This thread quite clearly indicates why Social Security (and Medicare) will collapse, mainly because none of you understand the issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
Social Security: What You Pay In Vs. What You Draw Out: Does anyone have the facts and figures on this?
|
The question is irrelevant and immaterial, not to mention facetious and obtuse.
It is Old Age and Survivor's
Insurance. Get it? I highlighted the relevant part and the operand, specially just for you all (who haven't a clue). Notice that none of the following are applicable:
Old Age and Survivor's Personal Private Savings Plan
Old Age and Survivor's Personal Private Retirement Plan
Old Age and Survivor's Personal Private Hedge Fund Plan
Old Age and Survivor's Personal Private Pension Plan
Old Age and Survivor's Personal Private 401(k) Plan
Old Age and Survivor's Personal Private IRA Plan
Old Age and Survivor's Personal Private Cash Stash
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
Seems like a system that is destined for bankruptcy. Does anyone have estimates on this?
|
Uh, at present, it is bankrupt. No doubt about it. To be bankrupt means to be insolvent, and both Social Security and Medicare are insolvent at present.
The systems are bankrupt, because you have refused to do what you need to do in order to maintain their solvency. The Boomers suffered through a 71% increase in the FICA payroll tax rate in order to ensure Social Security would be there for them.
The Gen X and Gen Y pukes have suffered through a 0% FICA payroll tax increase and are presently getting a 2% rebate and then have to the unmitigated gall to whine that Social Security won't be there for them.
The April 2012 report states that the FICA tax rate must immediately be raised to 7.05%, uh, like yesterday. I say 9.2% based on the Ford Commission's report, the Carter Administration's evaluation of the Ford Commission Report and the report of the commission appointed by Reagan to study the issues.
In addition raising the FICA tax rate to 9.2%, you're going to have to have annual step increases to 16.4% and you must also eliminate the salary/wage cap. Those things are mandatory, not optional if you want to save Social Security (and also Medicare).
Good luck with that.
Watching the US collapse...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghorton
Don't know if this qualifies; perhaps there is something better out there(?)
The Urban Institute, a Washington-based Institute and Policy Center has just published a new report by Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane - Economists -- regarding the ins and outs of Social Security and Medicare.
Medicare: It also says that the same hypothetical couple will have paid $114K in Medicare taxes during their career, yet will collect $355K (three times the amount paid in).--(There are currently 46-million seniors covered by Medicare. It is estimated that when the last of the boomers reach 65 in 20 years, there will be over 80 million people on Medicare).
|
Uh, we already discussed that
ad nauseum on numerous threads, but thank you for proving me right and everyone else wrong. I have repeatedly asked,
"
How much money should we spend on one person for health care in their life-time?"
Liberals have continually and repeatedly dodged the question, refusing to answer. One brave soul, I think who is actually a Libertarian or Conservative attempted to answer (for which they are to be commended).
But the whole point of the question (which many Liberals derided but refused to answer) is that if you spent $1 Million per person, then your costs are $312 TRILLION (at present).
You do not have $312 TRILLION now, nor will the United States ever have $312 TRILLION.
Suppose we spend $500,000 per person, then your costs are $156 TRILLION and you don't have that kind of money now, nor will you ever have that kind of money. Your report says that Medicare is already spending $355,000 on people over 65 -- well how much would be spent from birth to age 65?
More than $500,000 --- and note that you already have a system that limits payments, limits medical procedures and so on, in an attempt to reduce costs (which Liberals decry).
Any type of universal health care system as envisioned by Liberals would economically destroy the US, causing higher unemployment rates and a lower standard of living for everyone in an attempt to pay for such a system....but as I already pointed out, there's no possible way to pay for such a system now or in the future.
And of course, Liberals will all scream "
like Europe" in a manner most disingenuous and academically dishonest (as Liberals tend to be anyway). There's a reason why Europe can have universal health care and the US cannot, and I've repeatedly outlined those reasons on other threads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghorton
While Social Security has been more than adequately funded by individuals who should rightly expect to 'at least get their money back', Medicare is in deep trouble.
|
Social Security is not "
more than adequately funded." Social Security has been operating in the red and has been drawing down on the Trust Fund for the last several years. The present FICA tax rate of 6.2% is inadequate, and in conjunction to the very low labor force participation rate, will not provide enough money to keep the system operating through 2023-2025.
The OADI Trust Fund will be null and void within 2 1/2 years, and the OASI Trust Fund will be wiped out by 2025. The number of workers contributing FICA taxes will only fund 75% of the costs (according to the April 2012 report). Note that in the June 2011 report, SSA claimed 77% (meaning things have worsened --- exactly as I said they would).
Based on the June 2011 report, Medicare will collapse in 2018. I have yet to review the April 2012 report, but I might be able to narrow it down to the quarter -- 4th Quarter 2017 or 1st/2nd Quarters 2018.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghorton
Another interesting tidbit:
A Gallup poll survey concluded that about 31% EXPECT Social Security to be a 'major' part of their retirement. Another question determined that 57% of retirees actually found that Social Security WAS a 'major' part of their retirement. ... In other words, almost half the people EXPECTED to be better-off financially in retirement, than actually WERE! Social Security |
Ha! That's funny. Those people are going to be in for a major surprise when their benefits get slashed 25% (or more).
Amused...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1945
We live in a communal society, whether we like it or not.
|
You mean we used to live in a communal society. We now live like those rats in that experiment...
and we all know what happened to them......the rat commune came to an inglorious end, when the last rat died.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1945
I have a problem with adjusting the age.
|
So do I. Adjusting the age will have ZERO impact and will actually cause harm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1945
I do think there should be a means test.
|
If you want Social Security to exist beyond 2035, then you will means-test, and you will eliminate the cap, and you will raise the FICA tax rate to 9.2% and then you will step increase the FICA tax rate by 0.6% per year until it reaches 16.4% by at least 2025.
To be forewarned is to be foretold.
Communally....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
When Social Security was first implemented in the 1930s, the government assigned the "retirement age" to be 65.
|
No, the full-retirement age was 62.
It was only later that the full-retirement age was raised to 65, while leaving 62 as the early retirement age with reduced benefits.
The full-retirement age was then raised incrementally by month to age 67, where it is now. Increasing the retirement age will have no net positive impact on Social Security, and in fact will cause more harm than good.
Correcting...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity
Politicians like to argue that social security is like a pension, but, it's not: it's just another form of welfare program.
|
It is neither.
Social Security is an
insurance program. You pay an insurance premium related to your wages. In the event that you become disabled, or in the event that your life turns how to be so terribly horrible that it would frighten Wes Craven and M. Night Shyamalan to make a movie about it, Social Security is there to keep you from living under a bridge or roaming the streets as a bag lady eating out of trash cans when you retire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity
If the voting populace is willing to bear the taxes and lower alternative spending to maintain the system, it will be there for you, if the voting populace isn't, it won't.
|
That pretty much sums it up.
Arguing...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching
please show me where it says in our founding documents that goverment is supposed to provide for retirement, health care or any other program. I wont hold my breath waiting for you to find it.
|
It doesn't say that, but if each State were to establish an insurance fund, to ensure that you have something at retirement, that would be in everyone's best interest.
Constitutionally...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
According to this study below, which compares Social Security to an annuity
|
Social Security is not an annuity; it is an insurance program. Such comparisons are stupid and academically dishonest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
The Constitution doesn't mandate that those service must be provided. In that, you are correct. But it also doesn't prohibit them either, as the Constitution gives wide latitude to Congress and while interstate commerce was ancillary in 1789, it's much more broad today.
|
Retirement is Interstate Commerce?
I don't even know how to respond to something as ridiculous as that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
So according to you, not only is Social Security and Medicare a bad idea, they're also unconstitutional.
|
They are, as administered by the federal government, but not as administered by the States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Good luck litigating that position.
|
No luck is necessary. The problem when you lie is that eventually you step on it. The continual lying on the part of the government and people like you will eventually result in conflicting legislation or court rulings or both that opens the door to abort the abomination that is Social Security.
And contrary to what you might believe, not all litigators are created equally. Some litigators are more and intelligent and creative than others in crafting legal arguments and supporting them. So just because someone tried and failed, it doesn't mean it's a total failure or that it's impossible.
All things federal are inherently flawed. Iceland has one economy, but the US is not Iceland. The US has several hundred economies which it aggregates and reports as one economy. You haven't quite figured that out yet.
Because that is true, the cost-of-living varies from State-to-State, and even from city-to-city within a State.
And because that is true, the "One-Size-Fits-All" approached by the pseudo-federal government always fails.
You and your ilk don't understand that I can enjoy a Middle-Class life-style on $1,100/month, because I live in both a city and State that has a relatively low cost-of-living. There are other cities and States where the cost-of-living is even less, and so $1,100 would equal $3,000 to $4,000 in other cities or States.
People living on $1,100/month in other places do not enjoy the standard of living and quality of life that I have. They don't get to spend $19/pound for Chilean Sea Bass like I do, because my disposable income is higher, because the cost-of-living is lower.
The fact that someone is barely eking by somewhere else in the US is of no concern of yours. You just don't give a goddam. I do, and so do other Conservatives. We care. And that's why we are opposed to things like Social Security, as administered by the pseudo-federal government.
We understand that if the States operated their own systems, then they could set their own standards, with respect to employer, employee and other contributions.
Sure, it is a fact that some person in California receiving benefits under a State-sponsored Social Security-like program might get paid $2,600/month
--- gasp! -- oh the horror....the horror...how terrible and cruel that that person
gets more than me (sob!) and my $1,100/month under a State-sponsored Social Security-like program in Ohio, but then Lo and Behold! we both enjoy the same quality of life and standard of living.
And that's really what it's all about, right?
Sometimes $24,000 = $60,000.
One day you Liberals will figure that out, and when you do, everyone's life will improve tremendously.
Hoping Liberals "get it" before the US is destroyed.....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
The General Welfare Clause.
|
That's what we call propaganda, disinformation and academic dishonesty.
There is no such thing as a "General Welfare" clause and you cannot prove it.
There is a "general Welfare" clause, but that is in the Preamble of the Constitution, and anything in the preamble is regulated and controlled by the actual text of the Constitution rather than a mere series of introductory remarks.
You might want to go read the notes of Morris and his committee who drafted the Preamble, of course, why would you want to do that, since it would destroy your entire argument and you would actually be enlightened (a double whammy).
Remarking...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
I agree with you on the retirement age problem. It should be raised to match the life expectancy that we have today.
|
Raising the retirement age will cause more harm.
You would force people to take early retirement with reduced benefits at age 62: you lose
or
You would force people into disability benefits at 100%: you lose.
Either way, you lose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
But social security is solvent, its the federal government that isn't.
|
Social Security is not solvent.
Social Security is not able to pay 100% of the benefits owed. In order to pay 100% of the benefits owed, Social Security must siphon money from the Trust Fund. In order for the IOUs in the Trust Fund to be converted into cash, the government must cut the budgets of other departments or agencies, or raise taxes, or sell the IOUs as bonds, for which the tax payers must pay interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
But social security is as solvent as the United States.
|
And how solvent is the United States?
The United States is solvent only to the extent that it has the ability to sell debt to the rest of the world.
When the rest of the world tires of buying US debt, or no longer has the money to buy US debt, or all of their money is already tied up in US debt, then the US becomes insolvent.
Technically, the US is already insolvent.
December 31, 2008:
National Debt $10.7 TRILLION
Real GDP $13.2 TRILLION
March 30, 2012:
National Debt $15.6 TRILLION
Real GDP $13.4 TRILLION
Percentage increase in National Debt over that period:
44.86%
Percentage increase in Real GDP over that period:
1.51%
Effectively, for every $29.71 in tax payer dollars you over-spent with your deficit, you got $1 in GDP.
How much longer do you think you can sustain that?
At the present rate, US National Debt will be 1/3 of the World GDP by 2020. By 2040, US National Debt will equal World GDP.
Wanna explain how the US can borrow more than what the World has? Have fun with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Our problem is that we don't balance our budget, and thats why social security is in trouble.
|
No, the issue is that you are not collecting enough in FICA tax revenues. Let's look at the facts, instead of spewing fantasy. Social Security is not collecting enough in FICA revenues due to:
1] low FICA tax rate; and
2] high unemployment rate; and
3] high underemployment rate; and
4] low labor participation rate; and
5] lower wages.
If you balanced the budget right now, this minute, Social Security would still experience short-falls and have to draw out of the Trust Fund, due to the five aforementioned facts, which you either intentionally ignore or are beyond your understanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Its an easy fix though, as you pointed out, simply raise the retirement age.
|
At present, Social Security is not collecting enough FICA tax revenues to pay current beneficiaries. This situation will persist until one of the following two actions are taken.
1] The wage/salary cap is eliminated; or
2] The FICA tax rate is raised immediately to 9.2%
If you do one or the other, then Social Security will not need to draw from the Trust Fund until 2017-2018, and at that time the draw downs will be less, and the Trust Fund will extend to about 2025-2028, at which time, benefits will be cut by 23%.
Oh, wait a minute, I erred. I was relying on the June 2011 SSA Trust Fund Report. Based on the April 2012 SSA Trust Fund report, benefits will be cut by...
...25%.
As I pointed out in another thread, that is wrong. The actual cut will fall between 28% and 32% depending on a number of factors.
Raising the retirement age will not prevent that, and you cannot present any set of facts to refute my claims.
The only way to collect 100% of benefits through the year 2040 is to eliminate the wage cap, raise the FICA tax rate to 9.2% and then to 16.4% over a period of 12-15 years, and use means-testing.
I'm still waiting for some moron to prove how raising the retirement age on those who will be collecting benefits after the year 2040 will prevent the collapse of Social Security in 2023-2025, because you know, that would be like closing the barn doors after the horses already got out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
The average life expectancy is 78 years old in the us today.
Simpson Bowles would fix ssi by simply raising the retirement age to 70 on people under 18 now. Since their life expectancy will be 80 or higher, that's not unrealistic.
And if you can't work, then you can draw disability.
|
(Sigh) Raising the retirement age on people under 18 years now will not prevent the collapse of Social Security in 2023-2025.
Retirement Planner: Benefits By Year Of Birth
Presently, those who retire at 62 years and whose full-retirement age is 66 have their benefits reduced 25%. Those who retire at 62 years and whose full-retirement age is 67 (like me) have their benefits cut 30%.
Those who are 62 and retire on disability get 100%.
Be stupid and raise the retirement age to 70, and the only thing that will happen is you will cause more harm than good, because of instead of drawing reduced benefits, they will draw disability and get 100% benefits, which not only negates any potential savings, it actually causes a draw down at a faster rate.
Not only that, but your country will never have enough jobs to allow that size of the work force to work, so the only thing that happens is government pays more welfare, goes deeper into debt, is forced to raise taxes, lowers the standard of living and quality of life for everyone, and still has the exact same problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
The fact is this. The retirement age is 65 right now.
|
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
The early retirement age is 62, and full-retirement age is and has been 66 years (and some months) since 2009.
In the year 2027, people born in 1960 will have 67 years, and they may retire in 2027 with full benefits, or they may retire 5 years earlier at 62 with a 30% reduction in benefits.
Get your facts straight before posting drivel and misleading people.
Weeping for the Future...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Congress speak with forked tongue.
FICA = Federal Insurance Contributions Act
OASDI = Old Age Survivors, and Disability Insurance
|
I don't see a conflict there.
It's actually OASI = Old Age and Survivor's Insurance and OADI = Old Age Disability Insurance.
They are insurance programs. You pay the Federal Insurance contribution based on the wages you earn, just like you pay insurance premiums based on the cost of the home you insure, the amount of life insurance you purchase, and the value and type of insurance you purchase for your automobile.
I would have said "health insurance" (snicker) but then I would be lying.
Black's:
Insurance is a contract whereby for a stipulated consideration, one party undertakes to compensate the other for loss on a specific subject by specified perils.
Get it? I highlighted the relevant part.
In 2005, I bought a 1994 Thunderbird. I had it financed for 2 years, so I was required by the lender to purchase full coverage auto insurance. My insurance premium was $65/month.
Once I paid off the loan, and no, I didn't ask tax-payers to bail me out, I dropped full-coverage and purchased liability insurance only. My monthly rate was now $42/month.
Why?
Uh, because certain "specified perils" had been eliminated, namely the insurer did not have to replace the cost of my car, nor did they have to pay for damages to it.
That's how insurance works.
What Americans want is to purchase $1 Million of health care coverage, and they only want to pay $3 for something that actually costs $30,000. And even that wouldn't be so bad, except that Americans also refuse to specify any
perils (
eg like pre-existing conditions), or any conditions that would warrant higher costs.
Social Security is a type of insurance.
You are purchasing security, but that security does not include a $250,000 McMansion, 5 cars including his-n-her SUVs and annual 3 month cruises in the Caribbean and Mediterranean plus an Africa Safari and hiking in the Andes, with an annual shopping spree at Saks Fifth Avenue
What you are purchasing is insurance that will provide you with no-frills basic shelter and clothing, in the event your life turns out to be a total nightmare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
But Congress made an exception when they started taxing Social Security claims. So let's start calling it FTCA.
|
Sigh, that ain't how it works.
You only pay taxes if your Social Security benefits, plus other income or revenues exceeds a threshold point.
"You will have to pay federal taxes on your Social Security benefits if you file a federal tax return as an individual and your total income is more than $25,000"
Paying income tax on Social Security benefits
Get it?
Do I have to the math? I guess I do.
What is the minimum Social Security benefit paid?
$1/month (and no.....I did not stutter I said $1 and I meant $1 --- so yeah poor people are just raping the system).
What is the maximum Social Security benefit paid?
$2,513/month.
12 * $2,513 = $30,156
What is the Standard Deduction for a single person in 2012?
$5,950
$30,156 - $5,950 = $24,206
Now, is $24,206 greater than, or less than, $25,000?
It is less than $25,000 ergo...you owe no federal income tax.
See?
So let's go back to the propaganda you spewed.
Someone gets $2,513/month in Social Security, plus $3,460/month from a pension plan.
Total = $2,513 + $3,460 = $5,973 * 12 = $71,676 per year.
They are not paying taxes on Social Security, rather they are paying taxes on their pension benefits.
Learn and understand the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Beatles Social Security Plan:
And in the end, the tax you take is equal to the tax you make.
|
That's funny. You get a point for that.
Smiling...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
"The feds can't be trusted, as history has shown,"
As far as that's concerned, every person due a social security check since it's inception has got one. So blow that statement off.
|
Not relevant, but nice try at spreading propaganda and disinformation. I suppose in your World™ getting 75% of the Social Security benefits you were owed is equal to getting 100% of the benefits you owed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
"Hard working US citizens are being screwed as SS today is a ponzi scheme"
Another totally false statement.
|
Again, nice try at propaganda and disinformation, but you're wrong. Social Security is a Ponzi-Scheme.
In a court of law, as a prosecutor, I only need to prove that that new investors fund the returns.
That's it. That's all I have to prove. All I have to do in court is show that an employee who starts work today is paying the benefits of current retirees.
And to prove that, all I have to do is hand the jury a copy of the April 2012 Social Security Actuarial Report.
As defendant's attorney, you have to prove that current benefits are not being paid by current contributors, and you cannot prove that, thanks to the April 2012 Social Security Actuarial Report.
See
United States v. Bowdoin since you don't understand Ponzi-schemes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
As stated, nobody due a check has failed to recieve one in the history of the program.
|
Again, nice try at spreading propaganda and disinformation and lying to people on this forum, but that is totally immaterial and irrelevant.
One reason I mentioned
US v Bowdoin is because an investor filed a complaint which led to an investigation, before anyone was harmed. I would suggest that you get your hands on a judge's bench book for Title 18 United States Code, but I don't see the point. It would allow you to understand the Elements of Proof necessary to prove a Ponzi-scheme and you would see that non-payment is not an Element of Proof.
From Para #14 (of the Complaint in
United States v Bowdoin):
At the time, ASD had de minimis
independent revenue. Instead, ASD's promised returns were paid as a result of subsequent members joining ASD.
I emphasized the last part, since that is the Element of Proof needed to prove a Ponzi Scheme.
A Ponzi Scheme can only function when there is a continuous stream of new members.
The Ponzi-scheme test developed by courts is very simple. Bar the entry of new contributors and investors, and calculate the payment scheme. If it is viable, then it is not a Ponzi-scheme. If the system collapses, it is a Ponzi-scheme).
So.....let's apply the test to Social Security....as of now....the government may not collect FICA tax benefits. What happens to Social Security? It collapses...ergo...it is a Ponzi-scheme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
There are numerous ways to fix the current system that will keep it solvent for decades to come. Raise the cap on the income threshold, raise the age of full retirement benefits and other methods. It needs tweeking just like it did in 1986.
|
Those are false statements. At present, the OASI/OADI Trust Fund will collapse 2023-2025 resulting in a reduction of benefit payments by not less than 25% (my calculations show 28%-32%).
The system was "tweaked" long before 1986, and in fact, had you and the idiot at the web-site you are quoting from bothered to read the Ford Commission Report, and the report of the commission appointed by Reagan, then you would know that both commissions, plus the Carter Administration indicated that constant and continuous increases in the FICA payroll tax were necessary to keep the system in any state of solvency.
As a point of fact, Boomers suffered a 71% increase in FICA tax rates over the course of their life-time to ensure Social Security would be there for them, but Gen X and Gen Y have not experienced any increase in FICA tax rates, and are currently getting a 2% rebate.
The only way to ensure that Social Security will be able to make payments beyond the year 2040 is to do all of the following:
1] eliminate the cap; and
2] immediately increase the FICA rate to 9.2%; and
3] require annual rate increases of 0.6% through 2025 to raise the FICA rate to 16.4%; and
4] employ means-testing and reduce benefits for those whose combine Social Security, pension/401(k) and IRAs exceed a minimum threshold level.
That will take you to the year 2040...maybe. After that, I don't see how you can maintain the program with extraordinary measures.
Note the damage that will be done to your economy.
Eliminating the cap effectively reduces investments in stocks and bonds, resulting in a loss of Capital for your economy, and further harm.
The increase in FICA payroll taxes means States, counties and cities will receive less in Sales Tax Revenues, resulting in continued lay-offs of government employees and reduced services, because household disposable income has been reduced. Note that any attempt to increase city, county or State taxes will only further reduce the disposable income of households, leading to more job losses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
" but what about my children and grandchildren and yours?"
Right now the system is entering a financial hole because all the boomers are coming home to roost. I guess one needs to be reminded that the boomers will not live forever. Once they begin to die off, the social security system will have a massive surplus for your children and your grandchildren.
|
That is an outrageous lie. It contradicts the trustees reports from the last 5 years. The April 2012 Social Security report has reduced its revenue projections from the earlier June 2011 report exactly as I anticipated. As I pointed out earlier, you have 5 major problems:
1] low FICA tax rate; and
2] high unemployment rate; and
3] high underemployment rate; and
4] low labor participation rate; and
5] lower wages.
As I have said since 2007, those conditions will continue through the end of this decade. Social Security also bases its revenue projections on overly-optimistic GDP growth rates. You are currently going into debt $29 to get a mere $1 of GDP growth, which is unsustainable in the mid-term or long-term.
Your GDP will not grow at 4+% like Social Security believes it will, resulting in a deficit of about $1.3 TRILLION by 2020. That is what results in the collapse of the Trust Fund between 2023-2025, and which time there will not be enough people working to fund day-to-day operations of Social Security, and you will either be forced to cut benefit payments by not less than 25%, or forced to pull money from the General Fund, which will result in a reduction in spending by the government into the economy, and also result in additional firings of government employees (which is necessary anyway).
Once you are in that hole, there is no getting out of it. There will never again be a Trust Fund for either OADI or OASI, and it will be pay-as-you-go.
And then there's the damage to your economy I mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
I've come to the conclusion that those who post doom and gloom about the social security system without any substantiating facts just don't like the word "Social" in any government program. Just MY opinion. As soon as I hear or read the words "Ponzi Scheme", I know that whatever else is said will be bumper sticker, right wing, trash talk.
|
I have repeatedly posted substantiating facts on numerous threads, showing the actual numbers and showing the actual math and even giving the page numbers in the reports so that people can go see for themselves -- which is what I want them to do -- and as of yet, no one has refuted anything.
Reality is not Doom & Gloom when it is Truth.
As for Ponzi-scheme, I posted substantiating facts, even giving a link to a real Ponzi case prosecuted by the government. A Ponzi Scheme can only function when there is a continuous stream of new members.
That is the only thing that has to be proved in an court of law.
What confuses people is that some pseudo-legal "experts" often mention the
characteristics of Ponzi Schemes, but the
characteristics of a Ponzi Scheme
are immaterial to the scheme itself.
Yes, one of the
characteristics of a Ponzi Scheme is that many times a very high ROI is offered, but that is not one of the
Elements of Proof. I can convict you for fraud on a Ponzi Scheme, even if you offer 0% interest.
Another one of the
characteristics of a Ponzi Scheme is that people lose their money, but that is not one of the
Elements of Proof.
Even if no one has lost a single penny, I can convict you for fraud on Ponzi Scheme. Why? Because the only thing I have to do is prove that if you don't have new "investors," then your scheme collapses.
Read Para #5 from
United States v Bowdoin. That also identifies one of the common
characteristics of a Ponzi Scheme and that is no underlying profitable business or operation to support the payments that will be made. Again, that is one of the
characteristics of a Ponzi Scheme, but that is not one of the
Elements of Proof.
Learn and understand the difference.
Debunking...
Mircea
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.
