Fantastic news arrived today as Keri, the operator of the Bankster Report, learned that she has been promised a whopping $10,066 per month from the Social Security Administration upon retirement.
"I'm rich!" friends reported Keri as stating, followed quickly by, "Not! I see right through your bankster pranks, you scoundrels! This is just yet more evidence against your master fraud derivative--your fiat money US dollar and its utter worthlessness! I'll stop you if it's the last thing I do!" Witnesses state she then sprung to her feet, grabbed her INFOWARS cap, and bolted off in the opposite direction.
Keri was last seen dashing across a nearby street to retrieve her laptop and start an immediate report, while muttering to herself something about the Bank for International Settlements and how "freakin' pissed" Andrew Jackson would be if he knew he was on a Federal Reserve note. People with knowledge of the matter indicate that she "refuses to believe that the SSA will even be in existence past 2025," and generally rejects any likelihood of the US dollar maintaining value over time. Keri did not respond to repeated requests for comment and phone calls were not returned by time of print.
The above story is only half-joke--and half true. As constant evidence of the inflationary cruelty of fiat money, I can report that I indeed have been promised an amazing $10,066 per month by the Social Security Administration when I retire at age 70. If you're curious about your own benefits, you can calculate them here through the SSA Benefits Calculator.
Try if for yourself--and if you're over 40, try if for your kids (starting age 21). You'll notice that after you input your information (birthday, annual earnings, month/year of retirement) that the calculator has one final option before submitting. This option is to select either "Today's Dollars" or "Future (inflated) dollars." Please note, those are exactly the SSA's terms--including the "inflated" part--not the Bankster Reports' terms, though I couldn't have said it better myself. According to my "future (inflated) dollars" benefits, I will be receiving $10,066 per month when I retire, from the SSA.
My comment when I retire would be: what SSA?
In today's terms, $10,066 is a very, very nice single monthly income, and is an income that is not hard on which to to live in even the more expensive parts of the Republic. But let's consider what value the SSA itself attributes to that $10,066 in "today's dollars." Here it is--and it is striking:
$10,066 when I retire at 70 = spending power of $2,365 today.
Chew on that for a minute.
Here are some other hypotheticals run through the calculator for different ages and different current incomes, all based on a retirement age of 70:
Today's 23-year old earning $30,000: $1,539 or $8,227 inflated.
Today's 25-year old earning $30,000: $1,539 or $7,619 inflated.
Today's 27-year old earning $40,000: $1,869 or $8,573 inflated.
Today's 30-year old earning $40,000: $1.869 or $7,639 inflated.
Today's 35-year old earning $40,000: $1,869 or $6,301 inflated.
Today's 35-year old earning $50,000: $2,200 or $7,418 inflated.
Today's 40-year old earning $40,000: $1,862 or $5,201 inflated.
Today's 40-year old earning $50,000: $2,191 or $6,123 inflated.
Today's 50-year old earning $40,000: $1,867 or $3,597 inflated.
It is startling: what this data is telling every American is that we are being constantly subjected to the hidden inflation "tax" that is reducing the value of every penny in our savings, every day of our lives, in a relentlessly cruel attack on the value of the US dollar spearheaded by the banksters at the printing press. It this is to be expected: the destruction of savings and decimation of value are collateral damage to the fiat money system. A 23-year old American can look forward to the future where when he retires, he'll need $8,227/month to equal the living standard of just $1,539/month. If you're 23, think about that for moment. If you're not, think about your kids, and then run your own numbers and realize that you're not much better off, either.
In March, the Congressional Budget Office reported that OUTGO on the SSA program will exceed INCOME this year, and that by year's end, the SSA will be $29 Billion in the red (see "Primary Surplus" line). As the New York Times ("Social Security Payout to Exceed Revenue this Year") subsequently reported, this is an essential threshold that was not expected to be breached until 2016, as submitted by Geithner's Treasury in 2009. Check out this visual representation from the NY Times.
According to the 2009 Treasury report mentioned above--which inaccurately predicts the threshold cross at 2016--the SSA outgo issue can be "fixed." How, you ask? From the report:
"Social Security could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years with changes equivalent to an immediate 16 percent increase in the payroll tax (from a rate of 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent) or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent or some combination of the two.
And, oh no, I'm sure that a 16% increase in payroll tax--which is born by both employees and workers, or entirely by the self-employed--would certainly not affect GDP growth, right? Wrong: the US is already suffering from an anemic GDP growth that would only be bled more with tax increases. The Treasury does not present any actuarial analysis of what the suggested fix of an increased tax burden would do the the economy. Nor does it explain how the 13% reduction of benefits would be compensated for by those on the other side of the SSA challenge--the recipients. It is clear that benefits must be cut, and I personally have zero confidence in the SSA even being in existence when I retire and thus view my contributions as a "Thank You" to our older Americans. It is clear to me that I am fully cut-out. As the report states:
"Ensuring that the system remains solvent on a sustainable basis beyond the next 75 years would require larger changes because increasing longevity will result in people receiving benefits for ever longer periods of retirement."
What might these "larger changes" be, and is it even possible to imagine that they would work? Bruce Bartlett, former Treasury Department economist and the author of Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy, offered a detailed analysis in Forbes Magazine, which included the following death-nail:
"To summarize, we see that taxpayers are on the hook for Social Security and Medicare by these amounts: Social Security, 1.3% of GDP; Medicare part A, 2.8% of GDP; Medicare part B, 2.8% of GDP; and Medicare part D, 1.2% of GDP. This adds up to 8.1% of GDP. Thus federal income taxes for every taxpayer would have to rise by roughly 81% to pay all of the benefits promised by these programs under current law over and above the payroll tax."
Alert! He just said: "federal income taxes for every taxpayer woul dhave ot rise by roughly 81% to pay for all the benefits promise by the programs under current law over and above the payroll tax." Additionally, Bartlett points out that, according to the Treasury report, when combined, Social Security and Medicare liabilities equal at least $106.4 Trillion--an inconcievable number that is over twice the total amount of all private wealth in the entire nation. The number is worth viewing properly, with all the gasping zeros, and here it is:
You might be thinking of Greece. . . on crack? But while Greece is facing a smaller version of a similar situation, there are many differences between the US and Greece, and one especially important desparity. This difference is, that as a member of the euro zone, Greece gave up its monetary sovereignty when it adopted the euro a decade ago, thus its bank cannot inflate itself out of the problem. The US, on the other hand, has the ever-ready-to-lend-money-made-up-out-of-thin-air Federal Reserve, and the Fed not only has a printing press, it has a theory:
"In brief, the reason is that people know that inflation erodes the real value of the government's debt and, therefore, that it is in the interest of the government to create some inflation. Hence they will believe the government's promise not to "take back" in future taxes the money distributed by means of the tax cut."
Those are the words of then-Federal Reserve governor, current Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, from his very famous "helicopter drop" speech in 2002. You see, with fiat money, inflation is not always the answer. Inflation is the only answer.
Given this, perhaps my "check" is not going to be $10,066/month afterall when I retire--maybe it will be $101,066 a month! And I really shouldn't be so concerned--maybe Mr Bernanke is right. I can handle an 81% income tax on top of my current 15%. That will leave me a whole 4% for myself. Now that I think of it, perhaps it won't be so bad: given my savings now, and my $101,066 SSA check when I retire, maybe I'll be able to afford that tasty Purina brand cat food!