apnews.myway.com: Social Security strained by early retirements

[Thiebear]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090927/D9AVHRDG0.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - Big job losses and a spike in early retirement claims from laid-off seniors will force Social Security to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes the next two years, the first time that's happened since the 1980s.

The deficits - $10 billion in 2010 and $9 billion in 2011 - won't affect payments to retirees because Social Security has accumulated surpluses from previous years totaling $2.5 trillion. But they will add to the overall federal deficit.

Social Security is projected to start generating surpluses again in 2012 before permanently returning to deficits in 2016 unless Congress acts again to shore up the program. Without a new fix, the $2.5 trillion in Social Security's trust funds will be exhausted in 2037. Those funds have actually been spent over the years on other government programs. They are now represented by government bonds, or IOUs, that will have to be repaid as Social Security draws down its trust fund.

That 2.5trillion statement is Crap! 2.5 trillion we spent on other things... There is no Boom time to pay it back.

What was going to be a deficit in 2017 is now setup to fail at 2012+

[GhostofSparta]

I'm 24, and have no realistic hope of seeing the money I'm puting into SS being paid back to me. I was honestly quite mad when I first found out that money put into SS wasn't be put away (in some type of "lockbox" if you will ) but instead being sent into the general funds. That's some epic mismanagement.

[BurntToast]

Anybody under 45 will not see one cent from SS. Bernie Madoff has nothing on the biggest Ponzi scheme ever know as Social Security.

[Thiebear]

It is my understanding that 2.5 trillion dollars in IOU's should equal Jail time for those that did it?

[Mursilis]

It is my understanding that 2.5 trillion dollars in IOU's should equal Jail time for those that did it?

You only get jail time for breaking the law. Congress makes the law, so they're obviously not going to pass a law which may bite them in the rear later on down the road.

Here's a clue regarding SS, people - legally, it's a tax, just like your basic income tax, so of course it's getting spent right away. You don't own any of the money you've sent to Washington - the gov't owns it, and you can't really expect to get much or any of it back.

[Larry]

Wondering if this will actually work out to saving the government money in the long run.

People who retire early collect SS for more years, and they collect it sooner. But they also get paid less each year. (Their monthly checks are going to be smaller, for the rest of their lives.)

I assume that the smaller payments are designed to be relatively revenue neutral. That the smaller check, for more years, works out, on average, to the same amount of money in the long run. But I don't know

[Hubbs]

Congress' mismanagement of the "trust fund" is insultingly bad. It doesn't exist. Period. It's a figment of the government's imagination, and it means that our annual deficits are actually much, much bigger than reported.

[twa]

I assume that the smaller payments are designed to be relatively revenue neutral. That the smaller check, for more years, works out, on average, to the same amount of money in the long run. But I don't know

Only if we can get rid of them sooner...I hear they are working on that now;)

http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/farrell/2007/03/take_social_security_at_62_1.html

For instance, Hebeler recommends electing for early Social Security payments if you have health problems or can't work or have good reason to believe you won't make it past 80.

But for most couples that will live into their 80s, the numbers suggest that the higher income spouse wait until age 70 to get the maximum benefit, and the lower income spouse wait until 65-67, whichever is the full retirement age..

If only we knew when we were going to die...