GOP plan dramatically reduces Social Security benefits, actuary finds (economy, money, abuse)

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Nomander

That is such a complete load of garbage. I am not going to even bother. /boggle

So, you couldn't refute even a single point that I raised? I'm sure you realize that I don't find that at all surprising.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Oerdin

It's fine without any "fixes" until at least 2050 and even then could continue provided the government doesn't default on it's debt until 2080. If we just delayed the retirement age for SSI by 2 years then we're good until 2080 in a positive cash flow measure or alternatively if we remove the cap on SSI (right now only the first $100k pays SSI taxes and the rest is tax free) then SSI is literally solvent as far as it can be projected. There is no crisis.

SSI is Supplementary Security Income which helps provide basic necessities for the disabled, the elderly, and the blind. While the program is adminstered by the Social Security Administration in order to prevent costly duplication of resources, SSI is not funded out of payroll taxes, but by annual appropriations from general revenues. Save for being managed out of the same building, SSI has nothing to do with Social Security at all. All of your actual points, however, survive simply by changing SSI to SS.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by saganista

That's odd. IRS data indicate that people with an AGI above $1,000,000 in 2008 reported $1.5 billion in SS benefits received. Why do you suppose rich people report income that they never collected like that? or?

Rich people dont collect because they have NO AGI.. They have capital gains income,investment income, not WORKING income. You will always find many that "work" and earn over $1M but earnings of $1M isnt the wealthy. They might be rich but there are huge differences between rich and being wealthy.

Originally Posted by saganista

Yes, it is, as it dispels once and for all the idiotic notion that SS can go bankrupt. Clowns make such statements. People who know what they are talking about do not.

And people who have nothing of substance to say, call people clowns..

Originally Posted by saganista

No, sheltered child, SS could pay that roughly 75% indefinitely. The percentage does not "demish" or even go down. In fact, it creeps up slightly over time.

until of course there is no money left. SS loans their money to the federal government, at some point the feds wont be able to pay it back. You can ignore this fact, but then.. You think the world is full of clowns... What a wonderful utopia world you live in

Originally Posted by saganista

Wrong again. By the time the 75% level could go into effect, beneficiaries would be receiving both a greater number of dollars and a greater volume of purchasing power than current beneficiaries.

Ahh, saggy and her fantasy accounting again. Tell me how 75% of $x is > 100% of $x.. ?

75% of $x might be greater than 100% of $y, but then you arent comparing apples to oranges.. just trying to twist the truth...

Originally Posted by saganista

SS is in the black. By a lot.

Agreed, but the federal government owes SS over $10T in ADDITION to the $13T in other debt obligations. SS would be in the black if they had IOUs of substance for security but they dont..

Originally Posted by saganista

The 75% is three-fourths of a number that exists far into the future, not a number that exists today. You're doing the math all wrong because you don't understand how the program works.

Thats right, and 75% of a future number is still LESS than 100% of a future number. There has been no suggestion to gradually decrease benefits over time to keep SS in the red.. you are just making things up..

Originally Posted by saganista

Taking the word "not" out of that would make it more accurate and informative.

And living in a world with clowns sounds like utopia.. but at some point reality has to kick in..

Originally Posted by saganista

When you die, SS benefits accrue to a spouse,

And if you arent married? Who gets the money? NO ONE

Originally Posted by saganista

to a former spouse,

And if you had no former spouse? Again, who gets the money? NO ONE..

Examples of this might be gay people.

Or what if you both die in a car crash? Who again gets the money? NO ONE.. its a pyramid scheme which is illegal in america.

Originally Posted by saganista

and to any dependent children.

Wow, you mean my children can collect SS based upon my income? Really? Ooh wait, no they cant.. they might be able to if they are disabled, but not just having children qualify for benefits.. But again, what if you dont have children?

But even if you do have a spouse, or children, how are you disputing anything I said? If I have MY OWN money, they also would receive these funds if NOT given to SS.. All you did was give examples of possible get backs where if people kept their own money, its GUARANTEED..

Originally Posted by saganista

These may also qualify for benefits of their own based on your work record.

Wow, so they get benefits of their own, which means they dont get mine.. I guess that means NO ONE gets it.. Unlike it if I left them my money and they were allowed to save their own, AND still get mine..

There isnt ONE scenario that you can give me to put someone who pays into SS in a better position than someone who doesnt and puts the equivelant into a secured investment mechanism... Every example you gave me is IF they lived, where if they invest on their own, the money gets distributed regardless of ones ability to inhale.

[cw30000]

Originally Posted by shorebaby

I would love the opportunity to opt out of ss (and the tax of course) and be able to direct my investments and leave it to my heirs.

2nd that.

I just love to see head line that say ss is in the red, etc. If only they didn't spend the money they collected. Actually, they didn't spent it, it's interest payment they have to pay federal reserve.

[city414]

Originally Posted by evilnewbie

WTH??? Are liberals stupid? They blog does NOT even discuss what the "plan" is... a bunch of opinions and NO facts... typical liberal blog and typical stupid post... I guess liberals have to find a way to deceive people... even if it means outright lying...

typical response from you, and you dont do exactly that, are you kidding?

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by saganista

So, you couldn't refute even a single point that I raised? I'm sure you realize that I don't find that at all surprising.

this coming from the individual that had to resort to dribbling about clowns in relationship to SS.. Maybe thats appropriate becuase only a clown doesnt understand you are better off not giving to SS instead of investing in secured manners..

[texdav]

Originally Posted by freefall

A high-profile Republican budget plan would slash Social Security benefits in the long-run -- perhaps even by up to half of what they are now, the program's actuary concluded in a new study.

The Chief Actuary of Social Security analyzed a proposal from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the GOP's ranking member on the budget committee, who could become its chairman in January, and found that new entrants in the US workforce could see massive decreases in their payouts upon retirement.

GOP plan dramatically reduces Social Security benefits, actuary finds | Raw Story

What do tyou thnik democrats and Obama have in fact done;cut 500 billiob form medicare . That is fact not talk. Looking at CBO figure his healthcare bill is alos going to cost much more but that can be stopped.

[RandyWatson13]

Its funny to see poor and middle class support Republicans when they just raise taxes on them, take away benefits and have their big business buddies crap on them where they lose their job.

Dems ain't much better but they can't fix things in 18 months

[saganista]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Rich people dont collect because they have NO AGI.. They have capital gains income,investment income, not WORKING income. You will always find many that "work" and earn over $1M but earnings of $1M isnt the wealthy. They might be rich but there are huge differences between rich and being wealthy.

People who make over $1 million per year are rich. You said the rich don't collect SS benefits. The IRS says people who made over $1 million in 2008 collected $1.5 billion worth of SS benefits that year. You were wrong, End of story.

Originally Posted by pghquest

And people who have nothing of substance to say, call people clowns..

When they see one, people who know what a clown is are apt to say, "Look! There's a clown!"

Originally Posted by pghquest

...until of course there is no money left. SS loans their money to the federal government, at some point the feds wont be able to pay it back.

Explain exactly how that is going to happen after conceding that the goverment is both a taxing authority and a currency-issuing authority.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Ahh, saggy and her fantasy accounting again. Tell me how 75% of $x is > 100% of $x.. ?

Originally Posted by pghquest

Agreed, but the federal government owes SS over $10T in ADDITION to the $13T in other debt obligations. SS would be in the black if they had IOUs of substance for security but they dont..

LOL. Nonsense numbers. Meanwhile, US Treasuries are the safest, most secure investment vehicle in the history of the world, and the special issue securities held by SSTF are in and of themselves an authority to spend money.

Originally Posted by pghquest

And if you arent married? Who gets the money? NO ONE. And if you had no former spouse? Again, who gets the money? NO ONE.. Examples of this might be gay people. Or what if you both die in a car crash? Who again gets the money? NO ONE.. its a pyramid scheme which is illegal in america.

Who gets any of your assets if you die with no heirs? And if SS is a pyramid scheme, then every insurance company that comes to mind is as well. They all do the same thing. They pay current claims out of current premiums, salt some away as reserves, and keep the rest as profit. Okay, SS doesn't keep anything as profit.

Originally Posted by pghquest

There isnt ONE scenario that you can give me to put someone who pays into SS in a better position than someone who doesnt and puts the equivelant into a secured investment mechanism...

A secured investment mechanism, huh? Like the real estate and equity markets in which US consumers lost some $15 trillion under your pal, George W Bush? That sort of secured investment mechanism? SS has protected the well-being of one generation after another of America's elderly. Not with pie-in-the-sky dogma but with real dollars and cents across the board. Republicans have never made a comparable contribution. Not even close.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by saganista

People who make over $1 million per year are rich. You said the rich don't collect SS benefits. The IRS says people who made over $1 million in 2008 collected $1.5 billion worth of SS benefits that year. You were wrong, End of story.

Your assumption that people who earn $1M is rich, I contend otherwise. The rich are people who dont EARN anything, they have investment incomes, tax shelters, 1031 tax exchanges, you know.. RICH people.. $1M might be well off but they are far from being the "rich" of society.. In addition $1.5B, is such a small percentage of the total Social Security budget to be considered laughable to even discuss.. But hey, never let saggy ruin a great rant..

Originally Posted by saganista

When they see one, people who know what a clown is are apt to say, "Look! There's a clown!"

Yep.. we're all staring at the clown, that doesnt understand that 75% of $x is less than 100% of $x..

Originally Posted by saganista

Explain exactly how that is going to happen after conceding that the goverment is both a taxing authority and a currency-issuing authority.

Right.. and here right here is the problem other posters.. the government will just PRINT UP MONEY to cover its needs.. Who gives a damn what the ramifications is.. !!

Originally Posted by saganista

LOL. Nonsense numbers. Meanwhile, US Treasuries are the safest, most secure investment vehicle in the history of the world, and the special issue securities held by SSTF are in and of themselves an authority to spend money.

Until they start printing up money.. btw, there is a growing number of those in the investment community beginning to say you are wrong...

You live in some dream world, where things dont change. Tell that to those who once thought investing in GM was "safe"..

Originally Posted by saganista

Ann no.. I asked how 75% of $X is greater than 100% of $x, something you claimed to be true, Changing the T0 and T1 is not the same comparison.. Nice try though, but my son who is 10 knew the error with your posting.

Originally Posted by saganista

Who gets any of your assets if you die with no heirs?

Doesnt matter... Whoever gets it, its MY choice.. You dont want people to have that choice..

Originally Posted by saganista

And if SS is a pyramid scheme, then every insurance company that comes to mind is as well.

Ahh no.. More flaws ignored by the left wingers who like to compare the two..

Social Security is a TAX.. Its not an investment or insurance.. Collecting Social Security, is a WELFARE... Its not collecting upon premiums.. You just admitted this above when you stated the obvious, that they have the authority to TAX...

In addition, if I buy a $1,000,000 life insurance policy, my estate collects on this money, regardless of my age, when I die. And unless you found some magical way to keep people alive foreve, this will be paid out eventually at $1,000,000. As opposed to Social Security, who you just admitted, will get paid out, at an unknown sum.. Again, you JUST admitted that the payout might be 75%, while trying to bs people into believing that 75% of $X can be greater than 100% of $x.. In addition, if one dies at say 42 (like my father), The family still collects...

Originally Posted by saganista

They all do the same thing. They pay current claims out of current premiums, salt some away as reserves, and keep the rest as profit. Okay, SS doesn't keep anything as profit.

This shows how little you know about how insurance companies earn money. They pay claims out of profits from investing premiums.. Thats why Warren Buffet bought Geico for example. He didnt for a second buy them for the profits, he bought them for the cash flow to reinvest to make profits.. A very important step you keep ignoring..

Originally Posted by saganista

A secured investment mechanism, huh? Like the real estate and equity markets in which US consumers lost some $15 trillion under your pal, George W Bush?

Actually you re displaying your lack of knowledge about investments again. Real Estate isnt secured investment mechanisms... They are the VERY SAME investments you just claimed were the #1 safest investment in the world.. investments in the US Government. Btw, I havent lost ONE DIME of my real estate investment holdings. But you can continue with your ignorant rant against "Bush"..

Originally Posted by saganista

SS has protected the well-being of one generation after another of America's elderly. Not with pie-in-the-sky dogma but with real dollars and cents across the board. Republicans have never made a comparable contribution. Not even close.

Not true.. SS has perpetuated poverty among the elderly, it has taught people to not save, to not invest, to be iresponsible.. Its a welfare program for the bottom who used to need a safety net, now its turned into an entitlement.

I for one am not happy to see so many elderly soo poor.. You though seem to celebrate it. You can claim they arent so poor, but thats why the costs and the entitlements have to continue to go up to support this class of americans. Things like housing, utility supports, prescriptions, etc.. All of them come at a cost to the american taxpayer, far exceeding what was ever paid into it. You can sit here and claim that Social Security is running a surplus, and while its true, its because so many of these other secondary costs of creating such an entitlement is in seperate budgets.. i.e. the operating budget of the US Government...