CDZ Social Security Trust Fund will go broke in 17 years

[flacaltenn]

4 steps to ensure the program is properly funded:

1) Gradually Raise "Full" retirement age to 68 - then index to life expectancy going forward.
2) Raise the cap on taxable earnings to cover 90% of earning (about $275,000 today) - index to wage growth so that it remains at 90%
3) Increase payroll tax by 1% (1/2% employer and 1/2% employee)
4) Use chained CPI for COLA increases.

Viola!! Social Security is fixed for 100 years minimum.

Not sure I want to see 68 yr old roofers forced to work to age 68. This is an asinine requirement for getting your benefits. Especially if you WRECK your health getting to retirement.

Raising caps just destroys this whole UNIVERSAL deal. It makes it another welfare program. If that's done, America will never trust any "UNIVERSAL" program again. MAKE it a welfare program. Don't fuck around the edges.

Going to 14% of income for self-employed is a non-starter. It was originally PROMISED never to exceed 1 or 2% of income. So much for the analytics and projections of ANY Govt program.. Chimps could be more prescient.

Current "full" retirement age is 67 for folks born after 1960 so, adding 1 year is not an "asinine" requirement.

The tax for Social security is currently 6.2% for the employee and 6.2% for the employer. Going to 6.7% each is not going to bankrupt anyone. If it does, you're a financial moron. At any rate, TANSTAAFL!!

Do I love the program? Hell no! I'd like to see workers be able to permanently opt out and invest the money into their own retirement accounts. But that ain't gonna happen in my lifetime. Our society views "government" as their daddy......and the sheeple are too stupid to handle their own finances.

PS- Most Roofers don't continue roofing after a certain age, they become Superintendents, Estimators, or Salesmen.

Any owner of a roofing company that's NOT out on the job sites --- is gonna lose his business. An Obama commission in 2010 recommended not ONE year -- but raising the full vesting age to 69.. There's not much savings for doing this since EVERY year is on a sliding scale from "early retirement" to age 70 already..

Self employed folks like me pay the ENTIRE FICA tax. It's not just increase of SS tax. It's the proposed hike in Medicare Tax as well. Right now -- that's 15.3% of my income. At that rate, I'd have to live to 110 to break even. In fact, most people whose EMPLOYER pays the 1/2 -- are in the same boat. They just don't KNOW it.

SOMEBODY is paying it. And the point is -- the TOTAL BENEFITS RECVD for all that money are getting to the point where you just as well might stuff it a mattress and do a better investment.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If I'm not mistaken, the SSTF by law could not keep the excess funds that exceeded the payouts, it had to be in effect turned over to the US Treasury to spend on other things, who in turn gave the SSTF an IOU for that money. [BTW, that's how Clinton ended up with a surplus in his last year.]

Now there's the crux of the matter. Stupid limited thinking on the part of Congress and Trustless Trustees.

Instead of stealing and squandering the Surplus there's any number of creative ways that the excess could have used to REDUCE future liabilities.

One is -- they could have BOUGHT BACK EXISTING Treasuries already sold and out in the marketplace. REAL Debt instruments that when they bought them, would have REDUCED the debt and make future payouts easier. And -- they could hold them and SELL THEM if necessary..

Two is -- they could have USED the surplus to allow volunteers to forgo a SMALL FRACTION of their FICA contributions in return for FUTURE reduced benefits. A REAL value to the future of the fund.

Three is -- They could have created a lockbox for inter-govermental "loans" subject to market interest payments. That would allow for emergency expenditures from any number of "underfunded" agencies to be paid back like any note. NOT subject to zero-based budgeting like you suggested. Because this is an Insurance Underwriting process long recognized as ESSENTIAL to the financial stability of ANY insurance agency..

Instead they stole and squandered it. Kicking the can down the road. And Congress/Leadership NEVER RESPONDED to a looming crisis that we KNEW WAS COMING for 30 years.

One is -- they could have BOUGHT BACK EXISTING Treasuries already sold and out in the marketplace. REAL Debt instruments that when they bought them, would have REDUCED the debt and make future payouts easier.

Say the government has a $50 billion surplus in SocSec and a $100 billion deficit in the rest of the government.
SocSec gets $50 billion in non-marketable securities (IOUs) and the government sells $50 billion in new Treasuries to the rest of the world.

Under your scenario, Soc Sec buys $50 billion in existing Treasuries, while the government sells $100 billion in new Treasuries.

There is zero difference in the debt between those two scenarios.

Actually, there are several important differences. There would MARKETABLE paper already backing up the SSA deficits when they needed to be funded. The interest would have PRODUCED and paid during the years those bonds sat in a vault..

But more importantly --- debt would have BOOKED as debt. There would have been no magic claims of "balancing the budget" during the Clinton Admin. Congress couldn't be heroes for pulling off that magic trick.

And finally AMERICANS would actually have title to REAL faith and credit from the govt and not have to listen to how the program needed the Caps vaulted skyward and FICA taxes raised in order to fix the KNOWN shortfalls that were gonna occur. Americans... Not foreign govts or institutions receiving all those $Bills of interest..

Actually, there are several important differences. There would MARKETABLE paper already backing up the SSA deficits when they needed to be funded. The interest would have PRODUCED and paid during the years those bonds sat in a vault..

There is no difference.

But more importantly --- debt would have BOOKED as debt.

It is booked as debt. Debt held by SocSec.

And finally AMERICANS would actually have title to REAL faith and credit from the govt

Don't know what you mean here.

 

[dblack]

Single Payer!!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

If I'm not mistaken, the SSTF by law could not keep the excess funds that exceeded the payouts, it had to be in effect turned over to the US Treasury to spend on other things, who in turn gave the SSTF an IOU for that money. [BTW, that's how Clinton ended up with a surplus in his last year.]

Now there's the crux of the matter. Stupid limited thinking on the part of Congress and Trustless Trustees.

Instead of stealing and squandering the Surplus there's any number of creative ways that the excess could have used to REDUCE future liabilities.

One is -- they could have BOUGHT BACK EXISTING Treasuries already sold and out in the marketplace. REAL Debt instruments that when they bought them, would have REDUCED the debt and make future payouts easier. And -- they could hold them and SELL THEM if necessary..

Two is -- they could have USED the surplus to allow volunteers to forgo a SMALL FRACTION of their FICA contributions in return for FUTURE reduced benefits. A REAL value to the future of the fund.

Three is -- They could have created a lockbox for inter-govermental "loans" subject to market interest payments. That would allow for emergency expenditures from any number of "underfunded" agencies to be paid back like any note. NOT subject to zero-based budgeting like you suggested. Because this is an Insurance Underwriting process long recognized as ESSENTIAL to the financial stability of ANY insurance agency..

Instead they stole and squandered it. Kicking the can down the road. And Congress/Leadership NEVER RESPONDED to a looming crisis that we KNEW WAS COMING for 30 years.

One is -- they could have BOUGHT BACK EXISTING Treasuries already sold and out in the marketplace. REAL Debt instruments that when they bought them, would have REDUCED the debt and make future payouts easier.

Say the government has a $50 billion surplus in SocSec and a $100 billion deficit in the rest of the government.
SocSec gets $50 billion in non-marketable securities (IOUs) and the government sells $50 billion in new Treasuries to the rest of the world.

Under your scenario, Soc Sec buys $50 billion in existing Treasuries, while the government sells $100 billion in new Treasuries.

There is zero difference in the debt between those two scenarios.

Actually, there are several important differences. There would MARKETABLE paper already backing up the SSA deficits when they needed to be funded. The interest would have PRODUCED and paid during the years those bonds sat in a vault..

But more importantly --- debt would have BOOKED as debt. There would have been no magic claims of "balancing the budget" during the Clinton Admin. Congress couldn't be heroes for pulling off that magic trick.

And finally AMERICANS would actually have title to REAL faith and credit from the govt and not have to listen to how the program needed the Caps vaulted skyward and FICA taxes raised in order to fix the KNOWN shortfalls that were gonna occur. Americans... Not foreign govts or institutions receiving all those $Bills of interest..

Actually, there are several important differences. There would MARKETABLE paper already backing up the SSA deficits when they needed to be funded. The interest would have PRODUCED and paid during the years those bonds sat in a vault..

There is no difference.

But more importantly --- debt would have BOOKED as debt.

It is booked as debt. Debt held by SocSec.

And finally AMERICANS would actually have title to REAL faith and credit from the govt

Don't know what you mean here.

Of course there's a difference on holding REAL Debt. The Treasury forks over interest EVERY YEAR and comes out of CURRENT budgets (for past 30 years) rather than future budgets.

Debt held by Social Security is NOT COUNTED in "debt ceiling" arguments and all the other phonyness and pretend shit that passes for fiscal mgt. It means nothing as a spending constraint. Until about 6 years ago when the theft from FICA petered out. .

You get the government ADDICTED to that $30B annual heist and they'll never give it up. If they didn't HAVE IT -- budgets would be somewhere lower than they were..

 

[Toro]

Except that it's not INDIVIDUALS that are being debited and credited. Those "debits" were never booked as DEBT when they were incurred. Not in a way that matters to the taxpayers. Taxpayers were overcharged for donations and fleeced. And NOW the Treasury issues NEW DEBT to honor the IOUs as tho NOTHING was ever "booked".. So it's the TAXPAYERS paying the phony "interest" on SSA "holdings". And when they're robbed the 2nd time to cough up the cash for the IOUs, the criminals pile on the additional CURRENT bond interests to the some of same victims -- just as a final kick in the groin...

The trusts are credited and debited based on actuarial and interest rate assumptions as well as the expected and realized payments to the participants in the pool. The government then comes up with the assets and liabilities of the pool, and your account credits and debits are imputed based on the estimated or actual payments you will or are receiving over your lifetime. That's how a defined benefit pension plan works.

What is confusing about the system is that it operates as if it were buying and selling actual Treasury securities. Other than the actual purchase and sale of government securities, the SS pools work exactly the same as as a fund that buys and sells Treasury securities. But the government figured out that the actual purchase and sale of Treasury securities is irrelevant to the operations of the fund. By debiting and crediting the trusts as if they were buying and selling securities, they economics are exactly the same. This is why people think it is a scam or a Ponzi scheme. It's confusing if you don't understand how pension funds work. Heck, it's confusing even if you do understand how pension funds work.

The debits are booked as debt to the Treasury, i.e. the US government and as assets to the trusts. The calculation of the total debt of the United States includes these debits.

Taxpayers are not overcharged. In fact, most taxpayers will receive more in SS payments than they contributed plus imputed interested. That's because people have lived longer and worked less than what was modeled decades ago. That's a big reason why the trusts are underfunded.

The issuance of debt to cover the "IOUs" is a function of the annual primary deficit or surplus of the fund, i.e the actual cash flows of the fund. If the fund is in surplus, then actual Treasury bonds are retired. If the fund is in deficit, the Treasury issues securities. Last year, the government had to issue $53 billion to offset the deficit in the trusts.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This has been in the works ever since Saint Ronnie The Ray Goon raided the trust fund to keep his reign in the black. Needles to say repukes never have figured out how they would replenish the fund.

LOL Democrats controlled Congress Until 1994 how exactly did a Republican President get them to "raid" the fund?

 

[flacaltenn]

Except that it's not INDIVIDUALS that are being debited and credited. Those "debits" were never booked as DEBT when they were incurred. Not in a way that matters to the taxpayers. Taxpayers were overcharged for donations and fleeced. And NOW the Treasury issues NEW DEBT to honor the IOUs as tho NOTHING was ever "booked".. So it's the TAXPAYERS paying the phony "interest" on SSA "holdings". And when they're robbed the 2nd time to cough up the cash for the IOUs, the criminals pile on the additional CURRENT bond interests to the some of same victims -- just as a final kick in the groin...

The trusts are credited and debited based on actuarial and interest rate assumptions as well as the expected and realized payments to the participants in the pool. The government then comes up with the assets and liabilities of the pool, and your account credits and debits are imputed based on the estimated or actual payments you will or are receiving over your lifetime. That's how a defined benefit pension plan works.

What is confusing about the system is that it operates as if it were buying and selling actual Treasury securities. Other than the actual purchase and sale of government securities, the SS pools work exactly the same as as a fund that buys and sells Treasury securities. But the government figured out that the actual purchase and sale of Treasury securities is irrelevant to the operations of the fund. By debiting and crediting the trusts as if they were buying and selling securities, they economics are exactly the same. This is why people think it is a scam or a Ponzi scheme. It's confusing if you don't understand how pension funds work. Heck, it's confusing even if you do understand how pension funds work.

The debits are booked as debt to the Treasury, i.e. the US government and as assets to the trusts. The calculation of the total debt of the United States includes these debits.

Taxpayers are not overcharged. In fact, most taxpayers will receive more in SS payments than they contributed plus imputed interested. That's because people have lived longer and worked less than what was modeled decades ago. That's a big reason why the trusts are underfunded.

The issuance of debt to cover the "IOUs" is a function of the annual primary deficit or surplus of the fund, i.e the actual cash flows of the fund. If the fund is in surplus, then actual Treasury bonds are retired. If the fund is in deficit, the Treasury issues securities. Last year, the government had to issue $53 billion to offset the deficit in the trusts.

This is no "defined benefit" plan. The courts have RULED on that.

And the ONLY INCOME intended to fund the program was from FICA tax. EVERYTHING else is a unicorn.. When it runs a deficit -- it must come from

1) Reduced benefits -- higher FICA
2) Decreased spending ELSEWHERE in the budget
3) Treasury issuing NEW debt on the backs of the folks who got robbed in the 1st place.

BS on receiving more they they paid in. No self-employed person is getting that deal anymore. And with the increases in "premium" -- lucky if the majority stay alive long enough to break even with the CAPS as high as they already are. It WAS a deal for the first 2 generations. Gotten progressively sketchier for each Gen after that. It's ONLY as old as Father in Law. And it's dead ass broken, pilfered, and ignored..

When you COLLECT more than is necessary to pay current enrollees and literally PISS AWAY the rest of the FICA tax you stole from a working poor wallet --- THat IS overcharging...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If I'm not mistaken, the SSTF by law could not keep the excess funds that exceeded the payouts, it had to be in effect turned over to the US Treasury to spend on other things, who in turn gave the SSTF an IOU for that money. [BTW, that's how Clinton ended up with a surplus in his last year.]

Now there's the crux of the matter. Stupid limited thinking on the part of Congress and Trustless Trustees.

Instead of stealing and squandering the Surplus there's any number of creative ways that the excess could have used to REDUCE future liabilities.

One is -- they could have BOUGHT BACK EXISTING Treasuries already sold and out in the marketplace. REAL Debt instruments that when they bought them, would have REDUCED the debt and make future payouts easier. And -- they could hold them and SELL THEM if necessary..

Two is -- they could have USED the surplus to allow volunteers to forgo a SMALL FRACTION of their FICA contributions in return for FUTURE reduced benefits. A REAL value to the future of the fund.

Three is -- They could have created a lockbox for inter-govermental "loans" subject to market interest payments. That would allow for emergency expenditures from any number of "underfunded" agencies to be paid back like any note. NOT subject to zero-based budgeting like you suggested. Because this is an Insurance Underwriting process long recognized as ESSENTIAL to the financial stability of ANY insurance agency..

Instead they stole and squandered it. Kicking the can down the road. And Congress/Leadership NEVER RESPONDED to a looming crisis that we KNEW WAS COMING for 30 years.

One is -- they could have BOUGHT BACK EXISTING Treasuries already sold and out in the marketplace. REAL Debt instruments that when they bought them, would have REDUCED the debt and make future payouts easier.

Say the government has a $50 billion surplus in SocSec and a $100 billion deficit in the rest of the government.
SocSec gets $50 billion in non-marketable securities (IOUs) and the government sells $50 billion in new Treasuries to the rest of the world.

Under your scenario, Soc Sec buys $50 billion in existing Treasuries, while the government sells $100 billion in new Treasuries.

There is zero difference in the debt between those two scenarios.

Actually, there are several important differences. There would MARKETABLE paper already backing up the SSA deficits when they needed to be funded. The interest would have PRODUCED and paid during the years those bonds sat in a vault..

But more importantly --- debt would have BOOKED as debt. There would have been no magic claims of "balancing the budget" during the Clinton Admin. Congress couldn't be heroes for pulling off that magic trick.

And finally AMERICANS would actually have title to REAL faith and credit from the govt and not have to listen to how the program needed the Caps vaulted skyward and FICA taxes raised in order to fix the KNOWN shortfalls that were gonna occur. Americans... Not foreign govts or institutions receiving all those $Bills of interest..

Actually, there are several important differences. There would MARKETABLE paper already backing up the SSA deficits when they needed to be funded. The interest would have PRODUCED and paid during the years those bonds sat in a vault..

There is no difference.

But more importantly --- debt would have BOOKED as debt.

It is booked as debt. Debt held by SocSec.

And finally AMERICANS would actually have title to REAL faith and credit from the govt

Don't know what you mean here.

Of course there's a difference on holding REAL Debt. The Treasury forks over interest EVERY YEAR and comes out of CURRENT budgets (for past 30 years) rather than future budgets.

Debt held by Social Security is NOT COUNTED in "debt ceiling" arguments and all the other phonyness and pretend shit that passes for fiscal mgt. It means nothing as a spending constraint. Until about 6 years ago when the theft from FICA petered out. .

You get the government ADDICTED to that $30B annual heist and they'll never give it up. If they didn't HAVE IT -- budgets would be somewhere lower than they were..

Of course there's a difference on holding REAL Debt.

No. Your idea would have zero impact on the debt. Zero impact on interest owed.

The Treasury forks over interest EVERY YEAR and comes out of CURRENT budgets (for past 30 years) rather than future budgets.

Yes. Whether they borrow strictly from the public or reduce public borrowings with Trust Fund excesses.

If they didn't HAVE IT -- budgets would be somewhere lower than they were

That's a nice theory, but it fails in the real world.

 

[flacaltenn]

Now there's the crux of the matter. Stupid limited thinking on the part of Congress and Trustless Trustees.

Instead of stealing and squandering the Surplus there's any number of creative ways that the excess could have used to REDUCE future liabilities.

One is -- they could have BOUGHT BACK EXISTING Treasuries already sold and out in the marketplace. REAL Debt instruments that when they bought them, would have REDUCED the debt and make future payouts easier. And -- they could hold them and SELL THEM if necessary..

Two is -- they could have USED the surplus to allow volunteers to forgo a SMALL FRACTION of their FICA contributions in return for FUTURE reduced benefits. A REAL value to the future of the fund.

Three is -- They could have created a lockbox for inter-govermental "loans" subject to market interest payments. That would allow for emergency expenditures from any number of "underfunded" agencies to be paid back like any note. NOT subject to zero-based budgeting like you suggested. Because this is an Insurance Underwriting process long recognized as ESSENTIAL to the financial stability of ANY insurance agency..

Instead they stole and squandered it. Kicking the can down the road. And Congress/Leadership NEVER RESPONDED to a looming crisis that we KNEW WAS COMING for 30 years.

One is -- they could have BOUGHT BACK EXISTING Treasuries already sold and out in the marketplace. REAL Debt instruments that when they bought them, would have REDUCED the debt and make future payouts easier.

Say the government has a $50 billion surplus in SocSec and a $100 billion deficit in the rest of the government.
SocSec gets $50 billion in non-marketable securities (IOUs) and the government sells $50 billion in new Treasuries to the rest of the world.

Under your scenario, Soc Sec buys $50 billion in existing Treasuries, while the government sells $100 billion in new Treasuries.

There is zero difference in the debt between those two scenarios.

Actually, there are several important differences. There would MARKETABLE paper already backing up the SSA deficits when they needed to be funded. The interest would have PRODUCED and paid during the years those bonds sat in a vault..

But more importantly --- debt would have BOOKED as debt. There would have been no magic claims of "balancing the budget" during the Clinton Admin. Congress couldn't be heroes for pulling off that magic trick.

And finally AMERICANS would actually have title to REAL faith and credit from the govt and not have to listen to how the program needed the Caps vaulted skyward and FICA taxes raised in order to fix the KNOWN shortfalls that were gonna occur. Americans... Not foreign govts or institutions receiving all those $Bills of interest..

Actually, there are several important differences. There would MARKETABLE paper already backing up the SSA deficits when they needed to be funded. The interest would have PRODUCED and paid during the years those bonds sat in a vault..

There is no difference.

But more importantly --- debt would have BOOKED as debt.

It is booked as debt. Debt held by SocSec.

And finally AMERICANS would actually have title to REAL faith and credit from the govt

Don't know what you mean here.

Of course there's a difference on holding REAL Debt. The Treasury forks over interest EVERY YEAR and comes out of CURRENT budgets (for past 30 years) rather than future budgets.

Debt held by Social Security is NOT COUNTED in "debt ceiling" arguments and all the other phonyness and pretend shit that passes for fiscal mgt. It means nothing as a spending constraint. Until about 6 years ago when the theft from FICA petered out. .

You get the government ADDICTED to that $30B annual heist and they'll never give it up. If they didn't HAVE IT -- budgets would be somewhere lower than they were..

Of course there's a difference on holding REAL Debt.

No. Your idea would have zero impact on the debt. Zero impact on interest owed.

The Treasury forks over interest EVERY YEAR and comes out of CURRENT budgets (for past 30 years) rather than future budgets.

Yes. Whether they borrow strictly from the public or reduce public borrowings with Trust Fund excesses.

If they didn't HAVE IT -- budgets would be somewhere lower than they were

That's a nice theory, but it fails in the real world.

You're not getting this. With actual treasury holdings and BOOKED debt -- the interest payments would have been PAID by now. Not left to your kids to pay..

Just one of a couple things you're missing here..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One is -- they could have BOUGHT BACK EXISTING Treasuries already sold and out in the marketplace. REAL Debt instruments that when they bought them, would have REDUCED the debt and make future payouts easier.

Say the government has a $50 billion surplus in SocSec and a $100 billion deficit in the rest of the government.
SocSec gets $50 billion in non-marketable securities (IOUs) and the government sells $50 billion in new Treasuries to the rest of the world.

Under your scenario, Soc Sec buys $50 billion in existing Treasuries, while the government sells $100 billion in new Treasuries.

There is zero difference in the debt between those two scenarios.

Actually, there are several important differences. There would MARKETABLE paper already backing up the SSA deficits when they needed to be funded. The interest would have PRODUCED and paid during the years those bonds sat in a vault..

But more importantly --- debt would have BOOKED as debt. There would have been no magic claims of "balancing the budget" during the Clinton Admin. Congress couldn't be heroes for pulling off that magic trick.

And finally AMERICANS would actually have title to REAL faith and credit from the govt and not have to listen to how the program needed the Caps vaulted skyward and FICA taxes raised in order to fix the KNOWN shortfalls that were gonna occur. Americans... Not foreign govts or institutions receiving all those $Bills of interest..

Actually, there are several important differences. There would MARKETABLE paper already backing up the SSA deficits when they needed to be funded. The interest would have PRODUCED and paid during the years those bonds sat in a vault..

There is no difference.

But more importantly --- debt would have BOOKED as debt.

It is booked as debt. Debt held by SocSec.

And finally AMERICANS would actually have title to REAL faith and credit from the govt

Don't know what you mean here.

Of course there's a difference on holding REAL Debt. The Treasury forks over interest EVERY YEAR and comes out of CURRENT budgets (for past 30 years) rather than future budgets.

Debt held by Social Security is NOT COUNTED in "debt ceiling" arguments and all the other phonyness and pretend shit that passes for fiscal mgt. It means nothing as a spending constraint. Until about 6 years ago when the theft from FICA petered out. .

You get the government ADDICTED to that $30B annual heist and they'll never give it up. If they didn't HAVE IT -- budgets would be somewhere lower than they were..

Of course there's a difference on holding REAL Debt.

No. Your idea would have zero impact on the debt. Zero impact on interest owed.

The Treasury forks over interest EVERY YEAR and comes out of CURRENT budgets (for past 30 years) rather than future budgets.

Yes. Whether they borrow strictly from the public or reduce public borrowings with Trust Fund excesses.

If they didn't HAVE IT -- budgets would be somewhere lower than they were

That's a nice theory, but it fails in the real world.

You're not getting this. With actual treasury holdings and BOOKED debt -- the interest payments would have been PAID by now. Not left to your kids to pay..

Just one of a couple things you're missing here..

You're not getting this.

You're not getting this.

If the Fed buys Treasuries in the open market, the Treasury has to sell more. No net change in outstanding debt, no net change in interest expense.

With actual treasury holdings and BOOKED debt -- the interest payments would have been PAID by now.

You're wrong. Either interest would be paid to the SocSec Trust fund by the Treasury for the bonds they buy in the open market or, as it currently works, they pay the Trust Fund for the non-marketable Treasuries they hold now.

 

[Tax Man]

This has been in the works ever since Saint Ronnie The Ray Goon raided the trust fund to keep his reign in the black. Needles to say repukes never have figured out how they would replenish the fund.

LOL Democrats controlled Congress Until 1994 how exactly did a Republican President get them to "raid" the fund?

As it was an elaborate scheme I give you the federal address so you can read yourself. Social Security History
Once you read how he scammed congress and raised taxes it becomes quite clear that his buddy Dick Cheney was a real crook.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This has been in the works ever since Saint Ronnie The Ray Goon raided the trust fund to keep his reign in the black. Needles to say repukes never have figured out how they would replenish the fund.

LOL Democrats controlled Congress Until 1994 how exactly did a Republican President get them to "raid" the fund?

As it was an elaborate scheme I give you the federal address so you can read yourself. Social Security History
Once you read how he scammed congress and raised taxes it becomes quite clear that his buddy Dick Cheney was a real crook.

DERP!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Each year the trustees for the SSTF are required to publish a report to the President and the Congress on the financial condition of the SSTF. This year it came out last friday afternoon, and it ain't good. Excerpts:

The Social Security report finds that the "trust fund" will run out of money in just 17 years. The news only gets worse from there.

The program's unfunded liability over the next 75 years is now $12.5 trillion, which is up from $11.4 trillion last year and $4.7 trillion a decade ago. In other words, Social Security's long-term unfunded liability has increased by 166% in the span of 10 years.

And on a cash flow basis, Social Security is now losing money every year. Last year it was $54 billion in the red. In a decade the annual shortfall will reach $215 billion – after adjusting for inflation.


What it basically means is that unless the SSA program is changed, the checks that SSTF beneficiaries will get will be reduced significantly. If you add in the Disability Insurance (DI) into the mix you get the total OASDI program: (OAS - Old Age & Survivors)

The Trustees also project that annual cost for the OASDI program will exceed non-interest income throughout the projection period, and will exceed total income beginning in 2022 under the intermediate assumptions. The projected hypothetical combined OASI and DI Trust Fund asset reserves increase through 2021, begin to decline in 2022, and become depleted and unable to pay scheduled benefits in full on a timely basis in 2034. At the time of depletion of these combined reserves, continuing income to the combined trust funds would be sufficient to pay 77 percent of scheduled benefits.


The good news is that this problem can be averted. It's called "the Chilean Model," as 2012 presidential candidate Herman Cain put it, in what was his effort to get the voters to get serious about the issue.

The Chilean Model, the system of private savings accounts for retirement, is practiced in 30 countries. It was developed on a nationwide scale by José Piñera, the former labor minister of Chile during the 1970s, when the country was a socialist rubble and the coffers were bare, and it has worked every time it's been tried.

You really don't understand the basic economics of Social Security, do you?

We understand it perfectly THERE is no money in the fund. It is all IOU's that have to be paid by new revenue since the Government spent the funds the year before.

 

[jasonnfree]

The problem with the whole Ponzi scheme (for that's what it is) is people who take out more than they put into it.

Yeah, like the liberals who fake an injury , get Social Security disability, then go out and play golf, or get a second job, under the table. Liberals(who are immoral) will do whatever to get that extra buck, and I just pray to God that the government starts investigating those who are scamming. Throw their ass in Jail..

So, only liberals scam the system you say. Any proof of that?

 

[Toro]

Except that it's not INDIVIDUALS that are being debited and credited. Those "debits" were never booked as DEBT when they were incurred. Not in a way that matters to the taxpayers. Taxpayers were overcharged for donations and fleeced. And NOW the Treasury issues NEW DEBT to honor the IOUs as tho NOTHING was ever "booked".. So it's the TAXPAYERS paying the phony "interest" on SSA "holdings". And when they're robbed the 2nd time to cough up the cash for the IOUs, the criminals pile on the additional CURRENT bond interests to the some of same victims -- just as a final kick in the groin...

The trusts are credited and debited based on actuarial and interest rate assumptions as well as the expected and realized payments to the participants in the pool. The government then comes up with the assets and liabilities of the pool, and your account credits and debits are imputed based on the estimated or actual payments you will or are receiving over your lifetime. That's how a defined benefit pension plan works.

What is confusing about the system is that it operates as if it were buying and selling actual Treasury securities. Other than the actual purchase and sale of government securities, the SS pools work exactly the same as as a fund that buys and sells Treasury securities. But the government figured out that the actual purchase and sale of Treasury securities is irrelevant to the operations of the fund. By debiting and crediting the trusts as if they were buying and selling securities, they economics are exactly the same. This is why people think it is a scam or a Ponzi scheme. It's confusing if you don't understand how pension funds work. Heck, it's confusing even if you do understand how pension funds work.

The debits are booked as debt to the Treasury, i.e. the US government and as assets to the trusts. The calculation of the total debt of the United States includes these debits.

Taxpayers are not overcharged. In fact, most taxpayers will receive more in SS payments than they contributed plus imputed interested. That's because people have lived longer and worked less than what was modeled decades ago. That's a big reason why the trusts are underfunded.

The issuance of debt to cover the "IOUs" is a function of the annual primary deficit or surplus of the fund, i.e the actual cash flows of the fund. If the fund is in surplus, then actual Treasury bonds are retired. If the fund is in deficit, the Treasury issues securities. Last year, the government had to issue $53 billion to offset the deficit in the trusts.

This is no "defined benefit" plan. The courts have RULED on that.

And the ONLY INCOME intended to fund the program was from FICA tax. EVERYTHING else is a unicorn.. When it runs a deficit -- it must come from

1) Reduced benefits -- higher FICA
2) Decreased spending ELSEWHERE in the budget
3) Treasury issuing NEW debt on the backs of the folks who got robbed in the 1st place.

BS on receiving more they they paid in. No self-employed person is getting that deal anymore. And with the increases in "premium" -- lucky if the majority stay alive long enough to break even with the CAPS as high as they already are. It WAS a deal for the first 2 generations. Gotten progressively sketchier for each Gen after that. It's ONLY as old as Father in Law. And it's dead ass broken, pilfered, and ignored..

When you COLLECT more than is necessary to pay current enrollees and literally PISS AWAY the rest of the FICA tax you stole from a working poor wallet --- THat IS overcharging...

SS acts as if it were a defined benefit pension plan that invests 100% in government bonds. But rather than invest in bonds, the trusts are debited and credited as if they were buying the bonds. It doesn't matter if they are merely "IOUs" or real bonds. Real bonds are merely promises to pay, like IOUs too. The FICA tax acts as the contribution to SS, no different than if you were part of a defined benefit plan where you and/or your employer pays into the fund.

And yes, the average person does receive more than they've paid in. Of course, not everyone will. If you contribute all your working life and die at 65, you will have paid in more than you've received. If you live to 95, you'll receive more than you put in. That's how a defined benefit pension plan works. But if you average everybody in the pool, recipients receive more than they contribute on average, even adjusting for nominal interest rates that are imputed in the SS trusts.



Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get

 

[Toro]

We understand it perfectly THERE is no money in the fund. It is all IOU's that have to be paid by new revenue since the Government spent the funds the year before.

That's any government bond. A government bond is merely a promise to pay your money back with interest out of government revenue. The "IOUs" are promises to pay SS out of government revenue.

Lots of individuals own US Savings Bond. It's no different.

Individual - Series EE Savings Bonds

 

[flacaltenn]

Except that it's not INDIVIDUALS that are being debited and credited. Those "debits" were never booked as DEBT when they were incurred. Not in a way that matters to the taxpayers. Taxpayers were overcharged for donations and fleeced. And NOW the Treasury issues NEW DEBT to honor the IOUs as tho NOTHING was ever "booked".. So it's the TAXPAYERS paying the phony "interest" on SSA "holdings". And when they're robbed the 2nd time to cough up the cash for the IOUs, the criminals pile on the additional CURRENT bond interests to the some of same victims -- just as a final kick in the groin...

The trusts are credited and debited based on actuarial and interest rate assumptions as well as the expected and realized payments to the participants in the pool. The government then comes up with the assets and liabilities of the pool, and your account credits and debits are imputed based on the estimated or actual payments you will or are receiving over your lifetime. That's how a defined benefit pension plan works.

What is confusing about the system is that it operates as if it were buying and selling actual Treasury securities. Other than the actual purchase and sale of government securities, the SS pools work exactly the same as as a fund that buys and sells Treasury securities. But the government figured out that the actual purchase and sale of Treasury securities is irrelevant to the operations of the fund. By debiting and crediting the trusts as if they were buying and selling securities, they economics are exactly the same. This is why people think it is a scam or a Ponzi scheme. It's confusing if you don't understand how pension funds work. Heck, it's confusing even if you do understand how pension funds work.

The debits are booked as debt to the Treasury, i.e. the US government and as assets to the trusts. The calculation of the total debt of the United States includes these debits.

Taxpayers are not overcharged. In fact, most taxpayers will receive more in SS payments than they contributed plus imputed interested. That's because people have lived longer and worked less than what was modeled decades ago. That's a big reason why the trusts are underfunded.

The issuance of debt to cover the "IOUs" is a function of the annual primary deficit or surplus of the fund, i.e the actual cash flows of the fund. If the fund is in surplus, then actual Treasury bonds are retired. If the fund is in deficit, the Treasury issues securities. Last year, the government had to issue $53 billion to offset the deficit in the trusts.

This is no "defined benefit" plan. The courts have RULED on that.

And the ONLY INCOME intended to fund the program was from FICA tax. EVERYTHING else is a unicorn.. When it runs a deficit -- it must come from

1) Reduced benefits -- higher FICA
2) Decreased spending ELSEWHERE in the budget
3) Treasury issuing NEW debt on the backs of the folks who got robbed in the 1st place.

BS on receiving more they they paid in. No self-employed person is getting that deal anymore. And with the increases in "premium" -- lucky if the majority stay alive long enough to break even with the CAPS as high as they already are. It WAS a deal for the first 2 generations. Gotten progressively sketchier for each Gen after that. It's ONLY as old as Father in Law. And it's dead ass broken, pilfered, and ignored..

When you COLLECT more than is necessary to pay current enrollees and literally PISS AWAY the rest of the FICA tax you stole from a working poor wallet --- THat IS overcharging...

SS acts as if it were a defined benefit pension plan that invests 100% in government bonds. But rather than invest in bonds, the trusts are debited and credited as if they were buying the bonds. It doesn't matter if they are merely "IOUs" or real bonds. Real bonds are merely promises to pay, like IOUs too. The FICA tax acts as the contribution to SS, no different than if you were part of a defined benefit plan where you and/or your employer pays into the fund.

And yes, the average person does receive more than they've paid in. Of course, not everyone will. If you contribute all your working life and die at 65, you will have paid in more than you've received. If you live to 95, you'll receive more than you put in. That's how a defined benefit pension plan works. But if you average everybody in the pool, recipients receive more than they contribute on average, even adjusting for nominal interest rates that are imputed in the SS trusts.

View attachment 139578

Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get

It does NOT INVEST a thing. There is no EQUITY or LIQUIDITY of any type associated with an OFF- Budget IOU,..

I gave you the statement from the SSA stating there is nothing of value in those "investments" with which to pay bills. Forget the fairy tales. That's the truth behind the criminal charade..

 

[flacaltenn]

We understand it perfectly THERE is no money in the fund. It is all IOU's that have to be paid by new revenue since the Government spent the funds the year before.

That's any government bond. A government bond is merely a promise to pay your money back with interest out of government revenue. The "IOUs" are promises to pay SS out of government revenue.

Lots of individuals own US Savings Bond. It's no different.

Individual - Series EE Savings Bonds

Then why are they issuing NEW BONDS to cover the shortfall? And who exactly is paying for refinancing "the investment" principle and interest? They're robbing people TWICE for the same contributions that they stole.. With DOUBLE interest. ALL PAID FOR -- by the people..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We understand it perfectly THERE is no money in the fund. It is all IOU's that have to be paid by new revenue since the Government spent the funds the year before.

That's any government bond. A government bond is merely a promise to pay your money back with interest out of government revenue. The "IOUs" are promises to pay SS out of government revenue.

Lots of individuals own US Savings Bond. It's no different.

Individual - Series EE Savings Bonds

Then why are they issuing NEW BONDS to cover the shortfall? And who exactly is paying for refinancing "the investment" principle and interest? They're robbing people TWICE for the same contributions that they stole.. With DOUBLE interest. ALL PAID FOR -- by the people..

Then why are they issuing NEW BONDS to cover the shortfall?

The US Treasury doesn't have a pile of money sitting around.
When SocSec hands over some of the trust fund bonds to pay benefits,
the Treasury has to raise money. They do that by selling bonds to the public.

And who exactly is paying for refinancing "the investment" principle and interest?

The Treasury.

They're robbing people TWICE for the same contributions that they stole

They aren't. The government borrowed less (sold fewer bonds) when there was a SocSec surplus and now they'll have to borrow more (sell more bonds) as the surplus is spent down.

With DOUBLE interest.

No.
Interest was paid to SocSec when they held the bonds.
Now interest is paid to the new bond buyer and the old SocSec bond is paid off.

 

[flacaltenn]

And who exactly is paying for refinancing "the investment" principle and interest?

The Treasury.

Oh c'mon. You're smarter than the money grows on trees idiots..