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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-24-2012, 02:39 PM
 
13,186 posts, read 14,947,785 times
Reputation: 4555

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking View Post
What pisses me off about those your age is how weak you sound, just like clockwork---"we will never see a dime of SS" Heads Up!! It's your frigging money, it is your insurance, it is something as a worker you paid for. This nation is yours, that Social Security is yours NOT WALL STREET! You will never see a dime only if you allow it to happen.
Exactly! You put in words just what I was hoping to do. These ignorant apathetic kids are so lazy, they just consume the right wing B.S and think they know SS is ponzi scheme and they won't get a dime...LOL

Just what these right wing con artists want them to think. Undermine trust in the program to bring it down.

I love for these idiots to get exactly what they deserve for being so ignorant....NOTHING.

But the problem is they are ruining it for people who know this is a sound program that just has a small long term deficit.

That's why I'll be getting a 8% cut in my benefits because Americans are too stupid to stick up for themselves.

 
Old 12-24-2012, 03:04 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,089,918 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
Well right now Obama has agreed to comprise with GOP demands to cut Social Security benefits by linking cost of living increases to a chained CPI.
So, do you ever plan on addressing the Substitution Effect, or do you just plan to rage against the machine?

Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
The Washington Post describes the cut as 5% for this person
We already debunked this on the other bogus thread you started. You can't cut something that you never had.

COLA never existed until 1975, and COLA increases are not automatic.....there were no COLA increases in 2010 or 2011.

Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
The organization "strengthensocialsecurity.com" calclulates the cuts like this.

1) It's a benefit cut. It's not some minor technical change to the COLA. It's a real cut to the benefits you have earned every year into the future.
2) It cuts benefits more with every passing year. After 10 years, your benefits would be cut by about $500 a year for the average retiree. After 20 years, your benefits would be cut by about $1,000 a year.
3)It hits today's Social Security beneficiaries. Politicians like to say that their cuts to Social Security will not affect those getting benefits today. Wrong! Switching to the chained-CPI would hit all current beneficiaries.
4)We need a higher COLA, not a lower one. The current COLA is not large enough--it does not adequately account for large health care cost increases faced by seniors and people with disabilities.
It is not a benefit cut. You are not entitled to COLA. COLA is not automatic. You can neither assume, presume or guarantee there will be COLA increases. Like you, they refuse to address the Substitution Effect.

Concerning health care costs, that's just the Laws of Economics ensuring health care is being used as efficiently as possible -- which is difficult if not impossible in the current scheme.

If people are that upset, my advice, dump Cable TV and start saving or investing that money.

Like I said way, way back in 2007.....everyone needs to start learning how to do less with less....everyone.....including "seniors."

Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
Your post is a great example of the propaganda this is put out to help undermine people's trust in the program. Of course your source goes on to explain why the Ponzie Scheme analogy is false.
Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme.

In a court of law, to prove any Ponzi Scheme, I need only to put a forensic accountant on the witness stand and ask one simple question:

"If new entrants are barred from the scheme, what happens?"

If barring new entrants results in the collapse of the scheme, then it is a Ponzi Scheme.

If the scheme still stands on its own merits after new entrants are barred, then it is not a Ponzi Scheme.

If no new workers started paying into Social Security, or those who are in the system stopped making payments, Social Security would collapse....ergo it's a Ponzi Scheme.

Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
It's a bunch of nonsense. SS is a well run program with only a 1% overhead.
So, a system that is insolvent and bankrupt is well-run?

Really?

What kind of fantasy world do you live in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
It's never failed to deliver promised benefits.
Irrelevant.

Past performance is not a guarantee of future success.

Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
It has a small, manageable, long term deficit that could be completely solved by lifting the tax caps on high incomes. It's sad that low IQ, poorly educated people fall for your B.S.
I'm going to debunk your BS right here, right now.

At the moment the long-term deficit is $20.5 TRILLION. In 2012 Dollars.

As things presently stand, the Combined OASI/OADI Trust Fund will be completely exhausted in 2023-2024.

The Social Security Trustees under their High Cost Assumptions state 2027 as the year of total exhaustion.

That is true if, and only if, the US economy grows at rate of 5% per year, each and every single year through 2021 -- which is what the Social Security actuarial people claim will happen --- even though they simultaneously claim that unemployment will not reach drop below 6.0% until 2018.

Did GDP grow 5% in 2012? Answer: No.....so you already failed.

For this exercise, we will use....

Individual Income Tax Returns, Preliminary Data, 2010
by Adrian Dungan and Michael Parisi, from

Statistics of Income Bulletin | Winter 2012


Adrian Dungan and Michael Parisi are economists with the Individual Returns Analysis Section. This article was prepared under the direction of Michael Strudler, Chief, Individual Returns Research Section, Internal Revenue Service.

Referring to Page 12 Table 1. Individual Income Tax Returns, Tax Year 2010 Preliminary Data: Selected Income and Tax Items, by Size of Adjusted Gross Income

We are examining Column 1 Items, specifically lines

#7 Salaries and wages: Number of returns
#8 Amount

For AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) Number of Returns Filed
$100,000 under $200,000 = 2,793,003
$200,000 under $250,000 = 1,401,593
$250,000 or more = 2,435,348

The total number of returns filed for those groups is 16,629,944 returns.

For AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) Salaries and Wages
$100,000 under $200,000 = $1,454,682,235,000
$200,000 under $250,000 = $251,279,279,000
$250,000 or more = $982,361,511,000

The total salaries and wages are $2,688,323,025,000 ($2.688 TRILLION)

Eliminating the cap and taxing 100% of all wages/salaries would yield....

$2,688,323,025,000 * 6.2% = $166,676,027,550 ($166 Billion)

However, a portion of those wages/salaries are already taxed. For simple math, and to give you every possible benefit of doubt, we'll use $100,000 as the "cap." The total amount under the "cap" is....

16,629,944 * $100,000 = $1,662,994,400,000

The amount FICA payroll taxes already collected is...

$1,662,994,400,000 * 6.2% = $103,105,652,800 ($103 Billion)

$166,676,027,550 ($166 Billion)
$103,105,652,800 ($103 Billion) less
-----------------------
$63,570,374,750

So $63.5 Billion is the amount of additional FICA tax revenues raised by eliminating the cap.....in theory.

I say "in theory" because in Reality™ you would collect less than that...yes, the Laws of Economics will raise its ugly stick and beat all of you profusely about the head and shoulders. I'll let Social Security explain it in part....

In particular, the calculation of the necessary tax rate assumes that an increase in payroll taxes results in a small shift of wages and salaries to forms of employee compensation that are not subject to the payroll tax.

Let's go to see Exhibit A (I'm listening to Rush "Show Don't Tell") in the 2012 Social Security Trustee Report...

Table IV.A3.—Operations of the Combined OASI and DI Trust Funds, Calendar Years 2007-21

In 2021 you're collecting $1,292.8 Billion in and paying out $1,482.4 Billion

$1,482.4 Billion
$1,292.8 Billion less
-------------------
$189.6 Billion

As you can see, the $63 Billion you get from eliminating the cap is not going to cover it....so where is that money going to come from?

You will have to raise the FICA payroll tax rate.

Then again, that $1.292.8 Billion the Social Security trustees think they'll be collecting.....you only get that if your GDP grows 5% in 2012, and 2013, and 2014, and 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021.

Right?

Because why, exactly?

Because Social Security thinks that in the year 2021, your GDP will be $24,702 Billion ($24.7 TRILLION) and it will get 4.85% of that as money to pay Social Security beneficiaries.

$24,702 Billion * 4.85% = $1,343,547,000,000 ($1.343 TRILLION)

If your economy performs, then by 2021 your GDP would be $19,919 Billion ($19.9 TRILLION).

$19,919 Billion * 4.85% = $966,071,500,000

$1,343,547,000,000
--$966,071,500,000 less
-------------------------
$377,475,500,000 is how much you will be short ------ eliminating the cap will not solve the problem.

According to my calculations, you'll be here....

$18,421 Billion * 4.85% = $893,418,500,000

$1,343,547,000,000
--$893,418,500,000 less
-------------------------
$450,128,500,000 that's how short you will be, and by 2025, you'll be paying $1.954 TRILLION per year in Social Security benefits.

The Trust Fund will be gone by then.

You'll need to come up with close to $1 TRILLION or cut benefits across the board.



As I have repeatedly maintained, you can save Social Security, over the mid-term.

But it will not be cheap, or easy, and it will cost you dearly in terms of jobs.

Obama's 2% FICA tax rebated was a mistake, because when it ends, and it will have to end, you just reduced the disposable income of all households as well as reduced the potential sales tax revenues that cities/States collect.

And you will have to raise the FICA tax rate from 6.2% to 9.0%-9.2% sometime in the next 24-36 months if you want even the slightest hope of saving Social Security (as everyone knows and loves it).

That will further reduce household income and also potential sales tax revenues for cities/States.

And I didn't even get into the additional financial burden on employers.

Debunking (again)...

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAWS View Post
The rape of the young continues.
You got slammed with a 520% FICA payroll tax increase to ensure Social Security benefits would be available to you?

No, you didn't, but the Silent Generation did.

You got hit with a 71% FICA payroll tax increase to ensure Social Security benefits would be available to you?

No, you didn't, but Boomers and Tweeners did.

How much have FICA payroll taxes been increased for you?

They haven't. If you want Social Security, then you're going to have to pay more in FICA payroll taxes ---- just like everyone else did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAWS View Post
..the vast majority of the money you pay in Social Security taxes is not invested in anything.
That is a patently false statement.FICA payroll taxes are converted to special treasury bonds which draw interest....that is an investment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAWS View Post
Instead, the money you pay into the system is used to pay benefits to those "early investors" who are retired today.


So, then, pray tell, where did the $2.6 TRILLION OASDI Trust Fund come from? Did it just fall out of the sky?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAWS View Post
When you retire, you will have to rely on the next generation of workers behind you to pay the taxes that will finance your benefits.
That is true, due to the fact that the FICA payroll tax has not been increased since 1990.When you increase the FICA payroll tax rate, then you will have money sitting in a trust fund waiting for you.

How badly do you want it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAWS View Post
Such high returns were possible because there were many workers paying into the system and only a few retirees taking benefits out of it.
That is patently false too...first, Social Security is an insurance program, not a retirement pension plan hedge fund money market savings investment 401(k) plan; and secondly, it is not her fault that she happened to be born at the right time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAWS View Post
In 1950, for instance, there were 16 workers supporting every retiree. Today, there are just over three. By around 2030, we will be down to just two.
That's wrong.

As of December 24, 2012 there are 2 full-time workers for each Social Security beneficiary. That has more or less been the case since about 2009.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAWS View Post
As with all Ponzi’s scheme, when the number of new contributors dries up, it will become impossible to continue to pay the promised benefits. Those early windfall returns are long gone. When today’s young workers retire, they will receive returns far below what private investments could provide.
What private investments provide are irrelevant.

Logic and common sense dictates that you should drive for a three-fold retirement scheme:

1] some form of employer-based benefit package; and
2] your own personal savings and investments; and
3] end-of-life-retirement insurance

Social Security, which is an insurance program, fulfills the role of #3.

In a Perfect World™ you'd have the advantage of having all three, but for any number of reasons, not everyone has an employer plan, and some people's lives make The Walking Dead look like an amusement park, so all the have is Social Security.

It is subsistence living...that's it. If all you can afford is an 8' x 10' room in a boarding house, then too bad, and if you can't afford that, then I guess you'd best start sucking up to your kids and other family members so you have a place to stay.

Amused....

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Bingo, it is amazing the amount of garbage that gets pushed and passed off as to what Social Security really does. It is actually one of the best run programs in the country and the only thing putting any burden on it right now is the retiring baby boomers who won't be alive forever and thus in time the issues with Social Security will balance itself out with only minor changes to handle the life expectancy of Americans.
You have no idea how incredibly wrong you are. It would behoove you to actually read one of the Social Security reports in your life-time....so you can see stuff like this....

For the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds to remain solvent throughout the 75-year projection period, lawmakers could:

(1) increase the combined payroll tax rate during the period in a manner equivalent to an immediate and permanent increase of 2.61 percentage points (from its current level of 12.40 percent to 15.01 percent);

(2) reduce scheduled benefits during the period in a manner equivalent to an immediate and permanent reduction of 16.2 percent;

(3) draw on alternative sources of revenue; or (4) adopt some combination of these approaches


That's from Page 21.

That completely contradicts and debunks your claim of "only minor changes to handle the life expectancy."

If you drank the "Raising the Retirement Age Will Save Social Security" flavored Kool-Aid you might want to drink some Kaopectate as an anti-dote.

You are presently short $20.5 TRILLION in benefits. That short-fall will not disappear in the next 75 years based on wishful thinking. That would be part of your unfunded liabilities. When Social Security's 2013 Report comes out, you'll owe even more than that, and for each and every year thereafter, you will owe more and more, that you cannot ever pay.

Social Security, like many cradle-to-grave Ponzi Schemes functions on three variable components:

1] Labor Force Participation Rate
2] Wages
3] Tax Levels

High Labor Force Participation Rates ensures high Worker-to-Retiree ratios. In conjunction with high Wages, that permits lower Tax Levels.

Let's examine the facts....same data, different sources.

National Average Wage Index

1951-1960: 4.09%
1961-1970: 4.45%
1971-1980: 7.31%
1981-1990: 5.34%
1991-2000: 4.35%
2001-2010: 2.64%


Year/Wages per Return/Pct Change

1995 $38,259..... 0.88%
1996 $38,503..... 0.64%
1997 $39,600..... 2.85%
1998 $41,073..... 3.72%
1999 $42,027..... 2.32%
2000 $43,066..... 2.47%
2001 $42,609..... -1.06%
2002 $41,952..... -1.54%
2003 $41,718..... -0.56%
2004 $42,425..... 1.70%
2005 $42,296..... -0.31%
2006 $42,206..... -0.21%
2007 $42,430..... 0.53%
2008 $41,773..... -1.55%

Your wages are declining due to the fact that it is a global economy and the Laws of Economics reign supreme. You started losing manufacturing and other jobs that must compete globally with the rise of India and China in the 1990s. With BRIC -- Brasil, Russia, India and China -- fully recovered and expanding, they started nation-building around the world, expanding the economies of more than a dozen countries. Those countries now all compete globally against you, and you don't stand a chance because of the huge wage disparity between Americans and the rest of the world.

This is not a temporary situation. It is, for all intents and practical purposes, permanent.

You are unable to deal with China. A shift is currently underway from Southeast Asia to Southwest Asia. You will be unable to deal with India. It will eventually shift to Central Asia, then the Middle East, then sub-Saharan Africa.

Sub-Saharan Africa has nearly 1 Billion people who earn $300 to $800 per year.

That might be "slave wages" to you, but in reality, those are top premium wages set in accordance with Laws of Economics as they relate to Supply & Demand in those countries.

There is no possible way you will be able to compete globally in that arena either.

If you are offended by Reality™ then gouge out your eyes or something.

So if wages are stagnant/declining then we need to offset that by raising the Tax Level or increasing the Labor Participation Rate or both.

What has government done? Neither.

At present, you have 2 full-time workers per retiree. That is a function of your Labor Participation Rate. An unemployment rate of 5% without a corresponding Labor Participation Rate is a total fail. Right now, the rate is 63.5%.....not enough. Worse than that, you lost 530,000 full time jobs in November, and as I recall, you all were jumping for joy because lots of part-time employees got hired.

If you want to fund Social Security, this where you need to be job-wise 156,271,000 and at the moment, you are 12.7 Million jobs short.

So if your Labor Participation Rate declines, and your Wages decline, that means you need to raise Taxes to off-set the short-fall.

What has government done? Nothing.

Anytime you're ready to deal with Reality™ go ahead and post some facts.....and I do mean facts...as in numbers....as in Show, Don't Tell.....as in not 50 links to idiotic web-sites with some moron's fantastical view of how things might be on Fantasy Island if only Kim Kardashian was there.

You all need to get with the program. You got one shot to fix this and if you mess it up, because you don't know what you're doing, it'll just create more problems than you could ever deal with.

Problematically...

Mircea
 
Old 12-24-2012, 03:09 PM
 
13,186 posts, read 14,947,785 times
Reputation: 4555
I wonder how long it took this right winger to compose this nonsense?

It falls in line with all their posts I mentioned earlier.

1} Irrelevant facts. 2)Unable to back up his argument with objective expert opinion.

It just some right wing know nothing on an internet forum taking bits and pieces of debt data and trying to scam people into believing he's knows something.

He goes into the SS trustee reports. Cherry picks some irrelevent data and cut n pastes it and thinks he's being clever...LOL
 
Old 12-24-2012, 03:33 PM
 
1,728 posts, read 1,773,416 times
Reputation: 893
So from this day going forward pudcraser declares that objective expert opinion trumps

Facts
 
Old 12-24-2012, 03:40 PM
 
13,186 posts, read 14,947,785 times
Reputation: 4555
Quote:
Originally Posted by boner View Post
So from this day going forward pudcraser declares that objective expert opinion trumps

Facts
You may be impressed by this guy listing what the long term deficit is. And the "wage index" Wow! Like it's the sky falling down, but I'm not. The guy is way over his head. So he resorts to cutting and pasting irrelevant charts the he claims prove his arguments. You just don't have the sense to know any better. And you'll be getting a 7+% shave on your SS benefits thanks to your ignorance of the subject.
 
Old 12-24-2012, 03:43 PM
 
Location: Old Town Alexandria
14,496 posts, read 26,545,007 times
Reputation: 8966
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
Your post is a great example of the propaganda this is put out to help undermine people's trust in the program. Of course your source goes on to explain why the Ponzie Scheme analogy is false. It's a bunch of nonsense. SS is a well run program with only a 1% overhead. It's never failed to deliver promised benefits. It has a small, manageable, long term deficit that could be completely solved by lifting the tax caps on high incomes. It's sad that low IQ, poorly educated people fall for your B.S.
~~exactly.
especially those of us who have worked FT and paid into it for 20+ years.
 
Old 12-24-2012, 03:55 PM
 
13,186 posts, read 14,947,785 times
Reputation: 4555
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Obama agreed and he's a Dem.

If he can hold out on fiscal cliff issues, he can certainly do the same with SS but he didn't.
And the rest of the Dems will go right along with him.

Don't fool yourself by thinking this is Repub only and the Repubs can push this through.
They can't.
Yes and I agree that Obama is an idiot and I did not vote for him. So what's your point? That people should now vote for the GOP?

I think we should only vote for people who stand up for Social Security and refuse to allow cuts to benefits.

And that means voting for real liberal Democrats, the only faction in politics that is standing up for Social Security.
 
Old 12-24-2012, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,571,700 times
Reputation: 20674
Greenspan proved his worth to Reagan by using a commission he headed to perform one of the all time great budgetary magic tricks, an invisible tax hike that helped the supposedly antitax Reagan admin to fund 8 years of massive deficit spending. Reagan would later refer to these hikes as " revenue enhancements".

After Greenspan's SS reforms the SS Administration bought T bills, which is essenitally lending the money to to the government for use in other appropriations with IOUs left for future generations. Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 spent all the money - a shell game. Money comes in the front door as payroll taxes and went out the back door as deficit spending so that only new payroll taxes keep the bubble from bursting.

-Matt Taibbi
Griftopia
 
Old 12-24-2012, 08:14 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,368,212 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
So I guess you want to see our country return to the era of shorter lifespans.

Lifespans are already declining for working class white Americans.

Life Expectancy Decreases For Least-Educated Whites.
 
Old 12-24-2012, 08:27 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,368,212 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
So, do you ever plan on addressing the Substitution Effect, or do you just plan to rage against the machine?

Hey, that reminds me. I make minimum wage and rent a freaking ROOM. When//If I collect Social Security, exactly WTF am I supposed to "substitute" for shelter?

If I don't have any housing substitution option, does chained CPI represent a cut in my actual standard of living?
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.


Closed Thread


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