So you are saying that raising the age to receive ss will not impact on the system. It did when Reagan and Tip raised the age and made the fund solvent until about 2025.

I will bet that the age to begin receiving ss will be 68 or 69 and the idea that one can start collecting before reaching full eligibility will cease. Also, they will raise the base upon which ss is paid from about $90K to say $120K

Folks are living longer and working longer the population is growing and soon the baby boomer bulge of which I am a member will die off and the solvency of the fund will continue.

Besides the problem is not ss but medicare. That is completely underfunded. That is the challenge.

It is all in the demographics.

Those who think that because they are taking money out your check that it is your money really should read the law. You are only showing your ignorance when you make such statements.

Rather than read a misleading diatribe that opened this discussion what follows is a more reasoned explanation of what effects and affects all of us.

Paul Heroux: The Social Security Conundrum Explained
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../social-security-treasury_b_932..

Who pays for what?" This is the central question in public finance. But this one question is actually two questions: "who pays?" and "for what?" When we look at the looming crisis in Social Security, these are the central issues.

Social Security has been running surpluses for over 25 years, and is expected to run a surplus growth to $4.3 trillion until 2023. But if nothing changes, after 2023, surpluses will be used to pay benefits. Consequently, some estimates say that we are only going to be solvent -- when Social Security assets are greater than liabilities; i.e. positive balance -- until 2036. At that point reserves would be depleted and experts are predicting that we are not going to have enough money to pay Social Security benefits that we have been promised for retirement or disability. (I say we because I am 35 this year and I am in this pool of future beneficiaries.)

To fix this, we usually hear that we either need to 1) reduce benefits; 2) raise taxes; or use 3) some combination of these two options.

But how can drastic action be necessary when the Social Security trust fund reportedly has over $2.4 trillion in it at present?

This is a misleading sleight-of-hand. Here is how.

Technically, there is no trust fund; no money is or was ever intended to be "set aside" for beneficiaries. Social Security operates as a pay-go system -- today's workers are paying for today's beneficiaries. The current Social Security surplus money taken in today is used to buy U.S. Treasury bonds. The Social Security administration holds these bonds until they need to redeem later.

Meanwhile, the Treasury uses the money it gets for the bonds sold to the SSA to fund other federal expenses. As such, Social Security just has a lot of IOUs from the Treasury. And since the Treasury has all these IOUs and has spent the money it got for these bonds, this arrangement actually contributes to our future deficit. Moreover, when the time comes to pay these Treasury-held IOUs to the SSA, in the not-so-distant future, we probably won't have the money and we will either have to cut benefits, or borrow from another country, which will increase our national debt.

Blame politicians on both sides of the aisle.

Complicating the issue, we have to keep in mind that as the cost of living increases, some Social Security researchers and administrators argue that "benefit enhancements" are necessary. But considering that budgets are as tight as they are, should benefit enhancements even be included in proposals when considering that Social Security has long-term financing problems? I think that they should be, and here is why.

Not including proposals for benefit enhancements does not consider the realities that many recipients of Social Security confront. Social Security, in its current form, is facing more than just problems of fiscal deficit; it also faces the problem of benefit adequacy. Because benefits are not indexed to keep pace with wage growth and are increasingly inadequate -- the average beneficiary receives a paltry $1,075 a month. Besides, "proposals" can always be rejected, but categorically taking proposals off the table ignores important issues.

When considering that many caregivers, who are usually women, have to take time off of work to care for a child and other dependents, they have paid less into the system and can expect less in return.

Also, consider that seniors are now living longer than was ever anticipated and private pensions that many seniors depend on are not keeping pace with increasing costs of living. For many, Social Security means the difference between living in poverty or not. It is a choice that we make as a nation to either allow many retired elders or disabled people with legitimate needs to "go with" or to "go without." These are compelling reasons to consider benefit enhancements. Another unresolved issue is: who is going to pay?

Several Tea Party politicians have limited their ability to fix this problem in stating that they won't raise taxes. I am not saying that we should raise taxes, but taking this option off the table over ideological opposition really limits what one can do.

So what would some reform options to resolve the looming crisis look like?

The National Academy of Social Insurance detailed some options to raise funds: increase the Social Security contribution rate -- i.e., workers could pay more; consider broader sources of income; raise or eliminate the tax cap (the current cap effectively assumes no one makes more than $106,800); use progressive taxes to cover Social Security's legacy costs; and diversify investments.

NASI also noted there are options to reduce benefits: reduce the cost of living adjustment; increase the age for full retirement benefits; lengthen the career-earnings averaging period; and reduce benefits for new beneficiaries.

The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles framework chose to fill part of the shortfall by increasing taxes and slowing the growth of Social Security benefits. But alas, in the end, no set of options is without critics. An alternative to a government-run Social Security benefit program would be a mandated pre-funded retirement program, such as a 401(k). Typically, a 401(k) is a good retirement savings option where employees, with a match from the employer, deposit a small portion of their monthly paycheck into the 401(k) account over their entire career. Money in the 401(k) is invested, and depending on the chosen portfolio options, it can eventually amass a hefty retirement savings offering a 7 percent average yield.

But pre-funded mandates, such as a 401(k), need scrutiny. We need to know: 1) If a pre-funded mandate plan will be sufficient? 2) Would it cost the average beneficiary more money in the short-run? 3) Is a "pre-funded mandate" constitutional? 4) Market fluctuations affect the size of a pre-funded investment plan; would the government guarantee against fluctuations and inflation? 5) How will this affect non-traditional workers such as caregivers on leave from work, overseas workers, and workers in an informal economy? And lastly, 6) How much would it cost to move to a pre-funded program?

To the last point, if we suddenly moved away from the current "pay-go" system (workers today pay today's beneficiaries) to a "pre-funded" (today's workers are putting money into their own retirement) we would need to borrow about $14 trillion to cover beneficiaries who don't have a trust fund and rely on today's current workers. But sudden changes are unrealistic, whereas a gradual transition from pay-go to pre-funded might be more realistic.

The possibilities and complexities could go on. If there were a simple answer, it should have already been done by now. This is perhaps one of the most contentious and expensive public policy problems, which requires respecting all points of view and all competing interests.

To the question: who pays for what? Some ideas are better than others. The most unpopular ideas are probably the ideas that could solve Social Security's fiscal problems and guarantee benefits for all.

The point is that to keep faith with current beneficiaries and future retirees, attempts at reform best not take anything off the table: not raising taxes, not cutting benefits, and not even benefit enhancement proposals.

Paul Heroux can be reached at PaulHeroux@MPA.gmail.com. And special thanks to former Social Security Commissioner Jo Anne Barnhart for her help with editing this article.

This is simply not true. ILLEGAL immigrants, (which is what I assume this person means, since unless your name is Sitting Bull, WE are all "immigrants"...) DO NOT, repeat DO NOT receive Social Security Benefits.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/social-security-for-illegal-immigrants/

However, there is a great deal of confusion, hyped up and bandied about by both left-wing and right-wing commentators (who have a vested interest in keeping people all hysterical about it..ratings and all..).

Many "illegal" aliens have valid social security cards, and paid in to the system while they worked in this country, legally or not. Many became citizens, but many did not. Several years ago modifications to the Social Security laws were passed that allowed these "shadow" contributors to receive the benefits to which they were entitled as valid, tax-paying contributors to the system.

The number of these "shadow citizens" were quite small compared to the 40 or so million people receiving Social Security, and no sane person would ever suggest that the benefits they receive are in any way a strain on the system, since 90% of the people involved were in the lowest economic and social strata as it was. Mexican fruit pickers in the San Juaquin valley are not exactly living high off the hog from your taxes.

If right-wingers want to get pissed off about Social Security ripoffs, perhaps they would be better served by bitching about the moderately- and very-wealthy bloodsuckers who make 6- and 7-figure incomes but don't have to pay ANY social security tax on income over about $100,000. Thus, that raucous radio commentator pulling down four or five million a year pays the same amount in Social Security tax as a tenured PhD professor teaching at Harvard for 30 years who makes about $105,000. I have yet to hear Limbaugh or any else of his kind offer to pay MORE social security tax to help keep the system solvent past 2033.

Wake up America VOTE THEM ALL OUT. They keep us fighting each other while they keep up the same old crap. Looking after themselves. They love keeping us blaming both sides. When they party togather. Guess whos playing golf with tiger Woods while the country goes to hell in a hand basket?

I am a conservative however, most of what is posted in the original post is not fact. About the only thing that is true is the part about Al Gore's vote. Again I am a conservative but I can't stand by and watch while untruths are passed off as facts whether they come from the left or the right.

However, Sarge it doesn’t make any difference how you look at it, it's still my money I paid it into the system. I didn't have a choice but I was told there would be money there when I retired and it dam well should be there.

Not really, all those things you lised is the job of being President. sounds like some sore loosers out there who don't know how they are going to handle another four years of Democtratic governing. Your tea party had better get over it. They are on the way out of the political arena and that is a good thing for us all.

I'm not taking sides here just look at anything the government has had its hands in, what have they done that was successful maybe war and lately we’re not even good at that. Post office broke, railroads broke, SS going broke, Medicare going broke, education getting worse all the time, healthcare don't even go there.

Let's stop blaming each other and look for real solutions. We need term limits, politations need to stop worrying about getting reelected instead of doing their job. The whole Senate should be fined for not following the law. It's time they followed the law and pass a budget. If you and I didn't do our job we would be fired. It's time to fire these low life’s and get people in that will do the people's will.

And Hunter Lou 1947 about 172 rounds of golf, numerous trips to Hawaii, dinner in New York, Not to mention a trip to Europe to spend 5 minutes pushing Chicago as the Olympic choice, plus campaigning dam near 24/7 even when he is not running, don't you think he has had enough vacations?

Eugene, The folks that complain when Social Security benefits are called an entitlement apparently don't understand what the word entitlement means. When you pay into the SS system you are "entitled" to be paid the benefits when you reach retirement age. How would you react if you were told you were not entitled to receive those benefits when you retired. Are there folks that are receiving benefits from some of the other government programs that may not be entitled to them? You bet there are, but you are indeed entitled to your SS benefits when you retire. ....... Coot

What don 't you think a President needs a vacation? You haven't changed just the same ol - same ol...................!

I am a conservative however, most of what is posted in the original post is not fact. About the only thing that is true is the part about Al Gore's vote. Again I am a conservative but I can't stand by and watch while untruths are passed off as facts whether they come from the left or the right.

However, Sarge it doesn’t make any difference how you look at it, it's still my money I paid it into the system. I didn't have a choice but I was told there would be money there when I retired and it dam well should be there.

I'm not taking sides here just look at anything the government has had its hands in, what have they done that was successful maybe war and lately we’re not even good at that. Post office broke, railroads broke, SS going broke, Medicare going broke, education getting worse all the time, healthcare don't even go there.

Let's stop blaming each other and look for real solutions. We need term limits, politations need to stop worrying about getting reelected instead of doing their job. The whole Senate should be fined for not following the law. It's time they followed the law and pass a budget. If you and I didn't do our job we would be fired. It's time to fire these low life’s and get people in that will do the people's will.

And Hunter Lou 1947 about 172 rounds of golf, numerous trips to Hawaii, dinner in New York, Not to mention a trip to Europe to spend 5 minutes pushing Chicago as the Olympic choice, plus campaigning dam near 24/7 even when he is not running, don't you think he has had enough vacations?

All presidents take time away from the White House. They are never on vacation. The job goes wherever they go.
Bush was always in Crawford, TX, Reagan went home to California frequently, Kennedy went to Hyannisport, Truman to Key West, Roosevelt to Warm Springs, GA, Eisenhower to Gettysburg. All of them went frequently.
The difference is that this is Obama and the haters will carp on anything he does. Now they hate him for targeting terrorists with drones. If Bush did this he would be a hero.

Something to think about...

WHO DIED BEFORE THEY EVER COLLECTED A SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK!!!

KEEP PASSING THIS AROUND UNTIL EVERY ONE HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT... THIS IS SURE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT!!!!

THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S CALCULATION OF AVAILABLE SOCIAL SECURITY IS THEY FORGOT TO FIGURE IN THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY EVER COLLECTED A SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK!!!

WHERE DID THAT MONEY GO?

Remember, not only did you and I contribute to Social Security but your employer did, too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500. Read that again. Did you see where the Government paid in one single penny? We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a Government bank to insure you and I that we would have a retirement check from the money we put in, not the Government. Now they are calling the money we put in an entitlement when we reach the age to take it back. If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the govt. pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98.

If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.

Another thing with.... many woman have had previous marriages and their husbands died before one percent of their social security could be drawn. If these woman worked all their lives and are drawing 100% on their own social security, the S.S. money from these presvious husbands will never have one cent drawn from what they paid into S.S. all their lives.

THE FOLKS IN WASHINGTON HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER PONZI SCHEME THAN BERNIE MADOFF EVER DID.

Entitlement my foot, I paid cash for my social security insurance! Just because they borrowed the money for other government spending, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!

Remember Congressional benefits? --- free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days. Now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my social security retirement payments entitlements?

We're "broke" and we can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, or Homeless. Yet in the last few months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile and Turkey. And now Pakistan......home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!

Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed S.S. income' receive no additional federal aid nor do they get any financial breaks, while our government and religious organizations pour hundreds of billions of $$$ and tons of food to foreign countries!

They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives, and now, when it's time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place? It was supposed to be in a locked box, not part of the general fund.

Sad isn't it?

99% of people won't have the guts to forward this. I'm in the 1% -- I just did.

Many of us UHH members are either close to or already in retirement so this might be of interest to you. Just thought you should be informed of this horrific scam.

singleviking
WHERE DID THAT MONEY GO?
To engross their benefict and privilegy.
Had you ever thought , that you have never had a time vaction or job hours they has.
Neither the healcare plan they had has and will has for them and family , nor the retirement pension they has for life.
And all pay by you or by us.
If so is because you are still dreaming the american dream.