Social(ist) Security Question

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by TheResister, Oct 5, 2016.

  1. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    20,458
    Likes Received:
    4,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ignorant and out of context?? No, no. That's not the problem. The problem is that IF I misunderstood you, then YOU can't write clearly. YOU wrote "its your money just sitting in the account waiting for you to collect it." And it seems you meant something else, but nobody knows what. Do you?
     
  2. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    15,212
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem is that you did not read the posts leading up to the one you commented on. Get up to speed about what the conversation is before jumping into the middle of it and making a fool of yourself.
     
  3. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    20,458
    Likes Received:
    4,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeahright. That's just a lame excuse and an attempt to cover up for your own incompetence. There's nothing to "get up to speed" on.
     
  4. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,056
    Likes Received:
    856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    IMO we should change the FICA withholding every year...either up or down to minimize deficits or surpluses. The ONLY reason we allow surpluses today is because this money is funding general expenditures! If every year FICA withholding is adjusted there will always be the appropriate funding for SS...
     
  5. Woolley

    Woolley Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    3,353
    Likes Received:
    498
    Trophy Points:
    83
    True but no one can truly predict expenses to that degree and passing new taxes would be a nightmare on a yearly basis. One of the most misunderstood things about federal spending that we all succumb to is the fallacy of balancing taxes with spending. There is no real need to do that at all but for tradition and our stubborn refusal to look at the macro economy as we do the micro economy or a state budget. I do agree though that we should increase taxes for SS every year, maybe an automatic increase in the cap by the inflation rate or some such factor. There should never be a means test either nor should any SS income be subject to tax regardless whether you are a little old lady or Bill Gates.
     
  6. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,056
    Likes Received:
    856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course receipts and outlays will never match 100% but they can be close. Regarding FICA withholding it definitely should be adjusted every year for payouts, for inflation, and for future needs...
     
  7. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    13,285
    Likes Received:
    10,220
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sounds good, but it evades the real issue which is projected outlays vs projected income. Being net positive today, it's still a simple accounting transaction to pay recipients with the income being collected today. Tomorrow, the projects are that less income will be available as the labor pool depletes. More folks will be retired or collecting some form of disability to be paid for from transactional income. Hence, it will become cash negative. At which point, it gets very difficult to continue to run without structural changes to the outlays for future benefits. Democrats are unwilling to give up their piggy bank today to salvage the piggy bank everyone else is counting on in the future. Pretty selfish and myopic of them.
     
  8. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    20,458
    Likes Received:
    4,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    True, but we do have some years to force them to eliminate the cap. That will solve it.
     
  9. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,910
    Likes Received:
    5,338
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Democrats do not control the budget. I guess republicans are selfish
     
  10. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    52,569
    Likes Received:
    11,483
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If the national debt does not matter, just triple my social security payment to me and I will sing your praises.
     
  11. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    52,569
    Likes Received:
    11,483
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Somebody is selfish or they would triple my social security payments made to me. Is that you doing that to me?
     
  12. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,910
    Likes Received:
    5,338
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The gop controls the budget. Ask them
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2017
  13. Woolley

    Woolley Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    3,353
    Likes Received:
    498
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Would love to but Congress won't let me.
     
  14. Econ4Every1

    Econ4Every1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,331
    Likes Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    83
     
  15. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Hey that must be one of those fake news programs.

    Social Security can't be broke, they are still stealing as much as they always have. They steal more than they pay out so the ponzi scheme is still going strong. The problem is in the near future when they will have to either steal more or pay less.

    Another fake news claim, of course Socialist Security has a trust account but then therein lies the problem. This trust (well actually not very trustworthy) has lent all these excess ill gotten funds to these guys, the US Treasury, that owes these other guys over $20 Trillion they don't have not to mention this supposedly $150 Trillion in unfunded liabilities so I wouldn't get your hopes up on that money ever getting repaid.

    Being these psychopaths in charge don't understand spending less, I guess all the little citizens are about to take it up the old kester. What I would suggest is that you go out and buy some kester lube while that stuff deemed money still has enough purchasing power without having to bring the money in a wheelbarrow (see Weimer Republic).
     
  16. Econ4Every1

    Econ4Every1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,331
    Likes Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The US government creates money, it neither has the money nor doesn't have money. It would be like you have a magic checkbook where you could write checks and they never bounce. If you had such a checkbook, how much money would you have? If someone offered to pay you in the money that you had previously created, would it have value to you? If yo took that payment, would you have more money? No, of course not. You have a checkbook where you can create all the money you want, you can never have more or less money.

    The only reason you'd need/ want money from anyone is that you realize if you keep writing checks that eventually the amount of money in circulation will rise. If it rises faster than the value of the nation's productivity you will create inflation. So taxing it's about having more money, it's about preventing inflation. Not that you care, but everyone else that uses the money you create does. So if you aren't careful, everyone will get really angry with you.

    There is a TT&L account that SS funds are deposited into, but that is simply for accounting purposes. The government uses those funds as the justification for the purchasing of securities with that money. The idea that the government could tax back money and set it aside, is silly. It would be the equivalent of taking a loan for $10,000 and spending it. Then at some point in the future, you get back the $10,000 and instead of paying back your loan, you deposit it in an account and claim you have $10,000 (ignoring the $10,000 debt). The reality is that you have an asset (the cash) of $10,000 and a liability for -$10,000 (the loan). That equals zero. But wait!! If you act right now, it gets even worse! Instead of the gov repaying the money (the gov created and taxed) back to itself (the gov), the gov takes the $10,000 and purchases securities from itself (the gov), then at some point in the future the gov creates more money to repay the debt and interest the gov created.

    This is a game of political semantics of the highest order. If the government can create the funds to repay the securities and the interest the gov created, why can't the gov just create the money and pay SS recipients and skip the purchase of treasuries? This is just a silly game politicians play with economically illiterate people so that it can pretend that it's being responsible. It's economic stupidity.
     
    TheResister likes this.
  17. Econ4Every1

    Econ4Every1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,331
    Likes Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The government isn't constrained fiscally.

    I address this above, but the government doesn't "lend to itself", it purchases securities. If the government were really to through the rediculus steps of depositing money into an account and just let it sit, you realize that inflation would eat away at the value of those dollars. So the dollar you put in when you're 20 will be worth less than 1/2 of that when you retire. Why not take the money it taxes and repay the debt that created the dollars in the first place? I mean, if the debt is something that concerns you.

    Now all you have to do is explain is how inflation set in in Weimar. Oh, and here's a hint, the precipitating event, wasn't the mass creation of money. That came as a result of something else.

    Then you have to tell us what the precipitating event in the US that will lead to hyper-inflation.
     
    TheResister likes this.
  18. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ah, the processes of a liberal indoctrination, no doubt a fine citizen of the United States employing the A is non A metaphysical identity. In that context, of course the government isn't constrained physically.

    I address this above. Otherwise a loan would be a loan. But the main question would be "securities", really? How can you call something from someone that already owes a well know debt of some $20 Trillion that can't be paid not to mention the supposed unfunded liabilities of more than $150 Trillion. I believe we are talking about the lowest class junk bonds, not securities.

    And I believe you are grossly underestimating (again addressed above) the effect of the theft called inflation. Let take a perfectly good dollar from 1913, backed by gold until 1933, that now has the purchasing power of $0.04.

    Debt concerns me, again I address this above.

    If you want to discuss the Weimar Republic, then start a thread on that and not try and hijack this one.

    I'm not your slave and HAVE to do anything. As to manifestation of inflation, it is upon us. As to causation, I would suggest you but look into a mirror.
     
  19. Econ4Every1

    Econ4Every1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,331
    Likes Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    83
    There is nothing "liberal" about it. These are just accounting facts.
     
    TheResister likes this.
  20. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Accounting facts, oh please do enlighten me on those jewels. But please stay within the confines of your declarations thus made to this point.
     
  21. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,374
    Likes Received:
    36,858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    That is nothing more than right wing propaganda so don't buy into that lie.

    As I documented before, Social Security is not socialist but is as American as apple pie - it was first introduced to society by Founding Father Thomas Paine. Criticizing him or his suggestion is treason.
     
  22. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It might help to know the full context of what Herman Cain said that 'TheResister' is basing the OP on.


    Why should we have a problem accepting social programs to be socialist?
    In his pamphlet "Agrarian Justice" what Paine suggested taking into account inflation, as I attempted to put in terms of cost today appears would provide the following costs/payments:
    About $140,000,000,000 each year in a one time payment to those turning 21 years of age to provide them a start in life.
    About $1,104,000,000,000 each year to those age 65 or more.
    Or a total of about $1,244,000,000,000 annual spending currently.
    I think that would work quite easily if government provided no additional spending on aid to individuals between the age of 21 to 65.
    However I'm not certain his funding mechanism would work, taxing land owners once per generation, 10% for close relations and a higher rate for distant relations.
    Perhaps you or another may have access to all the data necessary to produce the figures on that?
    I disagree that criticizing him, or his suggestion is treason, unless you feel that the majority of the posts we see in this forum are acts of treason.
     
  23. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,374
    Likes Received:
    36,858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is not possible to equate today's numbers with those of yesteryear. I know of few people who would want to retire at age 47 which was the average retirement age in those days (life expectancy, as I understand it, extended to roughly age 55 with few people living beyond that). The point isn't so much the numbers but the principle - the idea of social security. Right wingers like to pretend that this concept is communist in origin. But, as always, the TRUTH is that it began with our Founding Fathers who exerted an influence over socialists and other modern day reformers.
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  24. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The Dollar was backed by gold until 1972, at which point gold was worth $35/ounce between 1933-1972
     
  25. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,374
    Likes Received:
    36,858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    With Republican Nixon in the White House.
     

Share This Page