Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I did. Right in that post!Would you care to explain how it is a "misleading" figure then?
That's not an explanation. That's a presupposition.
I did. Right in that post!
That's not an explanation. That's a presupposition.
No, it is a fact. I can't help it if you are ignorant of how the system works. Social Security has actually been running a surplus all this time. Our "unfunded liabilities" have been more than covered when the time came to pay for them.
We have actually been raiding the SS surplus for decades. This "unfunded liabilities" thing is a illusion intended to unnecessarily frighten the rubes.
1. Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and index to 9 percent of the population.
2. Ban all tax expenditures.
Done! I just gave you a gigantic surplus.
Easy peasey.
But the problem comes in such definitions as 'bum' or 'agency that has no business being in the federal government.' Who are the 'bums'? And what agencies have no business in the federal government?
It began to seriously increase in 71 following the end of an anchor to currency. Coincidence? No, it's not.
So you see the problem as something different than runaway entitlements? Can you explain further?
It began to seriously increase in 71 following the end of an anchor to currency. Coincidence? No, it's not.
So you see the problem as something different than runaway entitlements? Can you explain further?
Oh, i didn't mean ti that way. There is certainly the issue of run away entitlements. But these things would have broken a LOT sooner if our currency was anchored.
1. Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and index to 9 percent of the population.
2. Ban all tax expenditures.
Done! I just gave you a gigantic surplus.
Easy peasey.
easy peasey....? well then YOU go convince the Demrats....
Also, waste, fraud, and abuse is not exclusive to government. I think the idea that the private sector or charities could do things more efficiently needs to be challenged. I am the president of a non-profit and I see a tremendous amount of waste by charities in the private sector. Far more than I see government waste in the same areas of concern.
Faithful devotees on the Left continue to peddle the notion that Social Security is not in crisis, that it doesn’t contribute to the deficit, and there is no need for reform. However, reading through this year’s just-released Social Security Trustees report, the annual “State of the SSA”, we find that the Trustees tell a different narrative — one that is grim indeed. The following primer pulls directly from the report and then explains the statement in layman’s terms. It is copied text from summary of the entire report.
What it actually says:
“Social Security’s total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period”.
What it means:
Non-interest income includes payroll taxes, taxes on scheduled benefits, and general fund transfers. Expenditures (payouts to beneficiaries) have exceeded (been more than) income (taxes collected ) since2010. Social Security has not been paying for itself for the last three years. Anyone telling you otherwise is patently false.
What it actually says:
“The deficit of non-interest income relative to cost was about $49 billion in 2010, $45 billion in 2011, and $55 billion in 2012″.
What it means:
Again, right here the report describes that there is a deficit occurring and provides a tangible figure for each year. It directly contradicts the notion the idea that Social Security is PAYGO. It is not.
What it actually says:
“The Trustees project that this cash-flow deficit will average about $75 billion between 2013 and 2018 before rising steeply as income growth slows to the sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers”
What it means:
The deficit is only going to worsen by about 30% over the next 5 years to $75 billion a year. Then the deficit is going to RISE STEEPLY because even more people will be claiming benefits than those working and paying into the system.
If you survived to age 21 in 1940, you had a 55 percent chance of surviving to age 65.
If you survived to age 21 in 1990, you had a 75 percent chance of surviving to age 65.
It is far past time to raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages.
While doing nothing to address the massive amounts of money they take in, which concurrently drives up our national debt?
Social Security has 90 trillion in unfunded liabilities alone. Almost 5 times than the 17 trillion we owe now.
When people talk about future "unfunded liabilities", you never hear them mention the future payroll taxes that will cover most of that amount. It is a totally misleading figure.
It began to seriously increase in 71 following the end of an anchor to currency. Coincidence? No, it's not.
So you see the problem as something different than runaway entitlements? Can you explain further?
Oh, i didn't mean ti that way. There is certainly the issue of run away entitlements. But these things would have broken a LOT sooner if our currency was anchored.
Okay. Can you explain further? I may want to add that one to my list of solutions.
I am not sure about raising the retirement age.......I think ending the cap on contributions would be a better way to go.
Downside of a higher retirement age- MSN Money
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
-Mark Twain
While doing nothing to address the massive amounts of money they take in, which concurrently drives up our national debt?
Social Security has 90 trillion in unfunded liabilities alone. Almost 5 times than the 17 trillion we owe now.
When people talk about future "unfunded liabilities", you never hear them mention the future payroll taxes that will cover most of that amount. It is a totally misleading figure.
And idiots are completely mesmerized by it.
I am not sure about raising the retirement age.......I think ending the cap on contributions would be a better way to go.
Downside of a higher retirement age- MSN Money
I will be working when I am 70.......but I am not hauling furniture or mining coal or lifting patients. The very people who most need SS......will likely be forced to live without it for several years after they can no longer work their physically demanding jobs.
Think about the laborer.......why do that to him?
It began to seriously increase in 71 following the end of an anchor to currency. Coincidence? No, it's not.
Your claim is not a coincidence, it is just plain wrong.
Debt to GDP was at its highest just after WWII.
Even higher than it is now.
Debt to GDP continued to decline after Nixon took us off gold, and did not start climbing again until Reagan.
I suppose you could blame Volker floating the interest rate. 1979, wasn't it? After he did that, the bond market went from boring to hot, hot, hot.
Hey g5? I'm still waiting for you to answer how we paid off $90 trillion in SS liabilities with the same in payroll taxes. That is the fatal flaw in your argument. On top of that, I have debunked your claim of SS solvency.
Or will you try to beat me with experience again?
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
-Mark Twain
Gladly!
1. In 1935, when Social Security was enacted, 5.6 percent of the population was over the age of 65. Life expectancy was 60. So Social Security was for those who lived beyond the mean.
In 1965, when Medicare was enacted, 9 percent of the population was over the age of 65. Average life expectancy was 70.
Today, 13 percent of our populaton is over 65. And life expectancy is 78. We are well on our way toward tripling the percentage of Americans drawing Social Security.
We are living decades longer than our ancestors, it is just plain common sense that we should be working longer.
Working five years longer, and thus paying into the system five years longer, and retiring five years later, and thus drawing from the system five years less, would be huge increases in revenues, and huge decreases in spending.
2. How Large Are Tax Expenditures? A 2012 Update
We are living in a society where people earning identical incomes are paying radically different amounts of their income in taxes. This is sheer insanity. For every penny of their income someone gets returned to them by an expenditures, someone else has to give up a penny.
This results in higher tax rates. But the American people will tolerate only so much when it comes to increasing taxes. So to pay for all those expenditures, our accomadating politicians who want to be re-elected borrow the money by the trillions.
Everyone who takes advantage of a deduction or credit is contributing to higher tax rates and the national debt. They are being carried on other people's backs.
Good information, but it does not address how your suggestion accomplishes balancing the budget and eliminating a $17 trillion dollar debt. I'm not saying you're wrong about that or that you aren't stating it like it is. I just want some evidence.
You don't understand how a surplus accomplishes a balanced budget?!?!? It's BETTER than a balanced budget.
For the debt, let's start by using only the savings from eliminating tax expenditures.
The federal deficit for 2013 is $750 billion.
$1.2 trillion - $750 billion = $450 billion surplus.
You can knock $450 billion off the federal debt in your first year!
And deficits will drop since non-discretionary spending will drop when the Social Security and Medicare outlays drop due to a higher eligibility age. So the surplus will be much greater than $450 billion.
Also, waste, fraud, and abuse is not exclusive to government. I think the idea that the private sector or charities could do things more efficiently needs to be challenged. I am the president of a non-profit and I see a tremendous amount of waste by charities in the private sector. Far more than I see government waste in the same areas of concern.
No, it's not. The difference is that governmenr doesn't have any money of its own to waste. So comparing the two is apples and oranges. A private entity can go ahead and waste their own money unti it is gone if they desire. But the government doesn't have their own money to waste. They steal it from others.
