1/26    Riddle me this: Congress jumpstarted SS, and then contributors got
        out what they put in, plus interest. How does this turn into "our
        grandparents are robbing us"?
        \_ It is because the payout is based on wage increase and not on
           inflation. So someone retired today that is collecting SS is
           getting paid based on todays wages. The other way to do it is
           to base it on inflation. That is bad though because you are
           then expecting retires today to live off of 1940 wages. An
           example is that the average SS receipent today gets about
           1200/month. If SS was based on inflation the payout would be
           around 300/month. That is not enough...
        \_ I think the argument is, the SS system is a progressive one, and
           we can't opt out.  Old folks are currently the ones getting SS
           money.  Therefore, old folks are robbing us.
           Kind of lame logic, but that's what some sodans think.
           \_ No, the logic is that the old folks are taking out more than what
              they put in plus interest.  Therefore we're just keeping them
              afloat, with really nothing set aside for ourselves.  So, in
              essence, by the time we're old, there'll be nothing left.
              \_ How does this jibe with the notion that if there weren't
                 a baby boom hump, social security would be fine?
                 \_ jibe, maybe?
                    \_ oops, learn something every day!
        \_ corrupted into a giant ponzi scheme
           \_ ... how does this jibe with the notion that if there weren't
              a baby boom hump, social security would be fine?
             \_ look, it's a combination of things, like baby boom and the
                increase of medical technology that allowed the boomers to
                live 10-15 years longer than expected. Personally I don't
                see the point of extending lives of 70-80 yr old people
                so that they can live another 10 miserable years, but then
                I digress
                \_ The actuaries who helped devise SS prepared for extended
                   lifespans.  They actually predicted the increase would be
                   larger than it has been.  The ass-talkers are out in force.
                   \_ Did they account for a baby boom bump?
                      \_ No, but there have been adjustments in the last few
                         decades to work on it, and the most conservative
                         estimates put the date of needing to reduce benefits
                         at 2042.
                         \_ 2042 is the year the SSA estimates that the
                            cumulative surplus (after the IOUs/bonds are
                            redeemed) will be drawn to zero, while
                            simultaneously needing to pay more to old folks
                            than we take in social security taxes.
                            This is assuming nothing is done.
                            \_ And the CBO estimates that will not happen\
                               until 2052. Even at that point, SS will be
                               able to meet 75% of its payments on its own.
                               The worst thing that could happen would be
                               that benefits would be cut by 1/4.
                \_ So, SS wasn't devised as a ponzi scheme when it was
                   created, but the system has a solvency problem with the
                   unexpected baby-boom generation and increased longevity?
                \_ The point in extending lives may become clearer once you
                   reach 70-80, as in, Q: "who would want to live to be 80"
                   A: "someone who is 79"