The "raiding" of the Social Security Trust. What you don't know, and why you're probably an idiot.

[RetiredGySgt]

The Government DEPENDS on the SS surplus. They MUST have it to pay the Government operating costs, it is FIGURED into the Budget. It is NOT excess. Ok so the Government pays a percentage on the money it borrows, all sounds fine and dandy, right? Problem is that the Government MUST use the money from SS to pay to operate. When SS no longer has a surplus to LOAN to the Government That money not only will no longer be available to borrow and pay for operating costs BUT the SS fund will be needing the Government to PAY it back the loans it already made.

Perhaps one can explain where the Government will get the funds that it currently depends on from SS AND the funds to pay back the loans when that happens?

Why do you think that's an argument against SS? SS is the lender not the borrower. If SS were to invest its money somewhere else,

then the US government would have to borrow that money somewhere else.

Be specific. Quote for me in that response of mine where I said anything about SS being good bad, or anything else? Be specific now quote me where I argued anything about SS?

 

[mudwhistle]

There is much discussion on this on this board. Almost any time SS and it's solvency (or lack thereof) is discussed, everyone talks about how SS has been "raided" and used to pay for other things. The problem here is that most of you, Democrat and Republican alike, who say this don't have a clue what you're talking about. So here, I'll explain it to you. I'd like to say that we could put the issue to rest once and for all, but I doubt that will be the case.

Before I begin, a prediction: Many of you will rush to respond without bothering to read, and in the process you'll jump to conclusions and make an ass out of yourself. Some will rail off on wild tangents. Many dissenters will be folks who claim to be conservatives, but are really just fake ass Cinos who like to complain and whine, and will be completely oblivious to the highly damaging implications I'll be presenting against the entire SS system. But you'll feel good because touching yourself always feels good. Many dissenters will be liberals, who will "like" this post, will note the Cinos dissenting for all the wrong reasons, and based upon that, will launch into your Hooray for Government dance, as if idiots being wrong instantly means that government is the solution to all our problems. Finally, if most people are adequately drawn to my blue highlighting of this paragraph so as to read it, and subsequently see their planned reaction described herein, few responses will be made because you'll realize that you've already been identified and you're now embarrassed at how much of an ass of yourself you were about to make.

Okay, now that that's cleared up, let's talk about the Social Security Trust, and what happens to the money.....

Overall, the Social Security Trust is fairly simple. Money goes in with the express purpose of being used to fund Social Security. It can't be used to pay to fuel up Air Force One for Obama's latest golfing venture. Simple. That being said, money static is money lost. That is to say, if money just sits on the coffee table, it's not doing anything except sitting there. In our personal lives most people know that building up a nest egg of cash that is doing nothing typically means lost opportunities. We could invest that money and make more money. Even something as simple and safe as putting it into a Certificate of Deposit with your bank might return a little bit of cash, all while you sit back and play video games for the next 18 months. If you're not going to be using your nest egg anyway, it's like giving up free money to just let it sit there.

That's why many, many years ago Congress passed a law that requires excess funds in the Social Security Trust to be "invested." Instead of just sitting there and collecting dust, the excess is invested and collects interest, which is then rolled back into the Trust. This "investing" is done in the form of intra-governmental loans. Basically, the government borrows money from itself, on a short term basis, in pretty much the same fashion as other government borrowing occurs. A bond is given to the Trust, and a few months later the Trust is repaid with interest.

Now, you might be thinking that "Well, this really does amount to raiding the SS Trust to pay for other things." On it's surface, it might appear that way. But in reality, it's not that way. And there are two reasons for that:

1 - At it's core, it's little more more than moving around cash. If your car broke down on Wed and you were short on cash, causing you to transfer $500 from your savings into your checking until payday Friday, at which point you put back the $500 plus added your normal per-paycheck savings contribution, would you call that "raiding" your savings account to pay you mechanic? Of course not. All you did was move your own cash around so that your check won't bounce.

2 - The law requires that the Trust be invested in his way. It doesn't matter how much or how little the government is spending on other things. Congress could pass a balanced budget, and the same thing would happen. Heck, the Congress could pass a budget that only authorizes $1,500 in spending, and the same thing would still happen. The Trust would still be invested, and the government would still borrow from itself.

This is why you may have heard such seemingly absurd things as "The debt is $18 trillion, but the real dept is only $10 trillion." What the "real" debt refers to is the amount of debt that is not in the form of intra-governmental loans; intra-governmental loans are included in the official calculation of the debt, so a sizable part of the $18 trillion includes cash that the government has just shifted around between accounts. (***Note: I do not know the actual figures off the top of my head, the $10 trillion amount is merely an explanatory tool).

Now that we understand that investing the excess funds in the Social Security Trust by means of intra-governmental debt is a long standing legal requirement that happens without regard to how much the government spends, some people might be ready to rejoice in the alleged marvel that is the Social Security system. Some might feel relieved that in fact the SS Trust is not being "raided" and might even see this as evidence that SS can remain solvent for many decades to come. But don't be so fast to celebrate. Because everything I've just said actually underscores the fact that Social Security is a drain on the American economy, and on the taxpayer.

As I explained, when excess funds from the SS Trust are loaned out to other parts of the government they are paid back with interest. This brings more money into the Trust. That money didn't come from your SS payroll taxes. It comes directly from your income tax. You are investing more money into the SS Trust than just your SS taxes!! The SS Trust is like a black hole. It sucks in money from every direction, and all it spits out are the decayed remnants of what's left over.

The amount of money a person receives in terms of SS retirement benefits will almost always be less than what you've paid into it as SS taxes. And now that we understand that we invest more than just our SS taxes into the SS Trust, the disparity of return is understood to be even greater. Allowing individuals to retain their SS taxes would allow them to instead invest those funds into retirement plans that would yield better returns, resulting in having more funds available for their own retirement. Additionally, the interest that the SS Trust sucks in from the taxpayers would result in a net savings of government expenses, allowing for lower deficits.

I've known about this for years.

This is one of the reasons the American people are the biggest debtor of the U.S. Government.

Most of the national debt belongs to you and me, the suckers that have been forced to pay into F.I.C.A.

 

[flacaltenn]

In 2014 SS paid out 714 BILLION and took in 769 billion.

Privatizing SS would mean that those numbers would be SS paying out 714 billion and taking in ZERO, or close to it.

Where would the 714 billion have to come from? Your taxes.

Were you even aware of the how much the privatization was? It was 2 or 4% of your personal contributions. Get a grip! And why was it a good deal? Because if you died, you could pass it on to your wife, or kids.

Now why don't you take that left wing hat off for a second and use your noggin! If you invest 100 bucks, and lose 50%, you still have 50 dollars to pass on to your kids after you assume room temperature. Problem is, the government has to have 50 bucks of actual cash to give them, lol. That is why it was fought by EVERY big government person, both DEMOCRAT, and REPUBLICAN.

And another thing............I don't understand why you despise establishment Republicans. They are JUST LIKE YOU! You can't fit a piece of printer paper between an establishment Democrat, and an establishment Republican. They both want to make excuses for their failures, kiss a bunch of illegal a**, and lie to the American people. You two groups should really merge and rename yourselves, the TOTALITARIANS!

Privatization means that younger people stop paying the payroll tax. The payroll tax replenishes SS payouts each year, to maintain the Trust Fund balance, or increase it.

Once the payroll tax ends, the Trust Fund will have to pay current recipients with the principal and interest it holds and earns.

That will come out of general fund tax revenues, because it's the general fund that borrowed the money.

The way previous proposals were written -- it was NOT privatization. In exchange for letting younger workers choose to keep 2 or 3% of their payroll taxes --- the workers agree to reduced or eliminated payments from the SS account at retirement. THEY WOULD STILL be paying the bulk of their payroll taxes as a "welfare tax" for the folks who need it.

If in 2004 or so -- we had ADOPTED this plan.. The amount of deferred SS taxes would have been payed out of the "EXCESS" -- because SS was running a surplus (overcharging) for about 30 years and pissing it away.

If that program had been adopted -- the stolen money would have gone to securing REDUCED future payments without affecting the income balance of that program.

Now that it's not running a surplus (or teetering on solvency a few billion either way) --- we no longer have that option..

 

[Lakhota]

Which agencies own the most Treasuries? Social Security, by a long shot. Here's the detailed breakdown (as of September 30, 2014):

• Social Security (Social Security Trust Fund and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund) - $2.783 trillion
• Office of Personnel Management Retirement - $924 billion
• Military Retirement Fund - $483 billion
• Medicare (Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund) - $270 billion

• All Other Retirement Funds - $117 billion
• Cash on Hand to Fund Federal Government Operations - $463 billion. (Source: Treasury Bulletin, Monthly Treasury Statement; Table 6. Schedule D-Investments of Federal Government Accounts in Federal Securities, September 2014)

More: The Real Owner of the U.S. Debt Will Surprise You

Many people are in the same boat.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In 2014 SS paid out 714 BILLION and took in 769 billion.

Privatizing SS would mean that those numbers would be SS paying out 714 billion and taking in ZERO, or close to it.

Where would the 714 billion have to come from? Your taxes.

Were you even aware of the how much the privatization was? It was 2 or 4% of your personal contributions. Get a grip! And why was it a good deal? Because if you died, you could pass it on to your wife, or kids.

Now why don't you take that left wing hat off for a second and use your noggin! If you invest 100 bucks, and lose 50%, you still have 50 dollars to pass on to your kids after you assume room temperature. Problem is, the government has to have 50 bucks of actual cash to give them, lol. That is why it was fought by EVERY big government person, both DEMOCRAT, and REPUBLICAN.

And another thing............I don't understand why you despise establishment Republicans. They are JUST LIKE YOU! You can't fit a piece of printer paper between an establishment Democrat, and an establishment Republican. They both want to make excuses for their failures, kiss a bunch of illegal a**, and lie to the American people. You two groups should really merge and rename yourselves, the TOTALITARIANS!

Privatization means that younger people stop paying the payroll tax. The payroll tax replenishes SS payouts each year, to maintain the Trust Fund balance, or increase it.

Once the payroll tax ends, the Trust Fund will have to pay current recipients with the principal and interest it holds and earns.

That will come out of general fund tax revenues, because it's the general fund that borrowed the money.

The way previous proposals were written -- it was NOT privatization. In exchange for letting younger workers choose to keep 2 or 3% of their payroll taxes --- the workers agree to reduced or eliminated payments from the SS account at retirement. THEY WOULD STILL be paying the bulk of their payroll taxes as a "welfare tax" for the folks who need it.

If in 2004 or so -- we had ADOPTED this plan.. The amount of deferred SS taxes would have been payed out of the "EXCESS" -- because SS was running a surplus (overcharging) for about 30 years and pissing it away.

If that program had been adopted -- the stolen money would have gone to securing REDUCED future payments without affecting the income balance of that program.

Now that it's not running a surplus (or teetering on solvency a few billion either way) --- we no longer have that option..

Obama cut the payroll tax for 2 years. How many Americans would you guess put that into their retirements?

 

[flacaltenn]

There is much discussion on this on this board. Almost any time SS and it's solvency (or lack thereof) is discussed, everyone talks about how SS has been "raided" and used to pay for other things. The problem here is that most of you, Democrat and Republican alike, who say this don't have a clue what you're talking about. So here, I'll explain it to you. I'd like to say that we could put the issue to rest once and for all, but I doubt that will be the case.

Before I begin, a prediction: Many of you will rush to respond without bothering to read, and in the process you'll jump to conclusions and make an ass out of yourself. Some will rail off on wild tangents. Many dissenters will be folks who claim to be conservatives, but are really just fake ass Cinos who like to complain and whine, and will be completely oblivious to the highly damaging implications I'll be presenting against the entire SS system. But you'll feel good because touching yourself always feels good. Many dissenters will be liberals, who will "like" this post, will note the Cinos dissenting for all the wrong reasons, and based upon that, will launch into your Hooray for Government dance, as if idiots being wrong instantly means that government is the solution to all our problems. Finally, if most people are adequately drawn to my blue highlighting of this paragraph so as to read it, and subsequently see their planned reaction described herein, few responses will be made because you'll realize that you've already been identified and you're now embarrassed at how much of an ass of yourself you were about to make.

Okay, now that that's cleared up, let's talk about the Social Security Trust, and what happens to the money.....

Overall, the Social Security Trust is fairly simple. Money goes in with the express purpose of being used to fund Social Security. It can't be used to pay to fuel up Air Force One for Obama's latest golfing venture. Simple. That being said, money static is money lost. That is to say, if money just sits on the coffee table, it's not doing anything except sitting there. In our personal lives most people know that building up a nest egg of cash that is doing nothing typically means lost opportunities. We could invest that money and make more money. Even something as simple and safe as putting it into a Certificate of Deposit with your bank might return a little bit of cash, all while you sit back and play video games for the next 18 months. If you're not going to be using your nest egg anyway, it's like giving up free money to just let it sit there.

That's why many, many years ago Congress passed a law that requires excess funds in the Social Security Trust to be "invested." Instead of just sitting there and collecting dust, the excess is invested and collects interest, which is then rolled back into the Trust. This "investing" is done in the form of intra-governmental loans. Basically, the government borrows money from itself, on a short term basis, in pretty much the same fashion as other government borrowing occurs. A bond is given to the Trust, and a few months later the Trust is repaid with interest.

Now, you might be thinking that "Well, this really does amount to raiding the SS Trust to pay for other things." On it's surface, it might appear that way. But in reality, it's not that way. And there are two reasons for that:

1 - At it's core, it's little more more than moving around cash. If your car broke down on Wed and you were short on cash, causing you to transfer $500 from your savings into your checking until payday Friday, at which point you put back the $500 plus added your normal per-paycheck savings contribution, would you call that "raiding" your savings account to pay you mechanic? Of course not. All you did was move your own cash around so that your check won't bounce.

2 - The law requires that the Trust be invested in his way. It doesn't matter how much or how little the government is spending on other things. Congress could pass a balanced budget, and the same thing would happen. Heck, the Congress could pass a budget that only authorizes $1,500 in spending, and the same thing would still happen. The Trust would still be invested, and the government would still borrow from itself.

This is why you may have heard such seemingly absurd things as "The debt is $18 trillion, but the real dept is only $10 trillion." What the "real" debt refers to is the amount of debt that is not in the form of intra-governmental loans; intra-governmental loans are included in the official calculation of the debt, so a sizable part of the $18 trillion includes cash that the government has just shifted around between accounts. (***Note: I do not know the actual figures off the top of my head, the $10 trillion amount is merely an explanatory tool).

Now that we understand that investing the excess funds in the Social Security Trust by means of intra-governmental debt is a long standing legal requirement that happens without regard to how much the government spends, some people might be ready to rejoice in the alleged marvel that is the Social Security system. Some might feel relieved that in fact the SS Trust is not being "raided" and might even see this as evidence that SS can remain solvent for many decades to come. But don't be so fast to celebrate. Because everything I've just said actually underscores the fact that Social Security is a drain on the American economy, and on the taxpayer.

As I explained, when excess funds from the SS Trust are loaned out to other parts of the government they are paid back with interest. This brings more money into the Trust. That money didn't come from your SS payroll taxes. It comes directly from your income tax. You are investing more money into the SS Trust than just your SS taxes!! The SS Trust is like a black hole. It sucks in money from every direction, and all it spits out are the decayed remnants of what's left over.

The amount of money a person receives in terms of SS retirement benefits will almost always be less than what you've paid into it as SS taxes. And now that we understand that we invest more than just our SS taxes into the SS Trust, the disparity of return is understood to be even greater. Allowing individuals to retain their SS taxes would allow them to instead invest those funds into retirement plans that would yield better returns, resulting in having more funds available for their own retirement. Additionally, the interest that the SS Trust sucks in from the taxpayers would result in a net savings of government expenses, allowing for lower deficits.

Very good. Just one question. Where does the money come from to pay the interest on the SS bonds?

There is no interest paid on the bonds. It's a bookkeeping entry to make it appear that real assets are accruing. So that the treasury has to cover the stolen money PLUS some ficticious amount. But since all those redemptions are taken on the NECESSARY current year deficits -- that "interest" will probably never get redeemed.

In reality -- you've paid twice on interest for that stolen money. First time to make the SS Trust Fund accounting attractive and the 2nd time when you or your children have to cough up the money to REDEEM those "trust fund bonds" Actually -- robbed twice.. Yes you were...

 

[NYcarbineer]

In 2014 SS paid out 714 BILLION and took in 769 billion.

Privatizing SS would mean that those numbers would be SS paying out 714 billion and taking in ZERO, or close to it.

Where would the 714 billion have to come from? Your taxes.

Were you even aware of the how much the privatization was? It was 2 or 4% of your personal contributions. Get a grip! And why was it a good deal? Because if you died, you could pass it on to your wife, or kids.

Now why don't you take that left wing hat off for a second and use your noggin! If you invest 100 bucks, and lose 50%, you still have 50 dollars to pass on to your kids after you assume room temperature. Problem is, the government has to have 50 bucks of actual cash to give them, lol. That is why it was fought by EVERY big government person, both DEMOCRAT, and REPUBLICAN.

And another thing............I don't understand why you despise establishment Republicans. They are JUST LIKE YOU! You can't fit a piece of printer paper between an establishment Democrat, and an establishment Republican. They both want to make excuses for their failures, kiss a bunch of illegal a**, and lie to the American people. You two groups should really merge and rename yourselves, the TOTALITARIANS!

Privatization means that younger people stop paying the payroll tax. The payroll tax replenishes SS payouts each year, to maintain the Trust Fund balance, or increase it.

Once the payroll tax ends, the Trust Fund will have to pay current recipients with the principal and interest it holds and earns.

That will come out of general fund tax revenues, because it's the general fund that borrowed the money.

The way previous proposals were written -- it was NOT privatization. In exchange for letting younger workers choose to keep 2 or 3% of their payroll taxes --- the workers agree to reduced or eliminated payments from the SS account at retirement. THEY WOULD STILL be paying the bulk of their payroll taxes as a "welfare tax" for the folks who need it.

If in 2004 or so -- we had ADOPTED this plan.. The amount of deferred SS taxes would have been payed out of the "EXCESS" -- because SS was running a surplus (overcharging) for about 30 years and pissing it away.

If that program had been adopted -- the stolen money would have gone to securing REDUCED future payments without affecting the income balance of that program.

Now that it's not running a surplus (or teetering on solvency a few billion either way) --- we no longer have that option..

As soon as you resort to a term like 'stolen money' you can no longer be taken seriously.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is much discussion on this on this board. Almost any time SS and it's solvency (or lack thereof) is discussed, everyone talks about how SS has been "raided" and used to pay for other things. The problem here is that most of you, Democrat and Republican alike, who say this don't have a clue what you're talking about. So here, I'll explain it to you. I'd like to say that we could put the issue to rest once and for all, but I doubt that will be the case.

Before I begin, a prediction: Many of you will rush to respond without bothering to read, and in the process you'll jump to conclusions and make an ass out of yourself. Some will rail off on wild tangents. Many dissenters will be folks who claim to be conservatives, but are really just fake ass Cinos who like to complain and whine, and will be completely oblivious to the highly damaging implications I'll be presenting against the entire SS system. But you'll feel good because touching yourself always feels good. Many dissenters will be liberals, who will "like" this post, will note the Cinos dissenting for all the wrong reasons, and based upon that, will launch into your Hooray for Government dance, as if idiots being wrong instantly means that government is the solution to all our problems. Finally, if most people are adequately drawn to my blue highlighting of this paragraph so as to read it, and subsequently see their planned reaction described herein, few responses will be made because you'll realize that you've already been identified and you're now embarrassed at how much of an ass of yourself you were about to make.

Okay, now that that's cleared up, let's talk about the Social Security Trust, and what happens to the money.....

Overall, the Social Security Trust is fairly simple. Money goes in with the express purpose of being used to fund Social Security. It can't be used to pay to fuel up Air Force One for Obama's latest golfing venture. Simple. That being said, money static is money lost. That is to say, if money just sits on the coffee table, it's not doing anything except sitting there. In our personal lives most people know that building up a nest egg of cash that is doing nothing typically means lost opportunities. We could invest that money and make more money. Even something as simple and safe as putting it into a Certificate of Deposit with your bank might return a little bit of cash, all while you sit back and play video games for the next 18 months. If you're not going to be using your nest egg anyway, it's like giving up free money to just let it sit there.

That's why many, many years ago Congress passed a law that requires excess funds in the Social Security Trust to be "invested." Instead of just sitting there and collecting dust, the excess is invested and collects interest, which is then rolled back into the Trust. This "investing" is done in the form of intra-governmental loans. Basically, the government borrows money from itself, on a short term basis, in pretty much the same fashion as other government borrowing occurs. A bond is given to the Trust, and a few months later the Trust is repaid with interest.

Now, you might be thinking that "Well, this really does amount to raiding the SS Trust to pay for other things." On it's surface, it might appear that way. But in reality, it's not that way. And there are two reasons for that:

1 - At it's core, it's little more more than moving around cash. If your car broke down on Wed and you were short on cash, causing you to transfer $500 from your savings into your checking until payday Friday, at which point you put back the $500 plus added your normal per-paycheck savings contribution, would you call that "raiding" your savings account to pay you mechanic? Of course not. All you did was move your own cash around so that your check won't bounce.

2 - The law requires that the Trust be invested in his way. It doesn't matter how much or how little the government is spending on other things. Congress could pass a balanced budget, and the same thing would happen. Heck, the Congress could pass a budget that only authorizes $1,500 in spending, and the same thing would still happen. The Trust would still be invested, and the government would still borrow from itself.

This is why you may have heard such seemingly absurd things as "The debt is $18 trillion, but the real dept is only $10 trillion." What the "real" debt refers to is the amount of debt that is not in the form of intra-governmental loans; intra-governmental loans are included in the official calculation of the debt, so a sizable part of the $18 trillion includes cash that the government has just shifted around between accounts. (***Note: I do not know the actual figures off the top of my head, the $10 trillion amount is merely an explanatory tool).

Now that we understand that investing the excess funds in the Social Security Trust by means of intra-governmental debt is a long standing legal requirement that happens without regard to how much the government spends, some people might be ready to rejoice in the alleged marvel that is the Social Security system. Some might feel relieved that in fact the SS Trust is not being "raided" and might even see this as evidence that SS can remain solvent for many decades to come. But don't be so fast to celebrate. Because everything I've just said actually underscores the fact that Social Security is a drain on the American economy, and on the taxpayer.

As I explained, when excess funds from the SS Trust are loaned out to other parts of the government they are paid back with interest. This brings more money into the Trust. That money didn't come from your SS payroll taxes. It comes directly from your income tax. You are investing more money into the SS Trust than just your SS taxes!! The SS Trust is like a black hole. It sucks in money from every direction, and all it spits out are the decayed remnants of what's left over.

The amount of money a person receives in terms of SS retirement benefits will almost always be less than what you've paid into it as SS taxes. And now that we understand that we invest more than just our SS taxes into the SS Trust, the disparity of return is understood to be even greater. Allowing individuals to retain their SS taxes would allow them to instead invest those funds into retirement plans that would yield better returns, resulting in having more funds available for their own retirement. Additionally, the interest that the SS Trust sucks in from the taxpayers would result in a net savings of government expenses, allowing for lower deficits.

Very good. Just one question. Where does the money come from to pay the interest on the SS bonds?

There is no interest paid on the bonds. It's a bookkeeping entry to make it appear that real assets are accruing. So that the treasury has to cover the stolen money PLUS some ficticious amount. But since all those redemptions are taken on the NECESSARY current year deficits -- that "interest" will probably never get redeemed.

In reality -- you've paid twice on interest for that stolen money. First time to make the SS Trust Fund accounting attractive and the 2nd time when you or your children have to cough up the money to REDEEM those "trust fund bonds" Actually -- robbed twice.. Yes you were...

So no US treasury has ever paid interest?

lol, that's hilarious.

 

[flacaltenn]

In 2014 SS paid out 714 BILLION and took in 769 billion.

Privatizing SS would mean that those numbers would be SS paying out 714 billion and taking in ZERO, or close to it.

Where would the 714 billion have to come from? Your taxes.

Were you even aware of the how much the privatization was? It was 2 or 4% of your personal contributions. Get a grip! And why was it a good deal? Because if you died, you could pass it on to your wife, or kids.

Now why don't you take that left wing hat off for a second and use your noggin! If you invest 100 bucks, and lose 50%, you still have 50 dollars to pass on to your kids after you assume room temperature. Problem is, the government has to have 50 bucks of actual cash to give them, lol. That is why it was fought by EVERY big government person, both DEMOCRAT, and REPUBLICAN.

And another thing............I don't understand why you despise establishment Republicans. They are JUST LIKE YOU! You can't fit a piece of printer paper between an establishment Democrat, and an establishment Republican. They both want to make excuses for their failures, kiss a bunch of illegal a**, and lie to the American people. You two groups should really merge and rename yourselves, the TOTALITARIANS!

Privatization means that younger people stop paying the payroll tax. The payroll tax replenishes SS payouts each year, to maintain the Trust Fund balance, or increase it.

Once the payroll tax ends, the Trust Fund will have to pay current recipients with the principal and interest it holds and earns.

That will come out of general fund tax revenues, because it's the general fund that borrowed the money.

The way previous proposals were written -- it was NOT privatization. In exchange for letting younger workers choose to keep 2 or 3% of their payroll taxes --- the workers agree to reduced or eliminated payments from the SS account at retirement. THEY WOULD STILL be paying the bulk of their payroll taxes as a "welfare tax" for the folks who need it.

If in 2004 or so -- we had ADOPTED this plan.. The amount of deferred SS taxes would have been payed out of the "EXCESS" -- because SS was running a surplus (overcharging) for about 30 years and pissing it away.

If that program had been adopted -- the stolen money would have gone to securing REDUCED future payments without affecting the income balance of that program.

Now that it's not running a surplus (or teetering on solvency a few billion either way) --- we no longer have that option..

Obama cut the payroll tax for 2 years. How many Americans would you guess put that into their retirements?

$20 bucks a month? Not many... But $20 times 100,000,000 --- was a big chunk stolen from the program revenue stream... How come you're not concerned about stealing from the SS revenue stream for THIS -- but you mock a plan that would have used SURPLUS money to defray future payments?

 

[NYcarbineer]

In 2014 SS paid out 714 BILLION and took in 769 billion.

Privatizing SS would mean that those numbers would be SS paying out 714 billion and taking in ZERO, or close to it.

Where would the 714 billion have to come from? Your taxes.

Were you even aware of the how much the privatization was? It was 2 or 4% of your personal contributions. Get a grip! And why was it a good deal? Because if you died, you could pass it on to your wife, or kids.

Now why don't you take that left wing hat off for a second and use your noggin! If you invest 100 bucks, and lose 50%, you still have 50 dollars to pass on to your kids after you assume room temperature. Problem is, the government has to have 50 bucks of actual cash to give them, lol. That is why it was fought by EVERY big government person, both DEMOCRAT, and REPUBLICAN.

And another thing............I don't understand why you despise establishment Republicans. They are JUST LIKE YOU! You can't fit a piece of printer paper between an establishment Democrat, and an establishment Republican. They both want to make excuses for their failures, kiss a bunch of illegal a**, and lie to the American people. You two groups should really merge and rename yourselves, the TOTALITARIANS!

Privatization means that younger people stop paying the payroll tax. The payroll tax replenishes SS payouts each year, to maintain the Trust Fund balance, or increase it.

Once the payroll tax ends, the Trust Fund will have to pay current recipients with the principal and interest it holds and earns.

That will come out of general fund tax revenues, because it's the general fund that borrowed the money.

The way previous proposals were written -- it was NOT privatization. In exchange for letting younger workers choose to keep 2 or 3% of their payroll taxes --- the workers agree to reduced or eliminated payments from the SS account at retirement. THEY WOULD STILL be paying the bulk of their payroll taxes as a "welfare tax" for the folks who need it.

If in 2004 or so -- we had ADOPTED this plan.. The amount of deferred SS taxes would have been payed out of the "EXCESS" -- because SS was running a surplus (overcharging) for about 30 years and pissing it away.

If that program had been adopted -- the stolen money would have gone to securing REDUCED future payments without affecting the income balance of that program.

Now that it's not running a surplus (or teetering on solvency a few billion either way) --- we no longer have that option..

Obama cut the payroll tax for 2 years. How many Americans would you guess put that into their retirements?

$20 bucks a month? Not many... But $20 times 100,000,000 --- was a big chunk stolen from the program revenue stream... How come you're not concerned about stealing from the SS revenue stream for THIS -- but you mock a plan that would have used SURPLUS money to defray future payments?

Nothing was stolen.

 

[flacaltenn]

There is much discussion on this on this board. Almost any time SS and it's solvency (or lack thereof) is discussed, everyone talks about how SS has been "raided" and used to pay for other things. The problem here is that most of you, Democrat and Republican alike, who say this don't have a clue what you're talking about. So here, I'll explain it to you. I'd like to say that we could put the issue to rest once and for all, but I doubt that will be the case.

Before I begin, a prediction: Many of you will rush to respond without bothering to read, and in the process you'll jump to conclusions and make an ass out of yourself. Some will rail off on wild tangents. Many dissenters will be folks who claim to be conservatives, but are really just fake ass Cinos who like to complain and whine, and will be completely oblivious to the highly damaging implications I'll be presenting against the entire SS system. But you'll feel good because touching yourself always feels good. Many dissenters will be liberals, who will "like" this post, will note the Cinos dissenting for all the wrong reasons, and based upon that, will launch into your Hooray for Government dance, as if idiots being wrong instantly means that government is the solution to all our problems. Finally, if most people are adequately drawn to my blue highlighting of this paragraph so as to read it, and subsequently see their planned reaction described herein, few responses will be made because you'll realize that you've already been identified and you're now embarrassed at how much of an ass of yourself you were about to make.

Okay, now that that's cleared up, let's talk about the Social Security Trust, and what happens to the money.....

Overall, the Social Security Trust is fairly simple. Money goes in with the express purpose of being used to fund Social Security. It can't be used to pay to fuel up Air Force One for Obama's latest golfing venture. Simple. That being said, money static is money lost. That is to say, if money just sits on the coffee table, it's not doing anything except sitting there. In our personal lives most people know that building up a nest egg of cash that is doing nothing typically means lost opportunities. We could invest that money and make more money. Even something as simple and safe as putting it into a Certificate of Deposit with your bank might return a little bit of cash, all while you sit back and play video games for the next 18 months. If you're not going to be using your nest egg anyway, it's like giving up free money to just let it sit there.

That's why many, many years ago Congress passed a law that requires excess funds in the Social Security Trust to be "invested." Instead of just sitting there and collecting dust, the excess is invested and collects interest, which is then rolled back into the Trust. This "investing" is done in the form of intra-governmental loans. Basically, the government borrows money from itself, on a short term basis, in pretty much the same fashion as other government borrowing occurs. A bond is given to the Trust, and a few months later the Trust is repaid with interest.

Now, you might be thinking that "Well, this really does amount to raiding the SS Trust to pay for other things." On it's surface, it might appear that way. But in reality, it's not that way. And there are two reasons for that:

1 - At it's core, it's little more more than moving around cash. If your car broke down on Wed and you were short on cash, causing you to transfer $500 from your savings into your checking until payday Friday, at which point you put back the $500 plus added your normal per-paycheck savings contribution, would you call that "raiding" your savings account to pay you mechanic? Of course not. All you did was move your own cash around so that your check won't bounce.

2 - The law requires that the Trust be invested in his way. It doesn't matter how much or how little the government is spending on other things. Congress could pass a balanced budget, and the same thing would happen. Heck, the Congress could pass a budget that only authorizes $1,500 in spending, and the same thing would still happen. The Trust would still be invested, and the government would still borrow from itself.

This is why you may have heard such seemingly absurd things as "The debt is $18 trillion, but the real dept is only $10 trillion." What the "real" debt refers to is the amount of debt that is not in the form of intra-governmental loans; intra-governmental loans are included in the official calculation of the debt, so a sizable part of the $18 trillion includes cash that the government has just shifted around between accounts. (***Note: I do not know the actual figures off the top of my head, the $10 trillion amount is merely an explanatory tool).

Now that we understand that investing the excess funds in the Social Security Trust by means of intra-governmental debt is a long standing legal requirement that happens without regard to how much the government spends, some people might be ready to rejoice in the alleged marvel that is the Social Security system. Some might feel relieved that in fact the SS Trust is not being "raided" and might even see this as evidence that SS can remain solvent for many decades to come. But don't be so fast to celebrate. Because everything I've just said actually underscores the fact that Social Security is a drain on the American economy, and on the taxpayer.

As I explained, when excess funds from the SS Trust are loaned out to other parts of the government they are paid back with interest. This brings more money into the Trust. That money didn't come from your SS payroll taxes. It comes directly from your income tax. You are investing more money into the SS Trust than just your SS taxes!! The SS Trust is like a black hole. It sucks in money from every direction, and all it spits out are the decayed remnants of what's left over.

The amount of money a person receives in terms of SS retirement benefits will almost always be less than what you've paid into it as SS taxes. And now that we understand that we invest more than just our SS taxes into the SS Trust, the disparity of return is understood to be even greater. Allowing individuals to retain their SS taxes would allow them to instead invest those funds into retirement plans that would yield better returns, resulting in having more funds available for their own retirement. Additionally, the interest that the SS Trust sucks in from the taxpayers would result in a net savings of government expenses, allowing for lower deficits.

Very good. Just one question. Where does the money come from to pay the interest on the SS bonds?

There is no interest paid on the bonds. It's a bookkeeping entry to make it appear that real assets are accruing. So that the treasury has to cover the stolen money PLUS some ficticious amount. But since all those redemptions are taken on the NECESSARY current year deficits -- that "interest" will probably never get redeemed.

In reality -- you've paid twice on interest for that stolen money. First time to make the SS Trust Fund accounting attractive and the 2nd time when you or your children have to cough up the money to REDEEM those "trust fund bonds" Actually -- robbed twice.. Yes you were...

So no US treasury has ever paid interest?

lol, that's hilarious.

No REAL interest resides in the SS Trust Fund. It's just a magnifier on the debt the Treasury might have to cough up to "redeem" the "notes" in the Trust Fund. Like I said, SS doesn't ask for the interest or any particular yearly bond redemption -- they just tell the Treasury how much NEW MONEY needs to be coughed up for that year.


If the notes in the SS trust fund were REAL NEGOTIABLE US treasury bonds, bought from the open market in the year they were put in --- that action would have reduced the overall Treasury debt. But the money was squandered instead and replaced by IOUs..

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Were you even aware of the how much the privatization was? It was 2 or 4% of your personal contributions. Get a grip! And why was it a good deal? Because if you died, you could pass it on to your wife, or kids.

Now why don't you take that left wing hat off for a second and use your noggin! If you invest 100 bucks, and lose 50%, you still have 50 dollars to pass on to your kids after you assume room temperature. Problem is, the government has to have 50 bucks of actual cash to give them, lol. That is why it was fought by EVERY big government person, both DEMOCRAT, and REPUBLICAN.

And another thing............I don't understand why you despise establishment Republicans. They are JUST LIKE YOU! You can't fit a piece of printer paper between an establishment Democrat, and an establishment Republican. They both want to make excuses for their failures, kiss a bunch of illegal a**, and lie to the American people. You two groups should really merge and rename yourselves, the TOTALITARIANS!

Privatization means that younger people stop paying the payroll tax. The payroll tax replenishes SS payouts each year, to maintain the Trust Fund balance, or increase it.

Once the payroll tax ends, the Trust Fund will have to pay current recipients with the principal and interest it holds and earns.

That will come out of general fund tax revenues, because it's the general fund that borrowed the money.

The way previous proposals were written -- it was NOT privatization. In exchange for letting younger workers choose to keep 2 or 3% of their payroll taxes --- the workers agree to reduced or eliminated payments from the SS account at retirement. THEY WOULD STILL be paying the bulk of their payroll taxes as a "welfare tax" for the folks who need it.

If in 2004 or so -- we had ADOPTED this plan.. The amount of deferred SS taxes would have been payed out of the "EXCESS" -- because SS was running a surplus (overcharging) for about 30 years and pissing it away.

If that program had been adopted -- the stolen money would have gone to securing REDUCED future payments without affecting the income balance of that program.

Now that it's not running a surplus (or teetering on solvency a few billion either way) --- we no longer have that option..

Obama cut the payroll tax for 2 years. How many Americans would you guess put that into their retirements?

$20 bucks a month? Not many... But $20 times 100,000,000 --- was a big chunk stolen from the program revenue stream... How come you're not concerned about stealing from the SS revenue stream for THIS -- but you mock a plan that would have used SURPLUS money to defray future payments?

Nothing was stolen.

I asked you a question.

 

[flacaltenn]

Were you even aware of the how much the privatization was? It was 2 or 4% of your personal contributions. Get a grip! And why was it a good deal? Because if you died, you could pass it on to your wife, or kids.

Now why don't you take that left wing hat off for a second and use your noggin! If you invest 100 bucks, and lose 50%, you still have 50 dollars to pass on to your kids after you assume room temperature. Problem is, the government has to have 50 bucks of actual cash to give them, lol. That is why it was fought by EVERY big government person, both DEMOCRAT, and REPUBLICAN.

And another thing............I don't understand why you despise establishment Republicans. They are JUST LIKE YOU! You can't fit a piece of printer paper between an establishment Democrat, and an establishment Republican. They both want to make excuses for their failures, kiss a bunch of illegal a**, and lie to the American people. You two groups should really merge and rename yourselves, the TOTALITARIANS!

Privatization means that younger people stop paying the payroll tax. The payroll tax replenishes SS payouts each year, to maintain the Trust Fund balance, or increase it.

Once the payroll tax ends, the Trust Fund will have to pay current recipients with the principal and interest it holds and earns.

That will come out of general fund tax revenues, because it's the general fund that borrowed the money.

The way previous proposals were written -- it was NOT privatization. In exchange for letting younger workers choose to keep 2 or 3% of their payroll taxes --- the workers agree to reduced or eliminated payments from the SS account at retirement. THEY WOULD STILL be paying the bulk of their payroll taxes as a "welfare tax" for the folks who need it.

If in 2004 or so -- we had ADOPTED this plan.. The amount of deferred SS taxes would have been payed out of the "EXCESS" -- because SS was running a surplus (overcharging) for about 30 years and pissing it away.

If that program had been adopted -- the stolen money would have gone to securing REDUCED future payments without affecting the income balance of that program.

Now that it's not running a surplus (or teetering on solvency a few billion either way) --- we no longer have that option..

Obama cut the payroll tax for 2 years. How many Americans would you guess put that into their retirements?

$20 bucks a month? Not many... But $20 times 100,000,000 --- was a big chunk stolen from the program revenue stream... How come you're not concerned about stealing from the SS revenue stream for THIS -- but you mock a plan that would have used SURPLUS money to defray future payments?

Nothing was stolen.

Stolen TWICE actually. Once when they took it out of the pockets of workers and squandered the overpayments. And AGAIN --- when SS runs a negative income and has to go the treasury for "redemption"..
Where does the "redemption" come from? Can't come from Assets on hand. The govt is running $$Trill dollar debt every year. So like the SSA and CBO told you -- the 2nd theft occurs when the Treasury issues NEW debt on the marketplace (china) to cover the SS deficit. Because you PAY on that again to cover the money that they previously misappropriated. With interest ---- TWICE....

 

[Rustic]

There is much discussion on this on this board. Almost any time SS and it's solvency (or lack thereof) is discussed, everyone talks about how SS has been "raided" and used to pay for other things. The problem here is that most of you, Democrat and Republican alike, who say this don't have a clue what you're talking about. So here, I'll explain it to you. I'd like to say that we could put the issue to rest once and for all, but I doubt that will be the case.

Before I begin, a prediction: Many of you will rush to respond without bothering to read, and in the process you'll jump to conclusions and make an ass out of yourself. Some will rail off on wild tangents. Many dissenters will be folks who claim to be conservatives, but are really just fake ass Cinos who like to complain and whine, and will be completely oblivious to the highly damaging implications I'll be presenting against the entire SS system. But you'll feel good because touching yourself always feels good. Many dissenters will be liberals, who will "like" this post, will note the Cinos dissenting for all the wrong reasons, and based upon that, will launch into your Hooray for Government dance, as if idiots being wrong instantly means that government is the solution to all our problems. Finally, if most people are adequately drawn to my blue highlighting of this paragraph so as to read it, and subsequently see their planned reaction described herein, few responses will be made because you'll realize that you've already been identified and you're now embarrassed at how much of an ass of yourself you were about to make.

Okay, now that that's cleared up, let's talk about the Social Security Trust, and what happens to the money.....

Overall, the Social Security Trust is fairly simple. Money goes in with the express purpose of being used to fund Social Security. It can't be used to pay to fuel up Air Force One for Obama's latest golfing venture. Simple. That being said, money static is money lost. That is to say, if money just sits on the coffee table, it's not doing anything except sitting there. In our personal lives most people know that building up a nest egg of cash that is doing nothing typically means lost opportunities. We could invest that money and make more money. Even something as simple and safe as putting it into a Certificate of Deposit with your bank might return a little bit of cash, all while you sit back and play video games for the next 18 months. If you're not going to be using your nest egg anyway, it's like giving up free money to just let it sit there.

That's why many, many years ago Congress passed a law that requires excess funds in the Social Security Trust to be "invested." Instead of just sitting there and collecting dust, the excess is invested and collects interest, which is then rolled back into the Trust. This "investing" is done in the form of intra-governmental loans. Basically, the government borrows money from itself, on a short term basis, in pretty much the same fashion as other government borrowing occurs. A bond is given to the Trust, and a few months later the Trust is repaid with interest.

Now, you might be thinking that "Well, this really does amount to raiding the SS Trust to pay for other things." On it's surface, it might appear that way. But in reality, it's not that way. And there are two reasons for that:

1 - At it's core, it's little more more than moving around cash. If your car broke down on Wed and you were short on cash, causing you to transfer $500 from your savings into your checking until payday Friday, at which point you put back the $500 plus added your normal per-paycheck savings contribution, would you call that "raiding" your savings account to pay you mechanic? Of course not. All you did was move your own cash around so that your check won't bounce.

2 - The law requires that the Trust be invested in his way. It doesn't matter how much or how little the government is spending on other things. Congress could pass a balanced budget, and the same thing would happen. Heck, the Congress could pass a budget that only authorizes $1,500 in spending, and the same thing would still happen. The Trust would still be invested, and the government would still borrow from itself.

This is why you may have heard such seemingly absurd things as "The debt is $18 trillion, but the real dept is only $10 trillion." What the "real" debt refers to is the amount of debt that is not in the form of intra-governmental loans; intra-governmental loans are included in the official calculation of the debt, so a sizable part of the $18 trillion includes cash that the government has just shifted around between accounts. (***Note: I do not know the actual figures off the top of my head, the $10 trillion amount is merely an explanatory tool).

Now that we understand that investing the excess funds in the Social Security Trust by means of intra-governmental debt is a long standing legal requirement that happens without regard to how much the government spends, some people might be ready to rejoice in the alleged marvel that is the Social Security system. Some might feel relieved that in fact the SS Trust is not being "raided" and might even see this as evidence that SS can remain solvent for many decades to come. But don't be so fast to celebrate. Because everything I've just said actually underscores the fact that Social Security is a drain on the American economy, and on the taxpayer.

As I explained, when excess funds from the SS Trust are loaned out to other parts of the government they are paid back with interest. This brings more money into the Trust. That money didn't come from your SS payroll taxes. It comes directly from your income tax. You are investing more money into the SS Trust than just your SS taxes!! The SS Trust is like a black hole. It sucks in money from every direction, and all it spits out are the decayed remnants of what's left over.

The amount of money a person receives in terms of SS retirement benefits will almost always be less than what you've paid into it as SS taxes. And now that we understand that we invest more than just our SS taxes into the SS Trust, the disparity of return is understood to be even greater. Allowing individuals to retain their SS taxes would allow them to instead invest those funds into retirement plans that would yield better returns, resulting in having more funds available for their own retirement. Additionally, the interest that the SS Trust sucks in from the taxpayers would result in a net savings of government expenses, allowing for lower deficits.

The whole concept is soooo fu#%ed up there's no other word for it = Ponzi scheme.
Even the it's name, social Security = weakness...

 

[Rustic]

First, thanks for this topic, SwimExpert, and you did a good job explaining SS.

A couple comments:

This is why you may have heard such seemingly absurd things as "The debt is $18 trillion, but the real dept is only $10 trillion." What the "real" debt refers to is the amount of debt that is not in the form of intra-governmental loans; intra-governmental loans are included in the official calculation of the debt, so a sizable part of the $18 trillion includes cash that the government has just shifted around between accounts. (***Note: I do not know the actual figures off the top of my head, the $10 trillion amount is merely an explanatory tool).

You weren't too far off. Here's the October 2015 summary: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2015/opds102015.pdf

A little over $5 trillion in intergovernmental holdings, and $13 trillion in public debt.

This doesn't make me feel any better since I already knew this.

Allowing individuals to retain their SS taxes would allow them to instead invest those funds into retirement plans that would yield better returns, resulting in having more funds available for their own retirement.

You've seen how dumb the rubes on this forum are. Do you really think they would invest wisely? Really?

They'd be wiped out by scammers selling gold plated coins and AAA-rated toxic Wall Street securities, and then would come crying to the government for a bailout.

Trusting the federal government to do the right thing is like expecting it to snow in Death Valley... In August

 

[Rustic]

Given our current average salary in America, are you really so naive as to think many will save?
.

Another good point.

Just as printing more money is the right thing to do??

 

[Rustic]

the thought of a RW wanting to, or managing an investment portfolio when they can't understand the difference between deficit/debt makes me cry with laughter.

Our own federal government is as stupid as a bag of hammers, first they are paying debt with more debt. This being the number one on the list of world history fu#% ups.
Second printing more paper and calling it an stimulus, we as an country are soooo fu#%ed!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

First, thanks for this topic, SwimExpert, and you did a good job explaining SS.

A couple comments:

This is why you may have heard such seemingly absurd things as "The debt is $18 trillion, but the real dept is only $10 trillion." What the "real" debt refers to is the amount of debt that is not in the form of intra-governmental loans; intra-governmental loans are included in the official calculation of the debt, so a sizable part of the $18 trillion includes cash that the government has just shifted around between accounts. (***Note: I do not know the actual figures off the top of my head, the $10 trillion amount is merely an explanatory tool).

You weren't too far off. Here's the October 2015 summary: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2015/opds102015.pdf

A little over $5 trillion in intergovernmental holdings, and $13 trillion in public debt.

This doesn't make me feel any better since I already knew this.

Allowing individuals to retain their SS taxes would allow them to instead invest those funds into retirement plans that would yield better returns, resulting in having more funds available for their own retirement.

You've seen how dumb the rubes on this forum are. Do you really think they would invest wisely? Really?

They'd be wiped out by scammers selling gold plated coins and AAA-rated toxic Wall Street securities, and then would come crying to the government for a bailout.

Yes, so much better to pay EVERYONE back 2 cents on their invested dollar.

I'll let Warren Buffett explain it to you

"Our investment results have been helped by a terrific tailwind. During the 1964-2014 period, the S&P 500 rose from 84 to 2,059, which, with reinvested dividends, generated the overall return of 11,196% shown on page 2. Concurrently, the purchasing power of the dollar declined a staggering 87%. That decrease means that it now takes $1 to buy what could be bought for 13¢ in 1965 (as measured by the Consumer Price Index). There is an important message for investors in that disparate performance between stocks and dollars. Think back to our 2011 annual report, in which we defined investing as “the transfer to others of purchasing power now with the reasoned expectation of receiving more purchasing power – after taxes have been paid on nominal gains – in the future.” The unconventional, but inescapable, conclusion to be drawn from the past fifty years is that it has been far safer to invest in a diversified collection of American businesses than to invest in securities – Treasuries, for example – whose values have been tied to American currency. That was also true in the preceding half-century, a period including the Great Depression and two world wars. Investors should heed this history. To one degree or another it is almost certain to be repeated during the next century."

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2014ar/2014ar.pdf

100% of current SS recipients are getting 13 cents on their fucking dollar. The Millennials will be getting back 2 maybe 3 cents on their dollar when they retire. Tell us again about all these "rubes" who want to put SS into US Equities.

All ears here

 

[SwimExpert]

What a load of crap. Taking our Social Security contributions and spending it on other crap without any means of repaying the money is not investing it. That will land you right in prison in the private sector. 2% interest that will never be paid is $0.00

That these corrupt thieves now tell us they have to raise the retirement age so that some of us will die before collecting a dime, and others will get less than promised or nothing at all is a clue that the money was not 'invested'. Government stole the money, they spent it, they can't pay us back so now they want to screw us over.

Ah. So as I predicted, you jumped to respond without actually reading what I wrote.

The money is repaid. On a frequent basis. The bonds are short term instruments. The Trust is constantly increased by this behavior.

 

[SwimExpert]

First, thanks for this topic, SwimExpert, and you did a good job explaining SS.

A couple comments:

This is why you may have heard such seemingly absurd things as "The debt is $18 trillion, but the real dept is only $10 trillion." What the "real" debt refers to is the amount of debt that is not in the form of intra-governmental loans; intra-governmental loans are included in the official calculation of the debt, so a sizable part of the $18 trillion includes cash that the government has just shifted around between accounts. (***Note: I do not know the actual figures off the top of my head, the $10 trillion amount is merely an explanatory tool).

You weren't too far off. Here's the October 2015 summary: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2015/opds102015.pdf

A little over $5 trillion in intergovernmental holdings, and $13 trillion in public debt.

This doesn't make me feel any better since I already knew this.

Allowing individuals to retain their SS taxes would allow them to instead invest those funds into retirement plans that would yield better returns, resulting in having more funds available for their own retirement.

You've seen how dumb the rubes on this forum are. Do you really think they would invest wisely? Really?

They'd be wiped out by scammers selling gold plated coins and AAA-rated toxic Wall Street securities, and then would come crying to the government for a bailout.

Thanks for the particulars in the breakdown of the debt. And yes, I realize that many idiots, like the most infamous of USMB posters, would work themselves into the pour house if left to their own devices. But as a social darwinist I am highly in favor of such an outcome. I want stupidity to be as mercilessly painful as possible, while natural selection eliminates such stupidity from the gene pool.