|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 29, 2010 13:02:30 GMT -8
Top 5 Social Security MythsMyth #1: Social Security is going broke. Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits—and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers' retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves. Myth #2: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer. Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than they did 70 years ago.3 What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly—since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut. Myth #3: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security. Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share. Myth #4: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market—which would have been disastrous—but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be. Myth #5: Social Security adds to the deficit Reality: It's not just wrong—it's impossible! By law, Social Security's funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.8 Sources: 1."To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security," New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010 www.moveon.org/r?r=89703&id=22141-17019964-1G2dw1x&t=42. "The Straight Facts on Social Security," Economic Opportunity Institute, September 2009 www.moveon.org/r?r=89704&id=22141-17019964-1G2dw1x&t=53. "Social Security and the Age of Retirement," Center for Economic and Policy Research, June 2010 www.moveon.org/r?r=89705&id=22141-17019964-1G2dw1x&t=64. "More on raising the retirement age," Washington Post, July 8, 2010 www.moveon.org/r?r=89706&id=22141-17019964-1G2dw1x&t=75. "Social Security is sustainable," Economic and Policy Institute, May 27, 2010 www.moveon.org/r?r=89707&id=22141-17019964-1G2dw1x&t=86. "Maximum wage contribution and the amount for a credit in 2010," Social Security Administration, April 23, 2010 ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/2407. "Trust Fund FAQs," Social Security Administration, February 18, 2010 www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html8."To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security," New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010 www.moveon.org/r?r=89703&id=22141-17019964-1G2dw1x&t=9
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jul 29, 2010 14:25:45 GMT -8
Good post Joe.
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 29, 2010 15:21:50 GMT -8
I wonder who to believe? The one that says a surplus is a surplus even though there are no assets in the account (just good faith and credit :  or one that says while taxes can fund current SS commitments for now, but when the demand really kicks in, the treasury (read that - the tax payer) will have to cough up trillions that are not currently in the tax equation? www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/09/Misleading-the-Public-How-the-Social-Security-Trust-Fund-Really-WorksWhy the Social Security Trust Fund Differs from Real Trust Funds. Private-sector trust funds invest in real assets ranging from stocks and bonds to mortgages and other financial instruments. However, the Social Security trust funds are only "invested" in a special type of Treasury bond that can only be issued to and redeemed by the Social Security Administration. As the Congressional Research Service noted in a report on May 5, 1998: "When the government issues a bond to one of its own accounts, it hasn't purchased anything or established a claim against another entity or person. It is simply creating a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another." According to the Office of Management and Budget under the Clinton Administration in 1999: "These [trust fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. [Emphasis added.]" In short, the Social Security trust fund is really only an accounting mechanism. The trust fund shows how much the government has borrowed from Social Security, but it does not provide any way to finance future benefits. The money to repay the IOUs will have to come from taxes that are being used today to pay for other government programs. For that reason, the most important date for Social Security is 2018, when taxpayers must begin to repay the IOUs, not 2042, when the trust fund is exhausted. Social Security's financial crisis will begin far sooner than many politicians claim. In less than three years, the first baby boomer will reach retirement age. Once that happens, Social Security (and Medicare) will be on a slippery slope toward insolvency. While Social Security can continue to use its tax receipts to pay full retirement benefits until 2018, Congress cannot wait that long to act. Misleading the public into believing that Social Security is secure until 2042 or beyond will only make the impending crisis more difficult to avoid. Furthermore, huge impending deficits are only one of the problems facing Social Security. The sad reality is that millions of workers receive a dismal rate of return on their Social Security retirement taxes. Making matters worse, the current program does not enable workers to build up investments and cash savings to supplement their monthly Social Security checks. The debate about Social Security's future should be about how to improve each American's personal retirement security and how to enable each American to build a nest egg for the future. Otherwise, Americans will lose a real opportunity to improve the lives of future retirees. The best way to fix Social Security is to provide younger workers with the opportunity to invest part of their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 29, 2010 15:28:53 GMT -8
Just one more example of the flm flam that should convince you that Social Security should have been a private program from day one.
Joe talks abut just printing money out of one side of his mouth and then posts this fairy tale out the other. Social Security can be made solvent three ways. !. Just keep inflating and printing the benefits with cheaper dollars. 2. Make drastic changes in age for start of benefits coupled with taking the earnings cap off. 3. Take it private and fund with current employee and employer funds.
What we have now is a Ponzi Scheme!
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 29, 2010 18:03:46 GMT -8
As I have posted many time I think the retirement age should slowly increase to about 70 for full benefits. Cap should be raised or removed. Benefit computation for inflation adjusted. As to the "IOU's" aspect. I trust all the conservatives have purged their portfolios of Treasurys, after all they are just IOU's. Indeed, all bonds are IOU's.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 29, 2010 19:14:33 GMT -8
Just one more example of the flm flam that should convince you that Social Security should have been a private program from day one. Joe talks abut just printing money out of one side of his mouth and then posts this fairy tale out the other. Social Security can be made solvent three ways. !. Just keep inflating and printing the benefits with cheaper dollars. 2. Make drastic changes in age for start of benefits coupled with taking the earnings cap off. 3. Take it private and fund with current employee and employer funds. What we have now is a Ponzi Scheme! Damn, it win, you are going to turn me into a permanent Liberal. Instead of talking in innuendo, deal with the subjects I posted above. When the Federal Government spent the incoming money from Social Security (Both Republican and Democratic administrations did this, so both share the blame.) They called it an Interdepartmental Loan. As far as I can tell, that loaned money is covered by Federal Bonds to the tune of about three Trillion dollars +. To find out what the numbers are now, look at that interdepartmental debt number at present. I will not try. I posted to it years ago, and nobody replied to what that was. Remember? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 29, 2010 20:08:06 GMT -8
As I have posted many time I think the retirement age should slowly increase to about 70 for full benefits. Cap should be raised or removed. Benefit computation for inflation adjusted. As to the "IOU's" aspect. I trust all the conservatives have purged their portfolios of Treasurys, after all they are just IOU's. Indeed, all bonds are IOU's. If you are in bonds (other than convertibles) or including Treasuries you are an idiot! Some folks do not need to have bonds to be included in that category.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 29, 2010 20:10:00 GMT -8
Just one more example of the flm flam that should convince you that Social Security should have been a private program from day one. Joe talks abut just printing money out of one side of his mouth and then posts this fairy tale out the other. Social Security can be made solvent three ways. !. Just keep inflating and printing the benefits with cheaper dollars. 2. Make drastic changes in age for start of benefits coupled with taking the earnings cap off. 3. Take it private and fund with current employee and employer funds. What we have now is a Ponzi Scheme![/quote Damn, it win, you are going to turn me into a permanent Liberal. When the Federal Government spent the incoming money from Social Security (Both Republican and Democratic administrations did this, so both share the blame.) They called it an Interdepartmental Loan. As far as I can tell, that loaned money is covered by Federal Bonds to the tune of about three Trillion dollars. To find out what the numbers are now, look at that indepartmental debt number at present. I will not try. I posted to it years ago, and nobody replied to what that was. Remember? I want you co continue to try to make the liberal case. Tough job! |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 29, 2010 20:13:36 GMT -8
I want you co continue to try to make the liberal case. Tough job! Contest the points I posted above. SS is solvent and overflowing with money. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 29, 2010 20:21:39 GMT -8
I want you co continue to try to make the liberal case. Tough job! Contest the points I posted above. SS is solvent and overflowing with money. I have and it is above. You are just too caught up in your role playing to admit the truth! But I urge ou to keep trying! |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 29, 2010 20:39:08 GMT -8
As I have posted many time I think the retirement age should slowly increase to about 70 for full benefits. Cap should be raised or removed. Benefit computation for inflation adjusted. As to the "IOU's" aspect. I trust all the conservatives have purged their portfolios of Treasurys, after all they are just IOU's. Indeed, all bonds are IOU's. Since I started drawing Social Security at age 62, I think mid Sixties is fine. Give people time to enjoy their lives before the medical problems make them invalids who are imprisoned in their own homes. Case in point, my wife who is 59 has already had numerous surgeries for broken ankles, both wrists, both shoulders and so on. Other than having shrapnel removed from the back of my head and a bullet from my arm and stitches to close four knife wounds, I have never had surgery on my body. I did have some cartilage removed from my left knee, but am in pretty good condition. You never know what life is going to deal you. My wife deserves to get several years on Social Security without being bed ridden. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 29, 2010 21:37:44 GMT -8
As I have posted many time I think the retirement age should slowly increase to about 70 for full benefits. Cap should be raised or removed. Benefit computation for inflation adjusted. As to the "IOU's" aspect. I trust all the conservatives have purged their portfolios of Treasurys, after all they are just IOU's. Indeed, all bonds are IOU's. If you are in bonds (other than convertibles) or including Treasuries you are an idiot! Some folks do not need to have bonds to be included in that category. If you mean to say that bond values will go down as interest rates rise sometime in the future, I agree. On the other hand bonds are not like stocks. Bondholders are lenders, not owners of the company. In the end a bond will never be worth more than par. While one can speculate on bonds, they are not investments. The question with bonds is will they pay the interest on time, and principal at maturity. If you think that Treasurys will not, I am interested to know why, and how you hedge against that. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 30, 2010 9:26:46 GMT -8
If you mean to say that bond values will go down as interest rates rise sometime in the future, I agree. On the other hand bonds are not like stocks. Bondholders are lenders, not owners of the company. In the end a bond will never be worth more than par. While one can speculate on bonds, they are not investments. The question with bonds is will they pay the interest on time, and principal at maturity. If you think that Treasurys will not, I am interested to know why, and how you hedge against that. Bonds and notes can be fantastic investments if timed right. Say you got out of your DJIA invested Mutual Fund in January 2008 and put the money into Federal notes. Then went back into that DJIA Mutual Fund in March of 2009, where would you be sitting? Shoot , if you went back into Federal Notes three months ago, Where would you be? Timing and patience can pay off Big Time. You might remember I was telling everybody to get the hell out of the market back in early 2008. I posted it over and over on the old board. I put all of my money into short term notes and am very happy that I did. I transferred into stocks after the dip in March. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 30, 2010 10:43:40 GMT -8
If you are in bonds (other than convertibles) or including Treasuries you are an idiot! Some folks do not need to have bonds to be included in that category. If you mean to say that bond values will go down as interest rates rise sometime in the future, I agree. On the other hand bonds are not like stocks. Bondholders are lenders, not owners of the company. In the end a bond will never be worth more than par. While one can speculate on bonds, they are not investments. The question with bonds is will they pay the interest on time, and principal at maturity. If you think that Treasurys will not, I am interested to know why, and how you hedge against that. Unless you have some kind of inflation protection better than "TIPS", you are at risk for more than just the inflation. Treasuries in this environment are more like some kind of guaranteed loss of purchasing power. If you buy bonds other than Convertibles or Preferreds, you better get a deep discount. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 30, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -8
If you mean to say that bond values will go down as interest rates rise sometime in the future, I agree. On the other hand bonds are not like stocks. Bondholders are lenders, not owners of the company. In the end a bond will never be worth more than par. While one can speculate on bonds, they are not investments. The question with bonds is will they pay the interest on time, and principal at maturity. If you think that Treasurys will not, I am interested to know why, and how you hedge against that. Bonds and notes can be fantastic investments if timed right. Say you got out of your DJIA invested Mutual Fund in January 2008 and put the money into Federal notes. Then went back into that DJIA Mutual Fund in March of 2009, where would you be sitting? Shoot , if you went back into Federal Notes three months ago, Where would you be? Timing and patience can pay off Big Time. You might remember I was telling everybody to get the hell out of the market back in early 2008. I posted it over and over on the old board. I put all of my money into short term notes and am very happy that I did. I transferred into stocks after the dip in March. Good for you! I don't try to time the market. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 31, 2010 6:50:05 GMT -8
Since we are all agreed that Social Security is well funded, we can put the Kabosh on all of the Ultra Right Conservatives who feel that there is a problem there.
Obama has the program rolling along better than any President in history.
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 31, 2010 7:26:57 GMT -8
I wonder who to believe? The one that says a surplus is a surplus even though there are no assets in the account (just good faith and credit : or one that says while taxes can fund current SS commitments for now, but when the demand really kicks in, the treasury (read that - the tax payer) will have to cough up trillions that are not currently in the tax equation? www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/09/Misleading-the-Public-How-the-Social-Security-Trust-Fund-Really-WorksWhy the Social Security Trust Fund Differs from Real Trust Funds. Private-sector trust funds invest in real assets ranging from stocks and bonds to mortgages and other financial instruments. However, the Social Security trust funds are only "invested" in a special type of Treasury bond that can only be issued to and redeemed by the Social Security Administration. As the Congressional Research Service noted in a report on May 5, 1998: "When the government issues a bond to one of its own accounts, it hasn't purchased anything or established a claim against another entity or person. It is simply creating a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another." According to the Office of Management and Budget under the Clinton Administration in 1999: "These [trust fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. [Emphasis added.]" In short, the Social Security trust fund is really only an accounting mechanism. The trust fund shows how much the government has borrowed from Social Security, but it does not provide any way to finance future benefits. The money to repay the IOUs will have to come from taxes that are being used today to pay for other government programs. For that reason, the most important date for Social Security is 2018, when taxpayers must begin to repay the IOUs, not 2042, when the trust fund is exhausted. Social Security's financial crisis will begin far sooner than many politicians claim. In less than three years, the first baby boomer will reach retirement age. Once that happens, Social Security (and Medicare) will be on a slippery slope toward insolvency. While Social Security can continue to use its tax receipts to pay full retirement benefits until 2018, Congress cannot wait that long to act. Misleading the public into believing that Social Security is secure until 2042 or beyond will only make the impending crisis more difficult to avoid. Furthermore, huge impending deficits are only one of the problems facing Social Security. The sad reality is that millions of workers receive a dismal rate of return on their Social Security retirement taxes. Making matters worse, the current program does not enable workers to build up investments and cash savings to supplement their monthly Social Security checks. The debate about Social Security's future should be about how to improve each American's personal retirement security and how to enable each American to build a nest egg for the future. Otherwise, Americans will lose a real opportunity to improve the lives of future retirees. The best way to fix Social Security is to provide younger workers with the opportunity to invest part of their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts.
I don't know about you, but half of my 401k is in those "no asset accounts "(government treasuries) as you so blithely refer to them. I have noted also the fact that my government securities have consistently paid interest for the twenty years I have invested in them. "The best way to fix Social Security is to provide younger workers with the opportunity to invest part of their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts."I also have a private investment account based on the SP 500. It is about 26% less valuable than was. My last statement showed an overall loss in that portfolio of over 11% in a two month period (4/30 to 6/30). So. . .Just what guarantee can you make that all those young people will not lose their shirts before they retire? Keep in mind, if you will, that society will have to do something about them if they are all broke. The fact is that there must be a stable backstop to private investment. Most people do not have the expertise (I submit that the self proclaimed genius experts do not either.) to play the market with skill. You want to place the entire burden for survival on the individual person. Individuals who have already lost pensions, health insurance, unions, long term employment, seen their real incomes flatten and drop, had to send their wives to work, had to send their kids to ever longer periods of education, to remain economically where they were in 1970. Why in the hell do you think we coalesced into societies anyway if not to provide mutual support against risk and specialize survival functions? So, what the hell is all this for? Why do you think the United States was created? You think the patriots fought to allow 300,000,000 individuals to flounder on their own without the support of their fellow citizens? If that's true, national defense should be eliminated, since we are on our own anyway. If private investments crash then what? Can a society allow a major portion of its elderly to live in poverty? That is the situation as it was before social security was created. Oh, one other thing, if you think the elderly should be cast adrift, that is. Studies indicate that human society began to flower, guess when? When we began to take care of our elderly!!!". . .or one that says while taxes can fund current SS commitments for now, but when the demand really kicks in, the treasury" Taxes currently fund the current payments and surplus. The surplus was designed to cover the lower future contributions. Darn! You understand this, right? I know you do! Small adjustments will fix the shortfall. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 31, 2010 7:49:37 GMT -8
I wonder who to believe? The one that says a surplus is a surplus even though there are no assets in the account (just good faith and credit : or one that says while taxes can fund current SS commitments for now, but when the demand really kicks in, the treasury (read that - the tax payer) will have to cough up trillions that are not currently in the tax equation? www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/09/Misleading-the-Public-How-the-Social-Security-Trust-Fund-Really-WorksWhy the Social Security Trust Fund Differs from Real Trust Funds. Private-sector trust funds invest in real assets ranging from stocks and bonds to mortgages and other financial instruments. However, the Social Security trust funds are only "invested" in a special type of Treasury bond that can only be issued to and redeemed by the Social Security Administration. As the Congressional Research Service noted in a report on May 5, 1998: "When the government issues a bond to one of its own accounts, it hasn't purchased anything or established a claim against another entity or person. It is simply creating a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another." According to the Office of Management and Budget under the Clinton Administration in 1999: "These [trust fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. [Emphasis added.]" In short, the Social Security trust fund is really only an accounting mechanism. The trust fund shows how much the government has borrowed from Social Security, but it does not provide any way to finance future benefits. The money to repay the IOUs will have to come from taxes that are being used today to pay for other government programs. For that reason, the most important date for Social Security is 2018, when taxpayers must begin to repay the IOUs, not 2042, when the trust fund is exhausted. Social Security's financial crisis will begin far sooner than many politicians claim. In less than three years, the first baby boomer will reach retirement age. Once that happens, Social Security (and Medicare) will be on a slippery slope toward insolvency. While Social Security can continue to use its tax receipts to pay full retirement benefits until 2018, Congress cannot wait that long to act. Misleading the public into believing that Social Security is secure until 2042 or beyond will only make the impending crisis more difficult to avoid. Furthermore, huge impending deficits are only one of the problems facing Social Security. The sad reality is that millions of workers receive a dismal rate of return on their Social Security retirement taxes. Making matters worse, the current program does not enable workers to build up investments and cash savings to supplement their monthly Social Security checks. The debate about Social Security's future should be about how to improve each American's personal retirement security and how to enable each American to build a nest egg for the future. Otherwise, Americans will lose a real opportunity to improve the lives of future retirees. The best way to fix Social Security is to provide younger workers with the opportunity to invest part of their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts.
I don't know about you, but half of my 401k is in those "no asset accounts "(government treasuries) as you so blithely refer to them. I have noted also the fact that my government securities have consistently paid interest for the twenty years I have invested in them. "The best way to fix Social Security is to provide younger workers with the opportunity to invest part of their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts."I also have a private investment account based on the SP 500. It is about 26% less valuable than was. My last statement showed an overall loss in that portfolio of over 11% in a two month period (4/30 to 6/30). So. . .Just what guarantee can you make that all those young people will not lose their shirts before they retire? Keep in mind, if you will, that society will have to do something about them if they are all broke. The fact is that there must be a stable backstop to private investment. Most people do not have the expertise (I submit that the self proclaimed genius experts do not either.) to play the market with skill. You want to place the entire burden for survival on the individual person. Individuals who have already lost pensions, health insurance, unions, long term employment, seen their real incomes flatten and drop, had to send their wives to work, had to send their kids to ever longer periods of education, to remain economically where they were in 1970. Why in the hell do you think we coalesced into societies anyway if not to provide mutual support against risk and specialize survival functions? So, what the hell is all this for? Why do you think the United States was created? You think the patriots fought to allow 300,000,000 individuals to flounder on their own without the support of their fellow citizens? If that's true, national defense should be eliminated, since we are on our own anyway. If private investments crash then what? Can a society allow a major portion of its elderly to live in poverty? That is the situation as it was before social security was created. Oh, one other thing, if you think the elderly should be cast adrift, that is. Studies indicate that human society began to flower, guess when? When we began to take care of our elderly!!!". . .or one that says while taxes can fund current SS commitments for now, but when the demand really kicks in, the treasury" Taxes currently fund the current payments and surplus. The surplus was designed to cover the lower future contributions. Darn! You understand this, right? I know you do! Small adjustments will fix the shortfall.
I don't know about you, but half of my 401k is in those "no asset accounts "(government treasuries) as you so blithely refer to them. I have noted also the fact that my government securities have consistently paid interest for the twenty years I have invested in them. Does anything in your comment refute the fact that there is either going to be a crush of new taxes, or huge new debt, or reductions in payments (or all three) when the demand for SS exceeds the current SS tax collection run rate and there is actually nothing in the surplus but IOUs? I'm all for doing good for the public and that was not really the issue here. For me, it was the irresponsibility on how the US funds the SS Trust fund (or defunds it with IOUs) and over commits the long term pay-out by making it an entitlement where many receive benefits without having put in a dime. It is a Ponzi scheme and I guess some say a screwed up system is better than nothing. I agree but why settle? Oh year, I forgot... Congress and a President would actually have do something smart. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 31, 2010 8:04:27 GMT -8
Since we are all agreed that Social Security is well funded, we can put the Kabosh on all of the Ultra Right Conservatives who feel that there is a problem there.
Obama has the program rolling along better than any President in history. Using your logic, it looks to me like we could lower the retirement age to about 25, increase benefits and expand eligibility well beyond our borders  |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 31, 2010 8:12:15 GMT -8
"The one that says a surplus is a surplus even though there are no assets in the account (just good faith and credit : "
I don't know about you, but half of my 401k is in those "no asset accounts "(government treasuries) as you so blithely refer to them. I have noted also the fact that my government securities have consistently paid interest for the twenty years I have invested in them. "The best way to fix Social Security is to provide younger workers with the opportunity to invest part of their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts."I also have a private investment account based on the SP 500. It is about 26% less valuable than was. My last statement showed an overall loss in that portfolio of over 11% in a two month period (4/30 to 6/30). So. . .Just what guarantee can you make that all those young people will not lose their shirts before they retire? Keep in mind, if you will, that society will have to do something about them if they are all broke. The fact is that there must be a stable backstop to private investment. Most people do not have the expertise (I submit that the self proclaimed genius experts do not either.) to play the market with skill. You want to place the entire burden for survival on the individual person. Individuals who have already lost pensions, health insurance, unions, long term employment, seen their real incomes flatten and drop, had to send their wives to work, had to send their kids to ever longer periods of education, to remain economically where they were in 1970. Why in the hell do you think we coalesced into societies anyway if not to provide mutual support against risk and specialize survival functions? So, what the hell is all this for? Why do you think the United States was created? You think the patriots fought to allow 300,000,000 individuals to flounder on their own without the support of their fellow citizens? If that's true, national defense should be eliminated, since we are on our own anyway. If private investments crash then what? Can a society allow a major portion of its elderly to live in poverty? That is the situation as it was before social security was created. Oh, one other thing, if you think the elderly should be cast adrift, that is. Studies indicate that human society began to flower, guess when? When we began to take care of our elderly!!!". . .or one that says while taxes can fund current SS commitments for now, but when the demand really kicks in, the treasury" Taxes currently fund the current payments and surplus. The surplus was designed to cover the lower future contributions. Darn! You understand this, right? I know you do! Small adjustments will fix the shortfall.
I don't know about you, but half of my 401k is in those "no asset accounts "(government treasuries) as you so blithely refer to them. I have noted also the fact that my government securities have consistently paid interest for the twenty years I have invested in them. Does anything in your comment refute the fact that there is either going to be a crush of new taxes, or huge new debt, or reductions in payments (or all three) when the demand for SS exceeds the current SS tax collection run rate and there is actually nothing in the surplus but IOUs? I'm all for doing good for the public and that was not really the issue here. For me, it was the irresponsibility on how the US funds the SS Trust fund (or defunds it with IOUs) and over commits the long term pay-out by making it an entitlement where many receive benefits without having put in a dime. It is a Ponzi scheme and I guess some say a screwed up system is better than nothing. I agree but why settle? Oh year, I forgot... Congress and a President would actually have do something smart.
". . .a crush of new taxes"Just what is that? How do you know it will be a crush? If you consider it something like raising the income limitation, gradually or means testing, the adjustments are relatively small, for the benefit we all receive. At the very worst the current contributions will cover most of the expense. I do not buy the deficit at all. It can be managed. Clinton had us in a surplus. Old "belt buckle" "P'd" it away to people who were already inordinately benefiting from societies move away from mutual support and with the dumbest war in our history. The debt argument is a feint to cover the real objective and that is to reduce the size of government. The one remaining entity, I might add, the others have been taken away, who ostensibly acts for the benefit of its citizens. If you think business looks out for citizens, you're smoking something. A Ponzi scheme -federal treasury securities? The investment vehicle that the world still loves because they are safer than stocks? That Ponzi scheme? If its a Ponzi scheme, then there are a lot of people, in addition to Social security beneficiaries who will be screwed. Maybe, the real Ponzi scheme is the stock market. |
|
or one that says while taxes can fund current SS commitments for now, but when the demand really kicks in, the treasury (read that - the tax payer) will have to cough up trillions that are not currently in the tax equation?
