Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
SS 2034 shortfall calculator
Old 11-14-2018, 07:51 AM   #1
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Jerry1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,432
SS 2034 shortfall calculator

Check out this SS calculator. It allows you to pick various options and see how they would impact the shortfall.

The Reformer: An Interactive Tool to Fix Social Security

What are your proposed fixes? For me, I think one thing to do, which does have significant impact, is to eliminate the cap on wages to be taxed.
__________________

__________________
Retired 9am 1/17/2018 - 56yo
Jerry1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 11-14-2018, 08:05 AM   #2
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Tampa
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry1 View Post
Check out this SS calculator. It allows you to pick various options and see how they would impact the shortfall.

The Reformer: An Interactive Tool to Fix Social Security

What are your proposed fixes? For me, I think one thing to do, which does have significant impact, is to eliminate the cap on wages to be taxed.
+1
Never really understood why it would not be unlimited and I was above the cap for most of my career.
__________________

__________________
TGIM
Dtail is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2018, 08:52 AM   #3
Full time employment: Posting here.
Rianne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Champaign
Posts: 868
My plan.



n 2050, your plan would reduce total scheduled benefits by 7% and reduce payable benefits by 0%. Your plan would decrease taxes by 0%.
__________________
"If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.
Rianne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2018, 09:33 AM   #4
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 19,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dtail View Post
+1
Never really understood why it would not be unlimited and I was above the cap for most of my career.
IIRC the reason that the cap exists is because there are limits on the amount of SS that one can receive so really high earners would never get back anything close what they paid in.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56...60/35/5 AA
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2018, 09:39 AM   #5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Jerry1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
IIRC the reason that the cap exists is because there are limits on the amount of SS that one can receive so really high earners would never get back anything close what they paid in.
That may be true, but I see that as a better alternative to means testing. At least youre taking the hit while youre working.
__________________
Retired 9am 1/17/2018 - 56yo
Jerry1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2018, 09:51 AM   #6
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 19,945
YOUR POLICY SELECTIONS....................% OF GAP CLOSED
Index Age to Longevity After it Reaches 67...................20%
Tighten SSDI Eligibility Criteria......................................8%
Increase Payroll Tax by 0.1%.........................................4%
Raise and Re-Index the Taxable Maximum.....................22%
Cover Newly-Hired State & Local Workers........................9%
Apply the Payroll Tax to "Cafeteria Plans".......................10%
Increase Taxation of Benefits.........................................7%
Diversify the Trust Fund to Increase Returns..................22%
TOTAL.....................................................................101%

In 2050, your plan would reduce total scheduled benefits by 3% and increase payable benefits by 21%. Your plan would increase taxes by 17%.

Some notes: Increase in payroll tax would be from 12.4% to 12.5% a nice even number. Increase in taxation of benefits.. info not said it would be changed to conform to the way private pensions are taxed (I resume that they mean contributory private pensions). My thought is that any stock investments would be index style... I would not want the trust fund to try to pick winners and losers.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56...60/35/5 AA
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2018, 09:54 AM   #7
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 19,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry1 View Post
That may be true, but I see that as a better alternative to means testing. At least youre taking the hit while youre working.
I wasn't opining on anything, just explaining why there was a cap.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56...60/35/5 AA
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2018, 10:06 AM   #8
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Jerry1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
YOUR POLICY SELECTIONS....................% OF GAP CLOSED
Index Age to Longevity After it Reaches 67...................20%
I get the logic of increasing the age. Im not sure of the number, but Im sure longevity has increased much more than the SS retirement age since SSs inception. As I mentioned in another thread, however, I think some consideration needs to be given to the type of work being done. Its hard to believe that its good policy to have people over our current SS retirement ages doing heavy manual labor (construction trades for example). However, as a person who did desk work and in a world where more and more people do desk/computer/thinking jobs, I do think we could increase the age in those fields. I mean seriously, when the president and two or three potential presidential want to bes are over 70, its certainly possible to hold down a demanding job later in life. (Please, no politics. My point is that the job is VERY demanding and quite a few people over 70 appear to want it and could handle working that late it life.)
__________________
Retired 9am 1/17/2018 - 56yo
Jerry1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2018, 11:25 AM   #9
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Tampa
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
IIRC the reason that the cap exists is because there are limits on the amount of SS that one can receive so really high earners would never get back anything close what they paid in.
Agree. Thought about that later. How much SS would Gates and Buffet and other 1%ers receive?
__________________
TGIM
Dtail is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2018, 11:50 AM   #10
Moderator
braumeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Northern Kentucky
Posts: 11,715
When Social Security was first implemented, only about 3% earned more than the cap. Today it's about 6% so not a big difference.
__________________
I thought growing old would take longer.
braumeister is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2018, 12:07 PM   #11
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dtail View Post
+1
Never really understood why it would not be unlimited and I was above the cap for most of my career.
Yes, you don't understand. A 6% hit on income & a +6% addition to the cost of employing someone is a meaningful reason to me. I.e., it's not like there wouldn't me consequences to the the economy. By your reasoning, why not tax any income above X amount at 100%? Those people clearly don't need it.
gerntz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2018, 12:09 PM   #12
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry1 View Post
That may be true, but I see that as a better alternative to means testing. At least youre taking the hit while youre working.
Why means testing? Just slice everyone the same %. The less you receive, the more you're benefiting from skewed payments to those on the low side.
gerntz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2018, 12:11 PM   #13
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry1 View Post
I get the logic of increasing the age. Im not sure of the number, but Im sure longevity has increased much more than the SS retirement age since SSs inception. As I mentioned in another thread, however, I think some consideration needs to be given to the type of work being done. Its hard to believe that its good policy to have people over our current SS retirement ages doing heavy manual labor (construction trades for example). However, as a person who did desk work and in a world where more and more people do desk/computer/thinking jobs, I do think we could increase the age in those fields. I mean seriously, when the president and two or three potential presidential want to bes are over 70, its certainly possible to hold down a demanding job later in life. (Please, no politics. My point is that the job is VERY demanding and quite a few people over 70 appear to want it and could handle working that late it life.)
Excellent.
gerntz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2018, 12:25 PM   #14
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 19,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry1 View Post
I get the logic of increasing the age. Im not sure of the number, but Im sure longevity has increased much more than the SS retirement age since SSs inception. As I mentioned in another thread, however, I think some consideration needs to be given to the type of work being done. Its hard to believe that its good policy to have people over our current SS retirement ages doing heavy manual labor (construction trades for example). However, as a person who did desk work and in a world where more and more people do desk/computer/thinking jobs, I do think we could increase the age in those fields. I mean seriously, when the president and two or three potential presidential want to bes are over 70, its certainly possible to hold down a demanding job later in life. (Please, no politics. My point is that the job is VERY demanding and quite a few people over 70 appear to want it and could handle working that late it life.)
I think you have an interesting point but I think it would be hard to administer and lots of gray area in between... thousome might argue that there is a lot of emotional stress with office jobs that are less prevalent in more physical jobs. The fact that one can take SS as early as 62 may be a sufficient mitigating factor. For people who do physical work it isn't a dark secret that it becomes much more difficult with age.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56...60/35/5 AA
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2018, 12:44 PM   #15
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,563
My list of policy choices, spread out among many options.

Your Policy Selections....... % of gap closed

Reduce Initial Benefits by 0.2%........1%

Slow Benefit Growth for Top 20% Of Earners....12%

Raise Age from 67 to 68..............................14%

Index COLAs to "Chained CPI"...............22%

Tighten SSDI Eligibility Criteria..................8%

Limit Spousal Benefits for High Earners...........4%

Increase Payroll Tax by 0.4%..........14%

Cover Newly-Hired State & Local Workers.........9%

Apply the Payroll Tax to "Cafeteria Plans"......10%

Increase Taxation of Benefits................7%

Total .................................................. .....100%

In 2050, your plan would reduce total scheduled benefits by 9% and increase payable benefits by 13%. Your plan would increase taxes by 11%.

Help me out here, please......if I chose only options to reduce benefits, why do I see a 13% increase in what is called "payable benefits"? What's the difference between that and "scheduled benefits"?

I don't touch the payroll tax cap because that cap also keeps a lid on the benefits. Those excess dollars earned over the cap pay no payroll taxes (other than Medicare) because they do not increase at all the amount of benefits payable. If payroll taxes are paid on those excess dollars but no benefits paid out, we are basically telling those earners, "All those extra payroll tax dollars you earned won't get you a bigger SS benefit, unlike the FICA tax dollars you paid below the cap, but thanks for letting us steal your dollars with zilch in return!"
__________________
Retired in late 2008 at age 45. Cashed in company stock, bought a lot of shares in a big bond fund and am living nicely off its dividends. IRA, SS, and a pension await me at age 60 and later. No kids, no debts.

"I want my money working for me instead of me working for my money!"
scrabbler1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2018, 12:56 PM   #16
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GravitySucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Syracuse
Posts: 1,702
Two unmentioned items in this tool I'd like to see the affects of:

1. Us Boomers didn't have enough children. Think it was barely at replacement level. The current generation birthrate is even lower. What happens if we increased immigration drastically?

2. What happens to SS if the minimum wage is increased to an level that a person can live on?
__________________
No, not rich. I am a poor man with money, which is not the same thing"
GravitySucks is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2018, 01:37 PM   #17
Full time employment: Posting here.
Willers's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrabbler1 View Post

Help me out here, please......if I chose only options to reduce benefits, why do I see a 13% increase in what is called "payable benefits"? What's the difference between that and "scheduled benefits"?
Per the SSA program explainer page:

https://www.ssa.gov/retirementpolicy...d-payable.html

* Scheduled benefits are benefits specified under current law without regard to the balances in the Social Security trust funds.

* Payable benefits are what can be paid to all beneficiaries after trust fund exhaustion, currently projected to occur in 2033.
__________________
If you don't do it this year, you will be one year older when you do. - Warren Miller
Willers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2018, 02:33 PM   #18
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sarasota
Posts: 138
Thanks Jerry1 great site. The site makes solving the current shortfall problem seem very doable. Two changes solve the problem. Increase the retirement age one year to 68 and go to CPI minus 1%. Most people would not notice the 1 % less increase. Problem solved. Now try to get any politician to touch the third rail......
__________________
Retired in 2015 at 53
"Things are never as good--or as bad--as they seem."
LiveBelowMeans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2018, 03:21 PM   #19
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sarasota
Posts: 138
Correction on above post. To solve the problem I also had to raise the taxable maximum to $204,000.
__________________
Retired in 2015 at 53
"Things are never as good--or as bad--as they seem."
LiveBelowMeans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2018, 03:40 PM   #20
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Tampa
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerntz View Post
Yes, you don't understand. A 6% hit on income & a +6% addition to the cost of employing someone is a meaningful reason to me. I.e., it's not like there wouldn't me consequences to the the economy. By your reasoning, why not tax any income above X amount at 100%? Those people clearly don't need it.
I already commented on my original comment, so relax.
You could also check your spelling/grammar first.
__________________

__________________
TGIM
Dtail is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What will happen if Social Security benefits are cut in 2034 joeea Other topics 76 11-15-2017 08:31 PM
Paper Argues Social Security Shortfall Is Easily Fixable sunsnow Other topics 2 12-11-2011 10:38 AM
Add back spending "shortfall?" halo FIRE and Money 4 01-01-2006 01:01 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:50 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.