Should the Social Security and Medicare Age be Raised

[kaz]

I just proved it you you ya fucking ignorant asshole

Do NOT call me a liar

Lush showing a link that Reagan inherited a trust fund: {crickets}

Don't want to be called a liar, then stop lying and back up your shit.

We both know you can't show a link that Reagan inherited a real trust fund with money in it because YOU ARE LYING you piece of shit

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because that is unconstitutional. DUH!

Unconstitutioonal in what way?

 

[kaz]

Who cares what your definition is.

That's what it's called whether you like it or not.

Right, it's my definition since I'm the one you lied to.

So admit you lied or show Reagan had a trust fund with my definition (it has money in it).

Go ahead and stop lying and wetting your diaper, liar

 

[Blues Man]

Who cares what your definition is.

That's what it's called whether you like it or not.

TITLE II-FEDERAL OLD-AGE BENEFITS OLD-AGE RESERVE ACCOUNT


Section 201. (a) There is hereby created an account in the Treasury of the United States

The only "trust fund mentioned in the 1935 act is the Unemployment Trust fund


Here is the text

Social Security History

www.ssa.gov

you find anywhere where it says a trust fund other than the Unemployment Trust fund and get back to me

 

[kaz]

Unconstitutioonal in what way?

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Many people are confused since the media keeps lying.

The Constitution gives reasons that cannot be used to deny the vote. Nowhere does the Constitution say there is a "right to vote," you are totally right about that

 

[Lesh]

Yes, there was a trust fund when social security was created, but that was ended more than a half century ago.

So the question isn't was there a fund in 1939, you claimed there was one in 1981. So prove it, lying little worm

Social Security History

www.ssa.gov

So we know it was established in 1940

This link refers to it in 1968-69

I could find nothing saying it had ever been suspended.

So it's on you now to prove your claim

Or just be a man and admit you're wrong...worm

 

[kaz]

Social Security History

www.ssa.gov

So we know it was established in 1940

This link refers to it in 1968-69

I could find nothing saying it had ever been suspended.

So it's on you now to prove your claim

Or just be a man and admit you're wrong...worm

It's on me to prove your claim that Reagan had an actual trust fund with money in it passed to him?

Um ... no ... it's your job to do that, Goober

 

[Blues Man]

Social Security History

www.ssa.gov

So we know it was established in 1940

This link refers to it in 1968-69

I could find nothing saying it had ever been suspended.

So it's on you now to prove your claim

Or just be a man and admit you're wrong...worm

Here is the text
Social Security History
you find anywhere where it says a trust fund other than the Unemployment Trust fund and get back to me

 

[Lesh]

It's on me to prove your claim that Reagan had an actual trust fund with money in it passed to him?

Um ... no ... it's your job to do that, Goober

Dude...I showed you that you were wrong.

Just be a man and apologize.

As I said...The Trust Fund has existed since 1940

Reagan greatly enlarged it in the early 80s

 

[Blues Man]

Dude...I showed you that you were wrong.

Just be a man and apologize.

As I said...The Trust Fund has existed since 1940

Reagan greatly enlarged it in the early 80s

Here is the text
Social Security History
you find anywhere where it says a trust fund other than the Unemployment Trust fund and get back to me

 

[Lesh]

Here is the text
Social Security History
you find anywhere where it says a trust fund other than the Unemployment Trust fund and get back to me

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

 

[Flopper]

Like I said, the Democrats would never allow that. SS doesn't pay much to begin with yet alone less 25%. And then what about the people who planned to retire early currently at the age of 62? If you retire at that age, you get deducted 25% just for that. So the combination would be half of your SS gone forcing people to continue working regardless of their ability to work. Those people would then be trying for disability and you solved nothing.

It's not a solution, it's a stall. Increasing retirement age and decreasing payouts would get a movement by the people to get government out of our retirement which is why the Democrats would never allow it. We can't wait until the end of the road. This problem should have been addressed over 20 years ago. The only solution when Republicans get full leadership again is to convert everything to a private plan. People will get whatever money they need to make it through retirement, can enjoy the last years or decades of their life, and because it's no longer a strain on government, one less thing for our Congress critters to ever worry about again.

First, we solve problem of paying the current beneficiaries of S.S. when the trust fund runs out of money in about 12 years. The options are:

1. Do nothing and beneficiaries will be paid based on current payroll contributions which mean a 25% decrease in S.S. That of course is not going to happen.
2. Increase retirement age.
3. Increase S.S. payroll deductions
4. Increase the income level subject S.S. payroll deductions. Just the first $137,700 of earned income is subject to S.S. payroll deductions

A combination options 2-4 seems very doable. Of course both parities will waste time with endless arguments; democrats are responsible because of enhancements to S.S. and democrats will argue that republicans are responsible because they refused to fund the enhancements. Eventually, they will reach an agreement because a 25% across board decrease ins S.S. would create serious political, economic, and social problems.

Once the S.S funding problem is solved, beneficiaries will be paid out of current S.S. payroll deductions and the remaining 25% will paid out of the mandatory spending section of budget. This would be the time for congress to consider other retirement plan options. One such option which I think you mentioned would be to transfer S.S payroll deductions to a new system as the cost of paying beneficiaries of old system declines. However such a system would have to be a safety net where workers are protected from risk; that is goverment absorbs losses in some way and the system is mandatory the same as S.S.

 

[Lesh]

A combination options 2-4 seems very doable.

Why #2 at all.

Removing the cap totally solves the entire problem.

I paid payroll taxes on every dime I ever earned...so should the wealthy...and it "hurt" me far more than it'll hurt them

Especially when you consider all the tax cuts they have gotten over the last 40 years

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why #2 at all.

Removing the cap totally solves the entire problem.

I paid payroll taxes on every dime I ever earned...so should the wealthy...and it "hurt" me far more than it'll hurt them

Especially when you consider all the tax cuts they have gotten over the last 40 years

So in other words put the burden on the wealthy yet again. That would be a loss for them, and like they always do, look for other ways to recoup that loss. Where do you think they will replace that money from?

You people on the left never learn anything. The rich never lose a penny. They pass all their losses to us, the little guy. You leftists live in this fantasy world where anytime the rich have to cough up more money, they just have to do with one less yacht.

 

[Flopper]

Here is the text
Social Security History
you find anywhere where it says a trust fund other than the Unemployment Trust fund and get back to me

There only two social security trust fund are Old Age and Survivor insurance Fund and the Social Security Disability Fund. The first created by SS legislation in 30's is where SS retirement checks are funded. The 1956 Amendments to the Social Security Act establishing the Social Security Disability Insurance program which required the Disability Insurance Trust Fund. There is no trust fund for Supplement Security Income, SSI. Benefits are paid out the treasury general fund per legislation. There are about a dozen other trust funds not related SS which the treasury also manages.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

First, we solve problem of paying the current beneficiaries of S.S. when the trust fund runs out of money in about 12 years. The options are:

1. Do nothing and beneficiaries will be paid based on current payroll contributions which mean a 25% decrease in S.S. That of course is not going to happen.
2. Increase retirement age.
3. Increase S.S. payroll deductions
4. Increase the income level subject S.S. payroll deductions. Just the first $137,700 of earned income is subject to S.S. payroll deductions

A combination options 2-4 seems very doable. Of course both parities will waste time with endless arguments; democrats are responsible because of enhancements to S.S. and democrats will argue that republicans are responsible because they refused to fund the enhancements. Eventually, they will reach an agreement because a 25% across board decrease ins S.S. would create serious political, economic, and social problems.

Once the S.S funding problem is solved, beneficiaries will be paid out of current S.S. payroll deductions and the remaining 25% will paid out of the mandatory spending section of budget. This would be the time for congress to consider other retirement plan options. One such option which I think you mentioned would be to transfer S.S payroll deductions to a new system as the cost of paying beneficiaries of old system declines. However such a system would have to be a safety net where workers are protected from risk; that is goverment absorbs losses in some way and the system is mandatory the same as S.S.

The problems with that have already been discussed. There are a lot of jobs that people can't work at an older age: garbage men, nearly all fields of construction work, lawn care services, manual agriculture labor, the list goes on and on. We can't raise age requirements on just dress shirt people because that would violate their right of equal protection under the law. So that's out the window. It would only put more people on disability and welfare.

The Democrats would never allow a 25% decrease in payout, and besides, everybody nearing retirement would vote out any politician or party that supported it.

Also the Democrats would not allow an increase in payroll deductions. That too would piss enough people off to start a movement to get government out of our retirement.

 

[kaz]

Dude...I showed you that you were wrong.

Just be a man and apologize.

As I said...The Trust Fund has existed since 1940

Reagan greatly enlarged it in the early 80s

LOL, a liars trick. You can't prove your point because you made it up and totally embarrassed yourself, so now you already showed me! Without your ever showing me! Reject, liar. You haven't proven shit and it is a lie because you did make it up, you are wrong. There was no trust fund with actual funding under Reagan, lying little mole

 

[kaz]

There only two social security trust fund, Old Age and Survivor insurance Fund and the Social Security Disability Fund. The first created SS legislation in 30's is where SS retirement checks are funded. The 1956 Amendments to the Social Security Act establishing the Social Security Disability Insurance program which required the Disability Insurance Trust Fund. There is no trust fund for Supplement Security Income, SSI. Benefits are paid out the treasury general fund per legislation. There are about a dozen other trust funds not related SS which the treasury also manages.

LOL, and Flipper comes in with a bunch of shit everyone knows and that doesn't address the discussion, LOL ...

 

[kaz]

First, we solve problem of paying the current beneficiaries of S.S. when the trust fund runs out of money in about 12 years. The options are:

1. Do nothing and beneficiaries will be paid based on current payroll contributions which mean a 25% decrease in S.S. That of course is not going to happen.
2. Increase retirement age.
3. Increase S.S. payroll deductions
4. Increase the income level subject S.S. payroll deductions. Just the first $137,700 of earned income is subject to S.S. payroll deductions

A combination options 2-4 seems very doable. Of course both parities will waste time with endless arguments; democrats are responsible because of enhancements to S.S. and democrats will argue that republicans are responsible because they refused to fund the enhancements. Eventually, they will reach an agreement because a 25% across board decrease ins S.S. would create serious political, economic, and social problems.

Once the S.S funding problem is solved, beneficiaries will be paid out of current S.S. payroll deductions and the remaining 25% will paid out of the mandatory spending section of budget. This would be the time for congress to consider other retirement plan options. One such option which I think you mentioned would be to transfer S.S payroll deductions to a new system as the cost of paying beneficiaries of old system declines. However such a system would have to be a safety net where workers are protected from risk; that is goverment absorbs losses in some way and the system is mandatory the same as S.S.

There's no money in the trust fund now, Cowboy ...

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, and you claimed every insurance company sends you a check every month.

So I asked what you are doing with your monthly auto insurance check, your monthly mortgage insurance check and the others.

Congratulations, you're up with the discussion.

So, what do you do with all those checks every month all these insurance companies send you?

You literally don't know what insurance means

I said every insurance company send out a check if you qualify. I never said any of them send it to me every month.