Social Security - your thoughts?

#776
#776
hog88 said:
When this was killed I was probably younger than you are now.

ND40, yeah he was already an old fart but still.....
Click to expand...
lol I remember it. I was in my 30’s. And yeah I wanted to see reform at that time. We’ve kicked the can so far down the road that now I think the final result of fund insolvency is unavoidable
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#777
#777
hog88 said:
When this was killed I was probably younger than you are now.

ND40, yeah he was already an old fart but still.....
Click to expand...
Correction I’d just entered my 40’s. It was in his second term.

www.brookings.edu

Why the 2005 Social Security Initiative Failed, and What it Means for the Future | Brookings

President Bush made Social Security reform his top domestic priority in 2004. In this paper, Brookings's William Galston examines why the president's proposal failed and the politics of Social Security reform.
www.brookings.edu www.brookings.edu
 
#778
#778
NorthDallas40 said:
Correction I’d just entered my 40’s. It was in his second term.

www.brookings.edu

Why the 2005 Social Security Initiative Failed, and What it Means for the Future | Brookings

President Bush made Social Security reform his top domestic priority in 2004. In this paper, Brookings's William Galston examines why the president's proposal failed and the politics of Social Security reform.
www.brookings.edu www.brookings.edu
Click to expand...

Remember it well, and it’s still a clusterf*** that needs to be dealt with in a serious and well meaning manner. Fkg government can’t do anything right!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, Vol since 77, Vol737 and 2 others
#779
#779
NorthDallas40 said:
lol I remember it. I was in my 30’s. And yeah I wanted to see reform at that time. We’ve kicked the can so far down the road that now I think the final result of fund insolvency is unavoidable
Click to expand...

Its potential outcome of insolvency is the primary reason I invested in land. Acreage is my one true friend in this environment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, Vol737, GroverCleveland and 1 other person
#781
#781
hog88 said:
Nah, they'll just keep manufacturing funny money to keep it going.
Click to expand...
You’re likely right. Once they are at the point where they can’t fund all of the fixed obligations without also servicing their special interests we’re gonna start hearing about AOC’s $10T(?) coin being minted again. This time coming from the GOP. Good times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#782
#782
NorthDallas40 said:
You’re likely right. Once they are at the point where they can’t fund all of the fixed obligations without also servicing their special interests we’re gonna start hearing about AOC’s $10T(?) coin being minted again. This time coming from the GOP. Good times.
Click to expand...
I cant wait to have a $1M coin in my pocket.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SuzyVol, hog88 and NorthDallas40
#785
#785
marcusluvsvols said:
This is true and criminal. My Dad made good money and retired a full bird Colonel after 26 years, then made more per year in the private sector by far than USAF. Paid into SS his entire life. Drew from it and pension for about 2 years before he died. All his siblings have died in their 60s and there were 11 counting him. I have also paid in for my entire life and will likely never draw a dime. I would have to live about 18years after this heart attack AND be retired which I will never have enough money to do. SS is a terrible ponzi scheme and a POS.

What's worse to me and most people dont realize is that by constantly printing more and more money, the government has eroded away the value of every dollar we have all saved for retirement or any other purpose. Between printing dollars until they have probably half the purchasing power of the 80s or 90s, and yearly inflation devaluing our currency even more, it's become very hard to actually build wealth. Especially during the Biden administration when the real undoctored inflation rate probably outpaced my 401ks growth year over year all by itself.

Until I start this new job next month I am living off of my former 401k which is now an IRA...and having to pay 34% to the government on my own money before I see it. 30% fed and 4% to NC. I have never hated the government as much as I do now.
Click to expand...
IRMAA is even worse. It is insidious, it is theft and eventually it will get everyone.
 
#788
#788
LouderVol said:
where in my post do I say you "owe me" anything? is asking not to be screwed a favor? Do we need justification to end something that never worked? just because people believed the lies about a Ponzi scheme is not reason to keep it going.

I have posted my stance multiple times. SS needs to offer an opt out. It would be a win for 90% of contributors even if they just split the difference. government takes the 6.2% from the employer, let those who opt out keep the 6.2% employee contribution.

another option would be to transition to a publicly mandated, but privately owned, 401k. some percentage of the SS tax is socialised for everyone under some pay bracket, and directly contribute over the percentage back into accounts that pay more than the socialized requirement. at least then the money has a chance to grow and congress can't get their hands into it.

heck, rewrite the SS laws so that it is an actual trust fund, instead of a bunch of IOUs the government can never pay.

I know its not an issue for you, being without children; but at some point someone is going to contribute for 40 years and not get anything. my generation is going to contribute for 40 years, and AT BEST get 60% what you will get. and it will only get worse. better option than doing nothing would be to start the transition, and the only way to do that is to get your generation from flipping their lids anytime SS gets brought up as anything beyond a perfect system.
Click to expand...
Agree with this. Just to be sure, I would not be willing to kick those are retired/near retirements to the side and break a social contract with them. Part of that is self interest, I'm within sight of it and I've been paying for over 40 years for the previous generations. With all due respect, by gosh I'm owed something.

So, I think getting the government out of it period is a great idea. It will have to be transitioned and that is going to be very expensive. We're going to print a lot of money.

Just curious, were you old enough to recall when Bush proposed pretty much what you have suggested and got excoriated for it by the "other side?" Pretty much along the lines of 'how dare anyone suggest any changes to Social Security!'

PS - I tried to opt out when I was in my early 20s and found out there were only a couple of exceptions that allowed that, none of which I was eligible for.
 
#789
#789
NorthDallas40 said:
lol I remember it. I was in my 30’s. And yeah I wanted to see reform at that time. We’ve kicked the can so far down the road that now I think the final result of fund insolvency is unavoidable
Click to expand...
You're a few years younger than me, I was in my 40s and thought it was a phenomenal idea. Probably the best idea he had.
 
#790
#790
I've read some studies in years past that in terms of wealth transference, Social Security transfers money from blacks and white men to white women because of the average life expectancy.
 
#791
#791
GroverCleveland said:
Agree with this. Just to be sure, I would not be willing to kick those are retired/near retirements to the side and break a social contract with them. Part of that is self interest, I'm within sight of it and I've been paying for over 40 years for the previous generations. With all due respect, by gosh I'm owed something.

So, I think getting the government out of it period is a great idea. It will have to be transitioned and that is going to be very expensive. We're going to print a lot of money.

Just curious, were you old enough to recall when Bush proposed pretty much what you have suggested and got excoriated for it by the "other side?" Pretty much along the lines of 'how dare anyone suggest any changes to Social Security!'

PS - I tried to opt out when I was in my early 20s and found out there were only a couple of exceptions that allowed that, none of which I was eligible for.
Click to expand...
I was around when it happened, but I wasn't paying attention.

the paying into it for 40 years argument falls flat with me. because your expectation to get something out of 40 years, requires that I get nothing out of 40 years. If I want to get my 40 years back, the next generation doesn't get any. I already know I won't get my 40+ years back, what YOU are afraid of, is my reality.

I am 20 years in, so its not like I don't have any skin in the game.
 
#792
#792
LouderVol said:
I was around when it happened, but I wasn't paying attention.

the paying into it for 40 years argument falls flat with me. because your expectation to get something out of 40 years, requires that I get nothing out of 40 years. If I want to get my 40 years back, the next generation doesn't get any. I already know I won't get my 40+ years back, what YOU are afraid of, is my reality.

I am 20 years in, so its not like I don't have any skin in the game.
Click to expand...
We're getting nothing back. It is a tax that funds the current payouts. The surplus was used to fund budget shortfalls in the regular budget.

The debate is whether the social contract that exists (one pays for the current retirees understanding they will be paid accordingly in the future) is going to be ripped up and abrogated. That will not go over well.

I do not disagree with you. I HATE the system and the politicians who have continued to foster this on the population. Although I'm in my 60's I would consider opting out IF I could keep my expected contributions AND employer matching tax free for the next five years to put into an account.

To get out of this is going to be expensive. What Bush proposed should have been implemented and a bigger mess resulted from doing nothing. Would be interesting what the thoughts are of any of the leftists on here about that plan. My surprise level would be zero if they disagreed with it. There would be reasons, but the most likely real reason is, well, you know, Bush.
 
#793
#793
lawgator1 said:
Good question.

But we know that the Republicans have been overstating the amount of actual fraud that goes on in. Social Seurity to try to justify cuts or restrictions. I don't think it's right to simply refer to lagging computer systems, which are not caught up on death notifications or otherwise recording them and saying that that means that there is massive actual fraud.

I am sure there is some. I'm just saying that I am skeptical that it is nearly at the level that the Republicans claim. This is similar in my view to the issue of the transgender athletes.I just don't think that is a very common problem.But the republicans make it seem like it's some sort of national crisis, overwhelming athletic competitions, and that's just not true
Click to expand...
You think all of that. But you are a lefty and you have faith in government.
 
#795
#795
SpaceCoastVol said:
Wow. Not one response. Tells me all I need to know about how successfully it has been implemented on an unsuspecting public.
Click to expand...
Actually I’ll be impacted by IRMAA however it will still be over 800 bucks cheaper a month than my current retiree healthcare. Yes it’s wealth redistribution but it isn’t anywhere near the hit that the social security payout for high income earners is I think. Which is a much larger wealth redistribution
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#799
#799
more corruption and foolishness of the social security system:

Social Security borrows money to re-pay borrowed money

1. What happens with the surplus tax money the SSA takes in;
  • For decades (roughly 1983–2020), Social Security collected more in payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits. These annual surpluses (hundreds of billions over time) were not set aside in a bank account or invested in stocks.
  • By law, the surpluses were lent to the U.S. Treasury (the "general fund" side of the government). In exchange, the Treasury issued special non-marketable Treasury bonds to the Social Security trust funds.
  • The Treasury then spent that cash on other government programs, tax cuts, wars, infrastructure, etc. In budget terms, the SS surpluses reduced the amount the government had to borrow from the public (investors, foreign governments, etc.) during those years.
So yes — the government effectively borrowed those excess payroll taxes from current and future Social Security participants. The Treasury gives the SSA bonds in place of the borrowed surplus taxes, so those bonds represent IOUs, money the gov't borrowed.

2. What happens now when SSA needs to "cash out" $50 billion in bonds (IOUs) in order to pay beneficiaries?
  • Social Security is now running annual cash deficits (benefits + admin costs > payroll taxes + other income). So for example, when SSA needs an extra $50 billion this year to pay beneficiaries...
  • The SSA redeems $50 billion worth of those special Treasury bonds from the trust fund.
  • The Treasury has to pay that $50 billion in real cash to SSA so benefits can be sent out.
  • Where does the Treasury get the cash?
    • It cannot just print it or pull it from a magic pile.
    • It draws from the general fund (all other federal revenues and borrowing).
    • But the general fund is deeply in the red — running trillion-dollar deficits every year (often $1.5–2 trillion+ recently).
    • So, to come up with the $50 billion (and everything else), the Treasury issues new Treasury bonds/securities and sells them to the public (investors, pension funds, China, etc.)...the Treasury has to borrow the $50 billion to pay back SSA for the $50 billion the SSA loaned to the Treasury years ago.
In short: The $50 billion going to Social Security is financed by new borrowing from the public.

3. The bottom line —
  • The government is using borrowed money (new debt sold to investors) to repay the old borrowed money (the payroll-tax surpluses it spent decades ago).
  • It's like taking out a new credit card to pay off the old one.
  • This doesn't "create" extra debt in the total federal debt sense (intragovernmental debt to SS goes down, debt held by the public goes up by roughly the same amount), but it does shift the burden onto future taxpayers and increases the publicly held national debt.
This is not some conspiracy — it's just how the unified federal budget works. Sources across the spectrum (Congressional Research Service, SSA itself, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Cato Institute, etc.) all describe it the same way.

The trust fund bonds are real legal obligations (IOUs) backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government — they've always been honored. But the cash to honor them ultimately comes from the same place as everything else when the government is running big deficits: new borrowing.

The $50 billion example is a perfect microcosm of the larger issue. When the trust funds are fully depleted (projected around 2034 under current law), the dynamic gets even starker — benefits would drop to ~75–80% of scheduled levels unless Congress acts, because there's no more bonds left to redeem. But the borrowing-to-pay-back-borrowing pattern has already been happening for several years.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol and Volnanza
#800
#800
jmacvols1 said:
more corruption and foolishness of the social security system:

Social Security borrows money to re-pay borrowed money

1. What happens with the surplus tax money the SSA takes in;
  • For decades (roughly 1983–2020), Social Security collected more in payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits. These annual surpluses (hundreds of billions over time) were not set aside in a bank account or invested in stocks.
  • By law, the surpluses were lent to the U.S. Treasury (the "general fund" side of the government). In exchange, the Treasury issued special non-marketable Treasury bonds to the Social Security trust funds.
  • The Treasury then spent that cash on other government programs, tax cuts, wars, infrastructure, etc. In budget terms, the SS surpluses reduced the amount the government had to borrow from the public (investors, foreign governments, etc.) during those years.
So yes — the government effectively borrowed those excess payroll taxes from current and future Social Security participants. The Treasury gives the SSA bonds in place of the borrowed surplus taxes, so those bonds represent IOUs, money the gov't borrowed.

2. What happens now when SSA needs to "cash out" $50 billion in bonds (IOUs) in order to pay beneficiaries?
  • Social Security is now running annual cash deficits (benefits + admin costs > payroll taxes + other income). So for example, when SSA needs an extra $50 billion this year to pay beneficiaries...
  • The SSA redeems $50 billion worth of those special Treasury bonds from the trust fund.
  • The Treasury has to pay that $50 billion in real cash to SSA so benefits can be sent out.
  • Where does the Treasury get the cash?
    • It cannot just print it or pull it from a magic pile.
    • It draws from the general fund (all other federal revenues and borrowing).
    • But the general fund is deeply in the red — running trillion-dollar deficits every year (often $1.5–2 trillion+ recently).
    • So, to come up with the $50 billion (and everything else), the Treasury issues new Treasury bonds/securities and sells them to the public (investors, pension funds, China, etc.)...the Treasury has to borrow the $50 billion to pay back SSA for the $50 billion the SSA loaned to the Treasury years ago.
In short: The $50 billion going to Social Security is financed by new borrowing from the public.

3. The bottom line —
  • The government is using borrowed money (new debt sold to investors) to repay the old borrowed money (the payroll-tax surpluses it spent decades ago).
  • It's like taking out a new credit card to pay off the old one.
  • This doesn't "create" extra debt in the total federal debt sense (intragovernmental debt to SS goes down, debt held by the public goes up by roughly the same amount), but it does shift the burden onto future taxpayers and increases the publicly held national debt.
This is not some conspiracy — it's just how the unified federal budget works. Sources across the spectrum (Congressional Research Service, SSA itself, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Cato Institute, etc.) all describe it the same way.

The trust fund bonds are real legal obligations (IOUs) backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government — they've always been honored. But the cash to honor them ultimately comes from the same place as everything else when the government is running big deficits: new borrowing.

The $50 billion example is a perfect microcosm of the larger issue. When the trust funds are fully depleted (projected around 2034 under current law), the dynamic gets even starker — benefits would drop to ~75–80% of scheduled levels unless Congress acts, because there's no more bonds left to redeem. But the borrowing-to-pay-back-borrowing pattern has already been happening for several years.
Click to expand...
Good read. Reducing it to a personal level, it's like paying off your credit card with another credit card. Anyone that does that is usually in real bad financial shape. The same can be said for the country. And still, we can't get congress to address the problem, they just kick the can down the road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: walkenvol and jmacvols1
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top