U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-28-2017, 10:20 AM
 
8,277 posts, read 3,452,461 times
Reputation: 1584

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40 View Post
Bingo.
That was then.
Now.....the rich also collect it.
Hot diggety!

lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-28-2017, 10:21 AM
 
8,277 posts, read 3,452,461 times
Reputation: 1584
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
it wouldn't be a "renege." It would be a change.
I don't foresee it, but why could it not be renege?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2017, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Raleigh
8,007 posts, read 5,287,613 times
Reputation: 9647
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
Then why did you make that incorrect claim of how it works when two posts later you're saying you don't understand it?
I'm teachable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2017, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Central IL
13,344 posts, read 7,115,490 times
Reputation: 31026
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKM View Post
Its a ponzi scheme because the current recipients (who voted in the plan to provide them these benefits) are getting far more in than they paid their share for. Current workers are handing over a bigger chunk of money and won't get the same benefits.
Since I started paying in more than 30 years ago, I would CERTAINLY expect to get more than what I paid in simply because of inflation and the fact that those dollars have been invested (though at a very low return) for that period of time. Do you think the money was just sitting in a dusty box somewhere?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2017, 12:05 PM
 
Location: Raleigh
8,007 posts, read 5,287,613 times
Reputation: 9647
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
Since I started paying in more than 30 years ago, I would CERTAINLY expect to get more than what I paid in simply because of inflation and the fact that those dollars have been invested (though at a very low return) for that period of time. Do you think the money was just sitting in a dusty box somewhere?
Well, yes, in fact it has been. Apparently, Treasury bonds. Next thing to a box.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2017, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
12,671 posts, read 9,420,097 times
Reputation: 14919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
I don't foresee it, but why could it not be renege?
All the criteria for qualifying to receive SS benefits, as well as the level of benefits themselves and every parameter of the system -- they are not "fixed." They are all subject to change by legislation and in some cases by executive order and by changes ordered by their federal regulators.

So, the "full retirement age" can be changed and of course historically it has been. The level of benefits can be changed -- and they frequently are as part of a COLA. The number of quarters one must work can be changed.

I wouldn't call that a renege. I'd call it a change.

What would a renege be? Well, something truly earned, promised, and vested. Even then, I'm not sure it is a renege. For example, when a major employer such as American Motors went bankrupt, it did indeed owe pensioners their pensions and not-yet-retired workers as well according to agreed upon formulae. But American Motors went bankrupt. They completely went out of business and ceased operations. They had no future cash flow from which to pay retirees.

Is that a renege? if you think that is a renege, how about when a married couple divorces, and the wife is awarded alimony & child support, and subsequently the husband dies of a heart attack. Is that a renege? It seems to me to be the same as American Motors.

In contrast, for an ongoing entity -- then I would say it is a renege.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2017, 01:43 PM
 
8,277 posts, read 3,452,461 times
Reputation: 1584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crashj007 View Post
Well, yes, in fact it has been. Apparently, Treasury bonds. Next thing to a box.
Actually in a file cabinet in WV.

https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...ust-fund_x.htm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2017, 02:15 PM
 
18,238 posts, read 11,645,412 times
Reputation: 11847
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40 View Post
Bingo.
That was then.
Now.....the rich also collect it.
True, but you are you also aware SS benefits are subject to income tax; you know that don't cha?


Social Security taxes are paid by *all* persons who earn income to a certain limit. As such yes, the wealthy are entitled to benefits, they paid into the system just like anyone else. So best Congress could come up with is to make such payments subject to income tax.


To further even the playing field low wage workers get their SS work record "massage" so their lower contributions are worth more than higher income persons at payout time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2017, 02:33 PM
 
Location: Fairfax County, VA
1,387 posts, read 600,855 times
Reputation: 2723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crashj007 View Post
Well, yes, in fact it has been. Apparently, Treasury bonds. Next thing to a box.
Or what everyone tried to rush into in the Fall of 2008. Perspective is a big deal.

And SS benefits may or may not be taxed. It depends on other factors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2017, 07:32 AM
 
Location: Annandale, VA
9,447 posts, read 7,593,764 times
Reputation: 6000
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal View Post
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social...ity_Trust_Fund


In particular from the above:


"These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits. (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)"

In short there isn't a "fund" and it shouldn't be trusted.




See also: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/trust-funds-summary.html


https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017...ion-in-20.aspx

All monies paid to the government MUST be used to offset debts of the government. The Federal government has no place to store excess reserves. There is no bank to hold the money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top