There are currently 48 million people in the U.S. receiving Social Security payments. These payments represented 16.8 percent of the total U.S. budget in 2009, or $675 billion.
The United States Social Security system works by taking in worker payments and paying out benefits for the elderly and disabled if they qualify. Workers pay their share as a part of their payroll taxes. These funds are put into the Social Security Fund that holds treasury bonds. These treasury bonds totaled $2,331,247,228,000 at the end of 2008.
As workers retire, they are paid with the funds that current workers are paying into the system. The treasury bonds are available to Congress to fund government programs, so these funds serve as loans to the government that should be paid back with interest.
The worrying situation is that the Social Security Fund doesn’t hold any marketable assets to secure the contributions that workers have paid in. According to the Office of Management and Budget, there are some claims on the treasury that can’t be paid back without raising taxes, reducing benefits or otherwise borrowing from the public. The large size of the trust fund does not mean that the government has the ability to pay the benefits it owes.
The law was changed in 1983 to create a surplus in the Social Security fund by collecting more in payroll taxes than was needed. Even with this surplus, the Congressional Budget Office has projected that without a change of law, we will have to begin drawing on the interest on the trust fund in 2018. This interest will be exhausted in 2023, and then we will have to begin drawing on the surplus. In 2041 the fund will be exhausted.
There is an argument that increased worker productivity has allowed the Social Security system to continue running smoothly, and it will result in many new retirees. Though there is a decreased ratio of workers to retirees, Social Security still has a surplus. In 1965, there are 5+ workers for every retiree. Today, there are 3.3 workers for every retiree.
Before becoming president, Senator Obama proposed in a 2007 op-ed column to remove the cap on payroll tax. According to Obama, removing this cap would eliminate the Social Security shortfall. This would raise more than $1 trillion by taxing every worker, including workers with an income more than $97,000 at the same tax rate. Currently, those with larger incomes pay smaller percentages of payroll tax.
Another alternative proposed by George W. Bush in 2005 was to create personal accounts. This proposal would give workers the option to set aside some of their payroll taxes to be invested in stock and bond markets. However, with fewer payroll taxes going to the current retirees, taxes would have to be raised or benefits cut to make up the difference.
Related posts:
ugh…couldn’t finish this useful graphic because the white text on black just kills my eyes and my head. can you make a black text on white graphic of this? i’m certain it would be more appealing.
i say have an OPT OUT option for all who want to tell the goverment to F OFF. why put into it if you are not going to get anything out of it. Call it a “Water bucket with a BIG ASS HOLE
What a joke. Who’s idea was it to put government in charge of people’s retirement income?
[...] The Social Security Situa… [...]
ehh… really like it.
Good stuff! Very information.
1) White writing on black background is easier to read.
2) Social security was created to manage risk so you libertarian wall street f**ks can enjoy your lives, even when 15% of the country is jobless, forced into retirement, and suffering because you had enough cash on personal reserve to shoot the moon with everyone else’s savings. You made $1MM this year? Recognize it’s because you took risks that may not have affected you, but could have hurt others. Put a little extra in social security to help our country manage its risk.
Too bad the American people are not able to save/support themselves in retirement. Because they are all too stupid, the government has no choice but to create a system which requires people to ’save and get later’. Thanks for the summary of where we’re at.
“Who’s idea was it to put government in charge of people’s retirement income?”
Actually, the government is behind ALL retirement – when GM or GE fails, the GOVERNMENT pays the retirees. When a bank fails, the GOVERNMENT pays the account holders. And the stockholders. And the executives.
You get the idea. By the way, it was Roosevelt.
A great explanation for all those who thought that Social Security was a “lockbox” that kept what you put in for you latter on.
BTW – it was created by the same type of people who now want to run your health care!
So, right off the bat, GW says that it is NOT a trust fund. But, then the rest of the infographic continually refers to it as a trust fund.
If correct, the problem seems obvious. According to the infographic, under the present system, money is paid in. Money is then paid out to retirees.
But money is also paid out to the government for “loans” that are supposed to be paid back but, they never are. It would seem that the cessation of further “loans” combined with insistence that previous loans be repaid, combined with managing the money as a true trust fund, would result in a perfectly operational social security system.
If the government stops stealing the money, it works!
The government prosecutes people for running and participating in what is called a “Ponzi Scheme”. Look it up – by definition – the government itself is using a “Ponzi” formula to run the Social Security program. They should take the word “Security” out – nothing safe here – never was – it has been flawed from the start – only a matter of time before the money runs out.
> What a joke. Who’s idea was it to put government in charge of people’s retirement income?
it was the idea of ground pounding, freedom-mooching, berkinstock-wearing LIBERALS.
Personal Accounts, yes… and the finance system was so sound under G-Dub.
Where would our money be if we had personal accounts… maybe in the hands of the Wall Street Shisters and not in our accounts.
I can’t tell but you are either unintentionally or by misdirection suggesting that we can trust the Financial System more than the Government?
That is a stretch!
>>What a joke. Who’s idea was it to put government in charge of people’s retirement income?
Um, I assume FDR, a good Democrat.
How is it fair to pull more from the wealthy when everyone receives the same amount of Social Security once retired? Why is it the wealthy (intelligent, hard working)population’s responsibility to shoulder people who can’t save money?
The way to fix social security is to incrementally raise the age at which you can collect. People are living far longer than they used to, and the age has never been adjusted. People are collecting these benefits way too early and for way too long.
What is the reasoning behind people being taxed less SS tax as their income increases?
Does everyone else not see the conflict of interest in the government holding both our retirement savings and being in control of hour healthcare benefits??
The government has a HUGE incentive to allow us to die in early retirement, since they save the money on both the social security (non-refundable, forced retirement savings) and on the saved healthcare costs.
It’s getting to the point that it’s fucking scary and horrible what a huge unwieldy, corrupt, powerful beast the federal government has become. If we don’t do everything we can now to preserve small government we will be completely powerless to stop any corruption at all.
Wow! everything happens for a reason. How much will it take for anyone to know that we have to believe in something higher than man for our wellbeing. Faith in God is your retirement. I don’t look to what the government or man can give me. God has never failed me!!!! and i will have faith until the end!God has given me $52,000 this year (in a recession) that i did not earn or deserve. How great is His love for those who believe on Him!!!!
what about all the people that get this fund that are not even 65 or close to that age for mental disorders are drug problems,and even alcoholics???
Why is it those who’ve worked hard enough not to need social security are being tapped to get it out of trouble?
This graph implies that the wealthiest pay less. They actually pay the maximum amount and don’t get anything more out of it than the rest of the payees.
Just because someone has worked to gain wealth doesn’t give the government the right to steal it.
Light green text on a white background is way harder to read that white on Black. If you study accessability standards the low vision high contrast version is always white on black. Good lord people.
>>What a joke. Who’s idea was it to put government in charge of people’s retirement income?
While Social Security was passed under FDR, the idea of a government run program to help support the elderly goes back at least as far as the founding fathers. Thomas Paine,for example, in the second part of _The Rights of Man_ proposed a system very similar to Social Security.
It should be noted that social security was created so that retirees still had money to spend.
In general, I would agree that (most of) the wealthy worked hard to get where they are.
However, the amount of money someone makes does *not* grow linearly with the amount and difficulty of the work they do. CEO’s do NOT do multi-million dollar amounts of work compared to someone making minimum wage; that much work is getting done, I have no doubt, but not by the heads of corporations, but by its workers. You know, the ones who actually do the work… if you have to tax the rich the same % as everybody else to let those people retire, then do it, the rich wouldn’t be rich without the workforce.
Looking at this graphic, it’s now obvious what I must do… Help reduce the number who make it to retirement. No more health care for you! Reward people who live healthy. Also, let’s get the GOV to promote dangerous sports and repeal the seatbelt laws! Big Mac’s should come with double the fat! Guns for everyone!
>>What a joke. Who’s idea was it to put government in charge of people’s retirement income?
They aren’t; you are. The government offers huge tax breaks (401k, IRA, Keogh) for people and companies with private retirement plans. Social Security is a backup plan for people too poor (me) or too stupid (you) to start their own plan. Every first-world country has some version of SS to distribute money from the young and healthy to seniors and disabled people.
People who work (me) pay SS taxes at a higher rate than wealthy people who don’t work (George W. Bush) because much of their pay is from stocks, options, retirement plans, and other benefits. Wealthy people who work are taxed at an in-between rate: SS taxes don’t apply past the first $97,000 of income.
If I’m lucky, I’ll finish my advanced degree before my money runs out. Then I’ll be able to earn more money and I’ll happily chip in 12.4% (or less, if I make over $100K and Obama’s plan is rejected) to help elderly people who are short on money. Then, just like my parents did, I’ll start a 401k/IRA/Keogh and save for my own retirement so young people won’t have to pay for me some day.
1) The reason you shouldn’t be able to “Opt Out” is the same reason you can’t succeed from the Union.
2) “Too bad the American people are not able to save/support themselves in retirement. Because they are all too stupid, the government has no choice but to create a system which requires people to ’save and get later’.”
A lot of Americans are unable to survive on their current salaries, let alone save for retirement or and have thousands of dollars saved in the event of a medical emergency. But yeah, it’s because they are stupid, not because of low paying jobs to support the wealthy.
3) “How is it fair to pull more from the wealthy when everyone receives the same amount of Social Security once retired? Why is it the wealthy (intelligent, hard working)population’s responsibility to shoulder people who can’t save money?”
You tell your garbage man that he isn’t intelligent and that he is not a hard worker (like Paris Hilton). Let me know when you are able to extract the garbage can out of your ass.
4) “It’s getting to the point that it’s f__king scary and horrible what a huge unwieldy, corrupt, powerful beast the federal government has become.”
Unlike AIG.
5) “Just because someone has worked to gain wealth doesn’t give the government the right to steal it.”
But when the wealth is stolen privately, that is okay. Just another hard-working wealthy person stealing money from others.
It’s just another tax. You’d have to be a fool to count on SS for your retirement.
Props to Jeff. Well countered man.
I was going to point out some of the ridiculous comments and maybe offer some tactful insight back, but Jeff I think you summed it up!
Kudos!
[...] The Social Security Situation | (tags: visualization economics politics) [...]
Genius! So those of us who worked extremely hard to fight our way through competitive promotions and use entrepreneurial savvy to generate wealth… and save for our own retirement… should burden the shortfalls for those who choose not to save? Basic economics 101, this system would create a massive disincentive for personal growth. Why should I work harder when I would just have to pay more into pot? This looks pretty on paper but there are unforseen consequences lurking just inches benath.
Makes a lot of sense. Why should the rich keep a higher percentage of their earnings than those that are not as fortunate? They still have a bigger piece of the pie in the end, and more of that slice goes to luxuries. Those that say that it would create a disincentive to achieve success are clearly misguided whiners.
The idea of paying more than someone else to receive the same benefits not being “equal” I get. However, there are several points that make this concept of same % paid in, fair:
1. When speaking of the extremely wealthy, who should not have to put so much of their hard earned money into something that doesn’t apply to them, they aren’t. They would only be taxed the 12.4% on their salary and not on where they earn most of their money: investments!
2. The idea of being entitled to what you earned vs. social responsibility: As a whole our society has been sold the idea that if you work hard you can achieve and increase your status in both the economic and social echelons of our society. However, that does not mean that social responsibility is not a part of the picture. That has come in more recent times or with antiquated ideas of entitlement. Historically, majorities of the wealthy have always had some sense of social responsibility and have provided many institutions and organizations to support the working class. Those that have accumulated wealth in more recent times typically have not done so by salaries only, which is where the 12.4% is taxed.
3. The concept of the “intelligent hard worker” not deserving to have to pay for the “stupid lazy” person fails within the fact that it is not possible for every smart hardworking person in the US to achieve this certain status of wealth that allows for security in old age or medical hardship. The means that allow for the accumulation of wealth in this country is based on a working class society, without them there would be no wealth to speak of. The fact of assuming that if you are not rich it is your own fault is fantastic and an easy way to duck social responsibility.
4. When we become a society that does not take care of those that do not have the same mental or physical capacity to achieve the same success as everyone else then we are putting ourselves in the same category of countries that regulate their society with the Cass system.
All that being said I do believe that there should be a cap on the 12.4 %, but that the cap is way too low. For those that think that because they have accumulated enough wealth at the moment so that they will not need the useless SS. pension, ask the thousands that are at the moment relying on this benefit because they lost almost every bit of their “cushion” over the last several years. Many of them reached this cap 30 or more years ago, but find SS a need now. The fund is there to provide assistance to anyone who needs it, no matter how wealthy one is there is always the potential that you may someday need it. The problem isn’t only the low income level of the cap, but the abuse on the system that allows a large number of people who do not “work hard” to suck it dry. Better regulation of those that dip into SS would be a good starting point: Including the Government, which is dipping into SS and replacing the funds with bonds that can only be cashed in with raised taxes; quite a devils circle. While raising the cap would not eliminate the current threat that we face in 2018 it would certainly push that date back and allow our economy to recover from the recession we are in. This would allow the burden the future tax payer faces to have a more stable base to pull from. And while we are at it, life expectancy has increased, so shouldn’t the age at which you are eligible to withdraw also.
all this means is that social security is not gonna be there in the next 60 years anyways
[...] The Social Security Situation (Infographic) – Link. [...]
What does any of that have todo with SS? ? You pay into SS when you work and when you are retired you get X amount of money. I pretty simple idea.
[...] The Social Security Situation | VisualEconomics.comDecember 13, 2009 – A lovely visualization of the facts in recent debates regarding Social Security. [...]
[...] The Social Security Situation … visually. [...]