Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
So you want to see elderly living in poverty because they no longer could responsibly take care of themselves.
|
fam·i·ly
Noun
A group consisting of parents and children living together in a household.
Look into it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Get rid of SS and then watch those numbers increases and less people live longer.
|
Let's see.....minimum wage workers currently pay $96/month in FICA payroll taxes and receive $763/month in Social Security benefits.
An alternative would be a private insurance program, since that is what Social Security is...insurance.....
42 USC § 402 - Old-age and survivors insurance benefit payments
(a)
Old-age insurance benefits Every individual who—
(1) is a fully
insured individual (as defined in section
414 (a) of this title),
(2) has attained age 62, and
(3) has filed application for old-age
insurance benefits or was entitled to disability
insurance benefits for the month preceding the month in which he attained retirement age (as defined in section
416 (l) of this title), shall be entitled to an old-age
insurance benefit for each month, beginning with—
...I took the liberty of highlighting the keywords, since you have repeatedly demonstrated great difficulties grasping even the most rudimentary concepts.
In a private insurance scheme, a minimum wage worker would pay about $21/month for $500,000 worth of insurance at retirement and over a 25-year period, receive at least $1,600/month in benefits.
The story so far....
Liberals think it is stupid for a minimum wage worker to pay 75% less per month in taxes and get 201% more per month in benefits.
Oh.....I get it....dammit....I forgot to dumb down my brain to be as stupid as a *******.....if people purchased their own private insurance, then
many people would be paying $21/month, including those whose wages were 2x to 10x greater than minimum wage,
and that just wouldn't be "fair."
Do you have anything else in your repertoire other than the standard knee-jerk cliches of the elderly roaming the streets like Zombies?
Will you at least try? If anything it would be a lot more entertaining if not down-right amusing.
[Ultra -] Conservatively...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
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?
|
GP Small. That's what I'd recommend. It's a tent (General Purpose). One person can set it up, and you can stand up inside them. Camper truck or 5th-wheel would be another option. You can always move to another country where the cost-of-living would allow you to double, triple, quadruple or quintuple your monthly benefits in terms of buying power.
Suggesting....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
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
|
Do you have an obsession foisting nonsense on people, or is it just an hobby?
The only valid source of information about Social Security is Social Security.
Matt Taibbi is a goddam liar.
You can tell him I said that --- bring him here so I can stomp his guts out and embarrass him on the world wide internet.
Assuming you can comprehend English....
Social Security Act of 1935
TITLE II-FEDERAL OLD-AGE BENEFITS
Section 201. (a)
b) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the amounts credited to the Account as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals.
Such investment may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States. For such purpose such obligations may be acquired
(1) on original issue at par, or
(2) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market price. The purposes for which obligations of the United States may be issued under the
Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, are hereby extended to authorize the issuance at par of special obligations exclusively to the Account. Such special obligations shall bear interest at the rate of 3
per centum per annum.
Obligations other than such special obligations may be acquired for the Account only on such terms as to provide an investment yield of not less than 3 per centum per annum.
(c) Any obligations acquired by the Account (except special obligations issued exclusively to the Account) may be sold at the market price, and such special obligations may be redeemed at par plus accrued interest.
(d) The interest on, and the proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the Account shall be credited to and form a part of the Account.
(e) All amounts credited to the Account shall be available for making payments required under this title.
(f) The Secretary of the Treasury shall include in his annual report the actuarial status of the Account.
Once again, I took the liberty of highlighting the relevant parts.
You can find that information here...
Social Security Act of 1935
....at the Social Security Administration's web-site.
Reagan was president in 1935?
Really?
Greenspan was the Secretary of the Treasury in 1935?
Really?
So.....there you have it....straight from the horse's mouth......from its inception the Social Security Trust Fund
has always consisted of special treasury bills.
Once again, for the hard of hearing and the hard-headed, Matt Taibbi is a goddam liar, and the people who drink his Kool-Aid are suckers (or freaks).
The scary thing about all this is that people like you can vote.....you have no idea what you're talking about, you're filled with preconceived ideas, you have no desire to seek the Truth, you want only to run to some nut-job web-site filled with lies, because those people tell you what you want to hear.
I'm not freaking kidding...you have one, and only one shot to fix this [Social Security] -- and worse than that you have a window of opportunity that is closing fast --- and if you muck it up then you will dick over people for decades.
Not amused...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher
I wonder how long it took this right winger to compose this nonsense?
|
More time than you would ever devote to learning the facts or the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher
It falls in line with all their posts I mentioned earlier.
1} Irrelevant facts.
|
Which facts are irrelevant?
I gave you the sources, and all sources are from US government web-sites or documents.
You misled people on City-Data by falsely claiming that eliminating the cap on Social Security taxable wages would "fix" Social Security.
I proved it would not. Feel free to provide your own sourced-documentation.
After peaking at $2,740,309,000,000 ($2.74 TRILLION) in June 2012, the combined OASDI Trust Fund has declined each month to its November 2012 amount of $2.696 TRILLION.
The Trust Fund has lost $43.8 Billion so far.
These short-falls will continue year after year, and accelerate once the OADI Trust Fund is exhausted here shortly. The short-falls will exceed what you might collect in FICA payroll taxes by eliminating the cap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher
2)Unable to back up his argument with objective expert opinion.
|
My opinion is both expert and objective, so there's no need to back it up.
You didn't hurt yourself moving the goal-posts, did you?
I slammed you with facts provide by your own government, citing the sources, even giving you the page numbers and table numbers, and now you cry it must be sanctified and purified by "objective expert opinion."
You're amusing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher
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.
|
Prove me wrong.
Your wages are not stagnant or declining? Show proof. I gave you two separate sources, the Social Security Administration's own Wage Index, and IRS data from the
Statistics of Income Bulletin showing that your wages are stagnant/declining.
I can see why you would lie to people and want them to believe that the wages of American workers were not declining.....because that means the Bush Tax Cuts were the right thing to do, since not cutting taxes would have resulted in the recession starting earlier and lasting longer.
It also explains why income tax revenues declined.....if incomes decline, then so do tax revenues, regardless of the tax rate....so no matter what, government income tax revenues were going to decline.
Elmiminating the wage cap for Social Security will only yield $63.5 Billion in additional FICA tax revenues. I gave you the source document....you can find it here...
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/12inw...omeprlim10.pdf
[2011 preliminary tax data will be published in February 2013]
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher
He goes into the SS trustee reports. Cherry picks some irrelevent data and cut n pastes it and thinks he's being clever...LOL
|
What data was cherry-picked?
Be specific.
The 2012 report is here....
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2012/tr2012.pdf
Table VI.F4.—OASDI and HI Annual and Summarized Income, Cost, and Balance as a Percentage of GDP, Calendar Years 2012-90 on Page 197 quite clearly states...
GDP in Dollars (Billions)
2021 $24,597 [Intermediate Assumptions]
2021 $24,596 [Low Cost Assumptions]
2021 $24,702 [High Cost Assumptions]
So, what was cherry-picked? Very obviously, you don't comprehend the problems.
Using the same table and same column, we see that
2012 $15,757 [Intermediate Assumptions]
2012 $15,936 [Low Cost Model]
2012 $15,457 [High Cost Model]
I'll try to explain this to you, so that you might understand and actually learn something.
The actuarial economists at the Social Security Administration use three models of economic assumptions, which they call Low, Intermediate and High.
Right now, your GDP is about $15.5 TRILLION, meaning it is in excess of the High Cost Model but less than both the Intermediate and Low Cost Models.
How do you get from a GDP of $15.7 TRILLION in 2012 to a GDP of $24.6 TRILLION in 2021?
Simple, your GDP needs to grow at these annual rates...
2013 4.34%
2014 5.22%
2015 5.80%
2016 5.67%
2017 5.44%
2018 5.23%
2019 4.80%
2020 4.61%
2021 4.56%
From $15.9 TRILLION under the Low Cost Model in 2012 to $24.6 TRILLION in 2021....
2013 5.59%
2014 5.80%
2015 5.88%
2016 5.49%
2017 4.63%
2018 4.40%
2019 4.26%
2020 4.22%
2021 4.22%
And from $15.5 TRILLION in 2012 to $24.7 TRILLION in 2021 under the High Cost Model...
2013 3.31%
2014 4.39%
2015 5.17%
2016 6.01%
2017 6.09%
2018 6.21%
2019 6.17%
2020 5.64%
2021 5.17%
The problem is that from 1961 to 2011, your GDP averages only 2.89% per year in growth. From the NBER's web-site...
2001-2010 1.68%
1991-2010 2.55%
1981-2010 2.79%
1971-2010 2.89%
1961-2010 3.16%
1961-1970 4.22%
1971-1980 3.21%
1981-1990 3.27%
1991-2000 3.41%
2001-2010 1.68%
Average = 2.89%
As everyone can see, just like your wages/salaries, you had growth through the 1960s, but once the agricultural sector of the economy finally became fully industrialized in the mid-1960s (typically the last sector of any economy to fully industrialize), your GDP growth slowed, then became steady and stable, before declining.
How is it even remotely possible for GDP to grow at rates of 5%-6% when GDP hasn't grown that fast since the 1950s?
It is impossible. Even less likely now, since Capital is shifting from the post-Modern Industrialized States to the Developing States (precisely and exactly in accordance with the Laws of Economics).
Going back to
Table VI.F4.—OASDI and HI Annual and Summarized Income, Cost, and Balance as a Percentage of GDP, Calendar Years 2012-90 on Page 197 if you look at the column labeled "Income" you will note that is all income FICA payroll taxes, plus income from the Taxation of Benefits, plus interest from the OASDI Trust Fund,
expressed as a percentage of GDP.
If we look at the Intermediate Assumptions for 2021, we see that Social Security believes it will derive income in the amount of 4.91% of $24.597 TRILLION, or $1.2 TRILLION in income.....
...except your GDP will not be $24.6 TRILLION.....it will be around $19.9 TRILLION if your economy fully recovers the 12.7 Million jobs it needs and grows at least the average rate of 2.89%....
and it needs to recover those 12.7 Million jobs yesterday.
The issue is GDP growth. Your GDP will not grow at the rates the Trustees believe it will grow, and because your GDP will not grow that fast, you will never collect the amount of revenues pegged to the GDP rates, and that results in annual short-falls every year through 2021, and that is why the OASDI Trust Fund will be completely exhausted 4th Quarter 2023 - 1st Quarter 2024.
At that point, you'll need at least $2.5 TRILLION to run your country, plus $1 TRILLION to pay interest on the National Debt, plus somewhere between $650 Billion to $900 Billion to pay for Social Security
in addition to what is already being collected. And for each year thereafter, the amount you need will continue to increase by the $100s of Billions.
Now, if you have evidence to the contrary, show it.
Factually...
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.
