U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
 
 
Old 03-05-2011, 04:08 PM
 
Location: Exeter, NH
5,201 posts, read 4,210,338 times
Reputation: 5454

Advertisements

I have a major problem with this for the following reasons:

1. The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided to pay for OTHER federal spending since early 2004, and the entire surplus of about $2.4 trillion (excess taxes over spending) was spent by 2010. Social Security taxes were raised in 1983 to cover the retirement of the Baby Boom, and instead of investing in NEGOTIABLE securities that had value, politicians created NON-Negotiable securities just for SS: in effect, spending the money and counting on future NEW or INCREASED taxes to pay it back. Or another analogy, using one credit card to pay off the bill of another.

2. Had the Federal Government NOT spent the Social Security Trust Fund on foreign wars, ear-mark ("pork") projects and the like. there would be enough money to pay for the retirement of the Baby Boom. Therefore let the Federal government cut the Military Empire and pay back what it has STOLEN from future retirees.

3. As others have noted, people 50 and over are at VERY high risk of being laid off, because they are more experienced and cost more to the employer, because they are at higher risk of health problems, and for a multitude of reasons. I personally know several people in this age group barely getting by with tiny small businesses, having been laid off and finding not even Home Depot or the local grocery willing to hire anyone in their age group.

3. My spouse and I have worked full time since 1983 in post-college jobs, and paid the full excess Social Security taxes that funded the Trust Fund. In effect. we paid taxes to fund our Social Security, and no, this age group is NOT among those who get more benefits than we paid in. We will be extremely lucky to break-even, meaning a 0% return on our "investment," or a significant loss in real dollars due to inflation.

4. The age group of those 50 and older have worked their entire lives in an economy where wages stagnated in the 1970s, while benefits plummeted. We had a vested pension that would have made our retirement secure, back about 10 years ago. It was stolen in a fake and perfectly legal merger that never took place. How a Robber-Baron CEO managed to steal a billion-dollar pension fund due to a "change of control" that never actually took place, only our corrupt legal system will ever know, but robbed about 5,000 people of vested pensions, and the courts ruled it perfectly legal.

5. This age group, as a result of the 1983 legislation, already saw our retirement age raised from 65 to 67. This is already a MAJOR loss of income to a future retired couple, costing us about $40,000 in today's dollars. Isn't that enough of a loss for one group of people, considering we've paid the highest SS taxes our entire lives? We couldn't stop the politicians from stealing and spending it; why do we have to pay for their crime? Why not take a little from the group that are already retired, the ones who worked and got high salaries BEFORE wages stagnated in the 1970s, the ones who have fat pensions that dwarf their SS payments? I know a few of them. They had jobs that required 40 hours a week instead of the 80 required of us; who got to rest at home on their off-time, instead of fielding calls from the office whenever we are not actually there who got to take 3 and even 4-week vacations several times a year, instead of our single 2-week vacation filled with office problems; who had jobs with minor stress, instead of the kind of stress that causes acid reflux and near-constant headaches like we deal with everyday.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2011, 04:10 PM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,243 posts, read 14,748,382 times
Reputation: 4583
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi View Post
Yep, here is that Trust Fund! I feel so secure!
You should.

Investment transactions
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 04:11 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
32,161 posts, read 39,263,926 times
Reputation: 40654
Early 2004? Try since LBJ was President. That was why deficits looked smaller and Clinton had a "surplus". SS funds were counted in the General Fund.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 04:29 PM
 
Location: South Jordan, Utah
6,652 posts, read 7,122,932 times
Reputation: 2840
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog View Post
I have a major problem with this for the following reasons:

1. The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided to pay for OTHER federal spending since early 2004, and the entire surplus of about $2.4 trillion (excess taxes over spending) was spent by 2010. Social Security taxes were raised in 1983 to cover the retirement of the Baby Boom, and instead of investing in NEGOTIABLE securities that had value, politicians created NON-Negotiable securities just for SS: in effect, spending the money and counting on future NEW or INCREASED taxes to pay it back. Or another analogy, using one credit card to pay off the bill of another.

2. Had the Federal Government NOT spent the Social Security Trust Fund on foreign wars, ear-mark ("pork") projects and the like. there would be enough money to pay for the retirement of the Baby Boom. Therefore let the Federal government cut the Military Empire and pay back what it has STOLEN from future retirees.
The only issue I have with this is what would it have been invested in had it not been in the intergovernmental bonds? Had it gone into stocks they could have manipulated the markets. If it had been in treasuries we would still have to redeem (pay off) the bonds. Either way the system was doomed once Nixon added COLAS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
So IOU's that need to be paid off from future tax revenue or if we are still in deficit from transferring off budget to on budget debt should give me comfort?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 04:46 PM
 
5,697 posts, read 5,291,304 times
Reputation: 1937
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
Congratulations all you age age 50 and below folks.

You voted the GOP in. You'll likely be working to age 70 now before your benefits kick in.

This amounts to a 15% cut in your benefits.

John Boehner: Raise Social Security Retirement Age to 70 - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Man I hope you don't lose your job when your 65? Do you think companies like to hire 65 year olds?

Do any of you have kids? How are you able to look them in they eye?

* SS is a well managed program . It only has a 1% administrative costs.
* It has a small long term deficit that could be corrected with minor tax increases.
* The small deficit that it does have is almost a non-factor in the budget deficit. Cutting your benefits will barely make a difference in the deficit.

[The stupidity of the average American voter should be studied by poltical scientists the World over. It's epic in proportions.]


I am 59 years old and have sense enough to know this system is broke
I am also self-employed,
they need to change the age to 70, good grief
if some one had enough balls to have done some thing years ago and the goverment had not kept talking money out, it would not be a problem,
but no one did and the government kept taking
the stupidity is to believe threads like this trying to scare folks
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 04:52 PM
 
13,180 posts, read 12,700,046 times
Reputation: 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgia dem View Post
I am 59 years old and have sense enough to know this system is broke
I am also self-employed,
they need to change the age to 70, good grief
if some one had enough balls to have done some thing years ago and the goverment had not kept talking money out, it would not be a problem,
but no one did and the government kept taking
the stupidity is to believe threads like this trying to scare folks
Of course you do. You "know it's broke". Because you really researched the issue. If only someone had the balls to cut benefits earlier we'd all be better off...lol

[Prime A example of what passes for fact free, objective source free, right wing "knowledge" And make no mistake "Georgia Dem" is right winger]
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 04:56 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
16,116 posts, read 20,169,281 times
Reputation: 8204
Social Security would be sound if they remove the cap from the wage tax and allow the rich to pay on all of their income
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 05:04 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
32,161 posts, read 39,263,926 times
Reputation: 40654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa View Post
Social Security would be sound if they remove the cap from the wage tax and require the rich to pay on all of their income


Had to change it to a more accurate word. Replaced allow.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 05:07 PM
 
13,180 posts, read 12,700,046 times
Reputation: 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Had to change it to a more accurate word. Replaced allow.
You are correct

Eliminating the cap on high income earners almost eliminates the small long term funding issue.

Removing the Social Security earnings cap virtually eliminates funding gap

How do you look your kids and grandkids in the eye and support cutting their future retiree benefits ( miserly compared to other advanced countries) so that the wealthy don't have to endure minor increases to their tax bill?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 05:08 PM
 
Location: South Jordan, Utah
6,652 posts, read 7,122,932 times
Reputation: 2840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa View Post
Social Security would be sound if they remove the cap from the wage tax and allow the rich to pay on all of their income
Not necessarily, since SS is a formula we would have high income earners making $300-400k a year of SS, I would love to see the yell when that happens.

Another problem is even if we just treated it as a tax and didn't count the excess to their benefit formula, the revenue stream from the high income earners is very volatile and not predictable. For example:

In the year 2002 the SS revenue generated by those making $100k a year or more would have dropped by over $25 billion from 2000.
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.


 
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
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