Social Security recipients are set to receive a major increase in monthly benefits

[ttwtt78640]

ok but the boomers are eating it up, so I think Boomers can pay a bit more

Many of them are - the federal income tax code now includes ‘means testing’ of SS retirement benefit income. The more other retirement income one has then the more of their SS benefits are considered to be taxable income.

 

[sub1028]

Many of them are - the federal income tax code now includes ‘means testing’ of SS retirement benefit income. The more other retirement income one has then the more of their SS benefits are considered to be taxable income.

I am a recipient, and it is somewhat complicated

 

[ttwtt78640]

I am a recipient, and it is somewhat complicated

Of course it’s complicated, it was less transparent (more devious?) than simply means testing the SS retirement benefits paid directly, but the effect is that (some) SS funds are being diverted into the general fund.

 

[sub1028]

Of course it’s complicated, it was less transparent (more devious?) than simply means testing the SS retirement benefits paid directly, but the effect is that (some) SS funds are being diverted into the general fund.

if that stopped it would help

 

[Kushinator]

while mostly true, the SS has been raided by both parties over the years. They "borrowed" from the fund to pay for pork projects. They added taxes to the benefits to pay for pork.

Huh?

By law, the surplus generated from FICA taxes are converted into special Treasury securities, where the SSTF holds an asset that pays interest and principal at duration.

Nothing curious about correctly labeling SS a Ponzi scheme as they share key attributes. A Ponzi scheme depends on new investment to pay "profits" to early investors. SS calls this pay as you go. Ponzi schemes are structured to deliberately lack even minimal assets with the managers siphoning off funds with no accountability. By law SS surplus funds must "purchase" special purpose bonds, Federal IOU, Congress siphons off the proceeds of this "sale" to be spent in the current year. The so-called trust fund is filled with unsecured IOU. But don't worry, the prospect of surplus revenue from SS in the future is virtually zero.

The only way these bonds will not be honored is if the GQP tries to defund the government. Otherwise, the U.S. will have no problem raising the funds to pay any liabilities taken on by the federal government. Your claim is pure quackery.

Many of them are - the federal income tax code now includes ‘means testing’ of SS retirement benefit income. The more other retirement income one has then the more of their SS benefits are considered to be taxable income.

If you make more than something like $30k with S.S. benefits, you'll be subject to additional 50% tax liability that goes up to 85% on income if it's in excess of $34k (individual).

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I doubt that, but it would help some. How much largely depends on whether the SS retirement benefit formula would also include a cap.

The Outlook for the Social Security Cap

The Social Security cap increase for 2022 was 2.9% and it's 8.98% for 2023, but this won't be enough to keep Social Security from running out of funds by 2035.

www.investopedia.com

So eliminate the cap entirely then.
And, as the article suggests, none of this is written in stone so there are other circumstances which may change the forecast and other options which may be exercised to keep it solvent.
And by the way, if Congress decides to offer an opt-out where potential beneficiaries choose another retirement plan that absolves them of the tax burden to SS, that would only exacerbate the insolvency issue even more, plus if at some time in the future those opted-out users find themselves in a financial bind due to FAILURE of their alternative plans, will Congress then vote to put the BAILOUT on the backs of taxpayers or will we all witness millions of elderly cast out into the streets as homeless and destitute?

There's such a glut of armchair geniuses who advocate dismantling of Social Security with rosy forward looking statements about how a private alternative would be better but the facts and history do not show privatization to be better at all, and in fact in most instances, privatizing winds up being worse.

All in all, this "libertarian" approach to SS looks like just another Republican attempt at destroying public goods, as always.
Death by a thousand small cuts, it's what Republicans ALWAYS do.

PS: One other option not discussed is the fact that a certain percentage of SS recipients still receive them despite being wealthy enough to not NEED them.
This is a bitter pill for some to swallow considering the fact that they nevertheless paid into the program and are indeed entitled to receive the benefits.
But plenty of people don't have children and yet are obligated to pay into the tax base that funds public schools.

So in the end it boils down to the argument that libertarians object to being obligated to pay for programs and benefits they don't intend to use.
And that boils down to the argument that man sees himself as an island despite living, working and functioning in a society and that living in society comes with certain obligations, which libertarians object to.
I object to the objections because if libertarians do not want to be obligated to the burden of living in a society, then the libertarians should REMOVE themselves FROM society and set up their own.
Galt's Gulch has been attempted some two dozen times, and each and every time, those attempts have ended in failure, sometimes in spectacular fashion.

The Town That Went Feral​

When a group of libertarians set about scrapping their local government, chaos descended. And then the bears moved in.

 

[bomberfox]

"Over her lifetime, the first Social Security recipient received nearly 1,000 times what she paid into the system."

How Much Did the First-Ever Social Security Check Pay Out? | HISTORY

Over her lifetime, the first Social Security recipient received nearly 1,000 times what she paid into the system.

www.history.com

Ms Fuller, collected money from other people. People's money required by the government via taxes .

My insurance goes up for me to pay for my potential risk and accidents. If I change insurance companies, my history goes with me and I'll pay more or less. And I can always choose NOT to buy insurance. Insuraunce is not required. SS payments are required under the law.

"unfunded liabilities" ? lol It's been under funded and raided by BOTH parties over the years. The government messed up spending so bad, they had to add taxes to the "benefit". Lop off 3 or 4 layers of paper pusher bureaucrats in DC and we could pay for it.

Insurance goes up with actuarial data. Lots of times you could do everything that is expected of most people in a certain situation and still get screwed over by insurance.

 

[Parrish]

that is just a dumb comment, I don't want a raise, I just hope the poor here in Mane do not die this winter.

Mane?

 

[Kushinator]

One that will not even fight the inflation that is coming, and because of Biden spending

Inflation has already peaked. Get with the program and try to educate yourself instead of hiding out in Mane.

 

[sub1028]

Inflation has already peaked. Get with the program and try to educate yourself instead of hiding out in Mane.

Keep thinking that! Florida us too ****ing hot! I like the space coast, we stayed in Palm Bay, loved it but the wife wants to be near the grands?!

 

[RLee]

Huh?

yes, huh!

"The government adopted a unified budget in the Johnson administration in 1968. This change resulted in a single measure of the fiscal status of the government, based on the sum of all government activity.[56] The surplus in Social Security trust funds offsets the total debt, making it appear much smaller than it otherwise would. This allowed Congress to increase spending without having to risk the political consequences of raising taxes."

History of Social Security in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We could call it gross mismanagement. Buying more bonds based on under the SS trust banner.

"On October 13, 1989, Senator Ernest Hollings of SC expressed his outrage during a speech on the Senate floor. Excerpts from that speech, taken from the Congressional Record, follow. “…the most reprehensible fraud in this great jambalaya of frauds is the systematic and total ransacking of the Social Security trust fund"....

.... "A year later, on October 9, 1990, Senator Harry Reid of NV expressed similar outrage. Excerpts from his Senate speech, taken from the Congressional Record, include, “…Are we as a country violating a trust by spending Social Security trust fund moneys for some purpose other than for which they were intended. The obvious answer is yes…During the period of growth we have had during the past 10 years, the growth has been from two sources. One, a large credit card with no limits on it, and, two, we have been stealing money from the Social Security recipients of this country.” ......

....."Bush, the “read-my-lips-no-new-taxes” president, did not need to raise taxes as long as he had access to the surplus Social Security revenue. During his four years in office, $211.7 billion in Social Security surplus revenue flowed into the U.S. Treasury. Every penny of it was spent for general government expenditures, and none of it was saved and invested for the payment of future Social Security benefits, as is commonly believed."

Abuse of the Social Security Trust Fund Began in the 1980s | Dissident Voice

The mishandling of Social Security funds has been going on since the mid-1980s. As soon as the surpluses, resulting from the 1983 payroll tax hike, first began to flow into the Treasury, politicians from both political parties began using the money like a giant slush fund. At that time, it would...

dissidentvoice.org

 

[Kushinator]

yes, huh!

This has nothing to do with my statement. S.S. had run a surplus since the Reagan administration by design. As the last boomers pull from S.S., the trust fund will have been exhausted.

This has nothing to do with the unified budget. S.S. was running a surplus during the beginning years and the excess funds were reorganized in special Treasury issuances and were later paid from additional debt issuance.

 

[Inglorious Basterd]

The repugs want to eliminate SS, Medicare & any other programs they label entitlements. That's why I vote Dem.

Anyone who has to rely on SS to live did a very poor job of financial planning in their lives and need scolded badly.

SS should be bubble gum money for people only. Other than that, you die a pauper.

 

[RLee]

This has nothing to do with my statement. S.S. had run a surplus since the Reagan administration by design. As the last boomers pull from S.S., the trust fund will have been exhausted.

This has nothing to do with the unified budget. S.S. was running a surboth parties have raided SSplus during the beginning years and the excess funds were reorganized in special Treasury issuances and were later paid from additional debt issuance.

excuse it all you want. spin it all you want. the point remains both parties have, yes- raided, SS and have used it to support projects. Until people admit the waste and fraud in the SS system, it's can't be fixed. The politicians will beg. borrow and steal to keep that program going.

 

[Kushinator]

excuse it all you want. spin it all you want. the point remains both parties have, yes- raided, SS and have used it to support projects. Until people admit the waste and fraud in the SS system, it's can't be fixed. The politicians will beg. borrow and steal to keep that program going.

You didn't quote my statement.

 

[RLee]

You didn't quote my statement.

poor thing.
more spin.

 

[Kushinator]

poor thing.
more spin.

This is what i wrote:

This has nothing to do with my statement. S.S. had run a surplus since the Reagan administration by design. As the last boomers pull from S.S., the trust fund will have been exhausted.

This has nothing to do with the unified budget. S.S. was running a surplus during the beginning years and the excess funds were reorganized in special Treasury issuances and were later paid from additional debt issuance.

This is what you quoted me as writing:

This has nothing to do with my statement. S.S. had run a surplus since the Reagan administration by design. As the last boomers pull from S.S., the trust fund will have been exhausted.

This has nothing to do with the unified budget. S.S. was running a surboth parties have raided SSplus during the beginning years and the excess funds were reorganized in special Treasury issuances and were later paid from additional debt issuance.

Both parties nothing. There is a specific design of the system, and you're trying to complain about an inherent outcome. It was always supposed to function in this manner.

Look... most people are not going to grasp the basics of public finance and that's ok. However, most people are not going to spew their ignorance on a political debate forum pretending to be experts.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Inflation has already peaked. Get with the program and try to educate yourself instead of hiding out in Mane.

Unless the SS COLA (CPI inflation) adjustments are done more frequently (say monthly?) they will never come close to allowing the retiree to ‘catch up’.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Anyone who has to rely on SS to live did a very poor job of financial planning in their lives and need scolded badly.

SS should be bubble gum money for people only. Other than that, you die a pauper.

SS is, was and will remain a retirement supplemental/i] benefit system.

 

[Kushinator]

Unless the SS COLA (CPI inflation) adjustments are done more frequently (say monthly?) they will never come close to allowing the retiree to ‘catch up’.

Ehhhh... Most research indicates COLA adjustments overstate purchasing power because the use of CPI-W captures less than a third of senior's consumption as it doesn't adequately account for substitution and retail competition.



This has been going on for decades....

 

[ttwtt78640]

Ehhhh... Most research indicates COLA adjustments overstate purchasing power because the use of CPI-W captures less than a third of senior's consumption as it doesn't adequately account for substitution and retail competition.

View attachment 67423526

This has been going on for decades....

The fact that is has been going on for decades doesn’t make it any less of a problem.

 

[Inglorious Basterd]

SS is, was and will remain a retirement supplemental/i] benefit system.

Unfortunately many over the generations did not get the msg.

It is a mindset to start saving at around 25. Even a little. It will become a habit then an obsession.

SS is chits and giggles entertainment money only.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Unfortunately many over the generations did not get the msg.

It is a mindset to start saving at around 25. Even a little. It will become a habit then an obsession.

SS is chits and giggles entertainment money only.

None the less, it has been proven useful to help keep folks out of poverty and has generally generated a surplus. Like any (successful) insurance (or pension) system, it must be kept on an actuarially sound basis.

 

[Kushinator]

The fact that is has been going on for decades doesn’t make it any less of a problem.

Overstatement of purchasing power? You claimed secure can't catch up. The fact is they've left purchasing power parity behind.

 

[Inglorious Basterd]

None the less, it has been proven useful to help keep folks out of poverty and has generally generated a surplus. Like any (successful) insurance (or pension) system, it must be kept on an actuarially sound basis.

I agree except the successful part.

In finance, I always look at around the 20,000 clients and their families I've had the pleasure to know and service. I looked forensically at their finances, credit, assets, insurance and life. So much people think IS, IS NOT.

OMG.............Joe Biden is toast as I watch this news conference.LOLOLOL