Social Security Expected to Dip Into Its Reserves This Year

the demographics leftists are counting on to deliver them permanent power will utterly bankrupt their entitlement/welfare heavy socialist utopia.

 

Thanks.

Those "hyperliberal programs" have saved many people from extreme, grinding poverty and death from treatable illnesses. And "arch Right-wing fiscal Conservatives" don't like having to contribute to such public insurance funds. Good that they're in a minority.

GOOD!!!

There's no mention of "fraudulent claims" in that link, and fraud is tiny. This thread is about Social Security, and Social Security is essentially a public insurance program. Insurance pays benefits often to people who collect more than they have contributed. Did you or do you own a life insurance policy or appliance repair insurance? Are you opposed to such insurance? Yes or no?

WHAT "bogus claims"? The only bogus claims are those submitted by crooks who stole SSNs and they are usually caught. As far as I can see you're ranting about a crime that doesn't exist!

 

And I didn't break the speed limit! ...my car did!

GAS issues do not increase federal spending! ....the federal government does!

I'll have to study into that proposal but I suspect there are some good reasons why it wasn't done. For one thing those bonds can be sold on the open market and if you study into the SSA law and the reasoning for its design, you will find that marketability is a problem. Also, municipal bonds are issued per municipality and that local responsibility presents its own problems. Imagine if the SS Trust Fund had held a significant amount of Detroit and Chicago bonds.

 

Or you could just raise it by 0.5 %.

 

Let's see;

157 million employed X ($30,000)medium wage per person X 0.5% =

$23.5 billion

Additional receipts needed; minimum $70 billion

Not enough!

IMO, 3% would restore SS long term solvency, or increase the rate annually starting at 1.5%

 

Your $30,000 number is no good. It's almost $60,000.
There is an employer match .

 

YOU quoted: "Or you could just raise it by 0.5 %"

a. 6.45% + 6.45%

or

b. 6.7% + 6.7%

?????????????

If (b), a 1% increase isn't enough

 

Um ... Lent is over with.It lasts 40 days until Easter.

 

Employers are not allowed to smoke inside their Bidness.
Therefore matches are of little to no use.
Like yer train of thought.

 

In addition, back in 2010/8 years ago, the Congressional Research Service estimated that almost $100 billion in annual revenue would result from eliminating the cap.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/research_desk_responds_could_r.html

Today, a 1% increase (6.7% + 6.7%) WILL NOT generate $100 billion in additional revenues.

157 million employed X (let's boost/double the average annual income per person to $60,000) X 1% = $94.2 billion

and 8 years ago, an additional $100 billion was ACTUARIALLY needed to restore SS long term solvency, thus, TODAY, well over $100 billion.

 

You.
Question: Today, how many more people on payroll is needed to increase SSDI receipts by $70 billion?
Me.
Or you could just raise it by 0.5 %.
There is an employer match .
0.5% increase X 2 for match = 1%.
Times 8.7 trillion in payroll = 87 billion. $17 billion more than 70 billion.

 

Yes, Long term takes more. Shall we try to come up with a plan?

 

@ronv and @Foolardi and @nopartisanbull , the current taxable earned income maximum for FICA is $128,400. In trying to find out what happens if that cap is eliminated and all who pay in would be qualified to receive SS benefits, the best I can find is data applying to those with earned income of $200,000 per year or more. - https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-earn-200-000+-per-year-in-the-USA

When I multiply the number of earners (2,808,752) by the maximum SSA annual benefit ($33,456), I get $94 billion which is an increase in total benefit outlays of 11.8% over the current amount of $798.7 billion. - https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

The cap elimination would produce an increase in revenue just from the tax on the earner of 6.2% of all that income above $200,000 earned by that section of the population. I need to cut it off here now and do other things but maybe someone would have the time to get the income total amount of those earning over $200,000 and do the math to see how much additional SSA revenue would be generated to pay for that added benefit at 6.2%. The remainder (total - need) that would be left over would be available to keep SS solvent for the future.

Or there is probably somebody who has already done the math and published how elimination of the cap would affect solvency.

 

Treasury securities can be traded. These cannot. They cannot be purchased on the open market by anybody.
They have zero market value.They are not a security at all. They are simply IOUs to the SS trust fund
What CFPs and CFCs say about USTs does not apply to these

 

You plan on removing the benefit cap or do you plan on just taking their money and distributing it to you?

 

Excuse me?

Are you claiming that the Fund is empty?

If you are you'd be wrong

 

Fair enough. They are IOUs to the American people...and as long as Republicans keep their grubby hands off them...they will be honored

 

The same is true of U.S. Savings Bonds.

"IOUs" have value. They are assets for accounting purposes. And if these TF Treasuries are worthless, how is it that they have been redeemed easily to pay benefits. Nevermind. It doesn't matter. Your whole line of objection is contrary to facts and bogus.

 

That's an asinine question and it reveals the bogus nature of your discussion.

 

I backed into it using Medicare (no caps) at 2.9% generated 259.2 billion on earnings of 8.92 T.
SS at 12.4% generated 742 billion on income of only 6T.
12.4% of 3T gives about 370 billion more by lifting the caps. Pretty good chunk of change.

 

It's amazing how flippant they can be about it. He just stick to those guys so we don't have to pay more. AND next it will be means test so they don't collect AT ALL, so the proponents don't have to pay more they can just keep ripping off others.

 

If you contribute more into a retirement system shouldn't your benefit increase accordingly? If not why not? You contribute 15% of your pay into your company 401k for 20 years, someone else only contributes 5% for the same 20 years. Shouldn't you get a bigger benefit according to that 10% more you saved. How about means test you support that too?

 

That's how the entire progressive tax system works. Do you expect more for your taxes than the guy that pays nothing?
If so you need to get used to it.

 

So people need to get used to having their property forcibly taken. Sounds really ethical...not.