Privatize % of SS ?

[Skull Pilot]

Do you refuse to pay your taxes?

Just because i pay the fucking government means I have to agree with how they waste my money?

I pay because i don't want to be incarcerated and that's the only reason.

Then stop giving me shit about it.

I don't hear you saying that SS is a fucking Ponzi scam. In fact you think the fucking idiots in DC should steal our money for it.

 

[kaz]

It was, however, a major mistake to cut the payroll tax in the last stimulus bill.

That was the equivalent of someone dipping into their retirement money to buy a big screen tv.

Since there is actually no social security trust fund, that is a ridiculous comparison

 

[NYcarbineer]

It was, however, a major mistake to cut the payroll tax in the last stimulus bill.

That was the equivalent of someone dipping into their retirement money to buy a big screen tv.

Since there is actually no social security trust fund, that is a ridiculous comparison

There is a trust fund you moron, it's invested in treasuries.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It was, however, a major mistake to cut the payroll tax in the last stimulus bill.

That was the equivalent of someone dipping into their retirement money to buy a big screen tv.

Since there is actually no social security trust fund, that is a ridiculous comparison

Do you have a pension? Is it invested somewhere? According to your 'logic' it therefore doesn't exist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If a kaz talks in a forest where none can hear, does he really exist?

 

[FA_Q2]

Social Security is not broke, unless you believe that every U.S. government creditor is broke.

That's funny. So if you owe yourself money, you have an asset just like if someone else owes you money. So if I issue myself an IOU for one million dollars, I'm a millioinaire even though my net worth is zero. The liberal koolaid. Honestly my friend, if I could actually believe I would, it would make life so much easier. I'm just unfortunately not a moron. Alas.

You're ignorant, that's your only problem.

Where you don't understand this is, as hard as it is to comprehend, from a budgetary perspective, the federal government and Social Security are 2 separate entities.

There's a reason they refer to Social Security as 'off-budget'. Social Security has its own separate source of revenue, the payroll tax. Social Security puts the collected payroll taxes into Federal treasuries, just like thousands of institutions and individuals around the world do.

The federal government's obligation is to pay back bonds when they mature. They do that with general revenues that have nothing to do with Social Security.

If there's any problem, it's the federal government's general borrowing to excess that's the problem. Social Security is not the problem

The difference here is that the government raised the collection of SS in order to pay for future needs that could not be met by its income source. That money was sent to a trust fund. Then that trust fund was spent in treasury bills that on other government projects. Now how can you net see that is a debt that the government needs to pay that they are keeping off the books for convenience. Soon, the SS is going to be drawing funds from the general fund in order to keep the promise that it made with the bills in the first place causing, in turn, us to have decreasing money in the general fund to pay for increasing costs of government. How can you not see this? The money WAS SPENT and then, using t-bills, the government SPENT IT TWICE. When it comes time for those loans to be repaid, there is going to be problems because we are hiding the 2 trillion in debt that we owe to ourselves.

 

[Flopper]

That's funny. So if you owe yourself money, you have an asset just like if someone else owes you money. So if I issue myself an IOU for one million dollars, I'm a millioinaire even though my net worth is zero. The liberal koolaid. Honestly my friend, if I could actually believe I would, it would make life so much easier. I'm just unfortunately not a moron. Alas.

You're ignorant, that's your only problem.

Where you don't understand this is, as hard as it is to comprehend, from a budgetary perspective, the federal government and Social Security are 2 separate entities.

There's a reason they refer to Social Security as 'off-budget'. Social Security has its own separate source of revenue, the payroll tax. Social Security puts the collected payroll taxes into Federal treasuries, just like thousands of institutions and individuals around the world do.

The federal government's obligation is to pay back bonds when they mature. They do that with general revenues that have nothing to do with Social Security.

If there's any problem, it's the federal government's general borrowing to excess that's the problem. Social Security is not the problem

The difference here is that the government raised the collection of SS in order to pay for future needs that could not be met by its income source. That money was sent to a trust fund. Then that trust fund was spent in treasury bills that on other government projects. Now how can you net see that is a debt that the government needs to pay that they are keeping off the books for convenience. Soon, the SS is going to be drawing funds from the general fund in order to keep the promise that it made with the bills in the first place causing, in turn, us to have decreasing money in the general fund to pay for increasing costs of government. How can you not see this? The money WAS SPENT and then, using t-bills, the government SPENT IT TWICE. When it comes time for those loans to be repaid, there is going to be problems because we are hiding the 2 trillion in debt that we owe to ourselves.

Money collected in taxes always goes to the trust fund. Regulations require that money in the trust fund be invested in treasury bills or notes. The trust fund receives interest just like anyone who invest in treasuries. Putting the money in treasury bills can not in any sense of word be called an expense. The money is not spent. The government has the obligation to make good on it's financial obligation to repay the trust fund just as they do with individuals investing treasuries. These obligations are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government just like the US currency. If that promise is no good, then the dollars in your pocket or worthless.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Just because i pay the fucking government means I have to agree with how they waste my money?

I pay because i don't want to be incarcerated and that's the only reason.

Then stop giving me shit about it.

I don't hear you saying that SS is a fucking Ponzi scam. In fact you think the fucking idiots in DC should steal our money for it.

stealing money? sound the alarms!!!!


Oh the drama! The drama.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Then stop giving me shit about it.

I don't hear you saying that SS is a fucking Ponzi scam. In fact you think the fucking idiots in DC should steal our money for it.

stealing money? sound the alarms!!!!


Oh the drama! The drama.

Tell me how SS is any different than Bernie Madoff's ponzi scam.

If i treated my employees retirement funds the way the fucking government treats SS I'd be arrested.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I don't hear you saying that SS is a fucking Ponzi scam. In fact you think the fucking idiots in DC should steal our money for it.

stealing money? sound the alarms!!!!


Oh the drama! The drama.

Tell me how SS is any different than Bernie Madoff's ponzi scam.

If i treated my employees retirement funds the way the fucking government treats SS I'd be arrested.

legal vs illegal. simple really.

 

[Skull Pilot]

stealing money? sound the alarms!!!!


Oh the drama! The drama.

Tell me how SS is any different than Bernie Madoff's ponzi scam.

If i treated my employees retirement funds the way the fucking government treats SS I'd be arrested.

legal vs illegal. simple really.

Ah yes the good old double standard.



Legal does not and has never equaled ethical.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Tell me how SS is any different than Bernie Madoff's ponzi scam.

If i treated my employees retirement funds the way the fucking government treats SS I'd be arrested.

legal vs illegal. simple really.

Ah yes the good old double standard.



Legal does not and has never equaled ethical.

double standard? still stuck with the alarmist mentality?

fact: The US government does what it does with the consent of the American people. If you have issues with the present form of government say so. I do and I say so.

Legal and ethical are two very distinct standards. just thought you'd like to know

 

[Skull Pilot]

legal vs illegal. simple really.

Ah yes the good old double standard.



Legal does not and has never equaled ethical.

double standard? still stuck with the alarmist mentality?

fact: The US government does what it does with the consent of the American people. If you have issues with the present form of government say so. I do and I say so.

Legal and ethical are two very distinct standards. just thought you'd like to know

I vote for anyone who says they'll trash SS but all you sheep out there who have fallen for the government is looking out for you bullshit outnumber me.

Tell me. would you like your employer to use your retirement contributions to pay the benefits of people that retired before you started working there?

If not then why would you support the fucking government doing the exact same thing?

And I guess it doesn't matter to you that we'd all be able to retire wealthier if you kept the money the fucking government takes to fund the Ponzi scam.

 

[asterism]

Kaz is drinking reactionary koolaid. Bub,you are not government and how you run your paper IOUs have nothing do with government. Have the government go back to putting the SS taxes in one fund, and the solvency problem is over almost immediately. Kaz, you are talking to only the loony far right. You are dealing with the right, center, and left who know what they are talking about.

The comment made was the social security isn't broke. Social security has no money, it lives on taxpayers. Today's taxpayers, the gimme baby boomer generation saved nothing.

As for we have to "go back" to putting the SS taxes in one fund, you can't go back to something you never did. Not a dime was ever saved for social security.

So what would you have Social Security do? Hold all the payroll tax revenues in cash, and make essentially no return on it?

I say yes to that. The government cannot "invest" in itself to then provide a return to itself any more than any other person or group can. Therefore it has no option but to either invest externally or hold the assets with no return. That's why Social Security needs to be scaled back to the point of being a means tested safety net only instead of a faux insurance policy/retirement plan/investment.

 

[kaz]

The comment made was the social security isn't broke. Social security has no money, it lives on taxpayers. Today's taxpayers, the gimme baby boomer generation saved nothing.

As for we have to "go back" to putting the SS taxes in one fund, you can't go back to something you never did. Not a dime was ever saved for social security.

So what would you have Social Security do? Hold all the payroll tax revenues in cash, and make essentially no return on it?

I say yes to that. The government cannot "invest" in itself to then provide a return to itself any more than any other person or group can. Therefore it has no option but to either invest externally or hold the assets with no return. That's why Social Security needs to be scaled back to the point of being a means tested safety net only instead of a faux insurance policy/retirement plan/investment.

Other then eliminating social security, the best thing to do is "pay as you go" where receipts = payout so the money actually stays in the economy.

 

[asterism]

So what would you have Social Security do? Hold all the payroll tax revenues in cash, and make essentially no return on it?

I say yes to that. The government cannot "invest" in itself to then provide a return to itself any more than any other person or group can. Therefore it has no option but to either invest externally or hold the assets with no return. That's why Social Security needs to be scaled back to the point of being a means tested safety net only instead of a faux insurance policy/retirement plan/investment.

Other then eliminating social security, the best thing to do is "pay as you go" where receipts = payout so the money actually stays in the economy.

Anti-poverty programs should at least be confined to being that. Define the need and collect enough revenues to fill that need. But that's not what Social Security is now, it's a means to buy votes and obscure deficits.

 

[DaGoose]

Ah yes the good old double standard.



Legal does not and has never equaled ethical.

double standard? still stuck with the alarmist mentality?

fact: The US government does what it does with the consent of the American people. If you have issues with the present form of government say so. I do and I say so.

Legal and ethical are two very distinct standards. just thought you'd like to know

I vote for anyone who says they'll trash SS but all you sheep out there who have fallen for the government is looking out for you bullshit outnumber me.

Tell me. would you like your employer to use your retirement contributions to pay the benefits of people that retired before you started working there?

If not then why would you support the fucking government doing the exact same thing?

And I guess it doesn't matter to you that we'd all be able to retire wealthier if you kept the money the fucking government takes to fund the Ponzi scam.

Wow.....where to start.

1) It's NOT a Ponzi Scheme.

Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme? - BusinessWeek

Why Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme - Jan. 7, 2009

2) I'll vote for anyone who says that SS must be kept the way it is even if we have to raise taxes to do it.

3) I'll be retiring plenty wealthy and the piddly ass 4.2% that the government deducts from my paycheck doesn't even factor in. But SS is also cheap insurance that ensures that even if I lose all my money I will have some type of income.

4) Instead of crying about 4.2% you should try investing some of your money so you won't be so reliant on your Social Security.

FICA Tax

5) I believe SS will be there beyond my lifetime. Why? Because MORE THAT 90% of people under 30 consider it to be an important government program.

So no matter what you say SS ain't goin nowhere...

 

[kaz]

I say yes to that. The government cannot "invest" in itself to then provide a return to itself any more than any other person or group can. Therefore it has no option but to either invest externally or hold the assets with no return. That's why Social Security needs to be scaled back to the point of being a means tested safety net only instead of a faux insurance policy/retirement plan/investment.

Other then eliminating social security, the best thing to do is "pay as you go" where receipts = payout so the money actually stays in the economy.

Anti-poverty programs should at least be confined to being that. Define the need and collect enough revenues to fill that need. But that's not what Social Security is now, it's a means to buy votes and obscure deficits.

Agreed. Social Security and Obamacare are in fact the greatest crimes ever perpetrated against the American people. They are crimes because there is no Constitutional Authority for the Federal government to do that and therefore they violate the 10th Amendment. And what makes them so heinous is that they are programs that go to everyone. The way to most effectively subjugate a people is not with guns, it's with checks. Sadly people don't realize they are welfare whores even when they are hysterical someone's going to cut their government check.

 

[Charles_Main]

Sorry, but a mentally deficient Monkey could do better investing than the SS fund does.

Privatize at least part of it.

 

[DaGoose]

Sorry, but a mentally deficient Monkey could do better investing than the SS fund does.

Privatize at least part of it.

Ya.....great idea.

The Pew Survey has found that 52% of people over 50 years old are considering retiring later than 65 years old, and 68% of people over 57 years old are considering retiring later. This is because 59% of them have lost over 40% in their stock market accounts.

http://www.wealthvest.com/blog/wade-dokken/baby-boomers-delaying-retirement/