- Joined
- Apr 5, 2012
- Messages
- 2,802
- Reaction score
- 517
- Location
- Atlanta, GA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
The Social Security debate has its own private lexicon wherein words take on new meanings, which at times even contradict the meaning those words have in the English language. The consequence of the Social Security pseudo-code is a stalemate, because it is virtually impossible to build any consensus in a world where up means down and right means left.
There are simple translations. For example, when someone says "Social Security does not contribute to the deficit", they really mean "Social Security is not counted toward the deficit". These are vastly different things.
At other times, you need a decoder ring to understand what is really being saidFor example, the standard rebuttal to any call for reform is, "Social Security has funds in a worst-case scenario to pay full benefits for more than 20 years, and minor changes could easily fix the long-term funding problem."
The most abused word in the debate about Social Security is "fixed." Writers use the word "fixed" and "solvent" interchangeably, even though the concepts are 14 trillion dollars apart according to the Social Security Administration. "Fixed" means that we have no problem. "Solvent" means that we have made our problem a problem for our kids. These are not the same thing.
For millennials, "solvent" means that the nation will divert roughly $10 trillion away from deficit control so that in 35 years millennials can be in the exact same situation Boomers are today. As millennials approach retirement, the system would have massive solvency shortfalls. The working generation would be complaining about the cost of the system, doubting that they will collect anything. The nation will be right back where it was in 2013 and 1983 with millennials trying to convince their children that Social Security will provide them a safe retirement provided that they pay more and get less.
This problem comes in part because the word "funds," in a Social Security context, does not mean funds in the traditional sense of the word. Social Security is financed, not funded. Social Security collects payroll revenue in exchange for the promise of future benefits. This is no different from going to a bank to borrow money in exchange for the promise of future interest and principal payments. Social Security pays every dollar of benefits with borrowed money, where the next generation serves as a new bank.
Yes, the system holds $2.7 trillion in borrowed money in the trust funds. In building that reserve, the system issued more than $25 trillion of promises for which there are no funds in any true sense of the word.
Words of certainty in the Social Security debate also have no meaning. "Will" means "might," or at best "should." The Trustees of Social Security say that in a good economy Social Security might be able to pay full benefits until 2033. 2033 is not a prediction. It is a likely outcome. The projection is provided as a warning, not as a guarantee.
Even so, what would the word "guarantee" mean? On Dec. 20, 1977, President Carter said, "This legislation will guarantee that from 1980 to the year 2030, the social security funds will be sound." "Guarantee" meant that six years later the system was completely insolvent, requiring massive tax increases, benefit cuts, and the inclusion of millions of more workers.
Not only is 2033 not a guarantee, it is not even a "worst-case" scenario. The Trustees provide projections based on three different scenarios, ranging from low-cost to high-cost. On page 58 of the Trustees Report, the Trustees provide outcomes based on less favorable economic assumptions where the system pays degraded benefits in 2027. And while these assumptions are called "high-cost," they are far from a worst-case scenario.
Words of magnitude in the Social Security debate have no meaning. The opponents in the debate change the wording of $10 trillion so that it has no meaning. Ten trillion is expressed as a percentage of GPD. It is expressed as a percentage of wages. For example, Gail Buckner on Fox Business referred to the $10 trillion as "small" increase in the payroll tax rate of 1.3%. Another way to express her ideas is, "Raising Payroll Taxes to Save Social Security will Cost the Average Worker $73,000." Expressing the problem in fewer digits does not make the problem smaller —$10 trillion is still $10 trillion.
In a debate where words have no meaning, it is possible to say that Social Security's financing gap is easy to fix — whatever "easy" means.
just to point out.. Social security is funded not financed. that's why it was able to run a surplus for decades, up until 2010 or so (depending on how you calculate interest). That surplus is why SS is technically solvent until 2033.
The problem is that the surplus that the baby boomer generation paid in.. was used to finance the spending for our national debt. During that time.. when it was running a surplus... Democrat and republican alike was perfectly happy with social security.. and more importantly to spend that money on all sorts of other things.
Now that the bill is due, suddenly social security has "become broken" and an "entitlement" regardless of how much surplus was FUNDED.
As I point out in the article that every dollar of 'funding' comes with the promise of future benefits. Funded means that you own the money outright. Here 'funded' means that you owe someone future benefits. That is why they call it paygo financing. If I borrow $100,000 from the bank and put it in my bank account. It is financed money. If I work and save $100,000, it is funded money.
You seem to believe that the Social Security Trust Fund is large. The unfunded liabilities are roughly 23 trillion. That is after the Trust Fund is redeemed and distributed.
You left one out:
"unfunded liability" = money you don't owe and may never owe but which some people think you should have on hand anyway
I am not sure what you mean my "don't owe". Social Security has no beneficial interest you are correct. Legally workers have no recourse if the government says that Social Security doesn't owe you anything. I think that is an extreme way to look at the system.
These are theoretical projections based on a probable economy. The unfunded liability measures the promises for which the system would not generate any cash. The shortfall is not a guarantee, it is a likely outcome.
Eliminating the cap does not remedy Social Security. It does not even make it solvent - according to the Social Security Administration. It does however divert 7 or 8 trillion dollars of revenue away from deficit control.
Raising or eliminating the cap on wages that are subject to taxes could reduce the long-range
deficit in the Social Security Trust Funds. For example, if the maximum taxable earnings amount
had been raised in 2005 from $90,000 to $150,000—roughly the level needed to cover 90% of all
earnings—it would have eliminated roughly 40% of the long-range shortfall in Social Security. If
all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations, the
Social Security Trust Funds would remain solvent for the next 75 years.
You left one out:
"unfunded liability" = money you don't owe and may never owe but which some people think you should have on hand anyway
That is a CBO study from 2010 using data from 2009 and assumptions from 2005. That is out of date by trillions of dollars of solvency. You also ought to look at the assumptions in that report which assume that there is no behavioral response to higher taxes.
If you look at page 66 of the Trustees Report 2013, you will find out why data from 2010 is not relevant. The solvency shortfall grew by roughly 1/2 trillion dollars soley by moving the reporting year from 2012 to 2013. "(1) the unfunded obligation is now discounted to January 1, 2013, rather than to January 1, 2012, which tends to increase the unfunded obligation by the annual nominal interest rate; and (2) the unfunded obligation now includes an additional year (2087)."
You can see the impact in SSA's forecasts. I think that SSA's 2010 forecast was similar to CBOs, creating a sufficient revenue to keep the system solvent for 75 years. Three years later, the SSA projects that same solution will not keep Social Security solvent for 50 years. Raising maximum benefits yields a 2061 solvency date.
Long Range Solvency Provisions
I work with Fix Social Security NOW. Our goal is to push the discussion of Social Security reforrm into the public view on honest terms.
I'm not sure I understand the chart at the link. It seems to be based on raising the benefits, no?
Just pointing out, this is an article from a blog site: Why Social Security is Falling Apart, Explained in Language You Can Understand
About the author:
The charts are part of the Secret Language, but there are limits on space. It looks like jargon, but the key column is the Trust Fund ratio. The Trust Fund Ratio tell you how many years of benefits the Trust Fund could pay without any payroll taxes. When that figure hits zero, the Trust Fund is exhausted. When that happens, benefits are limited to payroll taxes collected.
This chart shows the changes that would occur if we "eliminate the taxable maximum in years 2013 and later". The cost ratio is increasing because more and more boomers are retiring...
Thanks for the explanation, but I guess I wasn't clear enough. My bad
RE: increasing benefits, I was referring to the line in the heading which reads " Provide benefit credit for earnings above the current-law taxable maximum."
My understanding is that "benefit credits" are used to determine how much an individuals SS payment is and this line suggests that by increasing their credits, we would also increase their SS payments.
Am I missing something?
Thanks for the explanation, but I guess I wasn't clear enough. My bad
RE: increasing benefits, I was referring to the line in the heading which reads " Provide benefit credit for earnings above the current-law taxable maximum."
My understanding is that "benefit credits" are used to determine how much an individuals SS payment is and this line suggests that by increasing their credits, we would also increase their SS payments.
Am I missing something?
As I point out in the article that every dollar of 'funding' comes with the promise of future benefits. Funded means that you own the money outright. Here 'funded' means that you owe someone future benefits. That is why they call it paygo financing. If I borrow $100,000 from the bank and put it in my bank account. It is financed money. If I work and save $100,000, it is funded money.
You seem to believe that the Social Security Trust Fund is large. The unfunded liabilities are roughly 23 trillion. That is after the Trust Fund is redeemed and distributed.
Eliminating the cap does not remedy Social Security. It does not even make it solvent - according to the Social Security Administration. It does however divert 7 or 8 trillion dollars of revenue away from deficit control.
I haven't looked at the assumptions in that chart. It is likely that they maintain the same assumptions as CBO. CBO's says that behavioral responses to higher taxes are difficult to compute so they ignore them.
Higher taxes are a negative to jobs. In this case, we are dealing with some of the most profitable jobs in the system. High wage workers tend to not get back what they contribute. As a consequence, when higher taxes lead someone to retire it is very expensive for the system. Even at a modest response to higher taxes, the system collects nothing more in taxes.
Yes, Social Security pays benefits based on past contribution. If we increase the contributions of high-wage workers, they will collect more in the future. That is the nature of Social Security. While benefits increase, they increase at a slower and slower rate.
If you want to keep the cap on benefits, then the system is solvent until 2078. But technically that isn't just removing the cap, but removing the cap and capping benefits.
I haven't looked at the assumptions in that chart. It is likely that they maintain the same assumptions as CBO. CBO's says that behavioral responses to higher taxes are difficult to compute so they ignore them.
Higher taxes are a negative to jobs. In this case, we are dealing with some of the most profitable jobs in the system. High wage workers tend to not get back what they contribute. As a consequence, when higher taxes lead someone to retire it is very expensive for the system. Even at a modest response to higher taxes, the system collects nothing more in taxes.
The fact is that Social security and Medicare are about the most financially successful programs ever. Name a few other programs that have run surpluses for decades.... name a few private companies that have run consistent surpluses for decades.
As I point out in the article that every dollar of 'funding' comes with the promise of future benefits. .
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?