Saving Social Security

Quote: GenoDRPh

i wish to point out the VA health systems are very selective in the pharmacists they hire.

I also wish to point out that SooPoo is/was an anesthesiologist, so he may be well aware of the VA's lower scores regarding pain management, and is/was frustrated with the institutional resistance to make them better.

A good friend, who specialized in Pain Management, ‘retired’ to a VA Pain position in Florida. I would have considered him a very good doctor.
But when I worked, the private hospitals were able to recruit the best graduating residents, and many that couldn’t get those jobs took spots at the VA.

I actually did pain management for the first half of my career. I was very happy when the practice evolved so I could do solely OR work.

When you say ‘selective’, are you saying it is harder to get a job at the VA than a nearby private hospital?

Quote: SOOPOO

....Thus, when the fund has ‘ran out’, they will just shift regular tax dollars to keep the checks coming....

So you are saying more whirring sounds coming from that back office as green ink is applied to white cotton/linen paper stock? I don't believe the social security shortfall hits the headline annual deficit numbers until the trust fund is used up. What will the annual deficit numbers will look like after 2032? I wonder if Gold is going to look cheap at $5,000 come 2032?

Quote: SOOPOO

A good friend, who specialized in Pain Management, ‘retired’ to a VA Pain position in Florida. I would have considered him a very good doctor.
But when I worked, the private hospitals were able to recruit the best graduating residents, and many that couldn’t get those jobs took spots at the VA.

I actually did pain management for the first half of my career. I was very happy when the practice evolved so I could do solely OR work.

When you say ‘selective’, are you saying it is harder to get a job at the VA than a nearby private hospital?

In the pharmacy profession, VA jobs are highly coveted and the VA has no shortage of highly qualified applicants. By law and federal rule, certain applicants are excluded from consideration from certain jobs, like non-citizens for some jobs. As well, preference is given to veterans for certain jobs.

Quote: GenoDRPh

In the pharmacy profession, VA jobs are highly coveted and the VA has no shortage of highly qualified applicants. By law and federal rule, certain applicants are excluded from consideration from certain jobs, like non-citizens for some jobs. As well, preference is given to veterans for certain jobs.

Interesting! It was the opposite for a bunch of doctors. Their visas allowed them to ONLY work in an ‘underserved’ hospital, or…. The VA!

Quote: SOOPOO

Interesting! It was the opposite for a bunch of doctors. Their visas allowed them to ONLY work in an ‘underserved’ hospital, or…. The VA!

There's a physician shortage, but not a pharmacist shortage.

Some of you may remember me posting a 2023 article by Paul Krugman [below, behind a paywall] where he basically says Medicare and Social Security are nothing to worry about. My opinion is that he was just taking the opportunity to make a partisan attack against those raising the alarm at the time. That these kind of people are out there is why nothing is ever done. An economist! The chart in the article, not behind a paywall [and below], makes his point clear: just raise taxes. I think it will be a combination of things instead.

Here are what I think is close to all the options for avoiding a SS haircut, with my guess as to likelihood:
* Cover the SS deficit with the general fund and add to the government debt. I think this is the one that would be considered the biggest betrayal of the program's initial promise, but is likely anyway. >50% chance it’s part of the solution, perhaps intended as stopgap, perhaps never goes away
* Rewrite the law and allow deficit spending directly by Social Security. This would be either/or with the above
* Increase the limit at which payroll taxes no longer are deducted from high earner income. This is more effective than anything else considered according to something I read, thus almost inevitable. >90% chance part of solution
* Increase the age where you can start collecting benefits. Since this has proved palatable in the past, almost surely will be done again, though there won’t be enough support to make it substantial enough to matter much. Even if only token, 100% chance it will be part of solution but <50% something substantial
* Introduce a means test for collecting benefits, stiffing the wealthy. This is inevitable but may not happen in near term. <25% chance for this round of solutions
* Eliminate the automatic COLA or adjust again the formula to make it fall even shorter of the true cost of living increases. I have come to the conclusion that the original undiscussed, perhaps secret, plan was for inflation’s effect to be part of what was to make it all work. My evidence for that opinion is that there was no COLA till October 1950 when finally they had to, imagine the pressure . It was an increase of 77 percent. That’s no typo. 77% !!
I’d say eliminating the automatic COLA has <5% chance, but a new formula put in place has >25% chance of being part of solution

* Well, an actual haircut is possible. This could gain traction if the feeling the pain should be shared by all is strong enough. Unlikely? <10% chance some small cut is part of solution I think

Krugman chart


https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/opinion/medicare-social-security.html .

Quote: odiousgambit

Here are what I think is close to all the options for avoiding a SS haircut, with my guess as to likelihood:
* Cover the SS deficit with the general fund and add to the government debt. I think this is the one that would be considered the biggest betrayal of the program's initial promise, but is likely anyway. >50% chance it’s part of the solution, perhaps intended as stopgap, perhaps never goes away
* Rewrite the law and allow deficit spending directly by Social Security. This would be either/or with the above
* Increase the limit at which payroll taxes no longer are deducted from high earner income. This is more effective than anything else considered according to something I read, thus almost inevitable. >90% chance part of solution
* Increase the age where you can start collecting benefits. Since this has proved palatable in the past, almost surely will be done again, though there won’t be enough support to make it substantial enough to matter much. Even if only token, 100% chance it will be part of solution but <50% something substantial
* Introduce a means test for collecting benefits, stiffing the wealthy. This is inevitable but may not happen in near term. <25% chance for this round of solutions
* Eliminate the automatic COLA or adjust again the formula to make it fall even shorter of the true cost of living increases. I have come to the conclusion that the original undiscussed, perhaps secret, plan was for inflation’s effect to be part of what was to make it all work. My evidence for that opinion is that there was no COLA till October 1950 when finally they had to, imagine the pressure . It was an increase of 77 percent. That’s no typo. 77% !!
I’d say eliminating the automatic COLA has <5% chance, but a new formula put in place has >25% chance of being part of solution

* Well, an actual haircut is possible. This could gain traction if the feeling the pain should be shared by all is strong enough. Unlikely? <10% chance some small cut is part of solution I think

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/opinion/medicare-social-security.html .

I don't well understand your US Social Security, but here's some observations of how successive UK governments have tried to dix our State Pension, which is broadly equivalent to your SS
Our state pension doesnt have an isolated fund. It's paid out of a national income tax called National Insurance, the same NI that pays our health service.

1. Increase the minimum age for taking it. It used to be 60 for women and 65 for men, and at a stroke, they made it 65 for all. Then they started ratcheting it up. I got mine at 66 but my younger friends can't get there's till 67 or 68 on current rules.
2. Encourage folk to make their own pension provision, with modest tax breaks.
3. FORCE employers to introduce company sponsored schemes and make entitlement to join mandatory and automatic. Such schemes are a bit minimalist, with, typically 3% employee contribution matched by employer. Employees can pay in more, tax free ( until drawdown)
4. Sneak in means testing more and more so we might get a few more £££, bt only if we are in poverty.
5. Freeze the threshold at which we all pay income tax. Currently we can earn income of £12,000 free of income tax, then 20% above that ( + 8% NI)
6. State pensioners never used to pay income tax on it as it was below the tax threshold.... But now we do and it's effectively fully taxable to those of us with other income.
7. Our state pension increases annually based on CPI inflation. There are murmurs about restricting that increase, and only pensioner voting power stops it happening.
8. Inflate it away. Government cynically tries to use REAL inflation to devalue the pension.

Good luck to you guys. Your scheme deficit ( and national debt ) can only be kicked down the road for so long before some admin grabs the thorney issue. Whichever party is left holding that baby is going to have to make some deeply unpopular decisions.

I apologise to OdiousGambit and to the entire forum for accidentally deleting his last post in this thread. That occured while I was removing some, 3 spam posts from a new spammer.
Sorry, folks.

I was pointing out just about everywhere in the world there is a similar problem, and that Germany has a reputation for taxing citizens enough to avoid deep deficits generally ... with the tax paying public onboard for it [perhaps the inflation of the 1920s is in mind]...

... with the exception of their pension plan, which might be in more trouble than most others