• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Privatizing Social Security: How would it work in practice?

How many times do I have to explain this.
Once accurately would be sufficient.
SS bond redemptions don't transfer anything to public debt.
SS bonds are unsecured IOU representing funds the Federal government owes to itself. The phantom interest earned by these IOU is a cashless accounting entry. The deficit caused by these redemptions is offset by adding to the public debt owned by private parties with real interest payments.
Debt is issued in the General fund to supply cash to pay off the Trust bonds. The Trust bonds are retired. Gone. Adios. Finished. The retired Trust bonds cover the added General Fund bonds. There is no added debt.

A trillion debt in the General added to a trillion in the Trust is a total of 2 trillion.
Add a 100 billion to the General to pay off the Trust bonds and then subtract a 100 billion retired bonds from the Trust and we have...
1.1 trillion in the General and 900 billion in the Trust. A total of 2 trillion.
The same amount prior to Trust bond redemption.
No added debt.
SS IOU generated through past spending have been transferred to public debt enslaving future generations further.
 
Private parties do not pay interest on the debt. I already proved that to you.
You have proved you have a lack of comprehension on your part.

SS bond interest is an accounting entry. Publicly held US bonds require real cash interest payment.
 
Under current law, future generations are only liable for their share of payroll taxes. Hardly an "enslaving" amount.
No, SS trust fund IOU bonds created to allow the Federal government to spend past surpluses are being redeemed from general revenue, current taxes. It's debt passed forward to future generations.

Of course simply transferring SS bond redemptions into the national debt passes the obligation to future generations as well. As an added "bonus" the debt has become so large future generations could be enslaved to servicing it with minor reductions in principal.
 
No, SS trust fund IOU bonds created to allow the Federal government to spend past surpluses are being redeemed from general revenue, current taxes. It's debt passed forward to future generations.

Of course simply transferring SS bond redemptions into the national debt passes the obligation to future generations as well. As an added "bonus" the debt has become so large future generations could be enslaved to servicing it with minor reductions in principal.
Like hell.

SS took it's excess cash and funded the General Fund. In exchange the Trust received bonds. Exactly the same as I receive when I buy Treasuries.

The debt is due to Congressional overspending.

Congress approves a trillion dollar budget.
Tax receipts amount to 500 billion.
500 billion in debt will be sold to cover the shortage.

But...

SS had a 100 billion annual excess in the same year.
That 100 billion goes to the General Fund.
The General Fund now only need to sell 400 billion to the open market since 100 billion comes from the Trust.

A total of 500 billion in debt with or without SS.
SS purchasing the bonds from the General does not add a penny to the total debt.
 
Publicly held US bonds require real cash interest payment.
We both know that money is fungible, however, the money to pay the interest on the debt comes from bond sales.

That's not to suggest that the system will or even can work this way indefinitely, however, if the current methods of the system become unsustainable, there are operational realities that no one is considering, basically that there is a $10+ trillion dollar stock of US dollars held by foreign interests that would flow into the country if conditions existed (and understanding the cause of those conditions is key) that resulted in fewer foreign dollar holders.

However, the explanation is complex (not to be confused with complicated), but you'd likely accuse me of "filibustering".

So, I invite you to challenge my understanding or you can plan your flag and claim (hollow) victory!
 
Like hell.

SS took it's excess cash and funded the General Fund.
By the original SS law surpluses had to be used to buy special purpose bonds. This systemic fault in SS prevents productive use of the surplus funds to insure solvency using actuarial principles such as the wave of baby boomer retirements.
In exchange the Trust received bonds. Exactly the same as I receive when I buy Treasuries.
No, the bonds you purchase, you own. The interest you receive is real cash. SS trust fund bonds are owned by the government. The interest earned is credited as a bookkeeping entry.
The debt is due to Congressional overspending.

Congress approves a trillion dollar budget.
Tax receipts amount to 500 billion.
500 billion in debt will be sold to cover the shortage.

But...

SS had a 100 billion annual excess in the same year.
That 100 billion goes to the General Fund.
The General Fund now only need to sell 400 billion to the open market since 100 billion comes from the Trust.

A total of 500 billion in debt with or without SS.
SS purchasing the bonds from the General does not add a penny to the total debt.
You recognize deficits are caused by overspending but then insist financing profligate spending with SS bond funds siphoning off tax revenues is benign. Nonsense.
 
Of course simply transferring SS bond redemptions into the national debt passes the obligation to future generations as well.
That's just it, future generations do not just inherit "debt", they benefit from all the productivity and hard work that creates a high standard of living that past debt has made possible. Each generation is a steward of both the debt and cultivating the real value in the economy that the debt is created to purchase and directly results in our high standard of living. If we fail, it won't be because of too much debt, it will be because this nation failed to invest in education, healthcare and eliminate barriers to self-improvement. Instead, concepts of "greed is good" or "self-regulating capitalism" *(the latter being an oxy-moron). It isn't the 20-40 somethings with their social liberal agenda that is destroying the country, because frankly that have very little power to do so. It is the 60-80 something's that have most of the wealth, influence and power in this country that have promoted Libertarian ideals that have divided this nation in ways we've not seen in more than a century.

Let's just give an example. Biden wanted to relieve students of crushing burden of insane levels of student debt. The right collectively clutched their pearls and sobbed and cried about how unfair it was that student's borrow and not be responsible for their obligations and why should "other people" have to pay for it.

I received my bachelors in the late 80's and paid on average $1600 in tuition ($4500 in inflation adjusted dollars) and because my parent's were just making it, I received a Pell grant (free money) that paid for 1/2 of it. The other half I paid with my part time job working in a grocery store for the staggering sum of $21.78/hr cutting meat and cheese in the Deli.

I just put a daughter though school at James Madison University for $90,000 and she still has graduate school to look forward to.

Now I'm going to guess you are probably my age or older. If that's true then you benefited from the generations before you who created a system that allowed for low cost education, hell if your old enough, you could get a free education at City College in NY for free until 1976.

But, students should be responsible at 18years old to take on $90,000 worth of debt. Maybe the adults should take responsibility for creating a system that has made education, childcare and health, just to name a few, all but unaffordable for the middle-class and below, hindering our nations investment in the next generation. Nope, way more important to make sure that your tax dollars aren't used for someone else's education, all while benefitting directly or indirectly from the generations before you.

Now, college participation is declining and increasingly only certain segments of society will dominate the populations of college. This is a step towards a permanent underclass and assures that future tax burdens will fall on fewer number of people. The same people that are clutching their pearls today and complaining about how unfair it is to that they be expected to contribute to the education of future generations.

It's hard for me to convince myself that this nation, specifically the far-right and their Libertarian ideals, haven't already destroyed this nation we just don't know it yet.

The right is trying to convince people that the nation is declining because of immigrants and alternative lifestyles have lead to the moral decay and caused the nation to fail. No. it's greed, pure and simple. The idea that no person should be forced to participate in the common good. That's what will lead to the failure of this nation. A refusal to invest in the next generation unless they look and think like you.
 
By the original SS law surpluses had to be used to buy special purpose bonds. This systemic fault in SS prevents productive use of the surplus funds to insure solvency
This idea of solvency is all accounting gimmicks.

Dollars and bonds are liabilities of the government. If the government invests in own liabilities (bonds) with liabilities (dollars) it takes from the public (SS tax), all that it's left with IS MORE GOVERNMENT LIABILITIES!

By taking the money from SS and using it for whatever it needs (the general fund) it is actually reducing it's liabilities (lowering the deficit)!

Or it could simply let people keep their SS tax, use it to pay for the things they need, we'd likely see a reduction in government spending on programs for the poor!
 
That's just it, future generations do not just inherit "debt", they benefit from all the productivity and hard work that creates a high standard of living that past debt has made possible. Each generation is a steward of both the debt and cultivating the real value in the economy that the debt is created to purchase and directly results in our high standard of living. If we fail, it won't be because of too much debt, it will be because this nation failed to invest in education, healthcare and eliminate barriers to self-improvement. Instead, concepts of "greed is good" or "self-regulating capitalism" *(the latter being an oxy-moron). It isn't the 20-40 somethings with their social liberal agenda that is destroying the country, because frankly that have very little power to do so. It is the 60-80 something's that have most of the wealth, influence and power in this country that have promoted Libertarian ideals that have divided this nation in ways we've not seen in more than a century.

Let's just give an example. Biden wanted to relieve students of crushing burden of insane levels of student debt. The right collectively clutched their pearls and sobbed and cried about how unfair it was that student's borrow and not be responsible for their obligations and why should "other people" have to pay for it.

I received my bachelors in the late 80's and paid on average $1600 in tuition ($4500 in inflation adjusted dollars) and because my parent's were just making it, I received a Pell grant (free money) that paid for 1/2 of it. The other half I paid with my part time job working in a grocery store for the staggering sum of $21.78/hr cutting meat and cheese in the Deli.

I just put a daughter though school at James Madison University for $90,000 and she still has graduate school to look forward to.

Now I'm going to guess you are probably my age or older. If that's true then you benefited from the generations before you who created a system that allowed for low cost education, hell if your old enough, you could get a free education at City College in NY for free until 1976.

But, students should be responsible at 18years old to take on $90,000 worth of debt. Maybe the adults should take responsibility for creating a system that has made education, childcare and health, just to name a few, all but unaffordable for the middle-class and below, hindering our nations investment in the next generation. Nope, way more important to make sure that your tax dollars aren't used for someone else's education, all while benefitting directly or indirectly from the generations before you.

Now, college participation is declining and increasingly only certain segments of society will dominate the populations of college. This is a step towards a permanent underclass and assures that future tax burdens will fall on fewer number of people. The same people that are clutching their pearls today and complaining about how unfair it is to that they be expected to contribute to the education of future generations.

It's hard for me to convince myself that this nation, specifically the far-right and their Libertarian ideals, haven't already destroyed this nation we just don't know it yet.

The right is trying to convince people that the nation is declining because of immigrants and alternative lifestyles have lead to the moral decay and caused the nation to fail. No. it's greed, pure and simple. The idea that no person should be forced to participate in the common good. That's what will lead to the failure of this nation. A refusal to invest in the next generation unless they look and think like you.
Another filibuster in an attempt to avoid discussing the corrosive impact of the SS Ponzi scheme.
 
This idea of solvency is all accounting gimmicks.

Dollars and bonds are liabilities of the government. If the government invests in own liabilities (bonds) with liabilities (dollars) it takes from the public (SS tax), all that it's left with IS MORE GOVERNMENT LIABILITIES!

By taking the money from SS and using it for whatever it needs (the general fund) it is actually reducing it's liabilities (lowering the deficit)!

Or it could simply let people keep their SS tax, use it to pay for the things they need, we'd likely see a reduction in government spending on programs for the poor!
Per your admission the government looted the SS trust fund for whatever it "needed" not what the People who earned it decided they need. They did so based on the deception that SS would be there in their retirement as promised.

Thanks to the prudent government management SS is forcing the Federal government to add to the public debt to pay benefits. But don't worry in 9 years or so it will exhaust the trust fund forcing 20% reduction in payments while our children are saddled with more debt service.
 
in an attempt to avoid discussing the corrosive impact of the SS Ponzi scheme.
You cannot discuss a topic that you fundamentally do not understand. You're calling it a filibuster because you don't want to address the fundamentals you can't or simply refuse to address.
 
Per your admission the government looted the SS trust fund for whatever it "needed"
As I explained, dollars are a lability to the government, saying that the government "looted" money the government has collected from the private sector, fundamentally misunderstands how money works. And look, you can understand and still object to the way it works, but you are objecting to a system you do not comprehend and therefore are drawing erroneous conclusions.

To put this into credit card terms in hopes of making it easier to grasp, if a person has no cash and only a credit card, then every dollar they spend buying real stuff, they are -$ and +Stuff. So for example, spending $100,000 on a new dump truck.

So

(-$100,000)
+1 New dump ruck

So going negative dollars creating a real asset surplus, in this case a dump truck

Now, imagine the stupidity of the same person that receives $20,000 dollars in income and thinking that they have $20,000 they can save for later and put it in a coffee can and using the same credit card, borrowing the money to pay 10% interest on the $20,000 in that coffee can.

So, (-$100,000)

+20,0000 (income earned with the dump truck)

(-$1000) Making an interest payment using credit card to yourself

+1000 added to the coffee can.

Total

(-$101,000)

+$21,000 The revenue earned

+Dump truck

So from a fiscal standpoint the revenue earned is an inflow not an asset. Why? Because the money spent was created from debt. Therefore inflows are not assets, but reduce liabilities.

Putting inflows in a pile and pretending like their fiscal assets fundamentally abstracts what's really happening and leads to the kind of confusion you're suffering.

However, the real takeaway from this example, for those that can see it, is that debt can be used to create real assets (like the dump truck).
 
Now the astute among you might point out that in the example above the dump truck owner can use the inflows to reduce the debt all together.

Now, we're at the crux of the problem of understanding.

Because the government is in a different sector and things must balance between the public and private sector. To make the example above truly indicative of the situation we have with government, the $100,000 spent to buy the dump truck would be all the money that exists in the economy. So the dump truck owner would be (-$100,000) and the rest of the world would be +$100,000. Thus inflows of $20,000 would decrease the borrowers debt, but it would at the same time, reduce the amount of money that the rest of the world has.

You can just blow up the numbers here. If the government has the "credit card" and it spends $5T buying stuff or making transfer payments and it collects $3T in inflows, the net $2 trillion dollars left in the economy is equal to the government's increase in debt and the private sectors increase in fiscal assets. Since a large portion of the money the government spends is used to create real stuff, that creates jobs and real capital that can be used to create money many times what was spendt by the government to create it.

Conversely, if the government spends $3 trillion and collects $5 trillion in inflows, then the private sector has $2 trillion less in dollars circulating and the government reduces it's balance on it's credit card by $2 trillion.

If the government pays off the credit card, it functionally removes all of the money it's added to the economy and the economy fails.

The government selling bonds, is just an asset/ liability swap. The government reduces it's dollar liabilities and increases it's bond liabilities. Where does the money come from to pay future interest, so called "unfunded liabilities"? Simple, the investment in the dump truck creates inflows that can easily be in excess of the money used to buy it, at the national level the government's investment in people, infrastructure, education and healthcare (just to name a few) can help to encourage a thriving private sector that can easily afford higher tax levels (as a group) than in the past. And if you look, that is exactly what has happened.
 
Every single dollar the government collects should be applied directly to the debt and spending should come after. The idea that dollar inflows can be "set aside" for something like Social Security is obscuring the fiscal reality of what's happening. The result is that people tend to think that dollars earned by government are assets from the government's point of view and can be "saved" in any meaningful sense. They cannot. We can create specific taxes in order to show the impact of the tax relative to that thing. For example, a tax on alcohol, cigarettes, roads are not intended to be single threads of inflows to pay for those specific items, rather they are a single to the private sector of the real costs of those things, assuming that the tax is similar to the costs.

Believing that government reductions in spending (reducing outflows) are good because it reduces the government's debt ignoring that reductions in spending (outflows) by the government result in reductions in dollar (inflows) in the private sector.

The government cannot save in it's own dollar, it can only ever have less debt in an import based economy.

export based economies can accumulate dollars, but export economies sacrifice the real goods and services they send out of the country that other people can put to productive use.

Again, a $100,000 dump truck exported to another nation can create inflows many, many times it's purchase price.

That doesn't mean exports are bad, the Saudi's export oil and import currency, They give up the use value of that oil, but in reality, they have more oil then their population could ever use. The US on the other hand cannot create everything it needs, thus an export surplus would result in a loss of real goods and services that could be used here.
 
Last edited:
Thanks to the prudent government management SS is forcing the Federal government to add to the public debt to pay benefits. But don't worry in 9 years or so it will exhaust the trust fund forcing 20% reduction in payments while our children are saddled with more debt service.
<*Sigh*>

If this generation does what past generations did for you, that the debts that the government incurred were offset by real value created in the economy. The result has always been a growing debt, but the economy and real wealth that grew faster.

In fact, today there is $37 trillion dollars in government debt and over $240 trillion dollars in assets in the private sector, $180 trillion in the household sector alone.

Any business would blush at that level of success. An asset to liability ratio of 6.4:1

Only someone who fundamentally does not understand how moder fiat currency works, could see that as a bad thing.
 
Another filibuster in an attempt to avoid discussing the corrosive impact of the SS Ponzi scheme.
SS is not and has never been a ponzi scheme. It is insurance, and operates like every other type of insurance.
 
SS is not and has never been a ponzi scheme. It is insurance, and operates like every other type of insurance.
That's blatantly false. Any insurance annuity that operated on claiming reserves it had lent to itself would land the managers in jail.
 
Back
Top Bottom