Social Security insolvency is a right wing myth meant to scare you

[kyzr]

There are several relatively painless ways the program can be modified for indefinite solvency.

1) Increase the eligibility age to occur in proportion with actuarial life expectancy when the program was conceived.

2) Eliminate the contribution cap.

3) Impose a means test. In my own example, if my monthly benefit were reduced by up to $200 I really wouldn't feel it. And there are many for whom the monthly benefit would be redundantly trivial and wholly unnecessary.*

(*Social Security is an insurance program, not an investment. Qualification for payment could be determined by level of existing personal assets without negatively affecting anyone.)

And FDR would be so proud of the way that you've just dismembered and roasted his dream of UNIVERSAL coverage for ALL workers...

(*Social Security is an insurance program, not an investment. Qualification for payment could be determined by Total Income without negatively affecting anyone.)

Using "personal assets" makes it a wealth tax. I prefer using the IRS to determine what SS benefits are taxable and what are not taxable. For example, incomes over $250k don't need SS benefits. OTOH taking money off them is socialism, so I prefer 1 & 2 and to use 3 only if required.

 

[NYcarbineer]

SS is expected to pay out more than it takes in by 2017, and go bankrupt by 2035.

That is if NOTHING is done. All these insolvency projections are based on that extreme.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You keep making these claims and then running away from debating them. Here's a link to the old thread where I explained to you why you're wrong. Perhaps you can reply in this thread :

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...t-a-ponzi-scheme-mr-perry-60.html#post4150061

You do realize that in 2010 social security paid out more than it brought in?

That's false. You're either lying, or you are ignorant of the facts.

 

[uscitizen]

SS is expected to pay out more than it takes in by 2017, and go bankrupt by 2035.

It already pays out more than it brings in. According to social security trustee Charles Blahous SS paid out more in benefits than it collected in taxes for 2010. He also said, "it's running in the red and it's only solvent in the sense that the Gov't has a legal obligation to fill up that gap between incoming taxes and outgoing benefits."

Umm the govt holding over 2 trillion in promissory notes for the surplus they spent has nothing to do with this?

I guess the entire fininacial community is insolvent because without the promissory notes they hold they are insolvent?

It appears to me that many/most right wingers are crying this insolvent cry because they do not want the govt to repay it's promissory notes to the SS ssytem. aka the American people.

 

[Darkwind]

Social Security insolvency is a right wing myth meant to scare you.


Seriously. A few points:

1) Many morons have called SS a Ponzi scheme. This is a brain dead characterization. The reason Ponzi schemes fail is because they eventually run out of new investors. Unless we stop having children - there will always be new tax revenues into the system.

2) If nothing is done, Social Security can continue to pay benefits under current law for at least a couple of decades. After that, it can only pay benefits at about 80% - but for as far as can be seen into the future, it can continue to pay at that level - thus, even if the politicians do absolutely nothing - 80% of the program is solvent for as far as can be forecast.

3) Ultimately, the ability of a society to support its retirees and disabled - that is, the ability of those who produce to produce enough for those who cannot produce (either because they are too old to work, or disabled) - doesn't really depend on the particular investment vehicle that those who do not produce use. If the worker to retiree ratio is 2:1 as opposed to 10:1, the workers in the 2:1 situation will have to produce more for the retirees than those in the 10:1 situation. The only exceptions are things that you can actually save for retirement - like a house. Other than your house - everything you need in retirement will have to be made by somebody during (or right before) your retirement.



4) Social Security taxes do not get wasted - most of them go to pay current benefits. If their is extra, the trust fund buys bonds. If their is not enough, they sell some of their bonds. This does push the burden around in time - this is no secret and no one ever tried to cover it up - but over many decades, the SS Trust Fund will spend the same as it takes in (plus interest paid on its Trust Fund balance).

Ponzi schemes are ponzi schemes because they have new investors.

SS is not a ponzi scheme because it has new investors?

And you have the gall to call anyone brain dead? Seriously?

 

[NYcarbineer]

SS is expected to pay out more than it takes in by 2017, and go bankrupt by 2035.

It already pays out more than it brings in. According to social security trustee Charles Blahous SS paid out more in benefits than it collected in taxes for 2010. He also said, "it's running in the red and it's only solvent in the sense that the Gov't has a legal obligation to fill up that gap between incoming taxes and outgoing benefits."

That statement is ludicrous.

Someone argue that it's not. I want to hear that one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

SS is expected to pay out more than it takes in by 2017, and go bankrupt by 2035.

Something like that but it is currently solvent.

So you're admitting that we have a looming crisis...but you'd like us to pretend it isn't happening because it doesn't jibe with your political view?

For one thing it doesn't go 'bankrupt' by 2035. If NO CHANGES are made SS can't make full benefit payments after 2035. 75% benefits can still be paid for decades thereafter.

 

[NYcarbineer]

SS is solvent that is a fact. The 2+ trillion that the US govt owes SS is the only problem for a couple of decades.

Then why couldn't your beloved one guarantee the checks would go out?

Why do you lefty's keep ignoring that question?

Not raising the debt ceiling was going to mean that 40% of the bills couldn't be paid.

When rational people talk about solvency, default, financial stability, and such things,

normally they are assuming that the terrorists in the Tea Party aren't actually going to push the button and blow up the country.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SS is expected to pay out more than it takes in by 2017, and go bankrupt by 2035.

It already pays out more than it brings in. According to social security trustee Charles Blahous SS paid out more in benefits than it collected in taxes for 2010. He also said, "it's running in the red and it's only solvent in the sense that the Gov't has a legal obligation to fill up that gap between incoming taxes and outgoing benefits."

Umm the govt holding over 2 trillion in promissory notes for the surplus they spent has nothing to do with this?

I guess the entire fininacial community is insolvent because without the promissory notes they hold they are insolvent?

It appears to me that many/most right wingers are crying this insolvent cry because they do not want the govt to repay it's promissory notes to the SS ssytem. aka the American people.

They're holding "Notes" that can only be sold to the entity that is over $1Trillion in annual deficit

WAKE THE **** UP!

 

[uscitizen]

It already pays out more than it brings in. According to social security trustee Charles Blahous SS paid out more in benefits than it collected in taxes for 2010. He also said, "it's running in the red and it's only solvent in the sense that the Gov't has a legal obligation to fill up that gap between incoming taxes and outgoing benefits."

Umm the govt holding over 2 trillion in promissory notes for the surplus they spent has nothing to do with this?

I guess the entire fininacial community is insolvent because without the promissory notes they hold they are insolvent?

It appears to me that many/most right wingers are crying this insolvent cry because they do not want the govt to repay it's promissory notes to the SS ssytem. aka the American people.

They're holding "Notes" that can only be sold to the entity that is over $1Trillion in annual deficit

WAKE THE **** UP!

Clearly you are one of those who think the USA should not repay it's debts.

 

[editec]

Social Security isn't broke.

The nation, its debtor?

That might be another issue, entirely.

 

[Full-Auto]

Social Security insolvency is a right wing myth meant to scare you.


Seriously. A few points:

1) Many morons have called SS a Ponzi scheme. This is a brain dead characterization. The reason Ponzi schemes fail is because they eventually run out of new investors. Unless we stop having children - there will always be new tax revenues into the system.

2) If nothing is done, Social Security can continue to pay benefits under current law for at least a couple of decades. After that, it can only pay benefits at about 80% - but for as far as can be seen into the future, it can continue to pay at that level - thus, even if the politicians do absolutely nothing - 80% of the program is solvent for as far as can be forecast.

3) Ultimately, the ability of a society to support its retirees and disabled - that is, the ability of those who produce to produce enough for those who cannot produce (either because they are too old to work, or disabled) - doesn't really depend on the particular investment vehicle that those who do not produce use. If the worker to retiree ratio is 2:1 as opposed to 10:1, the workers in the 2:1 situation will have to produce more for the retirees than those in the 10:1 situation. The only exceptions are things that you can actually save for retirement - like a house. Other than your house - everything you need in retirement will have to be made by somebody during (or right before) your retirement.



4) Social Security taxes do not get wasted - most of them go to pay current benefits. If their is extra, the trust fund buys bonds. If their is not enough, they sell some of their bonds. This does push the burden around in time - this is no secret and no one ever tried to cover it up - but over many decades, the SS Trust Fund will spend the same as it takes in (plus interest paid on its Trust Fund balance).

Right that is why Obama threatened the country with they may not go out. Because the system is sound.

Youre an idiot.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Social Security insolvency is a right wing myth meant to scare you.


Seriously. A few points:

1) Many morons have called SS a Ponzi scheme. This is a brain dead characterization. The reason Ponzi schemes fail is because they eventually run out of new investors. Unless we stop having children - there will always be new tax revenues into the system.

2) If nothing is done, Social Security can continue to pay benefits under current law for at least a couple of decades. After that, it can only pay benefits at about 80% - but for as far as can be seen into the future, it can continue to pay at that level - thus, even if the politicians do absolutely nothing - 80% of the program is solvent for as far as can be forecast.

3) Ultimately, the ability of a society to support its retirees and disabled - that is, the ability of those who produce to produce enough for those who cannot produce (either because they are too old to work, or disabled) - doesn't really depend on the particular investment vehicle that those who do not produce use. If the worker to retiree ratio is 2:1 as opposed to 10:1, the workers in the 2:1 situation will have to produce more for the retirees than those in the 10:1 situation. The only exceptions are things that you can actually save for retirement - like a house. Other than your house - everything you need in retirement will have to be made by somebody during (or right before) your retirement.



4) Social Security taxes do not get wasted - most of them go to pay current benefits. If there is extra, the trust fund buys bonds. If their is not enough, they sell some of their bonds. This does push the burden around in time - this is no secret and no one ever tried to cover it up - but over many decades, the SS Trust Fund will spend the same as it takes in (plus interest paid on its Trust Fund balance).

1. It is a ponzi scheme because the population is declining, and the unemployment rate is increasing, which means not enough money to meet obligations (in 2037)

2. Correct, but its better to fix SS now than to wait

3. Not an accounting major are you? Please read the SS Trustee Report. (SS is fixable Medicare is a mess)

4. Its the COMBINATION of SS & Medicare entitlements that is the problem. They OWE $50-trillion in benefits, and can't cover them all. We need them fixed, not idiots who keep saying "there is no problem".

Trustees Report Summary
Conclusion
Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative corrections if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided.

See highlighted quote

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it" Barack "Social Security Really is Bankrupt" Obama, the Downgraded President

What part of my statement would have led you to believe that Social Security can operate if the Tea Baggers cause the Treasury to default on its debt obligations?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Social Security insolvency is a right wing myth meant to scare you.


Seriously. A few points:

1) Many morons have called SS a Ponzi scheme. This is a brain dead characterization. The reason Ponzi schemes fail is because they eventually run out of new investors. Unless we stop having children - there will always be new tax revenues into the system.

2) If nothing is done, Social Security can continue to pay benefits under current law for at least a couple of decades. After that, it can only pay benefits at about 80% - but for as far as can be seen into the future, it can continue to pay at that level - thus, even if the politicians do absolutely nothing - 80% of the program is solvent for as far as can be forecast.

3) Ultimately, the ability of a society to support its retirees and disabled - that is, the ability of those who produce to produce enough for those who cannot produce (either because they are too old to work, or disabled) - doesn't really depend on the particular investment vehicle that those who do not produce use. If the worker to retiree ratio is 2:1 as opposed to 10:1, the workers in the 2:1 situation will have to produce more for the retirees than those in the 10:1 situation. The only exceptions are things that you can actually save for retirement - like a house. Other than your house - everything you need in retirement will have to be made by somebody during (or right before) your retirement.



4) Social Security taxes do not get wasted - most of them go to pay current benefits. If their is extra, the trust fund buys bonds. If their is not enough, they sell some of their bonds. This does push the burden around in time - this is no secret and no one ever tried to cover it up - but over many decades, the SS Trust Fund will spend the same as it takes in (plus interest paid on its Trust Fund balance).

If Social Security insolvency is a myth why did obama use social security checks as a hostage to get the debt ceiling limit raised?

Are you seriously this retarded?

its real simple.

If the Treasury continues to pay its debts as due, Social Security is solvent for decades.

If a moronic faction of the Republican party comes along and tries to keep the Treasury from paying its debts - then yes, we have a problem.

Is it any wonder that a perfectly good automobile can be wrecked in a manner of seconds by a sufficiently stupid driver?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If Social Security insolvency is a myth why did obama use social security checks as a hostage to get the debt ceiling limit raised?

Umm if the people that prinit the checks are liad off no checks will be printed.
Kind of like going to your bank on a holiday, money in there but you can't get it out.

Have you ever heard of direct deposit? I may be wrong but I think thats how it works now.

LOL! A PERSON still has to initiate the process.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

They're holding "Notes" that can only be sold to the entity that is over $1Trillion in annual deficit

And? I hold $500 in U.S. Savings Bonds that can only be sold back to the Treasury, you're telling me they are worthless? Because I'm pretty sure I can just go to my bank and deposit them, with them settling the transaction with the Treasury on my behalf, just like the last set of savings bonds I deposited. Has the Treasury decided to stop paying on its non-marketable obligations - or are you just a fearmonger?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

LOL! A PERSON still has to initiated the process.

Correct, as in a SS staff person.

Remarkable the right’s propensity to say and do idiotic things in order to adhere blindly to conservative dogma.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I'm 34. To all you new borns out their -guess what? In 34 years, when I'm 68, and you're 34 - you're going to be sending me a fraction of your income. Why? Because I'm doing the same thing right now for the old people of today. Because the young take care of the old. That's the way it works, call it communism or just plain common sense - but expect it to be part of your duty as productive citizens.

 

[Full-Auto]

I'm 34. To all you new borns out their -guess what? In 34 years, when I'm 68, and you're 34 - you're going to be sending me a fraction of your income. Why? Because I'm doing the same thing right now for the old people of today. Because the young take care of the old. That's the way it works, call it communism or just plain common sense - but expect it to be part of your duty as productive citizens.

Since I am close to retirement and you are not.

You need to be paying more. JUST SAYIN.....................