Hello Everyone; I browse the Internet almost everyday and I keep seeing PREDICTIONS that Our Social Security will or might COLLAPSE

I keep seeing PREDICTIONS that Our Social Security will or might COLLAPSE sometime between 2017 or 2037 ,, then there Will or Might be NO more Social Security Payments and also NO more Medicare Insurance .

How TRUE might those Predictions be ???

I go to sleep less and less now a days worrying maybe tomorrow some GOVERNMENT envoy will be on TV telling us there NO more $$$ to Pay for our Social Security Monthly Checks and NO more $$$ to Pay for our Medicare Insurance .

Is there ANY !! possibility that this MIGHT ever happen here in our USA ?????

I live in a MobileHome and I Own the Land under my home but I also live in this Seniors Only Park and we pay almost $200 monthly for our HOF fees .

I also pay my Electric and Gas and Phone and Internet Costs .

Then I am still Lucky enough to have some $$ to buy my Food .

Some of the People I use to know thought I was STUPID and that I should have bought a REAL Home with a Backyard, but NOW a lot of those people have Lost their REAL Homes and their Good paying Jobs .

If there is any other way to live more Cheaply than I now do then please tell me that Secret.

Asked by WILLIAM DAVIS

6 Answers

Log in or sign up with email
By submitting you agree to our Terms of Service
Answered by MoneyTips Writing Staff, Financial Adviser in Los Angeles, CA
MoneyTips co-founder Michael Dubrow shared the following answer with us:

The short answer to your question about whether Social Security will collapse between 2017 and 2037, the answer is no. Social Security will not collapse as long as the US Government is in place, as these payments are federal obligations. However, the Social Security Trust Fund -- into which all workers contribute through payroll deductions -- will be severely strained during those years, as greater numbers of people retire than come into the workforce to make new contributions.

The real question isn't "Will the Social Security system collapse?" Rather, the real question should be "Will it be able to fund 100% of future benefits without significant reform?" And the answer to that question, quite simply, is no. Unless our leaders in Washington can set aside partisan bickering to reform Social Security over the next 10 years or so, benefit payments and/or cost of living increases will need to be reduced to keep the Trust Fund solvent. Whether such benefit reductions would be 5% or 20% is impossible to say right now. For example, rather than cut benefits, our future leaders might choose to raise payroll taxes on workers instead.

Most experts predict that our leaders will come together to reform Social Security, if only because they fear the wrath of the seniors, who vote in greater numbers than any other demographic group. Is this a real problem? Absolutely. Should you lose sleep over it? No, you shouldn't. Social Security will be there when you need it, although it might look different than what it does today.

Michael Dubrow, serial entrepreneur, is co-founder of MoneyTips, and Estalea Private Equity.
| 09.24.14 @ 23:58
Comments 2  
Dee Drayton — Why are decreased benefits or decreased cost of living increases the only options for a social security shortfall. How about taking a higher share of income. Right now, social security is only paid on the first $118,000 of income. Billionaires who earn interest on their investments call those earnings "carried interest" and pay no social security on that income. If we could tax that income, social security's shortfall problems would be solved. | 07.27.15 @ 16:14
Dave Bradley, Investment Manager (Financial Advisor) in North Charleston, SC — Some other "experts" are unable to agree or even to disagree on how to tax the income from those that can afford it. In my field of Investment Management, I would love to put folks in their own customized SSI fund. They could get a much higher ROI without the high risk of paying it out to others via these pooled schemes. Many of my high net worth colleagues are apposed to our current tax, spend, print credit, system. Unfortunately, more problems are created by trying to solve these problems. It's difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. --Upton Sinclair | 03.26.16 @ 23:19
Log in or sign up with email
By submitting you agree to our Terms of Service
$commenter.renderDisplayableName() — {comment} | 12.11.16 @ 00:30
As far as Social Security collapsing in the future, that may not happen. It is an institution of the federal government that will stay in place as long as we and future generations fund it. The question is, how significant the contributions and benefits will be in the future. The secret lies in saving early and let your savings grow in a safe investment so that you can be secured in your retirement days. | 09.25.14 @ 20:30
Comment
Log in or sign up with email
By submitting you agree to our Terms of Service
$commenter.renderDisplayableName() — {comment} | 12.11.16 @ 00:30
Answered by Alex Bentley, Financial AdviserPRO+ in Pacific Palisades, CA
My feelings are that if Social Security and other government entitlements become too heavy a burden for future generations, they will diminish rather than go away. The truly poor will still get benefits but higher income people will get less and less benefits. My advice is the same as above: save early and often and rely as little as possible on government benefits. | 09.25.14 @ 23:24
Comment
Log in or sign up with email
By submitting you agree to our Terms of Service
$commenter.renderDisplayableName() — {comment} | 12.11.16 @ 00:30
Answered by Michael Stephens, Financial Adviser in Cheyenne, WY
I tend to disagree with most of the answers here. I believe social security will not be around within the next several generations just for the basic reason the US can no longer afford 200 trillion plus in unfunded liabilities. Its dangerous to expect a government that is running deficits in the trillions and printing trillions more to fund that deficit will remain financially viable in the foreseeable future. Its simple math. here is a great video that may explain what i mean in more depth. http://gldb.biz | 06.02.15 @ 20:45
Comment
Log in or sign up with email
By submitting you agree to our Terms of Service
$commenter.renderDisplayableName() — {comment} | 12.11.16 @ 00:30
V
Answered by Vicki
I am not a financial advisor (ret. Nurse), but I think the future of our SS depends on whether or not the IOUs that were put into SS, when our presidents took money out to fund what ever they chose, can be paid back. It was reported that Pres. Obama took out $ 700 Billion to fund Obamacare, true or not, I don't know, but if those IOUs could be paid back, I don't think we would have to rely on higher taxes or rely on our children to fund it for us. Over my 45 years of work, I think I paid enough to cover more than the 10 years I have been retired. What do you think? | 08.13.15 @ 20:47
Comment
Log in or sign up with email
By submitting you agree to our Terms of Service
$commenter.renderDisplayableName() — {comment} | 12.11.16 @ 00:30
R
Answered by Robert
I really have no idea who is right the politician or the economist... I'm well into my 70's and when I was fourteen the rumors were flying that people my age would never see any S.S money. Well that is false if the government would quit using the fund as their private bank for socialized pork and presidential mandates such as Obamacare which took hundreds of billions out of the system which could have funded thousands in their later years... Just stick to retirement only. They probably would if they had to pay into the social security have that their only retirement instead the privileged system they are in now with unlimited medical. . | 10.15.15 @ 16:35
Comment 1  
imsam007 — Robert & Vicki - Obama did NOT take $$ from Social Security to fund the Affordable Care Act... The government has borrowed from the Social Security trust fund for decades. This borrowing includes the funds GWB used to fund his "temporary" tax cuts for the rich & his unfunded wars in the middle east. The government is allowed to borrow surpluses from the SS trust fund... However, by the time Obama took office, multitudes had become unemployed & were NOT paying into Social Security...thus, there was no surplus to be borrowed.... In fact, funds had to be appropriated from the General Fund to make up the difference between Social Security's "out go" and "income"... That's why, when there was a question of the debt ceiling being raised, there was a question as to whether Social Security checks would be issued to recipients. THAT's also why Republicans would like to get rid of the Social Security system & default on repaying the fund. Of course, the US CAN'T default on debt to other countries - but ........if Republicans get their way......Anyone paying attention to the Repub Debates heard Rand Paul state, clearly "The Government has STOLEN your money" There is no money in the Social Security, because the Government has taken it " BTW - I've read that the Social Security Trust fund is the LARGEST debt-holder of the U S Government.. Perhaps you are confusing the statements made by Republicans indicating that funds for Medicare were being taken to "fund the ACA"... This was due to some reductions being made to medicare that would reduce the cost of medicare.......Had nothing to do with the Soc Security Trust & we Medicare recipients haven't suffered undue loss or hardship in this regard | 01.14.16 @ 23:35
Log in or sign up with email
By submitting you agree to our Terms of Service
$commenter.renderDisplayableName() — {comment} | 12.11.16 @ 00:30
Log in or sign up with email
By submitting you agree to our Terms of Service
Free MoneyTips Membership!

Get FREE, full access to MoneyTips.com

Answered by

Alex Bentley
Alex Bentley, Financial AdviserPRO+ in Pacific Palisades, CA

Related Questions

Q&A
Asked by Celeste