How much are we really spending on SS and Medicare?

[American Horse]

Maybe we shouldn't let the government "borrow" from SS.

First, Social Security is an INSURANCE. It isn't a savings account. If people don't need to receive social security benefits, then they shouldn't. Minimum income reequirements including taking into account "unearned income" would greatly reduce the burden on the system.

Second, Keep the government from borrowing money from those funds in order to pay for other things. Considering how much the government has 'borrowed', is it no wonder the program isn't solvent? Could you imagine if all that money had been invested in the private sector by the government instead?
It's not too late to change that policy.

sure I can imagine if that money has been "invested" in the private sector. It sould be similar to the stimulus. Where did all the money go? Is that all we have to show for it?

Of course the private sector wants this so they will make profits from our "ss insurance" premiums. The market has been saturated for years, the credit foundering kept things going for a while but no more. So private industry began to chase tax dollars.
And the move towards privitizatin began.

the private industries we would be investing in now would be in China and India, etc.

Look, there are lots of retirement programs in states (my own state of IN is one) in which they have opted out of SS and depend on the state's own program invested in the private economy. All that money in the private economy, with some real discipline, unlike what we saw with Fannie and Freddie - two Govt. Sponsored Entities - would create jobs through the stimulus guided by investors seeking profit and growth. Again unlike F&F which had no higher and noble of a goal than to cater to politicians and their whim dejour, in that case it was a home and home mortgage for everyone, even those who would've been better off in a rental so that they could maintain flexibility of living location for a job situation. F&F did not perform their fidiciary duty, and the de-regulation, or failure of regulation was of those two GSEs.

I don't trust politiciians, of any party; they will act to preserve their own situation, or make it even more secure, with the public's coming in a far distant second..

 

[Cuyo]

We pay dedicated opremiums for both medicare and SS, the amount of tax dollars spent are only the amounts required over those amounts.
And technically SS still has a surplus so we are spending nothing on it yet.

But the Right seems to not want the government to pay it's obligation to SS?
The money owed to SS, well over 2 trillion.

I think the trust fund has about an $11 trillion shortfall as far as its obligations over the next 75 years.

I am not talking about the next 75 years. I am talking about now and how much we are actually spending on SS. ie tax dollars not SS "contributions"

Yes SS needs to be adjusted for the future. LIke removing the cap on how much salary you pay SS contributions on.
And raising the age of eligibility since we live longer.

Then the answer to your question is: zero. Last year's surplus was around $77B. The cumulative surplus is around $2.7T. All other things equal, the national debt would be $2.7T MORE had SS never existed.

Of course, with people living longer, adjustments are needed to insure continued solvency. Raising retirement age, increasing upper limit on contribution cap, and raising the tax itself, are all potential solutions.

Cutting payments to enable the current generation to pay lower taxes than current beneficiaries ever paid? That's one of the most obnoxious "Solutions" I've ever heard.

But the fact remains... The program is still deficit-positive. It will collect more, even this year, than it pays out.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Knock yourselves out:

Howstuffworks

 

[NYcarbineer]

We pay dedicated opremiums for both medicare and SS, the amount of tax dollars spent are only the amounts required over those amounts.
And technically SS still has a surplus so we are spending nothing on it yet.

But the Right seems to not want the government to pay it's obligation to SS?
The money owed to SS, well over 2 trillion.

Yeah SS has a surplus

Ahh the right wing denail of a debt owed.
Just what I was talking about.

IN your mind then neither do the banks that have loans outstanding hold no assets by holding those loans?
And treasury bonds are not assets neither?

They just can't get it through their heads that SS is funded by the payroll tax.

The payroll tax is a specific dedicated revenue that is collected solely for the purpose of funding SS.

The reason it is borrowed by the federal government is simply because SS, like any other insurance, or retirement fund, needs to INVEST the money to make it grow. SS can ONLY invest in treasuries because of their safety (well, what we thought was their safety until the new American Right appeared on the scene).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We pay dedicated opremiums for both medicare and SS, the amount of tax dollars spent are only the amounts required over those amounts.
And technically SS still has a surplus so we are spending nothing on it yet.

But the Right seems to not want the government to pay it's obligation to SS?
The money owed to SS, well over 2 trillion.

I think the trust fund has about an $11 trillion shortfall as far as its obligations over the next 75 years.

I am not talking about the next 75 years. I am talking about now and how much we are actually spending on SS. ie tax dollars not SS "contributions"

Yes SS needs to be adjusted for the future. LIke removing the cap on how much salary you pay SS contributions on.
And raising the age of eligibility since we live longer.

We need to adjust the increases based on CPI not income growth.
Making it voluntary would reduce the shortfall as well.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think the trust fund has about an $11 trillion shortfall as far as its obligations over the next 75 years.

I am not talking about the next 75 years. I am talking about now and how much we are actually spending on SS. ie tax dollars not SS "contributions"

Yes SS needs to be adjusted for the future. LIke removing the cap on how much salary you pay SS contributions on.
And raising the age of eligibility since we live longer.

Then the answer to your question is: zero. Last year's surplus was around $77B. The cumulative surplus is around $2.7T. All other things equal, the national debt would be $2.7T MORE had SS never existed.

Of course, with people living longer, adjustments are needed to insure continued solvency. Raising retirement age, increasing upper limit on contribution cap, and raising the tax itself, are all potential solutions.

Cutting payments to enable the current generation to pay lower taxes than current beneficiaries ever paid? That's one of the most obnoxious "Solutions" I've ever heard.

But the fact remains... The program is still deficit-positive. It will collect more, even this year, than it pays out.

You are mistaken.....


"Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers"

Trustees Report Summary