Correct. In an earlier "crisis" - "Saint" Reagan made SS solvent for a longer time by raising the salary cap for contributions - Just eliminate the cap - the rich can contribute every paycheck same as the poor do.
I'm curious why you insert the words "unemployment benefit dollar" when unemployment benefits are the result of a funding mechanism, and applied to those who have become unemployed. A great many more dollars are put into the hands of a great many more persons who have contributed little or nothing at all. Is it really economic growth or simply preventing deflation? Are there enough jobs available for all who need them? Perhaps we should give population growth some attention? So we're just awaiting WWIII? Could we get back to 'fixing' Social Security now?
I guess if you instinctively know discussing a particular subject is risky for your ideology, you can complicate it to the point of rendering it unappealing for discussion. No, we're waiting for The Second New Deal.
As I asked, "Could we get back to 'fixing' Social Security now?" No, we're waiting for The Second New Deal.[/QUOTE] If only all those waiting would just hold their breath until it happens.
Congress passes it, the president signs it and when challenged the SC reviews and decides its constitutionality. Same process as Obamacare. IMO, it is ridiculous to establish a program under one presence, then change it to another without review to its constitutionality. It would likely pass since the country is a socialist cesspool anyway.
2016 Social Security OASI Revenue collection: Payroll taxes $678.8 Billion Taxes on OASDI benefits $31.6 Billion Interest earnings $87.0 Billion General fund reimbursements $0.1 Billion Total $797.5 Billion OASI costs: Benefit payments $768.6 Billion Railroad Retirement financial interchange $4.3 Billion Administrative expenses $3.4 Billion Total $776.4 Billion Essentially SS had cost $97.6 billion more than the tax revenue it collected. This is offset by the benefit taxes and interest earned on the past surplus resulting in a $21.1 billion excess which is spent by government increasing the principle amount upon which interest is paid from the general tax fund.
But it is NOT "paid from the general tax fund". First, we have to answer whether the listed expenditures are legitimate or not.
Why must it be all or nothing? Why is a private retirement account your only solution? How about changing the FICA rates? How about changing the FICA caps? Do you expect in the future the ratio of recipients to FICA contributors will change? For those who put all of their faith in Trump since he promised to 'hugely' increase the economy this alone should make it easier to fund FICA...
n 2017, the projected difference between Social Security's expenditures and dedicated tax income is $27 billion. The Trustees anticipate a small surplus of $3 billion in non-interest income for the HI program.2The projected general revenue demands of SMI are $287 billion. Thus, the total general revenue requirements for Social Security and Medicare in 2017 are $311 billion, or 1.6 percent of GDP. Redemption of trust fund bonds, interest paid on those bonds, and general revenue transfers provide no new net income to the Treasury. When the unified budget is not in surplus, these payments are made through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public. Each of these trust funds' operations will contribute increasing amounts to Federal unified budget deficits in future years as trust fund bonds are redeemed. Until 2029, interest earnings and asset redemptions, financed from general revenues, will cover the shortfall of HI tax and premium revenues relative to expenditures. In addition, general revenues must cover similar payments as a result of growing OASDI bond redemption and interest payments through 2034 as the trust fund is drawn down. If full benefits are to be maintained for both Social Security and Medicare, by 2040 the combined OASDI and HI financing gap plus SMI's projected general revenue demands will equal 4.2 percent of GDP-more than double the 2017 share. General revenues are paid by current taxpayers. Future taxpayers will be shouldering a heavier load either through higher employment taxes or higher tax rates. Each generation is being taxed more to maintain these programs. OASDI bonds are just iou's that have to be covered by borrowing or higher taxes. https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
Changing the FICA rates and caps is a forced redistribution solution. It puts more burden on future Americans to pay for poor planning in the past. Private accounts eliminate forced redistribution from generation to generation. It also allows Americans to built personal wealth.
The expenditures, 1. Benefit payments $768.6 Billion 2. Railroad Retirement financial interchange $4.3 Billion 3. Administrative expenses $3.4 Billion Total $776.4 Billion Which expenditure(s) are you suggesting being illegitimate? From where is the interest payment due on the Treasuries held in lieu of cash in the OASI trust fund derived?
Social Security is somewhat unique, in that it is a government expenditure which by law is confined to spending within its means. The excess revenue that has been collected over the time it has existed has allowed government to spend much more while calling the debt owed the trust fund a debt owed by the government, not the people. While the OASI incoming revenue exceeds the outflow, government has additional money to spend, each dollar spent costing government only about 3 cents in interest payment each following year, but when the incoming revenue requires repayment of the principle a full $1 becomes the cost to the government for each dollar spent, and although that debt was owed by the government to the government, the government then transfers that debt to the people who currently, as of 13 July 2017 owe $14,363,442,518,675.95, while our Federal government owes itself $5,481,322,892,609.30, which leaves the people and the Federal government combined owing $19,844,765,411,285.25 in total. How does the Federal government pay the debt it owes itself?
Actually it is funded by ALL who pay taxes, including those who pay no payroll tax at all. This thread implies that Social Security needs to be fixed. Perhaps the most rational fix would be to eliminate the trust fund completely and adjust the Social Security payroll tax each year, or as found needed, to what is necessary to fund Social Security, leaving government no excess revenue to spend. We need government, Federal, State, and local to each begin to control spending within the means people are willing and able to provide them without taking on debt unnecessarily.
NOT. TRUE. Let's see if you are honest enough to answer this: If you invest in a T-Bill with a 10-year term, and you decide after 6 years that you need the money and so you redeem it, are all those who pay taxes funding you? Is the money you receive, theirs? Or are you getting your own money back that you paid for the T-Bill in the first place? Should they tell you "hell no! Get a job!"? Or was it a legitimate investment in a loan? If you answer this straight, you're being honest. If you weasel and spin your way out of it, you're not.
so? It is how the system can be made solvent and is probably the least painful of all of them. I don't really think that removing caps is necessary, but raising rates certainly could do it.
But again, raising rates only further deminishes the average Americans ability to grow personal wealth. I like G.W. Bush's idea of fasing out by partially funding both. Overtime, the contributions would go from the current system to private.
That is a hard sell especially since the great recession is still fresh in people's minds and actually still haunting many. It wouldn't be hard to convince people that privatization is little more than a way for Wall Street to raid their retirement accounts (since that would most likely be the case anyway seeing how overinflated the stock market prices are already)
It isn't nonsense at all. There aren't many broke fund managers and the ones that do it are not in it for their health. My 401K was up 20% on the year last time I checked....and it is all invested in emerging markets. The bottom will eventually fall out of Wall Street again when the Great Correction comes.
The solution is not to force Americans into a failing ponzi. The government can regulate investment groups to provide moderate to safe investments that include disability.
The government will limit options and include US treasuries as a mandatory part of the investments. I am all for people investing. I have real estate investments, a couple small businesses as investments, and put 10% into a 401(k) in addition to periodically dabbling in stocks through a brokerage account. I am not all for social security being dumped into the stock market to add artificial volume, inflate prices, and compound the economic impacts of market volatility. Most people are not going to have the time, knowledge or inclination to invest their money and oversee their accounts to make sure that they are performing properly.
I would just lift the income cap and tax all income regardless how wealthy but keep the amount you get capped at the maximum for the current cap, and raise the contributions by 2.5% on the workers and employers ends or 5% for the self-employed over the current taxes. There you go.
FACE FACTS! Didn't my post #307 to 'maat' answer your question? Like any investment, the interest received is money above and beyond that which was originally invested. So you could claim that all money received up to the total original amount invested while unlikely to be the same dollars you invested are equal to the dollars you had invested. Any dollars greater than the total that was invested are dollars that came from others or is being passed on to others in the form of debt owed by government. Now, let's see just how honest you're going to be. If you weasel and try to 'spin' the facts, you're not.