Every year the Social Security Trustees put out a report describing the financial health of the program, which is funded partly by worker and employer contributions which end up in a trust fund and partly by general taxes. The trust fund has been in serious trouble for a couple of decades and it is getting worse, particularly as we allow more and more people to claim they are “disabled” and entitled to payments. Demographics are bad, as the population ages, the post-war generation retires and there are fewer young workers. This year’s report repeats the dismal refrain about the program’s future.
Social Security will be unable to pay full benefits due by 2033, the same time frame projected last year. After than, the incoming annual income from contributions will allow payment of 77% of benefits. Changes have to be made now if this is to be avoided. The changes are obvious, as I keep repeating. Raise the age of benefit eligibility gradually to 70. Stop giving benefits to people who have a certain income or wealth level. Eliminate social security disability and leave it up to the states to determine who is disabled and what kind of income subsidy, if any, they need. Transfer the assets from the disability fund to the general Social Security fund.
The report also looked at the status of Medicare’s funding. The trust fund for Part A–hospital benefits–also runs out of funds in 2033 and ongoing contributions will be sufficient to pay 89% of costs. The other parts of Medicare are better funded because they rely on beneficiary contributions and general revenues, but that is stressing both consumers and taxpayers.
This should have been fixed years ago, but politicians are gutless weasels. (SS Trustee Report)
Wealth status shouldn’t matter. If I paid into it, I deserve at least something in return, regardless of how well my other retirement plans have done.
Everyone pays lots of taxes which are used for purposes for which they get no personal benefit. I would be fine with privatizing social security–turning it into owned retirement accounts, but as long as it treated as general property, rich people, and by that I mean those with $500,000 or more in income or several million in assets, don’t need others to pay for their SS or Medicare. And in the US there are millions of people who fit that definition and it would save a lot of money
A retirement age of 70 is fine for white collar workers, but seems hardly fair to people with physically demanding jobs. And I’ve read that the latter don’t live as long as the former, so they won’t collect benefits for as long.
I suggest that the age of eligibility depend on the number of years paying into the system. A person who starts working full time in his teens ought to able to retire younger than a person who spends his 20’s as a student and who does not enter the workforce until he is 30 or so. Also, a person who works steadily throughout his life ought to be eligible for benefits sooner than a person who only works sporadically.
an interesting idea, we need lots of ideas to figure out some way to solve our fiscal mess
As bad as Jimmy Carter was, at least he was able to get congress to up the social security retirement age for 65 to 67, albiet it took 40 years before that change become fully in effect.
One of the most ignorant comments I hear regarding the solvency of the social security system is that the social security system is sound because the social security trust fund is invested in US treasuries. Not withstanding that the sole source of funds to pay off those treasuries is the US taxpayers. I hear this comment frequently from democrats including educated people who should know better, including economists such as paul krugman.