Social Security Expected to Dip Into Its Reserves This Year

Calling it a "Trust Fund" is an abuse of language. It's practically newspeak. Not that statists ever care about being fooled by words.

 

Can we reconcile numbers?
This is what I got from SS site.

 

They are no different than the government writing a check to itself and putting in a drawer to be paid by future general revenue funds. The "Trust Fund" is not a fund and it's not a trust. It's a lie told to placate the sheep. Now go back to covering your eyes and avoiding reading anything that contradicts what your shepherds tell you.

 

"My rulers call it insurance, therefore it must be so!"

 

"partly due to lower economic growth projections"

So much for the Trump economic boom. Whatever happened to that 3% growth Trump promised?

 

Glad you chose the word "partly"

Since 1995, DI recipients have doubled, and today, approx. 50% of recipients are over 55, thus, largely due to an aging workforce. We've also reached the highest point/the first hill of a roller coaster so to speak, and today, the coaster is descending from its highest point as more disabled workers are applying for old age benefits.

However, FISCALLY, Uncle Sam did NOTHING until the DI Trust Fund was nearly depleted. Solution; Shift funds from Old Age to DI.

 

Now, here's an eye-opening conclusion;

In the PRIVATE SECTOR, when claims significantly surpasses estimates, they will also dip into their reserves, however, THEY WILL ALSO RAISE THEIR RATES!

 

we could probably do away with social security, with unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed.

someone on unemployment compensation their whole life, could save up and become an entrepreneur or invest in the stock market.

 

Robert Samuelson is well known to many of us as the ever-present shill for cutting EARNED Social Security and Medicare benefits. He lumps both of those programs in with Medicaid as being "welfare", even though SS and Medicare are EARNED benefits, and Medicaid is merely a welfare handout, pure and simple.

Samuelson was out with another one of his screeds this morning (as he usually is at least once a month) about how the government can't afford to pay what it has promised. NOT for the first time. Here's another rebuttal from several years ago showing the fallacy of Samuelson's viewpoints, and which will be useful to this thread: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/03/social-security-is-not-welfare.html+

Samuelson is, however, right about one thing -- any politician who tries to STEAL what are EARNED benefits from people who were forced by the government to pay all their lives into these socialistic systems is going to commit political suicide! Predictably, it would be 'Establishment' Republicans who would try to pull this dishonest, confiscatory crap, but ANYBODY who tries to play games (i.e., "means testing") with retired people -- especially large groups known for their voting participation, like Baby Boomers, is going to fail utterly! What they'll accomplish is to make Democrats out of people who have been Republicans all their adult lives.

 

Definition of Trust Fund;

A fund consisting of assets belonging to a trust, held by the trustees for the beneficiaries.

An asset to the lender, and a liability to the borrower.

Government account Series held in the Trust Fund are somewhat convertible assets, from non-marketable securities to marketable securities. When they are converted, they do not increase the debt, however, China becomes the lender, and interest payments on marketable securities are a mandatory expense.

 

Nothing partisan about what I said and if your are not going to address it discussion is futile.

 

We have an actuarial obligation to keep funding SS, and if we stop contributing, we will deplete its reserve within four years, and because SS benefits are a mandatory expenditure, the debt will significantly increase if Uncle Sam refuses to raise taxes and/or drastically cut spending.

 

the right wing likes to quibble about nothing.

 

There should be plenty of funds available for current members; the goal is to cost shift to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Anyone who opts for unemployment compensation instead, could have a substantial head start, by the time they reach retirement age. A capital goal could be, to discover a venture that enables that much profit.

 

...so tell us, Daniel... what is this "nothing" that the "right wing" quibbles about?

Since the 1930's, Americans have been forced to pay into Social Security. And, since the late 1960's, Americans have also been forced to pay into Medicare (and pay for the Medicaid welfare program, too). Then, when it's time to COLLECT, nobody is going to stand for 'quibbling' -- and politicians had better understand that, clearly, or they'll be OUT at lightning speed!

 

Your thoughts;

John was born in 1955, and in 1976, he was hired full-time by a railroad company, thus started working/contributing. 8 years later, John received a letter from SSA, and it stated "For your info, Congress recently raised your full retirement age to 66.

After reading the letter, John's reaction was; I just got looted one full year of benefits due to the fact my sister in Canada contributes to a similar plan, however, because her plan is actuarially solvent, she will still qualify for full benefits when she turns 65.

----------

Go ahead Repubs, raise it to 69, and here's your slogan; "people live longer", but what's the main reason?

 

IMO, you are proposing a highly divisive "can of worms", thus, a definite NO if you're looking for a co-sponsor.

 

I got 'looted' by a year also, based on my birth-year. But, the only really smart way to plan you benefits for Social Security is to MAX THEM OUT, not just shoot for the year where you get what are supposedly 'full benefits'... because they aren't!

Right now you can get so-called "full benefits" at age 67, but the smart thing to do is wait until you turn 70! You will earn a LOT more money every month if you do!

You may want to refer your friend, John, to this article because there is evidently a separate pension for people who have worked for railroads:
https://maximizemysocialsecurity.com/can-i-get-railroad-retirement-and-social-security

 

Let's end the drug war to pay for social services.

 

are you on the right wing? lowering our tax burden is what I am referring; just not with tax cut economics.

 

I agree with many aspects of 'ending the drug war'... people should have the personal right to wreck their lives with drugs if they want to -- so long as they don't bother the rest of us with their problems, 'issues', and expenses! Marijuana sales were legalized here in Colorado several years ago, and the taxes collected have been impressive.

"Social services"? Some of these should be kept on, I suppose, but many could be eliminated. It seems crazy that with an unemployment level lower than at any time since 1969 we should still be running a liberal-Democrat Welfare Circus in this country. After all, even according to liberal economists, the "Great Recession" ended exactly nine freaking years ago!

At any rate, no "social services" expenditure should have any impact on Social Security benefits that have been EARNED by those who were forced by the government to pay into it all their working lives. If SS has a funding 'crisis' in the future then the government should go get the money to fix it from the same place money was gotten to "rescue" all those Big Biz creeps that the Federal Reserve decided were "too-big-to-fail" when they screwed up the economy with all their stupid, criminal crap.

 

I assume the social security program will be "grand-fathered" out of existence.

 

Ahhh railroad workers don't get SS and can start collecting at 60 years old if they have 30 years of RR employment and the Democrats raised the retirement age in 1983 because people live longer.

 

Why take it out on Labor? They have a Treasury department that should be making money to cover those expenses.

 

What we should be reducing is the Total Net Social Spending as a percent of GDP, thus, expenditure for social purposes, both direct and indirect, and NOT JUST WELFARE!

Total net social spending as a percent of GDP

World Ranking

1. France; 31.2% of GDP
2. U.S......28.8% of GDP
3. Belgium.....27.2%
4. Netherlands.....25.6%
5. Demark.....25.4%
6. Japan........25.4%
7. Sweden.....25.3%
8. Italy...........25.2%
9. UK.....25%
10. Germany......24.6%

22. "Socialist" Norway......19.6%


http://www.oecd.org/social/expenditure.htm

Example of a direct social related government assistance; SNAP

Example of both direct and indirect social related government assistance; Child tax Credit

Example of an indirect social related government assistance; Medical expenses deduction

Medicare is partially an indirect social related government assistance.

In 2034, SS will partially become an indirect social related government assistance.