Bill, don’t forget that Project 2025 attack Medicare by defaulting to Medicare Advantage. If a person doesn’t sign up to start with a Medicare Supplement policy, they will never be able to get the best rate. This is a gift to the health insurance lobby—they can charge whatever they want to seniors. I just heard of another Medicare Advantage policyholder who had needed medical treatment denied; her case manager stated that her Medicare Advantage insurer “denies every physical therapy” that would be approved by regular Medicare.
Don’t we all know people who’d be seriously affected by cuts to Medicare and Social Security? Here are some quick and easy talking points by Robert Reich for us to help spread the word:
"Project 2025 includes Medicaid caps that would jeopardize coverage for 18.5 million people.
It also proposes privatizing Medicare and ending the govt's ability to negotiate lower Rx costs."
Privatization is the beginning and end of all Republican ideas. Nothing pisses me off more. Slurp, slurp, slurp, and what they are slurping is the result of the “lessers” working.
And bills without COLA's included as well. For example, when H-1Bs were established to allow cheap offshore technicians to work in the US, they put a cap on their income at $60K/year. At the time that was around the average salary for programmers in the US. Companies were panicking as you recall, about Y2K because to save precious storage we had omitted the 2 position century from most dates. For a programmer, it was basically grunt work to identify, expand the dates, fix a reusable date calculations, compile the programs, test and verify results and implement.
Anyway, by 1995, $60K per year was a joke because demand for programmers had shot up and the supply hadn't kept up. And here we are 35 years later with the $60K cap in place. With a COLA that amount would likely be close to what the average programmer makes today.
I have worked with hundreds of Indians, most of whom I have the utmost respect, that come to the US and share living quarters with 2 to 4 others. And the companies they work for treat them badly and take back part of their salaries as housing fees or other expenses.
And, of course this hurts the American programmers and engineers by keeping supply high and therefore salaries are kept low. And now that it's so easy to hire off shore programmers, they are paid around 20-25% of what they would make if they relocated to the US.
Yes, the large financial services firms like GE Capital first brought in a few Indians to do Y2K and the projects went well because it was cookbook programming. Very little analysis needed. So several companies concluded that programmers are widgets so they fired their programmers and brought in Indians for half the price. It was a disaster for many companies as few Indian programmers understood the insurance applications or how to modify them for new sophisticated products like Variable Universal Life and Variable Annuities.
GE Capital went all in and total turned their IT areas over to Indian consulting firms. It was a total disaster. Within 2 years their wasn't an Indian programmer working on an GE Capital system.
A few other companies had similar experiences but only replaced a portion of their IT staffs.
Without the greedy management and Y2K and Congress messing up the H-1B Visa immigration bill, it's likely there would be more well paid American programmers.
Greed rules the fools. Had no idea of what that sausage-making looked like. Has anybody documented that mess for training what not to do, or has it just been the cost of mismanagement sort of buried and charged off and passed on. The results of that snafu have resonated through the industry for decades and affected those not even born then, seems to me. Guess those ripples are like gravitational waves, traveling to infinity…
As an American programmer we were expected to work with and train the Indians. At that time, there was a huge language and cultural barrier. The Indian technical schools taught their students technical skills but when they came to the US they were unable to communicate in English. Many of the programmers I worked with only spoke Hindi and very broken English. (Of course I can't speak a word of Hindi to this day). And they lived and associated only with other Indians so they never assimilated into the American business culture.
But, by the time Y2K happened the Indian consulting firms understood that their programmers needed to fit in and we understood that they were making an effort and are actually very kind people and for the most part easy to work with.
I have worked with over 300 Indian programmers both on-shore and off-shore, and like American programmers, some are better than others. But, they have ALWAYS treated me and my colleagues with respect and kindness.
One last story - I was contracted for a project in South Dakota as part of a team of 30 programmers, analysts and business analysts. I was the only one not born in India. My cubicle was next to a "kid" who was under 30. We joked around and had the same bizarre programmer sense of humor that almost all programmers share. Anyway, I asked him if he could teach me some Hindi. He patiently tried for about an hour. During that time we laughed at least half the time. He may have been an excellent teacher, but I know that as a student, "I sucked."
You know of what you speak. Being in the trenches gives a unique prospective. Has anybody written the taleof Y2K. Anybody who actually knows it intimately??
I've worked with Indians, Russians, Brits, Irish, Mexican, Chinese programmers and analysts. Not to speak ill of any particular race, but Indians for the most part are very good programmers, but not great analysts. If you're lucky you develop a comraderie within a team. You spend more hours with them when you are onsite than with your family so you almost can't help it. You depend on them to do their job otherwise everyone on the team looks bad. And so, you need to pick up the slack so to speak by helping them with the problem solving part of the job or the specs.
When I was in Sioux Falls, SD with the team of 30, I was onsite for 5 weeks and then remote for 2 1/2 years. I was 30-40 years older than most of them and they treated me with the utmost respect. I'm not sure if it was cultural or what, but when I left after the first 5 weeks,they threw a huge going away party for me.
Y2K changed the world in so many ways and that's just what I can see from my little universe.
If I don’t continue to get Social Security in the future, I will be homeless because what I make and Social Security does not cover housing food insurance. The very basic needs and I worked my whole life.
Mary, I appreciate your pointing this out. Many here in FL think that Medicare Advantage is part of Medicare. I have wondered how in the world Medicare Advantage was allowed to use the term Medicare in their title. Seems to me it would be illegal, to fraudulently imply that they are something they are not. Many seniors have been fooled by this false advertising and think that it's Medicare that is not giving them the benefits they expected! My own supplemental policy (Anthem BCBS) gave me the option of switching over to Medicare Advantage, claiming the cost might be to my advantage. But, as I usually do, I read the small print and declined.
Carol, this is very interesting to me because I am paying $147 per month for AARP's United Healthcare insurance to supplement my Medicare. I have believed it necessary in order to cover my psychiatric and chronic pain management, which was only slightly covered by Medicare. Since Covid, 95 percent of my care is virtual and I only physically see my primary care once a year. Have I been paying that $147 unnecessarily for the last decade?
Paula, all supplemental plans cost money. Your plan sounds very reasonable to me. Since Medicare only pays a portion of our medical bills, it is helpful to have a supplemental plan that covers the remainder. It's just that Medicare Advantage, which often has lower fees than other supplemental plans, has many restrictions, such as which providers one can use. My point was that many people inadvertently sign up for it assuming it is part of Medicare. It is a private insurance plan and not part of our Medicare from the government. Here is a useful site that breaks it all down:
"... not funded by Medicare. " not exactly true. If you choose a Medicare advantage plan, much of the premium you would have to pay is covered out of the same Medicare funds that would pay for Medicare parts a and b. If the actual premium is higher than what the plan you choose costs. You have to pay the extra out of your own pocket. That is why Medicare advantage plans can cost anywhere from $0 to hundreds of dollars a month. It all depends on the plan and its benefits. But the base coat of all Medicare advantage plans are covered by the same dollars that would be used to support your use of Medicare parts a and b.
“ACO REACH uses similar tactics to those found in Medicare Advantage to profit from Medicare by overcharging Medicare, financially incentivizing providers to control healthcare costs for beneficiaries, and increasing the number of beneficiaries in their plans. But while some seniors “choose” to participate in Medicare Advantage, seniors and people with disabilities are auto-enrolled into an ACO REACH through their primary care physicians (PCPs). Thus, it is physicians and physician practices which are being lured into or forced to join the ACO REACH (Many physician practices are being swooped up by private equity or created whole-cloth). Physician practices, or their controllers, are enticed by the “shared savings” they will collect if they save money on their patients, shredding the trust between doctors and patients.”
I have an advantage plan. I loved it at first but it's getting scary. I can't go back to a supplement plan because of a preexisting condition. There ought to be a law!!! I am voting Blue this November. But then again, I almost always have.
Social Security is one of my hot buttons on so many levels. Had the SS funds been kept separate from the General fund and used only for the purposes defined in the original bill, and the money invested in US Government T-Bills or similar bonds the fund would be solvent for many years past the 2035 date. I annuitized my wife's and my contributions at 3% assuming payouts starting in 2024. There would be almost $3 million in the fund with the continuing interest at 3% being sufficient to pay our monthly SS draw -- forever.
Of course we cannot predict how long any of us will draw SS but rich Republicans like Senator Rick Scott of FL who defrauded SS and Medicare out of hundreds of millions of dollars want to take away the only money that millions of the 70 million SS recipients receive.
None of us had an option to NOT pay into SS just as we didn't have an option to pay our Federal Income Tax, but Republicans are dead set on reducing or eliminating SS payouts.
Unfortunately many for profit eldercare entities and even some hospitals have become extractive industries - extracting Social Security and Medicare dollars in return for substandard care.
I think we need to teach children in school about how to manage, at least personal finances. I never learned anything about stocks or annuities or any of those financial tools, and I am the poorer for it.
You describe perfectly how Social Security taxes are kept separate (the Social Security Old Age Trust Fund and the Social Security Disability Trust Fund) and invested only in U. S. Treasury securities.
The problem is that things change.
There are now (relatively) more old people drawing benefits and (relatively) fewer young people working and paying taxes than when current tax rates and benefit rates were established.
The first Social Security Trustees Report in 1941 said, "... the essential assurance of future financial soundness of the system, with its rising rate of disbursement, rests on a graduated increase in contribution rates or provision of income from other sources, or both."
Actually, the baby boomer generation is far larger than any other age group, and when payments to boomers peak in 2034, the slope of the ratio of contributions will return to normal levels.
Once upon a time, I made proposals to flatten the curve. From an ABA article December 01, 2011 FINANCIAL PLANNING
Social Security—Maybe Charity Should Begin at Home
By Daniel F. Solomon
Share:
For most of its history, Social Security was a terrific bargain: our parents and grandparents most probably received significantly more benefits than they paid into the Social Security Trust Fund. The trust fund comprises the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds (OASDI, collectively).
In most cases, because our family units could rely on these benefits, they were able to enjoy enough financial independence to send people like us to school so that we could become lawyers—productive and, in some cases, wealthy, members of society. For 75 years, the Social Security Trust Fund has helped enable American society to achieve far beyond the aspirations of its founders, ultimately providing more than subsistence to retirees by also protecting widows, orphans, and disabled people. The dignity provided to needy beneficiaries surely far outweighs the economic value of the funds.
However, financial experts have long predicted a future insolvency of the funds. A majority of Americans have invested in the funds, recognize their social utility, and do not want to burden their heirs. Although there have been legislative attempts to “fix” the system, there is no consensus how to do it. The Congressional Research Service reported:
For example, for workers who earned average wages and retired in 1980 at age 65, it took 2.8 years to recover the value of the retirement portion of the combined employee and employer shares of their Social Security taxes plus interest. For their counterparts who retired at age 65 in 2002, it will take 16.9 years. For those retiring in 2020, it will take 20.9 years.
Geoffrey Kollmann and Dawn Nuschler, “Social Security Reform” (October 2002).
The National Commission on Social Security Reform (informally known as the “Greenspan Commission” after its chairman) was appointed by the Congress and President Ronald Reagan in 1981 in response to a short-term financing crisis that Social Security faced at that time. Estimates were that the OASI Trust Fund would run out of money possibly as early as August 1983. Congress rendered a compromise that extended the retirement age from 65 to 67, through a deal that raised payroll taxes and trimmed benefits enough to keep Social Security solvent. See Jackie Calmes, “Political Memo: The Bipartisan Panel: Did It Really Work?” New York Times, January 18, 2010. However, the legislation addressed only the immediate problem and did not address the long-term viability of the fund. See also Rudolph G. Penner, “The Greenspan Commission and the Social Security Reforms of 1983,” in Triumphs and Tragedies of the Modern Presidency, David Abshire, Editor. Washington: Center for the Study of the Presidency, pp. 129–31.
The George W. Bush administration commission deliberated on the issue and then called for a transition to a combination of a government-funded program and personal accounts (“individual” or “private accounts”) through partial privatization of the system.
President Barack Obama reportedly strongly opposes privatization or raising the retirement age but supports raising the cap on the payroll tax ($106,800 in 2009) to help fund the program. He has appointed a National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which is to report and offer another fix.
Current estimates predict that payroll taxes will only cover 78% of the scheduled payout amounts after 2037. This declines to 75% by 2084. 2010 OASDI Trust- ees Report, Figure II.D2, www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/ trTOC.html.
Although the congressional plan was to ensure solvency through Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax, there is a private means to help: to also consider the humanitarian and charitable nature of the Social Security Administration (SSA), which has been possible since a legislative fix in 1972. Before then, bequests naming Social Security or a trust fund as a beneficiary could not be accepted, which caused problems in administration of some estates. Money gifts or bequests may be accepted for deposit by the managing trustee of the OASI and DI funds. Section 170(c)(l) of the Internal Revenue Code lists the U.S. government among the educational or charitable organizations to which donations are acceptable. Gifts must be unconditional, except that the donor may designate to which fund the gift should be donated. If no fund is designated, the gift is credited to the OASI Trust Fund.
However, SSA has not publicized its charitable persona. Although the agency has received some gifts and bequests, they have been insignificant and not given consideration in a possible fix. The concept has been so unimportant to the experts that the Annual Statistical Supplement to the Social Security Bulletin does not specify how much the administration has received in gifts and bequests. Total revenue from gifts to the trust funds has been quite small. From 1974 to 1979 the most received in any one year was $91,949.88. During that period, the average annual amount was only $39,847. In 1980, almost two-thirds of the gifts were less than $100. The median gift size was $50. One person, for example, donated $13.11. She arrived at that amount by applying 5.85% (the employee tax rate then in effect) to her benefit amount and donated it to help “‘shore up’ the sagging, dwindling Social Security fund.” However, the 2010 Social Security Trustees Report lists them as about $98,000 (www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/III_ cyoper.html#2). Compared to many other charities, this is a paltry amount.
Apparently, SSA has never done a feasibility study nor marketing research to determine how an aggressive campaign could raise funds to support Social Security, or how gifts and bequests could reduce the current estimates of impending doom. According to some estimates total deductions taken for all charities next year would be $413.5 billion. Estimates for fiscal year 2011 are that SSA will spend $730 billion. That amount is already covered through “contributions” (taxes), but it is reasonable that charitable contributions to the trust fund could significantly lessen taxpayer exposure for impending doom, if not return the fund to solvency.
As lawyers, we have the capacity to remind our families, our clients, and the public at large that there is a way to contribute to help endow future generations in the pursuit of the same kind of social stability that Social Security provided to our parents and grandparents.
Daniel F. Solomon is an administrative law judge at the U.S. Department of Labor, member of the ABA House of Delegates, past chair of the National Conference of Administrative Judiciary, Judicial Division, president of the Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference, and author of Breaking Up with Cuba (McFarland, 2011). All opinions expressed are those of the author and not any organization or group.
Raise the cap. They currently are aggressively raising the cap.
Why not charge a Trustifarian tax that pays money into the SS trust fund?
My daughter dated a man who was almost 40 and lived off of his uncle's inheritance. He delivers pizza's part time because he said "it was fun."
In "The Man in the High Castle" they call these people "worthless eaters." They suck resources from society and do nothing. Look at the list of billionaires who pay an average of 8.5% in Federal Taxes, and see how many are "trustifarians."
I don't know the answer, but they are parasites on society and should be required to pay into SS.
We must protect Social Security and Medicare as well as all of the programs that allow everyone to prosper. HCR, great summary.
Bill, don’t forget that Project 2025 attack Medicare by defaulting to Medicare Advantage. If a person doesn’t sign up to start with a Medicare Supplement policy, they will never be able to get the best rate. This is a gift to the health insurance lobby—they can charge whatever they want to seniors. I just heard of another Medicare Advantage policyholder who had needed medical treatment denied; her case manager stated that her Medicare Advantage insurer “denies every physical therapy” that would be approved by regular Medicare.
Don’t we all know people who’d be seriously affected by cuts to Medicare and Social Security? Here are some quick and easy talking points by Robert Reich for us to help spread the word:
"Project 2025 includes Medicaid caps that would jeopardize coverage for 18.5 million people.
It also proposes privatizing Medicare and ending the govt's ability to negotiate lower Rx costs."
https://www.threads.net/@rbreich/post/C-DaALnIE9B?xmt=AQGzDfxVmRapASEYG47jeHzNayWj61emSazW8mxQLWddsQ
Privatization is the beginning and end of all Republican ideas. Nothing pisses me off more. Slurp, slurp, slurp, and what they are slurping is the result of the “lessers” working.
And bills without COLA's included as well. For example, when H-1Bs were established to allow cheap offshore technicians to work in the US, they put a cap on their income at $60K/year. At the time that was around the average salary for programmers in the US. Companies were panicking as you recall, about Y2K because to save precious storage we had omitted the 2 position century from most dates. For a programmer, it was basically grunt work to identify, expand the dates, fix a reusable date calculations, compile the programs, test and verify results and implement.
Anyway, by 1995, $60K per year was a joke because demand for programmers had shot up and the supply hadn't kept up. And here we are 35 years later with the $60K cap in place. With a COLA that amount would likely be close to what the average programmer makes today.
I have worked with hundreds of Indians, most of whom I have the utmost respect, that come to the US and share living quarters with 2 to 4 others. And the companies they work for treat them badly and take back part of their salaries as housing fees or other expenses.
And, of course this hurts the American programmers and engineers by keeping supply high and therefore salaries are kept low. And now that it's so easy to hire off shore programmers, they are paid around 20-25% of what they would make if they relocated to the US.
I remember Y2K, Ha. The system is rigged, is it not.
Yes, the large financial services firms like GE Capital first brought in a few Indians to do Y2K and the projects went well because it was cookbook programming. Very little analysis needed. So several companies concluded that programmers are widgets so they fired their programmers and brought in Indians for half the price. It was a disaster for many companies as few Indian programmers understood the insurance applications or how to modify them for new sophisticated products like Variable Universal Life and Variable Annuities.
GE Capital went all in and total turned their IT areas over to Indian consulting firms. It was a total disaster. Within 2 years their wasn't an Indian programmer working on an GE Capital system.
A few other companies had similar experiences but only replaced a portion of their IT staffs.
Without the greedy management and Y2K and Congress messing up the H-1B Visa immigration bill, it's likely there would be more well paid American programmers.
Greed rules the fools. Had no idea of what that sausage-making looked like. Has anybody documented that mess for training what not to do, or has it just been the cost of mismanagement sort of buried and charged off and passed on. The results of that snafu have resonated through the industry for decades and affected those not even born then, seems to me. Guess those ripples are like gravitational waves, traveling to infinity…
JD - I glossed over most of it.
As an American programmer we were expected to work with and train the Indians. At that time, there was a huge language and cultural barrier. The Indian technical schools taught their students technical skills but when they came to the US they were unable to communicate in English. Many of the programmers I worked with only spoke Hindi and very broken English. (Of course I can't speak a word of Hindi to this day). And they lived and associated only with other Indians so they never assimilated into the American business culture.
But, by the time Y2K happened the Indian consulting firms understood that their programmers needed to fit in and we understood that they were making an effort and are actually very kind people and for the most part easy to work with.
I have worked with over 300 Indian programmers both on-shore and off-shore, and like American programmers, some are better than others. But, they have ALWAYS treated me and my colleagues with respect and kindness.
One last story - I was contracted for a project in South Dakota as part of a team of 30 programmers, analysts and business analysts. I was the only one not born in India. My cubicle was next to a "kid" who was under 30. We joked around and had the same bizarre programmer sense of humor that almost all programmers share. Anyway, I asked him if he could teach me some Hindi. He patiently tried for about an hour. During that time we laughed at least half the time. He may have been an excellent teacher, but I know that as a student, "I sucked."
You know of what you speak. Being in the trenches gives a unique prospective. Has anybody written the taleof Y2K. Anybody who actually knows it intimately??
That's a good question. I've never seen it.
I've worked with Indians, Russians, Brits, Irish, Mexican, Chinese programmers and analysts. Not to speak ill of any particular race, but Indians for the most part are very good programmers, but not great analysts. If you're lucky you develop a comraderie within a team. You spend more hours with them when you are onsite than with your family so you almost can't help it. You depend on them to do their job otherwise everyone on the team looks bad. And so, you need to pick up the slack so to speak by helping them with the problem solving part of the job or the specs.
When I was in Sioux Falls, SD with the team of 30, I was onsite for 5 weeks and then remote for 2 1/2 years. I was 30-40 years older than most of them and they treated me with the utmost respect. I'm not sure if it was cultural or what, but when I left after the first 5 weeks,they threw a huge going away party for me.
Y2K changed the world in so many ways and that's just what I can see from my little universe.
If I don’t continue to get Social Security in the future, I will be homeless because what I make and Social Security does not cover housing food insurance. The very basic needs and I worked my whole life.
If I don’t continue to get social security
Loopholes are the means by which they win, we lose. Always.
Mary, I appreciate your pointing this out. Many here in FL think that Medicare Advantage is part of Medicare. I have wondered how in the world Medicare Advantage was allowed to use the term Medicare in their title. Seems to me it would be illegal, to fraudulently imply that they are something they are not. Many seniors have been fooled by this false advertising and think that it's Medicare that is not giving them the benefits they expected! My own supplemental policy (Anthem BCBS) gave me the option of switching over to Medicare Advantage, claiming the cost might be to my advantage. But, as I usually do, I read the small print and declined.
Carol, this is very interesting to me because I am paying $147 per month for AARP's United Healthcare insurance to supplement my Medicare. I have believed it necessary in order to cover my psychiatric and chronic pain management, which was only slightly covered by Medicare. Since Covid, 95 percent of my care is virtual and I only physically see my primary care once a year. Have I been paying that $147 unnecessarily for the last decade?
Paula, all supplemental plans cost money. Your plan sounds very reasonable to me. Since Medicare only pays a portion of our medical bills, it is helpful to have a supplemental plan that covers the remainder. It's just that Medicare Advantage, which often has lower fees than other supplemental plans, has many restrictions, such as which providers one can use. My point was that many people inadvertently sign up for it assuming it is part of Medicare. It is a private insurance plan and not part of our Medicare from the government. Here is a useful site that breaks it all down:
https://www.healthline.com/health/medicare/what-is-better-medicare-or-medicare-advantage#enrolling
Thank you!
Technically, I suppose it is funded out of Medicare money. But it is such a ripoff.
Jen, it is a privately funded insurance and not funded by Medicare at all. Hope this helps to explain it:
https://www.healthline.com/health/medicare/what-is-better-medicare-or-medicare-advantage#enrolling
"... not funded by Medicare. " not exactly true. If you choose a Medicare advantage plan, much of the premium you would have to pay is covered out of the same Medicare funds that would pay for Medicare parts a and b. If the actual premium is higher than what the plan you choose costs. You have to pay the extra out of your own pocket. That is why Medicare advantage plans can cost anywhere from $0 to hundreds of dollars a month. It all depends on the plan and its benefits. But the base coat of all Medicare advantage plans are covered by the same dollars that would be used to support your use of Medicare parts a and b.
“ACO REACH uses similar tactics to those found in Medicare Advantage to profit from Medicare by overcharging Medicare, financially incentivizing providers to control healthcare costs for beneficiaries, and increasing the number of beneficiaries in their plans. But while some seniors “choose” to participate in Medicare Advantage, seniors and people with disabilities are auto-enrolled into an ACO REACH through their primary care physicians (PCPs). Thus, it is physicians and physician practices which are being lured into or forced to join the ACO REACH (Many physician practices are being swooped up by private equity or created whole-cloth). Physician practices, or their controllers, are enticed by the “shared savings” they will collect if they save money on their patients, shredding the trust between doctors and patients.”
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/aco-reach-medicare-privatization
I have an advantage plan. I loved it at first but it's getting scary. I can't go back to a supplement plan because of a preexisting condition. There ought to be a law!!! I am voting Blue this November. But then again, I almost always have.
😡😡😡😡😡
Social Security is one of my hot buttons on so many levels. Had the SS funds been kept separate from the General fund and used only for the purposes defined in the original bill, and the money invested in US Government T-Bills or similar bonds the fund would be solvent for many years past the 2035 date. I annuitized my wife's and my contributions at 3% assuming payouts starting in 2024. There would be almost $3 million in the fund with the continuing interest at 3% being sufficient to pay our monthly SS draw -- forever.
Of course we cannot predict how long any of us will draw SS but rich Republicans like Senator Rick Scott of FL who defrauded SS and Medicare out of hundreds of millions of dollars want to take away the only money that millions of the 70 million SS recipients receive.
None of us had an option to NOT pay into SS just as we didn't have an option to pay our Federal Income Tax, but Republicans are dead set on reducing or eliminating SS payouts.
Unfortunately many for profit eldercare entities and even some hospitals have become extractive industries - extracting Social Security and Medicare dollars in return for substandard care.
I think we need to teach children in school about how to manage, at least personal finances. I never learned anything about stocks or annuities or any of those financial tools, and I am the poorer for it.
Me too😬😩
Jen. Me too😩😬
You hit my hot buttons too, Gary. Ronald Reagan....ffs.
Gary Loft:
You describe perfectly how Social Security taxes are kept separate (the Social Security Old Age Trust Fund and the Social Security Disability Trust Fund) and invested only in U. S. Treasury securities.
The problem is that things change.
There are now (relatively) more old people drawing benefits and (relatively) fewer young people working and paying taxes than when current tax rates and benefit rates were established.
The first Social Security Trustees Report in 1941 said, "... the essential assurance of future financial soundness of the system, with its rising rate of disbursement, rests on a graduated increase in contribution rates or provision of income from other sources, or both."
Actually, the baby boomer generation is far larger than any other age group, and when payments to boomers peak in 2034, the slope of the ratio of contributions will return to normal levels.
Once upon a time, I made proposals to flatten the curve. From an ABA article December 01, 2011 FINANCIAL PLANNING
Social Security—Maybe Charity Should Begin at Home
By Daniel F. Solomon
Share:
For most of its history, Social Security was a terrific bargain: our parents and grandparents most probably received significantly more benefits than they paid into the Social Security Trust Fund. The trust fund comprises the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds (OASDI, collectively).
In most cases, because our family units could rely on these benefits, they were able to enjoy enough financial independence to send people like us to school so that we could become lawyers—productive and, in some cases, wealthy, members of society. For 75 years, the Social Security Trust Fund has helped enable American society to achieve far beyond the aspirations of its founders, ultimately providing more than subsistence to retirees by also protecting widows, orphans, and disabled people. The dignity provided to needy beneficiaries surely far outweighs the economic value of the funds.
However, financial experts have long predicted a future insolvency of the funds. A majority of Americans have invested in the funds, recognize their social utility, and do not want to burden their heirs. Although there have been legislative attempts to “fix” the system, there is no consensus how to do it. The Congressional Research Service reported:
For example, for workers who earned average wages and retired in 1980 at age 65, it took 2.8 years to recover the value of the retirement portion of the combined employee and employer shares of their Social Security taxes plus interest. For their counterparts who retired at age 65 in 2002, it will take 16.9 years. For those retiring in 2020, it will take 20.9 years.
Geoffrey Kollmann and Dawn Nuschler, “Social Security Reform” (October 2002).
The National Commission on Social Security Reform (informally known as the “Greenspan Commission” after its chairman) was appointed by the Congress and President Ronald Reagan in 1981 in response to a short-term financing crisis that Social Security faced at that time. Estimates were that the OASI Trust Fund would run out of money possibly as early as August 1983. Congress rendered a compromise that extended the retirement age from 65 to 67, through a deal that raised payroll taxes and trimmed benefits enough to keep Social Security solvent. See Jackie Calmes, “Political Memo: The Bipartisan Panel: Did It Really Work?” New York Times, January 18, 2010. However, the legislation addressed only the immediate problem and did not address the long-term viability of the fund. See also Rudolph G. Penner, “The Greenspan Commission and the Social Security Reforms of 1983,” in Triumphs and Tragedies of the Modern Presidency, David Abshire, Editor. Washington: Center for the Study of the Presidency, pp. 129–31.
The George W. Bush administration commission deliberated on the issue and then called for a transition to a combination of a government-funded program and personal accounts (“individual” or “private accounts”) through partial privatization of the system.
President Barack Obama reportedly strongly opposes privatization or raising the retirement age but supports raising the cap on the payroll tax ($106,800 in 2009) to help fund the program. He has appointed a National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which is to report and offer another fix.
Current estimates predict that payroll taxes will only cover 78% of the scheduled payout amounts after 2037. This declines to 75% by 2084. 2010 OASDI Trust- ees Report, Figure II.D2, www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/ trTOC.html.
Although the congressional plan was to ensure solvency through Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax, there is a private means to help: to also consider the humanitarian and charitable nature of the Social Security Administration (SSA), which has been possible since a legislative fix in 1972. Before then, bequests naming Social Security or a trust fund as a beneficiary could not be accepted, which caused problems in administration of some estates. Money gifts or bequests may be accepted for deposit by the managing trustee of the OASI and DI funds. Section 170(c)(l) of the Internal Revenue Code lists the U.S. government among the educational or charitable organizations to which donations are acceptable. Gifts must be unconditional, except that the donor may designate to which fund the gift should be donated. If no fund is designated, the gift is credited to the OASI Trust Fund.
However, SSA has not publicized its charitable persona. Although the agency has received some gifts and bequests, they have been insignificant and not given consideration in a possible fix. The concept has been so unimportant to the experts that the Annual Statistical Supplement to the Social Security Bulletin does not specify how much the administration has received in gifts and bequests. Total revenue from gifts to the trust funds has been quite small. From 1974 to 1979 the most received in any one year was $91,949.88. During that period, the average annual amount was only $39,847. In 1980, almost two-thirds of the gifts were less than $100. The median gift size was $50. One person, for example, donated $13.11. She arrived at that amount by applying 5.85% (the employee tax rate then in effect) to her benefit amount and donated it to help “‘shore up’ the sagging, dwindling Social Security fund.” However, the 2010 Social Security Trustees Report lists them as about $98,000 (www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/III_ cyoper.html#2). Compared to many other charities, this is a paltry amount.
Apparently, SSA has never done a feasibility study nor marketing research to determine how an aggressive campaign could raise funds to support Social Security, or how gifts and bequests could reduce the current estimates of impending doom. According to some estimates total deductions taken for all charities next year would be $413.5 billion. Estimates for fiscal year 2011 are that SSA will spend $730 billion. That amount is already covered through “contributions” (taxes), but it is reasonable that charitable contributions to the trust fund could significantly lessen taxpayer exposure for impending doom, if not return the fund to solvency.
As lawyers, we have the capacity to remind our families, our clients, and the public at large that there is a way to contribute to help endow future generations in the pursuit of the same kind of social stability that Social Security provided to our parents and grandparents.
Daniel F. Solomon is an administrative law judge at the U.S. Department of Labor, member of the ABA House of Delegates, past chair of the National Conference of Administrative Judiciary, Judicial Division, president of the Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference, and author of Breaking Up with Cuba (McFarland, 2011). All opinions expressed are those of the author and not any organization or group.
When things change , it's time to adjust.
Lift the cap.
Raise the cap. They currently are aggressively raising the cap.
Why not charge a Trustifarian tax that pays money into the SS trust fund?
My daughter dated a man who was almost 40 and lived off of his uncle's inheritance. He delivers pizza's part time because he said "it was fun."
In "The Man in the High Castle" they call these people "worthless eaters." They suck resources from society and do nothing. Look at the list of billionaires who pay an average of 8.5% in Federal Taxes, and see how many are "trustifarians."
I don't know the answer, but they are parasites on society and should be required to pay into SS.
Yes, on behalf of our loved ones...
https://jonathanbrownson.substack.com/p/social-security?r=gdp9j