid in). Someone who lives to a very old age continues to get payments regardless of the amount of money he/she has paid in.
* Because receipts (taxes) and payouts (entitlements) can be calculated quite accurately in the short term (five to ten years), and predicted (with a range of assumptions) for periods beyond that timeframe, there will never be a sudden collapse.
* General tax revenues can be used to supplement worker payments into the systems, although many taxpayers will be unhappy with such supplementation. Similarly, benefits can be reduced through the political process, either across-the-board or by reducing benefits to the well-off, although there will clearly be opposition by those who will get less.
Well, this makes sense only if you use the life expectancy at age 18 (or 21, or whatever your cutoff is for when someone enters the workforce). Life expectancy at birth is a stupid measure to use for this, because having a bunch of children die before the age of 1 affects social security not a bit. (They don't pay in, and they don't withdraw)
So how has life expectancy changed over the last century? Well, in one sense, it's risen dramatically - the life expectancy at birth is now something like 15 years longer than it was in 1940. However, most of that increase is due to advancements in keeping children from dying. At the other end of the spectrum, someone who made it to 65 in 1940 could expect to live, on average, another 12.7 years. Nowadays, they could expect to live another 15.3. That's a whopping 2.6 year increase. (I admit, the increase has been greater for women now that we've gotten better at diagnosing breast cancer - a woman who reaches age 65 now can look forward to 4.9 years more than one could who reached age 65 in 1940)
Remember this: life expectancy for adults today is not radically different than it was 60 years ago. The difference is that today we don't have as many children being wiped out by childhood diseases, so the average looks much higher if you watch the wrong statistic.
Reference: http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html