Social Security Crisis?

[Haggis@wk]

I checked the mail and found the Social Security Administration had sent my annual statement. But before getting to that information (p. 3), one has to endure a page of "What Social Security Means To You," which includes this:

About Social Security's future ... Social Security is a compact between generations. For decades, America has kept the promise of security for its workers and their families. Now, however, the Social Security System is facing serious financial problems, and action is needed soon to make sure the system will be sound when today's younger workers are ready for retirement.

In 2017 we will being paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2041 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted [footnote and citation omitted] and there will be enough money to pay only about 75 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits. We need to resolve these issues soon to make sure Social Security continues to provide a foundation of protection for future generations.

Compact between generations? Promise of security? The "Trust Fund"? Foundation of protection?

Jeez.

[dai bread]

The more I see of what goes on in bigger countries, the more glad I am that we tend to KISS here.

Our Social Security has always been wholly tax-funded. Once upon a time there was a specific Social Security tax of 1/6 in the £ (shows you how long ago- we've had $ since 1967), but that went long ago as it was soon plainly inadequate.

Over the last 5 years or so, our Govt. has grasped the nettle of increasing numbers of pensioners, and has established a fund to help cover the cost of future pensions. The fund is now substantial and is growing rapidly. It's known unofficially as the Cullen Fund, after the Minister of Finance who set it up. There's no suggestion (yet) that it will replace tax funding.

The Social Security tax I mentioned above gave rise to an unfortunate situation for a very rich Englishman who moved here during its currency. At the time, in the late 1940s, Britain had a punitive tax system which taxed up to 19/6 in the £. As there was no exempt income in respect of our SS tax, he ended up paying us 1/6 and the British Govt. 19/6, out of £1, i.e 21/- out of 20/-. (A £ was 20/- [shillings] if you're not familiar with pre-decimal British currency. -/6 is sixpence, i.e half a shilling. Confused?).

[Haggis@wk]

(A £ was 20/- [shillings] if you're not familiar with pre-decimal British currency. -/6 is sixpence, i.e half a shilling. Confused?).

I just remembered that in 1958, armed with a thrupenny bit or a six pence it seemed I could damn near clean out the sweet shop in the village (Weathersfield, Essex possibly the prettiest village in England)

I guess because I was young at the time, 9, I still have no problem sorting out ha'penny, penny, tuppence, thrupence, sixpence, shilling, half crown, crown,(wasn't the crown mostly commerative coins? I have a QEII crown somewhere) and pound. Wasn't there a 10 shilling note? I don't think I ever saw one as a kid (well, I wouldn't have, would I?)

[dai bread]

Yes, there was a 10/- note, but we never had crowns in our currency, though I believe they hung on in Britain for quite a while. Our largest coin was the half-crown, or 2/6. We also had a florin, an early attempt at decimalisation, worth 2/-; i.e. 10 to a £.

I saw 10/- notes when I was sent to get something from the local store, and later when I started work they formed part of my pay. Around 1950, I could get into the movies for 6d (sixpence) and the bus fare to town was 3d.

When we decimalised the currency in 1967, conversion was based on the 10/- note, which became $1. The half-crown vanished, and the florin became 20c., the shilling 10c. and so on down the line. The 3d vanished too- 2.5c was just too awkward. For some reason I'm not clear on, we didn't convert the half-crown to a quarter.

After 40 years of inflation, our smallest coin is now 10c., and shop tills have a rounding function built in to cope with the price beloved of all shop-keepers, $1.99. We really should have a 99c coin.

[Haggis@wk]

After 40 years of inflation, our smallest coin is now 10c., and shop tills have a rounding function built in to cope with the price beloved of all shop-keepers, $1.99. We really should have a 99c coin.

No pennies? I'd love to see the penny disappear here. I heard recently each penny costs two pennies to make; go figure.

But I'm not sure I'd want to dump the nickle ("nix the nickle"?) and jump to the dime. As you pointed out, the rounding up tends to give too many 9 cent advantages to businesses where, if the nickle was the smallest coin, the advantage would be reduced to 4 cents.

Interestingly, up until the late 19th century, pennies and nickels weren't legal tender at all. The Coinage Acts of 1873 and 1879 made them legal tender for debts up to 25 cents only, while the other fractional coins (dimes, quarters, and half dollars) were legal tender for amounts up to $10. This remained the law until the Coinage Act of 1965 specified that all U.S. coins are legal tender in any amount. However, even in cases where legal tender has been agreed to as a form of payment, private businesses are still free to specify which forms of legal tender they will accept. If a restaurant doesn't want to take any currency larger than $20 bills, or they don't want to take pennies at all, or they want to be paid in nothing but dimes, they're entitled to do so (but they should specify their payment policies before entering into transactions with buyers). Businesses are free to accept or reject pennies as they see fit; no law specifies that pennies cease to be considered legal tender when proffered in quantities over a particular amount.

[piqaboo]

We had a savings and loan branch refuse our coins for deposit to an existing count. They 'arent set up for coins'. Hmmmmmm.........

[jamiebk]

I guess I better start rolling my pennies....I have jars upon jars of them. I have 3 giant vases full. They are glass columns about 2.5 feet high and about 5 inches in diameter full of pennies. I also have some old fraternity beer steins and a 1# whipped butter tub full.

[piqaboo]

Our pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters were rolled.
We dont do business with that branch these days.

I can kinda see limiting pennies as payment for small sums. Seems unnecessary tho, because they are kind of selflimiting.

I have a tuppence coin somewhere, souvenir from a trip to see my Nan when I was a child. Ditto half crown, shilling etc. Half crown was the largest denomination coin I saw.

[analog]

I'd hang on to the old copper ones.

With copper selling for $2.23 a pound, a pre-1982 penny actually is worth about 1.45 cents -- 45 percent above face value -- based on its copper content.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... 18275.html

[Haggis@wk]

I'd hang on to the old copper ones.

With copper selling for $2.23 a pound, a pre-1982 penny actually is worth about 1.45 cents -- 45 percent above face value -- based on its copper content.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... 18275.html

In the mid 70's the coin and stamp shop I used to go to pretty regular was buying pre-65 silver coins, mainly from bank cashiers who'd swap a new quarter (dime, etc) for an old one when they got one accross the counter. The coin shop then sold the silver coins for the silver bulk regardless of the coin's linages (condition, rarity, etc) I thought that was a shortsided approach but later on the shop was closed when one of the owners was caught trying to cheat Tom Clancy. The owners are both dead.

My second son is named after the guy who was caught; go figure.

[dai bread]

We recently revamped our coinage to make it cheaper to produce, as the old coins in the lower denominations were costing more to make than they were worth. Cupro-nickel is expensive. They're now plated steel, and made in Canada. They're small & fiddly to handle, though I'm told they're common international sizes.

[piqaboo]

I want a decagonal coin. With a hole in the middle.

[Haggis@wk]

I want a decagonal coin. With a hole in the middle.

I spent the better part of an hour googling for that. I could find 10 sided coing (heck! I even foun a 9 sided coin!) and I could find coins with holes but not both.

I need some real work, I got too much time on my hands.

[piqaboo]

I want a decagonal coin. With a hole in the middle.

I spent the better part of an hour googling for that. I could find 10 sided coing (heck! I even foun a 9 sided coin!) and I could find coins with holes but not both.

I need some real work, I got too much time on my hands.

You ah such a gennleman!

[dai bread]

Are you on night shift, Haggis?

[Haggis@wk]

Are you on night shift, Haggis?

Only if I was in Oz or NZ.....

[Haggis@wk]

Allen Sloan warns investors at Yahoo Finance that the entire program has gone into the red — and will stay there. Get ready, Sloan says, for the mother of all bailouts:

Don’t look now. But even as the bank bailout is winding down, another huge bailout is starting, this time for the Social Security system.
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than it is spending on benefits.
Instead of helping to finance the rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation’s biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit checks from bouncing — in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

This means that the federal government not only can’t rely on SocSec surpluses, which have been used to paper over budget deficits, it will have to increase the federal deficit to make benefit payments from now on. George Bush and the GOP saw this coming, while Democrats like Orszag insisted that we had nothing to worry about. Even if we had a federal government living within its means, this would be a crisis — but with the debt that Obama is accumulating, it’s a fiscal tsunami of Old Testament proportions waiting to crest.

[Trumpetmaster]

This probably means all our taxes will go up...

[Haggis@wk]

This probably means all our taxes will go up...

...or payments will go down. The first band-aide will be to deny, or reduce, SS payments to "rich" retirees, those retirees with a separate income or with sufficient resources. After that the criteria will change, mandatory older age follow by complete collapse.

I decided more than a decade ago that I wasn't ever going to receive SS and increased my savings by almost 50%. The sacrifice was rewarded by the recent gutting of my 401Ks and IRAs and the almost certain confiscation of said funds in the next few years so the federal government can give me a guaranteed "annuity".

Our lives are about to change forever.

[Trumpetmaster]

This probably means all our taxes will go up...

...or payments will go down. The first band-aide will be to deny, or reduce, SS payments to "rich" retirees, those retirees with a separate income or with sufficient resources. After that the criteria will change, mandatory older age follow by complete collapse.

I decided more than a decade ago that I wasn't ever going to receive SS and increased my savings by almost 50%. The sacrifice was rewarded by the recent gutting of my 401Ks and IRAs and the almost certain confiscation of said funds in the next few years so the federal government can give me a guaranteed "annuity".

Our lives are about to change forever.

didn't even think that the payout to retiree's would go down.
at this rate... I think both will happen...