Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
.
" 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,"
Didn't the executives at Enron go to jail for this type of behavior?
Why yes...they did.
.
.
[
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..
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.
.
" 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,"
Didn't the executives at Enron go to jail for this type of behavior?
Why yes...they did.
.
.
No because SS funds can only be spent on eligible SS benefits. This is not the government borrowing from itself because payroll tax revenues belong to present and future SS recipients.
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.
.
" 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,"
Didn't the executives at Enron go to jail for this type of behavior?
Why yes...they did.
.
.
No because SS funds can only be spent on eligible SS benefits. This is not the government borrowing from itself because payroll tax revenues belong to present and future SS recipients.
So you are saying the swim expert is full of shit.
Hey, this is between you and him.
.
I didn't read the OP.
However, SS hasn't been "raided." People who think so don't understand how SS works.
I didn't read the OP.
However, SS hasn't been "raided." People who think so don't understand how SS works.
LOL yes it has. Okay so where's the $2 trillion surplus Reagan has us pay into the system hidden away in a filing cabinet? Your opinion is way out of whack with the known facts.
I didn't read the OP.
However, SS hasn't been "raided." People who think so don't understand how SS works.
LOL yes it has. Okay so where's the $2 trillion surplus Reagan has us pay into the system hidden away in a filing cabinet? Your opinion is way out of whack with the known facts.
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.
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.
Yes, the government legally requires itself to spend the money instead of saving it and so there is no actual trust fund. that was clever of them
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?
From the borrowing agency, and ultimately from the general fund.
The whole point of investing SS payroll tax revenue is to generate interest income. If the general fund has to pay some or all of that annual interest out of general revenues, to SS to pay recipients, while the Trust Fund principal stayed roughly the same,
so be it. That is actually a sustainable situation.
Finally. It is sustainable by raising the Social Security tax and/or the income tax on the working people. Raising the Social Security tax would hurt the working poor so those of us that pay income taxes can make up for the deficiency.
What if? Reagan did it in 1983 and saved SS for 50 years.
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?
From the borrowing agency, and ultimately from the general fund.
The whole point of investing SS payroll tax revenue is to generate interest income. If the general fund has to pay some or all of that annual interest out of general revenues, to SS to pay recipients, while the Trust Fund principal stayed roughly the same,
so be it. That is actually a sustainable situation.
So, why not simply increase the SS payroll taxes by the corresponding amount, and call it a day? Might it be perhaps that the politicians don't want people easily recognizing how much we the people are putting into the system?
Also, if the point is to generate interest for sustainability, why not simply let individuals invest as they see fit, and generate far better interest returns?
SS is not a full retirement plan. Individuals have a multitude of tax advantaged opportunities, employer matched investment opportunities, etc., etc., to utilize for the REST of their retirement planning, above and beyond the SS safety net.
Once again for terminally stupid....The US Government uses the money collected for SS to pay general funds in the Government. When the SS fund NO LONGER generates a surplus not only won't they have those general Funds they depend on now BUT they will have to put money BACK into SS from other sources. They don't have the MONEY now where will they get it then?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?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.
So your post was pointless? Point of pointlessness taken. Proceed.
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?
From the borrowing agency, and ultimately from the general fund.
The whole point of investing SS payroll tax revenue is to generate interest income. If the general fund has to pay some or all of that annual interest out of general revenues, to SS to pay recipients, while the Trust Fund principal stayed roughly the same,
so be it. That is actually a sustainable situation.
So, why not simply increase the SS payroll taxes by the corresponding amount, and call it a day? Might it be perhaps that the politicians don't want people easily recognizing how much we the people are putting into the system?
Also, if the point is to generate interest for sustainability, why not simply let individuals invest as they see fit, and generate far better interest returns?
Once again for terminally stupid....The US Government uses the money collected for SS to pay general funds in the Government. When the SS fund NO LONGER generates a surplus not only won't they have those general Funds they depend on now BUT they will have to put money BACK into SS from other sources. They don't have the MONEY now where will they get it then?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?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.
So your post was pointless? Point of pointlessness taken. Proceed.
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.
Very good. Just one question. Where does the money come from to pay the interest on the SS bonds?
From the borrowing agency, and ultimately from the general fund.
The whole point of investing SS payroll tax revenue is to generate interest income. If the general fund has to pay some or all of that annual interest out of general revenues, to SS to pay recipients, while the Trust Fund principal stayed roughly the same,
so be it. That is actually a sustainable situation.
Finally. It is sustainable by raising the Social Security tax and/or the income tax on the working people. Raising the Social Security tax would hurt the working poor so those of us that pay income taxes can make up for the deficiency.
What if? Reagan did it in 1983 and saved SS for 50 years.
If you think raising the payroll tax on the working poor is a good idea, go for it. With wages stuck in neutral with very few raises, an income tax raise would not be very popular as well.
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.
"Nothing was stolen"...
Lemme paint you a picture.
1) Where is all the money (about $1trillion) that was OVERCHARGED to working, taxpaying people and called a "SS Surplus" for about 35 years?
2) Who is responsible for the NEW DEBT that is issued to cover any yearly SS Deficits? (Regardless of book-keeping interest on the non-existent Trust Fund balance)?
If you can't answer answer those 2 questions -- it's quite clear WHY you don't know that you have been robbed twice...
Seriously -- at the bottom of any left-right dispute, you will find the largest problem is -- that leftists don't have a CLUE as to how stuff works..
From the borrowing agency, and ultimately from the general fund.
The whole point of investing SS payroll tax revenue is to generate interest income. If the general fund has to pay some or all of that annual interest out of general revenues, to SS to pay recipients, while the Trust Fund principal stayed roughly the same,
so be it. That is actually a sustainable situation.
Finally. It is sustainable by raising the Social Security tax and/or the income tax on the working people. Raising the Social Security tax would hurt the working poor so those of us that pay income taxes can make up for the deficiency.
What if? Reagan did it in 1983 and saved SS for 50 years.
If you think raising the payroll tax on the working poor is a good idea, go for it. With wages stuck in neutral with very few raises, an income tax raise would not be very popular as well.
Why do you think politicians don't want to fix it until they absolutely have to, as they did at the last minute in 1983.
