4 ms·

"When a friend on the brink of retirement was planning to take Social Security before drawing money from his 401(k) plan, Kotlikoff persuaded him to reverse his

"When a friend on the brink of retirement was planning to take Social Security before drawing money from his 401(k) plan, Kotlikoff persuaded him to reverse his plan. " Advising someone to defer withdrawals so that they have a bigger benefit (unfunded and unable to be paid by a bankrupt government), means maybe he's not so convinced the US is bankrupt.

village-idiot 8y ago
Social Security is expected to go bankrupt by 2034. If you've got less than 16 years to live, betting on it is a good idea. More than that, it's a bad idea.
- mooreds 8y ago
  No bankrupt in 2034, just unable to meet 100% of current obligations: https://blog.ssa.gov/social-security-funded-until-2034-and-about-three-quarters-funded-for-the-long-term-many-options-to-address-the-long-term-shortfall/ https://blog.ssa.gov/social-security-funded-until-2034-and-a...
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    Right. Important distinction.
  - toast0 8y ago
    Isn't that the definition of bankruptcy though? A person, company, or government is unable to meet their current obligations, so they notify all their creditors and go to court to find an equitable solution.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      I think the point is that revenue streams are guaranteed for SS by law.
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        Laws can be changed, though. But changing it would take an act of Congress. Congress currently can't legislate its way out of a paper bag, let alone a crisis. And passing legislation that reduces money going to people who have been promised it... that's going to take courage to take the hit from voters, and that has been conspicuously lacking in Congress for a while. On the other hand, bankrupting SS would be worse. That might concentrate minds.
        geezerjay 8y ago
        > Laws can be changed, though. Being forced to move the goalpost and defraud creditors is hardly a sign that the US's insolvency is a non-issue.
    - rtkwe 8y ago
      > unable to meet their current obligations Things get tricky with governments where it's kind of trivial to raise more money by a) raising taxes, b) simply redefining your obligations (in the case of programs like SS or Medicare/Medicaid) or c) just making more money ex nihilo.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Isn't that the definition of bankruptcy though? No, it's the definition of insolvency, which may or may not least to bankruptcy. But, in any case, the Social Security Trust Funds can't be insolvent because they aren't real distinct entities, just accounting structures within the US government, which is not even remotely suspected of being unable to pay it's current obligations out of current revenues any time soon (nor is it anticipated to have much trouble continuing to secure financing for lavish discretionary spending on top of actual obligations.)
      - geezerjay 8y ago
        > No, it's the definition of insolvency, which may or may not least to bankruptcy. It seems that the only difference between insolvency and bakruptcy is that bakruptcy involves a court order stating how the insolvent debtor will meet its obligations, which is largely irrelevant in this discussion as it's largely semantics.

village-idiot 8y ago

Social Security is expected to go bankrupt by 2034. If you've got less than 16 years to live, betting on it is a good idea. More than that, it's a bad idea.

mooreds 8y ago
No bankrupt in 2034, just unable to meet 100% of current obligations: https://blog.ssa.gov/social-security-funded-until-2034-and-about-three-quarters-funded-for-the-long-term-many-options-to-address-the-long-term-shortfall/ https://blog.ssa.gov/social-security-funded-until-2034-and-a...
- village-idiot 8y ago
  Right. Important distinction.
- toast0 8y ago
  Isn't that the definition of bankruptcy though? A person, company, or government is unable to meet their current obligations, so they notify all their creditors and go to court to find an equitable solution.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    I think the point is that revenue streams are guaranteed for SS by law.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      Laws can be changed, though. But changing it would take an act of Congress. Congress currently can't legislate its way out of a paper bag, let alone a crisis. And passing legislation that reduces money going to people who have been promised it... that's going to take courage to take the hit from voters, and that has been conspicuously lacking in Congress for a while. On the other hand, bankrupting SS would be worse. That might concentrate minds.
      - geezerjay 8y ago
        > Laws can be changed, though. Being forced to move the goalpost and defraud creditors is hardly a sign that the US's insolvency is a non-issue.
  - rtkwe 8y ago
    > unable to meet their current obligations Things get tricky with governments where it's kind of trivial to raise more money by a) raising taxes, b) simply redefining your obligations (in the case of programs like SS or Medicare/Medicaid) or c) just making more money ex nihilo.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Isn't that the definition of bankruptcy though? No, it's the definition of insolvency, which may or may not least to bankruptcy. But, in any case, the Social Security Trust Funds can't be insolvent because they aren't real distinct entities, just accounting structures within the US government, which is not even remotely suspected of being unable to pay it's current obligations out of current revenues any time soon (nor is it anticipated to have much trouble continuing to secure financing for lavish discretionary spending on top of actual obligations.)
    - geezerjay 8y ago
      > No, it's the definition of insolvency, which may or may not least to bankruptcy. It seems that the only difference between insolvency and bakruptcy is that bakruptcy involves a court order stating how the insolvent debtor will meet its obligations, which is largely irrelevant in this discussion as it's largely semantics.