• 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!

Social Security To Go Bust By 2030: CBO

Yeah, like when I go to mcdonalds and give them cash, and I get a free lunch!

Actually it is more like you go to mcdonalds and tell them that you want a hamburger today because you bought one for your dad 30 years ago.
 
Social security changes don't need to be drastic if you just do it broadly. Removing the income cap is a good one, increase the retirement age a little, half a percent increase in FICA or something, etc. people just live a lot longer than they used to, and have fewer children.
 
Facts don't matter is what you are saying.

The last time we ran this discussion. It was just eliminate the cap and it is fixed. Then it was no... It is solvent. Then it was no... It is 77% of solvent. Then it was no... if we eliminate the cap and cap benefits of someone who was a high wage worker (mind you this person now may be penniless) it is 80% solvent. And no matter how many times you are wrong you follow it up with well it is better than what we have today. You don't really care about Social Security. You just want to throw other people's money at the problem.

Never said that. What I said is that there is a difference of opinion on the numbers. I also said that even if we use YOUR OWN EXPERTS NUMBERS - my fix still gets us the lions share of the way there.

Attacking and demonizing and distorting my position does not change that.
 
I remember when people were saying that Social Security would be bankrupt by 1975. The problem is that social security taxes are sent to the general treasury fund like all other taxes and Social Security payments are made from the general fund like all other payments. There isn't anything to go bankrupt other than the government itself and I suspect that it will take about 20 years for that to happen.
 
I have to guess that you picked 16% out of a hat.
Uh, did you not read your own source?

Considering the two trust funds together, to bring the OASDI program as a whole into actuarial balance through 2087 with the taxable maximum set according to current law (labeled Option 1 in Tables 1 and 2), the combined OASDI payroll tax rate could be
permanently increased by about 3.5 percentage points, by CBO’s estimate. Under that option, the combined OASDI payroll tax rate would rise from 12.4 percent to 15.9 percent in 2015.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45519-QFR_Hatch.pdf

So, no, it wasn't out of a hat, it was based on your source. You know, the one you used to create the misleading headline.

We shouldn't pretend that we have any idea where Social Security is going regardless of what the headline says.
:lol:

So when you want to push the narrative that SS is going bust it's okay to use the CBO's numbers, but when it comes time to play the hypothetical scenario game, suddenly the CBO's numbers aren't good enough?

You are basically suggesting that future voters are going to be more willing to pay taxes that we wouldn't.
No, I'm telling you that claiming a pay as you go system is going bust is false and pushes a false narrative toward people who don't seem to understand how Social Security works. You shouldn't do that. You should educate, not spread FUD.
 
The Ponzi scheme has been dead for nearly 50 years. People born in 1960 expect to get less back from SS than they contribute. If the ratio is the problem, why did SS reach insolvency in 1983? Who are you talking about when you say that people have been added?

SSDI etc ... there are people that are pulling out of the ss fund that never contributed.
it isn't dead it still continues on.

not to mention that the government owes the SS fund trillions of dollars. I know where the bonds are held as well. they are useless to anyone but the SS fund but if need be the fund could start cashing in those bonds. that could create bigger issues.

which is the other issue the government keeps borrowing against the SS fund.
 
which is the other issue the government keeps borrowing against the SS fund.
Would you rather the government not borrow against the fund and let the money sit there and fall victim to inflation? How much do you think the Trust Fund would be worth then?
 
Compare that with food stamps.

Both are systems I pay for and could some day draw benefits from. A delay in benefits doesn't change the fact that I paid for them.
 
I remember when people were saying that Social Security would be bankrupt by 1975. The problem is that social security taxes are sent to the general treasury fund like all other taxes and Social Security payments are made from the general fund like all other payments. There isn't anything to go bankrupt other than the government itself and I suspect that it will take about 20 years for that to happen.

To refresh your memory, Social Security reached insolvency in 1983 - so the people who warned you in 1975 were right. In 1983, the system borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars in order to pay full benefits, and taxes were raised.

You have some fact problems here. Social Security revenue is used to pay benefits, not sent to the 'general fund'. Excess SS cash (which there hasn't been since 2009) is invested in government securities JUST LIKE private pensions. In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled that SS benefits are not contractual obligations of the government. Social Security can crash, and the government has no obligation to pay any benefits.
 
Would you rather the government not borrow against the fund and let the money sit there and fall victim to inflation? How much do you think the Trust Fund would be worth then?

as long as the interest earned on the fund outpaces inflation the fund is fine.
the government borrowing from the fund means it has to be paid back. it also means there is less in the fund to earn interest on.
 
SSDI etc ... there are people that are pulling out of the ss fund that never contributed.
it isn't dead it still continues on.

not to mention that the government owes the SS fund trillions of dollars. I know where the bonds are held as well. they are useless to anyone but the SS fund but if need be the fund could start cashing in those bonds. that could create bigger issues.

which is the other issue the government keeps borrowing against the SS fund.

SSDI pulls from the SS-Disability system. It is a minor system compared to the OAS system. OAS could subsidize the DI's shortfall for roughly 20 years, and only lose 1 year of solvency for retirees.

Everyone knows that the government owes SS money. The problem is that 2.8 trillion sounds like a lot until it is compared to the outflow of the system. It is basically economic parsley.
 
which is the other issue the government keeps borrowing against the SS fund.


The government hasn't borrowed a penny from Social Security since 2009, when the system stopped generating excess cash.
 
as long as the interest earned on the fund outpaces inflation the fund is fine.
the government borrowing from the fund means it has to be paid back. it also means there is less in the fund to earn interest on.

There is no fund.
 
Both are systems I pay for and could some day draw benefits from. A delay in benefits doesn't change the fact that I paid for them.

Can't you survive without free lunch like we do?
 
Uh, did you not read your own source?


http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45519-QFR_Hatch.pdf

So, no, it wasn't out of a hat, it was based on your source. You know, the one you used to create the misleading headline.

:lol:

So when you want to push the narrative that SS is going bust it's okay to use the CBO's numbers, but when it comes time to play the hypothetical scenario game, suddenly the CBO's numbers aren't good enough?

No, I'm telling you that claiming a pay as you go system is going bust is false and pushes a false narrative toward people who don't seem to understand how Social Security works. You shouldn't do that. You should educate, not spread FUD.

Actually I did, and I was afraid that is where you pulled your number from. The 16% payroll tax rate is what it would cost to preserve SS which has nothing to do with what people would have to pay to support their parents absent SS. Absent SS, no one is paying 16% of wages to support their parents. Parents will move in with them for example. You seem to think that Social Security is efficient. Doh!
 
as long as the interest earned on the fund outpaces inflation the fund is fine.
...how do you think the fund earns interest? The fund earns interest by being borrowed against by the government. Otherwise it's just sitting there doing nothing. Interest doesn't magically happen, you know.

the government borrowing from the fund means it has to be paid back.
Yes, and it's being paid back with interest, which keeps the fund from falling victim to inflation. This isn't hard to understand.

it also means there is less in the fund to earn interest on.
Again...where is the fund earning interest just sitting there? The fund doesn't collect interest by itself (how could it?), it's just money sitting in a piggy bank.
 
Actually I did, and I was afraid that is where you pulled your number from. The 16% payroll tax rate is what it would cost to preserve SS which has nothing to do with what people would have to pay to support their parents absent SS. Absent SS, no one is paying 16% of wages to support their parents. Parents will move in with them for example. You seem to think that Social Security is efficient. Doh!
Holy red herring Batman!

Please stay on topic. First you created a misleading headline. Then, when given a factual number from the CBO on how to keep the Trust Fund funded for the next ~75 years, you go off on random tangents about parents.

The fact of the matter is Social Security is not going bust. It's a pay as you go system. The trust fund could be made solvent until 2087 (under current law) by raising payroll taxes to 16%. I have no idea whether people would accept that or not, but that wasn't the point. The point was you created a hypothetical scenario and I countered with an equally possible hypothetical scenario. To create my hypothetical scenario, I used actual numbers from the CBO, which you seemed to think I pulled out of a hat. And to counter this, you went off on a red herring.

Please discuss this without hyperbole. That's all I'm asking.
 
Great. Just great. That's the year after I can start drawing - of course.

And six years into my draw. SSI I think may have a lot to do with it. Howdy Beau!
 
Im gonna get hated for saying this but I hope it happens sooner so that it can be brought up right in the open. The sooner it gets addressed seriously by people willing to antagonize retirees the better because its a ticking timebomb and can no longer be put off.

Actually not a bad point. Ron Paul argued similar with regard to artificially propping up the economy delaying the inevitable and ensuring it be more painful.
 
Both of these are true, and there is no credible person who believes that the money will not be repaid with interest. If it isn't, the date of insolvency is pushed forward to the day on which the Trust Fund stops functioning. If the government doesn't repay bonds today with interest... Benefits are immediately cut.



You need to explain your point. The government has to repay debt 2.8 trillion to Social Security just like it has to repay debt to China. The govt will have to issue MORE debt to pay back the bonds held by China. So I do not understand your point.

the point, there is NO trust fund because it has been spent by congress. that 2.8 trillion dollars spent by congress from the SS trust fund is part of the national debt. its called Intragovernmental Holdings.

Government - Frequently Asked Questions about the Public Debt

there is NO doubt the government will honor all of its debts.
 
Though I disagree with Joe on the idea that Social Security is some sort of boondoggle, I do want to state what should be obvious: We need to make some changes to Social Security.

For those who are curious how their particular "soup ingredients" would work, here's a calculator to show the effects of some (but not all) plan changes:

The Reformer: An Interactive Tool to Fix Social Security
 
Back
Top Bottom