More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Henry Blodget

Henry Blodget

Posted: March 25, 2010 06:30 AM

Whoops, Social Security Just Went Bust

What's Your Reaction:

Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes this year, the first big milestone on the road to its eventual insolvency.

Thanks to a surge in benefits and a collapse in paychecks, this plunge into the red comes 6 years faster than the most recent CBO estimate predicted (It had been 2016).

The CBO has yet to update its estimate of the date at which the program will burn through its "surplus" and go completely bust (currently 2037), but given that the deficit arrived 6 years sooner than the estimate the CBO made only a year ago, we wouldn't be surprised to see a startling revision there, too.

This year's deficit won't hurt this year's benefits, because the $2.5 trillion surplus Social Security has accumulated since the 1980s has been lent back to the government in the form of Treasury bonds, which earn interest. And, this year, anyway, the interest payments will cover the revenue shortfall.

(Confused? You should be. Your tax dollars are paying for the interest on those Treasury bonds. So, effectively, you're already bailing out Social Security. Or your children are.).

Over the long haul, however, Social Security's financial health is headed in only one direction: Down. This will eventually force either a hike in taxes or a cut in benefits. And based on recent trends, that date may come a lot sooner than people think.

Here's an excellent graphic from the New York Times showing the difference between last year's CBO estimate and this year's. Mary Williams Walsh has a lot more background in the NYT.

See also: The 20 Cities That Have Completely Missed The Recovery

 

Follow Henry Blodget on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hblodget

 
 
  • Comments
  • 292
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
01:52 PM on 03/26/2010
I can't help but think how different things would have been had King George not have been crowned by the SCOTUS. Budget surpluses and no lives lost in useless wars. Universal healthcare, SS and Medicare well on their way to stability. We truly were robbed.
10:52 AM on 03/26/2010
For all of you comrades in here who are cheering “get the richâ€. Let me remind you that ‘W’s’ hated tax cuts will sunset this year. When they do, we go right back to 2000 tax rates. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong but I have seen no legislation coming out of Congress to only keep in place any of ‘W’s’ cuts so when they sunset 12.31.2010 its back to 2000.

In the year 2000 a married couple filing jointly with 75K taxable income paid $15,403.50 in FIT.

In 2010 that same couple with 75K taxable income paid $11,112.50. That is a difference of $4,291.00 or a tax cut of 28%.

Same couple with 250K taxable income in 2000 paid $73,628, in 2010 paid $60281.00.
A difference of $13,347.00 or a tax cut of 22%

If you really want to soak the so-called rich then apply SS taxes to unearned income and turn it into a welfare system instead of a retirement safety net. It would complete the transformation of this Nation into an Utopian Welfare State.

Please remember after all the big fish are fished out, they will come for you
lightnessandjoy
Is micro-bio a new disease?
10:15 AM on 03/26/2010
Whoops! No it didn't. And the sooner as we change the rules eliminating the salary cap for contributions and implementing means-testing for beneficiaries so the system is equitable the sooner we will be able to put an end to hearing this nonsense from the upper class.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nosybear
Liar, damned liar and statistician
09:54 AM on 03/26/2010
First talking point to debunk: Social Security is pay as you go, it will not go bust. It will reduce payouts to about 75% of promised level but it will not go broke based on current funding. Interesting question: One percent of Defense's budget will cover all earmarks with some left over. How many percent of Defense would bail out Social Security? If we eliminated the cap on wages, how much would that bring in for our old? And which party has the balls to take on Social Security funding? It won't be the "R"s.
09:42 AM on 03/26/2010
Say it isn't so! The Ponzi scheme is finally coming to an end. Oh wait, we can fix it by taxing our youngsters at a higher rate so the retirees can still enjoy a nice retirement, since they haven't been doing the prudent thing by saving for it. Or, we can take all the money from the rich people, so we can still enjoy a cushy retirement without having to pay for it ourselves. That way, the only rich people who will avoid having their money stolen will be the politicians (who'll probably exclude themselves from onerous taxes), and the ultra wealthy, who will bribe the politicians with campaign funds and the like to write loopholes for themselves into the law. Once again, our government will find a way to reward reckless behavior and punish the wise and prudent.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nosybear
Liar, damned liar and statistician
10:02 AM on 03/26/2010
There is a subtle difference between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme your name calling can't erase: A Ponzi scheme is a fraud because the nature of the scheme is hidden from the participants. And I don't know if you've checked the rates recently but Social Security isn't a "nice" requirement. It works out to about $2,700 per month at full retirement. And as to "reckless" behavior, the conventional wisdom on January 1st, 2008 was that it didn't matter if you were in debt, your home would continue to bail you out. The failure of that wisdom was a decline of 50% in value of the stock market for all but a very lucky few. What did that do to a lot of retirees, not to mention the companies that went bankrupt and took their pension funds with them? My advice to you, get your nose out of Hannity's talking points and work out a few facts for yourself, like what retirement really looks like in America. Social Security represents the only secure leg of retirement. It is reckless to believe the market will support you unless you have generational wealth, in which case, I support taxing you to penury.
lightnessandjoy
Is micro-bio a new disease?
10:10 AM on 03/26/2010
Scrooge lives!
GHarry
Kitty wrangler
09:23 AM on 03/26/2010
Minor upward tweaks of SS taxes would solve the problem quickly. The U.S. has ridiculously low taxation of the wealthy -- many of whom pay nothing at all, after accounting tricks -- compared to more civilized nations. Unfortunately, most of our media are paid to trumpet corporate propaganda that we are overtaxed, and most gullible voters believe it. Of course, without that gullibility the Republican Party would have ceased to exist long ago.
09:22 AM on 03/26/2010
The max has been at 106,800 for several years.
09:40 AM on 03/26/2010
2007 97500
2008 102000
2009 106800
2010 106800

Was 51300 in 1990
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NoMoFearNoMoHate
09:16 AM on 03/26/2010
Time to bring back the 91% tax rate!

SS is more important than war and the 91% was good enough for that - problem solved!
09:41 AM on 03/26/2010
Spoken like a true comrade!!!
08:57 AM on 03/26/2010
If you want the Gov't to fix SS the right way, put Congress back on the SS system.
It will be fixed within 2 weeks.
lastpost
see biography
08:06 AM on 03/26/2010
“Your tax dollarsâ€
What if we didn’t consider it as a tax Henry? But as a fine. A pecuniary punishment. Levied against this generation, for permitting the system to degenerate into the mess it has. Yes, we may leave our children with a debt. But maybe, just maybe, that burden can be compensated for by an incurred indebtedness to us. For sorting ourselves and the system out once and for all. By defining exactly what it is we are attempting to do as a species. Identifying what precisely it is that is impeding our efforts in expediting that task. And so delivering to all subsequent generations, a self-sufficient scheme through which to ensure their survival.
08:05 AM on 03/26/2010
What a huge misrepresentation .... social security is not busted, the SS trust fund has 2.5 trillion dollars in t-bills which is earning interest . That is not being broke . Yes , the tax payers are going to have to poney up the 2.5 trillion dollars because the government already spent the money . It is especially depressing because we taxpayers have already paid in the 2.5 trillion and now we have to pay it back due to irresponsible politicians . Can you say double taxation ?
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Stephen Herrington
12:23 AM on 03/26/2010
The Greenspan-Reagan plan enters the final phase. Pre-collecting funds from the boomers could have worked, but Reagan immediately applied those collections to tax breaks for the wealthy and ran up the debt on top of that. Now we have the choice of raising taxes to repay the Social Security Trust Fund or cutting the benefits of seniors who have already paid for them. The answer is practically and politically simple, raise taxes on those that most benefited from the Greenspan - Reagan swindle, the rich. The swindle now nears completion with the fear mongering by Republicans and their paid pundits. Cut Social Security benefits and Reagan will have realized his dream.

America can easily afford to raise taxes on the rich. And as it happens, it can't afford not to.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:58 AM on 03/26/2010
Well said.

Not to mention... Republicans consistently have their fingers in the Social Security pot and need to repay what they've taken from it. Problem solved.

Social Security was initially set up to help fund retirement for citizens, not to pay the government's bills. We pay into Social Security separately, as opposed to income tax. During his campaign John Kerry suggested that Social Security funds be removed from the general budget and that those funds be transferred to a "Lock Box"... We should take him up on the idea and otherwise demand that public funds previously removed for purposes other than retirement be returned.
08:55 AM on 03/26/2010
Bull, the Dems have had their hand in the SS pot also.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
glockman
07:41 AM on 03/26/2010
Never mind the fact that democrats have borrowed and looted from SS just as much as republicans...
keithdengenis
Thinking... It's Patriotic
12:18 AM on 03/26/2010
Right now, you MAX OUT on your Social Security contribution around $126K/annum.

Lift the contribution cap and charge the same rate for all income - not just the first $126K.

Problem solved.
03:46 PM on 03/26/2010
Bingo!

give the conservatives the Flat tax they say they want!
10:53 PM on 03/25/2010
There is nothing wrong with Social Security. MSMedia is making a false meme of SS fail.

Wall Street and their apologist in the Repub/Demo parties are both just licking their chops to get at all that fresh Bubble Making Money.

You never hear of the waste and fraud or the Increasing Pentagon Budget. Wonder why? (Hint: Wall Street )
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcaunter
Profile: schizoid, INTJ, IQ145
11:04 PM on 03/25/2010
Yeah. All those fiscal "conservatives" get real quiet when you suggest something like cutting 80% of the "defense" budget to cut the deficit. (By the way, with that 80% cut we'd still have the most powerful military in the world.)

They'd rather let old people starve in the gutter than force some war monger business executive into getting a real job. Great way to illustrate Republican "thinking".
11:44 PM on 03/25/2010
Agreed, this whole article is bs scare tactics, it's not bust, it's not near bust, the interest paid on the money borrowed from the ss fund is at a lower rate than had we gone to banks.

It's not SS fault for the borrowing, that would the republicans who drive the republic into debt.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcaunter
Profile: schizoid, INTJ, IQ145
10:14 PM on 03/25/2010
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer--that is an objective fact that none can dispute. That also means that less and less income is falling into the Social Security zone every years, while more and more income produced in America is rising above it.

So it's no wonder why Social Security is going broke. Take the cap off Social Security income, and the problem is solved--well, workers will still be broke, but at least they won't have to starve in the gutter during their retirement.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thiggins68
10:21 PM on 03/25/2010
Benefits are paid our based on what an individual pays in. If they rich pay in more then they will get more out. How will this help. Surely you aren't going to suggest that we ask them to pay more in but cap the benefits they receive?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcaunter
Profile: schizoid, INTJ, IQ145
10:51 PM on 03/25/2010
Yes that is exactly what I am saying. If I had my way, all people would get the same amount of Social Security benefits regardless of what they paid in. Social security is a fall back plan that protects people from destitution in their retirement, since most kids don't want to be/can't afford to be bothered with supporting doddering parents. It isn't a retirement plan where people are supposed to live out the last of their days in luxury on. That's what 401k accounts are for.
10:55 PM on 03/25/2010
Absolutely . social security should be means tested . There is no reason that millionaires should get social security , that is not what the system is for .
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:02 AM on 03/26/2010
For all that my social security check will amount to (at this point) I'm planning on requesting my returns in cat food directly.