Is social security sustainable?

(Leave political philosophy debates out of this, ie. "It doesn't matter, social security shouldn't never have been enacted")



I'm looking at the 2011 federal government budget charts on Wikipedia.


Expense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U...._-_FY_2011.png


Income:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._-_FY_2007.png



That means there was a difference of approximately $100 billion between SS expense and income last year, which one would think is a good thing! However, everyone's worried about social security wrecking the economy and federal debt in the future. I read this, also from Wikipedia:

Quote:

---

Because of the mandatory nature of the program and large accumulated surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund, the Social Security system has the legal authority to compel the government to borrow to pay all promised benefits through 2036, when the Trust Fund is expected to be exhausted. Thereafter, the program under current law will pay approximately 75%-78% of promised benefits for the remainder of the century.

---

So can anyone explain to me the economics behind how the social security system will go from being ahead in 2011 to far behind in 2036? I don't understand what factors are involved in this.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget

SS is long bankrupt. All the money you "contribute" is doled out long before you are old enough to collect. Not even good enough to be called a ponzi scheme.

h/t-Walter Williams.
http://lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams99.1.html
During the recent GOP presidential debate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry said that Social Security is a "monstrous lie" and a "Ponzi scheme." More and more people are coming to see that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, but is it a lie, as well? Let's look at it.
Here's what the 1936 government pamphlet on Social Security said: "After the first 3 years – that is to say, beginning in 1940 – you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. ... Beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. ... And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year." Here's Congress' lying promise: "That is the most you will ever pay."
Another lie in the Social Security pamphlet is: "Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you. ... The checks will come to you as a right." Therefore, Americans were sold on the belief that Social Security is like a retirement account and money placed in it is our property. The fact of the matter is you have no property right whatsoever to your Social Security "contributions."
You say, "Williams, you're wrong! We have a right to Social Security payments." In a U.S. Supreme Court case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the court held that Social Security is not an insurance program, saying, "The proceeds of both (employee and employer) taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way." In a later Supreme Court case, Flemming v. Nestor (1960), the court said, "To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands."
Belatedly, the Social Security Administration is trying to clean up its history of deception. Its website says, "Entitlement to Social Security benefits is not (a) contractual right," adding, "There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. ... Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law." That's the SSA's dishonesty. After all, it was the people in that administration who said, in their 1936 pamphlet, that "the checks will come to you as a right."
There's more deceit and dishonesty. In 1950, I was 14 years old and applied for a work permit for an after-school job. One of the requirements was to obtain a Social Security card. In bold letters on my Social Security card are the words "For Social Security Purposes – Not For Identification." According to the SSA's website, "this legend was removed as part of the design changes for the 18th version of the card, issued beginning in 1972." That's a shameless, unadulterated lie. Because we're idiots, we're asked to believe that the sole purpose for the removal of "Not For Identification" was for design purposes. The fact that our Social Security numbers were going to become a major identification tool had nothing to do with getting rid of the statement.
Aside from these lies, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. The major difference between Social Security and Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme is his was illegal. Three Nobel laureate economists have testified that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Dr. Paul Samuelson called it "the greatest Ponzi game ever contrived." Dr. Milton Friedman said it was "the biggest Ponzi scheme on earth." Dr. Paul Krugman predicted that "the Ponzi game will soon be over."
Three cheers to Gov. Rick Perry for having the guts to tell us that Social Security is a monstrous lie and a Ponzi scheme.

Legal authority to compel the government to borrow... from whom? The fact of the matter is borrowing = printing = devaluing = inflation. And Obamacare is about to kick that into overdrive. Yeah, my generation might get 80% in 40 years. But there's no way it'll be evenly matched to real inflation. It will at best be a small consolation prize to supplement a real income.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kuckfeynes

Legal authority to compel the government to borrow... from whom? The fact of the matter is borrowing = printing = devaluing = inflation. And Obamacare is about to kick that into overdrive. Yeah, my generation might get 80% in 40 years. But there's no way it'll be evenly matched to real inflation. It will at best be a small consolation prize to supplement a real income.

---

Truth. However, IMO, it's best to assume that the checks either won't come or will be worthless and have a backup plan. I personally plan to never retire (unless I am too crippled to work).

Define what social security ?

Is it possible to steal from one group and give to another, forever, sure.

In its current form, current promises, no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kuckfeynes

Legal authority to compel the government to borrow... from whom? The fact of the matter is borrowing = printing = devaluing = inflation. And Obamacare is about to kick that into overdrive. Yeah, my generation might get 80% in 40 years. But there's no way it'll be evenly matched to real inflation. It will at best be a small consolation prize to supplement a real income.

---

Very good point. Although what about people in the early years of SS who received far more than they paid into the program?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34

Truth. However, IMO, it's best to assume that the checks either won't come or will be worthless and have a backup plan. I personally plan to never retire (unless I am too crippled to work).

---

Oh yeah, that was my point. Best case scenario we get a very insignificant sum. Worst case, social security collapses because the dollar collapses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stupified

Very good point. Although what about people in the early years of SS who received far more than they paid into the program?

---

What about them? They win, we lose; their debt, our burden...

No the SS trust fund doesn't exist. We can't pay the 57T in commited benifits even if we run the printers 24/7/365. The game is up. Its just a matter of it being done slowly or swiftly. Swiftly will bring violence. I preffer peace

SS is never sustainable. It's why the age requirement keeps going up as well as the tax rate. The tax rate has gone up 600% since its inception. It use to be 1% each. It's now 6% each or a total of 12%. And it's still going bankrupt. Why? Because its a wealth stealing pyramid scheme.

No , it is not , the money is blown ea week. It is not there . Only thing there are promises.

There's a reason why they call the Baby boomers the baby boomers, and that's because they are a very large generation. When a very large generation supports a smaller generation, SS accumulates a surplus, but as the baby boomers retire, you're going to have a smaller generation supporting a larger one.

They can keep the thousands I have contributed already if I can be promised to not ever have to contribute this or any other similar fund in the future.