• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The results are in on social security

cpwill said:
we don't have 25 years. we have 8 until the entire budget begins to collapse, including SS



even the AARP now admits this won't come even close to funding Social Security in the coming years. if you were to tax everyone making $200,000 and up at a rate of 100%; that would only give you enough to cover Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security for the next five years.
Click to expand...

The AARP Report shows:

“The Social Security Trustees reaffirm that the program is financially strong for decades to come and can be strengthened for the future with relatively modest adjustments. With pensions, savings, and home equity down, many older workers unable to find jobs; and health costs continuing their upward climb, Social Security’s guaranteed benefits are more crucial than ever."

AARP: Report shows Social Security is viable for another 25 years
 
Social Security's real problem is not the trust fund - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blog Term Sheet

But the trust fund balance isn't the right way to figure out Social Security's financial status. Rather, you need to look at the program's cash flow: the difference between the cash it collects and the benefits that it pays out.
Friday's report said that Social Security now projects cash flow deficits as far as the eye can see. It's the first time that's happened since Social Security taxes were raised and growth in benefits was trimmed back in the early 1980s. That's the real numbers news, as opposed to the trust fund stuff.

Why do I pooh-pooh the trust fund, the metric almost everyone uses, and care about cash flow, which is widely ignored? Because the "trust fund" is an abstraction whose shortfalls can be "solved" by diverting general revenues into the system or by simply giving Social Security more Treasury securities. But the cash flow deficit can't be covered over with fancy financial footwork.
Take this year as an example. Social Security projects that it will collect about $46 billion less in cash than it will pay out in retirement and disability benefits. However, Social Security's revenues include about $105 billion it will get from the Treasury to cover the cost of this year's "tax holiday" for employees, who pay only 4.2% Social Security tax on their wages of up to $106,800 rather than the normal 6.2%. The Treasury has to borrow that $105 billion, in addition to borrowing the $46 billion to redeem the Treasury securities that Social Security will cash in to cover its cash shortfall. Total Social Security-related borrowing: about $150 billion.
Click to expand...

This is a pretty good read … and points out just some of the troubles with SS … seeing it CNN maybe liberals will actually read it .. and understand how slight of hand book keeping can make anything look good. ….. then again …
 
The Barbarian said:
Social Security's real problem is not the trust fund - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blog Term Sheet
Click to expand...

Yep, a good read:

"No, I'm not saying that Social Security is in crisis. And I think it would be only fair for the government to make good on its trust fund obligations, because they represent money that wage earners thought was being set aside for their future benefits, but was spent on general government purposes."

I think it is fairly obvious that increased funding of SS through an increase in the FICA cap will be needed for the next 25 years to pay back the SS money that was used to fund the M.E. wars in order to prevent payment problems projected in 2036.
 
Catawba said:
Yep, a good read:

"No, I'm not saying that Social Security is in crisis. And I think it would be only fair for the government to make good on its trust fund obligations, because they represent money that wage earners thought was being set aside for their future benefits, but was spent on general government purposes."

I think it is fairly obvious that increased funding of SS through an increase in the FICA cap will be needed for the next 25 years to pay back the SS money that was used to fund the M.E. wars in order to prevent payment problems projected in 2036.
Click to expand...

See this is where liberals and conservatives disagree, the liberals first thought process in every problem is to raise the tax. As if that is the only solution to any problem.

But I go back and wonder what was the average life expectancy of a working man back when SS was first started? Was it meant to pay people for and average of 13 years of non productivity? (in the work force) I see nothing wrong with raising the retirement age to early retirement to 65, and full retirement to 67, to keep it fair .. a one year raise in the first 10 years, the next raise in the next 10 years. That would mean that a worker who is 50 today .. will have to work one more year .. and workers that are 40 would have to work two more years, those above 50 would not be effected.

If that doesn't do it, then lets look at a very small increase in the tax rate of SS for all people for the first 10 years, along with raising the cap .. say $25,000 to see us through until the older age kicks in. Make that tax increase the very same as Bush made his tax cuts, they just expire after 10 years.

This way everyone, is helping to cure a problem not just 10% of the working population, everyone agrees these are hard times, shouldn't all people kick in to help ?
 
The Barbarian said:
See this is where liberals and conservatives disagree, the liberals first thought process in every problem is to raise the tax. As if that is the only solution to any problem.

But I go back and wonder what was the average life expectancy of a working man back when SS was first started? Was it meant to pay people for and average of 13 years of non productivity? (in the work force) I see nothing wrong with raising the retirement age to early retirement to 65, and full retirement to 67, to keep it fair .. a one year raise in the first 10 years, the next raise in the next 10 years. That would mean that a worker who is 50 today .. will have to work one more year .. and workers that are 40 would have to work two more years, those above 50 would not be effected.

If that doesn't do it, then lets look at a very small increase in the tax rate of SS for all people for the first 10 years, along with raising the cap .. say $25,000 to see us through until the older age kicks in. Make that tax increase the very same as Bush made his tax cuts, they just expire after 10 years.

This way everyone, is helping to cure a problem not just 10% of the working population, everyone agrees these are hard times, shouldn't all people kick in to help ?
Click to expand...

Far right conservatives first thought is to reduce benefits to the elderly rather than addressing the root cause of the problem.

BTW, the problem of insufficient SS funds is not due to increased benefits being paid out, it is due to SS revenue being used to fund other General fund obligations that taxes should have been raised to pay for, such as our decade long multiple unfunded ME wars.

If all people had received an an equal break in taxes that created the problem that would make sense, but since the wealthy got way more in tax breaks they should pay way more to fix the problems their tax breaks created.
 
The Barbarian said:
See this is where liberals and conservatives disagree, the liberals first thought process in every problem is to raise the tax. As if that is the only solution to any problem.

But I go back and wonder what was the average life expectancy of a working man back when SS was first started? Was it meant to pay people for and average of 13 years of non productivity? (in the work force) I see nothing wrong with raising the retirement age to early retirement to 65, and full retirement to 67, to keep it fair .. a one year raise in the first 10 years, the next raise in the next 10 years. That would mean that a worker who is 50 today .. will have to work one more year .. and workers that are 40 would have to work two more years, those above 50 would not be effected.

If that doesn't do it, then lets look at a very small increase in the tax rate of SS for all people for the first 10 years, along with raising the cap .. say $25,000 to see us through until the older age kicks in. Make that tax increase the very same as Bush made his tax cuts, they just expire after 10 years.

This way everyone, is helping to cure a problem not just 10% of the working population, everyone agrees these are hard times, shouldn't all people kick in to help ?
Click to expand...


Like Catawba said, take the friggen cap off,if that don,t do it we can take a peek at other options but every thing that i have read says taking the cap off will do the job.
 
How does unemployment factor in here? People keep working = less jobs, right? They're working longer, so the ones coming up can't fill those positions.
 
cpwill said:
the Bowles Simpson commission said raise the retirement age ;) just like those folks did.


however, in other places on this forum I have gone through the numbers and described the effects of personalized accounts on low-income workers. namely, they can retire financially independent, and even in a worst-case-scenario they make more than twice as much in returns as they would from Social (in)Security. A man could never make more than 32 K a year his entire working life, and still retire a millionaire.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the simpson bowles said for it to be raised in 2050 or 2049... that isn't going to make much of a difference.
 
donc said:
Like Catawba said, take the friggen cap off,if that don,t do it we can take a peek at other options but every thing that i have read says taking the cap off will do the job.
Click to expand...

then i don't know what you're reading, but it's crap. even the AARP is now admitting that there is no way to tax our way to paying for Social Security, and expenditures will have to be reduced. especially since benefits are built in "contributions" which means that the more you take in in taxes, the more you owe out in benefits. you aren't fixing the problem, you're just making the numbers (somewhat) bigger.

Gargantuan said:
Yeah but the simpson bowles said for it to be raised in 2050 or 2049... that isn't going to make much of a difference.
Click to expand...

they said start raising it now to finish raising it in the future. I think it was something like two months a year?

also worth noting - simpson bowles assumed Obamacare math; which means medicare payout schedules get reduced 30%, and we magically get back $500 Billion that we spent on exchange subsidies.
 
BDBoop said:
How does unemployment factor in here? People keep working = less jobs, right? They're working longer, so the ones coming up can't fill those positions.
Click to expand...


no. production creates production in a virtuous cycle, and more skilled production creates even more production.
 
Pop the cap and tax every penny that comes into anybody's pocket as income. Make them pay what the rest of the 93% do paying FICA tax on ALL of our income.
 
cpwill said:
especially since benefits are built in "contributions" which means that the more you take in in taxes, the more you owe out in benefits. you aren't fixing the problem, you're just making the numbers (somewhat) bigger.
Click to expand...

But it's not a one-to-one exchange. You are aware that SS is 'means tested', right?* There are currently three 'bend' points of your monthly salary on which your benefits are calculated. You could adjust the latter points downward or maybe add a fourth to further reduce benefits of the high-income earners.




*SS benefit level is calculated as 90% of your first $749 in monthly pre-retirement earnings, 32% of earnings up to $4,517, and 15% of your earnings above that.
 
donc said:
Like Catawba said, take the friggen cap off,if that don,t do it we can take a peek at other options but every thing that i have read says taking the cap off will do the job.
Click to expand...

and just like I said .. the very first solution to every problem by the liberals is to tax more .. and if that don't fix it .. why tax some more ...that's why I find it hard to discuss anything with liberals .. they have NO other fixes .. and anyone that does it nuts ..
 
Last edited:
The Barbarian said:
and just like I said .. the very first solution to every problem by the liberals is to tax more .. and if that don't fix it .. why tax some more ...that's why I find it hard to discuss anything with liberals .. they have NO other fixes .. and anyone that does it nuts ..
Click to expand...

93% of Americans are currently taxed on 100% of their income for FICA. All need to be.

cpwill - your comment ignores the reality that nearly everyone who suggests popping the cap also couples it a benefit freeze at todays levels plus inflation.
 
The Barbarian said:
and just like I said .. the very first solution to every problem by the liberals is to tax more .. and if that don't fix it .. why tax some more ...that's why I find it hard to discuss anything with liberals .. they have NO other fixes .. and anyone that does it nuts ..
Click to expand...

Its called addressing the root cause of the problem which was insufficient tax collection which resulted in taking money from the SS funds to pay for general fund spending.

Catawba said:
The AARP Report shows:

“The Social Security Trustees reaffirm that the program is financially strong for decades to come and can be strengthened for the future with relatively modest adjustments. With pensions, savings, and home equity down, many older workers unable to find jobs; and health costs continuing their upward climb, Social Security’s guaranteed benefits are more crucial than ever."

AARP: Report shows Social Security is viable for another 25 years
Click to expand...
 
SS is almost tolerable. It taxes fairly regressively, but provides progressive benefits. It's intended to be a social safety net, for people who didn't establish a retirement income source.

Low income people get far more out of it for every dollar put in, than someone more well off. This approaches ideal. Just as a flat tax is more socially justified even though a flat tax will *still* greatly subsidize lower income, i.e. pay out benefits on a progressive scale. This, we can wrap our heads around.

If you can't make do with the original 3% we were told it would be...well, you're 6.2%, doubled, 12.4% (well less right now for employees). Surely that's enough.
If it's not, fix your spending. Percentage is already adjusted to account for inflation because wage base is moved up in a practical way and it's a percentage of wage base. A percentage already increases with salary norms AND with the economy as it grows. There is no need to keep tacking on extra percentages as a means to keep up with growth. Get ahold of your corruption, fraud, tighten means testing, push back in some areas on states, etc. Keep your costs in line with your program.

Now, the idea of "popping the cap". Sounds catchy right? Just a flick of the thumb...POP! Easy peasy? No, it's absolutely absurd to suggest.
Someone making $5M a year putting $500K into a "safety net", and getting a tiny fraction of that back out, is ridiculous. Wage base exists because it's part of why social security makes *some sense*. Without wage base, it's ludicrious, unjustifiable, and wrong.
 
SS didn't fail in collecting enough money to pay the benefits promised, it is only short of funds for future benefits in 2036 or so because its funds have been used to offset the cost of our unfunded ME wars among other things because of insufficient tax revenues.

Either raise the cap on FICA funds to help pay that back or eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthy and begin to repay the money taken from the SS trust funds. Both of those methods actually address the cause of the SS problems.
 
Catawba said:
SS didn't fail in collecting enough money to pay the benefits promised, it is only short of funds for future benefits in 2036 or so because its funds have been used to offset the cost of our unfunded ME wars among other things because of insufficient tax revenues.

Either raise the cap on FICA funds to help pay that back or eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthy and begin to repay the money taken from the SS trust funds. Both of those methods actually address the cause of the SS problems.
Click to expand...

that and end these unnecessary wars of choice so that we can once more enjoy the peace dividend
 
justabubba said:
that and end these unnecessary wars of choice so that we can once more enjoy the peace dividend
Click to expand...

Agreed, they should never have been started. Especially without a source of funding other than robbing the SS funds and National debt.
 
The Prof said:
how's libya these days, libs?
Click to expand...

Same as it was, a NATO action that Congress supports, otherwise they would have taken a vote against it.
 
oh, absolutely, libya is HARRY REID'S WAR

LOL!

live it

party on, peaceniks

and CUT that social security, now

deep

think andrew cuomo, jerry brown...
 
haymarket said:
93% of Americans are currently taxed on 100% of their income for FICA. All need to be.

cpwill - your comment ignores the reality that nearly everyone who suggests popping the cap also couples it a benefit freeze at todays levels plus inflation.
Click to expand...

:shrug: which is reducing expenditures which I agree will have to happen. but only popping the cap get's you the damage of increased taxes without the benefit of a solvent entitlement.
 
The Barbarian said:
and just like I said .. the very first solution to every problem by the liberals is to tax more .. and if that don't fix it .. why tax some more ...that's why I find it hard to discuss anything with liberals .. they have NO other fixes .. and anyone that does it nuts ..
Click to expand...

Do you ever post anything other than your opinions?
 
Quote cpwill

then i don't know what you're reading, but it's crap.
Click to expand...

Most working people have seen their wages go in reverse during the great bush recession,they don’t have a snowballs chance in hell of reaching the cap anyway. Those who do reach the cap can easily afford to cough up the dough because they are the only ones that have seen an increase in wages.


even the AARP is now admitting that there is no way to tax our way to paying for Social Security, and expenditures will have to be reduced.
Click to expand...

As a proud dues paying member of "the AARP", I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to show me where they said “that there is no way to tax our way to paying for Social Security “.:2wave:


especially since benefits are built in "contributions" which means that the more you take in in taxes, the more you owe out in benefits. you aren't fixing the problem, you're just making the numbers (somewhat) bigger.
Click to expand...


They used the money and left a pile of IOU.s .A friggen deb,t is a debt, be it to China, Saudi Arabia,Japan.....In this case the promise was made.In some cases a half century ago; now your OK with wanting to to renege on A promise to our seniors(who paid the into SS their whole working lives ).:(


Your ok with paying debts that we borrowed as long as we don’t to increase the tax load of the people that have seen their wages ACTUALLY INCREASE during the recession.

Gotta keep them subsides for them oil companies rolling in, otherwise they wont be able to claim the title of the most profitable CORPS. On this little speck of dust in the cosmos that we call planet earth. :roll:


Actually, I think that if they would lower the that would entice more of us geezers to retire earlier and make many more good paying jobs available for younger folk.:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom