Dedicated to Deposits: Deals, Data, and Discussion
Featured Savings Rates
Featured Accounts

Three Social Security Shockers From The CBO's Latest Report

Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 10:55 AM
On Tuesday, The Congressional Budget Office updated its annual projections on the health of Social Security and its Trust Funds. In essence, if you're still working and you're depending on that program to cover your retirement-- you'll be in for a shock. Or three.

3 Social Security Shockers From the CBO's Latest Report - DailyFinance
ShorebreakShorebreak2,603 posts since
Apr 6, 2010
Rep Points: 14,091
1. Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 12:36 PM
The only shock would be if the situation had improved since the last report.  The accelerating deterioration of the fund balances is alarming but not unexpected.   To bring things into balance, taxes will have to increase or expenses (benefits) and/or the number of eligible recipients limited in some way.   Of course, there's always firing up the presses to print more money but even that solution is wearing thin.
pearlbrownpearlbrown1,431 posts since
Nov 2, 2010
Rep Points: 6,248
2. Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 5:06 PM
Why we have a payroll tax cap of $113,700 this year is beyond me. Either do away completely with that artificial cap or increase it to 10 million or somtin'! This alone would take care of a nice chunk of the woes.
darkdreamer4udarkdreamer4u174 posts since
Jun 11, 2010
Rep Points: 632
3. Monday, February 11, 2013 - 4:48 AM
Darkdreamer, if you want to unilaterally kill whatever growth we are experiencing in this lame economy, go ahead and eliminate the earnings cap for SS. This would increase the tax rate by over 14 percentage points for entrepreneurs and sole proprietors. The federal tax rate would go from 40% to 54%. This would be a sure way to trigger a recession.
loulou541 posts since
Aug 3, 2010
Rep Points: 3,388
4. Monday, February 11, 2013 - 6:31 AM
So the poor rich people can't pay a 14% more in taxes?
darkdreamer4udarkdreamer4u174 posts since
Jun 11, 2010
Rep Points: 632