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 06-06-2018, 11:38 AM
 
20,706 posts, read 19,346,662 times
Reputation: 8278

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
Public school really does a number on people for them to believe govt would be a good place to hold their retirement income.
Reality is, SS is just another rob and redistribution scheme. Money contributed (almost makes it sound like you have a choice) today goes into the general fund, nothing is set aside for later.
There is no reason to set anything aside. Using micro economic accounting on a national retirement system is stupid. But there are lot of stupid things about it.

 
Old 06-06-2018, 11:41 AM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,019,001 times
Reputation: 17864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
Did someone say it's bankrupt

SS is the worlds largest Ponzi scheme and would be completely illegal if anyone else were doing it. Realistically it's been bankrupt from the start because they could never meet their obligations without new "investors".
 
Old 06-06-2018, 11:43 AM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,019,001 times
Reputation: 17864
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
There is no reason to set anything aside.

There is also no reason for a massive surplus either.
 
Old 06-06-2018, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Florida
77,005 posts, read 47,592,894 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
SS is the worlds largest Pozni scheme and would be completely illegal if anyone else were doing it. Realistically it's been bankrupt from the start because they could never meet their obligations without new "investors".
Same with the military, and many other things, which are funded by tax-money. They'd be "bankrupt" without taxpayers. Is there something confusing about the WSJ article?
 
Old 06-06-2018, 02:38 PM
 
1,280 posts, read 1,394,806 times
Reputation: 1882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
According to who/what?
The article is carefully worded. The benefits paid out have exceeded the amount of taxes coming in since 2010. The government pays interest on the IOUs (government bonds) in the "trust fund" each year, and until this year that interest has been enough to cover the shortfall. The article counts that as Social Security "income", which somewhat obfuscates the issue. This is the SS Annual Report from 2011:

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/2011/index.html

Quote:
Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983
...
After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers.
 
Old 06-06-2018, 02:59 PM
 
Location: USA
18,489 posts, read 9,149,606 times
Reputation: 8522
We’re going to have to print a lot of money to pay for SS and Medicare. Not sure what that might mean for the value of the US dollar.
 
Old 06-06-2018, 03:48 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,150,494 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
Thanks Trump & GOP

https://www.wsj.com/articles/social-...ear-1528223245

This is three years sooner than expected a year ago, partly due to lower economic growth projections, according to the latest annual report the trustees of Social Security and Medicare released Tuesday. The program’s income comes from tax revenue and interest from its trust fund.
.
.
Lower income-tax rates reduced projected revenue from the taxation of Social Security benefits. That means less money flowing into both programs because those revenues are transferred to the trust funds.
That's completely false.

The Social Security Administration has been "dipping" into the OASI Trust Fund for the last 8 years.

For example, in March, Social Security did not collect enough FICA payroll tax revenues to pay benefits, so it pulled $7.595 Billion from the OASI Trust Fund to cover the benefit payments. In 2017, there was a loss of $65 Billion, and 2014 a loss of $39.5 Billion and every year since 2010 has been a loss.

The OASI Trust Fund has not received FICA tax revenues since 2009, and its growth has been solely based on accrued interest from the treasury securities, because the FICA tax revenues collected are less than the benefit payments.

The claim that "lower income-tax rates reduced projected revenues" is patently absurd.

In 2017, Social Security collected a grand total of $35.9 Billion from the taxation of benefits, which won't even pay half-a-month of current benefits, and once monthly benefit payments reach $129 Billion per month 8 years from now, it will only cover 1/3 of a month of payments for a single month only.

The changes to the tax brackets have zero bearing on the taxation of Social Security benefits, since the formula is:

Adjusted Gross Income (not Modified Adjusted Gross Income)
+interest payments
+1/2 of Social Security Benefit

If you are single and that amount is greater than $25,000, then 50% your Social Security benefits are taxed as a form of means-testing. If you file a joint return and the amount is greater than $32,000, then 50% your Social Security benefits are taxed.


If you're single and exceed $32,000 or filing jointly and exceed $44,000, then 85% of your Social Security benefits are taxed as a form of means-testing.

That has not changed.

The only thing that has changed is the increase in the standard deduction and deductions for the blind and aged. That will have only a modest impact on the taxation of Social Security benefits, and in no way would the taxation of Social Security benefits ever save Social Security.

As things stand now, the taxation of Social Security benefits only pays for 2 weeks of benefits out of 52 weeks.

As you can see, it's just another cheap-shot jab at the tax changes.
 
Old 06-06-2018, 04:06 PM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,019,001 times
Reputation: 17864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
Same with the military, and many other things, which are funded by tax-money. They'd be "bankrupt" without taxpayers. Is there something confusing about the WSJ article?

You are going off the rails here. There is no promise given to citizens that a specific tax collected today would provide for the military spending over their lifetime and we aren't left with 40 to 50 triillion in unfunded obligations if we stopped dispersing tax revenue to the military.
 
Old 06-06-2018, 04:18 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,471,329 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
Thanks Trump & GOP

https://www.wsj.com/articles/social-...ear-1528223245

This is three years sooner than expected a year ago, partly due to lower economic growth projections, according to the latest annual report the trustees of Social Security and Medicare released Tuesday. The program’s income comes from tax revenue and interest from its trust fund.
.
.
Lower income-tax rates reduced projected revenue from the taxation of Social Security benefits. That means less money flowing into both programs because those revenues are transferred to the trust funds.
lowering the INCOME tax has nothing to do with the PAYROLL TAX as it is figured FIRST


and wow, it expected to dip THIS YEAR.... that is a lie

it has been in the hole since 2011

SS is is 1.6 trillion in deficit
2011 started the decline...every year since Social Security has collect at least $45 billion less in payroll taxes than it pays out in retirement, disability and survivor benefits, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
 
Old 06-06-2018, 04:33 PM
 
18,803 posts, read 8,461,211 times
Reputation: 4130
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
There is no reason to set anything aside. Using micro economic accounting on a national retirement system is stupid. But there are lot of stupid things about it.
I agree that there is no sensible reason for our monetarily sovereign federal gov't to save in its own currency.
IMO total SS payments will continue to rise. Whether we have more general inflation as a result I cannot know. And whether future seniors buy so much stuff that the future younger people cannot will be the real end game. Not the money itself.
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. The time now is 11:39 PM.

© 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