- Joined
- Apr 5, 2012
- Messages
- 2,802
- Reaction score
- 517
- Location
- Atlanta, GA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Yeah, like when I go to mcdonalds and give them cash, and I get a free lunch!
I have long favored that ALL income be subject to the same tax schedule so that sounds acceptable to me.
yes - tinkering with inflation might well be lowering benefits and that might be a small sacrifice we have to make. But please not I stated there would be a modest inflation increase if possible.
Facts don't matter is what you are saying.
The last time we ran this discussion. It was just eliminate the cap and it is fixed. Then it was no... It is solvent. Then it was no... It is 77% of solvent. Then it was no... if we eliminate the cap and cap benefits of someone who was a high wage worker (mind you this person now may be penniless) it is 80% solvent. And no matter how many times you are wrong you follow it up with well it is better than what we have today. You don't really care about Social Security. You just want to throw other people's money at the problem.
Uh, did you not read your own source?I have to guess that you picked 16% out of a hat.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45519-QFR_Hatch.pdfConsidering the two trust funds together, to bring the OASDI program as a whole into actuarial balance through 2087 with the taxable maximum set according to current law (labeled Option 1 in Tables 1 and 2), the combined OASDI payroll tax rate could be
permanently increased by about 3.5 percentage points, by CBO’s estimate. Under that option, the combined OASDI payroll tax rate would rise from 12.4 percent to 15.9 percent in 2015.
:lol:We shouldn't pretend that we have any idea where Social Security is going regardless of what the headline says.
No, I'm telling you that claiming a pay as you go system is going bust is false and pushes a false narrative toward people who don't seem to understand how Social Security works. You shouldn't do that. You should educate, not spread FUD.You are basically suggesting that future voters are going to be more willing to pay taxes that we wouldn't.
The Ponzi scheme has been dead for nearly 50 years. People born in 1960 expect to get less back from SS than they contribute. If the ratio is the problem, why did SS reach insolvency in 1983? Who are you talking about when you say that people have been added?
Would you rather the government not borrow against the fund and let the money sit there and fall victim to inflation? How much do you think the Trust Fund would be worth then?which is the other issue the government keeps borrowing against the SS fund.
Compare that with food stamps.
I remember when people were saying that Social Security would be bankrupt by 1975. The problem is that social security taxes are sent to the general treasury fund like all other taxes and Social Security payments are made from the general fund like all other payments. There isn't anything to go bankrupt other than the government itself and I suspect that it will take about 20 years for that to happen.
Would you rather the government not borrow against the fund and let the money sit there and fall victim to inflation? How much do you think the Trust Fund would be worth then?
SSDI etc ... there are people that are pulling out of the ss fund that never contributed.
it isn't dead it still continues on.
not to mention that the government owes the SS fund trillions of dollars. I know where the bonds are held as well. they are useless to anyone but the SS fund but if need be the fund could start cashing in those bonds. that could create bigger issues.
which is the other issue the government keeps borrowing against the SS fund.
which is the other issue the government keeps borrowing against the SS fund.
as long as the interest earned on the fund outpaces inflation the fund is fine.
the government borrowing from the fund means it has to be paid back. it also means there is less in the fund to earn interest on.
Both are systems I pay for and could some day draw benefits from. A delay in benefits doesn't change the fact that I paid for them.
Uh, did you not read your own source?
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45519-QFR_Hatch.pdf
So, no, it wasn't out of a hat, it was based on your source. You know, the one you used to create the misleading headline.
:lol:
So when you want to push the narrative that SS is going bust it's okay to use the CBO's numbers, but when it comes time to play the hypothetical scenario game, suddenly the CBO's numbers aren't good enough?
No, I'm telling you that claiming a pay as you go system is going bust is false and pushes a false narrative toward people who don't seem to understand how Social Security works. You shouldn't do that. You should educate, not spread FUD.
...how do you think the fund earns interest? The fund earns interest by being borrowed against by the government. Otherwise it's just sitting there doing nothing. Interest doesn't magically happen, you know.as long as the interest earned on the fund outpaces inflation the fund is fine.
Yes, and it's being paid back with interest, which keeps the fund from falling victim to inflation. This isn't hard to understand.the government borrowing from the fund means it has to be paid back.
Again...where is the fund earning interest just sitting there? The fund doesn't collect interest by itself (how could it?), it's just money sitting in a piggy bank.it also means there is less in the fund to earn interest on.
There is no fund.
Holy red herring Batman!Actually I did, and I was afraid that is where you pulled your number from. The 16% payroll tax rate is what it would cost to preserve SS which has nothing to do with what people would have to pay to support their parents absent SS. Absent SS, no one is paying 16% of wages to support their parents. Parents will move in with them for example. You seem to think that Social Security is efficient. Doh!
Great. Just great. That's the year after I can start drawing - of course.
Im gonna get hated for saying this but I hope it happens sooner so that it can be brought up right in the open. The sooner it gets addressed seriously by people willing to antagonize retirees the better because its a ticking timebomb and can no longer be put off.
Both of these are true, and there is no credible person who believes that the money will not be repaid with interest. If it isn't, the date of insolvency is pushed forward to the day on which the Trust Fund stops functioning. If the government doesn't repay bonds today with interest... Benefits are immediately cut.
You need to explain your point. The government has to repay debt 2.8 trillion to Social Security just like it has to repay debt to China. The govt will have to issue MORE debt to pay back the bonds held by China. So I do not understand your point.
Any free lunch is unsustainable.
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?