Jerry R. Littau's Documents
Social Share
Proof there is no Baby Boom going to hit Social Security
17 comments,
15,303 views,
3 likes
Proof there is no Baby Boom Hitting Social Security:
It took a longtime to get someone to let me know what document he or she uses to try to prove there was a Baby Boom. When I challenged a well, known organization, a while back they sent me a link that I will insert a little further down, they said it proves 77,000,000 babies born between 1946 and 1964. This study done in 1990, estimates how many people were in the United States, at that time, between the ages of 26 to 44? They came up with 76,968,012; this number is on the top left of the study. You will see it helps me prove there was no Baby Boom. This study does not subtract anyone that died; it only counts the people born. Please read down to where I have calculated more 18-year periods. I think you will have to agree this number has been misused, and has created a lie. Twisting numbers like this is why; no one can believe the government numbers. Just like when the CBO helped, get Obama care passed, or the Global Warming numbers that later proved wrong. The only excuse the CBO had is that they have to use numbers given to them. Then they made a true statement, if they get garbage in there will be garbage out. If there is no Baby Boom the projection of Social Security, Medicare, etc. going broke in the future is wrong. Therefore, they need to leave them alone and do not cut them. In fact, almost every study that has been done (including the National Debt) have been done with the assumption of a 77,000,000 Baby Boom hitting, if this is the case they are all wrong. Here is the link to the study they use. http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/cph-l160s.txt Notice at the top of the document it says; Selected Social Characteristics of Baby Boomers 26 to 44 years old: 1990 Table 1 – United States. The user should note that these data are based on a sample, subject to sampling variability, and that there are limitations to many of these data. First, it is not a complete Census Report. It picks out a certain piece of the population 26 to 44years-old in the 1990s, to try to count how many babies were born 26 to 44 years earlier. Apparently, they did this to try to support a viewpoint that there is a Baby Boom going to hit Social Security, Medicare, etc. The politicians had been pushing this story for a longtime. This study excludes the so-called Baby Boomers that died before 1990. Also nowhere do they subtract all the so-called Baby Boomers that died between 1990, and the time they could draw Social Security, which is many. All they talk about is there is starting to be 77,000,000 Baby Boomers hitting Social Security. This is just wrong. During the late 1980s and the early 1990s, the media, and some of the talking heads of that time started reporting there were more babies born every year than during the Baby Boom. Apparently, the document the link above goes to is how they stopped the media and others from reporting about how many babies were born every year. This is how they kept the story of a Baby Boom going, which is a lie. This report that only shows how many babies were born is misleading about what will affect Social Security or any other programs, including the National Debt. It does not give the true picture of the population increase, during that period. It just counts the babies born; it does not give the increase of the population, or subtract the people who died, or how the population increased in later years. Just sampling a part of the population is not an accurate way of projecting what will affect Social Security, or any program, including the National Debt. If you do the same study for any 18-year period, after the so-call Baby Boom, you will get numbers that will be similar because the Census Reports are similar. People have always died, and been born during every Census Report period. It makes sense that if the Census Reports do not have a large difference in their numbers; you will come out with similar results with various times studied. If you just count babies during the various periods, the numbers will be similar; if you calculate population increase of the various periods they will be similar. When 1 Jerry R. Littau July 12, 2011
you do studies of various 18-year periods, and the numbers are similar between the various periods that is the norm not an abnormal number called a Baby Boom. The following generations would replace the previous ones, etc. The human race is a continuous stream of babies born, and people dying, during every Census Report period. Population increase will affect Social Security and other programs, not the number of babies born in any period. Many babies just replace people who died that were already here. They do not increase the population that will hit Social Security. The increase of population is the difference between the Census Reports. This is what will affect Social Security, Medicare, and other programs. You will notice the U.S. Population keeps increasing every census report. These Census Reports shows there will always be more people paying Social Security than drawing out. You would only count the babies born who replaced the people who died, and call it a Baby Boom if you want to have a larger number to scare people. To achieve some goal you have. Such as, making changes to Social Security and Medicare that will shortchange the younger generation, and allow Congress to have even more of their surplus money to spend. Every Census Report people are born and people die, the number is not much different in one report to the other. The Social Security trustee report shows 2.6 trillion dollars of surpluses in it as of December 2010, that Congress have already used. The seniors have paid this 2.6 trillion dollar toward the future generation Social Security trust fund. Following is the Link to the trustees report: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/assets.html. The money paid in every day pays the people on Social Security first, and then Congress uses the SURPLUS. By law, they have to invest the surplus in U.S. Treasury Bonds before the end of each day. When you have a surplus on something, it is not causing the debt. What is causing the National Debt is Congress over spending and using the Social Security surplus for something else. Then they owe the U.S. Treasury bonds they put in Social Security trust fund. I have averaged three 30-year periods total population below, and further down I have prorated an 18-year period out of each of the 30-year population, including one for the so-called Baby Boom. You will notice the study with the 1990s involved in both sets of numbers is higher than the socalled Baby Boom. The 1990s is the largest population increase reported. If I could add up just the babies born during each 18-year period, the numbers would be similar. The number of babies born would all be larger than the population increases. They would be larger because it would be counting babies that replaced people who died, and not subtracting the people who died. The people born that replaces people who died will have no affect on Social Security, or any of the programs, they are an offsetting number. Three 30-year population average: Total population yearly average for 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s was 177,953,633. The so-called Baby Boom is 18-years of this 30-year period, 1946 to 1964. Total population yearly average for 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s was 252,225,861 Total population yearly average for 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s was 279.625,772 Notice the so-called Baby Boom did not fall in the highest population increase. Each succeeding thirty years is larger than the preceding thirty years. This shows the population continues to grow. There was no 77,000,000 spike in the population that is not followed by a larger spike to cover it, with more people than before. To have a so-called baby boom to hurt 2 Jerry R. Littau July 12, 2011
Social Security or any of the programs there would have had to be a spike in population that have not been succeeded by larger population increase. There is none, therefore there is no Baby Boom that is going to hit Social Security. The reason for averaging thirty years is the socalled Baby Boom 18-years cover part or all of three different Census Reports; they take Census Reports every 10-year. To arrive at the yearly average for each of the 30-year periods above I added the three 10-year census reports and divided by three. The so-called Baby Boom falls in the lowest population number of the three. Therefore, it will have no negative effect on Social Security. You can pick any 18-years out any 30-year period and find 77,000,000 Babies; this is not an increase in population of 77,000,000. Below is the population increase for 18-years out of each of these population averages. 1946 to 1964 the population increased 45,217,145 1966 to 1984 the population increased 1986 to 2004 the population increased 41,755,006.6 52,507,113 So-called Baby Boom
Again, the so-call Baby Boom did not fall in the highest population increase. To calculate the population increase for the 18-year increases, I prorated each of the 10 years of the partial Census Reports separately to get the 4-years of each of them like the 1940 and 1960. Then I included the middle 10-years like the 1950 to get the total for the 18-years. The so-called Baby Boom 1946 to 1964 the population increased 45,217,145 (not 77,000,000). This increase was not all babies, many of them were middle age and older, and are already dead. I used numbers from the U.S. Census Reports, and calculated the examples the same. There is not a large difference between the increases until you get to 1986 to 2004. Therefore, I am sure you can find 77,000,000 babies in any of these 18-year periods; this is why the increase of population is what will affect Social Security, and everything else, not just the babies born in a period. Just because 1986 to 2004 is, the largest increase does not mean that it is another abnormal so-called Baby Boom. As time goes on the population will always keep increasing, and it will become one of the smaller numbers. The politicians and the media need to explain to the public the difference between Social Security and Medicare, from Medicaid, SSI, CHIP, Food Stamps, Welfare, and unemployment. Medicare part (A) is paid for by the citizens, it is the 2.9% that every working, or self-employed person pays in. For people making over $200,000 single or $250,000 jointly this will increase to 3.8% in 2013. Medicare part (A) is different from Medicare part (B). The citizens on Social Security pay a monthly premium for Medicare Part (B) that covers about 25% of Medicare Part (B) cost. In addition, when the person on Medicare Part (B) goes to the doctor, they pay a co pay of approximately another 20% of the cost after they meet the $155 yearly deductable. The balance of the cost comes from the general treasury. It was set up to be this way. When they speak of Medicare, they need to stop combining all Medicare together. The 2009 trustee report part (A) had several hundred billion dollars of surplus. At the end of 2009, Medicare Part (A) HI (Hospital Insurance) had 304.2 Billions. Part (B) had 75.5 Billion. Part (D) had 1.1 Billion, in Special U.S. Treasury Security, for 380.8 Billion in the various Medicare Trust Funds. They had not posted the 2010 Report at the time of this note. Medicaid, SSI, CHIP, Food Stamps, Welfare, and unemployment hit the general treasury for their full amount. These need to be talked about separately from Social Security and Medicare.
3 Jerry R. Littau July 12, 2011
Social Security and Medicare Part (A) will never go broke. The population just keeps increasing. I know they say women have fewer babies now than they used to, and this results in a lower population. This is not proving to be true because as the population keeps increasing there are more women in the population. With more women in the population, they can have fewer babies per person and still have more babies than the previous generation. People have been having babies since Adam and Eve, and will never stop. If you count the babies, replacing the people who died during any of these periods, of course, your numbers will be much larger than just the increase in population. However, the only thing about the population that will affect Social Security will be the increase of population, not the number of babies born. Therefore, the 1946 to 1964 period is not out of the normal increase for most 18-years period. The following link is to the United States Census Bureau’s Reports http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/index.php Census Report for year 1910 covers the 1900s US Total Population 92,228,531 Total increase over 1900 is not on here because the US Census Bureau’s site does not have the 1900 Census Report to subtract from 1910. Census Report for year 1920 covers the 1910s US Total Population 106,021,568 Total increase over the previous Census Report 13,793,037 Census Report for year 1930 covers the 1920s US Total Population 123,202,660 Total increase over the previous Census Report 17,185,092 Census Report for year 1940 covers the 1930s US Total Population 132,165,129 Total increase over the previous Census Report 8,962,469 the great depression caused this smaller increase in population. Census Report for year 1950 covers the 1940s US Total Population 151,325,798 Total increase over the previous Census Report 19,160,669 I used 4 years of this for the Baby Boom calculations.
4 Jerry R. Littau July 12, 2011
Census Report for year 1960 covers the 1950s US Total Population 179,323,175 Total increase over the previous Census Report 27,997,377 I used the full 10 years of this for the Baby Boom calculations. Census Report for year 1970 covers the 1960s US Total Population 203,211,926 Total increase over the previous Census Report 23,888,751 I used 4 years of this for the Baby Boom calculations.
Census Report for year 1980 covers the 1970s US Total Population 226,545,805 Total increase over the previous Census Report 23,333,879 Census Report for year 1990 covers the 1980s US Total Population 248,709,873 Total increase over the previous Census Report 22,164,068 Census Report for year 2000 covers the 1990s US Total Population 281,421,906 Total increase over the previous Census Report 32,712,033
Census Report for year 2010 covers the 2000s US Total Population 308,745,538 Total increase over the previous Census Report 27,323,632 If you add up all the increases since 1964, you will see the population has increased a known 129,422,363 subtract 4-years of the 1960s for the so-called Baby Boom = 119,866,862.6. The 2000 Census Report was 4,714,656 larger than the 1960, which covers the 10-years of the 1950s. It is the largest Census Report of the so-called Baby Boomers. The 2010 Census Report increased the US Population 27,323,632 this is almost as much as the 1950s, the largest so-called Baby Boom Census Report. The 1950 was 27,997,377, there is only 673,745 differences. The following link is to the United States population clock http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html
5 Jerry R. Littau July 12, 2011
If you click, the World Census Clock link, the United States population is over 311,333,672. The reason the World Census Clock shows 2,588,134 more than the 2010 Census Report, is it keeps counting every second and the 2010 Census report was April 1, 2010, that is several months difference. When you check this clock, it will have a different number than I have in this note. The clock keeps updating. The numbers I used was on May 11, 2011 about 3:00 p.m. These numbers keep increasing as the population grows. How can there not be an increase in people paying in Social Security compared to people drawing out Social Security? Following is the information the population clock had the last time I checked it on May 11, 2011. I added the yearly totals, as the clock does not give them. There is 31,536,000 seconds in a year (60sec X 60min X 24hr X 365 days = number of seconds in a calendar year 31,536,000) One birth every 8 seconds = 3,942,000 every year One death every 12 seconds = 2,628,000 every year One international migrant (net) every 45 seconds = 700,800 every year Net gain of one person every 14-second in the United States The population increases approximately 2,252,571 every year in the United States. They say we live longer, and they make it sound much longer than real life expectancy is. Social Security’s, Internet page says, if you exclude infant mortality and figure life expectancy from age 21, to death since 1940, life expectancy has increased a modest 5 years. The infant mortality back then was much higher. Including infants is what people use to distort the numbers. Infants would not have paid in Social Security or drawn Social Security; therefore would not have affected Social Security. Following is the link to the Social Security page. http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html the comments they have on their page about a Baby Boom generation, is wrong. There is no Baby Boom hitting, or going to hit, Social Security, check the numbers on the census reports. Average Life Expectancy: Do a search on the Internet; the average life expectancy is 77.9 years. Do not just pick the longest life expectancy, or the shortest. 77.9 years is the average life expectancy. Following is the link for the information: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm. I have had people say the modest 5 years life expectancy stated on the Social Security page, is a 40% increase. They do not consider the amount that each person pays now has increased several hundred percents, since 1940. It is still just 5 years more the average person may draw Social Security. If he could start at age 65, and lived the national average of 77.9 years. However, Congress has started moving the age that you can start drawing full Social Security to age 67. It soon will be only 3 years more that you can draw the full amount, if you live the same 77.9 years. If you look at the surplus Congress owes Social Security, this extra 5 or 3 years will not break Social Security. It will just keep Congress from owing Social Security as much. Then that much would never be part of the national debt. Social Security indexes what you paid in over your highest 35 years of earnings with national wage increases over your lifetime, etc. to determine what you draw out. The person drawing on the examples below may not have been the person, who paid in on that amount. However, 6 Jerry R. Littau July 12, 2011
someone else did. Social Security is like a 401K in a pool. Therefore, there is always someone else paying in at a higher rate. This way it does not matter who is drawing on which amount. Notice the people who do not start drawing until age 67, do not get all the money back that someone paid in on an average income of $30,000. Somewhere between $30,000 and $50,000 average income, paid on, from there up no matter if they start at age 65 or 67 everyone is paying in more than any person will ever draw out. This is not counting interest and capital gain on that money for 45-plus years.
Following are some example of how much a person pays in compared to how much a person can draw out of Social Security
===================================================================== Example #1 A 20-year-old person who works for 45 years earning $25,000 per year average, paying in 12.4%, pays in $3,100 per year, 45 years X $3.100 = $139,500. At age 65 full retirement the max the person who draws on this can receive is $12,936 per year, if they live the life expectancy of 77.9 years this person may draw 12.9 years X $12,936 = $166,874 total. This person will draw ($27,374) more than was paid in on $25,000 per year average income. If this person starts drawing at age 67, he will draw $141,002.40 total. This is ($1,502.40) more than was paid in on $25,000 per year average income. The $139,500 paid in does not include any interest or capital gain over the 45-years, which would add up to more than they would overdraw. In addition, further down you will see that many people are paying in much more than any person will ever draw out. On top of what the people who paid in that died before he or she reached 77.9 years, their money is in there also. ===================================================================== Example#2 A 20-year-old person who works for 45 years earning $30,000 per years average, paying in 12.4%, pays in $3,720 per year, 45 years X $3,720 = $167,400. At age 65 full retirement the max the person who draws on this can receive is $14,544 per year, if they live the life expectancy of 77.9 years, this person may draw 12.9 years X $14,544 = $187,617.60 total. This person will draw ($20,217) more than was paid in on $30,000 per year average income. If this person starts drawing at age 67, he or she will draw $148,348.80 this is $19,051.20 less than was paid in on $30,000 per year average income. This is not figuring any interest and capital gain, on what someone paid in over 45 years; ===================================================================== Example #3 A 20-year-old person who works for the next 45 years earning $50,000 per year average, paying in 12.4%, pays in $6,200 per year, 45 years X $6,200 = $279,000. At age 65 full retirement the max the person who draws on this can receive is $20,940 per year, if this person lives the life expectancy of 77.9 years, they may draw 12.9 years X $20,940 = $270,126 total. This person will draw $8,874 less than was paid in on $50,000 per year average income. 7 Jerry R. Littau July 12, 2011
If this person starts drawing at age 67, he or she will draw $228,246 this is $50,754 less than was paid in on $50,000 per year average income. This is not figuring any interest and capital gain, on what someone paid in over 45 years. ===================================================================== Example #4 Many people are paying 12.4% on the full $106,800 of income. This is the max anyone pays on for years 2009, 2010 and 2011, this adds up to $13,144 per year X 45 years = $591,480. At age 65 full retirement the max the person who draws on this can receive is $28,692 per year, if they live the life expectancy of 77.9 years, this person may draw 12.9 years X $28,692 = $370,126.80. They will draw $221,354 less than was paid in on $106,800 per year average income. This is not figuring any interest and capital gain, on what someone paid in over 45 years. If this person starts drawing at age 67, he or she will draw $312,742.80 this is $278,737.20 less than was paid in on $106,800 per year average income. This is not figuring any interest and capital gain, on what someone paid in over 45 years. ===================================================================== Any of these example plus the compound interests and capital gain add up to more than anyone person will ever draw from Social Security. It also shows that the so-called rich are paying much more than they will get back. That plus what is left in the trust fund by people that die before they get to draw much, if any out, more than makes up for what the lower paid people over draw. Even if the ratio of people paying in compared to people drawing out is one-to-one there is more money going into Social Security than what retirees are drawing out. They need to stop trying to use the ratio of what a person pays in per year to what that person draws out per year. They need to use the actual years and dollar amounts of what a person paid in and what he or she draws out. No one draws 45 or 55 years of benefits out, like the 45 to 55 years, he or she paid in. A person draw out far fewer years than the numbers of years he or she paid in. Therefore, using the ratio of what a person paid in compared to what he or she draws out per year does not give a true picture of what is happening. Neither does the ratio of people paying in compared to the number of people drawing out give a true picture of the Social Security status. We need to use actual numbers, not ratios. Many people pay into Social Security, and never get to draw any money out or very little before, they die. Then consider how the population keeps increasing and what each person pays into Social Security, plus interest and how it adds up. Social Security will never go broke if we stop paying anything except Social Security out of it, and invest it wisely. The Citizens should demand that Congress move the full retirement age back to age 65, and increase benefits to people on Social Security. They need to adjust the income or output where it leaves a reasonable surplus in the trust fund to cover any years that it come up a little short. It does not need trillions of dollars surplus left over for the government to spend.
8 Jerry R. Littau July 12, 2011
Social Security and Medicare (A) are not unearned entitlements. They are a form of social insurance that people pay to supplement their retirement, and sickness insurance in old age. They pay this in while they are young and able to work, in order to receive the benefits when they are older and no longer working. Some people will pay in more than they receive back and others will get back more than they paid in, but this is the practice with any form of insurance, public, or private. There is no Baby Boom hitting, or going to hit Social Security, or Medicare. Therefore, the numbers used to show that Social Security will go broke are WRONG, and the projection that so many have forecast are wrong, including the National Debt projections.
9 Jerry R. Littau July 12, 2011
