Beating Social Security

[Sun Devil 92]

SS is most easily reformed and will continue without any problems financially for the American people. SS is a program that Jesus Christ would approve.

====
All they have to do is take the Earnings Cap off and SS would be solvent forever.

If they just raised the Earnings Cap to $250,000 SS would be good to the year 3000.

Thanks for the fairytale.

SSA and CBO project that completely eliminating the cap would serve to get us 50-70% of the way to kicking the can which isn't 3000.

You'll find they have their fingers in their ears (which must hurt because they have their heads up their asses) on this topic.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

SS is most easily reformed and will continue without any problems financially for the American people. SS is a program that Jesus Christ would approve.

====
All they have to do is take the Earnings Cap off and SS would be solvent forever.

If they just raised the Earnings Cap to $250,000 SS would be good to the year 3000.

Thanks for the fairytale.

SSA and CBO project that completely eliminating the cap would serve to get us 50-70% of the way to kicking the can which isn't 3000.

Nope.

Since you aren't going to do the research yourself : CBO Answers to Questions From Senator Hatch About Various Options for Payroll Taxes and Social Security SSA : Individual Changes Modifying Social Security

Jake...do research ????

 

[JakeStarkey]

More recently (Septempter 2010), here’s what Janemarie Mulvey wrote in a report for the Congressional Research Service:

“If all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations, the Social Security Trust Funds would remain solvent for the next 75 years.”

"That is from a CRS study from about 15 trillion dollars ago."

It's five years old, it is accurate, and you are not an expert, only an ideologue with a hidden agenda. Don't be shy, tell us. You are as uneducated as Sun Devil.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

More recently (Septempter 2010), here’s what Janemarie Mulvey wrote in a report for the Congressional Research Service:

“If all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations, the Social Security Trust Funds would remain solvent for the next 75 years.”

"That is from a CRS study from about 15 trillion dollars ago."

It's five years old, it is accurate, and you are not an expert, only an ideologue with a hidden agenda. Don't be shy, tell us. You are as uneducated as Sun Devil.

Her report is 5 years old - THE DATA IS 10 YEARS OLD - "Notes: All calculations use the intermediate assumptions of the 2005 Trustees Report." That means that her estimates are about 20 trillion dollars out of date.

Someone who is stupid makes mistakes. Here you are willfully stupid, ignoring the words that your own source provides. Next time read your source.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And you have nothing new of import to show us, so it stands, bright eyes.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

SS is most easily reformed and will continue without any problems financially for the American people. SS is a program that Jesus Christ would approve.

====
All they have to do is take the Earnings Cap off and SS would be solvent forever.

If they just raised the Earnings Cap to $250,000 SS would be good to the year 3000.

Hauling the frauds off to jail would be useful too.

Nobody wants to see granny going off to prison....but cheating is cheating.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

More recently (Septempter 2010), here’s what Janemarie Mulvey wrote in a report for the Congressional Research Service:

“If all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations, the Social Security Trust Funds would remain solvent for the next 75 years.”

"That is from a CRS study from about 15 trillion dollars ago."

It's five years old, it is accurate, and you are not an expert, only an ideologue with a hidden agenda. Don't be shy, tell us. You are as uneducated as Sun Devil.

Her report is 5 years old - THE DATA IS 10 YEARS OLD - "Notes: All calculations use the intermediate assumptions of the 2005 Trustees Report." That means that her estimates are about 20 trillion dollars out of date.

Someone who is stupid makes mistakes. Here you are willfully stupid, ignoring the words that your own source provides. Next time read your source.

How often do these reports (Trustees reports) come out ?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

More recently (Septempter 2010), here’s what Janemarie Mulvey wrote in a report for the Congressional Research Service:

“If all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations, the Social Security Trust Funds would remain solvent for the next 75 years.”

"That is from a CRS study from about 15 trillion dollars ago."

It's five years old, it is accurate, and you are not an expert, only an ideologue with a hidden agenda. Don't be shy, tell us. You are as uneducated as Sun Devil.

Her report is 5 years old - THE DATA IS 10 YEARS OLD - "Notes: All calculations use the intermediate assumptions of the 2005 Trustees Report." That means that her estimates are about 20 trillion dollars out of date.

Someone who is stupid makes mistakes. Here you are willfully stupid, ignoring the words that your own source provides. Next time read your source.

How often do these reports (Trustees reports) come out ?

Every year.

What you have to understand is that unfunded liabilities are a concept. They tell you the present value of all of the future broken promises. Every year the present value grows because they are fewer years to discount. Hence the unfunded liabilities grow as though they were accruing interest. The Trustees Report includes the cost of changing calendar years $900 billion last year. That is the cost of keeping everything the same except calendar year. That is why data from 2005 isn't terribly relevant.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What you have to understand that all we have our the numbers from now. The projections into the future have not happened now. We have time to make corrections needed.

 

[ScienceRocks]

throwing granny into the street is evil

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

throwing granny into the street is evil

Today according to research from the Fed and Census, the wealthiest of all age demographics is households headed by someone 65 and older. The poorest households headed by someone 35 and younger. Poverty in the 35 and younger set is at record highs - which means that children growing up in poverty is .... at record highs. So you think throwing granny into the street is evil. That isn't what we are doing. We are taking money from families who are in poverty, and giving it to people who aren't remotely close. That isn't evil that is the greatest accomplishment of government?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

throwing granny into the street is evil

Today according to research from the Fed and Census, the wealthiest of all age demographics is households headed by someone 65 and older. The poorest households headed by someone 35 and younger. Poverty in the 35 and younger set is at record highs - which means that children growing up in poverty is .... at record highs. So you think throwing granny into the street is evil. That isn't what we are doing. We are taking money from families who are in poverty, and giving it to people who aren't remotely close. That isn't evil that is the greatest accomplishment of government?

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are not taking money from the 1% and investing it in the 35 and younger poverty households in job training and living support.

 

[rightwinger]

throwing granny into the street is evil

Today according to research from the Fed and Census, the wealthiest of all age demographics is households headed by someone 65 and older. The poorest households headed by someone 35 and younger. Poverty in the 35 and younger set is at record highs - which means that children growing up in poverty is .... at record highs. So you think throwing granny into the street is evil. That isn't what we are doing. We are taking money from families who are in poverty, and giving it to people who aren't remotely close. That isn't evil that is the greatest accomplishment of government?

Older people have had a lifetime to accumulate wealth, someone who is 35 hasn't

The difference is that while the 35 year old has not accumulated much wealth, he is still working and drawing an income. Granny has not. She may own her home but relies on Social Security to pay the bills.
What we are doing is taking money from those still in the workforce to pay for those who no longer are. Eventually, your turn will come and someone will support you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

throwing granny into the street is evil

Today according to research from the Fed and Census, the wealthiest of all age demographics is households headed by someone 65 and older. The poorest households headed by someone 35 and younger. Poverty in the 35 and younger set is at record highs - which means that children growing up in poverty is .... at record highs. So you think throwing granny into the street is evil. That isn't what we are doing. We are taking money from families who are in poverty, and giving it to people who aren't remotely close. That isn't evil that is the greatest accomplishment of government?

Older people have had a lifetime to accumulate wealth, someone who is 35 hasn't

The difference is that while the 35 year old has not accumulated much wealth, he is still working and drawing an income. Granny has not. She may own her home but relies on Social Security to pay the bills.
What we are doing is taking money from those still in the workforce to pay for those who no longer are. Eventually, your turn will come and someone will support you.

JoeTheEconomist is in EdwardBaiamonte's camp.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

throwing granny into the street is evil

Today according to research from the Fed and Census, the wealthiest of all age demographics is households headed by someone 65 and older. The poorest households headed by someone 35 and younger. Poverty in the 35 and younger set is at record highs - which means that children growing up in poverty is .... at record highs. So you think throwing granny into the street is evil. That isn't what we are doing. We are taking money from families who are in poverty, and giving it to people who aren't remotely close. That isn't evil that is the greatest accomplishment of government?

Older people have had a lifetime to accumulate wealth, someone who is 35 hasn't

The difference is that while the 35 year old has not accumulated much wealth, he is still working and drawing an income. Granny has not. She may own her home but relies on Social Security to pay the bills.
What we are doing is taking money from those still in the workforce to pay for those who no longer are. Eventually, your turn will come and someone will support you.

So it is OK to take from people who are in poverty to give to those who aren't remotely close to poverty.

The rest of your comment seems out of sync with the basic math of the system. Eventually, gravity pulls the system into a blackhole whether it is my turn when it happens or not is a matter of luck. That is a poor way to plan for retirement.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

throwing granny into the street is evil

Today according to research from the Fed and Census, the wealthiest of all age demographics is households headed by someone 65 and older. The poorest households headed by someone 35 and younger. Poverty in the 35 and younger set is at record highs - which means that children growing up in poverty is .... at record highs. So you think throwing granny into the street is evil. That isn't what we are doing. We are taking money from families who are in poverty, and giving it to people who aren't remotely close. That isn't evil that is the greatest accomplishment of government?

Older people have had a lifetime to accumulate wealth, someone who is 35 hasn't

The difference is that while the 35 year old has not accumulated much wealth, he is still working and drawing an income. Granny has not. She may own her home but relies on Social Security to pay the bills.
What we are doing is taking money from those still in the workforce to pay for those who no longer are. Eventually, your turn will come and someone will support you.

So it is OK to take from people who are in poverty to give to those who aren't remotely close to poverty.

The rest of your comment seems out of sync with the basic math of the system. Eventually, gravity pulls the system into a blackhole whether it is my turn when it happens or not is a matter of luck. That is a poor way to plan for retirement.

 

[JakeStarkey]

throwing granny into the street is evil

Today according to research from the Fed and Census, the wealthiest of all age demographics is households headed by someone 65 and older. The poorest households headed by someone 35 and younger. Poverty in the 35 and younger set is at record highs - which means that children growing up in poverty is .... at record highs. So you think throwing granny into the street is evil. That isn't what we are doing. We are taking money from families who are in poverty, and giving it to people who aren't remotely close. That isn't evil that is the greatest accomplishment of government?

Older people have had a lifetime to accumulate wealth, someone who is 35 hasn't

The difference is that while the 35 year old has not accumulated much wealth, he is still working and drawing an income. Granny has not. She may own her home but relies on Social Security to pay the bills.
What we are doing is taking money from those still in the workforce to pay for those who no longer are. Eventually, your turn will come and someone will support you.

So it is OK to take from people who are in poverty to give to those who aren't remotely close to poverty.

The rest of your comment seems out of sync with the basic math of the system. Eventually, gravity pulls the system into a blackhole whether it is my turn when it happens or not is a matter of luck. That is a poor way to plan for retirement.

You stuck your head all the way up your butt.

That is not what was said. What is said that those who are retired are retired. That means the 1% will have to step up.

 

[rightwinger]

If you want to "beat" Social Security, you have to come up with a solution that is better.

All the proposals I have seen assume Social Security is just torn up and we start from scratch. We can't do that. Hundreds of millions of Americans have already paid in or are now living off of Social Security. Any proposal to "beat" Social Security would have to provide a methodology to transition off of Social Security while you move to some sort of savings plan

Hard to do that without raising withholding or slashing benefits

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one has come up with a better solution to SS.