SS numbers - a question.

[FloridaPat]

If the baby boomers start retiring in 2006 at say age 62; and SS will go broke in 40 years - that would mean all the baby boomers would be over 100. Now I assume most will be dead by then. So if most are dead, how is there a crisis? What am I missing here????

[BlueEyedSon]

1. There are many reasons this is not a crisis.

There are a zillion threads on DU pointing to the accounting specifics.

"Bushco: governing by manufactured crises since 2001."

[bryant69]

2. Well they will be probably

But in 2018(I think) we need to start drawing on the social security trust fund because incomes will not equal required payments. So you will have a drain on the trust fund from 2018 to 2042 or 2052 at which point it will be empty, and they will have to cut bunefits (by 15 to 20 percent?).

That said, this problem can be solved without resorting to the total transformation / destruction that President Bush is proposing.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[LiberalEsto]

3. It's no crisis, it's a coverup

They looted the SS surplus to pay for the Iraq war.

This "reform" is just a flimflam to conceal the looting.

[Riding this Donkey]

4. It's another corporate welfare program

Just think about it. Companies have to pay a part of your social security. If you aren't paying into it, neither do they!

This is just another disgusting play to the wealthy corporations.

* is evil!

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[newyawker99]

7. Hi oneofusiswrong!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[underpants]

8. Different time, different plans, not comparable.

The WaPo article on Archer's plan states that he wanted to pay for the change and the initial costs from the budget surplus which of course no longer exists. Not comparable now. THIS IS AN EDIT FROM THE ORIGINAL POST.

The WSWS link shows five plans.

The 21st Century Retirement Act- calls for 2% diverted BUT raising retirement age to 70 in 2037 and cutting cost of living by .5%

The Moynihan-Kerrey plan, also calls for 2% diverted (1% EACH from each employEE and employER and raise the retirement age to 68 in 2023, and then to 70 in 2073.


The Kasich and Roth plans, call for individual retirement accounts by diverting a portion of the federal budget surplus (WHOOPS not there anymore; Kasich's plan would provide equal amounts to each worker, Roth's plan would make shares proportional to earnings, favoring those with higher incomes.

The other plans are not really in the realm of consideration. The point here is that, as far as we can tell, W's proposal calls for a pie-in-the-sky dream of diverting while not raising retirement age and not cutting benefits-basically funding it completely through incurring more debt. The comparisons to Clinton discussing privatization as opposed to W trying to implement it yesterday make it incomparable as well.

*-BTW no one knows what plan W will have proposed but I am willing to bet that it will be done at the last minute with almost no time to read, consider, and get citizens's feedback before voting.

[seabeyond]

6. i am at the other end of boomers, and i am not anywhere near 62

baby boomers is not a year span, it is a twenty year span. twenty years of boomers going into the system.

with that, it still is not in jeapordy until 2042. plenty of time for solution. i do know solution isnt giving ot people to invest. they arent doing it now, dont know why they will with retirement money. tis the stupidest of ideas. literally