It’s time to start cashing them in.

For more than two decades, Social Security collected more money in payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits — billions more each year.

Not anymore. This year, for the first time since the 1980s, when Congress last overhauled Social Security, the retirement program is projected to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes — nearly $29 billion more.

Sounds like a good time to start tapping the nest egg. Too bad the federal government already spent that money over the years on other programs, preferring to borrow from Social Security rather than foreign creditors. In return, the Treasury Department issued a stack of IOUs — in the form of Treasury bonds — which are kept in a nondescript office building just down the street from Parkersburg’s municipal offices.

Now the government will have to borrow even more money, much of it abroad, to start paying back the IOUs, and the timing couldn’t be worse. The government is projected to post a record $1.5 trillion budget deficit this year, followed by trillion dollar deficits for years to come.

Social Security’s shortfall will not affect current benefits. As long as the IOUs last, benefits will keep flowing. But experts say it is a warning sign that the program’s finances are deteriorating. Social Security is projected to drain its trust funds by 2037 unless Congress acts, and there’s concern that the looming crisis will lead to reduced benefits.

TO CONTINUE READING THIS ARTICLE, CLICK THIS LINK FOR YAHOO! NEWS:

Social Security to start cashing Uncle Sam’s IOUs – Yahoo! News.

Social Security benefits are off-limits to creditors, such as credit-card companies and banks. But the U.S. can collect debts to federal agencies by “offsetting,” or withholding Social Security and disability payments.

The Treasury currently withholds benefits of 3.1 million Social Security recipients to recover defaulted student-, farm- and small-business loans, unpaid income taxes, amounts veterans owe for health care, and other debts to the government.

Previously, the U.S. hasn’t been able to withhold Social Security payments to recover most debts delinquent for more than ten years.

TO CONTINUE READING THIS ARTICLE, CLICK THIS LINK FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:

Defaulted Loans May Haunt Seniors – WSJ.com.

If you’re like most Americans, it’s also something you give out all too frequently.

“As with so many procedures in the business world, your Social Security number is something that many companies ask for, so no one really questions it,” says James Van Dyke, president of Javelin Strategy & Research, a research firm that tracks financial services topics. “But giving out your Social Security number is definitely a practice consumers should think twice about.”

Case in point: A recent Javelin Strategy & Research report — the 2009 ID Fraud Survey — found that, among identity theft victims, 38 percent said the perpetrator had obtained their Social Security number and used it in the crime. “It’s certainly logical to say that you could eliminate 38 percent of your risk of identity theft by limiting access to your Social Security number,” says Van Dyke.

TO CONTINUE THIS ARTICLE, CLICK THIS LINK FOR CREDITCARD.COM: When you should, shouldn’t give out your Social Security number.

Although certain destinations may be particularly attractive – for reasons ranging from the weather and availability of health care to tax advantages and property values – there’s a wide variety of cities and towns consistently considered the top places to retire.

To find out where these places are, AARP Magazine over the years has ranked retirement destinations under a variety of criteria, from “The Best Places to Live a Simple Life,” to the “Healthiest Hometowns” and “The Best Places to Reinvent Your Life”. From these lists, CNBC.com has focused on a selection of towns and cities recognized as top places to retire, picking the best and most unique locations from AARP Magazine’s overall reviews.

So, where are some of the top places for Baby Boomers (and anyone else, for that matter) to retire in America? Click ahead to find out!

FOR CONTINUATION OF THIS ARTICLE, CLICK THIS LINK FOR CNBC: America’s Top Places For Boomers To Retire – CNBC.

In a brief appearance with advisers at the White House, Obama branded the latest round of bank bonuses as “obscene.” But he said his goal was to prevent such excesses in the future, not to punish banks for past behavior.

The tax, which would require congressional approval, would last at least 10 years and generate about $90 billion over the decade, according to administration estimates. “If these companies are in good enough shape to afford massive bonuses, they are surely in good enough shape to afford paying back every penny to taxpayers,” Obama said.

Advisers believe the administration can make an argument that banks should tap their bonus pools for the fee instead of passing the cost on to consumers.

The president’s tone was emphatic and populist, capitalizing on public antipathy toward Wall Street. With the sharp words, he also tried to deflect some of the growing skepticism aimed at his own economic policies as unemployment stubbornly hovers around 10 percent.

FOR CONTINUATION OF ARTICLE, CLICK THIS LINK FOR ATLANTA BUSINESS NEWS: Obama tells banks: ‘We want our money back’  | ajc.com.

States passed fiscal 2010 general-fund budgets totaling $627.9 billion, 5.4% less than a year earlier, says a study released last month by the National Association of State Budget Officers and National Governors Association.

Despite cuts, shortfalls for the 2010 fiscal year, which in most states began July 1, are $14.8 billion, the study says. The gap in 2011: $21.9 billion.

The liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says new gaps have opened up in at least 39 states’ budgets for the current fiscal year. In all, every state except Montana and North Dakota addressed or still faces budget shortfalls for fiscal year 2010. “Very large” shortfalls likely will last through 2012, says Nicholas Johnson, an author of that study.

“One of the big challenges for (this) year is that states have done most of the easy things,” he says. Another problem: Federal stimulus funds, which helped fill gaps, will soon begin to expire.

FOR CONTINUATION OF THIS ARTICLE, CLICK THIS LINK FOR USA TODAY: States braced to tighten 2010 belts amid $14.8B in shortfalls – USATODAY.com.

Well, that never materialized and neither did our more positive resolutions to cut back on our debts. Now that we are a decade into the new century, it is appropriate to offer 10 new tips for the next year that will help you get that debt devil under control.

Here are my top 10 ways to get rid of consumer debt in 2010.

Tip 1  Know what you owe.

To get where you need to be, you need to know where you are starting. Gather up all your statements and determine how much you owe in total. If you don’t like the answer, this negative exercise can give you the oomph to get going.

Tip 2  Yes, you can, with a plan!

Having a spending plan for your income is the best way to ensure that you are spending your hard-earned money in the way you want and most importantly, in the way that assures your financial success.

Tip 3   Make your own Treasury stimulus plan.

Review your income tax withholding. If you are receiving a tax refund of more than $600, you are providing an interest-free loan to the IRS. A better idea is to adjust your withholding — have less money taken out for income taxes — and use those funds earning zero percent interest to help pay down your high interest consumer debt.

FOR CONTINUATION OF THIS ARTICLE, CLICK THIS LINK: 10 ways to dump your debt in 2010.

Many Americans take Social Security early, at age 62, because they really need it. They’re in poor health or unemployed or both. Others take benefits early because they’re worried they’ll lose out on what’s rightfully theirs if benefits are reduced. But few people try to figure out the best age to take Social Security — and that’s a serious mistake.

Even though it’s challenging, calculating the best time to take benefits is well worth it, especially given that Social Security represents about one-third of the average retiree’s income.

What’s key is evaluating the so-called break-even period to determine whether it would be better to delay Social Security benefits (delaying them means a higher monthly benefit), take a reduced benefit early, or start them at “normal” retirement age. Of course, there’s a good reason why so few people really do the calculations.

“When to begin Social Security retirement benefits is a challenging question that vexes many financial planners and clients,” Michael Kitces, editor of The Kitces Report, wrote in a recent issue.

Living beyond the break-even point can produce large amounts of wealth relative to the risk. But delaying Social Security benefits does represent a serious risk, Kitces said: If you wait and then die before claiming your benefit, it really messes things up for your widow. Still, there are situations in which delaying Social Security retirement benefits can pay off significantly.

FOR CONTINUATION OF THIS ARTICLE, CLICK THIS LINK FOR YAHOO! FINANCE: make-your-social-security-choice-wisely: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance.

Supporters, including many senators, say that the tax is essential to tamping down medical spending and that over 10 years it would generate more than $200 billion, nearly a fourth of what is needed to pay for the legislation.

Critics, including House members and labor unions, say the tax would quickly spiral out of control and hit middle-class workers, people more closely associated with minivans than Cadillacs.

The tax, a provision of the bill to be voted on Tuesday by the Senate Finance Committee, is one of the few remaining proposals under consideration by Congress that budget experts say could lead directly to a reduction in health care spending over the long term, by prompting employers and employees to buy cheaper insurance. Whether it remains in the bill is emerging as a test of the commitment by President Obama and his party to slowing the steep rise of medical expenses.

It is also a prime example of the major differences still to be bridged by Democrats as health care legislation advances to floor debate in both houses.

Under the Finance Committee bill, the tax would be imposed beginning in 2013 on employer- sponsored health plans with total premiums exceeding $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families, regardless of whether the coverage was paid for by the employer, the individual or both. The tax would be paid by insurers, who would be expected to pass along the cost to customers.

Critics say that would mean an increase in premiums or in out-of-pocket expenses for employees, raising medical costs for individuals and families.

Supporters say the more likely prospect is that employers would bargain-hunt or take other steps to avoid the tax, putting pressure on insurers to offer cheaper coverage and slowing the rise in medical costs for everyone.

In a preliminary estimate, the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation calculated that absent any such employer efforts, 14 percent of family health policies and 19 percent of individual policies would be hit by the tax in 2013. By 2019, according to the estimate, 37 percent of family policies and 41 percent of individual policies would be affected. Those numbers rise over time in these calculations because although the initial tax threshold would increase with the economy’s overall inflation, premiums would be expected to rise even faster.

FOR CONTINUATION OF THIS ARTICLE, CLICK THIS LINK FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: Congress Is Split on Effort to Tax Costly Health Plans – NYTimes.com.

An increasing number of influential Democrats and fiscal-policy experts have signaled that lawmakers will have to get a handle on the deficit. And they recommend seriously considering the creation of a value-added tax (VAT) on top of the federal income tax.

That could mean more money out of everyone’s pockets when buying virtually anything — sweaters, school books, furniture, pottery classes, dinners out.

A VAT is tax on consumption similar to a national sales tax. But it’s not just paid at the cash register. It’s levied at every stage of production. So all businesses involved in making a product or performing a service would pay a VAT. And then the end-user — such as the retail customer — ponies up as well.

No one is suggesting raising taxes or creating new ones before the economy stabilizes.

But Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve who heads President Obama’s tax reform panel, is advocating a little advance planning.

When it comes to getting control of the country’s debt burden, “I think if we can’t do it on the cost side, we’ve got to go on the revenue side. And it’s too early to do it, but it’s not too early to begin wondering,” Volcker said Wednesday in an televised interview with PBS’ Charlie Rose. “You’ve got talk about some tax that hits consumption,” said Volcker. “Value-added is one.”

John Podesta, the head of the liberal think tank Center for American Progress who headed President Obama’s transition team, also raised the issue of a VAT this week. He noted that the only way to stabilize the debt situation is to reduce spending, reduce the growth in health care costs and add new revenue.

FOR CONTINUATION OF THIS STORY, CLICK THE LINK FOR CNN: Tax and fiscal experts say it’s time to consider VAT – Oct. 2, 2009.