Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-25-2011, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,811,904 times
Reputation: 12341

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi View Post
Insurance Companies Must hold some of their premiums in Reserve (an account not used for general business) Many companies also use a portion of their premiums to buy reinsurance from other companies.
Reserve is a different issue than one you'd visited earlier, where you pointed at investment as opposed to insurance. Anyway, are you suggesting that there is no reserve for SS to keep the checks going?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-25-2011, 01:48 PM
 
Location: South Jordan, Utah
8,182 posts, read 9,210,537 times
Reputation: 3632
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Reserve is a different issue than one you'd visited earlier, where you pointed at investment as opposed to insurance. Anyway, are you suggesting that there is no reserve for SS to keep the checks going?
I would prefer SS being an investment program similar to Chili with an insurance option covering worst case scenarios.

There is no reserve other than the tax paying ability of our current and future tax payers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2011, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,460,154 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi View Post
I would prefer SS being an investment program similar to Chili with an insurance option covering worst case scenarios.

There is no reserve other than the tax paying ability of our current and future tax payers.
Which is something our friend Jetgraphics tells us over and over.
WE are the government's reserve and pool and funding source.
As our incomes shrink (for whatever reason..downsizing, underemployment, retirement) so will the revenue the government gets.

Even without this recession boomers start turning 65 this year and will be retiring in droves. The government knew this and didn't plan. Add the current economy on top and you really have some problems.

Cuts have to be made but no one is willing to do them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2011, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,811,904 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi View Post
I would prefer SS being an investment program similar to Chili with an insurance option covering worst case scenarios.

There is no reserve other than the tax paying ability of our current and future tax payers.
What about the trust fund?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2011, 03:17 PM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,456,406 times
Reputation: 4799
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Reserve is a different issue than one you'd visited earlier, where you pointed at investment as opposed to insurance. Anyway, are you suggesting that there is no reserve for SS to keep the checks going?
Quote:
What happens to the taxes that go into the trust funds? Tax income is deposited on a daily basis and is invested in "special-issue" securities. The cash exchanged for the securities goes into the general fund of the Treasury and is indistinguishable from other cash in the general fund.
Quote:
Why do some people describe the "special issue" securities held by the trust funds as worthless IOUs? What is SSA's reaction to this criticism? As stated above, money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary. Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.
Trust Fund FAQs
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2011, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,811,904 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
Oh yeah... links!

SS receipt surplus goes into a TF, and can be cashed out when it goes into deficit (as is the case right now). What is the problem, again?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2011, 03:25 PM
 
Location: South Jordan, Utah
8,182 posts, read 9,210,537 times
Reputation: 3632
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
What about the trust fund?
The "Trust Fund" is comprised of non-trade-able intergovernmental bonds. There are three ways to redeem those bonds.

1. Excess Social Security Tax can be used to payoff the bond and release the proceeds into the system.

2. If we have a budget surplus the excess tax revenue can be used to pay off the bond and release the funds into the system.

3. If we have a budget deficit we can issue on-budget Treasury Bonds and use the proceeds to payoff the bond and release the proceeds into the system.

In all three cases we rely on the tax paying ability of current and future tax payers. In all but case number two our total debt burden would not change, it would just change from intergovernmental to Us Treasury bonds.

Call me crazy but this picture of the trust fund has never given me a lot of comfort.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2011, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,811,904 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi View Post
The "Trust Fund" is comprised of non-trade-able intergovernmental bonds. There are three ways to redeem those bonds.

1. Excess Social Security Tax can be used to payoff the bond and release the proceeds into the system.

2. If we have a budget surplus the excess tax revenue can be used to pay off the bond and release the funds into the system.

3. If we have a budget deficit we can issue on-budget Treasury Bonds and use the proceeds to payoff the bond and release the proceeds into the system.

In all three cases we rely on the tax paying ability of current and future tax payers. In all but case number two our total debt burden would not change, it would just change from intergovernmental to Us Treasury bonds.

Call me crazy but this picture of the trust fund has never given me a lot of comfort.
Of course it depends on tax paying ability of current and future tax payers, just as any insurance depends on receipts of premiums and outlays on an ongoing basis. Now, the problem I have with your argument is on surplus versus deficit. Since the recession, there has been a deficit, so SSTF is getting drained. Yes? How big is that SSTF pool from which we're able to draw checks?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2011, 03:45 PM
 
30,063 posts, read 18,658,465 times
Reputation: 20875
Quote:
Originally Posted by BirchBarlow View Post
What exactly is it that makes someone infallible or a saint just because they reach the age of 65? Why is it that when someone reaches this age, they're automatically entitled to free money from the taxpayers? People act like old people are infallible because they're "seniors". What the hell does their "seniority" have to do anything? Sure, in their younger days, some were good people (e.g. military vets who actually deserve the benefits they receive), but a lot were bastards then, they're bastards now, and they're in the situations they're in due to their own poor choices (pissing all of their money away instead of saving for retirement, living unhealthy lifestyles, etc.). So why is it I, the taxpayer have to carry people on my back just because they reach the magical age of sixty-five? I have to subsidize them through social security so they can go down to the casinos in AC, Vegas, Philadelphia Park, etc so they can **** away my money in the slot machines? (I have to pay for their retirement while at the same time saving for my own because by the time I reach retirement age, SS will be insolvent.) I have to subsidize them through medicare because they pissed all their money away, smoked, drank, and ate unhealthily, or better yet when they go to a doctor just because they feel lonely and want someone to talk to? Why the hell, is it my problem? If they can't help themselves let their children help, or private charities. Why do I have to carry them on my back just because they lived to be 65? Discuss.

They vote.

Young people and poor people do not vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2011, 04:02 PM
 
Location: South Jordan, Utah
8,182 posts, read 9,210,537 times
Reputation: 3632
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Of course it depends on tax paying ability of current and future tax payers, just as any insurance depends on receipts of premiums and outlays on an ongoing basis. Now, the problem I have with your argument is on surplus versus deficit. Since the recession, there has been a deficit, so SSTF is getting drained. Yes? How big is that SSTF pool from which we're able to draw checks?
For profitability yes, insurance companies rely on future premiums. For liabilities they have reserves, this is the difference. Many insurance companies could still cover liabilities with reserves, reinsurance and their general fund.

Yes, since the recession there is a SS deficit, 8 years before the median projections made in 2008. The total trust fund is approximately $2.6 trillion. In 2008 the SSA said that the Trust fund would gain another $1 trillion by 2018, now it looks like that won't happen.

In all of the straight line, no fluctuation projections that SS does they assume no negative impact of having to either trade debt or add to taxes in order to redeem the bonds, this is not very good accounting.
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top