Liberal Forum

Understanding how SS benefits are calculated is an eye opener. Everyone's case is different but I will be paid back in 7.7 years. (Collected at 62). No wonder the program is seeing shortfalls.

Social Security Benefits Are Growing Too Fast | Cato at Liberty Blog https://share.google/9NGbUeBwYyQodyptg

Here’s an unpopular opinion: Social Security benefits are growing too fast. And this excessive benefit growth is one of the key reasons the program is unsustainable. 

We’ve all heard that entitlement programs are suffering under the weight of a demographic shift. The American population is aging and living longer, as fertility has declined. Fewer new workers as the share of the senior population increases means fewer taxpayers available to cover the cost of old-age benefits.

 This is true. And it’s also true that we could solve a lot of the entitlement spending problem, without cutting a single penny from current benefits, by slowing the growth in benefits.

 In the case of Social Security, benefits are growing much faster than inflation. This is by design. And the difference is sizeable. 

Prior to 1972, it took an Act of Congress to adjust Social Security benefits as they weren’t indexed to any economic measure. This meant that during periods of inflation the purchasing power of benefits would decline until Congress passed a benefit increase. Amendments in 1972 adopted the consumer price index for automatically adjusting current benefits for inflation.

By 1977, Congress adopted further amendments, this time determining that initial benefits would be indexed to wage growth. To this day, workers’ initial benefit levels are indexed to wage growth and ongoing benefits adjust with price growth.

 The chart below shows the growth in workers’ initial benefit amounts over a period of 25 years, adjusted for inflation (for comparison) and wage growth (which tends to grow faster than inflation).

Read more at link above.   
 

Fuelman » 14 Aug 2025, 4:12 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Aug 2025, 4:12 pm

Understanding how SS benefits are calculated is an eye opener. Everyone's case is different but I will be paid back in 7.7 years. (Collected at 62). No wonder the program is seeing shortfalls.

Social Security Benefits Are Growing Too Fast | Cato at Liberty Blog https://share.google/9NGbUeBwYyQodyptg

Here’s an unpopular opinion: Social Security benefits are growing too fast. And this excessive benefit growth is one of the key reasons the program is unsustainable. 

We’ve all heard that entitlement programs are suffering under the weight of a demographic shift. The American population is aging and living longer, as fertility has declined. Fewer new workers as the share of the senior population increases means fewer taxpayers available to cover the cost of old-age benefits.

 This is true. And it’s also true that we could solve a lot of the entitlement spending problem, without cutting a single penny from current benefits, by slowing the growth in benefits.

 In the case of Social Security, benefits are growing much faster than inflation. This is by design. And the difference is sizeable. 

Prior to 1972, it took an Act of Congress to adjust Social Security benefits as they weren’t indexed to any economic measure. This meant that during periods of inflation the purchasing power of benefits would decline until Congress passed a benefit increase. Amendments in 1972 adopted the consumer price index for automatically adjusting current benefits for inflation.

By 1977, Congress adopted further amendments, this time determining that initial benefits would be indexed to wage growth. To this day, workers’ initial benefit levels are indexed to wage growth and ongoing benefits adjust with price growth.

 The chart below shows the growth in workers’ initial benefit amounts over a period of 25 years, adjusted for inflation (for comparison) and wage growth (which tends to grow faster than inflation).

Read more at link above.

I clicked on the link - but only to find the fault in CATO's argument and **** on the OP.

I failed. Good article. It only had a perfectly legitimate agenda: to show how to save SS - not the hit piece I clicked expecting. 

I'm on board. Not a big fan of CATO. But I do like 'em better that Hurtige. They sold me. It's a no brainer. 
 
 

Fuelman » 14 Aug 2025, 4:12 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Aug 2025, 4:12 pm

Understanding how SS benefits are calculated is an eye opener. Everyone's case is different but I will be paid back in 7.7 years. (Collected at 62). No wonder the program is seeing shortfalls.

Social Security Benefits Are Growing Too Fast | Cato at Liberty Blog https://share.google/9NGbUeBwYyQodyptg

Here’s an unpopular opinion: Social Security benefits are growing too fast. And this excessive benefit growth is one of the key reasons the program is unsustainable. 

We’ve all heard that entitlement programs are suffering under the weight of a demographic shift. The American population is aging and living longer, as fertility has declined. Fewer new workers as the share of the senior population increases means fewer taxpayers available to cover the cost of old-age benefits.

 This is true. And it’s also true that we could solve a lot of the entitlement spending problem, without cutting a single penny from current benefits, by slowing the growth in benefits.

 In the case of Social Security, benefits are growing much faster than inflation. This is by design. And the difference is sizeable. 

Prior to 1972, it took an Act of Congress to adjust Social Security benefits as they weren’t indexed to any economic measure. This meant that during periods of inflation the purchasing power of benefits would decline until Congress passed a benefit increase. Amendments in 1972 adopted the consumer price index for automatically adjusting current benefits for inflation.

By 1977, Congress adopted further amendments, this time determining that initial benefits would be indexed to wage growth. To this day, workers’ initial benefit levels are indexed to wage growth and ongoing benefits adjust with price growth.

 The chart below shows the growth in workers’ initial benefit amounts over a period of 25 years, adjusted for inflation (for comparison) and wage growth (which tends to grow faster than inflation).

Read more at link above.

The funny bit

If our government kept their hands off of the SS money

and safely invested it

we wouldn’t have this problem 

you would have Americans that are “ENTITLED” to what they are promised 

do without because our government sucks?

”our government sucks” is not a good reason to let the “ENTITLED” people struggle 

while people who make the over $50,000,000 a year get a tax break 

why punch down at people with no money and no power 

just to serve the people with all the money, and all of the power?

I am so sick of saying that
 
 
 

Mrkelly » 14 Aug 2025, 5:28 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Aug 2025, 5:28 pm

The funny bit

If our government kept their hands off of the SS money

and safely invested it

we wouldn’t have this problem 

you would have Americans that are “ENTITLED” to what they are promised 

do without because our government sucks?

”our government sucks” is not a good reason to let the “ENTITLED” people struggle 

while people who make the over $50,000,000 a year get a tax break 

why punch down at people with no money and no power 

just to serve the people with all the money, and all of the power?

I am so sick of saying that

Agreed...once they made it a cash cow, it was game over...
 

Gen X, my generation, is statistically the smallest generation...and we still won't get ****. 

Vegas » 14 Aug 2025, 6:11 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Aug 2025, 6:11 pm

Gen X, my generation, is statistically the smallest generation...and we still won't get ****.

Horse apples.

I'm always giving you ****. 

SS is just fine if you get rid of the corruption and Dems stealing it.

Mrkelly » 14 Aug 2025, 5:28 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Aug 2025, 5:28 pm

...

why punch down at people with no money and no power 

just to serve the people with all the money, and all of the power?

I am so sick of saying that

In fairness, there are good reasons to punch down. It's safe and effective - like a patent medicine. 

You think I fight men? I don't, bro. But I will swing QUICK on a broad or a kid. I got no patience for people weaker than me - and all the patience in the world for anyone who might can kick my ***. 

People say that makes me a coward. Yeah - coward like a fox. 

PhiloBeddo » 14 Aug 2025, 6:43 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Aug 2025, 6:43 pm

SS is just fine if you get rid of the corruption and Dems stealing it.

Every post you make  phillo's the beddo with ****..

Please try to clean your sheets and keep up with the smarter people here.

Perhaps you can prove democratic votes alone used SS funds to balance the budget.?

 

Cannonpointer » 14 Aug 2025, 9:46 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Aug 2025, 9:46 pm

In fairness, there are good reasons to punch down. It's safe and effective - like a patent medicine. 

You think I fight men? I don't, bro. But I will swing QUICK on a broad or a kid. I got no patience for people weaker than me - and all the patience in the world for anyone who might can kick my ***. 

People say that makes me a coward. Yeah - coward like a fox.

Weak men makes things harder..   That's why Trump is screwing over everyday Americans.  

Everyone will remember when our  daiper filled up with shyt.

Fuelman » 14 Aug 2025, 4:12 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Aug 2025, 4:12 pm

Understanding how SS benefits are calculated is an eye opener. Everyone's case is different but I will be paid back in 7.7 years. (Collected at 62). No wonder the program is seeing shortfalls.

Social Security Benefits Are Growing Too Fast | Cato at Liberty Blog share.google/9NGbUeBwYyQodyptg

Here’s an unpopular opinion: Social Security benefits are growing too fast. And this excessive benefit growth is one of the key reasons the program is unsustainable. 

We’ve all heard that entitlement programs are suffering under the weight of a demographic shift. The American population is aging and living longer, as fertility has declined. Fewer new workers as the share of the senior population increases means fewer taxpayers available to cover the cost of old-age benefits.

 This is true. And it’s also true that we could solve a lot of the entitlement spending problem, without cutting a single penny from current benefits, by slowing the growth in benefits.

 In the case of Social Security, benefits are growing much faster than inflation. This is by design. And the difference is sizeable. 

Prior to 1972, it took an Act of Congress to adjust Social Security benefits as they weren’t indexed to any economic measure. This meant that during periods of inflation the purchasing power of benefits would decline until Congress passed a benefit increase. Amendments in 1972 adopted the consumer price index for automatically adjusting current benefits for inflation.

By 1977, Congress adopted further amendments, this time determining that initial benefits would be indexed to wage growth. To this day, workers’ initial benefit levels are indexed to wage growth and ongoing benefits adjust with price growth.

 The chart below shows the growth in workers’ initial benefit amounts over a period of 25 years, adjusted for inflation (for comparison) and wage growth (which tends to grow faster than inflation).

Read more at link above.

Ecnomics get complicated.  I  believe SS is unsustaianble myself. Onmy current trajectory, I will need it and realize it won't  be there.  I fully anticipate working to the grave and have skills I could adapt in a hospital bed and do work with my eyeballs like Hawkins or maybe get one of those magic Elon Musk Neural links.

But then throw in the equation that AI is able right now to do any engineer's job.

However we have lost several friends who died and  never received a dime of benefit.  I also have friends who have received years of payments on disability and never managed to get a worthy job and contribute to the pool.  

But it is not hard to grasp the dollars I started contributing in 1980 have not been invested and grown in anyway. But the not kkeeping up with inflation argument is questionable.  I expect by the time I get my first check (if ever) it will barely cover the price of a loaf of bread,

If I could get back what I put in a lump sum I might consider it even if it less than I would get gambling on me reeling in the years.  It is dissapointing to hear SS could be sunsetted and the governement (conservitives) would steal everything I contributed.

 
Fuelman, thanks for bringing worthy debate to this place full of shyt talkers.

All they really need to do is double the social security tax floor.

The current floor is artifically low when priced in todays dollars.

And yes actually invest the money not use social security to plug budget gaps and replaced with iou's.
 

Fuelman » 14 Aug 2025, 4:12 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Aug 2025, 4:12 pm

Understanding how SS benefits are calculated is an eye opener. Everyone's case is different but I will be paid back in 7.7 years. (Collected at 62). No wonder the program is seeing shortfalls.

 

When Social security is used to coverup misuse of funds by the elected people in charge embezzling genetic time away from ancestors limited to adapting in space daily here, it became planned obsolescence when FDR democrats started it. and when congress and senate began using it for children of poverty programs in the scam of for the children of tomorrow.

Social security is a trust fund and those entrusted to operate it, abused the faith in the system and the people believing life is more than adapting in space one at a time.

JohnnyYou » 15 Aug 2025, 2:16 am » wrote: ↑

15 Aug 2025, 2:16 am

Weak men makes things harder..   That's why Trump is screwing over everyday Americans.  

Everyone will remember when our  daiper filled up with shyt.

Jan 21, 2021?
 

A good video explaining wage indexing. People already collecting probably don't care but if you haven't signed up yet, this is good information and explains how SS comes up with the benefit amount.

The AWI (average wage index) is key and the number SS uses when you turn 60, not the year you retire.

I actually thought I was getting overpaid and dug a little deeper to see why. This indexing was why and your SS account online doesn't show this information.



Check out this video from this search, erin on money average wage social security https://share.google/oldglcfc3U5YZGrMa

Cannonpointer » 14 Aug 2025, 5:27 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Aug 2025, 5:27 pm

I clicked on the link - but only to find the fault in CATO's argument and **** on the OP.

I failed. Good article. It only had a perfectly legitimate agenda: to show how to save SS - not the hit piece I clicked expecting. 

I'm on board. Not a big fan of CATO. But I do like 'em better that Hurtige. They sold me. It's a no brainer.

Sounded like a reasonable answer, even if the fund wasn't raided it would probably still run into trouble.
 

Cannonpointer » 15 Aug 2025, 8:57 am » wrote: ↑

15 Aug 2025, 8:57 am

Jan 21, 2021?

I hear Russia has already claimed victory in Alaska

JohnnyYou » 15 Aug 2025, 2:30 am » wrote: ↑

15 Aug 2025, 2:30 am

Ecnomics get complicated.  I  believe SS is unsustaianble myself. Onmy current trajectory, I will need it and realize it won't  be there.  I fully anticipate working to the grave and have skills I could adapt in a hospital bed and do work with my eyeballs like Hawkins or maybe get one of those magic Elon Musk Neural links.

But then throw in the equation that AI is able right now to do any engineer's job.

However we have lost several friends who died and  never received a dime of benefit.  I also have friends who have received years of payments on disability and never managed to get a worthy job and contribute to the pool.  

But it is not hard to grasp the dollars I started contributing in 1980 have not been invested and grown in anyway. But the not kkeeping up with inflation argument is questionable.  I expect by the time I get my first check (if ever) it will barely cover the price of a loaf of bread,

If I could get back what I put in a lump sum I might consider it even if it less than I would get gambling on me reeling in the years.  It is dissapointing to hear SS could be sunsetted and the governement (conservitives) would steal everything I contributed.

Fuelman, thanks for bringing worthy debate to this place full of shyt talkers.

It's going to be there for you, figuring out how to keep it sustainable is the problem.

There is no investing in this program, you pay your payroll taxes on Friday and it goes out the government entitlement door on Monday.

My Welfare check is $2102 a month collecting at 62. Will have to start the Medicare premium next year. It covers the basics, property taxes, home insurance, utilities, cell phones, cable, car insurance and Top Ramen for the year.

It's not a retirement plan, it's Welfare. Designed purposely for lower income workers.

I don't have the answers but was a little shocked when the math shows I will be paid back in 7.7 years. I can't be the only one! The Wife turns 62 next year and made considerably more money. When she retires, there will be 3 SS checks coming into the household ( my Mom 86). That total will be pushing $75k a year. That's a pretty big burden on those still working for one household. 

Worked out great for us. Fair? I'm not so sure.
 

Fuelman » 15 Aug 2025, 11:07 am » wrote: ↑

15 Aug 2025, 11:07 am

Sounded like a reasonable answer, even if the fund wasn't raided it would probably still run into trouble.

I did not take anything like that from the CATO argument. 
 

JohnnyYou » 15 Aug 2025, 11:58 am » wrote: ↑

15 Aug 2025, 11:58 am

I hear Russia has already claimed victory in Alaska

And what does the gay community suppose the victory conditions of Russia to be, Harvey Milk?