entitlement

[G27]

The problem is there are tons of us who have paid in for decades who will never see a dime of it - it's 100% unsustainable.

So while those of you who 'paid in for 40 years' want to get yours, the reality is you're doing it on the backs of folks who pay for it now and will never see a dime of it.

And that's not socialism?

It's going to be unfair for someone, typical that many don't care as long as they 'get theirs'.

[Oh Shoot]

The problem is there are tons of us who have paid in for decades who will never see a dime of it - it's 100% unsustainable....

Oh, there will be some sort of graduated compensation to those below the cutoff.

Prob is that by then, the USD won't be worth anything close to what was it was when YOU put it in the pot.

Most younger Americans may well become billionaires in their lifetimes, even at minimum wage.

- OS

[Guest Zombie-Hunter]

This thread didnt go the dirction you expected huh?

You know the real hillbillys when you read them, the problem is that when we die off, whats left is the OP.

I do feel sorry for them (many in my family) and anyone else who believed in the Government more than God.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The problem is there are tons of us who have paid in for decades who will never see a dime of it - it's 100% unsustainable.

So while those of you who 'paid in for 40 years' want to get yours, the reality is you're doing it on the backs of folks who pay for it now and will never see a dime of it.

And that's not socialism?

It's going to be unfair for someone, typical that many don't care as long as they 'get theirs'.

Has a lot to do with expectations. Whether I agreed with the gov confiscating my money to buy MX missiles, African foreign aid, food stamps or welfare, I never expected to get any of that money back. It is doubtful that anyone expects to see their tax money come back in benefits that they would have voluntarily paid for with their own money. I would not have voluntarily sent checks to the MX Missile program just because I felt charitable. Maybe I would have voluntarily sent checks to the highway and roads program, out of self interest.

Didn't see Baba griping about the money he paid for MX missiles.

If SS had been honestly advertised for what it is-- Welfare for old folks-- Then people wouldn't expect to get it back. Though they would still be peeved if the gov cuts that welfare program before they get their turn. Being that personal responsibility still somewhat survives as part of the American meme, it would be a lower level of peed-off than feeling like their savings have been ripped off.

====

There are various dimensions to the problem. On the emotional angle-- If your friend's wife just died and he is suicidally depressed, then it is not a "Mr. Sensitivity" response to scold, "Dang it, you ought to have known she would die sooner or later! What are you complaining about! Go get a new better wife! In fact, you should have had a new better wife lined up before the old one died!"

These middle aged fellows who believe in their stock market holdings more than God or Country-- When they get soaked in the next crash I'll try to remember to be "Mr. Sensitivity" and scold, "You should have known you can lose it all any day. What are you complaining about? Just move into a cardboard box and be happy you can find one."

====

On the practical angle, if something bad happens then you can be peed-off and at the same time adapt as good as possible. If you lose yer job or the house burns down then you might not be happy about it, and you have a right to bitch about it, but you typically make as good realistic response as is necessary. My realistic response is to put off retirement until it is impossible to work or impossible to find anyone that will hire me. But its not gonna keep me from bitching about it.

====

On Zombie Hunter's "Hillbilly" comment, do you know many Hillbillies from the depression on, who were too proud to sign up for SS and take the checks as soon as they got old enough? My ancestors were AL proud, po, independent people. But they didn't turn down the SS checks when they got old. It paid for beans and cornbread.

[G27]

Has a lot to do with expectations.

Sure, I agree. In fact, I'm sure many forward thinking folks my age are preparing as I am - to not accept SS. My plans are to be prepared as I don't it to be there, and frankly, if things go as I plan I won't accept it even if it does still exist.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Sure, I agree. In fact, I'm sure many forward thinking folks my age are preparing as I am - to not accept SS. My plans are to be prepared as I don't it to be there, and frankly, if things go as I plan I won't accept it even if it does still exist.

Hi Crimsonaudio

It is as good a plan as any. The ideal outcome is eventually to be independently wealthy of course. Good luck!

If SS is still goin on when you get old enough then it would seem foolish not to try to get some of your money back. Am not calling you foolish. Just that if you are getting ripped 9 ways to Sunday by the gov, then why not take a benefit when it comes your way?

It would be like not taking the standard deduction on your 1040 tax return "out of principle", or not depreciating your business equipment "out of principle".

Its not like I haven't saved anything, but am a belt-and-suspenders guy. Investments seem as shaky as SS. I don't trust the belt or the suspenders enough to retire and get out of the habit of working.

They have the SS benefit set up in such a way that if you are still making decent money, then you have to forfeit most of the SS money, at least until age 67 or something. So it makes no advantage to apply for SS benefits until you quit working.

If I could keep working and get the benefit then I'd apply right away and invest the checks in retirement savings. Because my "full" SS annual benefit would be lower than my SS annual taxes, it would essentially be a partial rebate on my own SS taxes.

[G27]

If SS is still goin on when you get old enough then it would seem foolish not to try to get some of your money back. Am not calling you foolish. Just that if you are getting ripped 9 ways to Sunday by the gov, then why not take a benefit when it comes your way?

It would be like not taking the standard deduction on your 1040 tax return "out of principle", or not depreciating your business equipment "out of principle".

I disagree. I guess it's just how I view it, but I don't see tax deductions as 'welfare' or 'entitlements' as I do SS. To me they are very different things - the country isn't going bankrupt due to tax deductions, it's due to entitlement spending, imo.

I guess different people see it differently, but I find the concept of making my kids pay for my retirement, whether I've 'paid for it' or not, disgusting.

[gregintenn]

The problem is there are tons of us who have paid in for decades who will never see a dime of it - it's 100% unsustainable.

So while those of you who 'paid in for 40 years' want to get yours, the reality is you're doing it on the backs of folks who pay for it now and will never see a dime of it.

And that's not socialism?

It's going to be unfair for someone, typical that many don't care as long as they 'get theirs'.

You said exactly what I was thinking, and much more clearly than I've been able to say it.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I disagree. I guess it's just how I view it, but I don't see tax deductions as 'welfare' or 'entitlements' as I do SS. To me they are very different things - the country isn't going bankrupt due to tax deductions, it's due to entitlement spending, imo.

I guess different people see it differently, but I find the concept of making my kids pay for my retirement, whether I've 'paid for it' or not, disgusting.

Yes it is difficult to decide what is a "fair share". I've always considered the mortgage interest deduction just a federal housing subsidy for the middles and rich, but conservatives who like to take that deduction counter that one's "fair share" is whatever the law says it is. No more. No Less.

Am pretty certain I've paid more than I'll get back, so whatever is legal. Collecting a legal benefit follows the same argument as taking a legal deduction that may not necessarily be "fair" or "just".

My opinion changes on it. Am not arguing from a fixed viewpoint, just discussing.

Old dad never enjoyed paying taxes but he never begrudged his parents getting SS. Even after passing his own retirement age he would drive almost weekly down to AL to check on his ancient mom. Even barely able to walk he would weekly visit his mother-in-law at the nursing home until she passed a couple of years ago.

He worked until about age 75 even though he collected a great pension well before retirement age, and I never begrudged him collecting SS. I'd rather pay SS tax than see his SS cancelled.

Heck, until the last couple of years of his working, he was paying more in SS tax every year than he was collecting! If he hadn't been collecting it would have been even more of a rip-off.

Maybe the SS can be reformed so it isn't too expensive for the kids to pay. If the tax gets much higher it WILL eventually be overturned.

But I paid to raise a brat and am an old brat paying to keep up the parents. Am pretty sure me and sister have paid enough SS to cover the folks checks with plenty to spare.

If my kid's generation decides to send us to the soylent green factory, then that is their own decision to make. Its not something I can ultimately do much about.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Lester Weevils

[G27]

Yes it is difficult to decide what is a "fair share". I've always considered the mortgage interest deduction just a federal housing subsidy for the middles and rich, but conservatives who like to take that deduction counter that one's "fair share" is whatever the law says it is. No more. No Less.

Yah, I understand. Really, I'd be happy to give up all deductions if we ensured EVERYONE paid federal income taxes. I'd be thrilled if we had a balanced budget amendment and relied on revenue to determine federal budgets and would happily pay my share of it.

Am pretty certain I've paid more than I'll get back, so whatever is legal. Collecting a legal benefit follows the same argument as taking a legal deduction that may not necessarily be "fair" or "just".

Sure, yah I get that. I just hate the thought of it. And if my determination to be self-sufficient means there's a *little* less stress on the federal budgets, all the better.

It's the principle of the whole thing to me.

Maybe the SS can be reformed so it isn't too expensive for the kids to pay. If the tax gets much higher it WILL eventually be overturned.

Well, it's going to have to be, as at some point it will simply become unsustainable.

We can address it now by choice or later out of desperation. History shows that politicians generally make terrible decisions in the face of desperation (hence we're talking about SS, something which should never have been created in the first place...).

I just don't want people acting like SS isn't an 'entitlement'. It is, and it's socialist, and if folks are OK with that, so be it.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Yah, I understand. Really, I'd be happy to give up all deductions if we ensured EVERYONE paid federal income taxes. I'd be thrilled if we had a balanced budget amendment and relied on revenue to determine federal budgets and would happily pay my share of it.

Yep. Social Security tax is the only tax that virtually all workers pay (except sales taxes and such). Even if the gov ditches SS, it can't ditch the SS tax (unless they just hike the main income tax rate 15.3 percent across the board).

Personal income tax is about 40 percent of revenue and SS/Medicare is about 40 percent of revenue. Taxpayers above median income pay virtually all personal income tax and Taxpayers below $200,000 pay virtually all SS. If we made people below median income exempt from SS tax it would cut revenue quite a bit. Giving somewhat a lie that "the poor pay no taxes".

The reason democrats' "tax the rich" won't help the budget is that there isn't that much revenue to be had. To raise revenue enough to make a practical difference a tax increase would have to go down at least to the $30,000 income level. Folks down there don't make as much money, but there are a hell of a lot more of them.

Even if you wipe out the entire Medicare/Medicaid programs, it would still just barely balance the budget if you keep the SS tax. If you also wipe out the SS tax the budget gets just as bad as before. So people who think that killing SS will give them more money to save have another think coming. The gov will need that money regardless.

I think a flat tax would have some good features but would exacerbate oligarchy. The Fair Tax has some good points but I think it would distort the economy in different but equally bad ways as the income tax.

People are good a playing games. They will game to their advantage any system that has rules, and the gaming will make people behave in certain ways they otherwise would not, thereby distorting the way things get done. People do many unproductive actions to avoid income tax in the current system which hurts the economy. People would do different unproductive actions to avoid the Fair Tax, hurting the economy in different ways.

There is no perfect tax. I suspect the best would be a small flat transaction tax which applies to ALL transactions. It would not be popular with Steve Forbes or Neal Boortz because it would tax too many of the transactions they like to make. But it would load the entire economy evenly top-to-bottom.

The main distortions I can see, is that products with long supply chains would be a little more expensive and products with short supply chains would be less expensive. Which would be fabulous opportunity for people who can deliver goods with short supply chains, but on the other hand a lot of mom&pop businesses operate on long supply chains. The other disadvantage is that the main way to avoid the tax is to do no transactions at all. Which might suppress economic activity across-the-board. The tax would have to be very small on each transaction to minimize the suppression.

Well, it's going to have to be, as at some point it will simply become unsustainable.

We can address it now by choice or later out of desperation. History shows that politicians generally make terrible decisions in the face of desperation (hence we're talking about SS, something which should never have been created in the first place...).

.

Some of it may "fix itself". You say that many in your generation are adapting to the situation by saving more. Which is good. It may be that many in my generation have made my conclusion-- Put off retirement indefinitely. If a lot of folks in both generations reach such conclusions then it may help without passing new law. But some people are not real healthy and don't live very long. If mom hadn't retired early she wouldn't have had much retirement at all.

There is good and bad to everything. If geezers sit on jobs indefinitely then it makes it that much more difficult for young folks to find jobs. Would the kid rather have a part-time burger-flipping job, or would he rather pay SS so a geezer will retire off a good-paying job the kid wants?

Yes probably gradual increase of retirement age combined with perhaps for awhile limiting cost-of-living increases to 90 percent of inflation. But because the CPI somewhat underestimates "subsistence living" inflation, maybe that would be a raw deal. Just tracking the CPI doesn't completely compensate for rises in prices of stuff that po folks have to buy.

Maybe the increase of retirement age should be gradual but more drastic than some recommendations. Rather than increasing the age by a year, for people due to retire several years out-- Maybe it would be better to increase the age by 1 month per year. Or 3 months per year. Get a little more savings quicker without terribly inconveniencing people nearing retirement.

For instance, perhaps in 2012 people would have to be 65 years + 1 month to retire. In 2013, people would have to be 65 years + 2 months to retire. Etc.

It is just a bad situation. The MAJORITY of the federal debt is in SS bonds. I don't see why the SS bonds are less "valid" than bonds owned by Goldman Sachs or China. It doesn't seem right to default on USA geezers in order to avoid defaulting on Goldman Sachs or CrimsonAudio (if he owns any securities which hold gov bonds). If we are gonna default ten percent on the SS bonds, then it would only seem fair to default ten percent on ALL bonds. Or maybe even default FIRST on foreign and corporate bond holdings.

I just don't want people acting like SS isn't an 'entitlement'. It is, and it's socialist, and if folks are OK with that, so be it.

Yep it can be called socialist. Many features of the system are socialist. In a setup where everybody has a vote it is a balancing act of what is politically feasible.

If you establish the libertarian utopia where everybody either works or starves (or both simultaneously) then if 50.000001 percent of the voters see personal benefit then you get to keep yer libertarian utopia. But if 50.000001 percent of the voters feel like they have been scalded, then they will vote commie and your libertarian utopia is history. You can blame the 50.000001 percent of voters as lazy good-for-nothing sob's but the libertarian utopia will fall nonetheless.

A lot of things people don't especially mind are socialist. For instance, FDIC. Without FDIC I doubt if many people including most libertarians would trust more than pocket change to a bank. Without banks the system wouldn't work very well. Uncle Sugar bails out the bad banks and saves the depositor's bacon, using money confiscated from people and banks who are well-run. Or using money borrowed from China. Or quantitative easing money.

SS is called social insurance. In principle an annuity from an insurance company is the same thing, except voluntary. Maybe some annuities are federal-backed in case the company goes belly-up. Dunno. But just because it is voluntary private social insurance doesn't remove risk of default. A customer who dumps hundreds of thousands into an annuity and gets ripped off, is gonna be just as SOL as if he had been defaulted by the gov.

[Chief07]

Sorry, but it is. There is no such thing as Social Security 'insurance'. You paid a payroll tax, and your employer did as well. There has not been a 'trust fund' or any other account set aside for you. All you had was a set of IOUs from the Federal government, and they have the power to change the terms as they see fit.

Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme. It depended upon the contributions from those paying to always be larger than the distribution to those getting checks. In other words, Robbing Peter to pay Paul. The country has more debt to Paul than they are capable of robbing from Peter. So they write IOUs to themselves for the difference. It's like getting another credit card to pay the payments on the ones you have already maxed out!

You younger guys need to LISTEN UP! Government promises are worthless. If you do not provide for yourself, and plan for your own retirement, you will end up as a WalMart greeter eating Ramen twice a day and a 'wish sandwich' for lunch.

Whay's wrong with being a Walmart greeter?

That's what I want to do after retirement in a few months.

No thinking, no one to be in charge of, just stand around and say

"How yall doing, Welcome to Wallyworld".

[Guest Zombie-Hunter]

Lester nice posting, not saying there isn't a lot of wisdom but your analogies are all based off of the social programs to save other social programs. I believe there is enough waste in Washington the Government could cut, that would save the budget and keep the social programs alive and well.

Also one other thing about retiring on S.S. Not saying the amount taken doesn't hurt at the time but each and every person plans on pulling more out in retirement that they paid in. Really Just a guess but if youre w-2 you pay 15-35 dollars a week and your employer matches that so thats 30-70 a week, at most $280 a month. I know from personal family members the S.S. checks run about a grand per person. Thats $250 a week compared to the $280 a month paid in. Like I said I am just chatting and could be proven wrong, but until then....... I'd say thats bad math.

If you lived your life buying cars, boats and women leaving nothing but a Government check in your old age, you seriously screwed up. I suppose the childhood stories about the "Tortoise and the Hare or The Ant and the Grasshopper" was just for entertainment purposes only.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Zombie-Hunter
Nonya Business Nosy F!

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Lester nice posting, not saying there isn't a lot of wisdom but your analogies are all based off of the social programs to save other social programs. I believe there is enough waste in Washington the Government could cut, that would save the budget and keep the social programs alive and well.

Also one other thing about retiring on S.S. Not saying the amount taken doesn't hurt at the time but each and every person plans on pulling more out in retirement that they paid in. Really Just a guess but if youre w-2 you pay 15-35 dollars a week and your employer matches that so thats 30-70 a week, at most $280 a month. I know from personal family members the S.S. checks run about a grand per person. Thats $250 a week compared to the $280 a month paid in. Like I said I am just chatting and could be proven wrong, but until then....... I'd say thats bad math.

If you lived your life buying cars, boats and women leaving nothing but a Government check in your old age, you seriously screwed up. I suppose the childhood stories about the "Tortoise and the Hare or The Ant and the Grasshopper" was just for entertainment purposes only.

Hi Zombie-Hunter

Good points. A lot of people do not plan well and many live for the day. Am not exempting myself. It is a sure thang that many would have made better decisions.

There is the good and the bad. People who advance our economy the most, take extreme risks. The safe players don't take enough risk to found new industries and create thousands of new jobs. At the same time, most hard-working entreprenuers fail. So our "lifeblood" resource of entreprenurial risk takers, we reward the winners but the losers end up a worse off than if they had made "safe" choices.

I'm not advocating welfare for failed entrepreneurs. Nobody made em reach for the golden ring. Just saying that sometimes people end up short because they are lazy. Other times a guy may look like the grasshopper when he was working his butt off but it didn't work out. A guy ends up penniless because he sat on his butt versus a guy who ends up penniless after numerous failed businesses-- They both end up penniless but we need one kind more than we need the other.

If nobody took "irresponsible" risks then there would be no Hewlett Packard, Microsoft, Apple, etc. If Microsoft had failed and Digital Research prevailed then we might scold, "Dang it Bill Gates, you should have finished college and got a steady job programming for IBM or Digital Research."

Regardless, there are numerous shiftless people who don't have a lick of sense. No argument.

====

I dunno nothin about nothin. Just want to make that plain if it ain't immediately obvious. The few numbers I've checked seem to show that the actuaries who work for Social Security have done an excellent job. The problem is not with the actuaries. The problem is that the bonds are worthless unless we pay even more taxes to 'redeem' them. It is a big ole asset on the books that we can't realistically cash out.

Folks tend to avoid investments that don't at least track inflation. If you deposit $100 in the bank in 1970 then the bank can't give you back yer $100 in 2011 and call it even-steven. If you buy a gov bond, then the gov pays you more money than what you paid for the bond. The SS trust fund bonds are interest-bearing and you can see the fictional "interest gains" on those bonds in the federal budget sheets.

Most folks hit an earning peak near the end of life, but for calculational simplicity, lets propose a 65 year old feller who makes $30,000 in 2011. He worked a dead-end job for 45 years since age 20, and his pay was always $30,000 inflation adjusted. In other words, in 1990 the fellow made $17,370 and in 1970 he made $5157.

Assume that SS bonds also exactly track inflation. It makes the calculation easier and ought to give near the same answer as figuring it year-by-year. Also the SS tax rate has changed over the years, but this is a rough estimate.

In other words this estimate will be on the high side because the feller didn't always pay 15.3%.

His 2011 15.3% SS tax on $30,000 is $4590. His 15.3% tax on his last year's $28,981 income has earned one year of interest, bringing the value of last-years SS tax also to $4590. Going all the way back 45 years to 1966 when he started that dead-end job.

So we have 45 years of inflation adjusted taxes which have gained via compound interest until every prior year's contribution is now worth $4590. 45 years * $4590 PerYear = $206,550 total.

The current average life-span is 78. This fellow may live more or less than 78 but that is the average-- 13 years of benefits.

$206,550 / 13 years = $15,888 per year, or $1324 per month.

This back of the envelope calculation is a little high but not drastically in disagreement with the actual benefit.

I took my latest SS sheet and calculated it out, adjusted year-by-year inflation and actual historical SS tax rates. Comparing it against my SS promised payout, regardless whether I retire at 62, 65, or 69, I have to live to the age of 82 to get my money back.

That is either a spooky strange coincidence, or some gov actuary did a fabulous job working it out so that the odds are slim to none that I'll get my money back unless I hit the jackpot and live 4 years longer than average.

The big problem is Medicare. I don't think we would be in much trouble with Social Security, but Medicare is a hopeless looking sinkhole. At the very least we need to spend some big money on a "moon shot" crash program to develop practical robot doctors, or there ain't no freakin way Medicare will work.

[Mike.357]

so the webz is reporting a deal has been struck. I did not read it, whats the point?

I have no doubt they sold out all principles and we are in the same boat we were in before. Just no one running in 2012 has to say it was their fault.

I ain't even gonna vote anymore. What is the point?

[Oh Shoot]

so the webz is reporting a deal has been struck. I did not read it, whats the point?

I have no doubt they sold out all principles and we are in the same boat we were in before. Just no one running in 2012 has to say it was their fault.

I ain't even gonna vote anymore. What is the point?

Bill doesn't "cut" any money from overall federal budget, nor even keep it at same level. We'll still spend and borrow more every year. We'll "save" 3 trillion over 10 years by only going into debt for 7 trillion more over same period. Gawd knows that makes me feel better.

I don't think we'll have to wait 10 years to see the "payoff".

- OS

[G27]

From what Fox is reporting, it's nothing like it needs to be, but it's a lot better than I expected from the repubs....

According to the president, the deal means an immediate cut of $1 trillion over a 10-year period, followed by the creation of a committee to come up with additional cuts worth $1.5 trillion to be voted on by the end of the year.

Each chamber will nominate lawmakers to the committee to report back in the fall. Tax hikes are not part of the package and a pledge for a Balanced Budget Amendment vote is.

Obama said everything will be on the table and both parties will find some of the cuts objectionable.

Read more: Obama Announces Debt-Reduction Deal Approved by Senate, House Leaders - FoxNews.com

It likely won't happen, but I sure hope the repubs stick to their supposed guns here and bring it.

[Oh Shoot]

...It likely won't happen, but I sure hope the repubs stick to their supposed guns here and bring it.

Creative bookkeeping will make a Balanced Budget Amendment adhered to about as strictly as the Second Amendment.

- OS

[mav]

I have pretty much written off this year and the next for anything meaningful to be done. I am interested as to whether the Tea Partiers can keep their fervor alive for another 15 - 16 months and vote more of the jerks out of office.

[Guest Zombie-Hunter]

.

.

Took reading your math 3 times, but I think this was your point......

Hi Zombie-Hunter

I took my latest SS sheet and calculated it out, adjusted year-by-year inflation and actual historical SS tax rates. Comparing it against my SS promised payout, regardless whether I retire at 62, 65, or 69, I have to live to the age of 82 to get my money back.

That is either a spooky strange coincidence, or some gov actuary did a fabulous job working it out so that the odds are slim to none that I'll get my money back unless I hit the jackpot and live 4 years longer than average.

No argument here, But the general working public who has had a steady job from 20 til retirement are low. (by my guess) also unemployment checks could figure into ones lifetime.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Zombie-Hunter
Dont you wished you knew....

[Jonnin]

The compromise they are discussing has "tax reform" as one of the listed items, which makes me think they sold out to increase taxes on someone, somewhere. They seem to be dodging that subject in a way that makes me think a tax increase is headed our way. If so, I predict a lot of turnover in the house next year.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

.

.

Took reading your math 3 times, but I think this was your point......

No argument here, But the general working public who has had a steady job from 20 til retirement are low. (by my guess) also unemployment checks could figure into ones lifetime.

Hi Zombie Hunter

If we torture the data long enough then it will admit to anything.

Here is a gov inflation calculator that uses the official numbers. Which are not flawless but at least are carefully calculated by professionals--

Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics

For instance if a fellow makes $30,000 in 2011 then his equivalent pay in 1966 would be $4,306

Historical SS tax rates are here--

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

In 1966 the total SS tax rate was 6.15%. So the equivalent tax collected in 1966 would be $264.82. Plug that into the inflation calculator and assuming the SS Trust Fund bonds track inflation, it ought to be worth $1,844.93 today, or about 2 months of benefits. Even at that low rate of 2 months benefits per year, 45 years of working ought to cover about 90 months of benefits, or 7.5 years.

There may be a downloadable chart somewhere showing the actual historical interest rates on the SS bonds. Don't have time to look right now.

The SS tax rate reached near the current levels 27 years ago, so my rough estimate would be closer to accurate for the most recent 27 of 45 years. Because the gov can set the rates on those bonds, it may not be surprising if they may have occasionally set the rates pretty high to make the numbers look good.

There may be a downloadable document which describes the exact actuarial calculations including the cliff's notes and work sheets. Accountants tend to be obsessive-compulsive attention-to-details people and even a civil servant will get in trouble for fraud or making bad accounting mistakes. I can't prove it, but the numbers grossly fit well enough that I suspect that even if Ron Paul were to audit the SS books then he would find the books overall numerically accurate.

They are "fantasy numbers" because the trust fund bonds are in reality worthless. Could be wrong, but am fairly confident that the accounts actually do balance in this fantasy land.

A wild guess would be that the benefits are calculated so that very low wage earners get a bigger benefit than what they paid and very high wage earners get a benefit smaller than what they paid, but the books overall balance. It looks quite possible that even a lower-middle earner would "pay his own way" in this fantasy accounting.

It would be unusual for a worker to make exactly the same his entire life, but perhaps not. There are most likely millions of citizens who make near minimum wage their entire lives. Not everyone is talented enough to make more, regardless of how hard they work.

I'd hope that it isn't unusual for most people to have some kind of job for most of their lives. I've been self-employed since 1967 except 7 years in the 1970's I also got a W-2 in addition to the schedule C. The advantage of self-employed-- You are not guaranteed to make a lot of money and the benefits suck but at least nobody can fire you!

I talked daughter into getting a part-time job at age 16 and she is now 30 and has always had some kind of job every year. She's not yet making much money, but am pleased she is a steady worker. Maybe there are lots of folks who go years unemployed between jobs. Well, there are probably millions. But overall I'd hope it isn't typical out of 300 million people. SS won't pay unless you have had a job a certain minimum number of quarters. On the other hand, if SS won't pay then SSI most likely will.

[Guest nicemac]

There are most likely millions of citizens who make near minimum wage their entire lives. Not everyone is talented enough to make more, regardless of how hard they work.

There is no reason for someone to make minimum wage or near minimum wage their entire life unless they have some sort of disability.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

There is no reason for someone to make minimum wage or near minimum wage their entire life unless they have some sort of disability.

Hi nicemac

Having an IQ much lower than 1 standard deviation below the mean could be a good enough reason that even a hard worker MIGHT not make much more than minimum wage unless he/she has offsetting talents.

Due to the nature of the gaussian curve, that subset would include 15.8 percent of the population. Or about 47.4 million people out of a total population of 300 million.

Re offsetting talents-- A very good-looking but not-bright man or woman might do pretty well in spite of not being too swooft. Given that both good looks and IQ are gaussian distributions, then perhaps 2.5 percent of the population are slow but unusually good looking. Maybe 7.5 million of em.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Lester Weevils

[Guest nicemac]

Charts and graphs aside, I do not believe that there are 7.5 million people in this country today who are destined to make minimum wage for the rest of their life. There is job training available (on the gubament) and only the worst cases of disability should be stuck at that level.

Edited August 1, 2011 by nicemac