Re SS: Do I have this right?

[July]

I've read several times that SS will be able to pay full benefits until 2042, by one assessment, or until 2052, by another (GAO? Congressional report?). After that, the trust fund will be exhausted and payroll contributions will support only partial benefits.

If all this is true, and if we start drawing SS benefits at age 62, people well below the age of 55 (today) would -- without any changes to the present SS system -- get at least several years of full benefits before the system can no longer pay the full amount. For example, someone who is 40 today will be 77 in 2042 and 87 in 2052, and therefore would get 15-25 years of full benefits under the current system. Even a 30-year-old would get a few years of full benefits (5-15). You have to go down to the 25-year-olds AND the earlier date to say that, under current projections, those workers would not get even a year of full benefits. With the later date, we're talking about today's 15-year-olds.

Yet Bush is saying that only the 55+ age group is guaranteed full benefits (even though many baby boomers under that age have been paying into the system for years and also saw a boost in payroll taxes for SS in the '80s, meant to avoid the need for reduced benefits).

Do I have the facts straight? And, if I do, why isn't anyone talking about this? If these numbers are right, something must be done either in a small degree each year between now and then or in a larger degree in 37-47 years.

Please weigh in, correct whatever I've got wrong, and so on.

[bearfan454]

1. You are correct.

bush is trying to scare the dummies into thinking it's going broke. It has been a repuke dream to end Social Security since FDR set up the New Deal. This is the first step needed to accomplish ending SS. Also his Wall Street buddies(crooks) will make billions off of maintenance fees for each persons account. The Stock Market is heading for one of the biggest corrections in our history. He can keep it propped up a little longer if SS money is put in.

[CindyDale]

2. Bush is also saying there is no Trust Fund, isn't he?

He says it is just IOUs, and at one point he implied the bonds are not secure. Yet the law says that there is a Trust Fund, and the government is absolutely obligated to honor the bonds.

Basically, it's all obfuscation so far as I can tell.

[Kansas Wyatt]

8. Bush has always claimed that there is no difference...

Between payroll taxes and income taxes too, which is a lie. Just so he can get out from under the IOUs and continue spending the Trust Fund as though they were derived from income taxes. He is trying to defraud the American people from their Trust Fund, just like a embezzling banker would loot your savings account.

[auburngrad82]

3. According to Paul Krugman

If the economy grows at the same rate that it has grown over the last 70 years (which includes the great depression) then there will never be a shortfall.

According to Bush's estimates, if SS is to run out by 2042 (or 2052) the economy needs to grow at about 1.8% which is pretty much a recession. If we're going to be in a recession then the stock market probably won't be the place you want your money.

[On the Road]

4. That's Correct, and the Picture Will be Even Better

unless the economy does very poorly. Those projections use an economic growth rate of somewhere around 2% per year. The long-term average is closer to three and a half percent. That's why the date of SS's anticipated collapse keeps getting pushed back.

[July]

5. Thanks to those replying. So, who's talking about this?

Other than Krugman, I mean.

I would love to see Dean and Congressional Democrats clarifying these issues for the average American who's already leaning against Bush's "plan" that hasn't been described yet.

[mcscajun]

6. Yes, you have the facts straight. People are talking about this.

Paul Krugman, for one.

You can read his columns (from the NY Times) here:

http://www.pkarchive.org/

He's done column after column about this since the first of the year.

[July]

7. I get the Times, and I'm glad he's staying on it.

But I wish someone in Congress were talking about this the way he does.