how confident are you about social security?

[WorldWatcher]

Being broke just means SS will be funded from the normal budget. The Democrats have blocked every attempt to either put SS on a solid fiscal footing, or letting people move their contributions into private but approved secure investments. This has been apparent since 1974 to anyone with a brain.

I have a brain, and what you claim isn't quite true.

The 1983 and 1994 Amendments to social security were attempts to put it on a solid fiscal footing. The changes made in the 80's were supposed to secure SS for 50 years to allow for other improvements.

Secondly, I actually support the idea of mandatory/secure/private accounts. However those that support it never explain how they are going to fund such a transition and how they are going to deal with different age groups who have already participated in SS and whether they will maintain a hybrid model, reimbursement model, or you just say "screw you" start from scratch - doesn't matter if you are 30, 40 or 50 years old.

Any plans to take money out of the revenue stream the funds current benefits should explain in detail (a) how the revenue will be replaced, or (b) whether current benefits will be cut because of revenue decreases - don't you think?

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

When Reagan and congress jacked up the Social Security withholding it was supposed to be saved to later pay for the baby boomers. Instead, congress f'ing STOLE our money and gave us a worthless IOU they can't pay. $2 TRILLION vanished to God knows where. And nobody went to jail. If that had occurred with any type of private pension fund they would be in prison.

Excess funds (revenues collected in excess of benefits payouts) have ALWAYS by law (since the 1930's) been invested in US Treasury Bills.

Nobody "STOLE" anything.

WW

 

[80zephyr]

I have a brain, and what you claim isn't quite true.

The 1983 and 1994 Amendments to social security were attempts to put it on a solid fiscal footing. The changes made in the 80's were supposed to secure SS for 50 years to allow for other improvements.

Secondly, I actually support the idea of mandatory/secure/private accounts. However those that support it never explain how they are going to fund such a transition and how they are going to deal with different age groups who have already participated in SS and whether they will maintain a hybrid model, reimbursement model, or you just say "screw you" start from scratch - doesn't matter if you are 30, 40 or 50 years old.

Any plans to take money out of the revenue stream the funds current benefits should explain in detail (a) how the revenue will be replaced, or (b) whether current benefits will be cut because of revenue decreases - don't you think?

WW

Don't care if its a 100 year plan with one percent being transferred to private savings every year. Lets start now.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Don't care if its a 100 year plan with one percent being transferred to private savings every year. Lets start now.

If I'm understanding. SS funding is currently 12.4% of wages (6.2% employer and 6.2% employee), reduce revenue by 1% to 11.4% (split) and put that in a mandatory personal account.

Since current revenues pay current benefits, what is your preferred result:

• Cut benefits to those drawing SS,
• Make up the shortfall from general fund current revenue,
• Add it to the debt

Which way are you thinking?

WW

 

[kyzr]

Excess funds (revenues collected in excess of benefits payouts) have ALWAYS by law (since the 1930's) been invested in US Treasury Bills.

Nobody "STOLE" anything. WW

TRUE.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-much-money-has-congress-taken-social-security-2019-02-04

Where is this money? That's the big point of contention. By law, these net cash surpluses are required to be invested in special-issue government bonds and, to a lesser extent, certificates of indebtedness. In return, the federal government gets access to $2.9 trillion in borrowing capacity that it can use for normal line items in its budget. In other words, Social Security's Trust has $2.9 trillion in asset reserves, but not a red cent of cash in the vault, so to speak.

Lastly, regardless of whether Social Security owns government-issued bonds or cash, it doesn't change the asset reserves held by the program. It's $2.9 trillion either way. To suggest that repaying these bonds would put the program on more solid footing is simply not correct, as it'd have no impact on the program's total assets, and it would actually hurt its revenue-generating prospects.

So my take is that since SS is paying out more than it is taking in, SS will redeem some of its $2.9T of Bonds each year until they are all redeemed about 2035. SS needs to be "fixed" by raising the cap and possibly the age 63 early retirement age.

The SS Trustees fucked up by not getting a better return on that $2.9T. Only getting 2.85% is criminal.

 

[WorldWatcher]

TRUE.

Thank you.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-much-money-has-congress-taken-social-security-2019-02-04

Where is this money? That's the big point of contention. By law, these net cash surpluses are required to be invested in special-issue government bonds and, to a lesser extent, certificates of indebtedness. In return, the federal government gets access to $2.9 trillion in borrowing capacity that it can use for normal line items in its budget. In other words, Social Security's Trust has $2.9 trillion in asset reserves, but not a red cent of cash in the vault, so to speak.

The "certificates of indebtedness" ARE US Treasury Bonds. They are US Bonds held for the short term to reach maturity the next June 30, where they are then transferred to long term Special US Treasury Bonds.

As you pointed out, the SS Trust Fund IS NOT ALLOWED BY LAW to hold reserves in "cash".

Special-issue securities, Social Security trust funds

Lastly, regardless of whether Social Security owns government-issued bonds or cash, it doesn't change the asset reserves held by the program. It's $2.9 trillion either way. To suggest that repaying these bonds would put the program on more solid footing is simply not correct, as it'd have no impact on the program's total assets, and it would actually hurt its revenue-generating prospects.

No one is suggesting that "cashing" the Trust Fund bonds would put it on solid financial footing. Not anyone that understands what the law requires for the managment of the Trust Fund.

So my take is that since SS is paying out more than it is taking in, SS will redeem some of its $2.9T of Bonds each year until they are all redeemed about 2035. SS needs to be "fixed" by raising the cap and possibly the age 63 early retirement age.

There are multiple ways to "fix" SS.

The SS Trustees fucked up by not getting a better return on that $2.9T. Only getting 2.85% is criminal.

I'm sorry my friend, this in incorrect.

The SS Trusties did not fuck up. The law, written 90 years ago in the era of the Great Depression, REQUIRES that the only way for the Trust to hold reserves is in Special US Treasury Bonds. THEY HAD NOT CHOICE to park reserves in any other type of investment.

It is not a fuck up to comply with the law.

Now, maybe Congress could have changed the law to allow the Trustees more flexibility - say 50/50 in US Treasuries and some in other vehicles? Maybe, but this is the application of hindsight.

WW

 

[80zephyr]

If I'm understanding. SS funding is currently 12.4% of wages (6.2% employer and 6.2% employee), reduce revenue by 1% to 11.4% (split) and put that in a mandatory personal account.

Since current revenues pay current benefits, what is your preferred result:

• Cut benefits to those drawing SS,
• Make up the shortfall from general fund current revenue,
• Add it to the debt

Which way are you thinking?

WW

1% of your social security payment would go into your personal account in year one. 2% in year two, etc. Until everyone would be completely switched over eventually. And because the process would be so slow, any shortage in the current fund would be made up by the government.

 

[WorldWatcher]

1% of your social security payment would go into your personal account in year one. 2% in year two, etc. Until everyone would be completely switched over eventually. And because the process would be so slow, any shortage in the current fund would be made up by the government.

So after 12 years revenue into social security drops to zero and from general revenue the government is supposed to benefits for 50-70 years?

Remember those in their 30, 40, and 50 are not going to have a entire work career so there will be a transition period for them.

Think about it. Not only are younger folks STARTING at 1% and taking 12 years to get to their current 12.4% rate, they aren't getting the benefit of compound interest during those 12 years. Then you have someone in their 40s and 50s who will have not only the 12 year conversion, but I short time for the deposits and interest to accumulate.

So are we talking cold turkey here?

If you are 20 you hit a 12% investment rate at 32, if you are 50 you hit 12% at 62% and - well if you are 62, you're screwed because you get what is in your account. Or do they still get Social Security (at a prorated reduction of some sort)? If prorated what are the values?
.
.
.
This is what is wrong with bumper sticker solutions. Some people think they can wave a wand and think a solution into existence.

WW

 

[80zephyr]

So after 12 years revenue into social security drops to zero and from general revenue the government is supposed to benefits for 50-70 years?

Remember those in their 30, 40, and 50 are not going to have a entire work career so there will be a transition period for them.

Think about it. Not only are younger folks STARTING at 1% and taking 12 years to get to their current 12.4% rate, they aren't getting the benefit of compound interest during those 12 years. Then you have someone in their 40s and 50s who will have not only the 12 year conversion, but I short time for the deposits and interest to accumulate.

So are we talking cold turkey here?

If you are 20 you hit a 12% investment rate at 32, if you are 50 you hit 12% at 62% and - well if you are 62, you're screwed because you get what is in your account. Or do they still get Social Security (at a prorated reduction of some sort)? If prorated what are the values?
.
.
.
This is what is wrong with bumper sticker solutions. Some people think they can wave a wand and think a solution into existence.

WW

No, the conversion goes out 100 years. Read what I said again.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, the conversion goes out 100 years. Read what I said again.

You also said that money goes from funding SS at 1% per year. That is a total conversion in 12 years so no SS Renenue.

You're going to fund SS from the General fund for 100 years?

Good luck.

WW

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

When Reagan and congress jacked up the Social Security withholding it was supposed to be saved to later pay for the baby boomers. Instead, congress f'ing STOLE our money and gave us a worthless IOU they can't pay. $2 TRILLION vanished to God knows where. And nobody went to jail. If that had occurred with any type of private pension fund they would be in prison.

Why do you lie about something you apparently know nothing about?

Even state pension funds are invested, not held in some secret bank account. Tampon Timmy just got in trouble for busting on Tesla when his state's retirement funds are heavily invested in Tesla stick.

Nobody stole anyone's money. You sound like a crybaby liberal when you do that shit!

 

[Orangecat]

Only a totally ignorant idiot bleevs they are looking out for the average American.

Only a total ignorant idiot uses made-up words like “bleevs”.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

TRUE.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-much-money-has-congress-taken-social-security-2019-02-04

Where is this money? That's the big point of contention. By law, these net cash surpluses are required to be invested in special-issue government bonds and, to a lesser extent, certificates of indebtedness. In return, the federal government gets access to $2.9 trillion in borrowing capacity that it can use for normal line items in its budget. In other words, Social Security's Trust has $2.9 trillion in asset reserves, but not a red cent of cash in the vault, so to speak.

Lastly, regardless of whether Social Security owns government-issued bonds or cash, it doesn't change the asset reserves held by the program. It's $2.9 trillion either way. To suggest that repaying these bonds would put the program on more solid footing is simply not correct, as it'd have no impact on the program's total assets, and it would actually hurt its revenue-generating prospects.

So my take is that since SS is paying out more than it is taking in, SS will redeem some of its $2.9T of Bonds each year until they are all redeemed about 2035. SS needs to be "fixed" by raising the cap and possibly the age 63 early retirement age.

The SS Trustees fucked up by not getting a better return on that $2.9T. Only getting 2.85% is criminal.

That's more than my savings account!

 

[Scoutster]

I have a disabled adult son who get ssi.

Fortunately I can support him when tRump cut's his check.

Kudos to you, stepping up and paying for your responsibility!

 

[debbiedowner]

Does it have to do with the new clawback rule? Can't claw back a paper check, it has to be a bank account.

My understanding on clawbacks are they withhold monthly payments until it is paid off. The only time I know of they can rip it out of your bank account is if you have received a check and die within a month and that may be the reason.

 

[sartre play]

~~~~~~
Indeed, the federal government automatically puts all of the money that should be set aside for the Social Security Trust Fund into the General Fund. Raiding the Social Security Trust Fund was a precedent set in 1968 by another Democrat Progressive president, LBJ, to help pay for the Vietnam War. To date, the federal government has borrowed over $4 trillion from the Social Security Trust Fund to spend on other programs.
Contrary to what many Americans believe and what progressives love to say, there is no money in the Trust Fund to pay future benefits. Democrats have made sure of that. The mess we face with Social Security, a program so many are now dependent on, is yet another example of a failed Democrat Progressive policies, where the potential for unintended consequences was ignored at the program's inception and today.
Meanwhile, Democrats continue to blame others for their incompetent actions using the failure of Social Security instead of working in a bipartisan way to revise and improve the system for the future.

SO if LBJ Started the borrowing the money in 1968
WHO has been borrowing from it for the last 60 years??

 

[WorldWatcher]

SO if LBJ Started the borrowing the money in 1968
WHO has been borrowing from it for the last 60 years??

No body started borrowing the money.

Since inception the law has been that an excess funds collected have to be - by law - invested in Special US Treasury Bonds.

WW

 

[80zephyr]

You also said that money goes from funding SS at 1% per year. That is a total conversion in 12 years so no SS Renenue.

You're going to fund SS from the General fund for 100 years?

Good luck.

WW

Nope. They take 1% of the 12.4% that is taken out of your payroll check. Then 2% of the 12.4% is taken out in year two and put into a personal savings account.

 

[22lcidw]

No body started borrowing the money.

Since inception the law has been that an excess funds collected have to be - by law - invested in Special US Treasury Bonds.

WW

From my understanding it is put into the general fund. Even Al Gore around the turn of the century was promoting putting social security surpluses into a lockbox. And from the increases in the 1980'sit was not supposed to go negative until the 2070's. At the time they were saying this if we had 4%growth a year.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nope. They take 1% of the 12.4% that is taken out of your payroll check. Then 2% of the 12.4% is taken out in year two and put into a personal savings account.

LOL 1% of 12.4% is 0.00124.

WW