This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Social Security - 2012 Results

Bruce Krasting's picture





 

 

 

 

Social Security (SS) has released its estimates for the December data for benefits payed and taxes received. With this info, I can estimate the 2012 results that will be formally reported in five-months. It was a ho-hummer of a year for SS, it tread water vigorously, and ended up with a cash deficit of $46.7B, just a tad more red ink that 2011’s $45.6B. The pieces of the pie, and YoY comps:

 

Payroll tax receipts: $712.7B (+6.5%)

(Includes payment from Treasury Re the 2% tax cut)

Income from Tax on Benefits $27.1B (+15%) !!

(Means test)

 

Total Cash Receipts $739.8 (+7.0%)

 

 

Benefit Payments $780B (+6.9%)

(Includes RR interchange)

Overhead $6.7B (+4.7%)

 

Total cash Outlay $786B (6.8%)

 

Net cash flow loss $46.7B (+2.4%)

 

Interest income $111.4B (-1.7%)

(non-cash)

Accounting surplus $64.7B (-2.5%)

(Paper minus cash)

 

Number of Beneficiaries 56.8m (+2.5%)

 

Some thoughts on these results:

 

- The $46.7B annual cash deficit is the third in a row. The 2012 shortfall confirms it; SS will never see a cash flow surplus again. Every dollar of the cash shortfall MUST be funded by selling additional debt to the public.

 

I hope this is clear. I’ll repeat it. Social Security is adding to the debt held by the public. It is forcing the country to borrow more to fund current operations. When Senate Democrats, like Dick Durbin and Harry Reid say, “SS does not add a penny to our debt.”they are lying.

 

+++

- The Tax on Benefits is up to a meaningful $27.1b (+15%). The increase is the result of many newly retired folks who are getting SS, and also have other income (investments and pensions). This forces them to add the SS income into their tax base. THIS IS A “MEANS TEST”.

 

I emphasize this fact as there is very strong opposition to the concept of a means tax for SS by Democrats in Washington and the liberal press (Dean Baker). But it already exists!

 

Liberals don’t like means testing because it undermines the principals of SS. It makes it appear that SS is a form of welfare. The fear is that if SS is labeled as welfare, the popularity of the program would quickly wane. So the staunchest supporters of SS are avoiding a fix that could patch the finances for the worst reasons. They are supporting Roosevelt’s dreams, at the expense of the base they say they are trying to protect. Only in America….

 

The problem with the existing Tax on Benefits is that it does not cut deep enough to fill the bucket. I advocate that the tax bite for high-end seniors be increased. I will go further, and state that the means test for SS benefits should be based on assets, not just income that can be manipulated.

 

My strong feelings on means testing SS benefits are to my personal disadvantage; my SS benefits would be gone under my plan. I say this now, as I know there will be many who will throw rocks at me for my stance. I can already see the words, “I paid for it, the money is mine!” I say,"Sorry, this will come sooner or later."

 

My gripe is that the generation that is causing the problem, the Baby Boomers, is getting off scot-free. All of the proposals to tweak SS (Age and inflation adjustments) would phase in over twenty-years. With this, the bulk of the baby boomers would get a free ride. This doesn’t seem fair at all to me. Society, as a whole, will have to pay for the Boomers, but the Boomers should shoulder a higher percent of the cost. By no means should their political clout result in an unfair outcome. This is a political "Kick of the Can", "screw folks sometime in the future". A downright ugly plan at that.

 

 

 

+++

- In 2012 the Treasury paid SS $115B to offset the drop in income related to the 2% reduction in payroll taxes for the year. The operating results (including the Treasury contribution) still produced a cash flow deficit of $46.7B. In other words, the shortfall for 2012 added $162B to the borrowing requirements at Treasury. This borrowing resulted in a dollar-for-dollar increase in the Debt Owed to the Public.

 

+++

- There was an improvement (+6.5%) in the YoY payroll tax income. A portion of the better results are annual “Adjustments”. 2012 had positive adjustments to revenue from the prior year totaling $2.1B, while 2011 had negative adjustments of $8.6B. Taken together, the real rate of increase for revenues at SS is closer to 5.2%. This data can be used to create an estimate of total payroll income (Adjusted payroll income / Tax rate {12.4%} :

 

2011 estimated SS total payrolls = $5.658T

2012 estimated SS total payroll = $5.951T

YoY change = $293B (1.8%)

 

The ~$300B of increased pay seems like a very big number, but when you consider that inflation is running at about that same 1.8%, most folks are getting no place fast.

I draw this comparison to make a point about the huge numbers that are part of the economy. A $300B increase in worker's incomes doesn't move the needle at all. Amazing...

Note: This quickie numbers analysis does not reflect the cap of $106.5K on SS tax, nor other sources of income that is not taxed by SS. I don't think this skews the results/conclusions by much. Social Security has 155m in its pool, significantly larger than the Non-Farms Payroll (135m). These numbers cover a big slice of the American pie.

 

+++

- The YoY increase in Benefits of $50.1B (6.9%) is a reflection of A) A COLA increase of 3.6% and B) A net increase of 1.4m in the number of beneficiaries. The costs at SS rose at a pace that is far higher than the economy grew in 2012. Approximately 11,000 people enter the system every day. 7,000 current members of the club, well, they leave the system 24/7.

 

+++

- Interest income is down 2.5% in 2012. The decrease of $1.1B is modest, but also significant. The passage of time and ZIRP/QE, has caught up with SS’s investment portfolio. The interest income at SS for 2011 will prove to be the zenith; from now on, the interest income at SS will be in annual decline. This is an important milestone, a decidedly negative one at that.

The Federal Reserve has cheapened the cost of money at the expense of SS. One can argue the merits of this tradeoff, but what can’t be argued, is the consequence to SS. If the Ten-Year were at 4% (Versus the 6% long-term average) it would add $700B to SS interest income over the next (critical) ten-years.

If you listen to Bernanke, the other Fed Doves, guys like the WSJ’s Jon Hilsenrath, and all of the economists on TV, you would think that there is no consequence to the government of perpetual cheap money. Actually, what Bernanke is doing is dramatically shortening the day of reckoning for SS. The current thinking is the SS “go bust” date is 2033. But when SS releases its annual report in May, it will confirm that the date has been brought forward a few years, and the culprit is cheap money. I wish that someone other than the blog world would point these things out. Bernanke is no pal of SS, Very Important People, like Paul Krugman, love SS and also hail Bernanke's endless cheap money. I guess they don't see the conflict.

 

 

+++ (finally, sorry for running on)

- There was no crisis at SS in 2012, and there won’t be a real crisis for a number of years to come. The growing annual cash deficits are now “programmed” to happen. This gives Democrats the opportunity to say, “Hands off SS”. “It ain’t broke, so don’t try to fix it”.

My guess is that the Democrats will prevail on SS with regard to the current fiscal cliff debate. As a result, there will be no changes to SS. Should that be the outcome, in about five years the wheels will fall off the cart. By then, SS will be running cash deficits of at least $200B a year. It will be much harder to “fix” than today.

 

 

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 12/03/2012 - 15:36 | Link to Comment Bastiat
Bastiat's picture

You might ask too what did the sainted "great generation" do back in 80s to defend their monetary interests when the long term problems of SS could have been addressed much more easily? 

As for the electorate not being vigilant with respect to legislators looting--I don't remember being asked.  I voted the way I voted and I'm not into statistical collective guilt.  However this works out, or not, will be a matter of vested interests and political muscle.  Any outraged generational rhetoric is merely an effort to mobilize political muscle.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 17:35 | Link to Comment MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

That's nice and all, but telling everyone to eat their pudding isn't very helpful...  while past "contributions" might be vaporized, prospective ones aren't...  that's what we need to discuss.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 20:02 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

Nothing has been vaporized.  What are you on today, man?

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 20:15 | Link to Comment Bastiat
Bastiat's picture

I think he meant they were "Corzined" by Congress and the Treasury--although unlike JPM they at least thought it necessary to replace the Corzined funds with IOUs.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 20:28 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

Perjoritive IOU's in contrast to marketed Treasuries?

Fucking semantics, imo. 

When Lockheed submits an ordinary business claim for payment, it's even less than an IOU, in that taxonomy.  Yet who is mocking its legitimacy?

Something's fucked up in this.  It seems to be about nothing but base human attitudes. 

Some people really get their rocks off on saying "fuck you" to "parasites" they owe money to is how it looks to me. 

Tue, 12/04/2012 - 00:43 | Link to Comment Bastiat
Bastiat's picture

I hear you.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 23:56 | Link to Comment MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

At best, your argument is for a temporary valuation of the IOUs...  we all know that these IOUs will not be converted into hard assets to protect the public treasury...  ergo, it's specious at best to claim there is anything in the accounts other than vapor.  It's already been taken.  The only value given will be payouts between now and the final harvest.  I'll grant you that I expected it to come sooner, but I would hope everyone would accept that the IOUs are living on borrowed time.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 15:29 | Link to Comment Transformer
Transformer's picture

I agree.  Social security is not bankrupt.  Social Security is not running deficits.  Criminals stole the money.  It's a criminal case, not a social program gone bad.  It's so damn simple.  I don't know why you, Bruce, keep publishing this stuff. 

Now today, it doesn't matter anyway, as they just print the money.  They stole the money to begin with, and they replace it with countefeit when they have to pay some of it back.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 17:43 | Link to Comment MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Not being bankrupt and having someone steal all your assets are mutually exclusive...  Social security is bankrupt and assclowns rode off with the money (a car packed full of them).  I'll posit that the same thing happens to virtually every social program...  it's fund accounting 101 and it's simply the natural course of events when money and power collide...  the natural consequence of government.

I think it's also specious at best to proclaim the program as being viable when the only trial it had was decided to the contrary...  You cannot reasonably say that it is a successful program on paper and then ignore its exposure to the real world.

The simple fact is that any time someone else gets your money, he behaves as if he's spending or safeguarding someone else's money...  and it's gone. 

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 20:00 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

What don't you understand about this, MM?  SS BK is ridiculous. 

You know what bankrupt is, right?

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 23:52 | Link to Comment MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Yes, I do.  If my only assets are promises from an insolvent party, then I am bankrupt...  if there is no prospective creditor on earth large enough to bail me out, then it is the end of the line.

Tue, 12/04/2012 - 00:16 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

And you're saying it's happening/has happened.  Why are you so massively over-extending the facts in this way?

Wanting it doesn't make it so.  I just don't see that you've got anything more than that working here. 

Tue, 12/04/2012 - 11:10 | Link to Comment MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Do you deny that the balance sheet says U.S. government bonds (IOU) for the assets? 

Let's put it another way...  let's cut through the term bankruptcy (might be your sticking point) and let's discuss default, i.e. the result of bankruptcy.  Is it your argument that because the printing press can make payments to the trust fund for any obligations that default cannot occur?  If so, I'll posit that default has already occurred, albeit of a bit more stealthy robber (devaluation of the dollar and, thereby, less purchasing power).  Practically speaking, if default (partial or full; note: general creditors may take a partial or full haircut in bk, just depends on the situation...  bk doesn't necessarily mean there are no assets to be seized) is the end result of bankruptcy, then how are we not already there?  In other words, you don't need to get caught up in the terminology, it's largely a red herring practically speaking.

Here's the other issue...  on sacred cows and what not...  what power (might) do geriatrics wield?  Did we not laugh when iraq displayed hundreds of thousands of retirees as its standing army (stop or my mom will shoot)?  Why would we have any different response for american geriatrics?  It is for this reason that their money will be taken from them...  it already has.

And yes, all of this is happening before your eyes.  Politically and mathematically, the deal is already done.  That which cannot be sustained will not be.  I think it's specious at best to ignore the fire raging about the building and proclaim that it hasn't reached us yet...  I suppose in some hypertechnical sort of way, yes, but practically speaking the situation is a bit more imminent. 

Again, our counter party is insolvent, therefore, we are insolvent.  You can call it early or you can wait for toto to pull back the curtain, but that doesn't change the fact that things are going on right now (and have) from which to make the determination (note: insolvency typically occurs long before any sort of formal recognition/filing...).  In short, the cards have already been shuffled and the outcome is certain...  we're just waiting for it to play out.  [this is also my largest criticism of bruce, who seems to be naively optimistic in these regards].

PS, I don't want to make it insolvent...  I just don't want to be turned upside down to pay into a system that I'll never get the benefit of...  but I don't create the facts.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 16:30 | Link to Comment Bruce Krasting
Bruce Krasting's picture

What "stuff" am I printing. This was a report on the numbers from SS.

 

The conclusions are driving by the numbers, not political ideas or emotions.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 21:37 | Link to Comment goodrich4bk
goodrich4bk's picture

Bruce, I suggest you double check this conclusion of yours:

"Every dollar of the cash shortfall MUST be funded by selling additional debt to the public."

I suggest you do the following thought experiment.  Assume the government closes down all of its operations on January 1 but still collects taxes.  What must those taxes be used for?

Answer: Payment of all maturing treasury obligations, including the SS non-marketable securities.

If there is a shortfall between SS receipts and expenditures, the SS simply redeems a sufficient amount of its non-marketable treasuries (the so-called "bare cupboard" lockbock).  All these redemptions can be funded from general tax receipts.  Nothing needs to be borrowed.  This is because we presently collect in taxes many muliples of the billions we spend each year redeeming all treasuries, including SS treasuries.

Again, so you are very clear: there is in fact NO NEED TO BORROW the shortfall.

Now, to the extent the government does other things in any particular year, such as start a war, run the Department of Agriculture or pay Congressional salaries, we MAY certainly need to borrow to fund those expenditures.

Ergo, if we're going to identify what needs to be cut based upon what we need to borrow to pay for, SS isn't it.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 22:20 | Link to Comment Bruce Krasting
Bruce Krasting's picture

You start in the non-existing utopia where government closes down all operations (save SS), and then quickly conclude that all would be well and there would be no debt.

Sorry, we don't live in utopia. We live where deficits are going to be the result for the next ten-years (at a minimum)

So in the real world, every dime of the SS cash shortfalls will be funded by more debt to the public.

 

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 18:33 | Link to Comment Henry Hub
Henry Hub's picture

Hey Bruce, Pete Peterson just call to say good job. Keep up the good work. Your check is in the mail.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 21:15 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

Touche.  But in Bruce's defense, if he's a tool, he seems ambivalent.  Some would argue that his analyses of this issue are purposefully skewed in favor of the gross financial class, yet he does put them out there. 

In fact, he leaves more open room for debate than most people of his ken, imo.  His seeming perspective is not gruesomely out of step with his ZH audience.

Yet he provides a forum in which people really do debate.  In a common language.  Gotta love that about ZH! 

I have to give him some credit.

Not that you shouldn't cash that check, Bruce! 

Thanks for being reasonably open, though.  Seriously.   

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 22:32 | Link to Comment Bruce Krasting
Bruce Krasting's picture

Thanks for that. I've never heard a peep from Pete.

I keep saying the same thing. For 80% of those getting SS now, and in the future, it is necessary to keep this alive. We can't have a country where some seniors are eating cat food because of broken promises.

SS is insurance. If you lived and worked but did not amass wealth you deserve the benefits that are now scheduled. You payed for the insurance, and now you have the circumstances that justify receiving it. But the insurance works both ways. If you worked and did amass wealth then you don't get it.

Question: Should Donald Trump get 24,000 a year from SS? Hopefully everyone can say, "No" to that.

Now comes the hard part, When do you say "no" on the low side of wealth. Is $10mm still easy to answer? How about $5m or $2m.

I think the answer is wealth of over $1m and no SS. Something like that would insure that the 80% who need it, aren't eating cat food.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 22:57 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

Distinctions have to be made.  The system can't retain popular legitimacy without popularly reasonable compromise. 

Not eating cat food seems to be on the right side of the "reasonable" line. 

Tue, 12/04/2012 - 00:05 | Link to Comment MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Kind of, but I think we're forgetting why the social safety net exists...  it has nothing to do with good will towards man and that warm thing that beats in our chests...  it has everything to do with creating generational dependents and ensuring that the plebs don't break stuff when they get angry at their situation.  In other words, what the fuck are nana and grandpappy gonna do about it?  Chase us with their hoverrounds?  Sick Lee Majors on us to paper over us with reverse mortgages? 

Bruce used the term "deserve" earlier...  that's a really, really dangerous term.  In this case, deserve is predicated upon a zero sum game and taking that wealth from others.  We might say that uncle sugar can just print its funding shortfalls and not tax anyone, but then we would be forgetting why taxation exists...

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 21:47 | Link to Comment Henry Hub
Henry Hub's picture

Kumbaya Bob, kumbaya! A very reasonable, balanced response. You should be a politician. I mean that in the good sense.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 14:53 | Link to Comment Big Ben
Big Ben's picture

My gripe is that the generation that is causing the problem, the Baby Boomers, is getting off scot-free.

The Baby Boomers are not getting a free ride. On average, they will receive less from SS than they paid in. If you consider real earnings, someone making a median income of $50K/year would have paid in about $5K/year (counting employer contributions) for say 40 years, or $200K. If those contributions were simply paid back without any interest, that works out to $20K/year for 10 years of retirement. But the payout for the average boomer will be less than $20K/year. So the boomers are getting screwed!

The real culprits are the pre-boomer recipients who are currently receiving more than they paid in.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 15:09 | Link to Comment OpenThePodBayDoorHAL
OpenThePodBayDoorHAL's picture

I'm a classic Boomer (56 yrs old), paid in all my life (until I moved to Australia,where they have a REAL pension system), and I don't expect to receive a dime. How's am I freeloading again?

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 16:36 | Link to Comment Bruce Krasting
Bruce Krasting's picture

At age 62 you will be eligible for SS. You also must have a total of 10-years in the US working and paying into the system. Unless things change significantly, you should get about $1,200 a month. SS will not go broke in this time span.

SS will transfer the money to your account in Australia, but you might be subject to some of the taxes I'm talking about. So watch out for the IRS, and enjoy life down under.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 15:36 | Link to Comment Transformer
Transformer's picture

"My gripe is that the generation that is causing the problem, the Baby Boomers, is getting off scot-free."

This is total BS.  I paid way more into the system than I will ever get out of it, and that's just in nominal terms.  The money I paid in was worth way more in purchasing power, than what they pay out today.

Baby boomers are not the problem.  Criminals in Washington are the problem!!!  If you saved up $100K and someone broke into the bank where you money was stored, where it was protected by the largest police force in the land, is it your fault or the robber's fault.  Come on.  Wake Up!!

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 18:00 | Link to Comment metaforge
metaforge's picture

He's saying the BBs will get off scot-free from any adjustments.  Basically the later you are to the game, the more screwed you're going to be - works that way with any ponzi scheme doesn't it?

And they say humans don't eat their young.... psssh!

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 20:31 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

My impression is that all popular public voices of the BB, such as AARP, oppose fucking the younger folk too--as in making "reforms" apply only to those currently 55 and younger. 

If sociopaths in Washington, pushed by rich sociopaths elsewhere, happen to be BB themselves, but act against the majority of that generation in doing what they do by making tiered cuts, I don't think it's legit any longer to put the matter into generational warfare terms in that way. 

We should all start paying attention to that issue, I think.  To not attend to how it actually plays out is like blaming the common man for TARP just because it happened.  Some shit just gets rammed down our throats. 

All our throats.

Wed, 12/05/2012 - 13:26 | Link to Comment Clesthenes
Clesthenes's picture

Your article tells half the story.

There are two retirement systems: one for public employees; and one for private workers.

The first is known as Public Retirement Systems, which covers all government chair warmers (from school districts, to cities, counties, states and feds).  The second is Social Security.

The first is invested almost totally in income producing assets (stocks, bonds, real property et cetera).  The second is invested entirely in US Treasury securities, (the value of which depends on the Treasury's ability to collect taxes from following generations of Americans).

The first gives MONTHLY checks to retirees ranging from $4000 (for grunt bureaucrats) to $15,000 (for judges, department heads et cetera).  The second provides a monthly $1000 - $1200 to retired private workers.

The first spent their chair-warming days making life miserable for the second category of workers, who paid salaries and benefits of their tormentors.

These facts seem to beg for a balancing of the scale.

I deal more completely with all the above in my article, "A Tale of Two Bribes."

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 14:26 | Link to Comment QQQBall
QQQBall's picture

 

Your grammar teacher is gonna send you to the principal's office

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 15:06 | Link to Comment OpenThePodBayDoorHAL
OpenThePodBayDoorHAL's picture

Your grammar teacher is "going to" send you to the principal's office.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 13:46 | Link to Comment Augustus
Augustus's picture

Social Security has become more and more "means tested" as it has evolved.  Initial implementation had benefits much more in line with contributions.  During the 1960's the Democrats saw those surpluses rolling as a source of vote buying funding.  An example would be to declare a $50 monthly increase in benefits for all recipients.  Those at the low end of contributions and benefits would benefit proportionately more.  That style of adjustment went on for decades.  Finally it was somewhat stopped by agreeing on a COLA annual increase, but the damage had been done. 

It is "means tested" on the front end with those with higher incomes making much larger contributions.  Now those who made those higher contributions, and who also saved and invested to help the country prosper, will have their benefits reduced again.  First by some tax on additional earnings (now in place) and a proposed adjustment based upon net worth. 

Consider this:

When the mob takes control of the business and bust it out into bankruptcy, what consideration to they have for the future value of that business or employment for the workers?  NONE.   Plunder and pillage has never been a way to increased general welfare and it will not work any better for a country.  The people who are not paying now for all of this "stuff that everyone knows we must have" are not concerned about paying in the future either.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 13:22 | Link to Comment mrdenis
mrdenis's picture

Of course we will all be means tested ...how else are will the kneegrow be ablel to pay for all thoes food stamps

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 14:25 | Link to Comment Nehweh Gahnin
Nehweh Gahnin's picture

And for you to take those remedial English classes...

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 15:46 | Link to Comment TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

I keep telling people that Bruce Krastring is a closet big government groupy, but they are only slowly waking up.

Hey Bruce, did Mayor Wahhhberg and the rest of the VIP East Coasters get their 100 zillion taxpayer USD Sandy-MegaFuckopolous (a billionty times worse than Katrina, according to The Federal Reserve's meteorology division) Bernax/Jeetner dollars drop shipped on an exedited basis yet?

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 16:38 | Link to Comment Bruce Krasting
Bruce Krasting's picture

No, not yet. But Chucky Schumer is doing his best. This check will be written.

Sincerely,

Government Groupy

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 17:15 | Link to Comment TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

Chuck "Fuck Flyover USA" Schumer is on the case, you say?

Why so worried, friend?

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 13:14 | Link to Comment malek
malek's picture

Means test based on assets?

So you're advocating introducing an asset tax (on for example cash in the bank), plus the dozens of forms and sub-forms to "prove" such every year?
And surely such a tax for retired folks would never be widened onto the working population. Riiight.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 17:12 | Link to Comment Bruce Krasting
Bruce Krasting's picture

Yes, a tax that is based on assets is something that I think should be considered.

Think of it as an inheritance tax, but you have to pay it before you die.

 

Kidding aside, I do not like any income taxes. I favor consumption taxes. I don't want means tests, but we have to have means tests. Means tests on income will be distorted. The "means" has to be based on something other than Adjusted Income. If one has a net-worth of $2m, or more, no SS. Tough.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 13:08 | Link to Comment 10mm
10mm's picture

"Their coming for your social security money,your retirement money.Any you know what,they will get it all.So they can give it to thier greedy friends on Wall St".

 

George Carlin(RIP)

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 16:30 | Link to Comment Grinder74
Grinder74's picture

"They're" not "their".

BUCK FARACK.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 13:00 | Link to Comment roadhazard
roadhazard's picture

I started paying in when I was sixteen. So did my employers.  Was I happy about it, no but I am now. I paid in so your parents didn't have to support your grand parents so that you fucking whining slackers could have an education. The wheels may fall of but not because SS can not / could not sustain itself if left alone. For starters the Fed needs to pay back the $2.5 trillion it admits to ripping off from SS. Left alone and adjusted for increased longevity it could be a shining example to the world of how a nation takes care of itself.

fuck a bunch of whiners.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 20:03 | Link to Comment Freddie
Freddie's picture

LOL!  Oh well.  The f**ks who voted for hype and change are about to get mega doses of reality.   You must have more than someone else so it is not fair.  You are either greedy or a racist or both.  Some illegal alien or baby momma may not have shoes or an Caddilac Escalade and it is your fault.

The GM bond holders were evil and greedy and it was only fair that they got ripped off and the UAW got their money.  Bush sucked but at least their was some rule of law.  But the whole Bush/Clinton/Obama klan are the same criminals.   The last elections that were even close to an election was Reagan.

It is over - stick a fork in it.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 19:20 | Link to Comment Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

I paid for my own education.

Suck my balls, you are the economic equivalent of an old dude in a raincoat hanging around playgrounds offering candy to children so you can pick their pockets. You want to rationalize your theft by saying that because you got burnt others should too (and far worse than you did), screw that nonsense. Its pathetic that you have the nerve to call somebody else a whiner because they don't want you feeding off of them and refuse to admit that you paid a tiny percentage for most of your life compared to what you expect those behind you to fork over in order to maintain you in the style to which you would like to be accustomed.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 12:34 | Link to Comment SanOvaBeach
SanOvaBeach's picture

I got mine.  Young vs old.  The long arm of the Federal taxman grabs the $ from the twentysomethings working at Burger King and gives it to me.  Yeah!  Have a nice day!

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 12:26 | Link to Comment RagnarDanneskjold
RagnarDanneskjold's picture

Let's dig up FDR's corpse, put him on trial, and then hang him. 

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 12:21 | Link to Comment HoofHearted
HoofHearted's picture

Bruce, we need to tell the Dems exactly what is happening. Some of the fiscal debt is being put on the official books when we keep paying SS benefits. The people did earn them and ought to get them. And then we have the class warfare about what rates people should be taxed at, not just among the oldsters but at all ages...

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 11:58 | Link to Comment BanjoDoug
BanjoDoug's picture

I know SS is in trouble, and I know that I will probably get MEANS TESTED and lose benefits (or all of them).   NTL,  I have paid into the system since 1966, and I should be able to collect benefits.   I have paid in the max for 30 years, probably more than I’ll ever get in benefits (in equivalent dollars).  Just because the liberal democrats in congress for generations have turned this into a Ponzi  scheme, and abused the system does not nullify my right to a benefit.    If anyone had paid into a private insurance annuity and they came to the end of the line and decided to collect their benefits, who would object to their right to collect ?    The problem is not with the BabyBoomers starting to collect, it is with the politicians who abused this system.   Let’s make the politicians accountable (any means that seems fair – even if it means stripping them of ALL their wealth) for their abuse(s), and then see how we can honor the payees the best we can.

When my wife became disabled and she asked me if she should apply for disability benefits I said YES.   Last week we got a “MEANS TESTING” letter informing her that her benefits are being cut.

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 12:47 | Link to Comment holdingontomypants
holdingontomypants's picture

"When my wife became disabled and she asked me if she should apply for disability benefits I said YES.   Last week we got a “MEANS TESTING” letter informing her that her benefits are being cut."

Ahhh..you haven't figured out how to receive your wifes disability check. Here is what you need to do to keep it. Transfer all assets into your name. After asset transfer put yours into a trust. Go get a divorce.  Don't use a lawyer in your divorce..do it yourselves pro per. Wife will get her checks based on her own assets and income. Live happily ever after as the piece of paper proclaiming your love is just a tool used against you by the taxing authorities. Marriage today is a penalty tax.

 

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 16:48 | Link to Comment optimator
optimator's picture

Better yet, cash out of everything you own, money, property, everything.  Don't pay tax on anything you sell.  Then go to Mexico, sneak back into this country, dig up your money and start collecting disability, welfare, all that stuff.  then get a little part time job that will get you earned income from Uncle at the end of the year.  Just make sure you speak with a heavy accent when you apply for things.  Also, you won 't need any insurance on anything. 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!