US Social Security projected to cut benefits in 2035 barring a fix - It was previously forecasted the federal program would cut benefits in 2034.

The timeline to replenish Social Security is being extended. The federal retirement program said Monday it may not need to cut benefits until 2035, one year later than previously forecast, because of stronger performance by the U.S.

The new projection, from the Social Security Board of Trustees' annual report, amounts to "good news" for the program's 70 million beneficiaries, said Martin O'Malley, Commissioner of Social Security, in a statement. Even so, he urged Congress to take steps to shore up the program to ensure it can pay full benefits "into the foreseeable future."

Social Security relies on its trust funds to provide monthly checks to beneficiaries, with the funds primarily financed through the payroll taxes that workers and businesses provide with each paycheck. But the funds' reserves are drawing down because spending is outpacing income, partly due to the wave of baby boomer retirements and an aging U.S. population.

Experts underscore that if the trust funds are depleted, benefits won't suddenly disappear. Instead, Social Security beneficiaries will face a cut to their monthly checks, with the agency on Monday projecting that recipients would lose 17% of their current benefits.

That would be painful for millions of retired and disabled Americans, but it represents a modest improvement from last year, when the Social Security Administration projected that benefits could be slashed by 23% if the trust funds reached the point of depletion.

Advocates for older Americans praised the improved outlook, while pressing Congress to take action on shoring up the program.

"Congress owes it to the American people to reach a bipartisan solution, ensuring people's hard-earned Social Security benefits will be there in full for the decades ahead," AARP CEO Jo Ann Jenkins said in a statement. "The stakes are simply too high to do nothing."

Lawmakers have yet to take action despite being aware of the looming funding crisis, noted Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a think tank that focuses on the federal fiscal policies, in a statement.

"Every year we get closer to the deadline, we seem to get further away from the solutions," she said. Without a fix, "Social Security's retirement trust fund will be insolvent when today's 58-year-olds reach the normal retirement age and today's youngest retirees turn 71."

Economic boost​

O'Malley attributed the improved Social Security forecast to the stronger economy, pointing to what he called "impressive wage growth, historic job creation, and a steady, low unemployment rate." In other words, a healthy job market is resulting in more Social Security taxes going into the funds' coffers.

The report comes as Social Security's financial outlook has become a political lightning rod, with Republicans proposing that the retirement age be raised — effectively cutting benefits for millions of current workers — and former President Donald Trump indicating he would be open to cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Democrats argue that there are other ways to fix the program without cutting benefits, such as raising the cap on payroll taxes. Currently, individual income over $168,600 is exempt from the Social Security payroll tax.

Medicare's "go broke" date​

Meanwhile, Medicare's go-broke date for its hospital insurance trust fund was pushed back five years to 2036 in the latest report, thanks in part to higher payroll tax income and lower-than-projected expenses. Medicare is the federal government's health insurance program that covers people age 65 and older and those with severe disabilities or illnesses. It covered more than 66 million people last year, with most being 65 and older.

Once the fund's reserves become depleted, Medicare would be able to cover only 89% of costs for patients' hospital visits, hospice care and nursing home stays or home health care that follow hospital visits.

In a statement on Monday, President Joe Biden credited his administration's economic policies for Social Security and Medicare's stronger outlook.

"Since I took office, my economic plan and strong recovery from the pandemic have helped extend Medicare solvency by a decade, with today's report showing a full five years of additional solvency," he said. "I am committed to extending Social Security solvency by asking the highest-income Americans to pay their fair share without cutting benefits or privatizing Social Security."

Article Link

Archive
 
Forget millennials and zoomers, going bust in 2035 means Gen X won't even get to collect.
I already known that since I was in middle school back in the early 90ies. Any Gen Xer surprised by this is a retard.
Boomers really did pull the ladder up after them didn't they?
Yup and aborted enough of Gen X to turn the pyramid scheme into a ponzi scheme. In addition to indoctrinating enough of the surviving Gen Xers into aborting their own retirement payment providers.
 
Forget millennials and zoomers, going bust in 2035 means Gen X won't even get to collect.

Boomers really did pull the ladder up after them didn't they?
The day of the pillow cometh.

Knew from around the age of dumbass 19 that there was no fucking way my generation was gonna be reaping the benefits of the socialism we have been forced to pay into. I recommend firearms training for all able-bodied men here.
 
They've been telling us Gen-Xers since grade school we wouldn't get a dime of social security.

So, not surprised here.

Not to mention they aborted enough Gen-X that we were actually less in number than the Boomers. Then screeched at us like retarded monkeys not to have kids and that having kids was evil.
 
Reminder that there are no actual "funds" in the Social Security "trust fund". Every dollar collected in SS taxes is immediately spent (and then some) just like every other tax dollar. The SS "trust fund" is a bunch of US treasury IOUs.

So even in the surplus years, that just meant accumulating a higher IOU accounting balance, a claim on a bigger chunk of future tax revenue. The SS fund earns about 2.2%, so lending to the broader US gov at well below inflation.

With SS payouts firmly above revenues, that US treasury balance will wind down, but it's not like there's a pile of money somewhere anyone could "protect" or put in a "lock box" or "pay back". It's just an accounting gimmick that hopes somebody gets taxed even harder in the future to pay for everything.
 
Hmmm. Have a family member that could potentially qualify for a tugboat after paying into SS for years. Feel like telling them fuck it, go get yours and make it collapse that little extra bit sooner.
 
Medicare only pays 80% of what they determine is the proper cost. The patient is responsible for the other 20%. There's an approximate $1500 copay for inpatient surgery, as well as a small yearly deductible. Also, there's a deductible, copayments, and apparently a 'coverage gap' for prescriptions. This is why so many people buy Medicare supplemental coverage.

Would say easiest way to keep Medicare solvent is to put the Medicare tax on income without an upper limit. Same for Social Security, just have no upper limit on the SS tax from income. Just too many people for whom SS is the only source of income in retirement.
 
They could fix it by just removing the income cap for the tax on it and stop "borrowing" from it to pay for tax breaks for rich people.
Would say easiest way to keep Medicare solvent is to put the Medicare tax on income without an upper limit. Same for Social Security, just have no upper limit on the SS tax from income. Just too many people for whom SS is the only source of income in retirement.
If you raise the income cap, do you raise the benefits along with it (leaving you with the same problem), or do you just turn it into a straight up welfare program? Right now they can at least claim it's your money being invested (although if you're a fucking huwite male it's a negative return, and the only ones getting a "return on investment" are Womyn of Calories).

Taking 12.5% of everything would turn most of the upper middle class against it entirely, because they're already paying 32-38% Federal, 4-8% State, 3-4% Medicare/Medicaid, and instead of whatever's left going into their 401k/IRA, you're saying to confiscate it and promise them 3.5k/month.

With respect to "borrowing from it", there's no "it" to borrow from, just like there's nothing to "pay it back" with. Every dollar of tax revenue is already spoken for, so the "fund" is a bunch of US treasury IOUs.
 
Última edición:
If you raise the income cap, do you raise the benefits along with it (leaving you with the same problem), or do you just turn it into a straight up welfare program?

Right now they can at least claim it's your money being invested (although if you're a fucking huwite male it's a negative return, and the only ones getting a "return on investment" are Womyn of Calories). Taking 12.5% of everything while capping you out at 3500/month would turn most of the upper middle class against it entirely.

With respect to "borrowing from it", there's no "it" to borrow from, just like there's nothing to "pay it back" with. Every dollar of tax revenue is already spoken for, so the "fund" is a bunch of US treasury IOUs.
Most people don't get #3500/month from SS. I sure don't.
 
Something that is 10 years away might as well not exist in modern politics. Who gives a fuck, let 2035 Americans deal with that shit! lol suckers, probably won't be a country by then.
This is what happened with the public (state/county/local government) pension crisis. Politicians 20-30 years ago agreed to generous pensions, knowing when it was time to pay those pensions they'd be long out of office or dead. Now many places are struggling to pay those bloated pensions.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo