Social Security’s Finances Erode Further and Could Spell Benefit Cuts

[tharock220]

Your general statement remains unproven, that you shouldn't retire if you have a mortgage

You appear to be right. What I said needed to be more nuanced. I wouldn't retire if I had a mortgage, especially if Social Security was a significant portion of my retirement income.

...and again, the idea behind that structure is that the rest of the government borrows, and then repays, the Trust Fund. That's exactly what you are describing.

What do YOU think a T-Bill is...?

I'm just correcting what you said. The Trust Fund was created because the surpluses were loaned to the general fund.

LOL

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. Want proof?

1) Collecting payroll taxes from someone creates an obligation to that person down the road.
2) Collecting income taxes from someone creates an obligation to that person down the road.
3) The law creates an obligation to that person down the road.

Is there any necessity to use 1) over 2) or 3)? Nope.

I've already explained it. You just decided to ignore it. Look at the any private pension. Employee contributions are accounted for differently than income from the fund's investments. When you look at it, try to understand the reason for that differentiation. I can't help you anymore than that.

I am "calling it what it is." You just don't want to accept the truth.

Yet again... SS is a pay-as-you-go system. The payroll taxes you paid this week go right out the door, right away, as benefits.

Yet again, the Trust Fund is a pile of excess tax revenue. It is not "invested" in anything. SS does not own stocks, or bonds, or real estate, or private loans. The Trust Fund is loaned to the rest of the government, which repays it when those securities expire. In other words, it's a fiction.

The Trust Fund is not a pile of excess revenue. The Trust Fund manages the assets purchased with the excess revenue.

LOL

Here's your original comment: "Instead Americans were forced to "loan" their money to the general fund then pay the general fund's interest that is owed on their money they loans."

Parsing that word salad is, well, not easy. What I can say is that Americans -- meaning individual citizens -- aren't "loaning" their tax dollars. That's what I tried to correct.

Meanwhile, the SS Trust Fund is loaned to the rest of the government. Do you now accept that as correct, while still denying it? That's just super weird.

It's meant to sound crazy because it is. Where do you think the money used to pay the interest on the bonds held by the Social Security Trust Fund comes from?

Yes, it does -- because you seem rather unwilling to accept the reality of what the Trust Fund is, and how it operates.

I just had to explain to you that purchasing a US treasury is a loan.

I'm sorry, but most of that paragraph is just nonsense.

Yes, SS has run a deficit.

No, the Trust Fund isn't gone yet. It will not be depleted until 2031-2032.

No one "pillaged" anything. Again, the Trust Fund was just surplus taxes raised in previous years, and the whole point of its existence was to fill in any gaps between revenues and outlays. It was DESIGNED to be spent in this way. Every penny it's loaned to the rest of government has been repaid, and all the funds have been meticulous tracked for decades.

Seniors are one the largest and most powerful constituencies in the US. If you think they're going to get stuck with a 23% cut in benefits, I think you're going to be VERY surprised.

The pillaging was done for years. If the point was to fill in deficits, the money would have been managed better, but politicians saw it and wanted it.

Now there are no more surpluses to "borrow", and Social Security will be among the first programs to see major cuts because it can't loan anymore money and Japanese financial institutions can.

You almost understand what's going on. You know the terms. You just haven't put it all together yet.

 

[tharock220]

Possibly. Understand, though, that the treasures they buy are special in that their value can never go below par and are not available on the public market.

Sure. How can they go below par though if they're not sold on the pulic market?

 

[Bullseye]

Sure. How can they go below par though if they're not sold on the pulic market?

Exactly.

 

[tharock220]

...and again, the idea behind that structure is that the rest of the government borrows, and then repays, the Trust Fund. That's exactly what you are describing.

What do YOU think a T-Bill is...?

Actually it looks like your description is accurate. I thought the SSA purchased treasuries, but the surpluses were placed in Trust Fund accounts to make the purchases.

 

[Greenbeard]

Retirees still eat, need a place to live and many other things.

This is true of many people, not just retirees. But I've been reliably told by the GOP that public financial support for such things needs to be dialed back because we simply can't afford it. Surely the people who don't bat an eye at slashing nutritional support for kids aren't going to put forth arguments like this to try and hang onto their own benefits.

 

[BirdinHand]

This is true of many people, not just retirees. But I've been reliably told by the GOP that public financial support for such things needs to be dialed back because we simply can't afford it. Surely the people who don't bat an eye at slashing nutritional support for kids aren't going to put forth arguments like this to try and hang onto their own benefits.

Rules for thee, not for me

Further support of my assertion that the Boomers are the most selfish generstion



They’re perfectly happy to see kids go without food, or medical care - but don’t touch their Social Security (or Medicare)

Think about that. Let that sink in.

Let the abject cruelty and selfishness of that sink in.

 

[Cope]

You can absolutely do nothing. Benefits will adjust downward to reflect the available revenue.

Or be added to the debt ...

 

[Greenbeard]

Or be added to the debt ...

Seems that would require legislative intervention. The do-nothing, autopilot, status quo option is automatic adjustment of benefits downward to match the available revenue.

 

[Cope]

Seems that would require legislative intervention. The do-nothing, autopilot, status quo option is automatic adjustment of benefits downward to match the available revenue.

Which do you think more likely to happen?

 

[Bullseye]

This is true of many people, not just retirees. But I've been reliably told by the GOP that public financial support for such things needs to be dialed back because we simply can't afford it. Surely the people who don't bat an eye at slashing nutritional support for kids aren't going to put forth arguments like this to try and hang onto their own benefits.

Seriously? Your rebuttal is ". . . someone told me"? I have no idea what nutritional support has to do with the topic of this discussion.

 

[Greenbeard]

Which do you think more likely to happen?

It's probably a function of how much of a hold Boomers have on Congress in 6-8 years.

Seriously? Your rebuttal is ". . . someone told me"? I have no idea what nutritional support has to do with the topic of this discussion.

You have no idea what connection "people gotta eat" has to do with nutritional supports?

Anyway, I'm just noticing that your average right winger is quite hardnosed about any and all cuts to social spending, except spending for older folks (which happens to dwarf all other spending). And I suspect the difference is that the latter is government spending that benefits them.