• 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!

What Happens To The Soc. Sec. Money Of People That Die Before Collecting?

Vern said:
Your post makes no sense. Reagan raised it to 67 and the current GOP is discussing raising it to 69. Whether or not "It's talked about every couple of years" doesn't change the facts I posted. I can only guess you think if you post "No" it magically changes the facts. And the facts that you seem to be trying to change is that its Reagan who raised the retirement age and its the republicans discussing doing it again.

The chairman of the House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee, Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, has introduced legislation to make changes in Social Security, including raising the retirement age.
The Social Security Reform Act of 2016 would gradually update the full retirement age at which workers can claim benefits. It would raise the age to 69 for those who qualify for "early retirement age" after Dec. 31, 2029.

https://www.accountingtoday.com/news/new-legislation-would-raise-retirement-age-to-69
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to change the facts. Yeah, I know it was changed. What I'm saying is that it is discussed by both parties over the years.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
And that is not quite true.

SS money that earns interest is considered "overage", and it earns this interest by buying government bonds. By law, this fund overage must be invested, which means that if people are paying into the SS fund over and above what the fund is currently using (which is the case right now), this overage is transfered the the federal government by way of intragovernmental debt. The government takes that money, spends it however it wants, and gives the SS Trust Fund an IOU.

So, yes, the fund is owed a certain amount of money, plus interest... by the federal government, i.e. the taxpayers. Since the government runs in the red every single year (including the Clinton years, by this very mechanic), one could view the SS Trust Fund as insolvent.

What happens when more are withdrawing from the fund than contributing to it? Why, the fund has to cash bin those bonds, putting the taxpayer on the hook for the wild increase in deficit spending.
Click to expand...

No, the taxpayer is not on the hook and never has been. If it were true that deficit spending resulted in taxpayers being "on the hook" for the money, then taxpayers would, as a whole, have to pay more in taxes than they receive back from the govt. And that reveals the flaw in your "logic" because we have *always* run deficits and taxpayers (as a whole) have *never* had to pay more in taxes than they received back from the govt.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That looks good on paper but if one pays more interest than they earn then interest is still a net expense. Earning $20 of interest on a savings account does not make much sense if you are paying $400 of interest on credit card debt.
Click to expand...

That bears exactly zero relation to SS and fails as an analogy.
 
Eric7216 said:
Yeah, maybe a little of it. During those "surplus" years at the end of Clinton administration the baby boomers were putting a lot into SS and SS receipts exceeded SS expenses. Unfortunately the government spent all of that. We never had a surplus during those years as government just tapped into those SS funds. Total debt when up every year as we "borrowed" on the SS credit card instead of the China credit card.
Click to expand...

Actually, SS revenues exceeded SS expenses for nearly every single year in the last several decades. Those SS surpluses helped finance the deficit. It is only in relatively recent times that the SS expenses exceeds SS receipts.

And while total debt went up every year, a portion of it represented debt the USG owed to itself (for borrowing the money from SS). IOW, the debt the USG owed to those who are not the USG did not go up one penny because of borrowing from the SS fund.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That looks good on paper but if one pays more interest than they earn then interest is still a net expense. Earning $20 of interest on a savings account does not make much sense if you are paying $400 of interest on credit card debt.
Click to expand...

But it's the government that is earning the interest, and it's the government that's paying the interest. It's like you moving a twenty from your left pocket to your right pocket.
 
sangha said:
No, the taxpayer is not on the hook and never has been. If it were true that deficit spending resulted in taxpayers being "on the hook" for the money, then taxpayers would, as a whole, have to pay more in taxes than they receive back from the govt. And that reveals the flaw in your "logic" because we have *always* run deficits and taxpayers (as a whole) have *never* had to pay more in taxes than they received back from the govt.
Click to expand...

As long as we run a deficit, this can be said, but it kind of sweeps under the rug the fact that all sorts of regressive ways of taxing and spending to continue on. Social Security is an example.
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian said:
As long as we run a deficit, this can be said, but it kind of sweeps under the rug the fact that all sorts of regressive ways of taxing and spending to continue on. Social Security is an example.
Click to expand...

IOW, even you know your claim about taxpayers being "on the hook" was BS but instead of doing the honest thing and admitting it, you will try to divert attention from your failed argument by whining about the govt
 
sangha said:
IOW, even you know your claim about taxpayers being "on the hook" was BS but instead of doing the honest thing and admitting it, you will try to divert attention from your failed argument by whining about the govt
Click to expand...

Refresh my memory as to where I made an argument around "the taxpayer is on the hook."

I'm just saying Social Security is regressive, both in the way it taxes as well as the way it dishes out benefits. Kind of puzzles me why so many liberals argue in staunch defense of it.
 
Last edited:
joG said:
it is annoying to have someone tell you rudely that you should 'prove' general knowledge in an area of your profession.
Click to expand...

This is a debate forum. If you are unwilling or uncomfortable supporting your statements... why are you even here? Nobody gives two ****s what you claim to be IRL.

So, Have you ever done the calculations?
Click to expand...

What calculations? You made a claim that S.S. is a ponzi scheme. Do tell how calculations exemplify the scheme!

The only thing redeeming the American vs most other countries' pension systems is that the payments are no longer considered to be guaranteed so that government can reduce them, when USSC becomes too expensive. But this has been known for decades and there is plenty of long and precise literature on it and we are already seeing the drama unfold albeit in the slow motion demographics prescribe.
Click to expand...

Once again, you bring nothing.
 
austrianecon said:
Kush, I am saying the whole system is a ponzi scheme. As in how run the whole system. We borrow from the future to pay for the now. That's all.
Click to expand...

A ponzi scheme is based on investment... not tax liabilities.
 
austrianecon said:
Kush, I am saying the whole system is a ponzi scheme. As in how run the whole system. We borrow from the future to pay for the now. That's all.
Click to expand...

No mention of thievery in the form of a fiat monetary system? How disappointing!
 
sangha said:
No, the taxpayer is not on the hook and never has been. If it were true that deficit spending resulted in taxpayers being "on the hook" for the money, then taxpayers would, as a whole, have to pay more in taxes than they receive back from the govt. And that reveals the flaw in your "logic" because we have *always* run deficits and taxpayers (as a whole) have *never* had to pay more in taxes than they received back from the govt.
Click to expand...

If deficits don't really matter, as Dick Chaney famously said, then why doesn't the government cure poverty by issuing a basic income of $100,000 per year per individual? Why not $1,000,000? And why stop at just the US? Why not cure global poverty the same way, and include all 7+ billion people?

Do deficits never really matter? Or do they matter after a point (and if so, where is that point)?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
If deficits don't really matter, as Dick Chaney famously said, then why doesn't the government cure poverty by issuing a basic income of $100,000 per year per individual? Why not $1,000,000? And why stop at just the US? Why not cure global poverty the same way, and include all 7+ billion people?

Do deficits never really matter? Or do they matter after a point (and if so, where is that point)?
Click to expand...

Why not $100K per person, per year? Because demand would overcome the economy's ability to meet demand. I must have said this at least a dozen times. To you, directly.

Why doesn't the government spend more to cure poverty? Because the voting public's ignorance of the subject makes it politically untenable.
 
I know quite a few people who paid into SS while working private jobs. They never earned the 40 quarters required as a minimum for SS. They went to work for the Feds under the old CSRS retirement system. While under CSRS no social security was withheld. The pension they receive comes from CSRS. The money they paid into SS while working the private sector will never be recouped. It seems SS does not allow being repaid what you put in, even though the person will never draw SS.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Why not $100K per person, per year? Because demand would overcome the economy's ability to meet demand. I must have said this at least a dozen times. To you, directly.

Why doesn't the government spend more to cure poverty? Because the voting public's ignorance of the subject makes it politically untenable.
Click to expand...

Curing poverty is like the war on drugs. There will always be poverty and there will always be a drug abuse problem. No matter how much money is thrown at either issue.

Some people just cannot be helped and money is not the answer.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
If deficits don't really matter, as Dick Chaney famously said, then why doesn't the government cure poverty by issuing a basic income of $100,000 per year per individual? Why not $1,000,000? And why stop at just the US? Why not cure global poverty the same way, and include all 7+ billion people?

Do deficits never really matter? Or do they matter after a point (and if so, where is that point)?
Click to expand...

You were totally pwned over your inane argument about debt, so instead of manning up and admitting you were mistaken, you are going to try to divert attention from your failure with a different inane rant.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Why not $100K per person, per year? Because demand would overcome the economy's ability to meet demand. I must have said this at least a dozen times. To you, directly.

Why doesn't the government spend more to cure poverty? Because the voting public's ignorance of the subject makes it politically untenable.
Click to expand...

So what happens when demand overcomes the ability to meet demand? Let's walk through this, step by step.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom