Social Security?

[CarlMega]

^^ This post is from 2006. ^^

I was 48 years old then, well below age 55. I’ve never smoked crack, but these days I am enjoying my sweet Social Security checks each month.

Mathematically improbable?

Preach!

A timeline lesson in FUD catering to ideological preconceived notions.

[riser4]

However, as the years get on, the likelihood does seem to go up that there will be changes to social security, what with the projected insolvency and all. 17 years went by and Harry was fine. What about in another 17 years? The folks that want to tear apart social security never seem to go away and leave us alone.

[skaredshtles]

However, as the years get on, the likelihood does seem to go up that there will be changes to social security, what with the projected insolvency and all. 17 years went by and Harry was fine. What about in another 17 years? The folks that want to tear apart social security never seem to go away and leave us alone.

Nobody dares gut SS, because if they actually *do* gut it, they will, with very little uncertainty, be out at the next election. Because old people vote. And politicians love their lobby $$.

[SumJongGuy]

Nobody dares gut SS, because if they actually *do* gut it, they will, with very little uncertainty, be out at the next election. Because old people vote. And politicians love their lobby $$.

Mitt Romney had quote a few old people willing to gut Social Security and Medicare.. FOR MILLENIALS so they could keep theirs. That was the GOP platform against Obama in 2008. The proposal will certainly be framed as... In order to ensure full coverage for the next 40 years (current old people) massive cuts (all of it) will need to be made for retirees starting in.. say 2075.. or starting in 2050 and increasing to zero benefits by 2075.

[J. Barron DeJong]

Mitt Romney had quote a few old people willing to gut Social Security and Medicare.. FOR MILLENIALS so they could keep theirs. That was the GOP platform against Obama in 2008. The proposal will certainly be framed as... In order to ensure full coverage for the next 40 years (current old people) massive cuts (all of it) will need to be made for retirees starting in.. say 2075.. or starting in 2050 and increasing to zero benefits by 2075.

What do you mean by ‘zero benefits’?

The majority of SS payments are paid out from taxes collected that year.

(It was the intention that that ALL payments would be made from taxes collected in the same year, but the SS Trust fund was set up so the the taxes collected would be smoothed out over time, due to the baby boom.)

To have zero SS payouts in 2075 would require collecting zero SS payroll taxes in 2075.

[old goat]

Robots don't pay SS payroll tax.

[Harry]

Robots don't pay SS payroll tax.

Maybe they should.


Sent from my island using TGR Forums

[SumJongGuy]

What do you mean by ‘zero benefits’?

The majority of SS payments are paid out from taxes collected that year.

(It was the intention that that ALL payments would be made from taxes collected in the same year, but the SS Trust fund was set up so the the taxes collected would be smoothed out over time, due to the baby boom.)

To have zero SS payouts in 2075 would require collecting zero SS payroll taxes in 2075.

They're gong to phase out collecting it as they phase out paying it. And most people under 30 think that's fine since they won't be charged for it. Remember, what's really driving this is the government has "borrowed" trillions from that fund and this is all about not wanting to pay it back. If they payed it back, it would be better funded right?

[schuss]

Mitt Romney had quote a few old people willing to gut Social Security and Medicare.. FOR MILLENIALS so they could keep theirs. That was the GOP platform against Obama in 2008. The proposal will certainly be framed as... In order to ensure full coverage for the next 40 years (current old people) massive cuts (all of it) will need to be made for retirees starting in.. say 2075.. or starting in 2050 and increasing to zero benefits by 2075.

The problem is then all the millenials sue the government for a refund or start refusing to pay in. Besides, just uncap it and the program is more than fine (which we should have done a long time ago).

[old goat]

I doubt that's something you can sue for. I agree, uncap it.

[skaredshtles]

Yeah - the cap needs to go.

[Conundrum]

SS taxes are a % of payroll meaning someone is hypothetically selling their time as a product. Instead of this silly talk of taking the cap off and charging people actually working more taxes, how about raising cap gains taxes so people whose money is making them money (no work product) or an investment per transaction fee to actually fund a true social safety net that is meaningful. And probably free college and student debt relief and a whole bunch of other stuff. And maybe we wouldn’t need to charge SS taxes at all. Imagine if the 12.4% tax turned into income for those earning less than the cap means a lot more to those people than those over the cap.

Or we could continue arguing over the crumbs.

[skaredshtles]

SS taxes are a % of payroll meaning someone is hypothetically selling their time as a product. Instead of this silly talk of taking the cap off and charging people actually working more taxes, how about raising cap gains taxes so people whose money is making them money (no work product) or an investment per transaction fee to actually fund a true social safety net that is meaningful. And probably free college and student debt relief and a whole bunch of other stuff. And maybe we wouldn’t need to charge SS taxes at all. Imagine if the 12.4% tax turned into income for those earning less than the cap means a lot more to those people than those over the cap.

Or we could continue arguing over the crumbs.

Why not both?

[Conundrum]

Because the people eating the cookies are laughing at us.

[schuss]

I doubt that's something you can sue for. I agree, uncap it.

Given we all have receipts of exactly how much we've paid in, there'd likely be a case for standing that the money needs to be returned if that benefit is being revoked.

[liv2ski]

Given we all have receipts of exactly how much we've paid in, there'd likely be a case for standing that the money needs to be returned if that benefit is being revoked.

And don't forget the employer contribution too.

What are you guys getting for Medigap Part G? Low deductible and big monthly cost or high deductible and lower monthly cost?

[SumJongGuy]

The phase out would be just that.. a phase out. Whoever will no longer be getting the full ride at the end stops paying in.. They get far more limited benfits based on what they paid in.. but not nothing.

Raise the cap.. Claw back the money that was stoLLen from the trust fund. Phase it out if it's still unsustainable.. But nobody who paid in all their life close to retirement age would be fucked over.. Or there would be a bloodbath.

[J. Barron DeJong]

The phase out would be just that.. a phase out. Whoever will no longer be getting the full ride at the end stops paying in.. They get far more limited benfits based on what they paid in.. but not nothing.

Raise the cap.. Claw back the money that was stoLLen from the trust fund. Phase it out if it's still unsustainable.. But nobody who paid in all their life close to retirement age would be fucked over.. Or there would be a bloodbath.

The ‘stollen’ from the Trust Fund is from a misunderstanding of the accounting:

When the rest of the budget is in deficit, a Social Security cash surplus allows the government to borrow less from the public to finance the deficit. (The “public” encompasses all lenders other than federal trust funds, including U.S. individuals and institutions, the Federal Reserve System, and foreign investors.) The Treasury always uses whatever cash is on hand — whether from Social Security contributions or other earmarked or non-earmarked sources — to meet its current obligations before engaging in additional borrowing from the public. There is no sensible alternative to this practice. After all, why should the Treasury borrow funds when it has cash in the till?
Money that the federal government borrows, whether from investors or from Social Security, is used to finance the ongoing operations of the government in the same way that money deposited in a bank is used to finance spending by consumers and businesses. The bank depositors will get their money back when needed, and so will the Social Security trust funds.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy...ty-trust-funds

I’d argue it a deliberate ‘mistake’ made to argue SS won’t be there in the future, by people who would like to see it cut now.

[SumJongGuy]

The ‘stollen’ from the Trust Fund is from a misunderstanding of the accounting:

When the rest of the budget is in deficit, a Social Security cash surplus allows the government to borrow less from the public to finance the deficit. (The “public” encompasses all lenders other than federal trust funds, including U.S. individuals and institutions, the Federal Reserve System, and foreign investors.) The Treasury always uses whatever cash is on hand — whether from Social Security contributions or other earmarked or non-earmarked sources — to meet its current obligations before engaging in additional borrowing from the public. There is no sensible alternative to this practice. After all, why should the Treasury borrow funds when it has cash in the till?
Money that the federal government borrows, whether from investors or from Social Security, is used to finance the ongoing operations of the government in the same way that money deposited in a bank is used to finance spending by consumers and businesses. The bank depositors will get their money back when needed, and so will the Social Security trust funds.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy...ty-trust-funds

I’d argue it a deliberate ‘mistake’ made to argue SS won’t be there in the future, by people who would like to see it cut now.

The point is that if they cut the program they don't pay it back ever.. That's he whole point. so they don't have to pay it back.. Borrowing from it and then hatching a plan to never repay it. That's stealing it..

[Hopeless Sinner]

And don't forget the employer contribution too.

What are you guys getting for Medigap Part G? Low deductible and big monthly cost or high deductible and lower monthly cost?

The employer contribution for medicare and ss crushes the self-employed.

High deductible Part G

[BCMtnHound]

Interesting. We have both Old Age Security, which is funded by federal general revenue, and the Canada Pension Plan, which is funded equally by workers and employers at 5.95% each. Self employed pay both contributions (~11.7% of net earnings). Max contribution per year (either employee/employer or self employed) is about $7k/yr. The CPP is protected in that the feds or prov can never draw from it to fund other programs. Current value is just under $600B. Projected to be sufficiently funded for the next 70yrs. If I was 65 and retired tomorrow, between max CPP and OAS, I’d receive about $2k/mo. Not great in isolation, especially with inflation right now, but a nice addition if you have retirement savings or other pension coming in.

Quebec on the outset never joined and have their own pension fund. Alberta govt is rattling voters right now by threatening to leave the fund. Can’t see that ever happening, but there is an out for every prov under the plan. The catch is that it will likely go to the courts to determine what share would come out and go back to the departing province. Cyclical resource economies like Alberta would be fucked (and BC for that matter cause both BC and Ontario would likely follow suit and leave the fund to try and capture their investment share if AB left). Fuckin separatists.

[Cisco Kid]

The employer contribution for medicare and ss crushes the self-employed.

High deductible Part G

When I ran into that conundrum, phantom business miles entered in the log and a collection of extra "Business Lunch" receipts helped even the score. "S" Corps hadn't been invented yet.

[J. Barron DeJong]

The point is that if they cut the program they don't pay it back ever.. That's he whole point. so they don't have to pay it back.. Borrowing from it and then hatching a plan to never repay it. That's stealing it..

Ok, then. They should get on that soon if that’s their plan, because it’s going to run out in 10 years or so. After that there won’t be anything to steal.

[rod9301]

Mitt Romney had quote a few old people willing to gut Social Security and Medicare.. FOR MILLENIALS so they could keep theirs. That was the GOP platform against Obama in 2008. The proposal will certainly be framed as... In order to ensure full coverage for the next 40 years (current old people) massive cuts (all of it) will need to be made for retirees starting in.. say 2075.. or starting in 2050 and increasing to zero benefits by 2075.

Actually, all that had to be done is to withhold ss taxes from everyone, without the 130k income limit.

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

[Conundrum]

The ‘stollen’ from the Trust Fund is from a misunderstanding of the accounting:

When the rest of the budget is in deficit, a Social Security cash surplus allows the government to borrow less from the public to finance the deficit. (The “public” encompasses all lenders other than federal trust funds, including U.S. individuals and institutions, the Federal Reserve System, and foreign investors.) The Treasury always uses whatever cash is on hand — whether from Social Security contributions or other earmarked or non-earmarked sources — to meet its current obligations before engaging in additional borrowing from the public. There is no sensible alternative to this practice. After all, why should the Treasury borrow funds when it has cash in the till?
Money that the federal government borrows, whether from investors or from Social Security, is used to finance the ongoing operations of the government in the same way that money deposited in a bank is used to finance spending by consumers and businesses. The bank depositors will get their money back when needed, and so will the Social Security trust funds.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy...ty-trust-funds

I’d argue it a deliberate ‘mistake’ made to argue SS won’t be there in the future, by people who would like to see it cut now.

I would prefer my SS taxes be considered "donor restricted" to the use of the funds.