PDA

View Full Version : New retirees receiving less in Social Security than they paid in, marking historic shift



Teh One Who Knocks
08-07-2012, 05:54 PM
The Associated Press


http://i.imgur.com/GQqLC.jpg



People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It's a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

Previous generations got a much better bargain, mainly because payroll taxes were very low when Social Security was enacted in the 1930s and remained so for decades.

"For the early generations, it was an incredibly good deal," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy Social Security commissioner who is now a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "The government gave you free money and getting free money is popular."

If you retired in 1960, you could expect to get back seven times more in benefits than you paid in Social Security taxes, and more if you were a low-income worker, as long you made it to age 78 for men and 81 for women.

As recently as 1985, workers at every income level could retire and expect to get more in benefits than they paid in Social Security taxes, though they didn't do quite as well as their parents and grandparents.

Not anymore.

A married couple retiring last year, after both spouses earned average lifetime wages, paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank.

Social Security benefits are progressive, so most low-income workers retiring today still will get slightly more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Most high-income workers started getting less in benefits than they paid in taxes in the 1990s, according to data from the Social Security Administration.

The shift among middle-income workers is happening just as millions of baby boomers are reaching retirement, leaving relatively fewer workers behind to pay into the system. It's coming at a critical time for Social Security, the federal government's largest program.

The trustees who oversee Social Security say its funds, which have been built up over the past 30 years with surplus payroll taxes, will run dry in 2033 unless Congress acts. At that point, payroll taxes would provide enough revenue each year to pay about 75 percent of benefits.

To cover the shortfall, future retirees probably will have to pay higher taxes while they are working, accept lower benefits after they retire, or some combination of both.

"Future generations are going to do worse because either they are going to get fewer benefits or they are going to pay higher taxes," said Eugene Steuerle, a former Treasury official who has studied the issue as a fellow at the Urban Institute.

How can you get a better return on your Social Security taxes?

Live longer. Benefit estimates are based on life expectancy. For those turning 65 this year, Social Security expects women to live 20 more years and men to live 17.8 more.

But returns alone don't fully explain the value of Social Security, which has features that aren't available in typical private-sector retirement plans, said David Certner, legislative policy director for AARP.

Spouses can get benefits even if they never earned wages. Children can get benefits if they have a working parent who dies. People who are too disabled to work can get benefits for life.

Because of spousal benefits, most married couples with only one wage earner will continue to get more in benefits than they pay in taxes for the foreseeable future.

"You are buying this lifetime inflation-protected benefit that you can never run out of and that will always be there for you," Certner said. "It protects your spouse, protects your family and protects you from disability."

Certner noted that private pensions, retirement savings and home values took a big hit when the economy collapsed, putting a dent in the retirement plans of many Americans.

"When you have that combination of factors, Social Security becomes more and more important," Certner said. Social Security is financed by a 12.4 percent tax on wages. Workers pay half and their employers pay the other half. Self-employed workers pay the full 12.4 percent.

The tax is applied to the first $110,100 of a worker's wages, a level that increases each year with inflation. For 2011 and 2012, the tax rate for employees was reduced to 4.2 percent, but is scheduled to return to 6.2 percent in January.

The payroll tax rate was only 2 percent in 1937, the first year Social Security taxes were levied. It didn't surpass 6 percent until 1962.

Even with low tax rates, Social Security could afford to pay benefits in the early years because there were more workers paying the tax for each person receiving benefits than there are today. In 1960, there were 4.9 workers paying Social Security taxes for each person getting benefits. Today, there are about 2.8 workers for each beneficiary, a ratio that will drop to 1.9 workers by 2035, according to projections by the Congressional Budget Office.

About 56 million people now collect Social Security benefits, a number that is projected to grow to 91 million in 2035. Monthly benefits average $1,235 for retired workers and $1,111 for disabled workers. Social Security provides most older Americans a majority of their income. About one-quarter of married couples and just under half of single retirees rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income, according to the Social Security Administration.

"Social Security is what's carrying me," said Neta Homier, a 79-year-old retired hospital worker from Toledo, Ohio. "There's no way I would have made it without it. The kids, they're on their own now, and I'm not going to be a burden for them. That's what it would have been if I hadn't had Social Security."

Homier said she started receiving Social Security when she was 63 and now gets about $800 a month, after her Medicare premiums are deducted. She said her father died at 51, so he never received Social Security, and her mother died at 71 and collected benefits for only a few years.

"It's definitely worth it," she said.

At 52, Anthony Riley of Columbus, Ohio, has a different perspective. Riley said he has a private retirement account because he worries that Social Security won't provide adequate benefits throughout his retirement.

"I used to think that it was worth paying for your Social Security, but now I don't think so," Riley said. At 22, Mackenzie Millan of Los Angeles has even greater doubts about whether Social Security will be a good deal for her.

"The money that I put aside now, it's not like that money is going to be waiting for me. That money is going toward someone else," the recent college graduate said. "If I wanted Social Security 50 years from now, when I wanted to retire, I would have to hope that someone else is still working and putting money aside in their paychecks to pay for my Social Security at that point."

PorkChopSandwiches
08-07-2012, 05:58 PM
there goes my retirement strategy

Hal-9000
08-07-2012, 06:10 PM
things like this infuriate me...we have Canada pension up here and were told a few years ago the same thing would happen to us. They should look at each person, keep track from day 1 and pay out ALL of the money contributed by each individual :x

Muddy
08-07-2012, 06:21 PM
I think when you retire you should have the option to get a lump sum of what you paid in... If you blow it all then your ass starves to death.

Hal-9000
08-07-2012, 06:22 PM
that's another thing...they give you some crappy monthly stipend...and it was YOUR money in the first place :x

Muddy
08-07-2012, 06:24 PM
that's another thing...they give you some crappy monthly stipend...and it was YOUR money in the first place :x

Somebody like me will get about 10% back of what I paid in if I'm lucky... I wouldn't mind the stipend, if whatever is left on my account is paid out to my family when I roll on..

Teh One Who Knocks
08-07-2012, 06:25 PM
Somebody like me will get about 10% back of what I paid in if I'm lucky... I wouldn't mind the stipend, if whatever is left on my account is paid out to my family when I roll on..

You're overly optimistic :lol:

I'm guessing we'll get 0% of what we paid in by the time we're old enough to collect :|

Hal-9000
08-07-2012, 06:26 PM
That's another thing...who's to say how long you're going to live after retirement?

do you want 500 a month for 20 years or 120000 in a lump sum when you and your family could use it...

Muddy
08-07-2012, 06:26 PM
You're overly optimistic :lol:

I'm guessing we'll get 0% of what we paid in by the time we're old enough to collect :|

I hope you're wrong.. How disheartening. :(

Acid Trip
08-07-2012, 06:47 PM
things like this infuriate me...we have Canada pension up here and were told a few years ago the same thing would happen to us. They should look at each person, keep track from day 1 and pay out ALL of the money contributed by each individual :x

If your financial plan for retirement has lines called "Social Security income" or "Canada Pension income" you are doing it wrong. Neither will survive another 30 years.

Hal-9000
08-07-2012, 06:53 PM
If your financial plan for retirement has lines called "Social Security income" or "Canada Pension income" you are doing it wrong. Neither will survive another 30 years.

Yes yes, that aside...don't you think there should be some sort of legal recourse underneath it all? In effect, we're paying the government monies every month for years, with the understanding it will be given back to us. eg If I did the same thing with a bank and after 30 years the bank said - Ooops, so sorry we're not paying you......I would kill people :x

RBP
08-07-2012, 06:57 PM
well the first mistake is thinking you were paying for yourself in the first place. You are paying for people currently receiving benefits on the promise that the next generation will do the same. In real life it's known as a Ponzi scheme - but to the government it's "retirement security."

Muddy
08-07-2012, 06:59 PM
well the first mistake is thinking you were paying for yourself in the first place. You are paying for people currently receiving benefits on the promise that the next generation will do the same. In real life it's known as a Ponzi scheme - but to the government it's "retirement security."

Harsh reality.

Hal-9000
08-07-2012, 07:03 PM
well the first mistake is thinking you were paying for yourself in the first place. You are paying for people currently receiving benefits on the promise that the next generation will do the same. In real life it's known as a Ponzi scheme - but to the government it's "retirement security."

we have no choice with CPP...canada pension plan. It's mandatory each time you work :sad2:

Teh One Who Knocks
08-07-2012, 07:03 PM
we have no choice with CPP...canada pension plan. It's mandatory each time you work :sad2:

Social Security is here in the States too

Hal-9000
08-07-2012, 07:05 PM
kind of a misnomer when you think about it :x

Teh One Who Knocks
08-07-2012, 07:07 PM
kind of a misnomer when you think about it :x

President Bush tried to bring about (at least partial) privatization of Social Security (in his first term I believe) to give people at least partial control over their money and he was demonized by people saying he was trying to take money from retirees and that it would be completely dangerous to give people control over the funds because they could lose it all.

Yeah, because the government is doing such a great job of holding onto my money for me. :|

Acid Trip
08-07-2012, 07:32 PM
President Bush tried to bring about (at least partial) privatization of Social Security (in his first term I believe) to give people at least partial control over their money and he was demonized by people saying he was trying to take money from retirees and that it would be completely dangerous to give people control over the funds because they could lose it all.

Yeah, because the government is doing such a great job of holding onto my money for me. :|

Rate of return for the stock market (average year) = 5-8%

Rate of return for money held in Social Security = 0%

Even if they wrote us a lump sum for everything we put in we'd be screwed. What we really need is the opt out option.

Arkady Renko
08-08-2012, 09:42 AM
the thing i don't get is why the situation is that bad. Sure, longevity is a factor, but at least your birth rate is relatively high and you receive more legal immigrants thatn people leave the country. So even with a ponzi-style hand-to-mouth system like social security it should be easy to at least break even.

FBD
08-08-2012, 11:27 AM
Rate of return for the stock market (average year) = 5-8%

Rate of return for money held in Social Security = 0%

Even if they wrote us a lump sum for everything we put in we'd be screwed. What we really need is the opt out option.

5-8% for who? that's pretty generous, and for average joe he doesnt have HFT algorithms scamming money off the top. there's a lot of friggin problems with the stock market, and most all of it revolves around the rule of law not being adhered to and miscreants not being punished, the larger you are the less you are punished. did you see JPM try refusing subpoenas for that latest blowup of funds that they yet again seem to have their hands in?


hahaha AR...its that bad because the people who decided to take the money from us in the first place decided it would be an even better idea to use it all for pet projects, fuck the people.

Arkady Renko
08-08-2012, 11:32 AM
hahaha AR...its that bad because the people who decided to take the money from us in the first place decided it would be an even better idea to use it all for pet projects, fuck the people.

is the money raised with SS contributions not separated from the general budget? does the system dispose of any kind of reserves or a capital fund of some sort ordo the current contributions merely match the current payouts ?

FBD
08-08-2012, 11:36 AM
separated? I think they separate "client funds" about as well as MF Global. Yeah, they're separate - until we need that shit, then we take with reckless abandon. we have some amorphous "SS trust fund" that was raided to zero so long ago its not even funny, since then its been generally pay as you go, but its not demographically stable at all.

Teh One Who Knocks
08-08-2012, 11:39 AM
Merrill Matthews - Forbes Magazine


Here’s how President Barack Obama answered CBS’s Scott Pelley’s question about whether he could guarantee that Social Security checks would go out on August 3, the day after the government is supposed to reach its debt limit: “I cannot guarantee that those checks [he included veterans and the disabled, in addition to Social Security] go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”

And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner echoed the president on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday implying that if a budget deal isn’t reached by August 2, seniors might not get their Social Security checks.

Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other.

Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit.

President Obama’s budget director, Jack Lew, explained all this last February in USA Today:

“Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries. … Even though Social Security began collecting less in taxes than it paid in benefits in 2010, the trust fund will continue to accrue interest and grow until 2025, and will have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years.”

Notice that Lew said nothing about raising the debt ceiling, which was already looming, and it shouldn’t matter anyway because Social Security is “entirely self-financing” and off budget. What could be clearer?

Unconvinced, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote a subsequent column questioning Lew’s assertions. “This [Lew’s] claim is a breathtaking fraud. The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction. … In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains—nothing.”

Social Security status-quo defenders have assured us for the past 25 years that Social Security is fully funded—for the next 25 years, or 2036. So if there are real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund—$2.6 trillion allegedly—then how could failure to reach a debt-ceiling agreement possibly threaten seniors’ Social Security checks?

The answer is that the federal government has borrowed all of that trust fund money and spent it, exactly as Krauthammer asserted. And the only way the trust fund can get some cash to pay Social Security benefits is if the federal government draws it from general revenues or borrows the money—which, of course, it can’t do because of the debt ceiling.

Thus, the answer to my initial question is that the president is telling the truth now in the sense that he is conceding there’s no money in the trust fund to pay benefits; but he and other Social Security status-quo defenders have been deceiving the public for decades.

And here’s the real irony: Anytime someone has proposed personal Social Security retirement accounts as a way to ensure that people have real assets in their own account without bankrupting the government or future generations, defenders of the status quo would pounce, calling such a reform, in Al Gore’s words, a “risky scheme.” They have vociferously claimed that those trust fund assets are real and that only by having the government manage and control the accounts would seniors be guaranteed to get their retirement checks.

Well, we have the status quo and seniors may not get their checks. Had we shifted to a system of pre-funded, personal Social Security retirement accounts years ago, this wouldn’t even be an issue—because retirees would have their own money in their own accounts.

Yes, the accounts likely would have declined when the stock market went down, though not if the reform were structured like three Texas counties did 30 years ago (see here). But in case you haven’t noticed, Social Security revenues also declined during the economic downturn—because fewer people were working—so that the government is paying out more in benefits than it is taking in, and hence needing additional federal revenues, a fact admitted by Lew.

If the budget crisis has done nothing else, it has exposed the decades-long lie about the solvency of the Social Security trust fund. The trust fund may be backed by the “full faith and credit of the federal government,” as defenders constantly remind us, but if it had real assets the president wouldn’t be talking about seniors missing their checks.

Acid Trip
08-08-2012, 01:09 PM
5-8% for who? that's pretty generous, and for average joe he doesnt have HFT algorithms scamming money off the top. there's a lot of friggin problems with the stock market, and most all of it revolves around the rule of law not being adhered to and miscreants not being punished, the larger you are the less you are punished. did you see JPM try refusing subpoenas for that latest blowup of funds that they yet again seem to have their hands in?


hahaha AR...its that bad because the people who decided to take the money from us in the first place decided it would be an even better idea to use it all for pet projects, fuck the people.

5% takes no work what-so-ever. I'm bond heavy in a recession and still up 7.3% this year.

Arkady Renko
08-08-2012, 02:57 PM
Merrill Matthews - Forbes Magazine


Here’s how President Barack Obama answered CBS’s Scott Pelley’s question about whether he could guarantee that Social Security checks would go out on August 3, the day after the government is supposed to reach its debt limit: “I cannot guarantee that those checks [he included veterans and the disabled, in addition to Social Security] go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”

And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner echoed the president on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday implying that if a budget deal isn’t reached by August 2, seniors might not get their Social Security checks.

Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other.

Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit.

President Obama’s budget director, Jack Lew, explained all this last February in USA Today:

“Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries. … Even though Social Security began collecting less in taxes than it paid in benefits in 2010, the trust fund will continue to accrue interest and grow until 2025, and will have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years.”

Notice that Lew said nothing about raising the debt ceiling, which was already looming, and it shouldn’t matter anyway because Social Security is “entirely self-financing” and off budget. What could be clearer?

Unconvinced, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote a subsequent column questioning Lew’s assertions. “This [Lew’s] claim is a breathtaking fraud. The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction. … In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains—nothing.”

Social Security status-quo defenders have assured us for the past 25 years that Social Security is fully funded—for the next 25 years, or 2036. So if there are real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund—$2.6 trillion allegedly—then how could failure to reach a debt-ceiling agreement possibly threaten seniors’ Social Security checks?

The answer is that the federal government has borrowed all of that trust fund money and spent it, exactly as Krauthammer asserted. And the only way the trust fund can get some cash to pay Social Security benefits is if the federal government draws it from general revenues or borrows the money—which, of course, it can’t do because of the debt ceiling.

Thus, the answer to my initial question is that the president is telling the truth now in the sense that he is conceding there’s no money in the trust fund to pay benefits; but he and other Social Security status-quo defenders have been deceiving the public for decades.

And here’s the real irony: Anytime someone has proposed personal Social Security retirement accounts as a way to ensure that people have real assets in their own account without bankrupting the government or future generations, defenders of the status quo would pounce, calling such a reform, in Al Gore’s words, a “risky scheme.” They have vociferously claimed that those trust fund assets are real and that only by having the government manage and control the accounts would seniors be guaranteed to get their retirement checks.

Well, we have the status quo and seniors may not get their checks. Had we shifted to a system of pre-funded, personal Social Security retirement accounts years ago, this wouldn’t even be an issue—because retirees would have their own money in their own accounts.

Yes, the accounts likely would have declined when the stock market went down, though not if the reform were structured like three Texas counties did 30 years ago (see here). But in case you haven’t noticed, Social Security revenues also declined during the economic downturn—because fewer people were working—so that the government is paying out more in benefits than it is taking in, and hence needing additional federal revenues, a fact admitted by Lew.

If the budget crisis has done nothing else, it has exposed the decades-long lie about the solvency of the Social Security trust fund. The trust fund may be backed by the “full faith and credit of the federal government,” as defenders constantly remind us, but if it had real assets the president wouldn’t be talking about seniors missing their checks.

oh shit, this won't end well.