What am I missing here.
Does anyone in this forum DISAGREE that you are entitled to the full and promised payout of 100% SS benefits if you've paid into the SS tax fund for your lifetime?
I paid into SS like most taxpayers - for the duration of my career. I am absolutely and indisputably entitled to 100% of the amount and NOTHING LESS.
On what conceivable grounds would anyone even begin to entertain the idea of alteration of the terms by which full original benefits owed are to be paid out; i.e how would anyone possibly attempt to justify accepting anything less than 100% ROI for any SS investor to whom this payout is legally entitled?
I'll direct this to anyone who doesn't agree because the burden of proof and a response is owed to every American if you actually think there is even an iota of a right to tamper with SS benefit payout to any participant who has paid into the program to-date. This is hands-off s**t. Period.
I'll consider any lack of response as an acknowledgment. Otherwise, bring it.
Mike
Just some facts, no opinions here if I can avoid it ...
Social Security is almost entirely a pay-as-you-go program. Almost all the taxes collected in each year were paid out in the same year they were collected.
My taxes paid for my parents' and grandparents' benefits. Because my parents got SS benefits, they were not living with me, I was not sending them monthly checks, and I even inherited a few dollars from them.
The continuation of SS requires that my children and grandchildren are willing to pay taxes to provide for my benefits.
But, there is a complication. My parents were the WWII generation. On average, that generation had about three kids per couple. I'm a Boomer, we had about two kids per couple. If nothing else had changed, SS can't support the same benefits with the same tax rates. Either my kids have to pay 50% higher taxes than I paid, or I take 33% lower benefits than my parents got, or some partial combination of the two.
But, other things didn't stay the same. Mortality rates fell and life spans increased. More women worked more hours. Those thing have impacts on the ratios above.
In the 1980s, politicians could see what had happened to birth rates, they knew the demographic mismatch was coming. So they temporarily raised taxes above the paygo level, and they cut benefits by increasing the normal retirement age. The taxes generated some modest "pre-funding" into the program, which will be used up in the next couple decades. The higher taxes also reset the perception "normal" tax rates, so any future increase doesn't look so severe.
Like I said, I tried to write that without any opinions, it's just some facts about the system. I don't want Porky to show up.
