- Joined
- Nov 10, 2024
- Messages
- 897
- Reaction score
- 253
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Your general statement remains unproven, that you shouldn't retire if you have a mortgage
...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...?
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 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.
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.
Yes, it does -- because you seem rather unwilling to accept the reality of what the Trust Fund is, and how it operates.
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.
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.
Exactly.Sure. How can they go below par though if they're not sold on the pulic market?
...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...?
Retirees still eat, need a place to live and many other things.
Rules for thee, not for meThis 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.
Or be added to the debt ...You can absolutely do nothing. Benefits will adjust downward to reflect the available revenue.
Or be added to the debt ...
Which do you think more likely to happen?Seems that would require legislative intervention. The do-nothing, autopilot, status quo option is automatic adjustment of benefits downward to match the available revenue.
Seriously? Your rebuttal is ". . . someone told me"? I have no idea what nutritional support has to do with the topic of this discussion.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.
It's probably a function of how much of a hold Boomers have on Congress in 6-8 years.Which do you think more likely to happen?
You have no idea what connection "people gotta eat" has to do with nutritional supports?Seriously? Your rebuttal is ". . . someone told me"? I have no idea what nutritional support has to do with the topic of this discussion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?