3 ms·

i'm unfamiliar with social security what happens if a person can live to 200 yo? Will USA, starting from retirement age, pay till s/he dies? what if the perso

by hs 18y ago

i'm unfamiliar with social security what happens if a person can live to 200 yo? Will USA, starting from retirement age, pay till s/he dies? what if the person only lives to retirement+1 age? can descendant carry over the benefits? ot it just poof?

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
Everybody jump in and correct me if I'm wrong. Social Security was put forward as part of the New Deal in the 1930s. The idea was that truly old people would never be destitute. Once you reached a certain age, the federal government would send you a check each month. Sort of a "retirement package just for being a citizen" At the time it was enacted, the activation age was about a year more than average life expectancy, so it wasn't a huge promise. The checks would be paid for by the younger folks working. I believe at the time there was a ratio of workers-to-receivers of something like 45-to-1 Several things have happened in the last 75 years. People are living a lot longer. The benefits have been increased to cover people with profound disabilities, no matter what their age. Most critically, the boomer generation is coming through, taking the ratio somewhere south of 5-to-1. That means that five workers have to come up with the money to pay one person -- no matter how long they live. If life expectancy increases to 120 due to some new medical miracle, we're hosed. It's already common for people in their 90s to have receive benefits longer than they have worked. You might ask -- what about all that money that was put into the system when the ratio was high? Surely that has accrued interest and is more than able to pay these costs. Well -- we spent it. Seemed like a good idea at the time. The current phrase is "intergenerational promise" -- in other words, it wasn't your money, it was ours, and we promise to make these new young workers help you out. And no -- unlike something that would be your money, this is just for you, and just for as long as you live (there are exceptions for a surviving spouse, I believe) The current trick is to see how long we can keep from actually working on this problem while we invent even more wonderfully great, moral. feel-good ideas that some later generation can screw up.
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  That seems about right. My thoughts on the problem are that programs covering only the destitute are VASTLY cheaper than programs covering the whole population. I am hoping that by the time my generation retires with fat 401Ks, there will be the political will necessary to kill the burdens that FDR's legacy has placed on us.
- ars 18y ago
  >If life expectancy increases to 120 due to some new medical miracle, we're hosed. Not really. They would just increase the retirement age.
  - sutro 18y ago
    I don't think you get it. For us not to be hosed in this scenario, the retirement age would have to be increased now, not in 50 years when we realize that the boomers have all survived to age 120.
    - ars 18y ago
      Oh really? What new medical breakthough has resulted in all the boomers living to 120? Once you get the breakthough you can change things. It's not like there is a switch: if you were born before date X, you will live an extra 50 years - it's a continuum, it's very easy to tell average lifespan by looking at the other people who live right now (remember them?).
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    Like they increased the retirement age all the other times life expectancy increased? For this suggestion to be convincing to me, you need to add some new variable. We've already had massive increases in life expectancy on an insolvent system and nothing was done about it.

by hs 18y ago

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

Everybody jump in and correct me if I'm wrong. Social Security was put forward as part of the New Deal in the 1930s. The idea was that truly old people would never be destitute. Once you reached a certain age, the federal government would send you a check each month. Sort of a "retirement package just for being a citizen" At the time it was enacted, the activation age was about a year more than average life expectancy, so it wasn't a huge promise. The checks would be paid for by the younger folks working. I believe at the time there was a ratio of workers-to-receivers of something like 45-to-1 Several things have happened in the last 75 years. People are living a lot longer. The benefits have been increased to cover people with profound disabilities, no matter what their age. Most critically, the boomer generation is coming through, taking the ratio somewhere south of 5-to-1. That means that five workers have to come up with the money to pay one person -- no matter how long they live. If life expectancy increases to 120 due to some new medical miracle, we're hosed. It's already common for people in their 90s to have receive benefits longer than they have worked. You might ask -- what about all that money that was put into the system when the ratio was high? Surely that has accrued interest and is more than able to pay these costs. Well -- we spent it. Seemed like a good idea at the time. The current phrase is "intergenerational promise" -- in other words, it wasn't your money, it was ours, and we promise to make these new young workers help you out. And no -- unlike something that would be your money, this is just for you, and just for as long as you live (there are exceptions for a surviving spouse, I believe) The current trick is to see how long we can keep from actually working on this problem while we invent even more wonderfully great, moral. feel-good ideas that some later generation can screw up.

Prrometheus 18y ago
That seems about right. My thoughts on the problem are that programs covering only the destitute are VASTLY cheaper than programs covering the whole population. I am hoping that by the time my generation retires with fat 401Ks, there will be the political will necessary to kill the burdens that FDR's legacy has placed on us.
ars 18y ago
>If life expectancy increases to 120 due to some new medical miracle, we're hosed. Not really. They would just increase the retirement age.
- sutro 18y ago
  I don't think you get it. For us not to be hosed in this scenario, the retirement age would have to be increased now, not in 50 years when we realize that the boomers have all survived to age 120.
  - ars 18y ago
    Oh really? What new medical breakthough has resulted in all the boomers living to 120? Once you get the breakthough you can change things. It's not like there is a switch: if you were born before date X, you will live an extra 50 years - it's a continuum, it's very easy to tell average lifespan by looking at the other people who live right now (remember them?).
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  Like they increased the retirement age all the other times life expectancy increased? For this suggestion to be convincing to me, you need to add some new variable. We've already had massive increases in life expectancy on an insolvent system and nothing was done about it.