Fast Facts & Figures About Social Security, 2020

[MULTIZ321]

Fast Facts & Figures About Social Security, 2020.

Fast Facts & Figures About Social Security, 2020 - Contents

Social Security Administration Research, Statistics, and Policy Analysis

www.ssa.gov

.

Be sure to look at the section "Did You Know That..."


Richard.

 

[Brett]

as long as it stays solvent ...

 

[pedro47]

Social Security looks good until the year starting in 2034 according to most money magazines.

 

[PigsDad]

Social Security looks good until the year starting in 2034 according to most money magazines.

That's good for you old farts , but for anyone in their 50s or younger, it doesn't bode well.

Kurt

 

[Rjbeach2003]

Well one party wants to increase the income range to pay into social security, and the other want ultimately to end it. They feel it is each individuals responsibility to take care of themselves through investment or inheritance I guess. While I know a good number of people who have done well managing their money, I know many many more who haven't. Several friends tried for the American Dream, and lost everything. Since the majority of startups fail, that is no surprise. It happened to me. So I am thankful for SS and another defined benefit retirement (which don't exist anymore).

Yes people should be better money managers, but human nature and the consumer system that has been created in the US doesn't bode well for change..

 

[easyrider]

That's good for you old farts , but for anyone in their 50s or younger, it doesn't bode well.

Kurt

I think you will be ok.

Bill

How Secure Is Social Security?

The 2020 Social Security Trustees Report shows the program is nowhere near bankruptcy. Even with no fix, reduced benefits could be paid.

www.investopedia.com

.

http://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/IB_17-13.pdf

Social Security is nowhere near bankruptcy. As Alicia H. Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, put it in her analysis of the 2017 annual report from the Board of Trustees:

 

[Bucky]

Social Security looks good until the year starting in 2034 according to most money magazines.

Wouldn't bet on it. Too much uncertainty out there to rely on anythIng.

Social Security Ending In 2023? No. But What Really Happens When The Trust Fund Is Emptied?

What does the law actually say about how to pay benefits when the Trust Fund is empty?

www.forbes.com

 

[Brett]

I'm guessing social security will be "OK" but there could be some tax increases or benefit decreases in the future

 

[WVBaker]

Well one party wants to increase the income range to pay into social security, and the other want ultimately to end it. They feel it is each individuals responsibility to take care of themselves through investment or inheritance I guess. While I know a good number of people who have done well managing their money, I know many many more who haven't. Several friends tried for the American Dream, and lost everything. Since the majority of startups fail, that is no surprise. It happened to me. So I am thankful for SS and another defined benefit retirement (which don't exist anymore).

Yes people should be better money managers, but human nature and the consumer system that has been created in the US doesn't bode well for change..

Investments or inheritances isn't the only way to avoid the debacle known as Social Security.

 

[Sugarcubesea]

That's good for you old farts , but for anyone in their 50s or younger, it doesn't bode well.

Kurt

Yes, I'm in the 50"s category and I already lost my pension to a previous company's bankruptcy, hopefully when I retire I will get 10% of the amount I was suppose to get at 65 but I will have to see as I get closer to that age... If SS goes, I will be working till I die..

 

[easyrider]

I remember that there were two options to keep SS going and that was to increase taxes or reduce benefits. Which would be fair ? I think a combination of both would be the way to do this and it would not be fair but it would be common sense. Increase the tax on earnings over $150,000 and reduce the max payable benefit to $2500.

Bill

 

[PigsDad]

I remember that there were two options to keep SS going and that was to increase taxes or reduce benefits. Which would be fair ? I think a combination of both would be the way to do this and it would not be fair but it would be common sense. Increase the tax on earnings over $150,000 and reduce the max payable benefit to $2500.

If you want to talk what is the most "fair", it would be a claw-back of the excess dollars that SS paid out in the years it was paying out more than it was taking in. Totally impractical, but that seems like the most "fair" tactic.

Yes, SS will continue (and I hardly think one party wants "ultimately to end it" -- that is total political BS), and most likely it will be a combination of increased SS tax withholding rate, increased full retirement age, and lowered payouts via reducing the annual cost increases (actually lowering the existing payouts would be political suicide). Also throw in a penalty for "rich" people where even more of the payout is taxable or even reduce / eliminate their payouts, since it is easy and popular to "stick it" to the "rich".

Kurt

 

[klpca]

While I know a good number of people who have done well managing their money, I know many many more who haven't. Several friends tried for the American Dream, and lost everything. Since the majority of startups fail, that is no surprise. It happened to me. So I am thankful for SS and another defined benefit retirement (which don't exist anymore).

Yes people should be better money managers, but human nature and the consumer system that has been created in the US doesn't bode well for change..

I have a relative who has been a poor money manager, is currently unemployed in their mid 50's, and has exactly ZERO saved for retirement. They are now very concerned. I suspect that they have quite a bit of company out there.

 

[GetawaysRus]

Social Security is a sacred cow, but how to support the program going forward is a highly charged political issue. I've learned to never underestimate the ability of politicians to kick the can down the road in order to avoid contentious issues. I'm not anticipating any action soon, but I do expect that Congress will "heroically" jump in at the very last minute to "save" the program. The politicians will then all pat themselves on the back for the great job they have done.

To paraphrase the cartoon character Underdog, "there's no need to fear, the US Congress is here!"

 

[easyrider]

Also throw in a penalty for "rich" people where even more of the payout is taxable or even reduce / eliminate their payouts, since it is easy and popular to "stick it" to the "rich".

I always thought it was odd that a person like Warren Buffet complains that he doesn't need SS but takes it anyway. I don't think capping the SS benefit to a lower amount or raising the SS tax on above average income is sticking it to anyone.

Changing the age to collect SS would place many workers on SSDI, imo.

Bill

 

[PigsDad]

I always thought it was odd that a person like Warren Buffet complains that he doesn't need SS but takes it anyway. I don't think capping the SS benefit to a lower amount or raising the SS tax on above average income is sticking it to anyone.

The problem isn't the Warren Buffets in the world, it is the definition of "rich". Once the precedence is put in place, the line for being "rich" will become remarkably low over time. Just look at the AMT -- when created, it only affected a very small portion of taxpayers, but over time it was affecting many middle-income families. And besides, why shouldn't someone who paid into a pension system all their life be entitled to the benefits when they retire? Penalizing those who saved their money and invested well is unethical, IMO.

Kurt

 

[WVBaker]

I remember that there were two options to keep SS going and that was to increase taxes or reduce benefits. Which would be fair ? I think a combination of both would be the way to do this and it would not be fair but it would be common sense. Increase the tax on earnings over $150,000 and reduce the max payable benefit to $2500.

Bill

I'd have no problem with increasing the tax on earnings over $150,000 only because I don't earn over $150,000. Those that do I'm sure would balk at that however.

Of course for the rest of us, would you increase taxes across the board for all? The only reason I ask is because, what about those that didn't pay into the program and don't receive any benefits? Not even that $250.00 windfall when you die.

By the way, who in their right mind decided that a $250.00 death "benefit" was in any way a "benefit"? That may not be enough to even feed the mourners that attend the funeral.

 

[klpca]

I'd have no problem with increasing the tax on earnings over $150,000 only because I don't earn over $150,000. Those that do I'm sure would balk at that however.

Of course for the rest of us, would you increase taxes across the board for all? The only reason I ask is because, what about those that didn't pay into the program and don't receive any benefits? Not even that $250.00 windfall when you die.

By the way, who in their right mind decided that a $250.00 death "benefit" was in any way a "benefit"? That may not be enough to even feed the mourners that attend the funeral.

Start with eliminating that "benefit". People seem to do GoFundMe's for funerals all the time.

 

[Sugarcubesea]

Start with eliminating that "benefit". People seem to do GoFundMe's for funerals all the time.

Exactly, that $250 is really not of any help and I agree, if you eliminate that benefit, that is one step in the right direction.

 

[Krteczech]

Working as volunteer tax aide I realized how important SS benefits are for many ELDERLY retirees. My husband and I at the moment could manage without, but few major health expense, loss of home due to natural disaster, loss of spouse, market downturn, could put us in that group. It is important to protect SS benefits for future retirees.

 

[WVBaker]

Exactly, that $250 is really not of any help and I agree, if you eliminate that benefit, that is one step in the right direction.

In 2016, such payments were made for about 782,300 deaths, for a total of about $204 million in benefit payments. The death payment was capped at $255 in 1954, and since 1982, almost all payments have equaled $255, so the real (inflation-adjusted) value of the benefit now declines each year.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43637.pdf

 

[amycurl]

More Gen Xers believe in UFOs than believe that SS will be there when we retire. You're welcome, boomers.

Also, the vast majority of Americans don't earn a living wage NOW, let alone having any ability to save for any kind of future expenses, let alone retirement. Any one who thinks its a character flaw, vs. how our economic system is currently set up, is just ignoring the facts and numbers on the ground.

 

[easyrider]

The problem isn't the Warren Buffets in the world, it is the definition of "rich". Once the precedence is put in place, the line for being "rich" will become remarkably low over time. Just look at the AMT -- when created, it only affected a very small portion of taxpayers, but over time it was affecting many middle-income families. And besides, why shouldn't someone who paid into a pension system all their life be entitled to the benefits when they retire? Penalizing those who saved their money and invested well is unethical, IMO.

Kurt

The reason why some people, based on income or net worth, should be excluded from receiving SS payments is simply because SS is a safety net for the disabled and elderly, imo. These wealthy people benefited plenty by living in the USA and their wealth shows it. There are over 7.5 million multi-millionaires who earn over a million a year in the USA. This group doesn't need a safety net, imo.

It seems more unethical to me to allow people in the high income brackets with a high net worth to collect SS while lower income earners, many with no net worth, may not be able to collect their entire benefit.

Bill

 

[JeffC]

Social Security isn’t a pension or annuity policy. It’s a wealth transfer from today’s working people to people no longer working. The contributions from employees and employers are a tax. If there’s not enough money to pay the legally mandated benefits then changes are going to be made to the revenue/benefit formulas. I think the fairest way to do this is to means test beneficiaries lifetime earnings. The higher your earnings the lower the benefits. Raising the taxes should follow only if necessary. Benefits should be maintained for those with lower lifetime earnings, with higher earners getting reduced benefits.

 

[Brett]

More Gen Xers believe in UFOs than believe that SS will be there when we retire. You're welcome, boomers.

Also, the vast majority of Americans don't earn a living wage NOW, let alone having any ability to save for any kind of future expenses, let alone retirement. Any one who thinks its a character flaw, vs. how our economic system is currently set up, is just ignoring the facts and numbers on the ground.

yes, it's a problem. Millennials, Gen Xers, Y, are not saving enough for retirement and believe social security won't last.
they are depending on our (boomer) inheritance !