Social Security, the easy way to fix it...

I care and so should anyone else who cares about economic justice and the economy.

Argue away. Follow the law and there is no force.

Both.

I don't either. Unlike you, I don't want the government redistributing a bigger and bigger share of the nation's income and wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest.

 

SS and Medicare combined equate to a 15.3% regressive flat tax on employees salaries. The very rich don't effectively pay these taxes as a percentage of their income because it is capped at $120k and is not levied on investment income, which is the largest source of income for the very rich.

Sure. I certainly didn't suggest scrapping it. It is conservatives that want that. Unless it is they getting the benefits.

Sure seems that way.

 

If someone is voluntarily given something, it becomes their property.

I am arguing away. My argument is that trespass against the person or property of others is wrong and that therefore the government ought not do so. Otherwise, the government becomes nothing better than a criminal enterprise.

Agreed. There really is no difference between taxation and extortion, other than that the former is done by the government. I don't agree with you that certain people are exempt from the ethical rules that apply to the rest of us.

I don't want the government redistributing anything at all.

And you DO want the government to act like a common criminal. You advocate that the government threaten violence unless people hand over their property. That is known as extortion, unless it's done by the government, in which case it is called taxation. Two different names for the same act.

 

OK

Repetitive. I disagree. Government is necessary for ordered society and taxes are necessary for government.

Disagree. So what? Lots of things we authorize government to do would be illegal if it weren't the government doing it.

The support reversing trickle down policies that have redistributed so much of the nation's income and wealth form the middle classes to the richest.

I advocate no such thing. I advocate people who voluntarily choose to live here following the law. And if and only if they they don't the the government can enforce the law. Same as you.

 

Yes, you keep making this statement, but haven't yet presented your supporting argument.

 

It is self-evident. We've already gone over this subject. If you think life would be better without a government there are lots of places you can go to live in your utopia.

 

It's a bare assertion.

 

Feel free to pick it up in one of the anarchy threads.

 

Threat of force is still use of force.

 

It's your bare assertion, not mine. If you wish to support it, then do so. Otherwise, it can be ignored as a logical fallacy.

 

Ignore away. I'll trust most our member appreciate the need for a government for an ordered society. If they don't they can join the anarchist society as well.

 

First a bare assertion, and now an argumentum ad populum. The fallacies just keep coming.

 

Nah, we've gone over this in detail before. It's repetitive.

 

Technically, but the employer portion counts as compensation. Essentially, 12.4% of a workers income is confiscated for this program. That is a lot of wealth building disposable income. Those funds invested in moderate investments over 40-50 years would add up to be a very nice retirement and/or inheritance to pass on.

Both my brothers are just surviving on SS. SS taxes continue to increase. This burden will only get worse for future generations. The current trust fund has nothing but iou's that can only be paid with current borrowing and taxation. It does not matter how necessary you believe SS is, it is a failure and growing burden on each generation.

 

I am a strong supporter for Social Security and I like the plan just the way FDR set it up.

 

You don't seem to understand the purpose of Social Security:

Title 42 United States Code Section 402 - Old-age and survivors insurance benefit payments

(a) Old-age insurance benefits. Every individual who—
(1) is a fully insured individual (as defined in section 414 (a) of this title),
(2) has attained age 62, and
(3) has filed application for old-age insurance benefits or was entitled to disability insurance benefits for the month preceding the month in which he attained retirement age (as defined in section 416 (l) of this title), shall be entitled to an old-age insurance benefit for each month, beginning with—

 

A question for you Maat: if a person has a net worth of $200,000 and he takes $50,000 of his money and invests it in Treasury bills, what is his net worth at that point?

 

T-bills and SS special bonds are two different things. T-bills can be sold(as long as investors have faith in them), the SS trust fund bonds cannot. They are only iou's that force the government to either borrow in order to pay them or collect more SS taxes.

 

SS bonds are cashed in whenever SS needs the cash. These SS bonds DO NOT force the government to 'borrow or collect more taxes'? It is Congress, the president, and the voters who keep them in office who decide the budget and deficits. When the government, which is YOU, borrows from SS, then you need to be prepared to pay it back...

 

The system itself has been a big slush fund for congress to loot, while it was taking in more than it paid out. For years now it has been taking in far less than it receives in taxes. These iou's can only be redeemed with borrowed money. If we were not the reserve currency we would be long bankrupt. The 3trillion in bonds they claim is worthless and no different than Enron accounting nonsense. Every penny today being sent out above current revenues is borrowed money.

 

Answer the question.

The answer is that the person's net worth remains $200,000. The same is true for the SSA and the Trust Fund Treasury securities it contains.

You fell for the propaganda with amazing gullibility.

 

They are Treasury securities which are the same as those you can invest in with one exception: they are not marketable on any public market.

Incorrect. You don't know how they are redeemed yet you assert a falsehood so confidently. When the SSA notifies the Treasury that they are going to need $xxx from the Trust Fund to meet current obligations, the Treasury Dept. sells a matching value of Treasury securities on the open, public market, mostly to foreign investors. The Treasury Dept. then hands the money over to the SSA and the SSA "retires" (destroys) the matching value of Trust Fund securities which were originally issued by the Treasury Dept.

In this way the debt is simply moved out of the Trust Fund and located in the public domain. There are no taxpayer dollars used to redeem those TF Treasuries.

The TF Treasuries are fully paid for and this is how they are redeemed. So SS is fully paid for and has never added a penny to our national debt.

 

The reality is that they represent assets that do not exist. SS is running substantial deficits that have to be made up with general fund borrowing. The system is not self-sustaining and getting worse. This would not occur under mandated private accounts. Read the trustee reports.

 

Right, no more than a Treasury bill does, except ALL financial planners and chartered financial consultants agree that Treasury securities are the safest INVESTMENT you can own.

I have shown that to be completely untrue already. No one will stop you from posting BS, lies, distortions, and ignorance, but you might want to refrain in this case due to how it makes you look.

Every Treasury security in the TF is fully paid for. SS has paid its own way all along and has about $2.8 trillion in surplus.

The SSA is not responsible for the spending of government from the General Fund. You know this. Your just being an ***.

 

Whether you admit it or not SS special bonds are no more an asset than a written IOU your wife writes if she spends the house payment money. Enron officials were jailed for this.