AMUSING - WHO CARE ABOUT US?

[GailL1]

I thought this might be amusing to some here.  Talk about being slow to act -  Talk about Passing the Buck - make sure you include this in any message you might send to the AARP or your legislator on this matter.  

We need compromise - IF we don’t compromise on a solution .  . . . . well, I am not sure where that will leave us except to start planning for around a 20% cut isn benefits come about 2033 - 2035.  

Do you think they really care about you and me or is it just their own way that they support.  Again talk about SLOW to act on such an important matter - at least important to us - To Them, well not so much.

I am posting the ending paragraph of every Social Security Trustee report that I could easily access since 2009 - I have listed the various links to each of these reports in case any of you want to see the analysis of any of the years.  

2009 - https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2009/II_conclu.html#86802 

Under current law, the cost of Social Security will soon begin to increase faster than the program’s income because of the aging of the baby-boom gen­eration, expected continuing low fertility (compared to the baby-boom period), and increasing life expectancy. Based on the Trustees’ best estimate, program cost will exceed tax revenues starting in 2016 and throughout the remainder of the 75-year projection period. Social Security’s combined trust funds are projected to allow full payment of scheduled benefits until they become exhausted in 2037. At that time, annual tax income to the trust funds is projected to equal about 76 percent of program costs. By 2083, annual tax income is projected to be about 74 percent as large as the annual cost of the OASDI program.

If no substantial action is taken until the combined trust funds become exhausted in 2037, then changes necessary to make Social Security solvent over the next 75 years will be concentrated on fewer years and fewer cohorts:

The projected trust fund deficits should be addressed in a timely way to allow for a gradual phasing in of the necessary changes and to provide advance notice to workers. Making adjustments sooner will allow them to be spread over more generations. In 2009, Social Security plays a critical role in the lives of 52 million beneficiaries and 160 million covered workers and their families. With informed discussion, creative thinking, and timely legis­lative action, present and future Congresses and Presidents can ensure that Social Security continues to protect future generations.

2010 - https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/2010/index.html 

But while it is projected that the Medicare HI Trust Fund is adequately financed until 2029, and the Social Security OASI and DI Trust Funds are adequately financed until 2040 and 2018, respectively, the significant longer term financial imbalances of the programs still need to be addressed. The sooner action is taken to address the long-run financial imbalances, the more reform options will be available, and the more time there will be to phase in changes so that those affected will have adequate time to prepare.

2011- https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/2011/index.html 

Conclusion

Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative corrections if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided.  The financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare should be addressed soon. If action is taken sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that those affected can adequately prepare.

2012 - https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/2012/index.html 

Conclusion

Lawmakers should address the financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will leave more options and more time available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.

2013 - https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/2013/index.html 

Conclusion

Lawmakers should address the financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will leave more options and more time available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.

2014 - https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/2014/index.html 

Conclusion

Lawmakers should address the financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will leave more options and more time available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.

2015 - https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/2015/index.html 

Conclusion

Lawmakers should address the financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will permit consideration of a broader range of solutions and provide more time to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.

2016 - https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/2016/index.html 

Conclusion

Lawmakers have many policy options that would reduce or eliminate the long-term financing shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare. Lawmakers should address these financial challenges as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will permit consideration of a broader range of solutions and provide more time to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.

2017 - https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/2017/index.html 

Conclusion

Lawmakers have many policy options that would reduce or eliminate the long-term financing shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare. Lawmakers should address these financial challenges as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will permit consideration of a broader range of solutions and provide more time to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.

2018 - https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/2018/index.html 

Conclusion

Lawmakers have many policy options that would reduce or eliminate the long-term financing shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare. Lawmakers should address these financial challenges as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will permit consideration of a broader range of solutions and provide more time to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.

2019- https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/2019/index.html 

Conclusion

Lawmakers have many policy options that would reduce or eliminate the long-term financing shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare. Lawmakers should address these financial challenges as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will permit consideration of a broader range of solutions and provide more time to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.

2020 - https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/2020/index.html 

Conclusion

Lawmakers have many policy options that would reduce or eliminate the long-term financing shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare. Lawmakers should address these financial challenges as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will permit consideration of a broader range of solutions and provide more time to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.

2021 -https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/2021/index.html 

Conclusion

Lawmakers have many policy options that would reduce or eliminate the long-term financing shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare. Lawmakers should address these financial challenges as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will permit consideration of a broader range of solutions and provide more time to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.

2022 - https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/2022/index.html 

Conclusion

Lawmakers have many policy options that would reduce or eliminate the long-term financing shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare. Taking action sooner rather than later will allow consideration of a broader range of solutions and provide more time to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.

2023 - https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/2023/index.html 

Lawmakers have many options for changes that would reduce or eliminate the long-term financing shortfalls. We urge Congress to consider such options for both Medicare and Social Security, like the proposal for Medicare in the President’s FY24 Budget. With each year that lawmakers do not act, the public has less time to prepare for the changes.

2024 - https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/ 

Lawmakers have many options for changes that would reduce or eliminate the long-term financing shortfalls. Taking action sooner rather than later will allow consideration of a broader range of solutions and provide more time to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.

Wanna bet that the 2025 one when issued shortly will say the same thing?

[Tonster521]

@gail1, as you know, information is power. You did a "yeoman's job" of providing the Trustee Reports all neatly packaged into one post. That effort deserves a Kudos. Everyone interested in avoiding or delaying the depletion of the SS Trust has access to pertinent information. The goal is to be informed as much as one can be. And, with the complex SS program, "the devil is in the detail".

I will state that you are too kind saying that Congress is slow to act or exhibit inaction. Based on my experience (almost 46 years) in the private sector (manufacturing), I would call it a failure. Unfortunately, even a substantial number of Congressmen and women have not be able to move any proposals to the front burner. It appears to me that Party concerns override fiscal management of the SS program. Although the unfunded liability has been noted as somewhere between $20 and $25 Trillion for the 75 year projection, it is abundantly clear that SS revenue (FICA taxes) need to be increased as well as other solutions just to avoid or delay the depletion of the SS trust and an approximate 17% to 20% cut in SS Benefits somewhere between 2033 and 2035. Increasing FICA taxes is a "political third rail" and will likely cause some existing Congressmen and women to lose their seat. So be it.

For the record, I have read all the SS Trustee reports that you provided. Not at one time,but over the years. The SS actuary has been informing Congress and the public for many years that funding the SS program needs to be addressed sooner than later.

[papawofboo]

Just for the fun of it. This post has 10 views so far and I'm one of them.

How many read the entire post? Not me.

[GailL1]

Of course you won’t read it, even though I pointed out that every year since 2009 it says the very same thing.  That’s the amusement.  Read one, you have read them all.  

We have had this critical need for our legislators to solve this for over 15 years and NOTHING has been done.  Yet we all grip here about making Social Security and Medicare strong.  AARP says they work for us to help the programs stand on firm ground.  Yet in all this time, NOTHING has been done.  

The programs of Social Security are bad financial shape; Disability is healthier than Retirement or Survivors benefits but that doesn’t matter cause they will just put them all together when push come to shove.  

We are taking MORE OUT than we are PUTTING IN and have been for a good while.  Now we are to the point that we are having to pull from the reserve to just cover the benefits being paid out.  And the amount we are having to pull from the reserve is getting bigger and bigger by the year.  And this is at a time when we are pretty much at full employment.  

By not handling it years ago, the options for a correction are getting critical and we are probably gonna be faced with some severe only options to get it corrected fast.  Or maybe it will not be corrected at all and come 2033 - 2035 we will all take about a 20% cut in benefits - ALL beneficiaries, about a 20% cut in benefits.  

I listed these so that those who are interested can see exactly how we came to be in this shape - pure and simple - INACTION by our legislators.  

LOL - both FDR and Reagan would be rolling over in their graves as a result of this debacle.  FDR because he devised the program and had hopes that further legislative generations could manage it properly and Reagan because he and his Democratic legislators fixed it once with the note that further changes would need to be done in 40 or so years.  So they too thought that further legislative generations would be able to handle the management of it - THEY HAVE NOT.

[papawofboo]

You say it has been critical for 15 years. Look up how many members of congress have over 15 years in office. If you don't think RE-ELECTING the same people is not part of the problem, you are bad wrong. 

What has AARP done you ask. I'm betting that AARP doesn't have as deep of pockets as other special interest groups have to line the pockets of the RE-ELECTED. Where I fault AARP is this, the first question to anyone running for congress or the presidency is explain your stance on SS/MC. The answer should be on the front page of ever media outlet there is, either paper or online.

More coming out, than going in. As for the going in, the cap could be done away with. That would be a small step but it wouldn't get you to the finish line. The other way is to increase the % withheld. As for the coming out, one you could raise the age limit to draw, and of course the other way is more funerals. To me it's just a case of "pick your poison."

Me reading entire post, to know they are all the same means I would have to read them all. Notice you have had 85 views since my post, not one has posted that they read all of it.

Speaking of long post, let me end this one now.

[GailL1]

I don’t believe I said anything about their being reelected as part of the problem - the problem is they just haven’t been doing their job to manage this program - no matter when they were elected or how many times in those 15 years.

We have had at least 2 specially appointed (bipaetisan) committees in that time period to study the problem and make recommendations on how to fix it - but when Congress could not agree on the fixes, the attention to it just stopped.

Removing the cap maybe part of the fix but with a higher contribution, the law also requires a higher benefit.  That is the reason why the cap in now in place BECAUSE IT LIMITS THE BENEFIT.

The Trustees also see that there is a sort of a societal response to raising or eliminating the cap.  Meaning that they could just reorganize the jobs of these really highly paid employees and use them as consultants or self-employed individuals or contractors instead of employees.  Or they could pay them in other ways rather than in a salary or wage - stock options come to mind.

Also, because raising or eliminating the cap puts a lot more financial restraints on a business, it could also effect the number of employees they might hire in the regular pay area. OR the money a company might use to expand and hire more employees in the regular ranks.

The earnings cap is already raised every year based on the COLA amount - 

There are many ways that Congress has to remedy the situation as you mentioned - it probably won’t be just one way.  Sometimes the inaction here is further stalled because some in Congress want to expand benefits for some people before the fixing negotiations even get started.  

Oh, they take it out occasionally and play with it - the number of legislative proposals thru the years is long but they don’t make it too much further than just being introduced before some other matter grabs their attention./

[papawofboo]

You missed the point about them being re-elected, but you also made my point. If they aren't doing their job, why keep them in office?

You are very good at using a lot of words to tell why my ways will not work. Tell us how you would solve the problem.

[GailL1]

I would take all the various income producing proposals that have any merit and then work for a solution based on the forward looking math that will correct the problem for the long haul (75 years) without overburdening any one segment of the society.

• Increase the cap to a news specific limit say $ 250,000
• add a slight additional bend point to the benefits formula so that the benefit for higher contributions is modified somewhat
• add an increase to the contribution % amount which would increase over time
• add a few years to the retirement age that would also increase to this new point over time

If they still bi*tch and moan over this - then it will be time to look at benefits - some of the benefits which I have seem evaluated would be the ones to look at 1st.  Things like:

• discontinue the auxiliary benefits for those who retire early
• discontinue divorced spousal benefit
• discontinue auxiliary benefits if the child quits school before age 18.
• continue the tax on benefits at the current levels and not allow for inflation of the current limits
• NO benefit increases until the Trust Funds are adequately funded for the long term
• allow for the interest on the special treasuries to increase based on a higher % level (flat rate) or if higher based on the rate paid on treasuries.
• reinstate a modified benefits formula for those affected by the (now eliminated) WEP / GPO.

I tell you what - instead of me listing the ones I like - I will just say we (Congress) can take the ones that work from this proposal or any others and fight it out in a compromised fashion.

SSA.gov -Proposals to fix Social Security - Homer / Primus 01/03/2025 

Which is basically the same one as the ones they wrote about here:

Brooking.edu 02/2025 - Fixing Social Security - BLUEPRINT FOR A BIPARTISAN SOLUTION 

Then if they need more to evaluate - there are a bunch more introduced thru the years -some of which should never be considered but they would stand out as being to lopsided one way or the other - too liberal or too conservative - cause we are looking for a lot of bipartisan support to any real effort.

SSA.gov - Proposals To Change Social Security - the list of proposals 

The word CHANGE will send shockwaves thru this community - do you agree?  But these changes will not affect them much unless they are still working.

[papawofboo]

I said to do away with cap and you want to increase it, that's a **bleep** for tat.

I don't understand your 2nd point.

We both say to increase payment % and to change the age for drawings.

On the benefits, some of what you and others talk about I never knew of. I went to the office, signed up and started drawing a check. I started at 62 and kept working so I know how the "payback" worked. My father's health started going bad and I tried to get him to retire. He is where I got my hard head from, no way was he going to do that. He never drew a check. I stood at his grave and made promised myself I would start early, and I did. I think that the benefit area needs to be looked at real hard.

CHANGE, you right about that word. After deciding what changes to make then comes the when?? I would suggest this, say most people start working at 20 and go to 70, that's 50 years, take half and add to the 20 and you get 45. Everyone 45+ stays on the current system, below 45 falls to the new. You give the people a 5 year notice of when the change is going to take place so they can make adjustments to their finances. Don't get uptight about those numbers they are just being used as an example.

Anyway, I don't see congress fixing it any time soon. They always put off, I think they do it to scare the people then they can look like the cowboy in the big white hat.

[GailL1]

The complete doing away with the earnings cap would just cause a bunch of change and problems for businesses.  They would find a way around this (matched) expense.  

The 2nd point in adding another bend point to the benefits formula would reduce the benefit that a person paying in more contribution as a result of increasing or removing the cap would get if the benefit formula wasn’t changed.  We have to change the benefits formula in addition to raising or doing away with the cap or this whole change will save nil; in fact it might cost us more in benefits.  

SSA.gov- The Primary Insurance Amount ( PIA ) 

What do you mean by “. I think that the benefit area needs to be looked at real hard.” ?

When I said as one of my benefit change points 

• discontinue the auxiliary benefits for those who retire early

what this means is that if a person who retires at 62 or before their FRA has children less than 18 years old, they would not get any auxiliary benefits (50% of the beneficiary’s benefit up to the family maximum benefit) for these children up to 18 as they do for those who are receiving SS Disability benefits or Survivors benefits up to the maximum Social Security benefit.

The early retirement (at 62)  and working after receiving benefits won’t change, neither will the claw back if over the annual earnings and the pay back after reaching the full retirement age (FRA) but if we increase the full retirement age, those retiring early will get a smaller and smaller benefit because the (early) benefit is reduced based on the number of months between one’s early retirement age and the FRA.  Just like now - those retiring at 62 have less months to wait for FRA if that age is 66 than that same person who has a FRA of 67.  

SSA.gov - Early or Late Retirement  

Actually, I was just talking about the word “change” throwing people into a tizzy.  

I cannot discuss the math which also involves the when and the how - I am not an Actuary -a person who compiles and analyzes statistics and uses them to calculate insurance risks and premiums.  But the SSA has them and they are the ones that analyze each of the proposals and measures them as to how much it would add or subtract from the forecast goal which is a 75 year outlook period.  

[papawofboo]

Well I think we have talked this out. I have always looked for the simplest way to solve a problem. Congress doesn't do this. 

Anyway, as I add birthday candles this become more and more someone else problem. And they can't say they weren't warned.

By the way, did you notice the "beep" in my post, do you know the word they :beeped"? That is just silly.

[SpringIsHereVA]

VERY LONG post Papaw @papawofboo . Nope, way too busy.

---

➡️[*** Papaw wrote Wednesday 4/30/25. Just for the fun of it. This post has 10 views so far and I'm one of them. How many read the entire post? Not me. ***]

---

[GailL1]

---

@SpringIsHereVA wrote:

VERY LONG post Papaw @papawofboo . Nope, way too busy.

====================

Yep, that does say it all -