Social Security Surplus

252 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote Laborisgood:
Quote mauiman58:

The lesson there is you'd better have more going for you than SS!

No reasonable person would argue that having more than SS is a good plan, but many people can't. People at the bottom will not be investing money they aren't forced to pay to SS as wealthier people may. They will be using it to survive. Any good conservative would say that if SS is insufficient in the future, let's get rid of it today. I say let's improve it.

Then lets improve it by making it only mandatory to those below a certain percentage of the poverty line. I dont need it i dont want it with my education im making 40k starting out i dont need it and im intelligent enough that i will invest it and invest it well.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

Like any pension/insurance fund, it requires a large (and continuous) pool to draw from for adequate funding. If you let all the selfish pricks pull THEIR money now because THEY don't want to have any part in helping their neighbor in the future, it will not work. Expecting selfish pricks to help their neighbor is alot to ask.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Its not being a selfish prick when I truly believe that I will not get out what i put in. If it was just me wanting to crash the system I would be prick but all im doing is looking out for my investment and my money. You cant understand how people just entering the workforce feel about getting money taken out of your pay check that I have no expectation of ever seeing again.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

Its not being a selfish prick when I truly believe that I will not get out what i put in. If it was just me wanting to crash the system I would be prick but all im doing is looking out for my investment and my money. You cant understand how people just entering the workforce feel about getting money taken out of your pay check that I have no expectation of ever seeing again.

You still don't get it. It's not an investment in yourself, it's an investment in your country. If the SS system is still around by the time you retire the workforce behind you will be paying a portion of their wages for your benefit, not theirs. It's support of the elderly and sick by the young and fit. You may pay in more than you take out or you may take out more than you pay in. It's like any other favors or help that you do for friends and family. You're not supposed to be keeping score. It's a great system.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

No its terrible we are lied to constantly politicians still try to insist that there is a trust fund when there is no such thing there is just the general fund. Its like if i ran a insurance company and took your premiums and used it to ran all my other buisness? Thats illegal for me why isnt it illegal for out government?

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

Bush_Wacker, you are confusing the federal government and charity. You always have to remember that the number one goal of an elected official is to get re elected. Period, end of discussion. Yes that is both sides of the aisle. So when a politician gets his (or her) hands on tax dollars, they do not do what is right with it, they do not do what is for good of the country, they buy themselves votes with it.

If you disagree with that, read Tip O'Neil's book, he explains that concept very well. I'm sure you remember him.

So you will have to forgive us idiot right wingers when we object to the government getting into the pension business, something that the private sector can do much better than they can. And the mess that SS is in right now is proof positive for my point.

And never forget that SS is in much better shape than Medicare and Medicaid. At least SS will survive, I don't see how the other two programs will, there is no way the taxpayers can be expected to support those programs as they are in a few years.

But the policians that voted in those programs didn't worry about that, they got re elected and are now long gone, probably collecting off the very same programs that they voted in. Sad, and yes George Bush did have something to do with it, I'm not blind, just another idiot right winger.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

Maui, you are NOT an idiot.

Myth 4: President Roosevelt promisedthat the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program

The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote mauiman58:

OK,, here they are 1982 to 2011

Contributions: $218,00

Value of account: $883,000

Value of SS at this point for this poor soul, little or nothing, he is only 54-55 years old and he has only worked 30 years. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this person has to wait until 62 to get anything, then this person will get around $20K a year if that. Let $883,000 sit in an account getting 5% a year for 7 years and it will grow to 1.2 million adding no new money to the account.

What would you rather have, $20,000 a year or 1.2 million?

You can run as many scenarios as you like. But AGAIN, your entire premise depends on highly questionable assumptions. The first being interest rates being high enough over 30-40 years to get to that 500k or 1.1, 1.3, or 1.5 million, or whatever. Even the an average 5% yield sounds reasonable but it doesn't hold up for the past 12 years or so. The other assumption is you're just assuming someone WILL be healthy enough throughout their entire working life. If someone is disabled at 25, 30, 40… they'd never get anywhere near those nest eggs you just assume WILL be there.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

No its terrible we are lied to constantly politicians still try to insist that there is a trust fund when there is no such thing there is just the general fund. Its like if i ran a insurance company and took your premiums and used it to ran all my other buisness? Thats illegal for me why isnt it illegal for out government?

Pray tell, just what should become of any SS surplus? Should it sit in a mattress? Stagnent money doesn't grow... but the government isn't the lending business. But it does often borrow. So why not borrow from itself? The real problem isn't this internal borrowing but whether we can trust the GOP to make it hard to pay back the fund once those IOUs come due. After all, they've been counting on creating a fiscal trainwreck to take down programs like SS... so they can divert the money to hucksters and predators on Wall St.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Social Security is an investment in our country not in our personal portfolio. It's no different than other taxes you pay all of your life. Can you imagine if every penny you ever paid into sales taxes went into an individual retirement account? Can you imagine if all you've ever paid in income tax was invested in Coca-Cola? We would all be filthy rich with nothing to spend it on because the entire planet would be a wasteland. Selfishness is worse than greed.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote CollegeConservative:

Its not being a selfish prick when I truly believe that I will not get out what i put in. If it was just me wanting to crash the system I would be prick but all im doing is looking out for my investment and my money. You cant understand how people just entering the workforce feel about getting money taken out of your pay check that I have no expectation of ever seeing again.

Yet it the far right of the GOP who have most sowing the seeds of fear. They NEED that fear to dismantle a program they always loathed. And this is typical for the Right. They work to sabotage the finances of government, point the finger of blame somewhere else, then use the deficits/debt as a pretense to claim they must be trusted to save programs they want to destroy... that is unless they can use government money to benefit their friends.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Quote CollegeConservative:...im intelligent enough...
We've all waited long enough. Please provide some evidence of this alleged intelligence.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Social Security is an investment in our country not in our personal portfolio. It's no different than other taxes you pay all of your life. Can you imagine if every penny you ever paid into sales taxes went into an individual retirement account? Can you imagine if all you've ever paid in income tax was invested in Coca-Cola? We would all be filthy rich with nothing to spend it on because the entire planet would be a wasteland. Selfishness is worse than greed.

You're losing even me with this post.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Laborisgood:

Like any pension/insurance fund, it requires a large (and continuous) pool to draw from for adequate funding. If you let all the selfish pricks pull THEIR money now because THEY don't want to have any part in helping their neighbor in the future, it will not work. Expecting selfish pricks to help their neighbor is alot to ask.

To quote from the Heritage Foundation when they proposed an individual mandate to buy into health insurance:
PAGE 51: A Framework for Reform
Element # 1 :...... Under this arrangement, all households would be required to
protect themselves from major medical costs by purchasing health
insurance or enrolling in a prepaid health plan. The degree of financial
protection can be debated, but the principle of mandatory family
protection is central to a universal healthcare system in America.

And it is for a viable social security plan as well. Of course Heritage probably would only agree if Wall Street predators were able to cash in on the mandate.

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/1989/pdf/ci_0891950494.pdf

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

When you pay into SS you are not paying into a retirement account. Isn't that what everyone is bitchin about? How they could better invest that money themselves instead of letting government do it for them. Everyone's on here comparing how much money they would have through personal investment vs. government investment.

The government isn't investing your SS payments into anything. They are using those payments to pay out benefits to living retired people. When you have paid in a certain amount over your working lifetime that will determine how much money you take in benefits from the still working population when it's your turn to retire.

It's not a retirement account contribution!

The government is not holding our money for us until we retire. They are distributing it to retirees.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote CollegeConservative:
Quote Laborisgood:
Quote mauiman58:

The lesson there is you'd better have more going for you than SS!

No reasonable person would argue that having more than SS is a good plan, but many people can't. People at the bottom will not be investing money they aren't forced to pay to SS as wealthier people may. They will be using it to survive. Any good conservative would say that if SS is insufficient in the future, let's get rid of it today. I say let's improve it.

Then lets improve it by making it only mandatory to those below a certain percentage of the poverty line. I dont need it i dont want it with my education im making 40k starting out i dont need it and im intelligent enough that i will invest it and invest it well.

This may be the funniest thing I've read in a week.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Quote CollegeConservative:Thats exactly what is for me my money is take to give to my grandfather and im left with an IOU to be filled by my grand children.

Do you actually believe that private insurance isn't doing the same... depending on the money from new enrollees or current receipts to pay out existing claims? Do you believe they stuff all their money in a mattress?

Often the only hope for even private insurance companies is to keep growing to keep the cash flowing... and hope there are new suckers that are drawn into the stock/commodity markets to keep their investments growing. The difference is there are no guarantees with the market and it can easily decline or stagnate for another 25 years as it did from the mid-50's to the early 80's.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:The government isn't investing your SS payments into anything. They are using those payments to pay out benefits to living retired people.
Not quite true. SS has been running a surplus since the 80's and that money is NOT used to pay benefits. It's lent to the government which issues special bonds that pay interest. So THAT is where SS monies are being "invested". One might argue there'd be a higher return if the government gambled on stocks of commodities... but that's not just interfering in those markets, it's risky.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote mauiman58:

Bush_Wacker, we are just isolating SS here, the Bush tax cuts have no effect on SS.

I believe what BW was trying to say was the SS surplus was used to "fund" the irresponsible Bush tax cuts since when running a deficit or in debt... ALL tax cuts are "funded" with borrowed money... and the government DOES borrow money from off-budget accounts for the general fund.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote chilidog:

Are you doing this right?

I calculate 1981 amount to be $123,041 and 2011 amount to be $35,777.

$29,700 x (0.047 x 2) = $2,792 compound interest for 30 years at 13.45%

$106,800 x (.053 x 2) = .$11,321 compounded interest for 30 years at 3.91%

$923,000 (1981-2010) minus $123,000 plus $36,000 is 836,000.

So today you have $836,000 due in multiple installments beginning with $108k at the end of 2012 and ending with $36k at the end of 2041.

Mauiman I'm going to prove your case for you.

Your account today is more than $836,000. Run your numbers again so you have 30 years of payments beginning with $108,797 due 12/31/12 and ending with $35,777 due 12/31/2041. Add $175,000 to that total and you will have the absolute ceiling on the value of your contributions.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Hey Chilidog we are just not connecting man! I can't understand your logic. I am not going to retire today, I am not going to withdraw any money from that $800,000 for another 15 years. You keep talking about withdrawing payments starting on 12/31/12, and that is where you lose me. I am not going to withdraw anything until 2027.

I don't think it is too much to assume that if left untouched, that $800,000 now will double in 15 years. Especially with me adding at least $10,000 a year for 15 years.

So in 15 years my account will be at 1.6 million. Instead I will get SS payments of around $45,000 a year. Sorry I want the lump sum, but I will not get that option.

Do you follow me yet?

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

You may still be an idiot. Maybe you're just a moron. And I'm definitely an idiot for helping your case. Although I contend that I was clear all along with what numbers I was expecting you to produce.

Just run the numbers like I told you to do. It may yet be $1.5 million (ceiling, not floor.)

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote mauiman58:So in 15 years my account will be at 1.6 million. Instead I will get SS payments of around $45,000 a year. Sorry I want the lump sum, but I will not get that option.

Do you follow me yet?

WILL BE THERE?????

You're so confident that money WILL be there. ALL your scenarios depend on being healthy enough to squirrel away money into some private account for all your working life plus getting a healthy yield. Neither might be true. And of course, you always leave out the simple fact that SS covers more than retirement or disability. It covers survivors benefits and some extra to cover the Baby Boom retirement. The point is SS offers some SECURITY while your various scenarios might offer a bigger payoff for some, or they might never pan out.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote mauiman58:

So in 15 years my account will be at 1.6 million. Instead I will get SS payments of around $45,000 a year. Sorry I want the lump sum, but I will not get that option.

Lump sum ain't supposed to be an option. Go play Lotto if you want that option.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Sorry Chilidog, I must be somewhere between a moron and an idiot, I just cannot understand what numbers you want me to run. I hear your frustration with me, so I would love to run the case you want me to if I could ever figure out what it is.

Basically my method here is to compare what "lump sum option" should be avilable to persons at retirement age who have paid into SS for 40-45 years. Obviously there is no lump sum option in real life. I then compare that lump sum to what they will get out of SS. The SS payout always seems to come out to be 2% of the lump sum each year, it should be 4-5%. That is a big difference.

In the spirit of total disclosure, I must point out two facts that are in SS favor in this calculation.

1. Yes, there are survivor benefits. I think your your spouse will get half of your social security after you die? Correct me if I am wrong on that point. That makes the SS payout a little more valuable than meets the eye.

2. SS payouts are indexed to inflation. This is why when I ran a case for someone retiring after 2012, I always inflated the SS payout number to try and reflect what the payout should be in the future. And the SS payouts will creep up over time, they are not fixed like a private pension is.

Despite those two facts, the payout should be higher than 2% a year of what the lump sum should be. Especially considering that when both you and your spouse die, all benefits stop. With a lump sum, anything left (and there almost always would be something left) would go to your heirs. And remember, with a lump sum you always have the option of buying a single premium annuity that will pay you a fixed amount for the rest of your life if you happen to be more comfortable with that. And I bet that annuity will be more money than what SS will offer you.

And again, in my case everyone is still paying the disability insurance portion of SS, so that covers the cases of people who get hurt or disabled before they get their 40 years in.

So I have made several comparisons for persons working a 45 year career starting in 1982. For 30 of those years, we know what the SS max and t bill rate are, for the last 15 we don't. You object to me assuming a 5% t bill rate for 2012-2027. If you run the same numbers assuming 4% for that time period, the difference in the answer you get is insignificant. Probably the more important assumptions are how fast does the SS max increase (I assumed 3.5%) and how fast does the SS payout increase (I assumed 2%). The difference here is a reflection of the reality that taxes have to increase and benefits have to drop for this program to stay alive going forward. I don't think anyone disagrees with that do they?

So give me one more chance at running the numbers you want me to, try to explain what you want to this moron/idiot and maybe the light will go on in ny head. But remember, I am going to give you a comparison of the lump sum that should be available vs. the SS payout estimate in the cases you ask for. However, you don't seem to be asking for that result?

Another note is that tomorrow I will be on vacation and will not have internet access for 5 whole days. I know that really disappoints you that you won't hear from me for those days, but do realize that if you send me a post telling me what a right wing idiot I am late today and you don't hear a response, it's not because I agree with you and don't have a response, it is because I am taking a 5 day vacation from the internet.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

Laborisgood, read my previous post. You always have to option of buying a single premium annuity that pays you a set amount for the reat of your life, like SS does. I'm sure joint and one half survivor options are avialble also. And the payout from those annuities has to be better than the SS payout.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

Quote mauiman58:You always have to option of buying a single premium annuity that pays you a set amount for the reat of your life, like SS does. I'm sure joint and one half survivor options are avialble also. And the payout from those annuities has to be better than the SS payout.

Unless you bought it from Lehman Brothers. LOL Such annuities largely depend on money pouring into the stock and commodity markets which is being encouraged by GOVERNMENT policies... one is tax exempt IRA deductions, ultra-cheap money from the Fed to banks which prefer to gamble than invest, and the ultra low Fed rates which discourages traditional savings and almost forces people into these speculative markets... further inflating prices. If I didn't know better I'd say the Fed has engineered the return of the stock market because bubbles help stimulate the economy… even if Greenspan claims it's merely the market self-correcting free of government interference. All these policies can change and discourage more "investments" in these markets... and it doesn't take more than a couple percent more sellers than buyers to start a downward trend.

As someone who's always been a conservative investor, I certainly don't want to see government tempted to bail out millions of seniors who find their retirement savings vanish because they put their trust into the Wall Street Ponzi Scheme. And with that I really need to leave this thread. I don't have the time to waste going around in circles.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

The other option is to withdraw your money at 1% more than the 30 year t bill rate. Right now that would be about 5% a year. With that strategy, your money would last 60-70 years or so.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

Maui, what you are showing is a great idea. I wish someone could educate our kids to (if anyway possible) match their SS payments with their own IRA. There would be a lot less problems for people in their old age if more people could afford to do that. If we could just get more liveable wages from early age onward.

That way you can still participate in your country's best interest and you own as well.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Maybe someone can explain better than I can.

You have nothing in the bank today.

What you have is a set of annuities payable in the future.

In 1982 you bought $109k payable in December 2012.

In 1983 you bought $XX payable in December 2013.

Finally, in 2011 you bought $36k payable in 2041.

These are all KNOWN. They will NOT change.

Once we have what is KNOWN, then we are at a mutually agreeable starting point. From there, we can argue about what assumptions we make to get to $1 million, $1.5 million, $2 million, whatever.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Ok I can do that. I'll put in the max SS every year and let it compound at the t bill rate for 30 years, then collect. Start contributing in 1982, end the contributions in 2011. Start collecting the money in 2012 for 30 years.

You get total payments over 30 years of over 1.6 million. That is actually a very easy spreadsheet to set up.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

Then you add 175k to that and you get 1.8 million. As of 2027. Now you can argue inflation and returns.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Sorry Chilidog, your analysis asumes that starting in 2013 the US Government will be able to issue 30 year T Bills and not have to pay any interest on those bonds. That's just not going to happen, they will have to pay something, and we'll have to guess at that rate. I'll set that rate at 3.5%, lower than it ever has been. I'm assuming that this person does not touch this account, so when a SS deposit is made, it will get this rate until 2027. And when the 30 year bonds mature, that money will also get 3.5% a year until 2027.

To be as fair as I can to SS, I will inflate the SS payout 3% a year and the max SS donation 3% a year. Here are the numbers.

Donations: $440,000

Account Value: 2.15 million

SS payout: $44,000 per year

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

How much are you assuming inflation will be?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Inflation is not in this equation, the only thing you have to guess at the increase in SS max wages, increase in SS payout and the 30 year t bill rate going forward. I have assumed that the tax rate remains constant. You can then compare the projected SS payout vs. the lump sum that you should have. Inflation is the same for both cases, but the exact rate of inflation does not matter here, I am running a comparison between what this ficticious person (although it is very close to my case) person will recieve from SS and what he/she would have had given the opportunity to invest that money on their own.

You will never hear a finance person talk about inflation, but they do talk about the cost of money. And the cost of money is always very closely tied to the t bill rate.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

Finance people? Aren't they the ones destroying America?

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Nope

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

I just heard an intresting proposal on how to walk back SS withoutdies trotting it starting by giving it to any one receiving or 5 years from receiving. Then give back what you have paid in inthe form of a pro rate taxe credit and eliminate new applicats all together.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

As much as I disagree with such an "interesting" proposal, at least it's not as horrific as handing our SS taxes over to Wall Street. Which is why this "interesting" proposal is DOA.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Chuck, "Finance people? Aren't they the ones destroying America?"

Nope, the private federal reserve is destroying Amerikka.

The social security trust fund is full of treasury ious backed by the full faith and credit of the US gubbment!!! lol

"Those bonds are protected by the full faith and credit of the UnitedStatesofAmerica," Kennelly said. "They're as solid as what we owe China and Japan."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35865764/ns/politics/t/social-security-needs-uncle-sams-ious-now/

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

I wish I had a good "fix" for Social Security, but I do not. This won't fly, and it would totaly screw me. After paying into this system since 1981, I should have an account worth about 1 million or so. If the US government would pay me that million, I would be happy to drop out of the program as long as I did not have to contribute any more. Obviously that is not going to happen, the money is not there because Social Security is (sorry progressives) a Ponzi Scheme.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

Your are right, mauiman58. Madoff modeled his scheme after the SS scheme. Let me have your life savings and i will take care of myself ,uh YOU, I mean. Every congress crook that is or ever has been that is still alive should be shoveling shit on a pig farm. They have stolen the funds and replaced them with, IMO, worhtless government IOUs, otherwise the fund would have a 2.5 trillion surplus.

Although, FDR, never claimed it to be anything but a TAX, the program was sold to the general public by misleading and false facts. If one stops and thinks about the SS tax, it is really a tax on incomes of $106,000 or less. Why are not all incomes, including capital gains, made to pay SS taxes. Then a means test should be established to determine qualification to receive benefits. In other words the rich 20% couldn't qualify. That would go a long way to start fixing the pilliaged system.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

Where did you get the 7% figure? What is the figure for the last 30 years? What is it for the last 2 years?

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Why do you think they are worthless government IOUs?

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Why does anyone thing an employer is going to give the employee the 6.2% he pays to SS?

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Why does anyone think that an employer is going to give the employee the 6.2% he pays to SS?

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

When I think of "Finance People", I think of the private federal reserve among others.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Chuckle, read the whole thing here. I tried to estimate, but in the end I had to set up a detailed spreadsheet to make my point. It;s all there.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

Cmaroman, your solution is outright socialism, and that is not going to fly right now.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

What we have now is socialism. In any socialistic system 85% if the wealth is in the hands of the 1%. Making all incomes sujbject to the SS system (if the rules weren't change to prevent raiding the system) would give the congress crooks more to steal from. But wait, your right, that would be taxing the rich more. We can't have that.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

Currently Chatting

Why the Web of Life is Dying...

Could you survive with just half of your organs? Think about it. What if you had just half your brain, one kidney, half of your heart, one lung, half a liver and only half of your skin? It would be pretty hard to survive right? Sure, you could survive losing just one kidney or half of your liver, but at some point, losing pieces from all of your organs would be too much and you would die.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system