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
 
It was a pyramid scheme that was always going to fail. Lower birth rate means less people pay into the system. Why do you think your Boomer parents were always up your ass to give them Grandbabies? It's not because kids are cute.
You could make it workable as a forced-savings/investment program, like Singapore and I believe Japan, but it has to be a "defined contribution" program like an IRA. What you can't do is style it like a teachers union pension, with "defined benefits" completely unhinged from any inputs.

And what you really can't do is add a heavily "progressive" redistributive component that relies on Huwite Males contributing for full careers before receiving a negative return, to subsidize Womyn of Calories and others with intermittent or nonexistent incomes and lifelong payouts, while growing the latter group relative to the former.
 
Well at least we still have trillions of dollars to give to other countries and support illegals. It's the important things that count!
 
All those 168k+ "rich" whose ability to save you're about to obliterate, about 15% of households who make too much for any of muh programs but get hit with all the taxes, are going to go from begrudgingly accepting SS taxes they never expect to get back, to seeing it become their 2nd highest tax bite and a full on welfare program.

You think they're going to say "oh well, I'll just pay 50% instead of funding my Roth accounts"? Or do you think we'll see politicians courting an unholy Boomer-Zoomer alliance to kill the thing off entirely?
$168k+ per year is pretty rich and they can afford to keep paying an extra few percent on the amount over $168k.

Again, I know you watch Fox News and they told you that you should be honored to pay more in taxes so that the ultrarich don't have to, but you should stop simping for the rich here.
 
...No fucking shit. Too many people, not enough cash. Not helping is that they're shoveling in even more people to sign up. Its times like these learning a side hustle is gonna matter. Even if the skill is just you taking care of livestock or growing plants to help offset the spending.

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.
And if it devolves into a war-torn shithole, Boomers are gonna be blamed heavily for their recklessness and selfishness like they already are getting. Fully expect African things to happen to them once it does drop.
 
All this tells me is that boomers should never had any political rights, that television should have been banned globally and that the only solution to any of this lies in political violence. Thanks, boomers, we have so much to be grateful for.
 
$168k+ per year is pretty rich and they can afford to keep paying an extra few percent on the amount over $168k.

Again, I know you watch Fox News and they told you that you should be honored to pay more in taxes so that the ultrarich don't have to, but you should stop simping for the rich here.
"Someone (not me) should pay more in taxes" is exactly the reason we are going bankrupt.
 
Can't wait to see what kind of wacky dictator Gen X votes in when a shitton of them are destitute in their twilight years. At least we have term limits now so they can't vote in another perma-president like FDR.
The elderly during the Depression were likely to have a family structure, not so much Gen X.
MAID all the way, suicide booths etc . They are already letting people die for "quality of life " diseases i.e not terminal. Its matter of time where they would be something like 70+ no questions asked suicide provided by the goverment, then slowly lowering the age every few years .
 
Sort of. Trump's tax cuts are a huge reason why. The ultra-rich paying less in taxes while the middle and lower class get to pay more is so retarded.


Why are you simping for rich people?
All groups benefited from the Trump Tax cuts but the rich moreso.
1000002044.png

Personally, I like saving about $1,700 per year in taxes.
 
I don't understand why people are upset about this, well I do understand, but the reality of the matter is that we should actually be worried about what happens when nobody wants to buy our debt anymore.

Social Security benefits will not be cut , they're (the government, obviously) just going to start printing money to keep it going, worry about what happens when they can't print money anymore.

The good news is that all of this will be likely resolved by the development and use of anti-aging medicine over the next few decades. The bad news is that the aging process being a treatable condition means that the government will have the perfect excuse to eventually get rid of social security and other pension programs entirely, which they will obviously do and they will likely have widespread support for doing so as well.
 
Última edición:
I don't understand why people are upset about this, well I do understand, but the reality of the matter is that we should actually be worried about what happens when nobody wants to buy our debt anymore.

Social Security will not cut benefits, they're just going to start printing money to keep it going, worry about what happens when they can't print money anymore.

The good news is that all of this will be likely 'resolved' by the development and use of anti-aging medicine over the next few decades. The bad news is that the aging process being a treatable condition means that the government will have the perfect excuse to eventually get rid of social security and other pension programs entirely, which they will obviously do and they will likely have widespread support for doing so as well.
My only wish, is that the WEF cohort all die before it comes around.
 
All groups benefited from the Trump Tax cuts but the rich moreso.
Ver archivo adjunto 5972921

Personally, I like saving about $1,700 per year in taxes.
Not true at all with inflation from said tax cuts being the way they are. They ballooned the debt, which leads to more money printing. Also, lol that you don't understand that taxes are needed to pay for shit that we all need.

Also, your waifu's tax cuts for us normies expire this year, too, while the ultra-rich ones stay. I know you watch Fox News religiously like a good little bible thumping boomer and they told you that you should demand to pay more in taxes so that the rich pay less, but you are retarded to actually think that. The ultra-rich just hoarded more money and corporations just did stock buybacks. All at the cost of our national debt.

We need to tax the rich and huge corporations more even though that makes bible thumping boomers like you throw a tantrum
 
It was a pyramid scheme that was always going to fail. Lower birth rate means less people pay into the system. Why do you think your Boomer parents were always up your ass to give them Grandbabies? It's not because kids are cute.
I think it's because they want grandchildren. It'd be much easier to just raise the FICA tax if you wanted to close a shortfall...the number of people paying in doesn't matter, it's how much people are paying in.

Pensions run into trouble when they are based on decisions made using poor actuarial assumptions, if you carefully review the assumptions, invest contributions wisely, and adjust your rates on a conservative basis, a pension can last forever. The hard part is convincing people working today to pay more for benefits to retirees who may have paid a fraction of that amount, which is totally understandable (I wouldn't) and can be avoided by adjusting rates on a more frequent and gradual basis and being conservative when you do.

All those 168k+ "rich" whose ability to save you're about to obliterate, about 15% of households who make too much for any of muh programs but get hit with all the taxes, are going to go from begrudgingly accepting SS taxes they never expect to get back, to seeing it become their 2nd highest tax bite and a full on welfare program.
I already pay taxes for huge numbers of federal programs I can never use or benefit from. How is that any different from raising the FICA cap?
 
You could make it workable as a forced-savings/investment program, like Singapore and I believe Japan, but it has to be a "defined contribution" program like an IRA. What you can't do is style it like a teachers union pension, with "defined benefits" completely unhinged from any inputs.

And what you really can't do is add a heavily "progressive" redistributive component that relies on Huwite Males contributing for full careers before receiving a negative return, to subsidize Womyn of Calories and others with intermittent or nonexistent incomes and lifelong payouts, while growing the latter group relative to the former.
Australian superannuation is like this, currently 12% of your employment income put aside, by law. All the American equivalents always looked weird to me.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo