ToucheIf that's your "understanding" cite your source
I'll be laughing in 2034.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html
3) Congress will almost certainly act in some fashion, which by it's very nature is unpredictable.
By 2034, many boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) won't be around and some who are won't know the time of day. Sobering thought but true.
Which is true, but remember that the 38 year olds of today will be 55 by then and they will be just as focused on collecting their SS as the Boomers of today. This is not a 'Boomers' issue! It's a Senior Issue and their will always be Seniors.
When I was 25 and started my Software Engineering Career, I was assured by all of the 'Conservatives' that I would not collect my Social Security, so don't plan on it, because it was 'going broke'.
And Remember that Social Security has never contributed 1 Penny to the National Debt, but has a 2.8 Trillion Dollar Surplus. So there are other areas to look at in the Federal Budget for Deficit Reduction. S.S. is not one of them.
Yes. It is a benefit. NOT an entitlement that so many today propose. A big part of ER and I'm amazed at the number of posters here who are willing to roll over. Similar to my feelings on ACA posted in prior years. Even though not currently part of MY plan and I'm covered, I know what I feel is right.
These issues are critical to the retirement plans of many and not a political statement. More of a generational issue that more people evolve into each year.
My understanding is that the rub is that Social Security is prohibited from borrowing... so after the surplus is gone the only option will be to reduce benefits in aggregate by ~23% in 2034 and possible as much as 27% by 2091... with those reductions SS benefits will be equal to SS tax revenues. It is unclear how these reductions would be implemented.. whether it would be across-the-board to all recipients, to only future recipients, to only recipients with benefits exceeding $x or what.
Just curious joeea, you say "It will be across-the-board, if the current rules stand."
While I think that is the most likely outcome is there a source that definitively states that cuts would be across the board?
Unless the laws are changed, SS will only be able to pay out what comes in, and they will have to reduce everyone's benefit.
and then wait for the riots to begin.
I think you are wrong... because in this case you're talking about 27%+ of their SS checks... they'll be pissed to begin with that their check is decreasing 27% and even more so one they find out that theirs is being dinged, say, 40% while their friend Sally Spender is not getting dinged at all.
The other things that you mention are chump change by comparison.
Just curious joeea, you say "It will be across-the-board, if the current rules stand."
While I think that is the most likely outcome is there a source that definitively states that cuts would be across the board?
That would be great for me. But in recent history and a similar situation, Congress did act. When they needed increased Medicare funding, they had the IRS provide annual MAGI data for all tax payers and now charge higher Part B and Part D premiums to folks who exceed defined MAGI thresholds.I do not believe the SS administration has the authority to alter payout schedules. If Congress doesn't act, the reduction will have to be straight across the board.
Help me here. I can't think of any examples of other federal gov't program shortfalls where insufficient funds caused a "straight across the board" (percentage-wise I presume) cuts to all due benefits. Which ones are you referring to?I don't have a "cite" for that, but that is the precedent for all other shortfalls.