It just takes a little interest and a little looking, Mike. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/what-impact-would-eliminating/ http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20050217/ It depends on assumptions of course.
The Social Security Trustees say it isn't temporary. "Annual OASDI cost exceeded non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The Trustees project that cost will continue to exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year valuation period. "
Clinton had a simple, effective plan. Remove the cap on SS earnings that effectively exempts millionaires and billionaires from the SS tax as a percentage of their income. SS is saved without a risky scheme that will likely leave many aged, survivors and disabled living under freeway overpasses begging at stoplights.
You have to understand (you can find this specified in print on some SSA web page) that such projections do not factor in expected improvements due to expected changes in conditions. Their assumption only take where we are now and apply current levels of existing monthly revenue, costs, mortality, etc. Therefore the assumptions would currently assume population growth and retirement rates will remain as they are. When they change, then the new numbers will be factored in. Hence you would not now see any assumptions for a reduction of retirement rates in the future due to baby boomers vanishing.
Assumptions are just that, so I take your point, but the Trustee reports, at least as long as I've been reading them (since around 2000) have been fairly consistent in their predictions. If their predictions are so stable that the updates are only around the edges, year after year, either they have really good assumptions or it's all bogus. We'll find out in 2034.
No, but the number of workers per retiree isn't going to magically increase when boomers are safely in the ground.
um, yes, baby boomers are why the surge in numbers right now, once they age out of the system, we will be back to normal republicans are trying to spin it like the numbers will never change with time .
This has nothing to do with the Republicans. I linked the Social Security Trustee Report that says this is more or less permanent.
Whatever floats your boat, I don't care. But Einstein is the one behind most of the chapters in Physics and your posts are trying to get there, but failing miserably somewhere below the sewer. I gave you credit for the only fact presented. Otherwise it is all delusion desires. Ignore, the main component of ignorance, the choice to ignore that which is available to be known. But hey, when you can't defend, stoop to fallacy. Common sense is far from common any more. Went the way of the Edsel. I take you your answer you have no clue as to what a ponzi scheme entails. Another totally ludicrous remark again stating the same tired remark as before. The Treasury has nothing not stolen from somewhere, someone, somehow. But I'll ask the question again, where do you think these funds the Treasury steals comes from? Tell me the products or services they provide that has the long lines so eager to purchase them? If so many people are so eager to buy these goods and services, then why do they need all those armed thugs to force those that don't want to purchase them? Of course it's paid for, all ponzi schemes are paid for. Ponzi originators that accept credit are pure idiots so of course the money comes up front. They even pay some of the money to sucker in the rest of the little idiots. But what do I care, I'm at the top of the scheme collecting all your children's contributions. Too bad all they will have is a worthless promise. Sure hope they get their hands on some of those worthless "Securities", they will need something to help start a fire. Yes it is, you were dumb enough to lend money to a fiction with no recourse. Corporations are responsible for nothing, that is why they are corporations unless somehow you know of a corporation that was sent to jail while I wasn't looking. Then perhaps you should develop an argument every once in a while. Your judgement on what is a sound argument is at best non-existent. Here I directly insinuated that you did not know what "money" was and even gave you a hint of what it wasn't. As to an answer, you begged the question of where does the Treasury get it's funds, not answered it. You keep repeating the same tired crap over and over, still not an answer. You were challenged on the mechanisms of a debt based economy and the paradox of boom bust effect. Obviously you haven't a clue, starting to become normal. But then you try to pretend it's a lack of comprehension. I agree with the statement but the object of that statement is in error. As to myself, can't comprehend what isn't there. Again with the delusion. Problem with comprehending what was asked or did the answer scare you? But what would I expect, from your answers it seems the theorem of education escapes you. How is that little world of indoctrination working out for you? Doesn't seem too well from this standpoint.
That's total bull. If one were to earn over $118,500, no FICA but you still pay medicare with no wage base cap. Sure does look like the top 10% is in on this little scheme.
That has no bearing whatsoever to the discussion except that same debt bound monster, the general fund, that can't seem to handle funds is the same butt wipe that is leaving all those IOUs. That is the part you do not seem to comprehend much less answer. Maybe if you day it a few more times the idiots will accept it as gospel but it still is totally incorrect. Are you going to continue dodging because you have no clue to the answers? Let's outline the questions again: 1) What is money? 2) What is a debt based economy? 3) What is the boom bust paradox? 4) What funds does the Treasury have to pay back their IOUs? You keep making the same blatant lies with absolutely no understanding of the fundamentals underlying those lies. So post all the indignation you want, it does not change matters.
Trump said he was going to redo taxes, he was one of the biggest scammers of the tax loop holes for the rich, lets hope he keeps his promise, time for the rich to pay the same % of every dollar they earn as the working class does
No it is not temporary. It is the inherent design of all ponzi schemes, they fail of their own volition. And this one does not just have it's own weight crushing it, it is aided by that most dangerous scheme of fraction reserve. The bomb has been built, the fuse has been lit. The only mystery is the actual length of the fuse.
I collect SS payments and my entire medical bills are paid. I am a cheap patient given my current status but one operation set the Feds back about a quarter million dollars. There is a clear possibility I at age 78 will cost them more in medical bills should I need some other operation. As to social security, i have thus far collected back an immense sum compared to what I paid to the Feds. I don't know who these people are who think so many of us can keep collecting and they will be just fine. But clearly Democrats promised them safety. But looking at the Federal Budget with it's major expenses being the socialist aspect, something bad will happen and they may be caught sucking wind. BTW, if the feds actually believe in the $15 per hour pay for workers, they need to give we on social security a huge raise. They pay us little.
WOW, so many delusions on the part of Democrats. It is their plan and it is being destroyed. Not in the future, right now. Thank you Democrats who preach the $15 per hour pay but pay so little to social security in benefits.
the republicans elect a me me me President and then only think of themselves, the elderly and disabled they could care less about .
Yeah, more assumptions that facts. Now we know where they get their funds, how about the referenced article: What assumptions are they referring to? Perhaps we should examine what is more representative of their efforts: [video=youtube;dXgW4TQFFjo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXgW4TQFFjo[/video] And the Permanently Broadcasting Crap article contains nothing but hyperboyle with every link in the article failing except the last and that is very telling while still not pointing to the subject.
Absolutely! Social security was designed more to keep people alive, not to provide a real retirement. The huge numbers of Americans who aren't thinking about their financial future (or CAN'T think about that, due to their current situation) are headed for a meager existence. The rate of early withdrawals from retirement plans such as 401k is scary.
Clinton's only plan was who to fleece next. Do you have any references to the rest or just pure conjecture?
Improvements, what improvements? Ass-u-me, so I don't assume anything. You wouldn't happen to have anything solid, how crazy of me to ask, of course you don't. - - - Updated - - - Depends on when your proverbial "FOREVER" gets here.
